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

Coriolanus and the Theme of Power

Shakespeare develops the theme of power in the play, mainly with the characters of Coriolanus, Volumnia, Aufidius, Menenius, and the Tribunes as representative of different forms of power. The titular character, Coriolanus, is a man from an older form of power, the absolute kind, where rulers did not have to answer to the commoners. He approaches politics the same way he approaches military matters: speaks his mind/heart (i.e. insulting the commoners, but it’s what he genuinely thinks of them), being true to himself, and insulting those he regards as enemies or against Rome (in battle this is the Volsces, but he believes that giving the plebeians a voice is a bad idea). In military, he is successful, because military power is absolute, obey or die type of deal, at least in that time; however, politics requires a surgical approach, and careful consideration of what to say, which the other characters mentioned can do better. Menenius acts as a foil to Coriolanus’ skills, because while h...

Print Advertisement: Nivea Moisturizer

To start off, here's some basic information about the advert. Its target audience is young women, as the main focus of the advert is a young woman, and the product is cosmetic, a product type commonly advertised to this target audience. The cosmetic in question is "Nivea Smooth Milk: Body", a type of moisturizing cream. As the ad is written in English and comes from a German (Western) company, it can be concluded that this advert comes from a Western cultural background. Since Nivea was founded in 1911, it can be inferred that this ad was made in 2011, due to the quote "100 years skin care for life". The ad seems to imply that physical attractiveness is the most important factor in a happy relationship, due to the happy couple featured in the image, and the slogan "For visibily smooth and touchably soft skin" (misspellings came with the ad), which seems to imply to the viewer that moisturizer brought the couple closer together (the image has the...

Letter to the Editor - The Daily Mail

Dear Ms. Laura Clark, Your article, while raising a few interesting and worrying points, completely missed the mark. Instead of blasting ‘text speak’ and saying that “ Youngsters are also in danger of growing up with limited vocabularies because they spend so much of their free time on sites such as Twitter…”, perhaps you should look to the parents and authority figures who should be teaching the children about the English language before blaming technology. As a ‘youngster’ myself, I feel that you shift the blame on to text speak too much, and give it unfair credit. It is also rather insulting to observe the generation raising us, cast their responsibility on to inanimate devices, that they themselves gave us. The fact is, is that both teachers and parents share a certain responsibility to teach children to do the right thing. Perhaps the staff should have made a better effort in making sure that the children knew to differentiate their writing styles for different contexts and ...