Blogging / Interactive reflection (BLOG) (20%)
- In this section you will write a 300-500 word reaction segment to each week’s material. You may talk about: (1) what you found interesting in the material covered that week and why, (2) what you found challenging, (3) how it ties to your research interests, (4) whether you’ve read related material, (5) whether it reminds you of real life situations, etc.
- (Or) You may submit a ‘linguistic artifact’ or interesting piece of linguistic evidence (this may be an image, a YouTube video, a news article on a language-related issue) that you feel relates to the classroom material as part of your weekly reflection (300 – 500 words). Along with this artifact, you are expected to provide a description on why you believe that artifact ties to discussed material.
Reflection pieces are to be left in the “comment section” below, including your full name and word count. Please make one entry [no duplicates]. The deadline for each weekly assignment is Saturday at 5:00pm of that week.
Topics in Sociolinguistics 
Identity has always been a conflictive issue, at least, for me. It’s the primal instinct (again) to want to know where we came from and have the sense of belonging, because we are a gregarious species. At a basic biological level, even animals that do not exhibit an overt social behavior (they are mainly solitaire and may form groups when they want to mate), are able to recognize their own in spite of their territoriality, and will incur in ritual aggressive behavior (many times non-lethal), but only to defend their feeding and reproductive “rights”. For good or bad (again), gregariousness has been critical for human survival and it takes organizational tools to set the boundaries of what is considered acceptable behavior, whether thru religion, laws, traditions, etc. and language is the vehicle to transmit the will of the discursive community to maintain social cohesion. Naturally, language forms a part of identity because it is associated to the interaction between the members of that community, in a locative sense, to enforce the rules. But there is the issue of language ideology to further expand the definition of “us” against “them”. In a global society, this trashy nationalist revival of the “mother tongue” (why not the father? Even in that, humans cannot assume a detached position) I regard it as a narrow-minded view of identity. What is a real Puerto Rican, or Colombian or African American and all those labels that are not founded in genetic and dialectal realities? Right now, I’m writing an essay for a class about the history of Spanish in Puerto Rico and one of the things I have perceived is the dire dearth of research of black African contributions to our language. Everybody wants to be Taíno, but nobody wants to be “prieto”. We are a racist society, no doubt about it (it is taboo to talk about that) and sometimes I think that we see Loíza (worse still, Loíza Aldea) as a republic, full of “kiosquitos”,”santería” and the dancing of the Cepeda family. Let me give you an example. When the statue of the so called “jíbaro puertorriqueño” in Highway 52 in Cayey was erected (remember I am the oldest in the class), the great writer and dramaturg Manuel Méndez Ballester wrote a demolishing column in “El Nuevo Día”, questioning our ideology about the identity of the Puerto Rican peasant. What is a jíbaro? How about the negro people from Loíza? Aren’t they jíbaros too? And the mulattos, mestizos, etc.? Or is it only associated with the white Spanish prototype represented not only in the statue, but in many paintings, poems, stories and even advertisements? Is the stereotypical language they use representative of the jíbaro? How about the African creole language of the black puertorriqueños? There is a movement for the revival of Taíno culture (whatever THAT is!), but how about our blacks? How about the young woman that won the last beauty contest to represent us in the Miss Universe pageant? True to my principles as a feminist, I have always been against these pageants, but I cannot deny that she is a stunning lady. She is bilingual and the result of the intermarriage between a North American man and a Puerto Rican woman, which is not wrong. Many of our inhabitants are also white, blond and clear eyed (I have two great nieces that are green and blue eyed), even when you go deep into the mountains of Orocovis, Barranquitas or Morovis. Therefore, before waving the “monoestrellada” as the symbol of the boricuas descendants “del indio bravío” (not even in our second national anthem, “Preciosa”, we mention negroes and the composer was mulatto, if not black. And bad news, Texas also has a “monoestrellada”.), think on the refrain I learned since a tot: “Y tu abuela, ‘onde ‘tá? En la cocina metía polque es prieeeta de abeldá. Polque en Puelto Rico, el que no tiene dinga, tiene mandinga.” (655 words)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who we are is defined as our identity, that are all the characteristics that we have that make us different for the rest of the people, this is a general concept that we get if we ask someone to define identity. But, in the case of linguistic, and according to this chapter, identity is the product rather than the source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore is a social and cultural rather than primarily internal psychological phenomenon (Hall, 2005). According to this chapter in relation to culture and society is a discursive construct that emerges in interaction.
