Skip to content


Latest Blog Entries

Linguistic Relativity, Whorf, Linguistic Anthropology

Kathryn Woolard, SLA President

The question of linguistic relativity is the topic of an August 29, 2010 New York Times magazine article, “You Are What You Speak
 
Many linguistic anthropologists were surprised by the article’s representation of Benjamin Lee Whorf’s ideas and by the scant reference to the longstanding tradition of research in linguistic anthropology. Most often known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or the theory of linguistic relativity, the notion that the diversity of linguistic structures affects how people perceive and think about the world has been a canonical topic of American linguistic anthropology. This discipline’s exploration of the relation of linguistic diversity to perception and cognition has never ceased nor been relegated to the “loony fringes of disrepute,” as the article’s author Guy Deutscher puts it (assuming that he did not mean that as a characterization of our entire field). Across the decades, the pendulum has swung from more relativist to more universalist and back to nuanced relativist readings of the evidence, and anthropologists’ methods of investigation usually differ markedly from psychologists’. Nonetheless, various framings of the question of linguistic relativity have long remained on the anthropological agenda, from the days of Boas, Sapir and Whorf to the present.
 
Whorf’s own statements of his theory look little like the caricature that opens the NYT article and much more like the position that Deutscher himself offers as reasonable and compelling. Far from holding that “the inventory of ready-made words” in a language “forbids” speakers to think specific thoughts, Whorf argued that patterns of grammatical structures, often the most covert ones at that, give rise not to a language prison but to a “provisional analysis of reality” and habits of mind, very much as Deutscher concludes. This is a view that many in linguistic anthropology continue to find compelling, in varying ways.
 
Below are just a few references to the extensive linguistic anthropological background to the NYT article.  For starters, it’s useful – and fun!  - to read Whorf himself, with classic pieces available in:
1956  Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. John B. Carroll (ed.). MIT Press.
 
In many publications across a career focused on this area of investigation, John Lucy (Psychology and Human Development, U. Chicago) has offered historical overviews of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and detailed study of specific proposals about linguistic relativity, informed by both linguistic anthropology and psychology:
 
Lucy, John A.  (2004).  Language, culture, and mind in comparative perspective.  In M. Achard and S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind.  Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications [distributed by the University of Chicago Press], pp. 1-21. 

Download (PDF, 451.67KB)

Lucy, John A. 1997 Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.

Lucy, John A. 1996 The scope of linguistic relativity: an analysis and review of empirical research. In John J. Gumperz and Stephen Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, Cambridge Univeristy Press, pp. 37-69.

Lucy, John A. (1985). Whorf’s view of the linguistic mediation of thought. In E. Mertz and R. J. Parmentier (Eds.), Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives.  New York: Academic Press, pp. 73-97. Reprinted in B. Blount (Ed.), Language Culture, and Society: A Book of Readings (2nd ed.).  Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1995, pp. 415-438.

Lucy, John A. 1992 Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, John A. 1992  Grammatical Categories and Cognition: a Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.
 
 
For newcomers to the field, a good overview of linguistic relativity and its place in linguistic anthropology is offered by Sandro Duranti (Anthropology, UCLA) in a forthcoming article:
 
Duranti, A. in press. Linguistic anthropology: Language as a non-neutral medium. Raj Mesthrie (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Download (PDF, 279.23KB)


 
For the late-20th century renewal of the question of relativity from a variety of perspectives, including chapters by authors mentioned in this blog entry, see:
John J. Gumperz and Stephen Levinson, 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
 
Over an extensive set of publications not designed for the casual reader, Michael Silverstein (Anthropology, Linguistics, and Psychology, University of Chicago) has brought Whorf to bear in formulating one of the key research paradigms of contemporary linguistic anthropology, the investigation of the linguistic and social concomitants of linguistic ideologies. The first half of the following chapter offers a good approach to Silverstein’s interpretation:
Silverstein, M. 2000. Whorfianism and the Linguistic Imagination of Nationality. In Paul Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language. SAR Press.         
 
Those intrigued by the controversially different readings of Whorf’s ideas may want to look at Emily Schultz’s (Anthropology, St. Cloud State University) original analysis of Whorf’s rhetoric and her politico-cultural account of its ambiguities.  The book’s title is all too apt for the NYT’s representation:  
Schultz, E. 1990. Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1990.
 
The NYT article makes only brief mention of linguistic anthropologist John Haviland (Anthropology Dept. and Director of the Linguistic Anthropology Laboratory, UCSD), but it builds much of its central story around his seminal research on cardinal directions in the Australian language Guugu Yimithirr and indigenous languages of Mexico. Here are references for some of Haviland’s work, as well as fellow linguistic anthropologist Stephen Levinson’s (Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen) studies building on that, as also mentioned in the NYT:
 
Haviland, John B.  “Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimidhirr pointing gestures.”  Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, Vol. III(1), pp. 3-45.  (1993)
 
Haviland, John B. and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.)   Special issue: spatial conceptualization in Mayan languages. Linguistics  vol. 32-4/5.  (1994)  
 
Haviland, John B.  “Guugu Yimithirr Cardinal Directions.” Ethos 26(1) (March 1998), pp. 25-47.  (1998)
 
Haviland, John B.  “Pointing, gesture spaces, and mental maps.”  In Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Action, David McNeill, editor.  Pp. 13-46.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   (2000)
 
Levinson, S. 2003 Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.
 
The  series that Levinson edits on “Language, Culture and Cognition” from Cambridge University Press has published a number of advanced studies in this area, including recent books by linguistic anthropologists that address two of the key topics raised in the NYT’s article,  the discursive formulation of spatial relations (Bennardo) and evidential constructions (Kockelman):
 
Bennardo, Giovanni 2009. Language, Space, and Social Relationships; A Foundational Cultural Model in Polynesia.  Cambridge University Press.
 
