Polari, a vibrant language born out of prejudice

For this week's blog post, I read an article entitled "Polari, a vibrant language born out of prejudice" which was published in the San Francisco Guardian on May 24, 2010. The article's author, Paul Baker, discusses Polari, a language largely associated with gay British males of the 20th century. This language was born from the need to communicate among gay males (and to a lesser extent, other members of the LGBT community) in a time when homosexuality and the gay culture and community was not accepted as part of mainstream society.

Polari is an example of a language that came when there was a need, and left when there was no longer a need. In a way, Polari is an anti-language, a term coined by Michael Halliday in 1978 to describe how oppressed and stigmatized communities develop language in order to communicate, speak openly and comfortably with one another (without fearing harassment and discrimination), and to "reconstruct reality according to their own values." Thus, Polari was widely used in the gay British subculture from roughly 1900-1970, when homosexuality was deeply separated from mainstream society. In 1970, homosexuality was decriminalized, and the use of this created language, Polari, became less necessary. Eventually, as gay men became more integrated and accepted into regular society, Polari became a dead language.

The reason for the development and usage of the Polari language- a secret way to communicate internally- is reflected in the lack of print and tape recordings of Polari from the time it was used. Because of its presence in subcultures and the community and language's efforts to truly remain underground, Polari was simply passed on by word of mouth, which led to the creation of many versions of the language. It is only now that scholars have gone back to analyze the different components of the language and to determine its roots and its functions.

Due to the interactions between many different communities and individuals that were on the outside of society (that all fell within the gay male subculture in Europe), the Polari language has incorporated some Parlyaree, the Italian-derived language used by various people such as entertainers and beggars, Cockney rhyming slang, backslang (pronouncing a word as if it is spelt backwards), Yiddish, Lingua Franca (words from sailors slang), American air force slang and the vernacular of drug users. This diverse combination of both languages and slang have led to the development of this unique language and reflects the many connections between various sectors of society in the early 20th century.

In order to supplement this article, I also read a book written by the article's author, Paul Baker, titled "Polari: the lost language of gay men." This book contained a chapter called "Polari as a language system" and provided a closer, more in depth view on the scientific, linguistic aspects of the language. The language, while it incorporates vocabulary and linguistic characteristics from many other language and slang systems, is fundamentally a language rooted in English with many key words replaced by Polari equivalents. There is currently debate about how much Polari classifies as a unique language- the answer to which I am still wondering about (and would assume that more work/research must be done to establish that). Like other subculture lexicons, Polari also includes two sets of vocabulary: core and fringe vocabulary. Core vocabularies are known to most everyone (with Polari's case, words like bona, vada, and eek), while fringe vocabulary are much larger but are only known by select, very skilled language speakers. In a very mini experiment, Paul Baker tested seven Polari speakers' knowledge of the Polari vocabulary. Of the seven, each speaker could identify between 35 and 78 words, with 20 words considered "core vocabulary" because they were known by every interviewee.

Overall, I found this article and book fascinating as they discussed the role of the development of a language in a very new context for me. Rather than being tied solely to national origins, family history, or generational differences (like texting), Polari is tied to the need of a specific community- the British gay male community- to communicate and express themselves freely in a time when their identity was being attacked, or the very least, looked down upon, by mainstream society. The use of language (more specifically, a new language that reflects the intersections and interactions between many communities) as a tool for coping with societal injustice/oppression and building community was very compelling and inspiring to learn about.

Sources:

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/24/polari-language-origins

Book: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yxHz97AvesUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=polari+language&ots=-QxnuEFAsi&sig=OGCPzx7mX5igrxfEM-5BdrTV9ak#v=onepage&q&f=false

Language (English) and Freedom

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-english-language.html

One commentary that I read for this class was titled "The English Language of Freedom" that was published in Forbes on May 20, 2010. This commentary caught my attention because I found it incredibly problematic and thought-provoking at the same time. The central assertion of this article was that English, as a language, directly leads to increased democracy, freedom, and innovation. The author claims that countries that prevent or simply do not embrace the spread or strong presence of English are dooming themselves for a future of decreased success. For example, the author states that Muslim countries failed to understand Western principles, which then led to a lack of interest in learning English and the failure of democracy. He also asserts that it is problematic that few Chinese people speak English, as this means they do not have "any conception of the liberal tradition that the language enshrines."

