Analysis of the English Language

I find it somewhat disorienting to think of Shakespeare in the context of Modern English (even if considered Early Modern English), as according to the text. Initial introductions to Shakespeare in Middle or High School seemed, at the time, equivalent to being introduced to a foreign language. It is an interesting paradox that we “learn� Shakespearean language by first reading it, then speaking it (if read aloud). I also look back on reading Beowulf, which, from my experience was only taught through reading, not speaking. In what context then, do we put such language? It seems that language which is only read or deciphered, but not utilized as a modern tool for communication carries different connotations than spoken language for many. To look at this from another perspective, the utility of language to communicate (i.e. as a tool) in daily life within relationships or for work seems to take precedence in the 21st Century for a large majority, since English is claimed to be the “international business language�. Many view English as a language of utility. This may be fuel used for the arguments that my students give me for hating reading: that language not intended to communicate is not as meaningful. If this were true, literature as an artistic form loses some of its validity when put in such narrow terms. Thus, the evolution of language cannot be restricted simply to what is useful for the times. I think understanding and appreciating the history of the English language is helpful in understanding the transcendence of value in literature, even if the “meaning� for communication is lost in the present times. In simpler terms: just because you cannot inherently speak Old, Middle or Early Modern English does not mean that the language of Beowulf, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales or Shakespeare’s masterpieces is no longer useful in present times.

Posted by Amelia Christianson at 1:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

While most of my peers probably found this chapter to be incredibly dull, I found it to be really useful. One of my English classes I am taking now is the British Literature Survey number one. Without any background, we jumped right into old English (in translation to Modern English, thankfully!), and then moved on to Middle English (not translated) and I will be honest, it stunk to try and get through. I know that I cannot set back time, but I wish that we could have done this chapter first. Trying to work through thirty pages of Chaucer is hard enough on a plot analysis level, but I had a hard time figuring out what the words were. All I knew when reading is that there was a rhyme scheme to follow, which helped minimally with my translations. Without knowing what the vowels and consonants sounded like in Middle English I could not read aloud myself. What I found to be most interesting in that class so far was hearing the professor read Chaucer out loud in Middle English. When she read aloud, I immediately could follow the poem easier because the sounds resonated with my lexicon.

The lesson that I take away from this chapter is that if I had some knowledge of the relationship and changes from Middle to Modern English I would have had a much easier time actually thinking about the literature I was assigned instead of getting a headache from trying to translate.

Posted by Kristine Beyer at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Download file

Posted by Aaron Bruenger at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

What continues to surprise me throughout this course is the emphasis that other cultures place on bilingualism or multi multilingualism as opposed to the United States. However, what slightly confuses me is where register fits in and the role that in plays in each language being used in a multilingual speech community. For example, Finegan describes the multilingual culture of Tehran, the capitol city of Iran, where different languages are used for home, work, church, school, leisure, and shopping/doing business. According to the text, it was not uncommon for individuals of any social standing to command as many as four or five language in different situations. With so many languages existing in the linguistic repertoire of the single speech community of Tehran, I was first wondering if register in each one of the languages plays as large of a role as in a monolingual linguistic repertoire of a speech community such as the United States. In other words, when an individual of Tehran transitions to Turkish when communicating with their fellow coworkers, does the particular register that they use in Turkish play as large of a role in the overall communication as in a monolingual speech community? Would they use Turkish slang or jargon in the particular speech situation? Or would transitioning to some use/form of Turkish be appropriate for that particular speech situation?

Posted by Rick Filipkowski at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Language-internal switching inside the English language was something that I knew occured for everyone, but I never realized how often it happens everyday. I read Finegan while at work and after completeing it, I decided to see how often my language switched between customers, co-workers, and friends who stopped by. Obviously, I spoke differently when dealing with customers then with co-workers, but it was surprising how quickly the language changed from friendly language to business language. I also noticed that I did not speak to customers all the same but different for each seperate one. The age of the customer, the question they were asking, the gender of the customer, and the friendliness of the customer all effected what type of language I spoke with them. While all the ways I spoke with customers was similar, there was always a slight difference, showing that there is almost an unlimited amount of varieties that languages can be spoken. I also tried paying close attention to the amount of slang I was using during the day, to see how it changed with the person I was talking with. Slang intrigues me as I wonder how the words came about and why are they prevelent with certain people and in certain areas but not others. When I went to London over spring break, it was funny hearing all the slang words Londoner's spoke that had completely different meanings than I was used to. They were speaking English, but at times it sounded completely foreign to me. Not only are there a great number of languages in the world, they can all be spoken in many different ways.

