In the article "Enacting and Transforming Local Language Policies" ((2011), Tardy calls for a change in language assumptions in America in order to promote a multilingual space for language production (mostly in the classroom and in written forms). According to her, "individual and community values are influenced by public, institutional, and programmatic discourses, as well as values related to individuals' numerous cultural, religious, and social affiliations" (2011: 650). For this reason, both educational institutions and media have a major role in fostering an ideology towards language. The fact that there is an "absence of explicit language management" in the US can be an obstacle when trying to promote open perspectives to multilingualism, as it can lead to the spread of the "myth of linguistic homogeneity" and the English Only Movement (2011: 652). However, this explicit absence of language management can be seen as a tolerant attitude to language. In many places there are offical guvernamental institutions to promote the use (even to prescribe the "correct use") of a particular language such as the Real Academia de la Lengua Española in Spain, The Goethe Institut in Germany or La Alliance Francaise in France.
College education, teachers at high school and other levels and media can be agents for the change Tardy is calling for. By working at the local level, we can resist dominant ideologies the myth of linguistic homogeneity.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Spaces for code meshing
One possible type of discourse in which we can find and promote the use of code meshing is newspaper discourse.
In some newspapers people with a non-native American voice write opinion articles in English. The Washington Post, for instance, has a section called "The writers group" in which Esther Cepeda and other writers promote code meshing in this type of discourse:
"My column is about the American experience -- how it has evolved during my generation and what it feels, sounds, smells, tastes and looks like through the eyes of the daughter of Latin American immigrants."
http://syndication.washingtonpost.com/esther-cepeda
Little by little, people are getting used to different voices in newspaper discourse.
I have also experienced how English speakers react to code meshing in this type of discourse. I was writing a report for a school newspaper about a concert together with an American writer and I wanted to write about an expression we have in Spanish. This expression "romper una cuerda en un concierto", whose literal translation is"to break a string during a concert" means that for a concert to be great, the musicians have to break a string at some point during the show (usually by the end). So she loved the meaning of it but there is no such a expression in English for it. As the literal translation would not be understood by the readers, we decided that the best way for us to include it in the report was to explain it in context. Though her reaction towards using it was quite positive, I had the feeling that she was thinking about it as something not very appropriate. Yet, her willingness to include "an exotic" aspect in the report was a sign of tolerance towards "other voices".
In some newspapers people with a non-native American voice write opinion articles in English. The Washington Post, for instance, has a section called "The writers group" in which Esther Cepeda and other writers promote code meshing in this type of discourse:
"My column is about the American experience -- how it has evolved during my generation and what it feels, sounds, smells, tastes and looks like through the eyes of the daughter of Latin American immigrants."
"Because
my personal story is very much about the way the great American melting
pot bubbles and churns, the topics I write about most -- education,
health, politics, business, public policy, culture -- reflect the
diverse experiences and the issues that result from our country’s
rapidly changing demographics."
Esther J. Cepeda is living the American story".
Little by little, people are getting used to different voices in newspaper discourse.
I have also experienced how English speakers react to code meshing in this type of discourse. I was writing a report for a school newspaper about a concert together with an American writer and I wanted to write about an expression we have in Spanish. This expression "romper una cuerda en un concierto", whose literal translation is"to break a string during a concert" means that for a concert to be great, the musicians have to break a string at some point during the show (usually by the end). So she loved the meaning of it but there is no such a expression in English for it. As the literal translation would not be understood by the readers, we decided that the best way for us to include it in the report was to explain it in context. Though her reaction towards using it was quite positive, I had the feeling that she was thinking about it as something not very appropriate. Yet, her willingness to include "an exotic" aspect in the report was a sign of tolerance towards "other voices".