Kockelman, Paul 2010. Language, Culture and Mind; Natural Constructions and Social Kinds. Cambridge University Press.
 
 
This list is far from an exhaustive inventory of the very extensive anthropological literature on the issues and data discussed the NYT piece, and captures only a few of the perspectives anthropologists have brought to the question. We welcome additions to these suggested readings.
 
For more on Deutscher’s article and on other journalistic representations of Whorf’s hypothesis from linguistic anthropology, check these links to comments by the former SLA webmaster,  Kerim Friedman (Department of Indigenous Culture, National Dong Hwa University):
 

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity, Linguistic Relativity.

Tagged with , , , .


Michel DeGraff on Haitian Kreyòl

Comments by Michel DeGraff on responses to his petition on Haitian Kreyòl

As it turns out, these responses echo age-old arguments about the (mis)use of language in Haitian schools and in Haitian society at large. Yves Dejean and many others have addressed such arguments in previous publications. See, for example, Yves Dejean’s 2006 book _Yon lekòl tèt anba nan yon lekòl tèt anba_. As shown in Dejean’s publications, many of these counter-arguments against his petition have been made made and un-made over and over again.

Unfortunately my current schedule won’t allow time to engage in these discussions. The good news is that I have already addressed similar arguments in a couple of mailing lists targeted to (mostly) non-academic types interested in Haiti and to educators and NGOs in Haiti—people who are much closer to the facts (and to the trenches!) of these debates. My responses on these mailing lists seem to apply to the responses that you’ve forwarded to me. So I’ll just cut-and-paste from these earlier posts and add a few more specific comments here an there.

Also see my recent Op-Ed articles in the Boston Globe in the U.S. and Le Nouvelliste in Haiti:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/16/language_barrier_in_haiti/
http://www.lenouvelliste.com/articleforprint.php?PubID=1&ArticleID=82891

Re the question “Kreyòl instead of French” vs. “Kreyòl alongside French” and re the comparison between Haiti vs. Germany, Switzerland, etc:

XXX in her post, like many before, has mis-interpreted the fundamental objective of Professor Dejean’s petition and my own position.

Fortunately some of the core issues in XXX’s post are already addressed in the following paragraph in Dejean’s petition—which I would invite XXX and others to re-read:

“Many countries in the world, especially in Africa and Asia, have 2, 3, 4 or more areas that lack a common language. This problem exists nowhere in Haiti. With Creole (i.e., a language that EVERYONE speaks in Haiti) as the language of instruction, all children would be able to study calculus, geography, history, etc., with utmost earnestness. Similarly they will be able to take advantage of any good program for the study of French, a language that has been implanted in Haiti since colonial times.”

Far from us any thought to “limit education” to Kreyòl and impose monolingualism on all Haitians. Our objective is “simply” for Haitian schools to make systematic use of Kreyòl as the language of instruction for all academic subjects, and especially for literacy, This objective is based on decades of research of the beneficial role of the native language as medium of instruction and on the robust fact that Kreyòl is the one language that *every* Haitian in Haiti speaks—and most as their *only* language.

Of course, using Kreyòl as the language of instruction does not prevent any Haitian schools that *already* have the financial means—a minuscule number in Haiti—to look and pay for *adequate* teachers to teach French, Spanish, English… and perhaps even Fongbe, Yoruba, Swahili, Chinese, etc. But all these languages would be taught as what they are, that is as *foreign* languages.

For now it’s not clear to me how many schools in Haiti would even be able to find and pay teachers who are competent to adequately teach French to the general population. The vast majority of Haitian teachers are still not fluent in French. No wonder that after two centuries of education in French (or some version of French) the vast majority of population still cannot speak French. Compare with, say, Spanish-speaking Haitians in the Dominican Republic, English-speaking Haitians in the U.S., French-speaking Haitians in Montreal, German-speaking Haitians in Germany, etc. The issue is clear: in Haiti for the past two centuries there simply has not been any adequate linguistic or pedagogical milieu that would allow Haitians to learn French.

Be that as it may, the education system in Haiti is still struggling to fund basic training of Haitian teachers and publication of Kreyòl text books, especially in mathematics and experimental sciences for the higher grades. So my hunch is that it is such efforts that currently deserve highest priority—efforts to ensure that the majority of Haitian children receive adequate instruction in their native languages so they can gain mastery in other domains, without any linguistic chip on their shoulders.

Another highest priority is a well-informed and massive educational campaign so that teachers, parents and students all understand the value of using children’s native language in their schools as an indispensable basis for building knowledge in all other cognitive and academic areas—as documented in decades of linguistic and pedagogical research.

For some online references on this topic, see:

http://www.unesco.org/education/information/wer/index.htm

Re the claim that French should be used as language of instruction in Haiti because most Haitian parents (allegedly) want their children to learn French in school—let’s assume, for the sake of argumentation, that there’s empirical support for such a claim (I myself don’t know of any such reliable statistics about “most Haitian parents”):

I remember studies going back to the 1940s and 1950s that suggested that most African-American children prefer to play with white dolls instead of black dolls. See, e.g., Kenneth and Mamie Phipps Clark’s famous dolls studies. For a fictional take on this syndrome, see Toni Morrisson’s “Bluest Eye.” In the Clarks’ studies, the majority of black children found the black dolls bad, dirty and ugly, while the white dolls were considered nice and pretty. And the black children often refused to identify with the black dolls.