Posted by Ross Fyfe at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)

I find it interesting that Truman's interview was so informal. Why might that have been? Was it because he was no longer the president and therefore lost some of his prestige? Also, if he would have been asked to write his response down on paper, it would have been more formal automatically; that is what I find interesting. I never realized that people tend to write more formal than they would if they were talking. I mean, I always knew that subconsciously, but I've never been able to identify it until now, I guess.
Also, I can definitely relate to the different language I use between my parents and friends. When I try to talk more formally with my friends, I am able to see that it actually does take a lot of effort, because I'm not used to speaking formally in that sort of setting. And when I go home to visit my parents, I also find it difficult to articulate, because I use different grammer/language when I talk to them. When I explain things to them the way I would to my friends, they normally have no idea what I'm talking about.
It's definitely a comfort level when I use my familiar language around my friends; when I'm thrown out of that comfort level (say I'm in a classroom and want to respond to a question posed by the instructer) I get extremely nervous and anxious.
Overall though, I found the text in Finnegan to be really interesting and intriguing, because I was able to identify many things that I only knew subconsciously. Oaks, on the other hand, was pretty boring and difficult to stay focused.

Posted by Jamie Geissler at 7:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I don't think the issue of development of the language and the history of the language of English were not brought up well i n the article on "Dimensions of Usage and Dictionary Labeling. " I think that just simply "labeling words" without giving much further explination has a negative affect on the credibiltiy of the message. The video that we watched in class had real life interactions and situations that visually could only be visually understood. A dictionary labeling certain words is in my opinion great, but we should never really limit ourselves to just soley depend on a limited amount of words, which is what I think that Dictionary labeling does. In no way does this article try to procieve an accurate way of explaining how a language actually becomes to be a reality. This article rather, tries to daintily say that this is how it happened, instead of the video clearly describing how words came to be about in our language. How the term husband and wife are from two different origins. The only thing that dictionaries try to do is limit our language. Even though, I can't think of any other way to keep a record of our words. But words form phrases and one emotion in history will never describe another person's emotion. Everyone is unique; and dictionary labeling, after reading this article, makes me question that, which is something the video never did.

Posted by David Dvoskin at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Download file

Posted by Aaron Bruenger at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I actually have a side comment to make. My dad is from Pittsburgh and his family when I visit still believe firmly in the Pittsburghese type of language. My dad believes that there is no difference in the name Dawn and Don. He thinks they are said the same way. Also when my aunt says good bye on the phone, its like she is saying hi. Its quite interesting especially when I order food when I am there and I get something I never expected. I always think that American food is the same throughout the states, but that is completely not the truth. Also, downtown is said just like don-ton. It's just like they said on the show, they really do try to keep their own type of language running. They want to be different from many places around them. I also believe it has a lot to do with the area losing a lot of its income since the 1920s. What was once a booming, growing city, now is somewhat run down and trying to recover, and I believe the speech throughout the city was widely affected. Maybe Pittsburghese was from when the city was affluent, and now its a language that they are trying to keep as they get back on their feet. I guess I wonder how and why they talk like they do, but in the same right, I can't discriminate because I too have taken on a lot of different parts of their accent saying a lot of words with a funny accent no one understands.

