Skip to main content

Analysing a Text Through a Bell Hooks' Quote

2. “I imagine them hearing spoken English as the oppressor’s language, yet I imagine them also realizing that this language would need to be possessed, taken, claimed as a space of resistance. I imagine that the moment they realized the oppressor’s language, seized and spoken by the tongues of the colonized, could be a space of bonding was joyous.”

The text I’m analysing through the selected Bell Hooks’ quotation is in an academic paper-style format, on the topic of “Variation and Change in English”


Pages 3-4, Section 1.2.2:

“1.2.2 The Ebonics Debate
 In December 1996 the Oakland School District Board in the American State of California passed a resolution which gave official recognition to Ebonics, a separate language and distinct from English. Ebonics is a compound word made up of from the two words ‘Ebony’ meaning black and ‘phonics’ meaning sound, As a consequence, schools in the Oakland District were required to recognise and accept Black pupil’s speech in the classroom as part of a bilingual education program, so that pupils would be taught both in their primary language, Ebonics, and in English. The impetus for adopting such a resolution came from the persistently low educational achievements obtained by black students in the district, who made up over fifty percent of the school population. Although a local issue, the passing of this resolution quickly became national news and precipitated a fierce debate across all the American States. Amongst the issues raised by the Oakland resolution on Ebonics was whether or not black English could be shown to be linguistically a separate language. The very raising of this issue immediately brought to the fore another one, namely, the wider, more politically sensitive one of the nature of the relationship between language and ethnicity, and between African-Americans and Anglo-Americans in contemporary American society. At the heart of the debate was not, as it tended to be presented in the press, whether one was for or against Ebonics, but the far wider issue of equality: of equal access to education for all American citizens regardless of ethnicity and through it, right of access to a full participating status in American life regardless of class, ethnicity and gender (Clark 2001:237-252). Tatalovich makes the point that whenever an opportunity arises in America such as that provided by the Oakland Resolution to debate matters of language, ‘ordinary people rise to defend the English language against those who speak other tongues’ (1995:1). He points out that the Oakland Resolution, in common with similar episodes throughout the history of the United States, ‘is symptomatic of the debate over whether the United States should reflect a dominant English-speaking majoritarianism or encourage a multilingual culture’ (1995:2). Consequently, for Tatalovich, controversies over language such as those sparked by the Ebonics debate become not only linguistic conflicts but also moral ones. Such controversy is further compounded by the fact that, although English is by far the most common language spoken and used in most areas of American public life, it has no official recognition as the national language of all American states, nor indeed does any other language. Furthermore, unlike many other major English speaking countries in the world, the US Federal government has not been able to assert the dominance of English or legislate any kind of national language policy through the education system, since neither language nor education are enshrined in its constitution. One of the ways in which the United States gets around this is by the importance it places on immigrants into the United States taking a test in citizenship, which is in English. Not surprisingly, the Ebonics debate found its way onto the agenda of the Linguistics Society of America. In 1997, the society passed a resolution calling for the recognition of Ebonics, alongside African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Vernacular Black English, to be recognised as systematic and governed by linguistic rules. However, the society refused to be drawn upon the issue of classification, on the grounds that the distinction between ‘languages’ and ‘dialects’ or ‘varieties’ is usually made more on social and political grounds than purely linguistic ones. It argued that what was important from a linguistic and educational perspective was not whether Ebonics or AAVE is called a ‘language’ but that they, in common with other speech varieties, be recognised as systematic and governed by linguistic rules. At the heart of the debate then, according to the Society, was not the linguistic issue of what counts as a language, but more the social and political ones which surround the establishment and maintenance of language hierarchies. If linguistics does not help us in defining the term ‘language’, then maybe another way of defining language is in terms of sub-divisions or as a collection of mutually intelligible dialects. In this way, we can talk about the southwest dialect of France, the Black Country dialect of English, the Bavarian dialect of German and so on. So, for example, English as a language includes not only its standardised form known as standard English (see 1.3 below), but all other dialects which exist within the geographical boundaries of England and elsewhere. However, mutual intelligibility as a criterion is not very helpful, since different languages as well as dialects can be mutually intelligible. For example, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish, though accepted as different languages, can each be understood by the speakers of the other languages. Other factors concerning intelligibility also have to be taken into account, such as the individual’s degree of exposure to a language, her/his educational background and a willingness to understand.”

