Fallacy: Al Gore

As most people know, Al Gore spent much time, money and effort promoting his film "An Inconvenient Truth." This film aims at educating the public of the dangers of global warming. As a solution to this problem, Gore supported and endorsed the "Earth Hour" event, which calls for people to turn off their household electrical appliances for one a hour a year. However, on that particular night, Gore was caught with his lights on by Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR). This sparked much criticism and he was labeled a "hypocrite" by many.
This particular incident is an example of "Special Pleading." Special Pleading is a type of fallacy where someone applies a standard to other people in a particular situation, while taking himself to be exempt from that standard. In this case, Gore urged American citizens to respect this Earth Hour and turn off their lights. However, he did not do so himself, thus being guilty of a fallacy. Just because he was an important leader in this environmental movement does not mean that Gore can ignore the standards he sets for everyone else.

Here is a link to Drew Johnson's Facebook note describing Gore's house during Earth Hour.

Jon Stewart's Comical View of Public Discourse

In a recent monologue, Jon Stewart satirically criticizes CNN, one of the largest and most popular news companies, and their public discourse. Stewart begins by talking about the big news that made the headlines recently--football, the Obama's whereabouts, and popular box-office hits. He sarcastically lists these unimportant events to highlight the idea that the news fails to cover meaningful happenings, such as protests. Stewart then discusses CNN's tendency to not "fact check", or establish and assure the credibility of the sources they get their information from. Rather than find legitimate sources, CNN resorts to Saturday Night Live sketches for research. Moreover, when delivering specific numerical data to their viewers, CNN reporters offer a wide-range of numbers and fail to cite their sources. The next criticism, and perhaps the most hysterical one, is CNN's habit of saying "Let's leave it there" without completing an argument and drawing a conclusion. Stewart shows numerous clips of CNN dropping that infamous line, often cutting off people from finishing what they had to say and leaving the initial debate issue unsolved. Lastly, Jon Stewart discusses news reporters' failure to conduct thorough and relevant issue. On a clip from CNN, when asked whether we can check how much our health insurance premiums go up, a reporter responded by saying, "That's a good question." For such a widespread news organization that should be informing the public, that is simply an unacceptable response. Reporters should know these things before going on air, and because this particular woman did not do proper research, Stewart joked about it.

As you can see, Jon Stewart has found many flaws in media practices and public discourse. In turn, these flaws would not and should not find its way in academic discourse. Academic discourse, unlike public discourse, focuses mainly on showing a wide range of views for students, and from there, allowing those students to construct new ideas and develop a stance on the issue or debated topic. Also, public discourse does not spend much time establishing the credibility of their sources, but rather goes to great lengths to push their thoughts into other peoples' minds. On the other hand, academic discourse is typically associated with well-cited sources from various points of views. Therefore, perhaps if news outlets adopted some ideas of academic discourse to their programs, they would be more credible, informative, and not end up at the butt of Jon Stewart's jokes.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there

Extra Credit: Sacred Language, Spoken Language

Nurit Aviv's film Sacred Language, Spoken Language interviews a handful of Hebrew speakers, writers, and poets on their views of this revived language. As Etgar Keret put it, "the history of Hebrew is unusual," as it was once "frozen for two thousand years, then defrosted." This "defrosting" was brought upon by the Zionist movement, which supported the reestablishment of Jewish people in Palestine, thus leading to the rebirth of their ancient language. According to the first speaker (Haim Gouri), the Hebrew language was the foundation of the national revival--"Without the language, no rebirth of people." From a linguistic standpoint, this statement is quite significant. It shows the importance of language not only as a means to communication, but also as something that holds a culture together.

As a consequence of the language being dead for so long, words had to be taken from different languages (borrowing) and new slang had to be invented in order to be better suit the current world. While this modernization was essential to the revival and maintenance of Hebrew, it took some of the ancient cultural significance out of the language. Some of the people being interviewed in this film even referred to these new Hebrew translations as "soiled" and "profane". Many of the people also noted that the Hebrew they know today is comprised of two layers: the scriptural and daily, the sacred and profane, the paternal and maternal. The former descriptions in each pair are the ancient language, seen in the Bible and Tehmad. The latter describes the language spoken and known by all Hebrew speakers today. Therefore, while modernization was inevitable, some of the ancient Hebrew spoken long ago was preserved.