Language identity could be seen through many lenses on the is Emergency, many authors argued about identity and the emergence principle. Bauman and Briggs demonstrated that performance is instead emergent in the course of its unfolding in a specific encounter. So, Identity is best viewed as the emergent product rather than the pre-existing source of linguistic and other semiotic practices and therefore as fundamentally a social and cultural phenomenon (Hall, 2005).
Now, the Positionality Principle view identity as a collection of brad social categories, but taking deepest this concept and taking in to consideration the pure sense of Positionality, identity is seen as the view from somewhere that and individual has, and in the case of this chapter that view from somewhere is related with the social category of a person.
The Indexicality Principle concerned with the mechanism by which identity is constituted, this mechanism is important to the way in which linguistic forms are used to construct identity positions. Then, indexicality involves a series of concepts and connections between linguistics forms and social meaning, sometimes it could be well-founded with ideological structures related to cultural beliefs. And the last one is the Relationality Principle that defines identity as the analysis of relationships such as similarity/differences or genuineness or artifice.
What I consider after reading this chapter is that every lens that we could see or try to define identity is authentic as in its simple form, since identity is a combination of every factor before mentioned in this reflection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall’s article, “Identity and interaction: a sociocultural linguistic approach” presents different perspectives for analyzing identity through the lens of linguistic introduction by considering five principles: emergence, positionality, indexicality, relationality, and partialness. As I was reading this article, one of the principles that caught most of my attention, and ended up most highlighted, was the relationality principle and how it was illustrated throughout its corresponding section on the text. From what I understood, this principle focuses primarily the construction of identity through discourse of adequation and distinction. Adequation refers to establishing groups as similar not trough sameness but rather, as the authors present it, “current interactional purposes” (Bucholtz and Hall 2005, pp. 599). Meanwhile, distinction prioritizes differentiation in identity.
I believe the primary aspect of this section that really interested me in it was the example from ex-president Bush’s speech. In his discourse, he equates himself with the people of the United States of America. Across his speech, he shows his beliefs as if they were the beliefs of all Americans. In addition, he otherizes the Iraqi head of government, Saddam Hussein by adequating him with al Qaeda. Bush effectively created an “us versus them” mentality by including himself with Americans that felt vulnerable after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Through his rhetoric, he developed a collective patriotic identity where most Americans felt united under the sentiment of defending their nation. Although US citizens are comprised of a variety of racial, ethnic, social, economic, political, and religious group that one event that produced a common disposition among everyone which facilitated a process of adequation that grouped all into one shared characteristic that gained more relevance over all other labels. This sentiment was key in Bush’s successful pursuit in waging war against Iraq, which held widespread support for a prolonged time.
Although the article provided more examples, Bush’s discourse probably stood out to me because it felt the most tangible out of all the examples. This interest might come from my own identity as a Puerto Rican and how the war against Iraq also affected many families from the island as well. The aftereffects of Bush’s speech and his achievement in forming a collective identity are still seen to this day. (375 Words)
LikeLike
Our identity is something that is frequently asked. Bulcholtz and Hall’s paper look at all of the different principles of identities shown thought the course of studying identity. They identify five different principles. And start with the emergence identity which is about “how identity is primarily housed within an individual’s mind” (Bulchotlz & Hall, 2005). What they mean by that is that identity is inside our minds but also maintained by our social grounds. Another one shown is the indexicality principle, “an index is a linguistic form that depends on the interactional context for its meaning” (Silverstein, 1976). But this is more about how identity is constructed from ideologies. Then you have the relational principel, where it specifically say that identity is a “relational phenomenon”. Where identity is autonomous but also requires social meaning (Hall, 2005). With these specific principle you can see how the topic of identity is hard to talk about when there are so many ways of seeing it.
