A
Philosophy of Language
Introduction
This paper might be called principles of language teaching or an applied philosophy of language. When I wrote my first paper in an applied
linguistics course, after much thought, I concluded that the key thing to know
about language was that it was a system
of abstract symbols used to communicate the thoughts of one person to another
person or group of people. I also wrote,
knowing how one group can set upon another by the way they talk I wrote
that language was one of the key elements of personal and group identity. In my
short and quickly written philosophy of language at the start of this class,
the only thing I remember writing down was that language was often used for
play, for cleverness, joking, teasing, and verbal back and forth of
conversation. It is used, probably most often as pure entertainment. In other words, while teachers are teaching
social studies and literature, math and geography, students are chatting it up
endlessly whenever the opportunity to escape the academic lockdown arises. Wherever people gather, deeply contextualized
use of language is going on for no other ostensible purpose than to pass the
time. I have since been introduced through
the Applied Linguistics program to many philosophers, linguists and social
analysts who deepened and broadened my perspective on what language is, what it
does and how it is used. I will discuss
the authors in particular whose views I have incorporated into my own in this
paper, but I will end the paper by simply listing some of the principles of language that guide me in my
professional and personal life.
Beyond
Communication
Looking again at language as a
communication device, an abstract system of signs both written and spoken, the
first question that comes to mind is what exactly is being communicated, what
is in the mind of one person that needs to transfer to another. On one level there are innumerable little
necessities of life that must be communicated such as “I’m hungry” or “we are
all going to meet down by the river after dark” or whatever social, personal
and functional things that need to be communicated for life and social life to
go on. On another level, our identities,
who we are, and purposes, why we are here, are completely dealt with on the
abstract level through language in the chief form of narratives or stories. People seem to be uniquely motivated to tell
and to listen to stories and within those stories find the meaning and purpose
of everything. Some thinkers have even extended
the interpretive nature of language to encompass all thought and consciousness.
In other words, consciousness itself
derives from what we believe and all that we believe derives from the
socio-linguistic milieu we are borne into.
In this case, what is communicated from person to person is much more
than immediate thought, but in fact
thought is being transferred from the larger social pattern, a pattern existing
outside of any one mind, into the individual’s mind. This
view is mentioned by Butler, (Butler 1997) in her discussion of Althusser’s
concept of interpellation. A similar
viewpoint is revealed in the interview with William Labov.
I think that the integration of all these studies and areas
into a single perspective depends upon the concept of the speech community as
an overarching social reality. The notion of a social fact—that language exists
in the community exterior to the individual—is our central theme. The way in
which this social pattern is grasped by the individual speaker and the way it
changes over time is our central problem (Labov quoted in Gordon, p. 350).
We can see that even if one does not follow this line of
reasoning to its furthest reaching conclusion, language is much more than the
simple communication of thoughts between individual minds. It is a social pattern in which is embedded
our world view.
Linguistic Hegemony
Bel Hooks speaks
of Standard English as the “language of conquest and domination, (hooks 1994),
although she is careful to say that it is not the language itself that does
injury but the oppressor who shapes it into a weapon of domination. Although I find the concept of a unique
oppressor to be problematic, I agree that language itself is shaped by people
with power to control the majority of the population. At one time I briefly studied business; the
one thing I learned in that series of courses that has stuck with me for
decades is that businesses, governments, agencies of governments, including the
military and other large moneyed institutions routinely employ professionals to
shape the perceptions of the public in their favor. This
is done on an extremely sophisticated psychological level through the making of
associations, the controlled release of information and the control of the news
and historical narratives. I think one of my problems with hooks is that she attempts,
without the money to project it to the mass audience, to re-construct the
narrative towards her viewpoint by using words like oppressor, dominator and
colonizer. This is what Butler calls
re-signification, the turning of words and associations made with words in your
favor, (Butler 1997). The dominant
narrative in America is deeply rooted.
