There is a shift occurring in today’s society: differing opinions are more abundant than ever, the definition of language is beginning to shift radically, and the melting pot of ideals and beliefs is beginning to boil over. Of course, who says that this is a bad thing? Our exposure to new cultures gives us wonderful opportunities to explore and the foundations of tradition continue to offer support when we need it. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the treatment of the English language and the many discourses it supports.
All discourses are appropriate if used in the proper context, though it is often difficult to interchange them. For example, Slang and Proper English have always been at war, (Slang: “Take that, yo!”--- Proper English: “Please receive this unpleasant beating, sir!”), but both ultimately get the same meaning across. The whole point of language is to be able to express an idea in a verbal or written form, leaving it as an invaluable tool in our society. Therefore, as long as you can be understood in the manner you want to be- there is really no wrong way to use language. (I skimmed this website and I thought it was pretty informative: http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V13_I2_Beaugrande.htm)
Recently there has been talk of catering to the different discourses, making tests according to the popular discourse in a given area and turning away from standard academic discourses. This can be a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand, if no discourse is wrong, why shouldn’t we cater to the other prominent discourses in our society and give the minor languages a chance. But, would it then be fair to send these kids to college only aware of a non-academic discourse? Would we then be required to make college classes in a variety of discourses for those students? How would any student then take to the work world after he or she has only been exposed to one section of the English language? Language has the power to bring people together, but it can also cause severe rifts in society. People automatically assume that their discourse is the ‘right’ or ‘best’ one, and by separating these discourses instead of allowing them to mix would possibly cause more prejudice in language. Just like in Brave New World , people would be placed into special distinctions almost from birth without the ability to learn to correspond with the other discourses. On the other hand, we risk the complete orthodoxy of 1984 if we only accept one overall discourse.
Ultimately, our society requires that we have to move in and out of these discourses in order to coexist with one another. There is no ‘wrong’ discourse but there is no universally ‘right’ one either, meaning everybody has to be open to new ways of effectively communicating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But Dee, if we don't attempt to level the playing field then some very bright people will be left behind, because they can't understand or accept the academic discourse. I don't want to cater to each discourses to the point of isolation, but reaching out to kids in need of extra attention/tutoring in schoolroom discourse is extremly important. If that means using "playground" language, then it should be done and gradually phase in the academic discourse. Teachers today should phase in and out of the modern slag, technology, and schoolroom focus, if only to maintain a class' attention. In my opinion, this is why Dominguez's class is very successful, and why so many other English classes fall behind.
ReplyDeleteOf course I understand that, I'm just saying that reaching too far in either direction might be detremental to that student. In one case, they are left behind intheir studies and society could very possibly miss out in some of the greatest minds of the century. On the other hand, these students would only be educated in that one discourse. When they leave this educattion they will only be literate in all but the one discourse, only able to function in the part of society that accepts that discourse. Doctors learn the medical discoourse to succed in medicine, there is no way that we can have a hundred different doctors working together that operate in different discourses.
ReplyDeleteYour purpose was very nicely stated but I have a curious question which I know you will be able to answer for me (I just cannot figure it out for myself). So here is it: Do you agree/not agree that instead of saying people believe their discourse it better we should rather word this as some humans cannot stand to be offended in any way and in some cases we find small things that do not matter like language differences and discourses and then take their own discourse and persuade others (whether offending them or trying to teach them or simply mention thier discourse to prove/feel that they are more important) of the importance of "their's." Basically I do not believe one discourse is trully better than another because every discourse is good, it's just the way others (unknown to that discourse) perceive a new view from someone who has a lot supporting/positive beliefs of thier own (the one that was taught to them) discourse. It can be any small difference such as religion, political beliefs, a favorite color vs. a popular color, skin color, etc. Would it be bad to say that some parts of human nature simply cause us to view others less important then ourselves and little differences cause these feelings of offense for us (to us), nothing more. Reality isn't reality because humans could be much more humble, harmonious...
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, we are all the same internally right, all of organs and stuff (for the most part) and I'm definitely not saying that you are opposing this comment in any way but do agree and if yes, what do you agree with? We're all just different in how we think for everything (politics, racism, small differnces, etc.).
I'm sorry, I didn't realize how much I had written.
ReplyDeleteWow Sim, that's a mouthful. ^^
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying, but would you say that EVERY little difference constitutes a different discourse? That's just individuality. Everyone, in that way of speaking, has a discourse unique to themselves.
You can't say that one discourse is wrong, but they can be wrong for certain situations. There's a reason we act differently at job interviews, or don't write essays the way we talk to our friends and siblings. The fact is, there is a certain, elastic, discourse that is appropriate for academics. In most schools (around here at least) those from a discourse background that makes it hard in the academic entry (such as language or culture barriers) have classes they can take to catch up to what is needed for them to thrive in an academic and professional world.
Ultimately I was trying not to take either side of the argument. Many personal discourses make up an individual, but I was refering to emphasizing major discouurces like inner city slang or other less 'academic' discorses. Personal discourses are more than cultivated and shaped by everyday life, while academic discources tend to open doors that were previously closed to the other 'languages'. Teaching in a firmly non-academic discource may help the student learn more, but it prohibits them from being exposed to the academic discource that may offer more oppertunities. Teaching in a firmly academic discourse alienates the same students from expanding their mind to the fullest. A middle ground needs to be reached such as through specialized tutoring, etc. I'm not saying that the way people view Academic discourses is right by any means, but for now it is a predjudice that peoplefor the most part must accomidate.
ReplyDelete