Language: Cultural and Plural symbolisms in a society
Paul Andrew Bourne
Department of Community Health and Psychiatry
The University of the West Indies, Mona
Kingston, Jamaica: West Indies
Email: paulbourne1@yahoo.com
From a religious perspective, man is embodied in a cosmology of a God whose function it is to fashion all the physical and imaginary entities, the Genesis story. This epistemology justifies the Supreme Being, the spirit, unfolding his/her artistry in science, technology and biology to create a universe of immense interconnectivity and socio-physical solidarity with man at its pinnacle. He/she molded a man from the ground, and then he/she made a woman from the body parts of that man. This construction is lauded as a complex process, to which this paper will not address. But only a few people have stopped to analyze the use of the craft of language in this structure, and this entire creation apparatus is social ‘truth’ within language as its rationale. Man has never seen this Being but he/she is still able to socially construct realities of this institution. Language is not simply an interpretation of events; it is the social expressions of man in seeking to rationalize his/her own existence and that of those around him/her. This is complex but it is tractable setting that has helped people to explain the past - culture, socialization and does foster the construction of truths. But the truth rests squarely in man’s cognitive prowess which is the apex of symbolism, conceptualization and operationalization of his/her realities, and a theoretical imagery that is comparable to an invisible God’s existence. This allows for biases, sub-cultures within cultures, class stratification, social exclusion, slavery and even advancement in different epistemology. Within this formation of society, it is language that makes the culture - transferable and live. Sometimes the cultural expressions are so potent that people are unable to distinguish them from the verbal and the non-verbal media of communication. This paper’s aim is to clearly show the brevity, depth, scope and purpose of language in explaining many areas of a functioning society. The parts are not isolated from each other, but respite closely in pluralistic and dialectic happenings. The primary significance of this paper, ergo, is to forward a discourse on race, class, social exclusion, social dominance, societal pluralities, and problems of the the 21st century Jamaica, which are social truths but that are infrequently explored by empiricists, this is for the purpose of expanding old paradigms and solving contemporary social issues, within the purview of language.
Keywords
Paul Andrew Bourne, Language, Cultural pluralism, words, separatism, racism, social exclusion, social dominance
INTRODUCTION
Words
more mighty than the sword
more destructive than AIDS
more revolutionary than science
more lasting than scars
more powerful than man’s future creative potential
more heart rending than toothache
more difficult than love lost
So, keep them pure! (Paul Andrew Bourne, 2000)
One scholar, writing in the early 1900s, argues that language is more than the phoneticians’, grammarians’ and etymologists’ tools of dialoguing and/or techniques of writing formally; but states that it is the emergence of a society’s expressions and cultural history, which is underpinned by social and system integration, and is a set of social processes (Firth 1937; see also Durkheim 1953; Clark 1997). Another pragmatist supplies the thought that it has its own history “…not only in the sense of historical grammar, but also in the history of the actions which are performed through the mediation of language common to a plurality of agents” (Whatmough 1956, 183). I am convinced that the potency of language is beyond the natural and psychosocial settings, it is a mystic in the evolution of man, which is parceled in these words “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God” (John 1:1). It is a subtle paradoxical construction, language. “Language is the whole systematic background of grammar, dictionary, and usage. …Language is the typology of the common element in your speech and mine...” (Firth 1937, 17). Those words fail to capture the essence of language, as it is a lived reality. Nonetheless, there is good summary of language in the work of Firth. The writer cites that:
The notions men have about language derive from their particular type of society and cultural inheritance, and especially from their religion. The first step must therefore be a review of what the great peoples who have shaped our civilization have thought about great peoples who have shaped our civilization have thought about utterance and writing, speech and language. The various branches of linguistics cannot be seen in proper proportions and perspective without some sort of fundamental philosophy of language (Firth 1937, 1)
Chief among Firth’s perspective is how language explains the practices of a group of people – their life, attitudes, opinions, institutions, and the humanness (verbal and non-verbal attribute) that is within its structure. It is a social behaviour, and can be liken to a biological organism. Of which the evolution of its being is gradually unfolding to a systematically whole, in order to foster a non-primitive civilization.