I find the author's assertion both that English is tied to freedom and that countries that hold different languages are unable to reach the same level of enlightenment and innovation to be extremely problematic and offensive. In the article, the author writes, "In the meantime we must make a much more concerted and determined effort to repeat the Macaulay initiative, pushing to have English spoken and read in large portions of the world, especially in western Asia, Africa and Latin America." He openly pushes for an increase in the English language throughout the world, as he believes it directly facilitates and creates economic and political freedom and success.

Like our discussion about Turkey and the diversity of languages there, I believe this is where the issue of unity and perceived superiority comes in conflict with diversity and difference. In this case, I strongly believe that there are benefits and insights that come from all different languages and all different histories. I believe it would be a significant mistake to strive for English as main, dominant language throughout the world, as this would inevitably lead to language death, and in the process, cultural and historical death, as well. I feel as though the author was culturally insensitive and vastly misinformed in his argument for the complete superiority of English to all other languages.

Moreover, his belief that English is the only language that can be tied to democracy and freedom seems completely flawed on multiple accounts. First (and very obviously/technically), the foundations of democracy were in grounded in Greek society. Furthermore, I believe there are many more forms of freedom than just democracy. The author is clearly coming from a very euro-centric/American-centric point of view, as countless conflicts have been waged in the name of freedom all over the world, from people speaking many languages. Furthermore, many wars for and times of "freedom" within the United States have resulted in absolutely no freedom for certain members of society (African Americans, Native Americans), which illustrates how this author's conception of freedom is grounded in racist ideas of what freedom entails and who deserves freedom, or else is able to completely overlook these jarring examples. Moreover, there are many other factors, such as economic systems and government implementation and action within a political system, that can affect how much freedom actually exists. Therefore, to simply state that English is the primary, best language of freedom is incorrect and problematic.

Because of this class, I have come to appreciate how much of an influence language has on a society, on our thought processes, on our perceptions of the world, etc. Nevertheless, I highly doubt language has as much of an impact as this author believes- or, that only the English language is so closely tied with values while other languages are inherently not. I highly doubt that one language can be more of a facilitator of freedom than another. Perhaps one language is connected more to actions in history related to freedom (of course, this again depends on the perspective that one is coming from), but it somehow seems overly simplistic and biased to state that English facilitates freedom and innovation more than other languages.

Because I was unable to find research literature of past studies regarding language and innovation/freedom, I pose this question: Is it possible for a language, in itself, to be tied to increased innovation, creativity, and freedom? Is it possible that because language is so intrinsically tied to culture and cultural advancements that some languages happen to facilitate more creation than others? Or is this simply a biased, oversimplified, or blatantly incorrect statement?

Broken Syntax in Cyberspace: The Future of Language?

For this blog entry, I decided to read articles pertaining to texting language and other forms of abbreviated language. One article, titled "Text language a plus for communication provided some information about the common thoughts (that are really just misconceptions) surrounding how texting abbreviations and newer language related to technology reflects a denigration of the English language and possibly the human brain. One view from neuroscience/psychology/cognitive science that I found somewhat compelling was the argument that new media, such as texting, is affecting our brains negatively and creating shorter attention spans within humans. Some have argued that it is reflecting and perpetuating laziness within the English language (which is also seen with other languages, as well) and is creating a less intelligent, well-spoken generation.

I thought this discussion of abbreviations and technological lingo related to a previous class conversation we had about the preservation of language. When we talk about preserving a culture through language- and rediscovering/reliving/reinventing a lost culture or community through the study of their language- these quirks (abbreviations, new terms, etc) in language come to mind as extremely significant. I think there is much more that can be illustrated about a given society, community, or even a generation, through an examination of these so-called improper, non-mainstream uses of language.