In a related vein, there are studies from the 1960s onward that have documented the various ways whereby francophone Canadians in Montreal often look down upon their native French and consider anglophone Canadians superior (see, e.g., Lambert et al’s 1960 article “Evaluative reactions to spoken language” in _Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_).

The “most Haitian parents wants French” argument could then be extrapolated to these cases to argue for: (i) the massive distribution of white dolls among African-American children, and (ii) the promotion of English over French in Montreal. Fortunately, black civil-right leaders like the Kenneth and Mamie Clark and Thurgood Marshall in the U.S. and pro-French language-policy makers in Québec knew better—though much work remains to be done on both fronts!

And I suspect that most serious scholars would not have used the Clarks’ and Lambert et al’s studies to argue for the widespread distribution of white dolls to black kids and the wholesale adoption of English in Québec. What these studies suggest is that stigmatized groups often internalize the stigmatization they suffer from, thus the need for aggressive policies to combat said stigmatization—be it linguistic or otherwise.

Here’s a quote from Kenneth Clark’s 1965 book _Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power_ about “The Psychology of the Ghetto” (p63f):

“Human beings who are forced to live under ghetto conditions and whose daily experience tells them that almost nowhere in society are they respected and granted the ordinary dignity and courtesy accorded to others will, as a matter of course, begin to doubt their own worth. Since every human being depends upon his cumulative experiences with others for clues as to how he should view and value himself, children who are consistently rejected understandably begin to question and doubt whether they, their family, and their group really deserve no more respect from the larger society than they receive. These doubts become the seeds of a pernicious self- and group-hatred, the Negro’s complex and debilitating prejudice against himself.”

So I myself would not take the claim that “most Haitian parents want French for their children” (a consequence of external and internalized discrimination) as a serious argument that French, a foreign language for most Haitian children, should be used as language of instruction in Haiti. The use of French as language of instruction for Kreyòl-speaking children in Haiti is exactly what Dejean’s petition argues against. And this petition is one step among others toward fighting centuries of “ghettoization” against monolingual Kreyòl-speakers in Haiti (i.e., the vast majority of Haitians).

Here are some related comments cut-and-pasted from a previous discussion on this topic on another mailing list:

As for the resistance you mention on the parts of parents about Kreyòl-based education: It is a well-established result in social psychology that the oppressed often internalize the stigmatization that is imposed on them by the élites of their society. The Martinican psychiatrist Frantz Fanon has offered many case studies of linguistic insecurity in the context of colonial and neo-colonial societies, with an analysis of francophilia among (wanna-be) francophones in Africa and the Caribbean. The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci and French
sociologists Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu have written quite on how State institutions, including the school systems, create and maintain these self-hating attitudes across generations that despise their local linguistic and cultural assets.

In the particular case of Haitian Kreyòl-speaking parents, their resistance to Kreyòl-based education seems related to the very sort of attitudes illustrated at ONG cluster meetings where Kreyòl is, by and large, effectively excluded and to the sort of arguments and value
judgments voiced in your email below about French and Creole, with your claim that lack of fluency in French (i.e., taking French as a foreign language in Haiti) would be a cause of “impoverishment” in Haiti.

You wrote today (July 21, 2010) that we should convince these parents that teaching in Kreyòl is, not a step backward, but an efficient teaching method. You also wrote that we should do so, not with words, but with paractice and exemple. Yet the practice so far—for example,
the practice by yourself, by the education cluster and by many state and private organizations—is to use French or English, and exclude Kreyòl, thus excluding the very people that need to be convinced that Kreyòl is a valid language!

In effect, all these practices and examples convey the perception that Kreyòl is not “good enough” as a language and that it is drastically inferior to French, and that Haitians who speak Kreyòl only are not valid interlocutors in these debates about their education. In turn,
these parents find themselves in an ideological trap that the State, the ONG and other public and private organizations have implicitly set up: these parents become victims of the widespread and deeply entrenched perception that social promotion in Haiti is irremediably linked to mastery of the French language, and that fluency in French is a proof of
intelligence. But many Haitians know better. Witness the Kreyòl saying “Pale franse pa vle di lespri!” (=”Speaking French doesn’t mean that you’re intelligent”). Examples are not hard to find.

Instead of defending their children’s human rights and instead of insisting that they be educated in their mother tongue (per UNESCO’s own charter) so they too can have access to a quality education, Kreyòl-speaking parents become victim of this anti-Kreyòl perception
and want their children to learn to read and write in a foreign language, namely French. When children are first taught to read and write in a language that’s foreign to them (and that’s what French is for most Haitian children: a *foreign* language), they cannot comprehend
what they are “taught” and are reduced to silence in the classroom and to rote-memorization of French texts. Worse yet, they run a high risk of becoming academically handicapped for the rest of their lives. These facts have been established for more than 50 years of research and
practice in psycholinguistics and education.

What’s sorely needed is a vigorous and sincere campaign for both the systematic use and the systematic promotion of Kreyòl in all social contexts—a campaign that will educate all demographic sectors about the social, psychological and pedagogical virtues of the use of Kreyòl at all levels of education, especially at the fundamental stages,
starting with pre-school, in order to create strong cognitive foundations in the minds of our children. Such foundations simply cannot bypass the linguistic and cultural assets from our children’s homes and communities.

Such a campaign to elevate the status of Kreyòl and to ensure that parents and educators believe in its use as language of instruction has to start with the Haitian State and with the various organizations engaged in education in Haiti, including the NGOs and individuals on
this email list.