I know that in writing the following pages I am divulging the great secret of my life, the secret which for some years I have guarded far more carefully than any of my earthly possession; and it is a curious study to me to analyze the motives which prompt me to do it. I feel that I am led by the same impulse which forces the unfound out criminal to take somebody into his confidence, although he knows that the act is likely, even almost certain, to lead to his undoing (Johnson 1912, 9)
Johnson’s monograph encapsulates scholastic brevity, emotive, pluralism and culturalism that are embedded within words, phonology, syntax, grammar and that this points to the essence of humanity (higher animals). When humans seek to (or not to) relate messages to each other, they do so by combining media, lexemes, gestures, sounds, vernacular, dance, music and other social defined symbols that are used to represent ideas. It is through this continuum that people learn, appreciate, grasp and comprehend their physical and social milieu. People are not merely vessels, which accept instructions at the command of others (as computers) but are interfacing with a socially constructed world that ostracizes them if they are non-conformant; as a result, they are interfacing with plethora of settings within their environment. Hence, they are expected to be receptive to the norms of the general society in order to be considered ‘normal’, which is to accept the rules of engagement. It is this process of social interaction that man (plural higher animal – word) formulates his/her role within the wider social space. Johnson (1912) writing alludes to an intellectual tool (language) that is capable of exposing deep seeded realities, which are likely to construct, annihilate or build social cohesion.
Language, ergo, is not merely the combination of words within a grammatical pattern but it is the art, science and the technological edifice of societies in an effort to explicate the natural world - through socialization, common sense, cultures, governance and abstract rationality, while fostering a harmonious relationship between the natural and social world. It is through language that we communicate our (and others) social behaviours. Language fosters culture. “My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my laws as the apple of thine eye” (Proverbs 7: 1-2). The culture is substantially transmitted through the language. Clearly from the beginning of time, according to Genesis 1, the use of verbal and non-verbal communication explains human’s social existence.
People like all animals are continuously interfacing with their natural world in an endeavour to understand it. This is not atypical. As our natural world includes our social world, which does not surcease in creating plethora of challenges, experiences, and abstract truths. It is those natural experiences that people, in seeking to describe those events, are likely to create social complexities to justify as explanations. In an effort to explicate what is, man ventures into series of social constructions among which is language. It is [language] a defined tool for social communication - of the natural setting; or, is it weaponry of social destruction? According to one clerisy, language is a human mode of communicating experiences and observations through the use of symbols, signs, gestures, and syllables to which are generally acceptable meaning standards, which fosters the flow of information between (and among) peoples (Macionis and Plummer 2002, 21). Another writer cites that “…language is profoundly implicated in all human social activity and cannot easily be isolated as a specific causal factor in violent conflicts” (Chilton 1997, 174); which means that language is not limited to the spoken expressions, the grammar, the syntax and the rule of engagement but a system that offers social meanings to man’s existence. Even though Chilton uses the negative event to emphasize a viewpoint, the theme is applicable to any situation. Man’s expression is his/her language, and his/her language is the cultural expression of man’s life –the belief, the moral values, the social stratification, the cognition development, the social solidarity, the value consensus and the social institutions to which he/she belongs. Johnson fails in the recognition of self and how to best contextualize issues of the day and how these influence his thinking during childhood but acknowledges this in later adult years. Deena, on the other hand, contextualizes the experiences of people during the nineteenth century in an aptly fitting and socio-political correct manner by stating that:
The Nineteenth Century, from a colonial perspective, is seen as a period of historical adventurism, a period of world exploration from which emerged numerous travelogues, diaries, letters, and reports describing, in a mysterious and exotic manner, the land and people of the New World (Deena 2004, 163)
Embodied in Deena’s monograph are the utilization, value and purpose of language in explaining culture of a people while allowing the experiences to be described in a manner that allows generations to come to a more in-depth knowledge of what transpired during a certain time. It can be construed from Deena’s writings that adventurousness of man can be captured in language. This is an effective tool in human’s armory. It allows for discourse, monologue, falsification of constructs and ideas; a representation of perspectives guided by one’s observation through the processes of socialization. Language is culture, emotions, cognition in progress and process, objectification, subjectification, a system of symbolic manipulation, communication and self expressions. Still it is possible to have plurality despite the linguistic competence. In this phenomenon lies the general property of human expression; as it is a mode of encapsulating the sociophysical milieu of man’s social construction, deconstruction and reconstruction.
OBJECTIVE
This paper seeks to explore the cosmology of language and culture, and to establish whether any disparity exists between the two social constructs. The author will evaluate and contextualize the historical and socio-cultural activities within our society with a view of providing a multidimensional depth to the epistemology of language by symbols and plurality.
