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.