Hello ppl that actually read this, which should be no one. Because you are wasting your time. You have better things to do. Like change the world.
Change, what does that mean? To alter the course of an event. Like McCain, who changed the course of the election by picking someone inexperienced, and young for his running mate. No doubt given a woman a legitimate chance to lead the nation, by placing in the position of running mate, but what did he bash Barack Obama for? Inexperience, and youth? Geez, someone is fucking up. But Barack, what the fuck were you thinking in picking Joe Biden? You want change, then you go to Biden for help. What a fuck up?
And Chad Johnson, who is still Chad Johnson in my book. You're not Hispanic, you're black. You will always be black. Live it, love it, and get the fuck over it. That was a stupid name change Mr. Ocho- Cinco.
I feel that Obama will still the election, but both should throw out their platforms. Dumbasses.
Sincerely yours,
Victor
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
last blog post of the year!!!!!!!!!!
And now for the final blog post of the year. Ohh right.
1. The medical professional to patient discourse presenters all seemed to know what they had to talk about. Though it got a little boring to hear similar things, I would have to say that I do not remember hearing someone talk about using patient- doctor discourse, how and why a patient would say something up or try to hide a condition that is embarrassing. I know that language barrier was mentioned once or twice, but everyone should have done it as it provides a different perspective from which to analyze the debate.
2. Nathaniel’s accounting presentation was one that stood out simply because it was different from the medical presentations. It also allowed me the chance to realize that I have no clue as to anything about financial language, even though I am in economics 201, as if that helps. Being a visual learner, it was nice to have a visual aid, but like I said, I was trying to figure out the meaning of everything the whole time.
Overall the presentations seem good, they seem well- thought out and as if time was well spent on them.
1. The medical professional to patient discourse presenters all seemed to know what they had to talk about. Though it got a little boring to hear similar things, I would have to say that I do not remember hearing someone talk about using patient- doctor discourse, how and why a patient would say something up or try to hide a condition that is embarrassing. I know that language barrier was mentioned once or twice, but everyone should have done it as it provides a different perspective from which to analyze the debate.
2. Nathaniel’s accounting presentation was one that stood out simply because it was different from the medical presentations. It also allowed me the chance to realize that I have no clue as to anything about financial language, even though I am in economics 201, as if that helps. Being a visual learner, it was nice to have a visual aid, but like I said, I was trying to figure out the meaning of everything the whole time.
Overall the presentations seem good, they seem well- thought out and as if time was well spent on them.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
research
Research, going well. Ha, for me. My topic will be the way sociolinguists is used in politics to influence the population. Perhaps even analyze the fallout of certain ways and words being used in public.
My sources are multiple things so far, a book, a bibliography, and a small collection of articles.
I feel as if my article will be helpful, seeing as it is “four Letter Threats to Authority.” This discusses the lack of proper manners to use four letter words in the media. It explains how prominent politicians and figures have been ridiculed for their use of profane language. This profanity can seriously hinder one’s credibility as a leader of the nation.
The book I have is entitled “Verbal Behavior and Politics,” and seeing as it is not my intention to read the book, I believe that I can further obtain a good amount of information from the book. Matter of fact, this book will probably provide the backbone for the paper, seeing how it talks about the effects of the verbal messages in the world, and it is perfect for analyzing the argument of language usage in political speech.
The only reason I have the bibliography is because I made a mistake, but I think it is working out well for me. There are a few sources which seem to be a promising lead, I haven’t looked much at this bibliography.
Through the sources it seems as if the main thesis is whether or not politicians can use profane or abusive language in public speaking, and if so, in what context and to what extent. That is to say that whether the profanity is used as a tool to invoke excitement, or if its used in a derogatory manner. I feel as if that is the question the research is trying to answer.
My sources are multiple things so far, a book, a bibliography, and a small collection of articles.
I feel as if my article will be helpful, seeing as it is “four Letter Threats to Authority.” This discusses the lack of proper manners to use four letter words in the media. It explains how prominent politicians and figures have been ridiculed for their use of profane language. This profanity can seriously hinder one’s credibility as a leader of the nation.
The book I have is entitled “Verbal Behavior and Politics,” and seeing as it is not my intention to read the book, I believe that I can further obtain a good amount of information from the book. Matter of fact, this book will probably provide the backbone for the paper, seeing how it talks about the effects of the verbal messages in the world, and it is perfect for analyzing the argument of language usage in political speech.
The only reason I have the bibliography is because I made a mistake, but I think it is working out well for me. There are a few sources which seem to be a promising lead, I haven’t looked much at this bibliography.
