December 3, 2010
Several of my students use a phrasing in their papers that I marked, at least in my own head, as an error when I read it. When they write about methods of teaching vocabulary, which for some reason that I cannot yet explain is a very popular topic for my students to write about in the academic writing course, they often write “learning new vocabularies” by which they mean “learning new vocabulary words.” I explained this to one of my students one day in a conference, helpfully pointing out the distinction. Not a major issue, to be sure, but something worth mentioning in the pedagogical small talk of a teacher-student conversation.
So I was a little surprised last week, when I attended an English language conference at my university, to see the word “vocabularies” used in a presentation abstract, to mean “vocabulary words.” I suddenly wondered if there could be a way that “vocabularies” was actually proper, in Indonesian English, the way not having an article in front of “hospital” is proper in British English, and whether there could be something called Indonesian English which has its own rules (the linguist in me says of course there can).
This is a simple observation, but it raises profound questions about the ownership of a language, about the meaning of “error,” and about who gets to claim the right to enforce correctness in a language. It suggests that the process of linguistic colonization underway with English is, like the process of colonization itself, not wholly under the control of the colonizers. It challenges English language instructors to focus on languages as on-going acts of human creation rather than languages as artifacts to be preserved by people like me, Pak Kirk, Global English Archivist. At some point, and I think that point might already be here, I don’t get to tell the students learning “my” language that, to borrow a phrasing from another student paper, the way they speaking it wrong.
You iz CrAzY, son! Mos Def we be spittin' it how we get it, n' puttin' that twist on it too! (That's Bronx English...)
ReplyDeleteI remember the first time I encountered the concept of linguistic prescriptivism in college. The idea that there is "correct," and that all rules must be followed, is just so easy to disprove. Any corpus analysis will prove this! (Sorry, but this inside joke must live on, even in the public forum that is your blog).
That said, there are more frequent colloquial expressions, and then Indo-creations that simply cannot be. I would strike down vocabularies as well, even after hearing about the presentation you witnessed, as that academic usage of the term is not likely to be the intended contextual employment your students had in mind.
Another example of this point would be "how pity you are!," an Indggrisization that comes from "kasiandehlo." There is a direct translation: "poooor you," said sarcastically. But somehow, the entirety of Indonesia's English speakers have become convinced that "how pity you are" is correct. Only, if they were to say it to English speakers outside of their language bubble, it would make no sense whatsoever. Not that language use has to be universally understood - my Bronx English above probably proves that. And linguistic creativity knows no bounds. But perhaps the difference in right and wrongs comes in knowing what you mean to say and creatively abstracting to some variant, and using a dictionary to come up with something that isn't quite right.
Down with English colonization! (I always love the use of "down with," as it could mean "let's end," or could mean "I get down/am friendly with," which are, of course, complete opposites, and thus creates a very confusing double entendre. How pity I am!)
How pity you are is a perfect example of what I mean. How is this any different than the variants produced in versions of African American Vernacular English, that has particular rules for things that would make no sense to speakers of other languages. Or Singlish, for that matter, in Singapore, where they sling "got" around in ways that are completely harebrained, as far as I am concerned, but these are native speakers we're talking about, using language like, well, natives. "How pity you are" doesn't have to be accepted by you, or me, or William Safire, to become a linguistic variety in the language.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we can legitimize linguistic variants by the consciousness they have of some presumed standard, which itself exists in multiple forms (as I learned in University).
Any issues, of course, can be quickly mitigated by getting Colonel Linguistics on the matter. He has been promoted.