As a linguistics student, I found this film quite interesting. For a language to have been dead for so long, its people had to work extremely hard to reconstruct and revitalize it. It was fascinating to listen to a wide range of peoples' views on the Zionist movement. I found Ronit Matalon's interview particularly interesting. As a writer, she must understand the two layers of Hebrew, then must utilize both the ancient and modern forms in her writing. She concludes her time by saying, "It's the right, the responsibility, the freedom to use the language you want to use. You are not judging the words, the sentences, the expressions you use by their origins but by the way they sound, how they're used, what they mean." In other words, people choose to speak a certain way not because of the history behind that certain dialect, but because it conveys a certain message or emotion that they want to get across. From a linguistics view, this sums up perfectly the use of language.

Maintaining a Non-Standard Dialect: The Advantages!

All traditional varieties and dialects hold a special place in the culture of their speakers. As Andrew Woodfield once put it, "A language is not just a medium, a symbol-system or a code. It is also the repository of a cultural tradition, a way of living, and of expressing which helps to covey a sense of identity upon its native-speakers." Thus, maintaining non-standard dialects would be advantageous in the sense that it would preserve cultural diversity and identities. Many speakers of AAVE, Hawaiian Pidgin, and Swiss German (all of which are "lower prestige dialects") have developed a pride in their mother tongue, as it gives them a sense of uniqueness and culture. Taking this away would result in a bland, monotonous world.

Also, maintaining non-standard dialects also may improve the education of the speakers of these non-standard dialects. Because culture and language is so closely knitted, children would be able to learn Standard English much easier if they are taught using their mother tongue as well. Often times, learning ASE is not only difficult to learn because of its grammatical and vocabulary technicalities, but also because it is so much of a culture shock or culture clash. Thus, since children would be able to understand concepts better in their inherited language, they might improve on their acquisition of the standard language.

Fallacy: MasterCard

We've all seen MasterCard commercials before, and they've all ended in the saying, "There are some things money can't buy--for everything else, there's MasterCard."  As catchy as it may sound, MasterCard's mantra does not contain much truth.  It is an example of a fallacy, particularly a false dilemma.  This fallacy, also known as "black and white thinking," involves a situation where only two alternatives are brought up, even though there are many more possibilities.  In other words, false dilemmas cause people to think that they must pick between two choices, when in actuality, there are much more.  

In the specific case of MasterCard slogan, they present us with just two choices: 1) you don't need money for some stuff and 2) for the stuff that you need money for, you use MasterCard.  As an advertising strategy, they chose to omit other possibilities, such as using money, Visa, American Express, etc.  Thus, they are putting people in a false dilemma since we actually have many choices to choose from.

Our Green Future: America's Young Environmental Leaders Speak Out

This past Tuesday, three Brower Youth Awardees discussed the environmental problems we face and the great accomplishments that they have achieved at such a young age.  Unlike the first lecture of this debate series, I believe that Rachel Barge, Billy Parish, and Erica Fernandez presented their material in a more interesting and believable manner.  One of the big mistakes that many people felt Simran Sethi made was that she did not go into detail about what we as students could do to help the environment.  These three speakers, however, showed us how much they achieved as college students.  Rachel not only raised a lot of money for the environment's sake, but she also was able to snag some of Berkeley's valuable land as a permanent residence for her on-campus organization.  Billy has helped provide jobs to those who are interested in saving the planet and are fresh out of college.  What was most inspiring, however, was Erica Fernandez's speech at the end.  Sure her English was not the clearest and she clearly recited her speech countless times, but her passion for her cause was evident.  Just a sophomore in college, she has accomplished so much, particularly creating a safer and cleaner environment in her neighborhood.

Overall, I believed that these three speakers were so effective because they were recently college freshman just like us and it was very easy to relate to them.  To see what they've accomplished in their youth makes us more hopeful about what we could possibly do for our earth now.