Despite the accused negative effects of technology on language, the article quickly asserts that technology has a beneficial- or at least neutral- effect. There is no evidence that shows that spelling and grammar errors stem from the increase in technological communication usage. Furthermore, technological communication can break down barriers between readers and writers, and change our conceptions of language for the better. Abbreviations seem to reflect a younger generation's identity (PAW= parents are watching) and also show people's overwhelming desire and temptation to take short cuts, which manifests itself in creation of new words, phrases, and acronyms. Technological communication has also proven to be an asset to the education world, as educators are finding more ways to connect and interact with students online (through email, Twitter, etc). From my personal experience, I definitely think that email has profoundly influenced (more specifically, strengthened) my relationship with my professors, as it provides a more constant, open possibility for communication. For example, it can simply lead to an increase in communication contact between students and instructors, or it can serve to "break the ice," and lead to a student actually attending office hours or approaching a professor after class. At the same time, I do see the possible downsides to email if it indeed prevents more face to face communication from occurring, or possibly allowing and encouraging more unnecessary exchanges to take place. Email is so present in Stanford's culture that I cannot imagine an education without it as the primary means for communication. Also, I bet technology provides very teachable, illuminative moments through analyzing various online communities, postings, etc., in classes such as communication, psychology, and sociology. One could possibly learn a lot from examining online culture and communities, and comparing these findings to how these cultures and communities play out offline.

Overall, reading this article provided a very balanced report on the plusses and minuses of the new wave of technological communication. It ultimately led me to support technological communication as a means to increase language communication, proficiency, and creativity, as well as a means for education. At the same time, it also reinforced my hesitations for fully supporting the so-called technological revolution we are in. Nevertheless, I would say that the opportunities presented by technology and language-- something the article didn't mention, for example, was the increased accessibility of cheap to free resources online, such as language learning programs--are extremely significant.

Sources:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/tech-language-a-plus-for-communication-20100517-v860.html

"Chinglish"- Chinese and English

For this class, one of the articles that I read was called "Shanghai Is Trying to Untable the Mangled English of Chinglish." This article detailed the specific struggles of learning English for native Chinese speakers and the efforts the government has taken to eradicate the challenges that Chinese native language speakers have faced. This article caught my attention because I have been looking to learn more about how various (specific) communities deal with learning a new language and the challenges they face. This builds upon the knowledge I have gained about language acquisition in general.

The part of this article that stood out for me the most was the amount of government resources and effort that is being put into communicating "correct" English in public sectors of society. The article cited how embarrassing it often is for native Chinese speakers to make mistakes when speaking English- speaking "Chinglish," the artle asserts. To combat the common mistakes that native Chinese speakers make when communicating in English, the government (mainly powered through 600 volunteers), have replaced 10,000 public signs that had previously contained incorrect English (based in "Chinglish"- such as "urine district") with the correct words. This intense effort, government officials assert, is steadily leading to a reality where Chinese maladaptations of the English language will not be significant.

I find it fascinating that the government (as well as other organizations, and perhaps more importantly, individual people) are so willing to put such an incredible amount of resources (time, people power, money, energy) into helping to ensure that English is better pronounced. While the article focuses heavily on the motivation coming from embarrassment from having incorrect English in interactions and in public settings (like street signs, etc), I have to assume that there is more at play. I believe that the bigger issue is reputation: speaking a language such as English incorrectly with errors that are jarring to native speakers leads to a comical, incompetent reputation. I believe that some people are worried that widespread incorrect English usage may lead to a "lower standing" of native Chinese language speakers in other people's minds. For example, people (or governments or organizations) might begin to consider Chinese language speakers as less competent, or less serious, leading their ideas/innovations/etc. to be considered with less vigor and interest, perhaps, as their counterparts. It seems that this can already be observed, as the article quotes various individuals around the world expressing their disappointment that this effort to change Chinese speakers' English, as this in turn takes away a common joke or "giggle."