Posted by CeAnna Christen at 9:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I am grateful that we were able to watch the video on Monday, because it is more updated then Oaks. I believe that video also has experimental schools that teach children the standard forms of proper speech. Because these are the tools that will help them become successful. Because “Black English� stems from the past and Oaks itself deals with the 70’s so I picked two controversial shows from that era. Because sitcoms today have more linguistic variations of different aspects what all social levels of the black American.
In my experience I find that many people who choose to speak “Black English was because of a social situation. There are black guys at work who float in between speech situations of proper dialectic speech acts and “Black English� depending on who they are talking to; much like some star athletics who have graduated with degrees from universities command the skills of their speech situation in from of the media, while differently when they are comfortably around peers.
I have a slight problem with labeling it “Black English� the reason perhaps is that is proper use of the language just reserved for …… When we see a person who is not Caucasian, say her name is Myong she opens her mouth perfect English in one mind we say she talks like a white person, because we have brained washed ourselves to have mental perceptions of a person based on skin color and along with that linguistic misrepresentation of proper speech. And we cannot really blame anyone for this problem, there are some people who hold on to their dialectic patterns as a way of identity, some who feel if blacks speak properly they are “Toms.� While still others feel that it is a way to fit into a social situation. Television shows have helped to perpetuate a misunderstanding and continuation of this concept. Your parents had shows like “Good Times� which story was built around ghetto life in the project of Chicago the show was very popular however educated Black felt that he gave the world a bad representation of Black America and one of the stars of that sitcom left the show for that very reason so the show went on without him. (John Amos) ( Here are some commits from a web site) Let's put as many black stereotypes in the same room as we can and see what happens. Ever wondered where the Good Times Virus Hoax got its name? Well now you know. "Dynomite!!" Of all the liberal tripe served up by Norman Lear in the 1970s, this was perhaps his most hypocritical effort. "Good Times" was a sitcom that was also pushed by its producers as an accurate portrayal of Black family life in a Chicago housing project. Yeah, right. As another contributor pointed out, everyone in front of the camera was Black, everyone behind the camera was White. I'll admit that I'm no expert on Black family life, but I don't think African American families spend their time dancing around the house, and "doin' the dozens" with one another. Esther Rolle, a woman of integrity, left the show at one point because she could no longer tolerate the negative images projected by the show's characters. When John Amos expressed similar objections, he was fired from the show because he was a "disruptive factor". Good Times? For who? Norman Lear and his bank account? http://www.jumptheshark.com/g/goodtimes.htm Oh the other side of the coin was a show called Julia which should a young black woman who spoke proper English and dressed well and emulated success. “Television influences the ways in which many Americans gain a sense of the lives
of people with whom they do not have regular contact. While not always representative
of an entire culture or people, the presence of these shows can truly change how society
views such groups and their lifestyles. By the late 1960s, increasing numbers of African
American family sitcoms emerged out of the Civil Rights Movement. From 1968-71,
shows like Julia, starring Diahann Carroll, appeared on the small screen, putting in front
of American eyes a young African American woman, raising her young child alone after
her husband died in the Vietnam War. In presenting a woman whose husband fought for
the good of the country, and who also held a steady, respectable job as a nurse into the
light, a wave of shows began that promised exposure to the true lives of African
American families. This new wave of shows counteracted images of African Americans
on television in the 1950s such as Amos 'n' Andy (June 1951 - June 1953) and Beulah� CHRISTOPHER J.P. SEWELL http://www.williams.edu/library/theses/2005/Sewell2005a.pdf
I wish that I had proof of the reaction from the black public but have found now it been too long or perhaps was not as popular as good times. However the show did have the character speaking linguistically correct. Which I was told by my mother that she was labeled a “Tom� (but not by herself) so I only have a few older black peoples opinions but no real proof written down and readily available.
So I believe that the constriction of “Black English� may either broaden some minds or close others, nonetheless, whatever the case maybe I do not believe that it would help secure a job or open opportunities as it would if one were properly educated because of our shrinking employment market.

Posted by Adrienne Lee at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This is more of a rant I guess, but I'm not a fan of how texting/instant messaging has influenced grammar, spelling, etc. To be clear, I'm not opposed to it; when I'm on AIM I don't always write everything out completely and use phrases like "brb" ("be right back" for the uninformed). However, it bugs me when that type of writing/way of communicating is used in the real word.

