1) It is important for educators to know about the nature of language and culture and the history of linguistic diversity in the USA so that they might better teach their students. Without knowledge of their pupils’ language(s) and/or cultures, they may treat the students as if they were all Eurowhite, “mainstream” American culture oriented individuals, when this many not be the case at all. It is important for an instructor to take into consideration that “when a youngster enters school from a cultural and language system markedly different form the culture and discourse of schooling, that youngster faces much more than the normal challenges of learning” (Johnson 2000: 275). That is, the child must learn the tacit culture of the school system, not only the material presented in the classroom. The student must be given a chance to learn how to perform before they can be expected to act and learn the way that most teachers expect them to, and this should be kept in mind.
Specific problems related to educators not recognizing these needs can arise in the school systems. Problems such as competent students being placed in “special education” classes simply because they cannot speak well, being deemed troublesome when it is that they just don’t know the “proper” way to conduct themselves in school and the classroom, and even doing poorly because of a teaching style different from their own culture. When teachers fail to realize these differences, students may become discouraged, feel that school has no purpose in their life, or become frustrated when they don’t do well on exams when they know the information.
It is important that instructors are not ignorant of these differences, and acknowledge that they may have to make some exceptions for certain students while they adjust to school life. If teachers could incorporate ways to make school more rewarding and fun for students, it seems it would be more likely they would want to attend. If things could be approached from a viewpoint that makes sense to those children from cultures other than the Eurowhite, monolingual American one, students may begin to see a reasonable purpose for them receiving an education.
2) There are many differences between the way boys/men and girls/women use language in the U.S.A. According to Deborah Tannen, in the video “He Said She Said,” children will often prefer playing with others of the same sex. Based on this, certain ways of communicating will develop. In studies, it has been shown that girls will consistently face each other and keep eye contact during conversation, while boys will opt to sit at angles or parallels and look around. Boys will often use language to affirm their status within a group. This is done by “one-upping” each other, and also by who gives and who follows orders. Girls on the other hand try not to be the center of attention. They use language to find common ground and ways to relate to one another. There is also the issue of directness versus indirectness. Men are often more literal and direct in their speech, while women would like to discuss things and are more indirect. However, there are circumstances where men tend to be even more indirect than women, such as when apologizing.
These traits, and some others I will mention shortly, can have great impact in various institutional settings. In school is there are many examples of gendered discourse and behavior. Much of the literature taught in schools is written by male authors. Women read, of course, “but almost all works considered ‘great literature’ bear male authorship and male thinking” (Johnson 2000: 77). It has also been noted that in a classroom a teacher will interact more with boys than with girls, to try to keep the boys attention in class. Thus from this, girls will talk less in school, than in other, more private settings. This idea also carries over into the workplace, where men will speak more in meetings than women. An observation made by Tannen at a faculty meeting, was that “the man who spoke the least still spoke more than the woman who spoke the most” (He Said She Said). Miscommunications could also occur when men tease or argue with women. This “ritual opposition,” deemed “agonism” by Tannen (He Said She Said), is a place where problems can arise. To men, it is the way they bond and show that they are friends. To women, it’s just being mean. When women fight, they often fight for real, unlike men who do it for “fun.”
These are simply a few of the ways in which boys/men and girls/women communicate differently and the implications that could be involved in institutional settings with such discourse.
3) I think the in-group and out-group projects were very beneficial in broadening my perspective of other cultures and the way they speak, as well as allowing me to begin to understand the way my own family communicates. For my out-group project, from speaking with people from other cultures, it really made me more aware of the issues that effect them and their discourse styles. I do not think that before I spoke with these groups I had a real appreciation for how much their language means to them. I knew that for many it was their way to pass down their history to younger generations, but after speaking to some of these people, I was able to see just how much this really meant to them and affected them.
From my own family I was able to learn more about how the dynamic structure of our communication patterns functioned. I had often thought about the way we spoke to each other, but I had never really analyzed any conversations. Afterwards I was able to understand a bit better how my family relates to one another and why I speak the way I do.
I believe the purpose of projects like these is to give people an opportunity to learn about other cultures and why they speak the way they do. These activities allow a person to begin to see things from another point of view, and why certain aspects of culture and language are important to different people. This is very important in today’s society, where so many people are ego- and ethnocentric, focusing more on how things affect them and their culture than what is happening to others.