To repeat, the practice and examples in NGO clusters, governmental offices and private businesses that rarely, if ever, use Kreyòl are among the factors that reinforce the perception that Kreyòl is not to be considered on a par with French. Given such practices, Haitian
parents, even those who don’t speak French (the majority!), are simply making what they consider a “wise” investment in what they see as the differential values of the goods offered by Haiti’s “linguistic market”—to use a term-of-art from the work of sociologist Pierre
Bourdieu.

So, Mr. XXX, let’s work together in *concrete* fashion via “practice and examples” so that one day the majority of Haitian children in Haiti, just like the majority of French children in France, can blossom in pre-schools, in schools and in universities that make systematic and
expert use of their native language as language of instruction. That way, our children can grow to become competent and self-confident professionals in the language that they will most need to interact with virtually all their compatriots.

Re the “the teaching of both Haitian AND French” in Haiti, more cut-and-paste from a previous post to another list:

Re your stated desire that all Haitians become bilingual: My linguistics
training and expertise, plus everyday observations of language learning
in different contexts, have convinced me that fluency in any language is
imposible without a certain minimum of exposure to data from that
language. In Haiti, there’s simply not enough fluent French speakers or
competent French teachers to ensure such required exposure to French.
The only linguistic immersion in which most Haitians find themselves is
Kreyòl.

Haitians in the Dominican Republic, in the U.S., and in Montreal
routinely learn Spanish, English and French, respectively—much better
than they ever manage to learn French in Haiti. This seems to me clear
evidence that Haitians can indeed learn any language once they’re
immersed in the adequate linguistic milieu.

Here’s one possible solution to this dilemma—one that may help achieve
*total* bilingualism in Haiti: What about importing hundreds of
thousands of competent French teachers or millions of fluent French
speakers and disperse them throughout Haiti? This seems to be a minimal
condition to ensure that some 9 million Haitians who speak Kreyòl only
would, one day, become perfectly bilingual in Kreyòl and French.

Re the status and teaching of French in Haiti, another cut-and-pasted passage:

it may seem ironic that the best way to teach French to Kreyòl-speaking
Haitians is to actually start with the fact that they don’t know French
and to teach them French as a foreign language.

Such teaching of French cannot be relegated to teachers who don’t know
French (the majority in Haiti), who have no formation in the teaching of
French and whose jobs is to teach other subjects—reading, writing,
math, science, etc. The teaching of French in most Haitian schools must
happen in French-language classrooms by teachers who know French and who
are trained as French-language teachers. It is a well-attested fact
that most Haitian schools lack teachers with such a profile.

As for the claim that non-fluency in French will impoverish the country,
this is a self-fulfilling prophecy—a myth that too many Haitians have
bought into for too long, with the complicity of the élites and
organizations that ignore the linguistic and cultural assets of our
nation. This myth, among other fallacies, is at the root of the
State’s failure to-date to educate its general population.

That’s why it’s so important to get rid of all these explicit and
subliminal messages that put Kreyòl the status of a second-class
language and to enlist every opportunity to use and promote Kreyòl in
all institutions operating in Haiti, including NGOs, governmental
offices and private businesses. How about a Morisseau-Leroy Prize or a
Frankétienne Prize for professors that make the best use of Kreyòl in
their classroom? Without relentless pro-Kreyòl-advocacy, parents (and
teachers) will continue to reject Kreyòl (and Kreyòl books) as a valid
medium of instruction. Unfortunately this rejection eventually impedes
the cognitive and academic development of most Haitian children.

When Haitian schools start making competent use of Haitian children’s
mother tongue, they will, at last, stand a chance to successfully teach
them a variety of useful skills which they can use to serve their fellow
Kreyòl-speaking compatriots, and they’l be able to do so in Kreyòl
without any linguistic insecurity. Such practical skills can, in turn,
concretely contribute to socio-economic improvement. In the current
system, children in most schools do not learn to adequately read or
write, they do not learn much that is useful, and they do not become
fluent in French. What they end up “learning” are a bunch of formulaic
phrases that they mimic without much understanding. Anyhow, in most
rural communities, French is of relatively little practical value as
compared to Kreyòl. So most schools amount to a waste of money, a
waste of energy and a waste of hope.

I think we can do better than that.

-michel.

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity, Language and Social Justice.

Tagged with , .


They are them; we are me and others.

In his 30 August editorial, “We’ve Seen This Movie Before,” Stanley Fish notes that critics of Park51 (the so-called ‘Ground Zero mosque’) describe the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 as an act committed by Islam, for which all Muslims are to some extent responsible. In contrast, the stabbing of a cab driver by an attacker who reportedly asked the driver if he is Muslim is seen as “the act of a disturbed individual,” not a representative of an anti-Islamic position.

I feel that the notion of strategic essentialism (Spivak 1988; Bucholtz 2003) may be relevant here, by an analysis through the lens of imposed adequation (Hodges 2008).

Spivak described strategic essentialism as the assumption of an identity position as a means for subalterns to organize political response while still recognizing and critiquing the problems of essentialist discourses. Hodges analyzed narratives through which American authorities equated secular Ba’athist Iraq with Qutbist Islamist al-Qaeda, imposing a politically useful identity between the two groups.

In the case Fish critiques, critics identify the builders of Park51 with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks while denying that suspicion or antipathy toward Islam is a basis for identification.

As I say, I feel like there is an analysis there, but at this point I’ll look forward to someone else making it.

Bucholtz, Mary. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3), 398-416.

Hodges, Adam. 2008. The ‘war on terror’ narrative: The (inter)textual construction and contestation of sociopolitical reality. PhD thesis. Boulder: University of Colorado.