EXPRESSIONS
My mother and I lived together in a little cottage which seemed to me to be fitted up almost luxuriously, there were horse-hair covered chairs in the parlour, and a little square piano; there was a stairway with red carpet on it leading to half second story; there were pictures on the walls, and a few books in a glass-doored case. (Johnson 1912, 11)
Speaking as how he does, Johnson not only paints the world in a succinctly descriptive manner but he labels those words in a fashion that allows the reader an opportunity to conceptualize his socio-economic background, some of his privileges, and challenges. It also offers an insight into other areas of the man’s life. Language is not primarily superfluously constructed words, but they are life’s - experiences, socialization, symbolisms, and socio-psychologic road map of man’s existence. “Language is the most important meeting ground of the sciences and of letters” (Whatmough 1956, 5). Hence, Johnson’s monograph looks into the life of the author, and does provide some guide to the evolution not only of the speaker but of those that he encounters and how they help to mould an experience. A biologist, Allport, writing on the issue of ‘Language and Cognition’ puts forward the view that “…neuropsychological evidence has little to tell us about the part played by language in the evolution and transmission of culture in society” (Allport 1983, 61). Clearly, man’s language is hidden in his/her psychosocial experiences within the general society, as it is a neurological possession in a social evolution. This implies that linguistic inabilities delay communicative expressions but they do not put a damper on non-verbal reasoning and expression and by extension natural and social happenings. Hence, group dynamics germinates the culture and not a single entity. Macionis, and Plummer’s stance, on the other hand, is we interpret life’s existence through our acceptance of the standard meaning system, and not because of its natural form. Sociologists identify this experience as culture. According to Wikipedia:
Language is an element of culture that contributes to every aspect of human relationships. Andy Clark’s assertion that language is the ultimate cultural artifact is backed by the countless functions that language serves. The role that language plays in human interaction transcends basic communication (such as commanding somebody to do something, or providing information when asked a question) to facilitate the existence of ethos and mythos. This cultural artifact encodes meanings through its ability to manipulate what others imagine. The existence of denotations, what we mean to point out or say, is often received as connotation, what people have culturally subscribed to understanding when something is pointed out. Because of language’s ability to encode a wide range of meanings, and represent almost all ideas, it is the ultimate cultural artifact (Wikipedia 2006)
Culture is dynamic. “Cultural realities must then be rejected on two grounds: (a) if the observer’s vision is the truth, then it cannot just be part of the relativity of the observer’s culture; (2) if that truth is to be part of others, then cultural ‘worlds’ that differ from it or reject it must be obfuscations of some king, obscuring the truth” (Ardener, 1983, 144). Despite the non-staticness of culture, the difficulties of present scholars, pundits and people to explicate what seemingly appeared some time ago makes for misleading constructions. As if the interpreter does not understand the contextual meanings of the happening of the writings, he/she is highly unlikely to abstract the experiences as they occurred within the setting. With this background, how do we explicate the rightness of histographing peoples’ cultures and how are we able to ascribe ‘betterness’ to one culture if we are to superimpose it on another? Brown says that ‘cultural models’ are within different arena of people’s lives; and Simeon argues that language plays a pivotal role in Caribbean culture and adds that “… [It] continues to generate debates among Caribbean intellectuals” (Simeon 2005, 151). Some believe that language embodies the Caribbean nationals’ oral traditions – customs, mores, norms, perspective, and total expression. This is captured in the peoples dance, music, folklores, identity, and oral histories.
Man’s capacities to create, recreate, and justify his/her actions are an important mode in the laying of a platform for inquiry and discoveries. Language is the tool that is used to explicate man’s sociologic realities; but Bruner puts it as:
The acquisition of language, in addition to being a psychological matter, is also a thorn in the side of linguistics, a testing ground for theories in the philosophy of mind, and a major enterprise in that part of anthropology and sociology that concerns itself with how a culture get passed one. (Bruner 1983, 31)
Hence, the individual who controls language (means of ideology) dominates the social milieu. It is this expression, using language, which fosters slavery, racism, apartheid, Christianity, culture, socialization, and others. Language is an institution that shapes perception, social construction, discourse, biases, and capacity to formulate more abstraction. One should not believe that language is fundamentally coined words (or phrases) to communicate but it is a capacity to manipulate human imagination for the purpose abstraction, cultural symbolisms, socialization, embodied experiences, the mastery of deception in an unedited form along with the supremacy to tranquilize those who have not come to understand its intricacies. From one clerisy’s monograph, he posits that language is the culture and the cultural experiences are live in the language (Young 1968).
