Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Language Philosophy
Philosophy of Language, I was trying to condense a whole semester of APLING 603 into
one succinct definition of what I think language is. Language, as we’ve found out in 603
and in this course, is a result of many power-based relations such as religion, money,
gender, race, ethnicity and how those interact and react with language and culture. By
providing the definition above I attempted to boil it all down to one manageable chunk.
In essence I took a descriptive linguistics approach. In doing this I also lost a lot of the
essence of what language is because I am concerning myself with the aftereffects that
different powers have had on language which itself requires a context in order to analyze!
This is like trying to describe clay once it’s become pottery – you are divorced
from the reality of what clay is. It is possible to go backward and try to uncover the
building blocks of a specific piece of potter pottery (i.e. clay that makes it up) but you
would need to know some of the physical properties of clay beforehand, you would need
to know about the process of making pottery, and what that process does to the clay. In
other words, you would need to either already be familiar with the history of a lump of
clay as it journeys through to become pottery, or you would need to use your deductive
powers to put many seemingly unrelated events together and make sense of them in the
1
total context. In this sense language and language analysis are like clay and pottery.
In its original form clay is malleable; there are many things that make it up. The
same is true of language; many languages (including varieties) make up this heap that we
call language. In the end you may have only one socially acceptable mainstream language
– like Standard English in the United States, and you may not know how it got to where it
is from its original state (all of the varieties that came to these shores since the
Mayflower). You may think it’s pretty and that’s how all clay should end up, but you
don’t know why. If you come across another language (or pottery) you might pass harsh
judgment on it because it’s not aesthetic pleasing enough, or you praise it because you
may really like it because you beautiful – however you can’t really explain why your
Going back to my original definition of language is context, I would say that all
language has context, even the “decontextualized” language of academe that we see in
described in Gee and Bartolomé. As Gee and Bartolomé rightly point out, “no one has
satisfactorily figured out what ‘decontextualized’ actually means.” (Gee, 1989) The term
itself “obfuscates the fact that de-contextualized language actually refers to language that
(Bartolomé, 1998) in other words it’s “no more than a fancy term for the sorts of
transmitted in schools, who selects this knowledge and why, what the reasons are that it is
organized the way it is, and why are seldom raised.” (2003) Schools replicate “replicate
2
the status quo of the social hierarchy,” (Gee, 1989) as such schools are essentially
microcosms of the larger world around them, replicating the context of language within
the institutional walls. It seems to me that this is meant to create an uncritical acceptance
of “knowledge” passed down. Like proverbs, this knowledge becomes “so familiar that
they win uncritical acceptance of the audience” (Bizzell, 1992) hence obfuscating any
context that would have given the student the necessary information to figure out the
The term used above, decontextualized, is also very dangerous for what it
represents. I’ve touched upon it with Macedo et al. (2003) in that people don’t question
where knowledge comes from and what it represents. When people do question the
mechanization that, in the end, serves the same function as the fragmentation of skills in
the literacy for the poor,” “they prevent the development of critical thinking that enable
on to ‘read the world’ critically and to understand the reasons and linkages between the
one hyper-focused discipline, the end result is the same: lack of real understanding of the
Uncritical minds would justify this, as we saw in Bizzell (1992), by saying “everyone
entitled to their [sic] opinion,” but they don’t question where that opinion came from, and
what the underlying context of that “opinion” is. When there are critical minds, like the
twelve year old student from Boston Latin that refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance
3
which the student considered “a hypocritical exhortation of patriotism,” (Macedo, 1993)
they face disciplinary actions for daring making those links, and understanding the
contexts (and doing something about it) that threatens the status quo reproduced by the
school.