After reading this paper, I have gravitated towards two principles, emergence and relational. Because I do think that the talk about identity starts with the individual but later on we are thrown into society and that can influence the way an individual’s identity changes. Although, I am not saying that the other ones are invalid, but in my perspective I think that these two principles are the best way to understand identity. Because at a young age you are faced with your identities and as time progresses social interactions start to influence the way you identify. From the way you talk to the way you carry yourself. In the end, Bulchotlz and Hall state that although all these principle in the past have been kept separate it easy to see the complexity of the analysis each principle has. And I suggest that even Bulchotlz and Hall suggest the same idea as I do. Can be see when they say: “that identity is emergent in discourse and does not precede it, we are able to locate identity as an intersubjectively achieved social and cultural phenomenon” (Bulchotlz & Hall, 2005). (350 words)
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall’s paper they take identity and examine it in regards to linguistic interaction. Identity is defined as the fact of being who or what a person or thing is. Identity is an issue that has been debated for a long time now and I don’t see that changing in the near future. People have different views on identity. Is identity something that we create ourselves or is it something that just happens as you grow up? Is identity influenced by society, class, gender, religion, geography, etc.? These questions and more are what influences scientists to research more about identity and how it emerges. I’ve always thought that one’s identity is made partly by the person and partly by the people who are around you the most. It’s not that I’ve never taken into consideration external factors like socioeconomic status or geographical location but I’ve always thought more about the people that raised you. This paper takes into consideration these things and acknowledge that these things do affect our identity.
People often talk about their identity and how one person has more than one. Identities change over time as one goes through life. I think my identity is: 22 years old, student, daughter, Puerto Rican, future writer and professor and much more. If you would have asked me in my first year of college some of those answers would be different because throughout the next four years I changed and so did my identity. My family considers itself middle class but to a lot of my college friends say my family is “rich” because I can afford to pay tuition without worry and because all of my family members (we are a total of 5) have their own car, paid for by my parents. You have multiple identities that you use depending on where you are, what you are doing and who you are with. I have the “me” that is what my family knows and then the “me” than my friends know and the “me” my professor know. Identities vary and they are determined by yourself and by society, which includes your family, friends, co-workers and even strangers.
(363 words)
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to the authors, Identity is the positioning of self and others. A person’s identity is not an isolated construction but a social one. It is a result of beliefs, ideologies, ways of living and some other predetermined aspects of society. For identity to exist, uniqueness and difference are needed. By identifying myself as different from the other I can recognize the characteristics that make me unique.
The Relationality Principle explained by Bucholtz and Hall, makes reference to two parameters in the construction of identity: identities are valid in relations to others identities and social actors and based on sameness and difference. It means that identity can be recognized when we interact with others and we establish what makes us similar and what makes us different.
This principle implies two concepts: Adequation and Distinction. Adequation lies in the fact that for groups to be considered as alike, they do not need to be identical but to share enough similarities. we see an example of this term in how people from Latin America are grouped in the same community, they are known as Hispanic and treated as a single group in countries outside the region. As Latinos we share many similar characteristics that allow others to see us as a unit. Distinction, on the other hand, is about eliminating similarities to build differentiation. The differences between communities are undeniable and inevitable. Each communities adapts itself to its context and this adaptation produces differences in all fields. In spite of how similar we are as Latinos, the differences are evident, and those differences allow us to establish an identity in a deeper way. when I was living in Germany I identified myself as part of a large Hispanic community in that country and others identified me as part of that community as well. Here in Puerto Rico, the similarities that connect me with the people are palpable, but what has caught my attention is, that despite the similarities of the cultures of the Colombian Caribbean and the island, I have had to adapt to several linguistic, social and cultural differences. Thanks to this, I have been able to see the differences that previously went unnoticed to me when I was only focused on the similarities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Language and identity go hand in hand. Whether humans use language to create their own individual personality or is merely influenced by social external factors is still widely debated; however one this is certain, identity is born individually, within our minds and is expressed, maintained, kept, and evolved through social context and ground. The Bucholtz paper ties human identity with several linguistic principles that try to define what identity is how humans construct it.