Of the mythology that is commonly cited is ‘Judge not.’ In order to grapple with the intricacies of this double barrelled word phrase, I will request my reader to engage me on this trajectory. The word judge implies a state of authority which is applied to a decision process. It does not inform or dictate a bias (or lack of one) but when used in conversation is an insidious medium that will weaken a discourse (or monologue). Despite the use of the term (judge), the user could blatantly disregard the informed man’s intellect to accept a position that he/she is unceasingly unbiased. But the choice of the word is to cripple a discourse, which of itself is an offer of flagrant violation of unbiasness. As human experience is tainted with biasness garnered through a certain culture, socialization and knowledge, which is asymmetric with the all social art forms. This reduces a possibility of abject impartiality, as one’s culture pre-exposes the individual to biasness. With this constructed fact, man (either gender) is biased and so he/she will evaluate (judge) what he/she sees own with prior happenings. I will delve into the biases in the use of language, and how we intoxicate ourselves in judging another man (either gender) based on his/her language usage.
Language is the spirit of a culture, cultural systematic symbolism. It is the embodiment of yesterday, today and tomorrow for each group. Despite the biases which are currently hidden in societies, language is a good measure that can be used to unearth some of the social meanings which exist in society. I will quote an author whose work encapsulates this paper. He says that:
Probably the single most important event in the life of any Negro child is his recognition of his own coloredness, with all the implications of that fact. The realization-can come as mild awareness that is taken in stride, or it can come as a rude shock that results in a trauma; but whatever the circumstances, a new understanding of the self influences the child’s every thought and emotion from that day forth. Truly, he sees the world through different eyes, from a different perspective, with somewhat less of the innocence of his earlier years. The selections that follow will guide some idea of how a Negro child reacts to this moment of truth. (David 1973, 1).
The writing of David emphasizes the type of society that exists within the time of ‘Nineteen prominent Negroes’ in America. The experiences speak to the language (label) ascribed to a particular group of Americans and the complexities caused from the social stratification. The realities of those people meant a certain life, experiences and challenges. The society in which they resided was discriminatory, exclusionary and separatistic, a culture for many Blacks (the language label – Negro). The term denotes everything except that which is pure, good, intelligible, worth of equality and of innate value. It is a setting that has fostered slavery, racism, fascism, segregation and cultural divides, which is still to be healed within contemporary societies and cultures. To the ending of David’s monograph, he writes that “The selections that follow will give some idea of how a Negro child reacts to this moment of truth”, which can explain what Johnson refers to when the Black child was engulfed with rage and threw a book which brutally hit a Caucasian child. Within this experience is the craft of language to explain a social practice of a culture that was (or is). The rage, the choice of words that resulted in the behaviour, the societal milieu, the social interpersonal dynamics, the psychological trauma of living within this discriminatory and exculpatory setting are all exposed by the use of language. The very vivid writing of Johnson, David and other writers is one avenue of expunge a past by identifying those errors which are in need of elimination. According to Bates:
Elizabeth Eckford was one of the Negro pupils to whom Little Rock’s Central High School reluctantly opened its doors in the now famous integration showdown of 1957. The colored children had originally planned to enter the school in a group, but with racial tension beyond the danger level, plans were suddenly changed. Elizabeth somehow was never notified of this change. Thus it came to pass that she was left completely alone to face the full fury of the rabid mob that had gathered outside the school. The experience left her near hysteria and it was a long time before she was able to recount the episode (Bates 1973, 203).
THE POLITIZATION OF LANGUAGE
Over the decades, the elitists among us have continued to “scuff” at Creole (Patois, ‘BROKEN’ language) as a language. This is because of its “mediocritic” provenance and the social class associated with its usage. In order that finesse is brought to this discourse, a position must be provided on what constitutes a language. In addition, we must be able to comparatively analyze those factors in order to establish whether or not Creole is a language. We need to move this debate beyond social biases in order understand where Creole falls. Despite European “culturalization” of the Africans mindset in the world and moreso those who are scattered in the Caribbean, Westerners’ indoctrination is the hallmark used to adjudge good taste, quality and ‘class’ in the Jamaican experience. As such, many peoples in our society even among the lower class believe that Patois is the corruption of English. And so, it is not rightfully a language.