Code switching and code meshing
After reading Michael-Luna and Canagarajah's descriptions of both phenomena ( 2007: 58) we can understand what the implications of using both code switching and code meshing in communication are. Apart from the fact that code switching refers more to the lexical level of language interaction (that is why it is more common to find it in oral communication, I believe) whereas code meshing is embedded in discourse, the pragmatics of these two phenomena also vary a lot. While code switching is employed to "negotiate identities", code meshing is an act of resistance (2007: 58). From my point of view, it could be related to the cognitive realm of language use due to the complexity of the skills needed to produce discourse in which local and vernacular aspects of a language are integrated. In other words, when people switch codes they do not have to make the same cognitive effort as when they try to integrate communicative devices for code meshing. This can also apply to the hearer or reader of that discourse. When someone switches codes in oral communication for example, it is very likely that the interlocutor knows both codes as well, so the efforts both the speaker and hearer have to make is not really big. They share the same knowledge. Thus, code switching is employed in a particular communicative situation because it is natural to do it, it is more spontaneous, I would say. Code meshing, however, as an act of resistance is not necessarily directed at people who belong to the same social/linguistic community as the speaker, so the cognitive efforts readers would have to make in order to fully understand the discourse would vary a lot depending on who the readers are.
Although, code meshing can be ascribed to the lexical level as well, another aspect that makes me think about code meshing as a device related to cognitive linguistics is the fact that it has to do with frames of thought. Last week I found out a page on facebook which could be seen as an example of code meshing. It is called "Spanish sayings" and it consists of posts about how to express popular Spanish sayings or proverbs in English. So, though the meaning of those expressions makes no sense in English when translated literally, am explanation is provided in order to understand what they mean. For instance, "enterarse de lo que vale un peine" , whose literal translation is " to realized what a comb is worth" is explained as it follows: "You may have heard this more than once from your parents. When someone has a bad behavior or has done something wrong, spaniards use this saying in a threatening way, to let you know you're about to receive your punishment. There are several theories about where it comes from. The value of the material old combs were made of and an ancient object called comb, whose utility was to torture are the main ones" (https://www.facebook.com/SpanishSayings).
As for the pedagogical issues of introducing code meshing in the classroom, from my personal experience I would say that it does not only work but also it is a great way to lower the affective filter of students. Although we are thinking about English teaching and learning, we can use code meshing when teaching other languages. In my classes of Spanish 112 I was told to only use Spanish in the class. However, students feel under pressure if they are always told to speak the 2L and most of the times they do not have the knowledge enough to express themselves, which produces frustration and the possibilities for them to acquire the language. So, as Michael-Luna and Canagarajah point out, code switching was seen as a deficiency rather than as a resource "2007: 64). From what I have experienced, either in Spanish or English classes, if the teacher favors code meshing and code switching in the appropriate way, students start making connections in their minds and feel much more comfortable with both languages. Besides, they start using the L2 much more by themselves.
Apart from the activities and strategies Michael-Luna and Canagarajah propose, using visual support or even listening support materials in the class can help teachers to integrate code meshing in the class.
One of the problems of the strategies proposed by Michael-Luna and Canagarajah is the fact that finding linguistically and culturally relevant texts can be a hard task to do when students do not have they same background.
Although, code meshing can be ascribed to the lexical level as well, another aspect that makes me think about code meshing as a device related to cognitive linguistics is the fact that it has to do with frames of thought. Last week I found out a page on facebook which could be seen as an example of code meshing. It is called "Spanish sayings" and it consists of posts about how to express popular Spanish sayings or proverbs in English. So, though the meaning of those expressions makes no sense in English when translated literally, am explanation is provided in order to understand what they mean. For instance, "enterarse de lo que vale un peine" , whose literal translation is " to realized what a comb is worth" is explained as it follows: "You may have heard this more than once from your parents. When someone has a bad behavior or has done something wrong, spaniards use this saying in a threatening way, to let you know you're about to receive your punishment. There are several theories about where it comes from. The value of the material old combs were made of and an ancient object called comb, whose utility was to torture are the main ones" (https://www.facebook.com/SpanishSayings).
As for the pedagogical issues of introducing code meshing in the classroom, from my personal experience I would say that it does not only work but also it is a great way to lower the affective filter of students. Although we are thinking about English teaching and learning, we can use code meshing when teaching other languages. In my classes of Spanish 112 I was told to only use Spanish in the class. However, students feel under pressure if they are always told to speak the 2L and most of the times they do not have the knowledge enough to express themselves, which produces frustration and the possibilities for them to acquire the language. So, as Michael-Luna and Canagarajah point out, code switching was seen as a deficiency rather than as a resource "2007: 64). From what I have experienced, either in Spanish or English classes, if the teacher favors code meshing and code switching in the appropriate way, students start making connections in their minds and feel much more comfortable with both languages. Besides, they start using the L2 much more by themselves.