Basically, this stems from a time (not even a month ago), when my sister was helping out in a middle school class. and the kids were writing some kind of letter or short response. Apparantly, a few students were using terms like "r u" ("are you") or using "u" in general to replace "you," "ic" (I see), "jk" (just kidding), and a couple other examples in their papers, and were surprised when my sister pointed those cases out to them (either they didn't realize they had consciously done it or they saw nothing wrong with it).

As an English major (who wants to be a teacher in fact), this is really saddening. Obviously, I don't think we should ban Instant Messanger, but it's depressing to think that these kids are learning/being more influenced in their spelling and grammar by it.

Posted by Adam Rusinak at 5:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

I'm interested in the perception of "proper" English. Somehow the way I talk is fine, and the way black people talk is "uneducated." Why is a British accent beautiful and a Minnesota accent pedestrian? It's not. Years ago, when I first heard my mother-in-law speak, I noted her strong accent. My initial, uneducated reaction, was that she spoke with a thick accent and therefore must not have much education. Turns out she was a lawyer with a masters in English and I was the uneducated closed-minded one. I'd been taught "proper" speech, grammar and inflection and I'd also been taught that difference was "uneducated and improper."
Wolfram's article in Oaks points out that there are many different varieties of spoken English. It also noted that there is an accepted variety of academic English, which is common in writing. The article points out that students who speak a non-standard dialect, like "Black English" or "AE" may have a more difficult time learning to read than those who speak the accepted, mainstream academic English.
If this is the case, then why can New Yorkers and Bostonians learn to read? Maybe it's because they don't face the "unconscious but evident attitude of teachers toward the home language that causes a psychological barrier to learning by the student." (Oaks). Or in other words, racist teachers who believe the dialect their students speak is "uneducated, wrong, improper, etc..."
I've found that the best teachers are those who accept and are open to difference and are willing to learn. I volunteered with a teacher at North High who understood the slang that many of his students used, learned new terms that he didn't know, even if they were explicit, and never mentioned that they were speaking "incorrect" English. He did teach that there was a different kind of English that they were expected to use in an academic setting, and because he accepted their speech and music and was willing to learn from them, his students were all more willing to learn academic English or even Elizabethan english. It's important to learn that there is no such thing as a "proper" solidified language. Language is always changing, and all of the new additions need to be accepted. They may one day become "proper academic English"and nobody will be able to understand stuffy old set in their ways white guys like my least favorite theatre critic Frank Rich, (the guy from the video.)

Posted by Mark Lawrence at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)

I work in the medical school as administrative support to a professor/course director. She often dictates materials on audio tapes for me to transcribe.

This week, she had me FUMING due to her use of jargon.

One of her dictations was the description of a class she had taught--and she went through, in detail, how to teach some specific medical exams.

I thought I was on candid camera! She attempted to spell 1-2 of the strange terms, but mostly I was left on my own to phonetically re-create what I thought I might have heard...phrases like "during auscultating we talked about egophony and whispering pecterlioqui..." um, huh?

I have some medical vocabulary, but nothing specialized. In class, we discussed what is jargon and a bit on where it comes from, but nothing about the effects of jargon. I found it interesting how MAD this use of jargon made me! I felt excluded, unintelligent, and overwhelmed. I know that was not the intention (she simply hadn't thought about the REGISTER, right :) but it definitely took up a lot of time and rubbed me the wrong way.

Posted by Heather Foster at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

There are many things that I find interesting in the different ways people talk and the different perceptions others have of that. I am often made fun of by my friends, especially those from other states, for my Minnesotan accent. I do speak a bit Minnesotan I guess, but what I find the most interesting about it all is the way people think about it. I don’t think that I am thought of as uneducated by any means for it, more just as entertaining. However, when people speak with southern dialects or Bostonian dialects they are thought of as ignorant or uneducated. This is especially true with people who speak Black English. I found it very interesting that the article about the Black English brought up the Appalachian speakers as well. It is true however, that people usually assume that people who speak Black English are uneducated, even thought that is usually not the case. Simply because these people speak different it does not mean that they are stupid or do not know what they are talking about. Many people are simply just very closed minded and refuse to admit that people who do not talk they way that they do have to be stupid. To those people, there is just no alternative to that conclusion.