At the same time, as one German radio show host eloquently put, “If you standardize all these signs, you not only take away the little giggle you get while strolling in the park but you lose a window into the Chinese mind." Indeed, by changing the natural, common errors that Chinese speakers make when speaking English, the government is in turn taking away data about links between Chinese and English languages, and what occurs commonly when a Chinese speaker articulates his or her thoughts in English. Maybe it is possible that this will take away from potential studies about language acquisition for Chinese speakers, for example, and what these common errors might reveal about brain functioning or human learning. Nevertheless, it seems that the more pressing issue for this community of Chinese language speakers is the humiliation and lack of respect they receive from others due to their errors in communicating in English, which is completely understandable.

To look further into the psychological and scientific work that has been done on dual Chinese and English language speakers, I read parts of the journal article titled "Cross-language transfer of insight into the structure of compound words." This study found "evidence for cross language transfer between two typologically distant languages of insight [Chinese and English] into the structure of compound words" (325). In other words, people (most of the participants were youth) are able to transfer meaning/function between these two very different languages. The ability to transfer from Chinese to English was seen in all levels of ability, while the transfer from English to Chinese was only found for high level proficient speakers. This transfer occurs on a phonological, meaning, and functional level for compounds. In relation to the article above, this study shows that language learning, and the transfer between languages- translation and dual understanding- is very possible, even with people who have low proficiency for Chinese to English language speakers. Thus, the ability and knowledge is there. Somehow along the way, however, it seems especially common for Chinese speakers to make certain mistakes when speaking English. I would be interested in knowing if there have been any studies that specify the common mistakes that are made, as well as some possible (or probable) explanations as to why these mistakes occur. Also, I wonder whether or not changing public signs will ultimately lead to less personal language mistakes (perhaps due to a different, and now correct, common input), or whether this will simply create a different public image for the country (and for Chinese speakers), while the actual language mistakes will still be common in day to day life.

Sources

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/asia/03chinglish.html?pagewanted=2

http://caslon.stanford.edu:3210/sfxlcl3?sid=CSA:psycinfo-set-c&pid=%3CAN%3E2010%2D03314%2D004%3C%2FAN%3E%26%3CPB%3EGermany%3A%20Springer%3C%2FPB%3E%26%3CPY%3E2010%3C%2FPY%3E%26%3CAU%3EZhang%2C%20Jie%20%281%29%3B%20Anderson%2C%20Richard%20C%2E%20%281%29%3B%20Li%2C%20Hong%20%282%29%3B%20Dong%2C%20Qiong%20%282%29%3B%20Wu%2C%20Xinchun%20%282%29%3B%20Zhang%2C%20Yan%20%282%29%3C%2FAU%3E&id=doi%3A10%2E1007%2Fs11145%2D009%2D9205%2D7&issn=0922%2D4777&volume=23&issue=3%2D4&spage=311&epage=336&date=2010%2D03&genre=article&aulast=Zhang&aufirst=Jie&title=Reading%20and%20Writing&atitle=Cross%2Dlanguage%20transfer%20of%20insight%20into%20the%20structure%20of%20compound%20words%2E

Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress

I read a fascinating editorial piece entitled "Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress." This article asserted that people's use of the word "minority" is very problematic and is perpetuating the power gap between various communities in society. The author points out something that most know, but probably rarely think about: the word minority, itself, is based off of the concept of being "less than." The author argues that simply due to our overuse of the word "minority" to describe a huge amount of people in various communities, we, as a collective society, are keeping white men in power while disempowering all other communities. This article struck a chord with me because it related to the societal implications of word choice and word frequency in relation to identity, which is something that I am personally very interested in.