Through the sources it seems as if the main thesis is whether or not politicians can use profane or abusive language in public speaking, and if so, in what context and to what extent. That is to say that whether the profanity is used as a tool to invoke excitement, or if its used in a derogatory manner. I feel as if that is the question the research is trying to answer.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
draft of essay
Hippy, flip-flopper, and sissy, that is what people think when they think of liberals. Feminist, pothead, and pink coat commie, many of the liberals hear these words today. Though what is a liberal today? Could it be a hippy, pink coat commie, who smokes pot all day, or is it something else, someone who supports government who protects their rights? Is it someone who believes that this year could be the year a black President is elected, or a female President? I believe that the word “liberal”, in its political meaning, should mean those who advocate the protection of the individual and the promotion of one’s own welfare by the government.
Started in the time of Latin, liberal has had a great change throughout the years. Latin’s “liberalis” meaning “of or relating to freedom” or “munificus” meaning generous. The word evolved later on to mean “suitable for a gentlemen”, meaning that it was the way to think. Liberal became a word to describe those who think differently from the normal way of thinking. Liberals were the ones who were against slavery when it was present. The modern liberal word was formed in the early 1930’s when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the New Deal, helping the poor of the nation, and forever embodied the word that would be seen as derogatory just forty years later. In the 1970’s, liberal was known to be the person who did not support the war in Vietnam, and therefore was known for what it was in the day, hippy. The word “liberal” has gone on to mean someone who seeks to have the government protect their rights.
Liberal to me is an ideal in which those who think liberally want the government to look out for its citizens. This is based off most of the ideals of the Democratic party of the United States. Liberal should be someone who wants social programs. Social programs are those that help the misfortunate in society, such as Social Security and Medicaid. Liberals would want these social programs because they seek the protection from the government. Social programs protect the individual and seek to promote their welfare. Liberals are those that should be also known to seek the protection of the personal rights by the government. Liberals should be those which advocate the protection of the Bill of Rights, which protects personal rights. The liberals of the world should be known for the protection of the personal rights and promotion of the welfare of the nation.
Many of the liberals in the world are seen in different lights, with different values, causing problems in the definition which I have formulated. For example, in South Africa, in the 1960’s, the Communist party was referred to as “liberals.” So politically, “liberal” has been referred to as the far left majority party in the nation. As in ours, the Democrats are the “liberals” simply because they are the far left on the spectrum. The farthest left on the spectrum are the anarchists, simply because they do not want government to be there. Next comes the communists, which supports multiple the promotion of the welfare of the nation, but in a more radical way with less respect to the personal rights of the individual. This is the reason why communism, though so closely related to liberalism, cannot be considered liberal anymore, simply because there is no regard to the personal rights of the individual. Though there will be disagreements, they will be shut down.
Liberal is a word, like most words, that have evolved over time. This has been true throughout the latter part of the last century, and being political, it is an ever evolving word. Some who read this would state that changing a political definition would create a divide in those who already call themselves “liberal.” Those who consider themselves liberal would be inclined to choose between my new “neo-modern liberalism” or something else. The definition would create a firm boundary on those who are calling themselves liberal, which, admittedly, would create a gap in who would further call themselves liberal. Though it would not create a grand gap. For example, those in our nation who are considered liberal, ie the Democrats, are thought to be so because they want to help the poor. The two remaining Democratic Candidates for the nomintion to the Presidency of the United States are standing firm on their belief that we as a nation should help the poor, through social programs. Liberals these days are also known as the ones who support the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union, who seek to protect the personal rights of the individuals of our nation. Therefore, that rift should not be too grand.
The second argument or problem one might have with my “neo-modern liberalism” is that some people would try to call it the next facist movement or the next enemy of democracy. I would like to state that no, it is not a rejection of democracy, it is merely a method in which democracy should orient their ideals. I do not believe in the superiority of one race, nor is the economy in a position where a dictator would be elected by the great people of this nation. The name is simply extended to reflect the times, where everything must be politically correct. The definition presented is in no way shape or form one that fails to respect the ideals of the American way of life.