On a personal note however, it does bother me to hear people speak with improper grammar. Working with kids in the Minneapolis Parks I have come to the realization that kids now days are not taught the importance of grammar. I can’t help but cringe when I hear sentences like, “I aint got none� or “I never did nothing�. Yet, when I correct a child for using such a sentence they stare at me like I am crazy. I know that people speak differently in different environments, but I can’t help but be annoyed by such horrible grammar. Hopefully, I am not the only person to feel this way and people will realize that it is important to speak somewhat proper grammar, at least when you are not only with your peers.

Posted by Elisabeth Hinrichs at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)

The article, "Beyond Black English" is a nother great example of how language and its many varities come into play not only in our academic lives but also in our day to day interactions. Sociolingistics parallels class, status, regional origin but is again and again seen negatively and a "unworthy" use of language instead of one of the many non-mainstream varieties of English. My cousin is currently a graduate student at Hamline University and is studying Sociolinguistics for her master's thesis topic. She is also currently an ESL teacher at an elementary school in Columbia Heights. In her everyday work she is able to observe the effect of socioliinguistics and socio-ecomonic status. Far too often she sees instructors and education administrators who cannot see linguistic differences as anything but a barrier and focus too often on their negative effect and impact on students. She and I have had many conversations about the day to day lives of her students. They use and listen to black english in their every day casual conversations with their family and friends. If this is their informal language use and how they grew up how can an education system expect them to suddenly produce formal, mainstream english upon entering school? While it is a distinct stream of English it is not the only type of English and student's should not be judged or evaluated based on the only form of English they have been exposed to. Not only are there many variations of English there are many mistakes and misuses of mainstream English in its current "correct" form. Black English is a variety of English and instead of cashing in and furthering the negative connotations associated with it educational systems should use its historical contents and teach students about the origins of all variations of English. They should focus in on positive ways to address the diversity of language.

Posted by Meghan Jones at 7:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Download file

Posted by Aaron Bruenger at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

ATTENTION!!!!

The Wake Student Magazine is hiring now for next fall! The positions available are: Managing Editor, Campus Editor, Voices Editor, S+V Editor, Literary Editor, Editorial Assistant (2), Senior Staff Writers (2), Staff Writers, Distributors (2), Copy Editors (2), Designer, Senior Staff Photographer, Advertising Executive, Advertising Interns, PR Interns, and Office Manager. Applications and more information is available at www.wakemag.org. Application deadline is April 26th! You may contact The Wake through e-mail at office@wakenews.org with questions.

Posted by Tami Swanson at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

While reading “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why� I came across a few topics that interested me. Though I found interesting the study about how women and men are brought up and how this upbringing affects their language, I found it more fascinating how regions affect the way people interact and thusly affect how they are received by others.

I was raised in Texas and it is indeed a more easy-going world down there. When interacting with people like the example of the Texan in the book, I too have found myself sometimes waiting for meetings to get over with or for people to stop talking. However, many people say I should be more assertive and squeeze into the conversation if I have something quick to say. The way I was brought up, though, is that when you need to talk to people that are talking you go up to them and if they want your input they will stop the conversation when it is their turn and ask you what you need. And, if something needs to be said, waiting for others to finish is exactly what you do without complaint; interrupting is extremely rude and to this day I find myself incredibly frustrated when people try to barge into conversations—even if I have nothing to do with the conversation or do not even know the people at all.

On another note, something I wondered about as I read the author’s synopsis of childhood interactions between girls and between boys is why do we act like that as children? Why do boys look to a leader and why do girls look to all be equal? This goes beyond the realm of linguistics but it is indeed something to think about; the author never offered up any explanation to this for he was more interested in the linguistics, naturally. I guess it is biological after all.