Identity can take form in many ways; defined by gender, class, political affiliation, etc… How humans choose to evolve or maintain their own identity entails various distinct motives which can be studied through linguistic affiliation. Identity can be something that may marginalize humans (i.e. gender, socioeconomic status). However, what resonates most to me is the reversal of constraints. In a case where language may marginalize a person (i.e. usage of language indicates social status: uneducated, poor, “ghetto,” etc…) speakers may know the usage of [that] language works; however use it in the opposite way.
When the usage of particular language entails negative (social) connotations, individuals begin not changing the linguistic features, instead they reverse its use. When speakers then reinvent marginalizing language, they are able to take control and reconstruct their social [“given”] identity. Conscientiously speaking, identity becomes usage vs self-awareness aspects that challenge stereotypical perceptions regarding language usage. By reinventing and reversing language use, speakers let their audience know they are willingly choosing to sound/speak in a particular manner; giving them control of their linguistic identity. Speakers then adapt and create their own identity and seek to challenge the negative stereotypical connotations entailed. “The twisting os itself becomes the means of signalling agentivity to an audience that shares an understanding of both the old form and the change. Without that shared understanding, language reclaiming js less like let to follow such a complex path (Childs, 2014).”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ernesto Calderon reflection:
Language and Identity: In previous blogs, I’ve made the case and argued about how language is used by some as a tool for purposely creating a sets of ideological realities, based on manufactured theorical data, in order to gain an advantage or control certain aspects of a social environment. I’ve used the example of politics and elections, and how fractal recursivity and erasure are used to take a stance against and diminish the importance of people’s realities based on their identities which include culture, gender, language used and roles among others. These practices are achieved through the consciously use of language, and consequently, a lot of cases reveal the preconception of identities based on theory rather than interaction. This interaction is vital not only to understand a view of the world from the lens of others but also to enrich ours by experience, rather than a pre-forged input. Just as language is used to create this negative environment, I argue that the most effective remedy is language itself. Language used from an interactive standpoint and built by experience rather than theory.
Take the increasingly heard case of socialism and Venezuela. Socialism, from a very general basic definition, can be understood as a political and economic system. However, to make a point and get an advantage, the word is used by some to symbolize something bad by using Venezuela as an example. Venezuela is a country to the north of south America, with a huge amount of wonders to offer based on mixture of culture, traditions and landscapes, which faces difficult times. The use of this discourse causes people to have a predetermined thought of the country and the identity of Venezuelans as poor, radical and troubled people. This notion is almost totally based on theory because when you ask people about these constructs, the majority can’t define socialisms or know what its stands for, most of them have never met or interacted with someone from Venezuela and or, and even more sadly, they can’t tell you where exactly the country is located. It is increasingly hard to change the perception of people that have been exposed to a repetitive selected discourse, no matter if examples are used of places where people thrive under a social oriented system. For some, they always associate socialism as bad and by extension Venezuela and its people also share the same notion.
A simple and effective method against this practice is language through interaction and experience. Well before studying language and linguistics, I had the privilege of having Venezuelan classmates in and out my country. Having this experience helped me develop my concept of our identities through language interaction. I built my knowledge and expanded my view of the world through the lens and realities of the people around me, giving me an additional understanding of certain facts otherwise hidden to us. As a student of language, I now increasingly crave and cherish more and more linguistic information to have a better understanding of the hundreds of variations forged by individual and local identities. As a current and future language teacher, I’m aware of the power I hold in shaping students’ preconceptions by acknowledging the disservice that theory could have in education. Due to this knowledge, I consciously choose to be part of a solution instead of the problem by using language to highlight positive aspects of identity rather than diminish it for some hypothetical gain.
LikeLike
I can’t see my reflexion.
LikeLike
hi Alejandra, try emailing it to me instead!