Neo- modern liberalism is the next new political term. Meaning “one who seeks government protection of personal rights and promotion of the welfare of the people of the nation,” is something that will seek to redefine American politics as we know it. The new term will further distance itself from communism, and seek to create a more solid idea of liberal. No longer will the great people of the nation wonder what it really is to be a liberal, but know exactly what that person stands for who calls themselves such. A liberal, will now have a distinct identity, not being hippies
Started in the time of Latin, liberal has had a great change throughout the years. Latin’s “liberalis” meaning “of or relating to freedom” or “munificus” meaning generous. The word evolved later on to mean “suitable for a gentlemen”, meaning that it was the way to think. Liberal became a word to describe those who think differently from the normal way of thinking. Liberals were the ones who were against slavery when it was present. The modern liberal word was formed in the early 1930’s when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law the New Deal, helping the poor of the nation, and forever embodied the word that would be seen as derogatory just forty years later. In the 1970’s, liberal was known to be the person who did not support the war in Vietnam, and therefore was known for what it was in the day, hippy. The word “liberal” has gone on to mean someone who seeks to have the government protect their rights.
Liberal to me is an ideal in which those who think liberally want the government to look out for its citizens. This is based off most of the ideals of the Democratic party of the United States. Liberal should be someone who wants social programs. Social programs are those that help the misfortunate in society, such as Social Security and Medicaid. Liberals would want these social programs because they seek the protection from the government. Social programs protect the individual and seek to promote their welfare. Liberals are those that should be also known to seek the protection of the personal rights by the government. Liberals should be those which advocate the protection of the Bill of Rights, which protects personal rights. The liberals of the world should be known for the protection of the personal rights and promotion of the welfare of the nation.
Many of the liberals in the world are seen in different lights, with different values, causing problems in the definition which I have formulated. For example, in South Africa, in the 1960’s, the Communist party was referred to as “liberals.” So politically, “liberal” has been referred to as the far left majority party in the nation. As in ours, the Democrats are the “liberals” simply because they are the far left on the spectrum. The farthest left on the spectrum are the anarchists, simply because they do not want government to be there. Next comes the communists, which supports multiple the promotion of the welfare of the nation, but in a more radical way with less respect to the personal rights of the individual. This is the reason why communism, though so closely related to liberalism, cannot be considered liberal anymore, simply because there is no regard to the personal rights of the individual. Though there will be disagreements, they will be shut down.
Liberal is a word, like most words, that have evolved over time. This has been true throughout the latter part of the last century, and being political, it is an ever evolving word. Some who read this would state that changing a political definition would create a divide in those who already call themselves “liberal.” Those who consider themselves liberal would be inclined to choose between my new “neo-modern liberalism” or something else. The definition would create a firm boundary on those who are calling themselves liberal, which, admittedly, would create a gap in who would further call themselves liberal. Though it would not create a grand gap. For example, those in our nation who are considered liberal, ie the Democrats, are thought to be so because they want to help the poor. The two remaining Democratic Candidates for the nomintion to the Presidency of the United States are standing firm on their belief that we as a nation should help the poor, through social programs. Liberals these days are also known as the ones who support the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union, who seek to protect the personal rights of the individuals of our nation. Therefore, that rift should not be too grand.
The second argument or problem one might have with my “neo-modern liberalism” is that some people would try to call it the next facist movement or the next enemy of democracy. I would like to state that no, it is not a rejection of democracy, it is merely a method in which democracy should orient their ideals. I do not believe in the superiority of one race, nor is the economy in a position where a dictator would be elected by the great people of this nation. The name is simply extended to reflect the times, where everything must be politically correct. The definition presented is in no way shape or form one that fails to respect the ideals of the American way of life.
Neo- modern liberalism is the next new political term. Meaning “one who seeks government protection of personal rights and promotion of the welfare of the people of the nation,” is something that will seek to redefine American politics as we know it. The new term will further distance itself from communism, and seek to create a more solid idea of liberal. No longer will the great people of the nation wonder what it really is to be a liberal, but know exactly what that person stands for who calls themselves such. A liberal, will now have a distinct identity, not being hippies
Thursday, March 6, 2008
word!
My eyes were opened due to the discussion about rhetoric vs. epistemology, which is essentially the battle between the actual definition and the supposed definition. This got me thinking how we use words, and sometimes perhaps do not know the definitions, or the history, and while the latter is our latest essay assignment, I was just thinking some words that are frequently used when they should not be.
The first of these words is “gay.” Everyone, myself included, states that certain things that are conforming to our ideas, or hopes, are determined to be “gay.” Not homosexual, as we do not mean it in that way, it means that it conflicts with our ideas, whether it be something as trivial as an elevator not working, or our favorite restaurant not being open at three in the morning when we are trying to pull an all- nighter.