that linguists agree that no variety is inherently better than any other one – except for
pidgins that is, which are viewed as a restricted variety. Context in this aspect is really
important because Pidgins do serve a purpose; and they are not more or no less important
than “fully developed languages,” after all if there is no need to have specific grammar
conventions and vocabulary in a language, then why go into the trouble of creating
overhead that is not needed in that language. If meaning is conveyed, then the mission of
I think that in this same chapter we also see the perils of fragmented knowledge, vis-
à-vis specialization. We see that those same linguists that believe that pidgins are a
restricted variety (thus less than “real” languages) agree with Labov “that it is not the
much as the way in which speakers actually use whatever devices exist,” that it “would
be surely false to claim that Kind Alfred was considerably less ‘smart’ that your next
door neighbor” as consequence of speaking Old English, since Old English lacked
think of the context within which pidgins arise, they would see that pidgins are no less of
4
a language than “full” languages like English, French and German.
Another element of context can be seen in the language this paper is in. When this
country was founded there were (and still are) a great number of languages spoken,
however this paper written, and this course is conducted in, what we call Standard
English (SE). When new immigrants come into this country, or when established groups
use their own language, many cry out “speak American” or “learn English, you’re in
America.” Even when the language spoken is a variety of English it’s still looked down
upon. When attempts to convince people to surrender their native language and speak
only English fail, we see silly examples of people attempting to legislate English-Only
(Padilla, et al., 1991; Class Video Week 2) In order to understand how we’ve come to
this dislike and distrust of the other we need to look at the sociohistorical, cultural,
economic and linguistic events and power relations that brought us to this point in time.
Instead of blindly shouting “speak American” we ought to think critically about the
Wardhaugh (1997) tells us that one proposal made to help children succeed in school
is to eradicate AAVE and to replace it with SE. We also see this echoed in other’s
writings when they report that by mastering English, non-English speaking students will
be able to participate equally in mainstream society. Of course this is not true because as
Wardhaugh points out the problem is a problem of racism, not a problem of linguistics.
The problem here is that the wool is tied over people’s eyes without them realizing it.
English is not the language of the liberator, but rather the language of the oppressor. “it is
the mask which hides the loss of so many tongues, all those sounds of diverse, native
5
communities we will never hear,” it “is the oppressor’s language yet I need it to talk to
Finally, coming back to language is context, we see in Macedo, et al. that we can’t
ignore two facts: “The meaning carried by language can never be analyzed in an isolated
fashion,” and “language cannot exist apart from its speakers.” (2003) This brings us back
meaningless if you don’t know what the context is. I can go up to a fellow Greek-
American and say έφαγα πακέτο (literal translation: “I ate a packet”) but chances are that
this will mean nothing to him, unless they’ve got the requisite background knowledge.
This phrase will lack not just the context within a conversation, but also the context of
This phrase also exists within a certain historical context. When I was growing up this
phrase did not exist, because we didn’t really have American-style fast food
establishments. With the creation of such establishments came new lingo used to
describe items and processes in those places. This in turn was appropriated by the youth
that was frequenting those establishments to create their own lingo, which in turn came
into the mainstream in Greece. A Greek-American who hasn’t had exposure to that
Looking back at my original philosophy of language statement, I have to say that it’s
a little sterile. It’s the type of definition that linguists who treat language with rubber
gloves in a lab environment may come up with. This type of statement also requires
context in order to be analyzed and to glean the full meaning. Individuals within the
6
context of critical thinking sociolinguistics who has been trained within the context of
analysis could take statements like these and come to a similar conclusion as the original
meaningless nothing.
7
Bibliography
Bartolomé, L. (1998) The Misteaching of Academic Discourses: The Politics of
Language. Toronto: Harper-Collins.
Padilla, A. M., Lindholm, K. J., Chen, A., Duran, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W., et al.
(1991). The English-Only Movement: Myths, Reality, and Implication for
Psychology. American Psychologist, 46(2), 120-130.
Tannen, D. (1998). Talk in the Intimate Relationship: His and Hers. in Tannen, D.
That’s not what I meant! New York: Ballantine Books.