Apart from the activities and strategies Michael-Luna and Canagarajah propose, using visual support or even listening support materials in the class can help teachers to integrate code meshing in the class.
One of the problems of the strategies proposed by Michael-Luna and Canagarajah is the fact that finding linguistically and culturally relevant texts can be a hard task to do when students do not have they same background.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
ARGUMENTATION AND INTERCULTURAL RHETORIC
What is the role of argumentation in intercultural/critical contrastive rhetoric? Does it constitute the largest category in which other linguistic aspects such as the pragmatics of discourse or lexical items are included or does it have the same status as other realms of discourse analysis?
From my point of view, argumentation as described by Toulmin (1958) in Connor (1996: 67) ("the expression of an opinion in the form of an assertion, preference, view or judgement" ) is just on e of the elements of a text that can be analyzed for contrastive puporses.
From my point of view, argumentation as described by Toulmin (1958) in Connor (1996: 67) ("the expression of an opinion in the form of an assertion, preference, view or judgement" ) is just on e of the elements of a text that can be analyzed for contrastive puporses.
Rhetoric, persuasion and ethics (L1, L2 and translations)
The fact that the concept of rhetoric has not only changed the type of speech to which it applies (from oral for the ancient Greeks to current written and multidimensional discourse) but also the connotations that are linked to it (from positive to negative connotations) is due to the fact that it is commonly associated with persuasion. According to Connor, who quotes Mauranen to support this idea, studies of rhetoric can be beneficial to improve efficiency in writing and it constitutes an analytical tool to understand how discourse works (Mauranen 1993: 20 in Connor 1996: 63). Therefore, studying rhetoric or carrying out discourse analyses can help us to uncover ideologies in discourse, either if we do it in our native language or in a second language.
Going back to the idea of persuasion as the negative aspect that is often linked to rhetoric, it is important to notice that language (written or oral forms of language) is just a tool that can be employed for many reasons with different purposes and it is up to to the speaker/writer to use it ethically or unethically . So persuasion should not be equated to manipulation or deception. There are many criteria that could be analyzed in order to determine whether we are facing coercion, manipulation, deception or persuasion in discourse. In my opinion, the purpose intended by the author has a major role. Perelman´s categorization of "audience" relates different argumentation strategies to the intended audience of the discourse (1982 in Connor 1996: 70). Other factors, such as the type of people and how aware they are of what they are being exposed to is also important when deciding if we are talking about persuasion or other types of discourse. Maybe, the most important aspect regarding to this idea is the effect that the discourse has in the public.
To sum up, knowing that there are many factors that determine communication (and the use of certain rhetorical figures or expressions) we can carry out studies or analysis to find out how the discourse was constructed and so, we can associate certain linguistic or rhetorical aspects to the properties of the discourse we are analyzing. In contrastive rhetoric, we go one step further, by contrasting how similar or different the strategies employed in different languages are in a particular text or discourse. As we have seen in Connor´s article "Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond the texts" (2004), there is not a single methodology involved in this type of analysis. For instance, among many other possible aspects, in order to find out the purposes of an author we need to know about cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. We also have to determine the frequency (or quantity of occurrence) of a particular linguistic structure, which can be made by carrying out corpus analyses. Connor proposes a table with the different steps that can be followed to carry out contrastive analyses (2004: 299). One of the key elements of this table is the " analytical criteria to the description of the two corpora independently", a concept which is not explained. What sort of aspects can be included in this analytical criteria? Does it only refer to linguistic devices present in the texts/discourses? Once we have made the analysis of a text/discourse separately in the L1 and L2, we have to "draw conclusions about the relation between writing cultures and how textual meanings are expressed on the basis of the comparative results (2004: 299). However, how are we going to analyze cognitive aspects of language used such as topoi (common places or beliefs shared by a community in L1 and L2), scripts and frames when expressing a certain concept in L1 and L2? What about all the ideas related to stereotypes? How can we analytically analyze the representation of a stereotypical concept when it is expressed in a L2? For example, lets imagine that we are reading a text in English about the American style of life written by a student from Brazil. Would that student represent the same ideas (s)he has about Americans in his/her essay written in his/her native language? Can (s)he access the same meaning (s)he intends to convey by making use of the expressions (s)he knows? Does s(he) know what type of connotations are associated to the expressions (s)he is employing in her/his discourse? And if yes, for what purposes does s(he) employ them?