We also discussed the differences in macho between America and Mexico. The Mexicans, and representative of the rest of Latin America, macho is a man who take responsibility for a family, and taking care of the daily tasks. The American version is someone who can take on a million enemies and then go home at night, and seem like nothing happened. This difference in different peoples’ views is also reflected in the idea of what different governments’ labels mean. For example, in the United States, we have a federal republic and we have participation throughout the nation. It is a democratic form of government. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, both of the former names indicate a participatory government with fair laws, however, the nation is a military dictatorship, which does not allow for participatory elections. The nation is known as a democratic republic, but they have a different view from us on what democracy is.
Words are used out of context in the oral language everyday, allowing for confusion, and evolution of the words. “Gay” is used to describe the things that annoy someone, and democracy is relevant to the nation. It essentially breaks down to this, words are not held to the modern dictionary’s definitions, and therefore evolve definitions over time.
The first of these words is “gay.” Everyone, myself included, states that certain things that are conforming to our ideas, or hopes, are determined to be “gay.” Not homosexual, as we do not mean it in that way, it means that it conflicts with our ideas, whether it be something as trivial as an elevator not working, or our favorite restaurant not being open at three in the morning when we are trying to pull an all- nighter.
We also discussed the differences in macho between America and Mexico. The Mexicans, and representative of the rest of Latin America, macho is a man who take responsibility for a family, and taking care of the daily tasks. The American version is someone who can take on a million enemies and then go home at night, and seem like nothing happened. This difference in different peoples’ views is also reflected in the idea of what different governments’ labels mean. For example, in the United States, we have a federal republic and we have participation throughout the nation. It is a democratic form of government. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, both of the former names indicate a participatory government with fair laws, however, the nation is a military dictatorship, which does not allow for participatory elections. The nation is known as a democratic republic, but they have a different view from us on what democracy is.
Words are used out of context in the oral language everyday, allowing for confusion, and evolution of the words. “Gay” is used to describe the things that annoy someone, and democracy is relevant to the nation. It essentially breaks down to this, words are not held to the modern dictionary’s definitions, and therefore evolve definitions over time.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
thoughts like spilt milk
The recent read we had, regarding the history of language, was nice. It allowed the connection to be made between hieroglyphics of the Egyptian times to today’s modern language. Though the thing that got to me was the possible evolution of the alphabet.
Our alphabet has been based on, according to the article, on Greek and Roman alpha- numeric symbols. I liked the explanation for the possible evolution of letters, which goes from a symbol to a modified and sleeker version of the symbol, to the actual letter as we know it today. This could also be true because of the Greek sign “omega” which could have used to represent “sun” in the Greek alphabet, and as superior things are referred to as the “Alpha Omega” and therefore the sun in something that the Greeks valued highly. Therefore, the explanation for the evolution of the alphabet could have happened in that way.
I would also like to engage the a second reading we have had recently, the evolution of the English language. The beginnings of the language seemed to be entirely phonetic, meaning that it was spelled exactly as it sounded. “Forgyf” is forgive, though it is almost phonetically spelled. It carried on into the times of the Canterbury Tales, with “y” still being used where we put most of our “I” today. The point I am so warily limping to is that these evolutions are the reason that we have such a fine and almost impossible to learn language, simply because it has gone from simple to complex and does not allow for easy learning. Many of those who do not speak English natively have to learn the complex spelling and speaking differences, and as Millward states, writing is the derivative of speaking.
In conclusion, this blog was not meant to be confusing or thesis- less on purpose. This was just the sum of the thoughts running through the writer’s head at the time that this blog was posted. I was just recognizing the possibility of the evolutoin of writing from graphics to the letters we have today. I was also pointing out and reinforcing Millward’s point that writing is the derivative of speaking. In essence, I have no thesis, just a collection of thoughts which I have now been able to put down on paper, figuratively speaking.
Our alphabet has been based on, according to the article, on Greek and Roman alpha- numeric symbols. I liked the explanation for the possible evolution of letters, which goes from a symbol to a modified and sleeker version of the symbol, to the actual letter as we know it today. This could also be true because of the Greek sign “omega” which could have used to represent “sun” in the Greek alphabet, and as superior things are referred to as the “Alpha Omega” and therefore the sun in something that the Greeks valued highly. Therefore, the explanation for the evolution of the alphabet could have happened in that way.
I would also like to engage the a second reading we have had recently, the evolution of the English language. The beginnings of the language seemed to be entirely phonetic, meaning that it was spelled exactly as it sounded. “Forgyf” is forgive, though it is almost phonetically spelled. It carried on into the times of the Canterbury Tales, with “y” still being used where we put most of our “I” today. The point I am so warily limping to is that these evolutions are the reason that we have such a fine and almost impossible to learn language, simply because it has gone from simple to complex and does not allow for easy learning. Many of those who do not speak English natively have to learn the complex spelling and speaking differences, and as Millward states, writing is the derivative of speaking.