The last part of the article that I found compelling is when the author brought up the matter of compliments. So many times that “ritual� gets tiresome. It is kind of like the Seinfeld episode where Elaine’s annoying co-worker asks Elaine how she is doing and Elaine says she is doing okay. Then the co-worker waits around for Elaine to ask her how she is doing and when Elaine finally does with annoyance the co-worker just erupts with feedback about how she is doing…and Elaine does not even care. Some rituals, such as the compliment ritual, are entered into with a risk, and people need to realize this. Not everyone is going to be nice and repay you with a compliment even if you did compliment them. Go in with confidence or not, but do not be disappointed if what you seek is not waiting for you on the other side of the dilapidated rope bridge across the perilous divide between response and silence.

Posted by Michael Siebenaler at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I used to have a class with a fellow who spoke and wrote in Klingon.

No, seriously, I was leaving class last night, and I wondered:

Is Klingon a language, since I would not understand a word of it?

Or is it all jargon, since it was created especially to be understood only by others "in the know" and does not have a geographical center, recognition from any government (though I am just assuming here), or function as ANYONE's L1.

What do y'all think?

Posted by Heather Foster at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I myself would like to know more about the history or anything about the language used in the Caribbean. This is building off the discussion started by the girl (I'm sorry I can't remember your name!) who talked about her experiences in St. John's, and I thought about the stories my friend told me about his visit to Jamaica and the way language worked there. Or, I don't know if anyone has seen the movie "Meet Joe Black" with Brad Pitt and Anthony Hopkins? There's scenes where Pitt (who's Death) talks to a Jamaican woman and it's really tough to follow along. I guess then is "Jamaican English" (for lack of a better term) a dialect or a type of Creole? This question could apply to any other place in the Caribbean, as it appears there are places like St. John's where the situation is analagous.

p.s. sorry if this post is unclear...basically I'm interested in how the langauge in the Caribbean has changed and adapted over time, given that in that location there was/is such a blending of Spanish, French, English, and African languages

Posted by Adam Rusinak at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Penguins not only steal rocks from their neighbors, but the Sphensicus family also make nests from their own, ah, poop. That being said, I really enjoyed the Oaks readings. I have to agree that language is essentially impossible to separate from concept, and a conspicuous effort in any civil rights movement is often getting control of the language. Look at how identity terms for African-Americans have evolved. The "n-word" was banished in favor of the now quaint "negro/" when this became perjorative, it gave way to "afro-American." This gave way to the simpler, but inaccurate "black." Now "reformed" language is back to hyphens with "African-American," while young urban black men have ignored the whole thing and greet each other as "n*gger." I attended a workshop recently with VJ Smith, president of the local chapter of Mad Dads, who has observed friction between these young men and members of the civil rights generation who point out that they risked their lives to get rid of that word. One of the distinctions with feminist efforts to reform language is that they are dealing with pronouns. These are not less important than titiles perhaps, but they are more entrenched and more subtle. Finnish, interestingly, has a genuinely neutral second-person singular pronoun, "han," which is genuinely gender neutral. Oops, I mean 3rd person singular!

Posted by Joseph Pastoor at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The article “The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why�, brought up numerous issues that affect not only the corporate world, but also general communication. Previously to returning to the U of MN I managed a fairly large size department at a major financial institution. In addition to the general responsibilities of management comes a constant struggle on what is the best way to communicate with employees.
As the article highlighted I found that women are generally more receptive to compliments and feedback that is done in a reassuring manner, whereas men prefer straightforward feedback, however there are exceptions to this, and as you get to know your employees each of their preferences is reveled, thus giving you insight into the best linguistic style to communicate with each employee.
If men and women are socialized to use different linguistic styles to communicate, and are using these styles in both the business world, and in their personal lives, this article is a wonderful example of why men and women often have difficulties communicating.
If a wife asks her husband if he would mind taking out the garbage, and he replies with “no�, the wife’s expectation is that he doesn’t mind, and will subsequently take the garbage out, however the husband may have thought he was simply answering a question (no he wouldn’t mind), rather than responding to a request for immediate action. It seems to me that we can learn a lot from one another’s linguistic styles that would greatly assist in making communication with all that we come in contact with much smoother, with less chance for confusion, frustration, or hurt feelings.