            This text details the struggle to get recognition for ‘Ebonics’ and African-American Vernacular English, along with other dialects within the Black community. Both Bell Hooks’ quotation and this text relate to an American cultural perspective and outlook, due to the focus with both of them relating to topics that are part of American history. While Bell Hooks talks about English being an oppressor’s language, which could honestly apply to the UK as well; her quote is catered more towards an American perspective and audience. This is because slavery holds a much bigger historical ‘footprint’ in American History, especially when compared to the UK. The British Empire sent slaves to its colonies (which, once upon a time, included America), however, not so much to the British Isles. In addition, the British abolished slavery at an earlier period than America did, and did not have to fight a civil war to do it. As such, slavery would have a lesser effect on British cultural perspective compared to the US. Therefore, Bell Hooks’ quote can be interpreted as being about Americans in particular rather than just English speakers.

            Moving on to the second text, and how it can be analysed through the lens of Hooks’ quote, the first part of the text especially, details how a school in Oakland, California, accepted and recognised Ebonics as a second language, allowing students from that school district (African-Americans accounted for over 50% of the district’s students) to be taught in both Ebonics and English. This, as mentioned by the text, sparked a debate over whether Ebonics and/or other African-American dialects, should be considered a separate language from English. Rather uniquely, the US does not (de jure) have a national language (good luck being in the US without a knowledge of English though), and as such, compared to other countries, it does not assert dominance of the English language, as per the text.  The text also details how mutual understanding between two different dialects or languages is not very informative in terms of classifying whether a language is a dialect or a separate language.

            This text relates to Bell Hooks’ original quote because it shows that the African-American community, at least in certain regions, has managed to make their own take on English, to the point where it is almost being considered a separate language. The fact that the school district in Oakland recognised Ebonics, and sought to teach it alongside Standardised English reflects how English has been “seized and spoken by the tongues of the colonised”, in Hooks’ words. The recognition of Ebonics by that particular district may also reflect a recognition of the African-American Community, as a distinct and equal entity in society, resisting historical oppression and unrecognition of their community and culture. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Okonkwo as a Tragic Hero (Things Fall Apart)

           Taking the cultural context of Things Fall Apart into account, there are a few reasons for why Achebe would characterise Okonkwo using the tragic hero archetype. The character of Okonkwo could be an allegory for the Ibo people as a whole, for example, since throughout the story we see various parallels between Okonkwo’s situation and the situation of the Ibo people and culture. In Part One of the book, both Okonkwo and the Ibo people are well established; Okonkwo has wealth, family, and stability, and the Ibo society is functioning as it has been in the years before. However, in Part Two, we see this begin to unravel, as Okonkwo is exiled, and the colonisers begin to arrive, introducing Christianity, slaughtering a village; bringing great change, and shaking up the cultural stability. At the end of Part Three, we see the full breakdown of both Okonkwo and the old Ibo culture. Okonkwo, of course, kills a court messenger, and then kills himself wh...

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterisation of Coriolanus in Act I?

               One of  Act one’s main purposes, in terms of the characterisation of Coriolanus is to showcase the aspects of Coriolanus’ personality and the context that it brings up. Shakespeare portrays Coriolanus as a decisive and effective battlefield commander in the battle scenes, by having Coriolanus give rising and encouraging speeches, “Now put your shields before your hearts, and fight With hearts more proof [strong] than shields” -Act 1 Scene 4, lines 33-34 and in lines 58, where Coriolanus calls on his men to follow him. The fact that Coriolanus is able to capture Corioles and hold his own against Aufidius is contextual proof of his skill as both soldier and commander. Shakespeare also details both the inner and physical strength of Coriolanus, through quotes such as: “The blood I drop is rather physical Than dangerous to me.” -Act 1 Scene 5, lines 20-21 and “…why cease you till you are so?” (context is Coriolanus is asking if th...

Market Analysis: Why we should we invest in online advertising?

            Advertising as we know it is dying. Less and less people are buying and using traditional media (TV, magazines, newspapers, cinemas, radio, etc.), in which the traditional types of advertising are present. The age of television, radio, and paper will eventually come to a close; already the Internet is showing itself to be a dominant player in media, in countries that have developed their internet infrastructure to a satisfactory level. We and other companies have tried to keep up with the rise of the internet, by placing banner ads, pop-ups, and video ads, but people are getting around the ‘inconvenience’ or ‘annoyance’ of these ads via ad blocking software, making our adverts useless (since not enough people view them). However, there may be another, less overt way.             To the average person, having to sit through an advert before viewing a video/article, or view a site littere...