In conclusion, this blog was not meant to be confusing or thesis- less on purpose. This was just the sum of the thoughts running through the writer’s head at the time that this blog was posted. I was just recognizing the possibility of the evolutoin of writing from graphics to the letters we have today. I was also pointing out and reinforcing Millward’s point that writing is the derivative of speaking. In essence, I have no thesis, just a collection of thoughts which I have now been able to put down on paper, figuratively speaking.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
reflection of writing
Having a blog immediately after completing the paper, I feel that I must truly make the reflection blog just that, a reflection of the paper. This reflection is according to Donald Murray, and his essay “Writing is Rewriting.” He states that he had misconceptions regarding writing, and the due process of such, and states that he has since seen over those.
The first misconception was one which states “first draft is the best.” I still believe this. I feel as if my initial paper was the greatest, and that is because of the reason he stated, it is unique to me. It also did not help that those people who reviewed it stated that it was good, and that my points had been made. This helped to fuel the supposed “misconception” that I still have, the first draft is the best.
Seeing how I did not really rewrite, I conformed to the “old- fashioned” style of writing. My style was reformed to conform to that style of the “proper” writer. I conformed and put more appropriate and straight forward transitions into my paper, making it a great paper according the writing style of the professional man. This does not at all mean that I think that I have made a poor decision by changing things.
Changing things in my paper is something that has benefited me. My paper is good, because I feel as if it is, but like everything, it could always be better. Transitions have always been my weakness, and it is most likely the one thing that will be noticeable in the blog, and I feel that having people check my transitions is for the better. Also, I like to take pride in the first paper, because having an assignment and a loose direction is not as good as having a paper that has been completed. So I must I have taken pride in everything I have done, and therefore will always think that my first draft, the initial one, is the best. Though it gets reviewed, and revised, and eventually re-revised, and therefore ends up better than imagined.
The conclusion for this is basically that those misconceptions of writing will most likely never be broken in me, because I do take pride in the work I do, and like to feel as if I have uniqueness.
The first misconception was one which states “first draft is the best.” I still believe this. I feel as if my initial paper was the greatest, and that is because of the reason he stated, it is unique to me. It also did not help that those people who reviewed it stated that it was good, and that my points had been made. This helped to fuel the supposed “misconception” that I still have, the first draft is the best.
Seeing how I did not really rewrite, I conformed to the “old- fashioned” style of writing. My style was reformed to conform to that style of the “proper” writer. I conformed and put more appropriate and straight forward transitions into my paper, making it a great paper according the writing style of the professional man. This does not at all mean that I think that I have made a poor decision by changing things.
Changing things in my paper is something that has benefited me. My paper is good, because I feel as if it is, but like everything, it could always be better. Transitions have always been my weakness, and it is most likely the one thing that will be noticeable in the blog, and I feel that having people check my transitions is for the better. Also, I like to take pride in the first paper, because having an assignment and a loose direction is not as good as having a paper that has been completed. So I must I have taken pride in everything I have done, and therefore will always think that my first draft, the initial one, is the best. Though it gets reviewed, and revised, and eventually re-revised, and therefore ends up better than imagined.
The conclusion for this is basically that those misconceptions of writing will most likely never be broken in me, because I do take pride in the work I do, and like to feel as if I have uniqueness.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
pet peeves in english
Another late night blog, another point from the class. This week, on discussion of the topic “On Black English” and what annoys us the most about language. I do not have many pet peeves when it comes to the English language, simply because I butcher it more than anyone else I know. But I do have two peeves: the first being the adding of -er at the end of every adjective, and the second being the excessive use of similes and metaphors in a conversation.
The first problem is one in which folks, I say folks to appeal to the annoying feelings in the reader, add -er ending to an adjective, which is entirely wrong in some ways, and just sounds wrong in others. For example, badder, a word that is grammatically wrong, has become a mainstay in the vernacular of America, most likely thanks in part to South Park: Bigger, BADDER, and Uncut. Folks have decided that because some producers, who are somehow deemed authority on language, has used improper grammar, then it is now right to use. Another example was provided by Mr. Barnette, when he stated that certain tasks are “weightier” than others. I assume, simply because he is far more qualified than I to say that, seeing as he is an English professor, that “weightier” is correct grammar. I am not trying to be bashful, but it sounds improper or uneducated to say “weightier” or any other adjective that ends in -er. I understand that any other person reading this would state that this is exactly how words like “longer” and “stronger” and other words similar have been created, but I would still like to say it sounds wrong.