The article contained a notable contradiction. While on the one hand, the author advocated for specificity as the ideal form of language and communication (for example, breaking down communities and simply referring to the one you are talking about- African Americans, versus "minorities), later in the article, the author argues "language must be inclusive. The language of inclusion is the language of a true democracy." By both arguing for language being both specific and inclusive, the author reveals a contradiction in her logic. This in turn reveals the complexity that is contained within the discussion of the proper, most socially conscious forms of language. On the one hand, it seems necessary to use specific words that accurately represent the community one is discussing in order to prevent over-generalizing and/or robbing individuals or specific communities of their own uniqueness. On the other hand, becoming too specific and insular with language choices can be damaging, and the argument for inclusive language (for example, using “people of color” to speak to certain relevant issues) is compelling because it can speak to a common cause or struggle, indicating more collaboration and coalition building rather than singling out a single community.

Despite the apparent contradiction in her argument, the author’s commentary on the power of language is very compelling and raised some very important and interesting ideas. I think we should all be very cognizant of the words that we use, as their implications can be much larger than we might expect. Moreover, I believe that we should all think about our own stance on the most appropriate language choices (aside from what is socially acceptable, politically correct, etc.,- but rather, what we deem to be the most appropriate) to use. For me, I believe this will come on a case-by-case basis, and that context is extremely important. For example, I feel as though it would be appropriate to use the term “people of color” when discussing racism as a pervasive society reality. However, I think it is more appropriate to use more specific terms (such as black people, African Americans, Latinos, Cubans, etc) when discussing specific communities’ histories or instances of being the target of racism. Language is too complicated to make a general statement like “language must always be inclusive’ or “language is best when it is specific.” Rather, one must consider the most appropriate word or words to use in a given situation based on context, history, and desired intent. Moreover, our conscious decisions about what language to use can themselves change society. The article advocates for social change through language change. Because of the prominent role that language plays in all of our lives (and in shaping our lives), being conscious and purposeful about what language we do and do not use may have significant effects on how society functions and evolves.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Change-the-Languag-by-Skywalker-Payne-100507-522.html

Accented Teachers May Be Better for English Language Learners

This week, I read an article entitled "Accented teachers may be better for English language learners: study" which was published in the Washington Post and based off a 2010 Israeli study that showed how English learners may be more able to learn the language (and other disciplines) from teachers who have the same accents as them. This finding goes against the fundamental logic that Arizona officials used in banning teachers who have heavy accents.

The study's design consisted of sixty participants: 20 native Hebrew speakers, 20 people from the former Soviet Union, and 20 Israeli Arabs who started learning Hebrew at age 7. The experimenters put together audio recordings of Hebrew phrases with the last word pronounced with either a Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, or English accent. Each participant was timed and asked to identify the Hebrew word. The results showed that Hebrew speakers showed no difference depending on the accent, but Russian and Arabic speakers could more quickly identify the word when it was pronounced in their own accent. The study's basic explanation for the findings was that when learning from a person with the same accent, a student does not have to spend extra time trying to understand English in an unfamiliar accent.

This study has broad implications for all of educational theory and practice. Overall, the findings suggest that students will be more able to effectively learn from teachers who share the same accents as them. In a nation that is becoming more increasingly diverse, attracting immigrants from all over the world, this study can be seen as a strong advocate for diversity in teachers. Relating the study to current politics, this study therefore suggests that in a state like Arizona, ESL students from various Spanish speaking countries may be better off learning from a teacher who has a familiar accent. This is exactly the type of teacher that Arizona has banned from its education system.

This study and its connections with very current politics reveals how closely intertwined language and psychology is with current events and major political/educational decisions. While one study is certainly not enough to make its claims "true" (very little can be considered "true" in psychological/scientific research in general), its findings do provide a certain amount of experimental evidence that Arizona's new ban on teachers with accents is fundamentally flawed from an educational effectiveness standpoint (not to mention problematic from other social standpoints). If teachers are indeed more effective for students if they share a common accent, then teachers from Spanish speaking countries should be sought after--not banned--to teach in schools that have large Spanish speaking populations. I am now wondering whether or not this new data will soon influence Arizona's educational legislation, as I believe it should, or whether Arizonan officials will ignore these findings and continue to justify their measures using flawed logic.