My Fair Lady Review

My Fair Lady follows Professor Henry Higgins and his student Eliza Doolittle.  Professor Higgins, a linguist who can distinguish different accents from all across Europe, takes on a bet in which he says he can transform Eliza, a lowly flowergirl, into a lady who speaks, acts, and dresses properly.  Eliza eventually succeeds at becoming a more "genteel" woman, and even attracts the attention and adoration of a young aristocrat.  Eliza's makeover is apparent in the way she talks (how she enunciates her vowels), the way she dresses, and the overall way she handles herself.  However, when she overhears Prof. Higgins taking all the credit for her unbelievable transformation, Eliza leaves him and Prof. Higgins realizes that he misses her.

From a linguist student's point of view, this film is interesting, as it allows us to listen to many different dialects of the English language--from the rough way of speaking of Eliza to the more refined speaking of Higgins and his colleagues.  My favorite part of the movie was in the beginning when Prof. Higgins went around listening to people to talk and telling each one of them exactly where they came from!  He mentioned that he could distinguish where someone is from within 3 or 6 miles!  I also found it interesting how Eliza wanted to change her way of speaking so she could find a better job and make more money.  This shows that her dialect was of the low variety and that she would have to change that if she were to speak in a different, higher domain of life. 

Overall, My Fair Lady was a good musical which successfully incorporated different dialects to teach the differences between high and low varieties. 

Was the Apology Resolution effective??

During 1993, when the US issued the Apology Resolution, it seemed like the right thing to do and that it would be very effective.  It might have been considered late in coming (a century after the fact), but Native Hawaiians and government officials alike seemed optimistic toward this breakthrough.  After all, an apology would definitely not hurt the situation since the Hawaiians still didn't have their land back.  It seemed as if this apology would not only improve the relationship with Hawaii and the rest of the nation, but also result in some type of reparations, whether it be money or land.  

I thought that this apology was approached in the right way.  It was a good idea to make it official with government documents because this was a political problem to begin with.  If the natives wanted their land back, they would have to do so through the government.  

However, 16 years later, the 1993 Apology Resolution has not accomplished much from the Native Hawaiian's viewpoint.  They still have been compensated for the vast amount of land they lost unrightfully in 1893.  In fact, there is an ongoing court case that went from the Hawaii court rooms, to the Supreme Court, and is now back in the state.  There are numerous organizations, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kau Inoa, that are working to make things better for the Hawaiians after all these years of injustice.

An "Apology" to the Native Hawaiians

     In 1893, the United States of America overthrew Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii as they annexed their 50th state into the union.  With this overthrow, the US stole the land away from the Native Hawaiians unrightfully and illegally.  In order to make amends for their mistakes, the US, under the presidency of Bill Clinton, issued an "Apology Resolution" one century after the fact.  This document admitted that the US wrongfully took the land away from the Native Hawaiians.  

     However, even with this official public apology, there is much controversy still lingering.  While this "law" was passed through Senate and Congress, nothing has really been done to make things right.  Even until this very day, Hawaiians have only gained back a small fraction of their land.  While there are designated areas devoted to Native Hawaiians, these places are extremely small, run down, and unsanitary.

Click Here to see excerpts of the Apology Resolution of 1993

or

Click Here to find out more about the Native Hawaiian's unrest about the "apology"

Note: Kau Inoa is an effort by Native Hawaiians to strengthen their culture and gain back the rights they previously had taken away.

Can We Save the Planet? Presentation

Last week Tuesday, world-renowned environmentalist Simran Sethi lectured us on the topic: Can We Save the Planet?  While she clearly knows information regarding pollution, thinking "green," and energy conservation, she did not really answer her topic question.  She pushed us in the direction of thinking of our own solutions, and I do not believe it was very effective since many of the students were not environment-related majors and did not have a clear grasp on possible solutions.  Sethi, however, did do a good job of outlining all the problems with the cleanliness and durability of our Earth to make us more aware of this important issue.  I also thought it was interesting how she said that although the media was destructive to the environment, it could shed more light onto this problem and spread awareness. 

As for improvement, I would suggest that she devote more time to possible solutions, rather than summarizing the problem and discussing the entertainment industry.  I also felt she could use more visual aids, other than her videos.  

Still, however, I believe Sethi is very knowledgeable of the environment and has and will do much to save our planet.  