LikeLike
While reading Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall’s article on identity and interaction, I found that the examples they gave to evidence their principles and identity relations were very intriguing and relevant. It was very compelling to see how Sulekha uses her preferred genderized speech in order to position herself to the world as hijra. Sulekha commits to this act of identity revelation, even though it got her kicked out of her family’s house as a young teenager. Moreover, Sulekha expressing her femininity through gendered language also goes in line with the identity interaction Bucholtz and Hall study, adequation. Adequation is defined by the authors by demonstrating that it, “emphasizes the fact that in order for groups or individuals to be positioned as alike, they need not – and in any case cannot – be identical, but must merely be understood as sufficiently similar for current interactional purposes.” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, pp.599)
Adequation can also be perceived from their next example, regarding a speech given by, at that time, President George W. Bush in Cincinnati in October 2002. For this speech, Adam Hodges studied the rhetorical strategies that President Bush’s used in order to gain the public’s support in order to go forward with the war against Iraq in the following year. His speech used an expert level of the adequation relation in order for the public to hear what he wanted them to hear. His goal was that his listeners would believe that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the terrorist network Al Qaeda–those apparently responsible for the World Trade Center bombing–were connected, therefore justifying his unnecessary war on Iraq. This example is incredibly compelling and thought-provoking, the government knows what they are doing when interactions and speeches are approved and publicized. They are counting on the fact that the average American will trust their highest ranking leader enough to believe that they would not use shrewd techniques, such as this one, to subvert the citizens’ thoughts and rights to know and understand what their own government is getting them into. Especially when it comes to something as large and impactful as a war, where lives are lost no matter which side you are on. (364 words)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adding on to what Camila mentioned about having different identities throughout our lives. I completely agree with this because Facebook now has a feature where it reminds you of a memory you either post or shared. If these are from seven or eight years ago the way in which we wrote and express ourselves is very different from the way we write and post now. This falls into the positionality principal, where we tend to write a certain way in order to considered as part of the cool kids. As I look back most of these comments have grammatical error that were put intentionally. For example hola became ola and que became K. I don’t believe that all these mistakes were put intentionally but the majority were put so in order to be part of the group. Anyone writing properly was seen as a smartass or looking to be better then the rest. Sort of what happens with Puerto Rican students who speak English. As mentioned in class in order for an event to be labeled as a phenomenon it needs to happen varies times and not just one instance. This isn’t event that only happened to me this is something that has become a laughing matter on why we thought this was cool to write this way. The follow up question now would be when do we depart from these kind of acts? As the paper addresses, our identity is altered through social grounds. If this is so, do we stop writing this way because of society or because of maturity.
Another point that I found interesting was how the Indian transgender population was seen different besides their way of dressing. They were seen differently because they spoke masculine but dressed feminine. Using certain vocabulary and swearing is a usually seen as a masculine thing and women who do it tend to be categorized as other than feminine. If we take Puerto Rico as an example we could notice the same event in women who live in barrios ,projects. Typically these women are seen a cafre or yal (hood or ghetto).
LikeLiked by 1 person
After reading “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach” by Mary Bucholtz one of the principles that caught my attention was the one referring to “positionality” since we can see and analyze how people who are from the high level and the one from the lower level (economic) do use different repertoires to communicate with others. I am very aware how just by listening to a five-minute conversation people can detect the economic level of someone. As a teacher is quite easy to detect these levels and we can communicate to students according to their language level in order to get to our students’ capacity for them to understand us or the material better. In actuality, I tend to listen to my students’ communication skills in order to get to them. I am a firm believer that in order to fulfill the job of a teacher the best way to do so is to talk to your public according to their capacity and from there go one step forward in the language.