Posted by Nicolle Amberg at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In the article "The Power of Talk: Who Gets Heard and Why", Deborah Tannen brings up some interesting points about how people communicate and why. Although I did not agree in whole with all of the authors arguments and over generalizations, I did agree with the conclusion of the paper, that men and women communicate differently. Some of the examples in the article seemed a little too contrived merely to express the bottom line, but nevertheless I still agreed with the conlusion. I have never really come into this problem at my workplace, but I still can see how this type of communication problem can occur. I think that the article needs to extend this problem not only as one that arises between men and women, but also as one that arises between those that communicate differently period. Managers and those alike that have power status at a workplace need to recognize that different people communicate differently and that in order to have a smooth work place one needs to adapt to how they communicate.

Posted by Gabriel Novotny at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Download file

The following is a semi-useful web intro to varieties of world Englishes, if you are interested.
Varieties of World English

Also, I'd like you to browse around a bit on the following two websites, just to get a feel for what the official Engish movement has to say.
US English, Inc
ProEnglish

Posted by Aaron Bruenger at 11:16 AM | Permalink

We have talked a little in these few weeks about language change, and this is one thing I thought about while reading chapter twelve in Finnegan. As I looked at the graphs and diagrams, especially figure 12-2, the “Evolution of Cuneiform Writing From Pictograms� on page 422, it was so interesting to see one symbol or pictogram being modified in many different ways and evolve into a written form of language that carries meaning. Similar to how spoken language changes over time, from Old English to e-mail and internet talk, words change and take on new meaning. This is also seen in writing systems where symbols and pictograms eventually evolve into an alphabet and graphic symbols that represent a phoneme. I never thought of writing as an evolving, changing part of language, yet it went through a birthing process and changing period just like spoken language, and totally separate from spoken language. It is so amazing to look at the Rosetta Stone and see how language can be developed from the history we have of the remnants of language. Now there is a new Rosetta Stone that will be mass produced on mini disks and information will be available on the internet for other linguists and the public to see.

I also found the argument in Oaks interesting about linguistics being used as a tool for literary criticism. I have never thought of using linguistic methods to analyze literature due to the fact that I always thought linguistics picks apart the language without realizing more than what is seen on the phonetic level. Yet, the article in Oaks showed how linguistics can be helpful in literary criticism and provide different viewpoints and information for the critic. I now realize that many of the things I have learned and studied in this class will affect my own literary studies, and I don’t think this hinders my literary thought, but enhances what I know about the language and the usage to greater understand the literature.

Posted by Tami Swanson at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The creativity in writing is found in the many types of writing. The ones in use today are syllabic, logographic, and alphabetic. I was interested by Chapter 12: Writing and the Creatvity found behind writing. While speech has been around for many, many years, writing is a far more recent invention. Starting out only as pictures, progressed into writing and all the styles or writing. The creativty and intelligence behind the many different styles is amazing enough, but I also find it unblievable the ability the different pictures, symbols and letters have been analzyed and rearched. I think that this chapter helps to put an emphasis on the history of language and writing. so many changes have beeen made over time, through cultures. Understanding the different stages of writing and the different developments can be analyzed through the culture and history of language.

Posted by Kristen Underhill at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Finegan chapter regarding written language sparked an interesting thought for me. Finegan wrote about appreciating the marvel of the written language and I began to also think about the physical act of writing. Physically writing something can in fact be a form of art. More than just the words themselves but the actual images being drawn - like how caligraphy is beautiful not for the words being written but for the amazing intricacy in which they're crafted. Having studies Japanese for about a year in high school I was able to get a taste of how respected the art of calligraphy is for that culture.

What I wonder is if computers, and typewriters before them, are destroying this art form. I'm not going to say that I think me writing something out by hand is a thing of beauty or some kind of art, but I think the appreciation for such things is lost when people don't use it anymore. At the same time, in this age a handwritten letter takes on an amazing level of significance. If you handwrite someone a note it means you really care.

As the chapter pointed out, written language is much younger than its spoken counterpart. It makes me wonder about typed language. It'll be interesting to see how much this change in the physical nature of writing changes the course of written language itself. All I can say is, wtf... I just want 2 B outta here!

Posted by Chris Wilson at 12:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)