I think I learned a lot about difference, power and discrimination from these projects. I realized that stereotypes are still rampant in the media, such as in movies like “Lilo and Stitch,” in TV shows, and even the news. I also became aware that the government and people in general still don’t seem to realize the effects they have on each other and other cultures.
4) “Bilingual education is a waste of money. When we teach Spanish to kids of Latin American descent in grade school, they don’t learn English and pretty soon everyone in the U.S. will have to learn Spanish.”
There is much evidence to the contrary of the above statement. However, I think the best way to go about addressing this is by taking points from an argument made by S.I. Hayakawa in his “Dear Friend” letter and responding to those, since many of the issues in the above statement can be connected to the intent of the letter.
The first point I would like to reply to is that “prolonged bilingual education in public schools and multilingual ballots threaten to divide us along language lines” (Hayakawa). This is by no means true. Where is the evidence that this is happening? Bilingual education has in fact aided in helping students adjust to being in a new country and speaking a new language. Bilingual Education’s “primary goal is to teach English without allowing their children to fall behind academically” (Zentella 1988: 48). Does this sound like dividing us? Bringing us together, I believe would be a more accurate statement. It has also been said that “the most rigorous evaluations of bilingual education prove that it is more successful in teaching English than the submersion programs championed by English-only supporters” (Zentella 1988: 47). This, I think, is a very important statement. The goal we have is to try to integrate people to live in American society comfortably, and that, most typically, includes learning how to speak English. If bilingual education programs are effective, than why use other methods that may be more harsh and stressful for the learner.
Corollary to the above is the statement Hayakawa makes saying “We also want our English-speaking students to become fluent in foreign languages -- but that’s another matter” (Hawakaya). How, I ask you, is this another matter? “This view... favors an enrichment approach to the education of monolingual English-speaking citizens but a subtractive, remediation approach for those who have another native language” (Zentella 1988: 46). I think this statement says a lot about the feelings a lot of English-only advocates have toward ESL students and people in general.
The United States is changing, indeed, it is changing quite rapidly. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. And it doesn’t mean that English is becoming threatened. Many, many immigrants invest a lot of time and effort into learning English and making sure that their children learn English. I think we should all remember that “home is not where English speakers alone reside, and the American dream is not dreamt in English only” (Zentella 1988: 50).
5) “In the United States of America we are all equal. People are poor because they are lazy. They’re even lazy in the way they talk.”
The above statement is can be greatly debated about its accuracy. In the U.S. “people... don’t like to talk about class” (Mantsios1988: 56). It’s not so much that it doesn’t exist, as that it’s not discussed. People are not necessarily poor because they are lazy, but because of many contributing factors such as the class they were born into or their gender, culture, language, or race. All of these contribute to the speech patterns that these people develop as they learn to communicate. Speaking in a dialect is not lazy, just different.
From statistics such as “the wealthiest 15 percent of the American population holds nearly 75 percent of the total household wealth in the country” (Mantsios1988: 58), and “50 percent of the American population holds less than 3.5 percent of the nation’s wealth” (Mantsios), it should be clear that it is not due to laziness that people are poor. Circumstances have a great deal to do with how much wealth one owns. If born to a higher-class family, it will obviously be easier to earn more and live better than if born into a family below the poverty line.
And not always is it due to lack of ambition or effort that keep people in low-income jobs, but because of other people’s prejudices. Oftentimes speakers of a “standard” English will be hired over those who do not speak English well, even if they are qualified in every other aspect. In a study where identical resumes were handed out to various employers, with only slight differences such as name (i.e. Mary vs. Shaneekwa) and gender, consistently the man was chosen over the woman, and the “typical American name” was chosen over the “African American name.” So even if a person were highly qualified for a position, if they were black, female, and poor they have everything working against them.
All of these factors can be seen to contribute to inequality within the United States. No matter how much people try to ignore the classes that exist, they are still there. They do not go away just because people don’t acknowledge their presence.
Hawakaya, S.I. “Dear Friend” letter.
He Said She Said (video)
Johnson, Fern L. (2000). Speaking Culturally: Language Diversity in the United States. Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 77, 275.
Mantsios, Gregory (1988). In Paula Rathenberg ed. Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study. NY St. Martin’s Press. pp. 56, 58.
Zentella, Ana Celia (1988). “Language Politics in the U.S.A.: The English-Only Movement.” In Craig, Betty Jean ed. Literature, Language and Politics. University of Georgia Press. pp. 46, 47, 48, 50.
Back to ANTH 251 Essays.