It is principally believed by the populations of those groups who
benefit the most, meaning the core groups who built America at the expense of
the slaves and the native Americans. But I would argue that even white males
are manipulated and exploited making it difficult to easily classify oppressor
and oppressed. The philosophy of this writer is that there
is a reality beyond the socially constructed, but we will often have to adapt
to the reigning narrative which will usually be too powerful to resist or
overcome by any individual. Resistance
to change or to threats to the dominant narrative takes the form of opposition
to bilingual classrooms and support for English-only laws. Change can and will
happen but any replacement narrative must have equal power as the existing one,
meaning, persuasive power and actual power behind it.
Discourse
James Gee’s concept of Discourse, (Gee
1999, p.12), is essential to any philosophy of language because this concept
identifies the roots of culture and cultural identity that lie much deeper than
the level of language alone. Discourse
includes all the related behaviors and expectations integrated with language
that are associated with a particular group.
Discourse, according to Gee is something one is “apprenticed” into. The job of a teacher is to apprentice
students into the Discourse of the academic world as well as to teach math,
science and literature. Many minority
students begin the school significantly behind, because the western academic
Discourse taught in our schools is aligned with the larger dominant cultural
Discourse in our society of which they have not been a part. Thus many students who come from other
countries or groups traditionally excluded from the dominant culture such as
blacks and hispanics will find a double challenge upon entering schools of not
only learning the subject matter but of having to catch up with the
pre-existing cultural knowledge of the other students without a specific effort on the part of the
school system to teach it, (Macedo as quoted in
Bartolomé 1998).
In addition to lack of familiarity with
the dominant Discourse, minority students will often find that the Discourse
they have been apprenticed into in their homes and neighborhoods, because it
differs from the dominant, is not only
misunderstood but belittled in the school system. Very often the attitude is “because we have
come to dominate the country you came from with this system, it is superior to
yours”. Minority students need to be
apprenticed into the dominant culture but in such a way that their own culture
is not denigrated, (Bartolomé 1998).
Misunderstanding, denigration, and a failure to specifically teach the
basics of the dominant Discourse is likely to result in minority students
quickly becoming discouraged and
withdrawing from participation in the system that is charged with their
education.
Compounding this problem of lack of
cultural capital is actual resistance to acquiring it. A
Discourse may be perceived as inimical to the interests of the learner because
it is a direct supplantation of the existing one or because it is taught as
superior the the existing one. This
resistance to assimilation encountered by many teachers teaching minority or
immigrant students becomes the essential challenge of a teacher, especially an
ELL teacher; how does one teach the dominant Discourse essential to succeed in
mainstream society without threatening the pre-existing cultural identity of
the students. The answer has to be to develop a genuine
appreciation for alternative ways of speaking and of expression of ideas,
(hooks 1994), (Bartolomé 1998). It is
only in the context of being treated with respect that a student will agree to
adopt a new, potentially threatening idea.
Logic
and Correctness
So-called contextualized language is rife
with elements that communicate far more than the words themselves. In this sense, I am not talking about
language that simply does not conform to standard English but about language
that is delivered through a medium that imbues it with context, for example
Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech has a certain layer of context when
read, an added layer when heard spoken and a further dimension when one listens
to the speech and watches the speaker. Thomas
Reid postulated a natural language that is fully contextualized and an
artificial language that is fully decontextualized, (Reid 1764). According to Reid, the further one was from
natural language which involved, voice modulation, eye contact, gestures,
facial expressions, perhaps sobs or laughter and so on, the less powerful it
was. Written language was the least
powerful manifestation of language.
Today, more and more of our language is of this decontextualized,
cerebral variety. Increasingly, to
function in society we must be able to avail ourselves of decontextualized
language, (Zuboff 1988). And here I am
not speaking of culturally decontextualized but physically decontextualized
language, one purely related through the action of the mind to abstract
symbols. Oddly enough, this type of
language has been readily adapted by young people of all cultural backgrounds
if one observes how universal social media and the cell phone have become.
The question remains, is language always
understood through the lense of cultural conventions? Is it possible that there is some aspect of
language that can be reduced to logic, irrespective of culture? We see that all languages are rule driven and
that the rules relate to the transfer of meaning, when the rules are broken, no
meaning is transferred or the wrong meaning is transferred. It is in this sense that I believe as part of
my own philosophy of language, that it is possible to teach “correct” English
usage while at the same time allowing for variations in rhetorical style. Very often a conformity to one set of rules
will have to be taught, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary vary from dialect to
dialect and even from Discourse to Discourse, therefore we are back to teaching
a select variety, usually the dominant variety which by convention has become
the standard. Bartolomé uses the term
linguistically contextualized to describe text whose purpose is clear
communication that leaves little room for ambiguity. This type of text is
essential to written communication in a complex, knowledge based society but it
should not be considered superior,
(Bartolomé 1998).