If the student is writing about politics for a history class, for instance, the results will produce a very different impact of what it is being written and it can lead to misunderstandings if not to communication breakdowns.
Another situation in which these aspects should be taken into account is for example that of a person from a country where the political leaders are not called "presidents" because the political regime in his/her country is not the same as in many Western countries. Lets think about a person from Egypt. The ideas associated to the political leaders there are totally different to what we are used to. So when that person is writing a newspaper report in English about the politics in her/his country the type of vocabulary used would convey and imply different mental frames for readers in different contexts. So a person in The US would have a different way of understanding what the writer means than a person in Egypt, even if they both know English, because their mental spaces have been developed in different cultural settings.
If the student is writing about politics for a history class, for instance, the results will produce a very different impact of what it is being written and it can lead to misunderstandings if not to communication breakdowns.
Another situation in which these aspects should be taken into account is for example that of a person from a country where the political leaders are not called "presidents" because the political regime in his/her country is not the same as in many Western countries. Lets think about a person from Egypt. The ideas associated to the political leaders there are totally different to what we are used to. So when that person is writing a newspaper report in English about the politics in her/his country the type of vocabulary used would convey and imply different mental frames for readers in different contexts. So a person in The US would have a different way of understanding what the writer means than a person in Egypt, even if they both know English, because their mental spaces have been developed in different cultural settings.
In my opinion, these are just some issues that should be included in contrastive rhetoric analyses. Apart from the ethnographic, textual and pragmatic parts of the research studies there should also be a cognitive one that deals not only with "problem-solving" issues or "the writing process" (Connor 1996: 75) but also with how a text/discourse is deconstructed by the audience when that audience does not share the same cultural background with the author.
Regarding translations tudies, it is not very clear how to link them to intercultural rhetoric studies. Should research in translations be included within the analysis of the production of a discourse in a L2? Could discourse analysis in translation texts be considered a part of contrastive/intercultural rhetoric? Would the analytical criteria described by Connor be suitable for analysing translated texts?
Regarding translations tudies, it is not very clear how to link them to intercultural rhetoric studies. Should research in translations be included within the analysis of the production of a discourse in a L2? Could discourse analysis in translation texts be considered a part of contrastive/intercultural rhetoric? Would the analytical criteria described by Connor be suitable for analysing translated texts?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Contrastive Rhetoric
Connor’s article Intercultural
rhetoric research: beyond the texts (2004) shows that the study of
contrastive rhetoric has been an object of study during the last decades and
that it is still in its formative stages as a discipline. There are several
aspects in her article that show some kind of evolution of contrastive rhetoric
in contrast to her book from 1996 (Contrastive Rhetoric. Cross-cultural aspects
of second language writing).
Although both texts emphasize the idea that contrastive
rhetoric is interdisciplinary, the (sub-)
disciplines included in order to describe it vary from text to text. For
instance, in the book she talks about several theories or disciplines that
should be included when carrying out studies on contrastive rhetoric: theory of
applied linguistics, linguistic relativity, rhetoric, text linguistics,
discourse types and genres, theory of literacy and theory of translation. In the article, corpus analysis as a
methodological discipline and an ethnographic approach to contrastive rhetoric
are added to the previous ones.
The fact that there is so much variation when trying to
describe contrastive rhetoric and that there is not an approach to it support
the idea that this is a discipline whose theoretical basis are not set yet. However, as Connor points out, contrastive
rhetoric is important not only in order to understand cultural differences
among languages that lead to breakdowns in communication or to issues related
to unbalanced power relationships in SL writing but also because getting to
know more about shared and different aspects in SL writing can help us to
achieve general understanding of language communication and language universals
(1996: 5-7).