Although personal biases oftentimes are brought into the discourse, if we were to put those issues aside, would we have elevated Creole to the status of a language? Continuing, because Patois is primarily the mother tongue of the lower classes, social stratification is used to determine its non-validity as a language. However, what are the functions of a language, and if we were to apply those same definitions to Patois, would Creole be a language?
Lalla (1998, 11-15) in English for Academic Purposes posits there are five distinct functions of a language and they are as follows: “self expression”, reflection, “complex communication”, conveyance and interpretation of new ideas, characterization and identification of people in their communities. Moreover, language, she forwards is a complex process of different events. Consequently, Language is so dynamic and complex that while lower animals use it in its basic form, man’s usage of it shows its supremacy.
Continuing, language is a composite system of interrelated events in which the sender and receiver uses symbols, signals, expressions, spoken words, complex formulate, and the mode of communication must live long after the present users are gone. Hence, “Is Creole a language?” Furthermore, language allows us to recall, write and encapsulate feelings of events for future reference. In order, that any spoken words be classified as language, it must fulfill the condition of longevity. Hence, let us answer the following questions within the construct of what constitutes a language:
How long has the Jamaican Creole been in existence?
Does the Jamaican Creole fulfill the following functions of language as English:
Self expression
Reflection
Complex communication
conveyance and interpretation of new ideas
characterization and identification of people in their communities?
Based on the functions of a language, it is difficult to fathom the reasons why Creole is yet to take its rightful place within the language arena. Unless social stratification is indeed more powerful that academic reasoning, Creole from Lalla (1998) writing is a language.
Language is the lived culture of a people, and according to Young (1968) it distinguishes us from the lower animals such as the chimpanzees. But this institution (language), is not fashioned the same for each grouping within society as the certain people are labeled (language) as the holders of knowledge, power and so are of greater statute (language) than another human. With this premise, the use of Creole in any culture is a clear distinguisher between the powered group and the working group. Here the use of education (language) is used against particular sect of people as a measure of class, finesse and prestige. Because the working class does not own knowledge, financial resources and median, they are unable to afford a structure that makes for the crafting of standards. Despite this happening, plurality exists in all societies as the poor among themselves modify the dominant culture, and sometimes create counter cultures, which rivals the mainstream ideology. This is also another bias within the language formulation. Hence language is not merely the coined usage of words; it is a live embodiment of cultures which separates the groups. I will provide a number of examples here to illustrate the identification power of language:
- On a bus commuting from West Parade, Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies, to Montego Bay a black man in tattered garment speaks Standard English to a woman who had step on his worn shoe. The petite young lady remark, “I thought you are insane.” Embedded in this monologue is the defining power of language, and how we are able to ascribe labels to social experiences and at times natural happenings in an effort to comprehend what is seen, and
- People who use a particular accent (or ‘big’ words) are revered as astute, and of a higher class than those who are unable to do the same.
LANGUAGE, DIALECT and PIDGIN: ‘F…k’ MAN, WHY ARE YOU SO ‘F…king’ ILLMANERABLE
I directly sought to use the ‘F…k’ and ‘F…king’ to commence this section of my work so as to emphasize the plurality in language in society and the biases which are levied against particular people for their abilities (or lack thereof) to speak. There is a dialectic in the usage of words that I have seen as there exists a dual meaning system in linguistic abilities, and how one is viewed having chosen to use some lingua. Another important issue that is infrequently reviewed is the level of disgust for certain people for someone because they use ‘bad’ words openly while the interpreter is oftentimes a regular expounder of that talked pidgin. What is the yardstick used for measuring value based on choice of words used? One scholar cites that:
Whereas in the past reactions against individuals words or expression were typically those of Europeans who objected against the use of words related to English four-letter words, in more recent times one can observe a dramatic increase in indigenous comments on the appropriateness of ToK Pisin words. Again, the principal criteria of whether a word is good or bad are (a) whether it contributes to social harmony and (
whether it is understood by a reasonable proportion of the speech community (Muhlhausler, 1983, 167).
Each culture has particular ‘words’ that are generally accepted as ‘offensive’, ‘reprehensible’, ‘illmannerable’, and those ideational are labeled as the lower class language. Those that are chosen above are a few that are readable available that emphasize how society sees the users. Despite the dialectic that exists in this regard, as many of those who belittle others who partake in their usage are themselves quite consumers of these delicates, but do not see it fitting to promote other users as rational and sensible beings. One person remarks that ‘language’ is the medium used to advocate for language reform’. This speaks to the importance of language in understanding everything that exists (physical or social). To widen the discourse further, even to change language, language is required.