Spivak, Gayatri. 1988. Subaltern studies: Deconstructing historiography. In R. Guha and G. Spivak (eds.) Selected Subaltern Studies. London: Oxford University Press. 3-32.

Posted in In the news.

Tagged with , , .


Whorf gets a makeover

A lengthy excerpt from Guy Deutscher’s new book examines current evidence for linguistic relativity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity.

Tagged with , , .


Peer Previewing

From: Leila Monaghan, University of Wyoming, 8/25/10

Interesting article in the New York Times on changing peer review process on articles. Makes me think about whether this blog might be a good place for previewing articles in front of our peers, asking for comments on particular pieces of work before we send them to journals or publishers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/arts/24peer.html

Posted in In the news.


DEA and Ebonics

Repost of an article by H. Samy Alim and Imani Perry originally written for the The Grio blog:
http://www.thegrio.com/opinion/why-the-deas-embrace-of-ebonics-is-lost-in-translation.php

When the headlines appeared this week that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had issued a request to hire up to nine linguists proficient in Ebonics, it appeared it might be yet another cruel joke about the language of African-Americans. After all, who can forget the onslaught of racist “humor” and the angry vitriolic comments that circulated internationally after the “Oakland Ebonics controversy” a little over a decade ago.

The DEA may not have known the full ramifications of its decision to label the language of many African-Americans, “Ebonics,” but we bet they know now. The word itself is a controversy. The truth is, very few people would have even realized that the DEA was hiring over two thousand linguistic experts fluent in over one hundred different language varieties had “Ebonics” not been on the list. But what is causing this uproar? What can we learn from this moment? What does this highlight about the relationships between language, race, and power in America? As a linguist and a legal scholar we hope to offer an analysis that will allow us to learn from this moment.

Linguistic Issues
The firestorm due to the DEA’s request to hire experts in “Ebonics” highlights several educational, social, and linguistic ironies, each of which can help us understand issues of language and race in the United States and globally. First, from a linguistic perspective it is upsetting — and quite frankly, frustrating — that after decades of linguistic evidence and research trying to convince the larger public that the language variety of African-Americans (known by linguists as “African-American Language” or “African-American Vernacular English”, AAVE) is systematic and rule-governed, the only people we have managed to convince is the DEA.

As evidenced by the spate of caustic, hateful responses on Internet websites, so many Americans continue to believe that the language variety of African-Americans is nothing but “substandard,” a “bastardization of English,” or “just plain ignorant.” The irony here is, of course, that those who continue to make such comments are only highlighting their own ignorance about language, as these statements cannot be supported by scientific evidence, nor are they given any credence by the Linguistic Society of America. In fact, linguists note that such comments represent mere social judgments based in classist, racist views of black people (even if made by black folks themselves).

In the DEA’s list of languages, it is both interesting and instructive that “Ebonics” falls right in between “Ebo,” a Nigerian language often referred to as Igbo, and “English.” What many do not know is that much of the distinctiveness of the language of African-Americans is due to the language contact situation created by slavery, where African languages (with Igbo being one of them) came into contact with European languages (in this case, English). The language variety developed in a unique manner due to centuries of de jure and de facto segregation and is now the most widely studied variety in the United States.

African-Americans continue to develop the language variety, as it has become an important symbol of ethnic identity, political solidarity, and cultural pride. What the uninformed refer to as a “bastardization of English” is actually not unlike the many varieties of Creole that have grown out of similar language contact situations around the world. In short, “Ebonics” which is is the linguistic legacy of the African slave trade, decades of legal and social segregation, and the denial of formal education to generations of African-Americans. It is, in part, the linguistic result of white supremacist, state-sponsored oppression and neglect.

Legal Issues
The truth is that the language variety spoken by many African-Americans is distinct enough from Standard English to be terribly misinterpreted. It is of particular importance that it is understood to be a language and treated as such in the judicial system. African-Americans are grotesquely overrepresented at every stage in the criminal justice system. And African-Americans are the most likely Americans to be subject to crime of various sorts. The effectiveness of criminal investigations depends upon an ability to interpret evidence. Despite the fact that African American vernacular is often mimicked and is popular on the nation’s airwaves, fluency in this language is not the norm.

And despite the fact that it is a language that is denigrated by being characterized as “broken” or “ignorant,” it is in fact, a language and as such, any given person may or may not be competent in it. Not all African-Americans are fluent in it, and it is not exclusively spoken by African-Americans. Many of its speakers are also fluent in standard English and “switch codes” depending upon context and audience. Like any other language, it is learned and there are varying level of competence among speakers. AAVE remains a primary language in poor and working class African-American communities across the country. If our criminal justice system is to more effectively protect the residents of communities that are most likely to be the victims of crime, then knowledge of the languages spoken by perpetrators, witnesses, and victims is key.

Moreover, in every language community in which investigations of criminal activity are taking place, investigators seek translators. They seek speakers of Korean, Spanish, Russian and Japanese. African-American language is no outlier in this respect. What is different is that ignorance and bigotry have clouded judgment in this instance.

The risks of having DEA and other criminal investigators who are not competent in African-American language might be even greater than in other instances. There is abundant evidence of discriminatory treatment of black suspects in every aspect of the criminal justice system. There is also a great deal of research which reveals widespread unconscious discriminatory bias in U.S. culture. A misunderstanding of words in the law enforcement context is a recipe for disaster in such a context. When there is uncertainty about the content of speech, the presence of racial bias increases the possibility that investigators will presume a meaning to words or phrases that confirm negative stereotypes about Black criminality.