Another principle that I enjoyed is the “emergence” one. We can see the emergence aspect easily in the English classroom where students are forced to use their second language in order to fulfill with the objectives of the course. Students are tempted to say that they do not know anything about the English language but in reality they go outside of the school or just search on their cellphones and are always emerged in the English language. Not only we see this scenario in the classroom but also in any other country that was being colonized and are obligated to use their colonizer’s language for them to survive. As we can see not only students use only their second language in case of emergency but also in any scenario that they are obligated to survive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In this article by Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz, we further explore the relationship between language and identity. They separate this idea into 4 principles: emergence, positionality, indexicality, and relationality. Emergence discusses the idea that an individual’s language use reflects their identity, and that identity is first and foremost shaped within oneself and by oneself, foregoing the influence that social interactions can have in the formation of the individual’s self-view. Dell Hymes views identity as a phenomena that is shaped by dialogue instead of monologue, and I am inclined to agree with him to a certain extent, for I believe that the initial viewpoint of one’s own identity is formed within oneself, but is later altered and skewed by external societal factors. This principle also discusses the life of Participant ‘S’, whose life story was fascinating, insomuch as the way this person’s own viewpoint of their gender identity is fluid depending on the context of the story they are portraying, sometimes using male or female pronouns to refer to themselves, which can be compared to gender viewpoints in the United States, as well as other Western countries as of late, where gender fluidity is now more openly accepted – or, at the very least, more openly discussed – in the general population.
An individual’s identity may be shaped by other class markers, such as age or social class, and this is part of the second principle: positionality. These macro details are not the only influence on identity; there are many other, smaller things that may influence and shape identity: these micro-factors are discussed with the example of the teenage girls in California. Though they came from similar social classes, upbringing, and ethnographic groups, they still divided into smaller sub-sections based on language use, expressing themselves with differing discourse markers in order to widen the gap between “them” and the “others”. This can be tied to the following principle, indexicality, based on the idea that certain linguistic forms may or may not be used by a certain group of individuals according to their constructed identity and how they are perceived by others. This is similar to denotation and connotation, where the former is the literal definition of a word, while the latter is its linguistic use according to context. The example of participant ‘S’, a person who is known as a Hijra in their community, fits well, since the word Hijra literally means “impotent”, but its connotation is used in the context of identifying a transgender person.
Finally, the 4th principle is relationality, where identity is viewed as a relational phenomenon, and has varying dimensions: adequation vs distinction, or similarity vs difference; authentication vs denaturalization, or real vs artificial; and authority vs delegitimacy, or powerful vs powerless. These dimensions of relatability all tie into a person’s identity, and how they relate to others within their own social “bubble”. An example of authentication vs denaturalization mentioned in class really resonated with me, and this was the example of Puerto Ricans living outside of the island, and the question of their legitimacy as Puerto Ricans. Personally, I side with a person’s own perception of themselves: if a person living in New York identifies as Puerto Rican, and sees our heritage as their own, and genuinely cares for the events that occur on the island, then they are Puerto Rican in my eyes. Now, this is all within the realm of reason, because a person like Rachel Dolezal, a person with European ancestry who possibly has no ties to African ancestry, but identifies as African American, really should not be considered African American. I feel that, though I am open to accept most people’s identities, they should have some sort of actual evidence, or in the case of national identity, they should have actual ties to the nation or nationality with which they identify.
(Word count: 638)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The main idea in this week’s reading by Bucholtz & Hall (2005) could be summarized by the following line: “identity is a discursive construct that emerges in interaction” (p. 587). In other words, it is a result of, as opposed to a precursor of, social interaction. In their text, they describe five principles that must be considered when studying the concept of identity. One statement I found interesting in the discussion of the indexicality principle was how “in identity formation, indexicality relies heavily on ideological structures, for associations between language and identity are rooted in cultural beliefs and values – that is, ideologies – about the sorts of speakers who (can or should) produce particular sorts of language” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 594). This idea about who can or should produce a language ties in with my research interests, as I am focusing on how Puerto Rican language use relates to Puerto Rican culture and identity formation. Individual ideologies about which language use is appropriate for a certain person have real-life repercussions, and thus it is important to reflect on the ways in which we personally reproduce them.
