When languages invade… February 8, 2007

Why should language be taught at all? 

Language changes.  This much is obvious and is a chief point of interest for any linguist.  How does language change, and why, and for whom?  No person, no matter how conservative, can argue that language must be stopped from changing, or that English speakers should return to the Old English that is their roots- vocabulary, case endings, and all.

However, when we begin to teach grammar, when we begin to assign rules to words and to writing, and even when we standardized spelling, we essentially are prescribing that language change stops and growth is stunted.  The seemingly inexplicable spellings of many words in Modern English are a result of the standardization of spelling in the Early Modern English period, and as pronunciation and usage change, spelling and silent letters do not, and we are left with words preserved in their “useless” etymology.

 But are there reasons to preserve language?  I personally would argue that etymology is not always useless, and that just as there is nothing wrong with change, there is nothing wrong with doing things the way we’ve always done them.  But there are other reasons to preserve language as well.

 

Teach African languages in the UK as part of reparations

by Deborah Gabriel
This week the African Union (AU) called for Kiswahili to be adopted as a Pan African language throughout the continent. But Africans in the Diaspora should learn it too, to restore their cultural heritage denied through slavery.

Speaking at the African Union Summit this week, Alpha Oumar Konare, Chairman of the African Union, called for a universal African language to be adopted as a means of integrating the continent. Hailing Kiswahili as the favoured language he said that it is “not only a language of a tribe but a language of Africa.”

 

Black Britain News Online recently discussed the value of language preservation.  Though they aren’t talking about preserving English specifically, I am interested in the perspective they give on teaching languages (both as first and as second language acquisition), and more importantly I am interested in their viewpoint on linguistics.  Click here for the article.

 Why are people protective of their language?  How protective is too protective? First one must make certain that his or her native language is not in mortal peril.  English by no means is in danger of being eradicated very easily, but as globalization continues, so does the borrowing , blending, and mixture of languages.  Language really is a symbol of a culture, and the vocabulary and idioms of a group of people are as culturally significant as any traditions or customs the people may have. 

 There has been precedent set for language preservation; France is known for trying to keep all “English-y” words out of the French lexicon.  Hebrew was a dead language for centuries before cultural, political, and religious motivation revived it in the 20^th century. 

 I support the AU’s desire to retain Kiswahili as a living language because I think it is important to keep the cultural signigicance and the richness of global diversity.  (Of course, I also heartily support second… and third… language acquisition and bilingualism…. Let’s keep, learn, and speak as many languages as possible!)

 But how much is too much? What is a valid reason for preserving vocabulary, rules and constructions when they have outlived their usefulness?  I think this article explains one good reason for language preservation, but I wonder if there are others.

Links, feeds, sources, etc. February 1, 2007

Here we go. I am going to talk about grammar. The feeds I am using are as follows… I decided to make another post rather than edit the first once since it had been so long.

I am getting Google’s packaged News bundle and Thinkers bundle, with a few of the individual things deleted from those. I added the New York Times, and searches for “English Grammar Education,” “English Grammar” and “Dialects and English Education” because I had a hard time finding a search that yielded exactly what I was looking for. I also added a blog called “The Pig Sty Avenue School of Education and Applied Linguistics” that may or may not be helpful. Hopefully I will find what I want.

An attempt to explain myself: January 18, 2007

I love words.  I love most words. Some words I dislike because of how they sound or what they mean, or maybe merely how they are spelled or how they look on a page.  But I love some words for all of these same reasons.  I am interested in precision of speech, and in the ability to perfectly communicate an idea through language.  My interest in English stems from this, and is manifested in two ways: literature, and linguistics.

Literature has the power of being written, published, and permanent, and in that way it can form very memorable ways to use words.  In literature I enjoy looking at the text and remembering how the words fit together and why they are chosen.  In some cases I have read a book so often that I can remember where a word was divided to fit on the page, and in that case, something like “beau-

tiful” becomes part of the passage for me.  This, admittedly, is a little extreme.  I want to encourage students to read their favorite books and find their favorite words.  The best quotes both add to the text and the story, as well as becoming a time capsule of how that author wanted to use language.  The best quotes are timeless and use every word to full advantage.

This segues into my interest in linguistics.  The etymology of words in particular is interesting to me; how and why is English the way it is? How and why did authors from other generations write?  No matter how much I hated it when I was in high school, I think it’s very important to teach vocabulary because having full command of language empowers a speaker or a writer to be as effective as possible in communication.  I don’t want to lose any of that variety, specificity, or richness.  For this reason I am torn on the issue of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar that I (and presumably most of the rest of the class) studied in ENG 261.  As of now I am more of a traditional prescriptivist, because I think people can and should speak and write correctly, but I do not by any means reject the importance of a descriptivist approach, especially now, as technology is permanently changing communication styles and standards. I recognize and accept the inherent tendency for language to change and the necessity of the evolution of language, but I do not think that this needs to stop us from studying and teaching a standard grammar.  I do not know or follow perfect grammar rules (though I’ll admit to being the obnoxious person who corrects annoying things in the words of others), but I think that there should be higher expectations for people to use language correctly.  I actually have quite a bit to say on this subject of rules and expectations, but for now it suffices to say that I want to explore the current theories on  linguistics and grammar in schools.  It seems most popular to ignore grammar in high school English instruction, though my mother and other English teachers from her generation are shocked that the trend opposes the rigid grammar instruction of earlier decades.  I am interested in refining my view on the subject and deciding what exactly is important to teach, since all even semi-competent students have a fairly strong grasp on the English language already.