In this instance Ebonics experts are being hired for DEA investigations. But language experts can and do serve an important role in various kinds of legal processes. For example, housing discrimination cases often rely upon the evidence of what John Baugh calls, “linguistic profiling,” or the use of speech markers as a basis of discriminatory treatment. It is essential that we understand how proxies for race, like speech and style, are used to discriminate.
In the 1999 Clifford v. Commonwealth case, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a witness could testify that a person speaking on the telephone “sounded Black” without violating the rules of evidence. The problem the court faced in it’s opinion was that because there is such little knowledge about black English as a language, the testimony and the courts affirmation of that testimony came across sounding like speaking AAVE was somehow inborn or inherent to black people. It is not. However, courts can and should be attuned to the appropriate assessment of language as a source of evidence and identification.

Educational Issues
There is a serious educational point to be made here and it is perhaps the most tragic irony highlighted by the DEA’s decision to hire experts in “Ebonics.” For decades, linguists and educators, including their leading national organizations, have maintained the position that the language of African-Americans (as well as “Chicano English,” “Puerto Rican English,” varieties of Spanish and indigenous varieties), can be a powerful and effective tool be used in classrooms in order teach students how to transition between “African-American language” and “standard English.” Globally, we have research that supports this fact: Wherever you have students who speak marginalized language varieties that are different from the “standard,” it is actually beneficial to use the language of the students as a resource to learn the “standard.”

So, the tragic irony is that while schools and educational policy-makers continue to deny the legitimacy of African-American language, the DEA has no problem doing so. Rather than waiting until youth turn to criminal activity as a way out of poverty, we first need to recognize the pedagogical value of African-American language in schools as a way to stop America’s “school-to-prison” pipeline before it begins. In short, the legitimacy of African-American language is needed from the educational arm of the federal government, not the enforcement arm.

For over three decades educators and linguists have diligently been making this point in the classroom and in the courts. In 1979 the case of Martin Luther King Junior Elementary School Children et al. v. Ann Arbor School District was decided in a federal district court in Michigan. The suit was brought on behalf of African-American students who suffered academically because the Ann Arbor school system did not take the fact that they were AAVE speakers into account as a matter to be addressed in instruction. The court ruled on behalf of the students in that case, and yet 31 years later we have not instituted a means of addressing the role of language in sustaining educational inequality and nurturing this society’s opportunity gap.

Finally, the DEA’s Ebonics can of worms exposes the ugly underbelly of anti-Black racism in the United States (just check the long list of Internet comments, and those that will surely follow this article). Rather than spouting off ugly comments that expose our ignorance, readers should take the time to inform themselves. University libraries are filled with linguistic studies of the language of African-Americans that point out that the variety is systematic and rule-governed like all language varieties. In inserting “Ebonics” in its list of languages, the DEA has infuriated many Americans because the mere inclusion of the variety by a governmental body legitimizes it to some extent (despite the negative and unhelpful link to the criminalization of African-Americans). We should ask ourselves: Why am I so infuriated by the legitimization of the language of African-Americans? Are my feelings based in scientific analysis or social prejudice? African-Americans who immediately decry the the existence or recognition of Ebonics must ask themselves if they are motivated by shame or legitimate concerns.

If the response to this moment devolves into ridicule and shame, we lose an important opportunity to improve a deeply flawed and unequal system. Instead of making this about bigoted and classist jokes about “drug dealers,” let’s use it as an opportunity to learn more about the people who live in this society, and do a better job of protecting them.
As part of this opportunity, we must recognize that, since all language varieties, including “Ebonics,” Igbo and English, are deemed equal by linguists (folks who devote their lives to studying language), it is only our prejudice and the lack of political will that prevents us from valuing and legitimizing a given language. Standard English is not the standard because it is superior, but because it was and is the language of the powerful. Sharing power in a multi-ethnic democracy requires both making standard English accessible to all of the nation’s children, and valuing all of the nation’s languages. After all, how we feel about a particular language is a strong indicator of how we feel about its speakers. Check yourself.

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity, Language and Social Justice.

Tagged with , , .


Haitian Kreyòl and Catalan

Reposted from Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
2010/08/24 at 3:13 am

Catalonia’s educational system is one of immersion in Catalan. Catalan- and Spanish-speaking children alike (as well as immigrants from other countries) learn mandatorily in Catalan; Spanish is also taught. Spanish is not “the language of the majority” in Catalonia (or Galiza, for that matter). Be as it may, quantitative data about language distribution is only one of the criteria for language policies. The relevant criterium in Catalonia is that Catalan is the historical language of the country.

As for the Haitian case and the petition, my opinion is that the various arguments given (language distribution, language rights, pedagogical reasons, parents’ attitudes) cannot be discussed in isolation. For example, parents’ preferences for instruction in French (if that’s the case) may be motivated for a quest for social mobility (comparable to the fantasmagoric glamour that English enjoys internationally), but language knowledge in itself may not be empowering for a given population without parallel economic and social empowerment and without the necessary structural economic changes. Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other charters deriving from it ensure the right of children to receive education in their native language in order to prevent discrimination; but democratic states have the obligation to set up educational policies oriented to the collective good, and these policies may included teaching of or instruction in other languages. Thirdly, theoretically early instruction in one’s native language may be more effective for acquiring literacy, but without the proper materials this may not be the case; and immersion literacy programs in an L2 have also proven effective. Finally, the different language policies for public education in bilingual (or monolingual!) societies may yield different results as to the hoarding of opportunities (“empowerment”) for various segments and social groups; but, if inserted in a class system (such as is the case), no “democratic” educational policy can challenge the logic of cultural capital and therefore of social classification, and, thus, polemics such as this one may simply mask the power games within the technical, intellectual and political fields that manage Language as such a source of capital.