Bizzell leaves room open for not only
variations in rhetorical style but also in language and dialect in what she
refers to as hybrid Discourses, (Bizzell 2000).
This is not unlike a long established tradition of including works from
different languages and time periods in academic discourse. Academics are expected to know or be open to
learning other languages. Scholars for
years have treated Latin, Greek, Provencal, 16th century English,
and even 10th century English as equally valuable for creative,
poetic value and for scientific value.
Now is perhaps the time to include some other non-traditional texts as
well in the study of any academic subject.
Principles
On a day to day basis, I have general
principles that are constantly in mind when I am considering or teaching language.
Some of these arise from my general personal
philosophy and some from thinkers we have studied in this class on
sociolinguistics and others I have taken in the Applied Linguistics program at
the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
They are, briefly considered, as follows:
Principle number one is that all dialects
are equal but one will be socially dominant.
Therefore it will be thought to be the correct one and will confer
status on its speakers, subordinating speakers of other dialects. As teachers of the “correct” version, we must
not denigrate the way or the language that other people speak in any way.
Principle number two, language has power to build up or tear
down. It has power to injure and power
to heal. The first purpose of any
teacher is to use that power whenever possible to encourage and to edify their
students. Teaching is using language to
make connections to knowledge that will strengthen and encourage students in
their personal and academic lives.
Principle number three is that language is
a vehicle for ideology. The way a
society believes itself to be, or wants to see itself will be expressed not
just in outward sharing of mythology but in all the subtle ways words can
reinforce worldview. This is highly
problematic for school systems and teachers which try at one level to avoid
controversy but at another level choose a version of the common narrative to
envelope and nurture the information they teach. There is probably no way around communicating
one’s personal world view, hopefully it is not too cynical or too rigid, but
that it gives hope and purpose to students to better their lives.
Principle number four is that language is
an identity marker. It is perhaps the
most significant means we use to distinguish the members of one group from
another. It is perhaps the strongest
unifying force for people and the first means used to identify threats to the
group identity and survival. One
cannot teach multi-cultural students without allowing them to establish their
own identities and their own world views which at times will clash with yours.
Principle number five is that we teach
language including, all the elements of listening, speaking, reading and
writing, because of the power it gives our students to effect change in their
own lives, to get a job, to change someone’s mind, to explain, persuade, argue
a case, cause a revolution, or to stop one.
These are things done with the power of words wielded with skill, the
skill that they hopefully learn in school.
Language is not a game, it has a purpose.
Finally, principle number six is that
language allows us to fully express ourselves as human beings, to bond with
others, to enjoy life, to move people, to astound, to surprise, to come to a
deeper understanding of life. This is an
element available to all, it is not usually taught in school. We must
understand that its complexity and the complexity of our students will always
be more than we can fully comprehend.
REFERENCES
Bartolomé, L. (1998)
The Mis-Teaching of Academic Discourses:
The Politics of Language. Toronto: Harper Collins.
Butler, J. (1997).
Excitable speech: A politics of the performative: New York. Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1999). Discourses, socio-culturally situated
educational theory, and the failure problem. University of California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Gordon,
M. (2006). Interview with William Labov. Journal of English Linguistics, 34(4),
332-351.DOI:
10.1177/0075424206294308. http://eng.sagepub.com/content/34/4/332
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress; Education as the
Practice of Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
hooks, bell. (2000). Where We
Stand: Class Matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reid, Thomas, (1764). An Inquiry into the Human Mind,
Retrieved April 6, 2014 from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/reid1764.pdf.
Stalmaszczyk, Piotr. Marx and Philosophy Review of Books.
Retrieved 23 February 2014, from http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviewofbooks/reviews/2010/231
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future
of Work and Power. United States of America, Basic Books Inc.