As follow-up experiments, I would be interested to see if these findings are also seen in different language speaking groups- for example, those who speak Spanish or Mandarin. Is the magnitude of the difference between recognizing a word pronounced in your own accent or another accent similar across all language speaking communities- why or why not? Additionally, the article mentioned an important follow up study that would help to determine how much effort is involved in both processing unfamiliar accents and processing new material. As evidenced by all the potential follow-up studies and the connections to current day politics, I believe this study was very significant, intriguing, and politically relevant.

Article:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/learning/accented-teachers-may-be-bette.html

Original Study description from Israeli news source:

http://www.israel21c.org/201003077751/culture/putting-the-accent-on-language-perception

Native Languages in Peril & Native Language Education

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Native+languages+peril+report/2975977/story.html

An article titled "Native Languages in peril: report" published in The Vancouver Sun on May 1, 2010, caught my attention because it related to the movie we watched during class and an issue that I am very interested in learning more about. British Colombia is the home to 60% of Canada's indigenous languages- 32 distinct languages and 59 dialects. Despite this linguistic diversity, very few people- 5% of the indigenous population- are fluent in the languages, and as time passes, more and more languages move closer to extinction. This is especially due to the fact that many fluent or skilled speakers of the languages are elders. To make up for this fact, native languages are starting to be taught in the schools, and thus are educating younger generations about various native languages and the related culture and history.

As I referenced in a past post about the Sanskrit language, I believe that education is a key to preserving a language and its related culture. In addition to standard education language, which can result in short term interest or familiarity with a language rather than fluency, I believe there must be a push to incorporate native languages into other areas of society. Many times, students do not retain information presented in the education system if it is not made meaningful or if it is not present in other facets of their life, such as their family life or mainstream media. Therefore, I would advocate for wide-reaching, complex, connection-making programs that could more effectively revive and reinstate native languages into Canadian society. This might include involving more sectors of society- government, entertainment, domestic/home programs- in this effort. Additionally, I feel as though this discussion is relevant to many places where dominant languages (often brought about by colonization and residential schools, according to the article) have begun to silence native languages.

For example, I found a very compelling article from the Language, Culture, and Curriculum department of the University of Missouri that set out a plan for successful reintegration and education of native languages (Native American/Indian languages). After interviewing 89 diverse people from the Flathead Indian Reservation, this author concluded that the key to successful native language instruction surrounds making connections between native languages and other studies and ways of life. For example, he advocates for making connections across Native American language classes, between Native American language education and mainstream education, and between Native American language education and Native American studies programs. Moreover, the interviews resulted in the suggestion that a more grassroots approach to developing Native language curriculum would be beneficial. For example, it would be ideal for curriculum to be developed in a collaborative way, between people such as educators, native community organizers, and non-native people, so that the curriculum can best appeal to the widest audience, and thus be the most successful in revitalizing a language. Furthermore, the results indicate that framing Native language programs as part of "multicultural education" would be beneficial for its success. Overall, I thought this journal article set out some very effective, logical, complex, and realistic steps for achieving the revitalization of native languages, which is something that is crucial for the maintenance of fading, yet long-standing culture and history. Reading this journal article, as well as other sources about Native Language education, combined with the news articles and the movie from class, has made me extremely interested in pursuing this issue for our class research paper.

Title of Article:

Grassroots Suggestions for Linking Native-Language Learning, Native American Studies, and Mainstream Education in Reservation Schools with Mixed Indian and White Student

Populations

URL: http://csaweb113v.csa.com/ids70/view_record.php?id=4&recnum=4&log=from_res&SID=80aoapbkmljc17cnn3fp8rald3&mark_id=search%3A4%3A15%2C0%2C8

Other articles read/found about Native Language education:

“Our Beloved Cherokee”: ANaturalistic Study of Cherokee Preschool Language Immersion

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext?ID=120127178&onDenied=/journal/120127178/abstract&PLACEBO=IE.pdf&mode=pdf

and

Parents and Teachers’ Perceptions of Mother-Tongue Medium of Instruction Policy in Nigerian Primary Schools: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907107115~db=all~jumptype=rss