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity, Language and Social Justice.

Tagged with , , , .


Traces of a Lost Language Discovered

Reposted from Peabody Museum Press Release (http://www.peabody.harvard.edu/node/617):

Traces of a Lost Language Discovered

(Cambridge, August 23, 2010) Sometime in the early 17th century in Northern Peru, a Spaniard jotted down some notes on the back of a letter. Four hundred years later, archaeologists dug up and studied the paper, revealing the first traces of a lost language.

“It’s a little piece of paper with a big story to tell,” says Dr. Jeffrey Quilter, who has conducted investigations in Peru for more than three decades, and is director of the archaeological project at Magdalena de Cao Viejo in the El Brujo Archaeological Complex, where the paper was excavated in 2008. Quilter explains this simple list offers “a glimpse of the peoples of ancient and early colonial Peru who spoke a language lost to us until this discovery.”

The writing is a set of translations from Spanish names of numbers (uno, dos, and tres) and Arabic numerals (4–10, 21, 30, 100, and 200) to the unknown language. Some of the translated numbers have never been seen before, while others may have been borrowed from Quechua or a related language. Quechua is still spoken today in Peru, along with Spanish, but in the early 17th century, many languages were spoken in the region, such as Quingnam and Pescadora. Information about them today is limited. Even so, the archaeologists were able to deduce that the lost language speakers used a decimal system like our own.

“The find is significant because it offers the first glimpse of a previously unknown language and number system,” says Quilter. “It also points to the great diversity of Peru’s cultural heritage in the early Colonial Period. The interactions between natives and Spanish were far more complex than previously thought.”

The name of the lost language is still a mystery. The American-Peruvian research team was able to eliminate Mochica, spoken on the North Coast into the Colonial Period but now extinct, and point to Quingnam and Pescadora as possible candidates. Neither Quingnam nor Pescadora, however, have been documented beyond their names. There is even a possibility that Quingnam and Pescadora are the same language but they were identified as separate tongues in early Colonial Spanish writings, so a definitive connection remains impossible to establish.

The research is detailed in the cover story of American Anthropologist published today. Read the article, Traces of a Lost Language and Number System Discovered on the North Coast of Peru, Volume 112, Number 3, September 2010.

Watch a short video of Dr. Jeffrey Quilter about the discovery. Dr. Quilter, Deputy Director for Curatorial Affairs at Harvard’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, is available for selected interviews on request.

Article Authors
Jeffrey Quilter, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Marc Zender, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Karen Spalding, Department of History, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT & Pontifical Catholic University of Peru
Régulo Franco Jordán, Fundación Wiese, Lima 27, Peru
César Gálvez Mora, National Institute of Culture, Trujillo, La Libertad, Peru
Juan Castañeda, Murga National University of Peru, Trujillo, La Libertad, Peru

Media Contact:

Faith Sutter
Communications Coordinator
Peabody Museum
Tel: 617-495-3397
sutter@fas.harvard.edu

Posted in In the news, Language Loss.


Linguistic Anthropology Roundup #12

Things seem to be happening, on our linguistic anthropology landscape. (Since Language Log has a “plaza,” we might as well name a landscape for ourselves, like people in Cibeque.)

Westerm Washington University‘s Judy Pine has started blogging for us and “Linguistic Anthropology Roundup #11″ was a blogpost about “bad words,” invented languages, and youth.

Our revered Digital Content Editor, University of Wyoming‘s Leila Monaghan has posted Haitian linguist’s Yves Dejean‘s petition about Creole language instruction in Haiti, on hebalf of MIT’s Michel DeGraff. As might be expected whenever Creole languages are discussed, that post has sparked some interesting reactions. (As an aside, I haven’t found more information about Yves Dejean’s affiliation or a personal webpage.)

And the “linktrail” from my own Linguistic Anthropology Roundup #10 went on a bit further.

  1. In Defense of Difference § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM.
  2. Daily Data Dump – Wednesday | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine.
  3. Linguistic diversity = poverty | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine.
  4. Language loss | john hawks weblog.
  5. Linguistic Anthropology Roundup #10 | Society for Linguistic Anthropology.
  6. Linguistic Diversity Does Not Equal Poverty | Creighton Barrett (Unfortunately, this blog is currently down.)
  7. Linguistic diversity, other views | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine.
  8. Language extinction ain’t no big thing? « Neuroanthropology.
  9. Cultural Diversity, Economic Development and Societal Instability » Gene Expression.
  10. Virginia Heffernan vs. ScienceBlogs « Neuroanthropology.
  11. Qeyḥ bāḥrī » Linguistic diversity; good thing… or the cause of African poverty!!.
  12. Songs From The Wood » Death of A Language.
  13. And possibly some other links.

I stopped looking at these but, with a bit of time spent on this, one could map out the intertextual links. Eventually, some enterprising person could even analyze how language and languages are conceptualized in those blogposts.

Something of an emerging linktrail that I was noticing is about attitudes toward theoretical perspectives on the so-called “Universal Grammar” (UG). I only picked a few items but it’s a rich topic for linguistic anthropology, given both four-field anthropology‘s far-reaching approach to “universals” and linguistic anthropology’s field-specific answers and reactions to linguistics (Lx) as practiced in linguistics departments.

  1. Language Log » Universal Grammar haters.
  2. Why Chomsky doesn’t count as a gifted linguist | Metaphor Hacker – Hacking Metaphors, Frames and Other Ideas.
  3. languagehat.com: Gifted Linguists.

