Seems I misunderstood my responsibility to post by Sunday night. Nevertheless, here's my response to the topic:
"Are these hybrids language varieties or are they slang? Are they full language systems or are they reduced or less intelligent forms of Standard English?"
I would, without question, defend the status of the hybrids as language varieties; simply because they do not conform to the dominant modes of language is not evidence of their diminutive or deficient status. I'd find suspect any claims that there other reasons to believe that the hybrids are reduced or less intelligent forms of S.A.; I am becoming more and more convinced that such claims are merely justifications for discrimination, and ultimately, oppression.
This is tantamount to claiming that someone who has studied existentialism is ignorant of philosophy because they may not have studied dialectical materialism; language is a tool - if it works, and its useful, and it communicates meaning - all qualifications which Black English meets - then it's "good". Exclusionary discourse and phantom hierarchies are worthless at best, and oppressive at worst.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would not argue that a person who had studied existentialism and not dialectics was ignorant of philosophy, but neither would I argue that studying existentialism was sufficient for being a philosopher. I feel something similar about languages. While I argued in my post that there is no ideal "form" language (and thank you for your comment), I don't believe this renders incapable of judging relative merits of various languages. I feel that we can do this while refraining from moralistic value judgements by focusing on what certain languages can or cannot do in particular. An existential or dialectical work could not be produced in Ebonics, because the abstract vocabulary is not there. These philosophies required European languages, which originally devolped such amazing abstract vocabularies for theological purposes.
It is theoretically possible to produce a "reduced" language, and readers of Orwell's 1984 should recognize his "Newspeak" as one. If all language systems are equal as long as they are functional, there would be no political consequences arising from Newspeak, which is designed for the purpose of eliminating not just dissent, but the idea of dissent. But this was only possible because it was shaped by central planners, and thankfully our culture has thus far avoided that.
Note that I am not comparing any of the hybrids we have discussed to Newspeak, just trying to get you to question the relativist position and whether other views are only a form of oppression.
Any car will get you where you want to go, but some can get you there faster (objective judgement), and some in more style (subjective judgement).
An existential or dialectical work could not be produced in Ebonics, because the abstract vocabulary is not there. These philosophies required European languages, which originally devolped such amazing abstract vocabularies for theological purposes.
I'll have to argue with you on this point, although I wouldn't reduce your entire comment to this. My contention with this statement is that philosophy has never "required" language - look to Deleuze and Derrida for this one, both of whom created several new words to express their new concepts and critical insights.
Moreover, while I can't think of any immediately, and do not have any cited sources at hand, there exist many Black critical theorists who utilize Black English as a variation in their philosophical writings; they also often find that terms taken from Black English, or new terms created within the variation of Black English, are significantly more useful to them than terms in use/created by European-inspired English.
What say ye to this?
And to your point about Newspeak, the political consequences you describe, and counterpose against my arguement for functionality, actually further evidences my notion. Political consequences are material manifestation of the utility of language - language is employed solely for use... to convey meaning. I'm a huge fan of Orwell, and I think he would agree with me (a bit bravado of me, I know) when I argue for theory-as-a-toolbox: that is, our conceptualization of language is transcendental "fluff" unless we can ground it in function and usefulness.
Please note the difference between my position and relativism: the latter would argue that anything goes NO MATTER WHAT, and that variations do not have to meet any qualification to be deemed such.
I, on the other hand, have qualified what a language variation must be: useful, to the extent that it communicates meaning and expression in a functional mode. This is subjective - I'll bear the label you identify, because to claim objectivity for linguistic standards is nonsense. We have learned too much in this class to believe that transcendental, ethereal standards exist, as if given to us in some sort of immaculate conception (no offense to our Catholic friends). They have an underlying base (which has an underlying base, ad nauseum), and are often perpetuated for political (not talking about democrats/republicans here, but the deeper notion of political, or in other words, control) purposes. Once we understand this, what's the point of language? Look above: usefulness. Pragmatism? More or less.
And to your example of the faster car being objective, not so fast(dumb pun intended): remember that speed is a measure of time, and as Einstein proved, time is relative.
Post a Comment