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
Post a Comment