I have personally experienced moments of chaos before
carrying out a contrastive analysis for my Master thesis in translation
studies. My idea was to contrast newspaper discourse in Spanish and its translation
into English. The first problem I had to deal with was the type of text (or discourse?)
I was going to analyze. My corpus consisted of opinion articles. However, the features
of this type of text (or or genre?) are not the same in both languages. Secondly, what was the right or appropriate
amount of texts to analyze? Other questions followed: what was I going to
analyze? It was just a master thesis so the scope of the analysis should not be
too big. I decided I was going to look at reported speech structures. As far as
the linguistic structures for reported speech were concerned, for what purposes
were they employed in the original texts? Do people use reported speech in
Spanish and English for the same pragmatic purposes? What are these purposes? Does
the translator follow the author’s intentions or is (s)he positioning in a
different way? If yes, what strategies does (s)he use in order to do so? Are
they very obvious or do they require further analysis? All these questions were
impossible to be answered so I got to the conclusion that I was being too ambitious.
I listed all the approaches and/or methodologies that related to my study:
1.
Theories of translation
2.
Corpus linguistics
3.
Discourse analysis
4.
Cognitive linguistics
5.
Ethnography of discourse
6.
Theory of newspaper discourse
7.
Argumentation theory (rhetoric and persuasion)
8.
Pragmatics (Parochial pragmatics).
Having experienced this chaos, I think it is of paramount
importance to establish a clear definition of contrastive rhetoric. However, is
it possible to include the same disciplines in studies of contrastive rhetoric
across cultures or the disciplines include in the description of contrastive rhetoric
will vary depending on which languages are the object of the studies? We can
only answer this question by carrying out contrastive studies in many different
languages. Does this mean that in order to define what contrastive rhetoric is
we first have to collect data from many languages instead of following an
already existing clear set of procedures?
Another question that can be answered by studies of
contrastive rhetoric is that what would happen to a person whose native
language is not English and who has to write a master thesis in English but
his/her writing skills in his/her native language are not very developed? What
type of discursive patterns is that person going to employ in her thesis? Do
those patterns belong to his/her native language or not, as (s)he has not the
writing skills necessary to do it?
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Diaspora and language production
You`s article on Chinese white-collar workers and the cultural and linguistic production they develop due to the diasporic consciousness they are suffering from, is an example of how linguistic creativity works for people who make use of two or more languages or dialects in their writing.
I was deeply touched by this article and by the implications of diasporas in the creation of narratives.
According to You, the type of discourse created by Chinese white-collar workers is multimodal (they use imagines as well as linguistic devices), multidialectal and multilingual (2011: 426). As far the linguistic devices in the discourse are concerned, the metaphors, proverbs and lexical items employed ( among many other figures of speech) show the duality of being in-between two or more cultures, what Bhabha has called "third-space". This type of discourse is creative because the linguistic strategies employed in it project hybrid discourse patterns. As shown by some of the examples in the article, Chinese white-collar workers use English as a vehicle for self-reflection and some of their writing would be considered "ungrammatical" or "incorrect" by native English speakers. How could we differenciate from "correct use of the language" and "linguistic creativity" is something that should be further analyzed. The criteria to establish boundaries between these two ideas might be set in terms of the success of what is being communicated.
The general tone of the examples provided by You shows some sort of sorrow, yet there is some room for hope and future happiness. The meaning itself of the word "diaspora" implies some kind of suffering and not a self-imposed exile.