The Abenaki Language

Abenaki is an endangered language originally spoken from Massachusetts to the St. Lawrence River valley (present-day New England and parts of Quebec).  It is split into two varieties: Eastern Abenaki and Western Abenaki.  The Eastern variant, spoken in parts of Maine and Quebec, only has one surviving group on Indian Island.  While the last fluent speaker died in 1993, this dialect is thoroughly documented.  On the other hand, Western Abenaki is used in New Hampshire, Vermont, and parts of Quebec.  There is a large group in Quebec, composed of many elderly, fluent speakers.  

This language, founded in the 16th century, however, has become endangered.  The Abenaki's struggle to preserve their language and culture began when the French and English colonized North America.  Soon after, they were forbidden to use their language--a ruling that remained until the 1950s.  Furthermore, during the Eugenics movement, the Abenakis (as well as other minorities) would risk sterilization or institutionalization for keeping hold of their culture and language.  

These days, the Abenaki speakers and advocates have been working hard to keep the language alive.  Several adult classes are being held and dictionaries have been printed.  There are great efforts taking place because this language is full of cultural history and significance.  

Click Here for Abenaki's Role in Culture and Traditions

or

Click Here for the Future of the Abenaki Language

  

To Save or Not to Save?

With so many endangered languages and only a limited amount of resources, linguists and government agencies must find a way to determine which languages are worth saving and which ones are not worth the money or effort.  Personally, I have several conditions that make a language worth saving.  First of all, there must be a solid, decently large population (maybe 500+ individuals) of fluent speakers.  It is also helpful that many of these people are of the younger generations so that the language doesn't die with the elders.  Another condition is that the fluent speakers have a positive attitude toward the survival of this language and that they are willing to help and cooperate with the linguists.  If there is no desire or enthusiasm among the fluent speakers, then it would be extremely difficult for the government and linguists to help revitalize the language.  Lastly, I believe that the language should already have a written form and include modern/technological vocabulary.  It would be far too difficult and costly to invent a written form.  Also, the language would be essentially useless in today's world if it did not include modern words.  

On the other hand, there are several conditions where saving a language is not worth it.  Similar to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is not worth it to save languages where there are only one or two speakers.  If a language only has a few fluent speakers, then past generations clearly did not care to keep the language going.  If there is this negative attitude and no compliance, then there is no reason to save the language.  

Still, I admire the efforts of linguists around the world who are trying their best to save as many languages as they can.  Here is a video from YOUTUBE describing the Rosetta Project--a project geared at saving languages...

Language, Society, Culture and Critical Thinking

Our Linguistics 115 class may not predominantly focus on critical thinking and uncertainty, but it sure does incorporate these ideas.  Thus far, our teacher has mainly thrown at us hundreds of facts about languages, dialects, and varieties, and how these have evolved.  However, I do think that there is some degree of critical thinking that goes on when our teacher talks about how new languages come into existence and why people have their own, unique ways of talking.  Because languages do not come into being overnight, there is a long process that it must go through in order to be properly established.  Because of the uncertainty that this language may not become as widespread as wanted, government leaders and public figures must thoroughly critically think about the social and political pros and cons of that language.  Furthermore, after learning about these processes and languages, I find myself thinking critically about the languages that we've learned about.  For instance, when learning about the dialect continuum, I thought about how there are so many different dialects, but yet, if you go from one to the other, you can easily learn and understand either one.   This made me think why they even call it different dialects, or even different languages.  I realized that there is not a "right" answer to this dilemma, and policy makers just had to make the best decision they could, while knowing that other people might disagree.

The Pope and the Nazis!

In his article "A German Lesson: The Fallacy of One True Path," Goldhagen draws a comparison between Pope Benedict's way of thinking and the state of Germany before WWII to show the pope's and the Nazi's narrow-mindedness.  Under the belief that Jews and other races were unimportant and lowly, Hitler and his followers engaged in " all-consuming racism, brutal conquest of other peoples and mass murder" in order to establish their supremacy.  Similar to the Nazi's belief that they were superior to all, Pope Benedict believed that the Catholic Church was superior to all other denominations and religions.  Although he did not resort to drastic measures like Hitler, Benedict called for a " world imperial church  " and " [denigrated] other religions as not being true religions or paths to salvation ."  I believe that Goldhagen highlights on these two groups of people to show that thinking you are the supreme over everyone else and trying to establish your religion or race as the "best," does not solve any problems.  Instead, it creates bigger problems, leading to less peace and resolution in the world.