The second thing that annoys me is the use, or rather, excessive use of similes and metaphors. I do not really have too much a leg to stand on with this one, except that it sounds as if the one doing too many comparisons has no education or the lack of vocabulary to make an adequate description.
The only point this blog has to it is that casual oral speakers these days are becoming far too casual, and the language seems to be dumbing down because of it. Our language is going through an evolution, which I acknowledge and accept, but it seems as if the vernacular of the language is forcing the language to become simpler, which I fear will lead to a non-descriptive language in the future.
The first problem is one in which folks, I say folks to appeal to the annoying feelings in the reader, add -er ending to an adjective, which is entirely wrong in some ways, and just sounds wrong in others. For example, badder, a word that is grammatically wrong, has become a mainstay in the vernacular of America, most likely thanks in part to South Park: Bigger, BADDER, and Uncut. Folks have decided that because some producers, who are somehow deemed authority on language, has used improper grammar, then it is now right to use. Another example was provided by Mr. Barnette, when he stated that certain tasks are “weightier” than others. I assume, simply because he is far more qualified than I to say that, seeing as he is an English professor, that “weightier” is correct grammar. I am not trying to be bashful, but it sounds improper or uneducated to say “weightier” or any other adjective that ends in -er. I understand that any other person reading this would state that this is exactly how words like “longer” and “stronger” and other words similar have been created, but I would still like to say it sounds wrong.
The second thing that annoys me is the use, or rather, excessive use of similes and metaphors. I do not really have too much a leg to stand on with this one, except that it sounds as if the one doing too many comparisons has no education or the lack of vocabulary to make an adequate description.
The only point this blog has to it is that casual oral speakers these days are becoming far too casual, and the language seems to be dumbing down because of it. Our language is going through an evolution, which I acknowledge and accept, but it seems as if the vernacular of the language is forcing the language to become simpler, which I fear will lead to a non-descriptive language in the future.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Concrete languages
In this post, the idea is that native language is unchangeable, and identifiable. We talked about how language makes us identifiable, and how it is not easy to adapt to another language after one has moved to another country.
Though many people in the class stated that they had not found that their language had made them identifiable, and that it most likely never would. Going outside of the nation, one would typically have to use a different language, and like the foreigners in our country, would have an easily recognizable accent. People would ask where they come from, and perhaps make fun of the accent, and the response would be that the said person comes from the United States of America. This would be the instance where language makes their identity. I would assume that most of the people in the class have not been outside the country, or outside the touristy parts of a foreign country. The point is, maybe not in the country, language will always be the identifying mark of someone, whether it be that someone comes from a foreign land, or goes from the South to the North.
Unchangeable language is fast becoming a problem in our society. We have so many areas of the nation in which have become practical enclaves of our nation. While I believe we have immigrants learning English, and establishing English and Spanish as national languages, every major culture has an enclave in the USA, which has not forced the issue for most immigrants. In case one does not know, enclaves are those things that are foreign, but in another foreign entity. For example, the Vatican is an enclave. I believe that in a country like America, where we have so many of these enclaves, such as Chinatowns, and Little Italy, and Little Havana, immigrants will never fully embrace the English language, which means we should either adapt or English could eventually be phased out of the country.
The point of the post is not that language is concrete, is that the learning of the language cannot be undone. This can be good and bad, good because it allows for identity, and bad because it does not allow for immersion.
Though many people in the class stated that they had not found that their language had made them identifiable, and that it most likely never would. Going outside of the nation, one would typically have to use a different language, and like the foreigners in our country, would have an easily recognizable accent. People would ask where they come from, and perhaps make fun of the accent, and the response would be that the said person comes from the United States of America. This would be the instance where language makes their identity. I would assume that most of the people in the class have not been outside the country, or outside the touristy parts of a foreign country. The point is, maybe not in the country, language will always be the identifying mark of someone, whether it be that someone comes from a foreign land, or goes from the South to the North.
Unchangeable language is fast becoming a problem in our society. We have so many areas of the nation in which have become practical enclaves of our nation. While I believe we have immigrants learning English, and establishing English and Spanish as national languages, every major culture has an enclave in the USA, which has not forced the issue for most immigrants. In case one does not know, enclaves are those things that are foreign, but in another foreign entity. For example, the Vatican is an enclave. I believe that in a country like America, where we have so many of these enclaves, such as Chinatowns, and Little Italy, and Little Havana, immigrants will never fully embrace the English language, which means we should either adapt or English could eventually be phased out of the country.