As previously mentioned, this article was specially interesting to me because I pictured myself and my generation (in Spain) as the objects of the study carried out by You. We could be described in similar terms and the context in which we have to live our lives has made us spread around the world in search of better opportunities and a fairer social reality. Many young Spaniards, very well educated and willing to work, are leaving the country because of the economic, social, educational and institutional crisis there. Therefore, mostly (but not exclusively) via the Internet, they are creating a multilingual narrative whose features could be explained depending on the cultures and languages with which they communicate in their daily lives. Thus, their identities are constantly being negotiated via their discourse. The fact that the Spanish language is spread worldwide and that it is nowadays the second language most present in the Internet makes it difficult for them to adapt themselves to more standarized English patterns of discourse. This fact makes the situation be totally different from other types of language production of other linguistic or cultural communities with a diasporic consciousness. How to balance the use of English and Spanish in order to negotiate their identities in this type of hybrid discourse is a question that will determine the extent to which Spanish speakers feel the need to use the English language in an English-speaking country like the US.
Another important idea that can be drawn from Canagarajah's article The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued (2006) is that diasporic language production influences native speakers of English when they interact. In this context, the Internet can be regarded as a space for freedom of speech and free from connotations of power as it is almost impossible to distinguish between native and multilingual speakers of English (2006: 590). For instance, if we read a piece of news in The New York Times people from all around the world can comment on it. How do we know those people are not native speakers? To what extent does their discourse influence the discourse of native speakers? The Internet is once again a space that promotes equality among citizens.
To conclude, I would also like to point out at Canagarajah's idea of "personal engagement" when producing a particular type of discourse (2006: 597). In this sense, diasporic language production shows this personal involvement with the language (actually, with two languages usually) and it is a reason for transgressing, an act of resistance.
I was deeply touched by this article and by the implications of diasporas in the creation of narratives.
According to You, the type of discourse created by Chinese white-collar workers is multimodal (they use imagines as well as linguistic devices), multidialectal and multilingual (2011: 426). As far the linguistic devices in the discourse are concerned, the metaphors, proverbs and lexical items employed ( among many other figures of speech) show the duality of being in-between two or more cultures, what Bhabha has called "third-space". This type of discourse is creative because the linguistic strategies employed in it project hybrid discourse patterns. As shown by some of the examples in the article, Chinese white-collar workers use English as a vehicle for self-reflection and some of their writing would be considered "ungrammatical" or "incorrect" by native English speakers. How could we differenciate from "correct use of the language" and "linguistic creativity" is something that should be further analyzed. The criteria to establish boundaries between these two ideas might be set in terms of the success of what is being communicated.
The general tone of the examples provided by You shows some sort of sorrow, yet there is some room for hope and future happiness. The meaning itself of the word "diaspora" implies some kind of suffering and not a self-imposed exile.
As previously mentioned, this article was specially interesting to me because I pictured myself and my generation (in Spain) as the objects of the study carried out by You. We could be described in similar terms and the context in which we have to live our lives has made us spread around the world in search of better opportunities and a fairer social reality. Many young Spaniards, very well educated and willing to work, are leaving the country because of the economic, social, educational and institutional crisis there. Therefore, mostly (but not exclusively) via the Internet, they are creating a multilingual narrative whose features could be explained depending on the cultures and languages with which they communicate in their daily lives. Thus, their identities are constantly being negotiated via their discourse. The fact that the Spanish language is spread worldwide and that it is nowadays the second language most present in the Internet makes it difficult for them to adapt themselves to more standarized English patterns of discourse. This fact makes the situation be totally different from other types of language production of other linguistic or cultural communities with a diasporic consciousness. How to balance the use of English and Spanish in order to negotiate their identities in this type of hybrid discourse is a question that will determine the extent to which Spanish speakers feel the need to use the English language in an English-speaking country like the US.
Another important idea that can be drawn from Canagarajah's article The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued (2006) is that diasporic language production influences native speakers of English when they interact. In this context, the Internet can be regarded as a space for freedom of speech and free from connotations of power as it is almost impossible to distinguish between native and multilingual speakers of English (2006: 590). For instance, if we read a piece of news in The New York Times people from all around the world can comment on it. How do we know those people are not native speakers? To what extent does their discourse influence the discourse of native speakers? The Internet is once again a space that promotes equality among citizens.
To conclude, I would also like to point out at Canagarajah's idea of "personal engagement" when producing a particular type of discourse (2006: 597). In this sense, diasporic language production shows this personal involvement with the language (actually, with two languages usually) and it is a reason for transgressing, an act of resistance.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)