Finally, a query about “fake translations as bilingual humour” that I sent to our LingAnth mailing-list has generated some reaction.

National Dong Hwa University‘s Kerim Friedman (fake translations as Internet meme in Taiwan and other issues of language humour)

Miami University‘s Mark Allen Peterson (Monty Python’s Hungarian phrasebook sketch)

University of Pennsylvania‘s Harold Schiffman (political humour and translation)
Language policy Cartoon images.

And, again, Kerim Friedman (how Hollywood represents languages).

How Hollywood represents foreign speech: a video slide show. – By Eric Hynes – Slate Magazine.

be sure to visit the actual thread on LingAnth and feel free to add to it.

In addition, University of South Carolina‘s Janina Fenigsen sent us the following list of relevant clips:

Posted in Humor, Language Diversity, Language Loss, Linktrail, Roundup, SLA.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .


More on Haitian Kreyòl and the education system

Some interesting comments on the education system in general in a
New York Times Editorial on Haitian Education

These comments were posted in response to the Petition to have textbooks in Kreyòl in the schools (the last post on this SLA Blog):

Nancy Reyes says
Are you implying that Haitian kids are dumber than kids whose first language is Catalan, Swiss dialect, Cebuano or Karanga but have to study books written in the language of the majority (Spanish, German, Tagalog, Shona)?

For younger kids, immersion works,In Africa, the teacher speaks slowly and explains things in the local language when they have a problem. And the cost of printing all textbooks in the local dialect is huge: remember, even in Haiti there are three local dialects.

Instead of spending oodles of money to print “new” textbooks in local dialect, if you want to improve education, find a way to give out cheap protein supplements into the villages and given out in school nutrition programs, so the kids brains aren’t damaged by malnutrition.

and, FYI:
It is corruption, not language, that is the cause of Haiti’s problems.
August 13, 2010, 6:31 pm

Patrick-André Mather, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras says
Dear colleagues,
I have read the petition by Yves Dejean, and as a linguist and creolist, I am probably the only “voix discordante” in this apparently unanimous support for Haitian Creole as the sole language of instruction in Haiti.

Suggesting that the current principal language of instruction (French) is the sole or main culprit for Haiti’s failing education system seems unfair and misguided. There are many examples of successful diglossic situations throughout the world, for example in Switzerland where the majority of the population speaks Swiss German, yet is educated in Standard German, without any apparent problem in students’ success rates. To think that changing the whole educational system to Haitian is going to solve the poor perfomance, low literacy rates, and underfunding of the schools is not very realistic.

Most Haitian parents WANT their children to learn French in school. Who are we to tell them otherwise, even if we mean well? How likely is such a move to succeed, if it goes against the wishes of a substantial part of the Haitian population? Learning French, in addition to Haitian Creole, gives Haitians access to a major international language, from which most of their vocabulary is derived, and which is part of Haiti’s historical and cultural heritage, whether you like it or not. It also facilitates access to all kinds of exchange programs with French-speaking countries and universities, and should not be seen purely as an instrument of discrimination. In other countries, such as Canada (Quebec), native languages like Inuktitut are used during the first 2 or 3 years of instruction, after which other languages are introduced, such as French and English. Children are perfectly capable of acquiring native-like proficiency in more than one language, and I think well-meaning American linguists should perhaps ask the Haitians themselves if they think French should be eliminated from the education system, or whether a more moderate, mixed approach should be adopted, strengthening the teaching of both Haitian AND French, instead of using French as a scapegoat for the failings of a corrupt and underfunded education system.
Although I hold the authors and signataries of this petition in high regard (some are colleagues and personal friends), I cannot sign it as it is currently worded, because it is completly one-sided, and apparently does not take into account the wishes and opinions of Haitians themselves, who are, after all, “les principaux intéressés”.
Patrick-André Mather
August 15, 2010, 12:01 am

Ronald Kephart says
The fact is that the status quo, which denies Haitian children access to literacy and at least early education through their first language, Kreyòl, is at best educational malpractice and arguably a crime against humanity, a crime by the way that virtually all the nations of the West Indies are guilty of. See the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

There is of course no doubt that Haitian children can benefit from learning French, as well as English, Spanish, and whatever other languages they might find useful. But to claim that this means that Kreyòl should not be used in schools, and especially that it should not be used for literacy acquisition, is to be oblivious to the mountains of research that have shown that children only need to learn to read once, and that they accomplish this more easily and efficiently (not to mention enjoyably) in their first language, the one they are most in tune with. Learning to read first in Kreyòl will not cut children off from French, or any other language they want to learn.

After all these centuries of abuse, can we not give these children the benefits of our linguistic and educational research?
August 17, 2010, 10:11 am

Patrick-Andre Mather says
Dear colleagues,
Haiti’s educational reforms of the 1980s and 1990s specifically mention that Kreyol should be used as the language of instruction during the first years of schooling. In addition, Kreyol and French are now both official languages, which is a welcome development. The problem is that the educational reforms have not (yet) been properly implemented, due to lack of funds, awareness, etc.. If they were, then the mixed approach which i mention in my first post would be a reality. The central problem in the Haitian education system, is that there is neither the will nor the funds to properly implement reforms that would (a) ensure that ALL Haitian children have access to free, universal public education and (b) ensure that ALL Haitian children be afforded the possibility to be educated in BOTH official languages (and also in foreign languages like Spanish and English). Trying to eliminate French from the curriculum in itself will achieve nothing.

Patrick-André Mather

Posted in In the news, Language Diversity, Language and Social Justice, Uncategorized.