The point of the post is not that language is concrete, is that the learning of the language cannot be undone. This can be good and bad, good because it allows for identity, and bad because it does not allow for immersion.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
ethnographic response
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/29/man-charged-in-gun-incident/
This is where the article that I used is found.
The article at question is one in which a local man fired his high powered rifle into the air near a school. The event happened just before 6 pm on Monday evening. After the man, Darryl Wilson was taken into custody, he was charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and public intoxication. Various witnesses state that they heard shots, but never felt threatened, and had no idea what was going on.
The only real cultural information is that the schools were occupied due to extra curricular activities, and that there are those who do actually possess weapons. A fieldworker investigating this event and the people surrounding it is “why were there extra- curricular activities, which could have put people in danger,” and also question “how could one obtain a gun, and a high- powered rifle at that?” The only difference between a journalist’s questions and the fieldworker’s question would be that a journalist has some knowledge of the background of the situation, and the fieldworker might not have some knowledge. The fieldworker would want to ask who was involved, and why the persons involved were present, and also why the event took place. The fieldworker would most likely use personal interviews, and some case studies might help to understand the movement of people.
This is where the article that I used is found.
The article at question is one in which a local man fired his high powered rifle into the air near a school. The event happened just before 6 pm on Monday evening. After the man, Darryl Wilson was taken into custody, he was charged with aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and public intoxication. Various witnesses state that they heard shots, but never felt threatened, and had no idea what was going on.
The only real cultural information is that the schools were occupied due to extra curricular activities, and that there are those who do actually possess weapons. A fieldworker investigating this event and the people surrounding it is “why were there extra- curricular activities, which could have put people in danger,” and also question “how could one obtain a gun, and a high- powered rifle at that?” The only difference between a journalist’s questions and the fieldworker’s question would be that a journalist has some knowledge of the background of the situation, and the fieldworker might not have some knowledge. The fieldworker would want to ask who was involved, and why the persons involved were present, and also why the event took place. The fieldworker would most likely use personal interviews, and some case studies might help to understand the movement of people.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Breaking Barrier
Language is long the dividing factor for countries, and people in the country. I have had a unique experience with the idea of language being a dividing factor. As I am a mixed child, half- Caucasian, and half- Hispanic, I do have family who are in another country and speak another language.
Born in the late 80’s, I have been to Panama about 7 times from birth to pre- 9/11. I do not believe I have ever had a full conversation with my dad’s side of the family. The love is still there, but there is a definite barrier present in the relationship. To provide the prime example, until recently, I have not understood Spanish well enough to know simple verbs such as “comer” and “lavar”. In order to express hunger, we had to have signs involving the mouth and the stomach. We never had the ability to effectively communicate.
Language has been something which has long been a grand part of my life. My dad’s second language is English, and his first of course is Spanish. In my previous blog, I have mentioned that things do not translate well for the converted speakers. This would also cause the communication barrier, simply because mistranslations would cause problems. I have also witnessed many occasions in which the Spanish speakers are trying to get things done in America, like purchasing groceries, or receiving admissions to hospitals, and due to the lack of Spanish- English translators, have had trouble getting the intentions across. I would then finally get to learn Spanish, and everything started clearing up.
When I started learning Spanish, my understanding of the communication barrier started to clear up. I started to learn that Spanish is one language in which the verb comes before the adjective, and then eventually learned that Spanish does not literally translate into English, and therefore the communication barrier started to crumble. I got the realization that though Spanish natives are trying and failing at speaking English, it was easy to understand their intentions. This allowed me to start to understand my dad clearer, and to try to effectively communicate with Spanish speakers. Now that I am seeing the language barrier crash, I am seeing it in the realm of politics.
Politics, until recently, never regarded the language barrier of most Americans. In the Election of 2004, I had started to see signs that multiple politicians were actually regarding the minority Spanish- speaking populations. Before the election, there was not a lot of publicity and regard for the Hispanics and Spanish- Americans. Language was something that most were expected to know, and the politicians were not too keen to deal with the Hispanic population. The change came rapidly after 9/11, when the government started to recognize how grand the minority Spanish- speaking population, and began to smash down the language barrier.
Really the language barrier is being broken all over the place, in my life, in politics, and even in the rest of the world. Many people fail to realize that there was a barrier for language, and that it is currently in the process of being knocked down. We are making progress as a nation, and I am making progress as an individual, with the rupturing of the language barrier.