This relates to the idea of authentication and denaturalization mentioned during the discussion of the relationality principle. As stated in the text, there is “a concern with authenticity [in sociocultural linguistic literature] – that is, what sorts of language and language users count as ‘genuine’ for a given purpose” (Bucholtz, 2003, as cited in Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 601). Although these ideologies are found in literature, they also permeate social interactions when people delegitimize an individual’s particular language use because it differs from what they consider to be “correct” for that individual, based on their superficial knowledge of their sociocultural background. The reality is that there is no “inevitability or inherent rightness of identity” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 602). Identity is created, not forced upon us based on measurable and determined factors.
The mention of “hybrid identity” as an example of “fragmented/false identity” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 602) reminded me of the phenomenon of bicultural ambivalence, an example of which is: a “lack of cultural identification of students in relation to both the home and school cultures” (Cummins, 1995, p. 105). As Puerto Ricans, these topics hit home because “Latina/os who speak a lot of English, mixed with Spanish or not, are likely to have their cultural authenticity challenged” (Zentella, 2007, p. 28). This example is very similar to one presented on the text: “it is, in some sense, culturally inappropriate or unKorean to speak English fluently” (Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 604). These examples illustrate how individuals who use more than one language may have their identities questioned, thus reinforcing the main idea of the text: the way we interact/use speech forms our identities. These identities may be considered “fractured and discontinuous, for as anthropologist Kamala Visweswaran has noted, ‘Identities are constituted by context and are themselves asserted as partial accounts’“(1994: 41, as cited in Bucholtz & Hall, 2005, p. 605).
(Word count: 501)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there something like AAL? I don’t think so. That’s a political construct. Let me start by stating that Black, Indian, White and whatever imagined language is just that, mumbo-jumbo. Linguistic variations are as inevitable as death and taxes. The case of the Gullah Geechee really fascinated me above the AAL exposed in the movie. I think the whole movie should have been dedicated to this creole. First, because I never knew they existed, remember my background is in Economics and Finance. Second, when I began studying linguistics, it’s mentioned in a very superficial manner and conveys the idea that it’s a curious pidgin without importance. It is when I was researching about the evolution of Spanish in the Caribbean, that during the movie, Gullah aroused my interest because there is a parallel in South America and that is the Palenquero creole in San Basilio de Palenque in Colombia. This is a small town about 44 miles Southwest of Cartagena de Indias and 100% of the population is black. Many are descendants of the runaway slaves that established this village between the XVIth and XVIII centuries and grew as a close-knit community that still observe the folklore and music of their African ancestors.
Research done on the roots of this creole point towards parallelisms and homologies from a creole called fa d’Ambo (don’t confuse this with bozal), from the island of Anobbon in the West African coast (Luis Granda in 1994). The biggest contributors to this creole were Edo, Igbo, Yoruba and Kikoongo (a Western Bantu language). Some common characteristics Palenquero share with these African languages are initial word nasalization, lateralization, neutralization of alveolar-palatal consonants, syllabic structure, non-inversion of the subject in queries and assimilation of the last vocal with the second word initiating in vocals (Luis Ortiz in 2008). There are no physical and linguistic barriers between San Basilio and the surrounding towns, so we cannot explain this phenomenon thru segregation, since they are not far from the coast. In 2005, this town was declared Human Cultural Heritage by the UNESCO.
I cannot understand why this cannot apply to Gullah and why nobody is bothering to do it. These creoles tend to be fragile as the quantity of speakers dwindle and assimilate to mainstream languages, AAL included. Therefore, the recognition of Gullah must have priority above all other AAL variations. I cannot consider AAL as a unique phenomenon because all languages experiment variations. This perception of “uniqueness” in a group arises, in my opinion, when “Official Languages” are established by the local language academy. In fact, a lot of linguists are advocating pluricentric models of language families and not one “correct version” (monocentric). Even the Real Academia Española recognizes that variations are as valid and correct as the “purest” Spanish in the world, because that is an ideological construct, that doesn’t exist. So, let’s hear it for the Gullah Geechee, three hoorays for them and I hope a movement towards the recognition and protection from the UNESCO will be started very soon. The memory for the Gullah ancestors deserves it. (500+ words)
LikeLike