Born in the late 80’s, I have been to Panama about 7 times from birth to pre- 9/11. I do not believe I have ever had a full conversation with my dad’s side of the family. The love is still there, but there is a definite barrier present in the relationship. To provide the prime example, until recently, I have not understood Spanish well enough to know simple verbs such as “comer” and “lavar”. In order to express hunger, we had to have signs involving the mouth and the stomach. We never had the ability to effectively communicate.
Language has been something which has long been a grand part of my life. My dad’s second language is English, and his first of course is Spanish. In my previous blog, I have mentioned that things do not translate well for the converted speakers. This would also cause the communication barrier, simply because mistranslations would cause problems. I have also witnessed many occasions in which the Spanish speakers are trying to get things done in America, like purchasing groceries, or receiving admissions to hospitals, and due to the lack of Spanish- English translators, have had trouble getting the intentions across. I would then finally get to learn Spanish, and everything started clearing up.
When I started learning Spanish, my understanding of the communication barrier started to clear up. I started to learn that Spanish is one language in which the verb comes before the adjective, and then eventually learned that Spanish does not literally translate into English, and therefore the communication barrier started to crumble. I got the realization that though Spanish natives are trying and failing at speaking English, it was easy to understand their intentions. This allowed me to start to understand my dad clearer, and to try to effectively communicate with Spanish speakers. Now that I am seeing the language barrier crash, I am seeing it in the realm of politics.
Politics, until recently, never regarded the language barrier of most Americans. In the Election of 2004, I had started to see signs that multiple politicians were actually regarding the minority Spanish- speaking populations. Before the election, there was not a lot of publicity and regard for the Hispanics and Spanish- Americans. Language was something that most were expected to know, and the politicians were not too keen to deal with the Hispanic population. The change came rapidly after 9/11, when the government started to recognize how grand the minority Spanish- speaking population, and began to smash down the language barrier.
Really the language barrier is being broken all over the place, in my life, in politics, and even in the rest of the world. Many people fail to realize that there was a barrier for language, and that it is currently in the process of being knocked down. We are making progress as a nation, and I am making progress as an individual, with the rupturing of the language barrier.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Language, the universal divider
We talked about language, and how it is ultimately the divider of the world. I mean that we mentioned how language is something that does not translate perfectly throughout, meaning that there are obvious barriers for members of different native tounges to communicate.
I have experienced this in the first hand. I know a person who has studied english in an American college. This person has lived in the United States, worked, and has attempted to conquer the english language. Proper word order is still messed up, because this person's native language is Spanish, and therefore he is translating as he knows. He does speak english, but he would say things such as "what do you want for drink?" rather than the proper "what do you want to drink?" There is nothing that would be considered a barrier to communication. I just wanted to put that out there for consideration.
Learning a language requires that most people go out into the place where the language is spoken to really learn it. One can learn slang, but, as in the case of Spanish, slang changes from region to region, and then country to country. Learning a language must be hands- on. In the case of the person who came to the USA after learning english in the USA, we have different slang in every part of the nation, as was mentioned in class. Many people who even speak english have problems with different slangs.
The basic point I am trying to make, which is far-fetched and sounds like I wrote this at waining hours of another 20 hour day, is that language is not something that is meant to be easy, and not something that is supposed to be understood overnight. Essentially, when you read this, you should understand that if you were in another country, and struggling to form a conversation, you would want some patience. The same patience you should show to those who are struggling, because a non- native language does not come easily for some.
Victor
I have experienced this in the first hand. I know a person who has studied english in an American college. This person has lived in the United States, worked, and has attempted to conquer the english language. Proper word order is still messed up, because this person's native language is Spanish, and therefore he is translating as he knows. He does speak english, but he would say things such as "what do you want for drink?" rather than the proper "what do you want to drink?" There is nothing that would be considered a barrier to communication. I just wanted to put that out there for consideration.
Learning a language requires that most people go out into the place where the language is spoken to really learn it. One can learn slang, but, as in the case of Spanish, slang changes from region to region, and then country to country. Learning a language must be hands- on. In the case of the person who came to the USA after learning english in the USA, we have different slang in every part of the nation, as was mentioned in class. Many people who even speak english have problems with different slangs.
The basic point I am trying to make, which is far-fetched and sounds like I wrote this at waining hours of another 20 hour day, is that language is not something that is meant to be easy, and not something that is supposed to be understood overnight. Essentially, when you read this, you should understand that if you were in another country, and struggling to form a conversation, you would want some patience. The same patience you should show to those who are struggling, because a non- native language does not come easily for some.
Victor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)