As language and culture are interrelated, language cannot be taught without culture, but there are many ways of co-teaching language and culture. One of them is role play. This paper addresses the issue of role play in teaching foreign language and foreign culture. It introduces a step-by-step guide to making up a successful role play and examines role play in preparing learners for intercultural communication (Kodotchigova 2002)
This article is not an ‘objective’ truth as my perspective, biases and experience all guide the interpretation of the material chosen for this presentation; but, it is a blend of societal observations, past literature and a personal appreciation for contextualizing some of the societal issues in contemporary Jamaica to which this paper is born. It is this experience, suppressed racial, and class biases in Jamaica that has led me to use language as a mode to explain the dialectic and pluralisms in the society, a sociolinguistic analysis. Language is the system, which synchronizes the society with the use of words, gestures and emotive actions as a media of exposing man in his social milieu. Kodotchigova’s work (2002) reinforces the point that language is simple not a formal discipline, it is a way of life – this can be explained by what the sociologists and anthropologist refer to as social learning theory. Language is an interconnectivity of systems, which the individual is formally and informally, introduced to by his/her society. The process commences with the infant observing, internalizing and listening to the social environment then following this with imitation, adaptation, and the reinforcement of the society sanctions or disapproves the behaviour that comes from the child. This does not cease there, as learning is a continuous cycle and so the practice is furthered throughout the life span of the person. With this said, Kodotchigova’s piece (2002), while providing a foundation for us to understand the association between language and culture, it failed in clearly articulating that language is not separated from the culture, neither is the culture distinct from the language. They are interwoven framework, which does not need role-playing to reinforce any tenets of the two phenomena. This paper sees language and culture not merely, as thematic discourse that is germane in contemporary societies; instead, the two are systems of meanings that are used to assist foreigners to understand the people they see or seek to understudy. One scholar forwards a summary of the importance of language, thus:
Language is part of man’s nature, he did not create it. We are always inclined to imagine naively that there was some period in the beginning when fully evolved man discovered someone else like him, equally evolved, and between the two of them language gradually took shape. This is pure fiction. We can never reach man separated from language, and we can never see him inventing it. We can never reach man reduced to himself, and thinking up ways of conceptualizing the existence of someone else. What we find in the world are men endowed with speech, speaking to other men, and language gives the clue to the very definition of man (Benvenise 1971, 224)
Some persons may not grasp the intricacies of language, and how its insidiuosness are materialized, used to identify, define and measure the worth of an individual, a group, a community, a society, a parish (or province), a nation, a region or the world. Benvenise emphasizes the value of language in social construction. He offers a theory that language is synonymous with man, implying that it is powered over the comprehension of the lower animals. This is not only simplistic but language is beyond the formation of words. What I agree with (in Benevise’s statement) is the social fact that man is defined by language and that language embodies man’s existence. One scientist argues that “language as it is used in everyday life by members of the social order, that vehicle of communication in which they argue with their wives, joke with their friends, and deceive their enemies” (Labov 1972, xiii). Despite Labov’s simplicity in expounding on language, it is a social edifice map in the understanding of man’s imagination of what he/she conceptualizes of the where he/she is within the general scheme of things.
SEPARATISM, RACISM, SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INTIMIDATION
I am black, but comely [handsome], O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tenets of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me; … (The Song of Solomon 1 vs. 5-6).
Some authors have sought to write a critique on and explore the social realities of language as a structure in the institutionalization of separatism, racism, social exclusion and intimidation. Johnson uses happenings within his life to explicate the depth (or craft) of using language a power tool, and so did king Solomon. He [Johnson] says that:
The other black boys and girls were still more looked down upon. Some of the boys often spoke of them as ‘niggers’. Sometimes on the way home from school a crowd would walk behind them repeating: “Nigger, nigger, never die Black face and shiny eye (Johnson 1912, 16).
One of the lessons that is underlying in Johnson’s monograph his/her is use of certain words as means of establishing a clear state of demarcation in man existence – separatism and social exclusion. But the irony to this setting is not the wholesale usage of words in the particular case but how language (liquid substance) is able to create a new set of social happenings. Within the purviews of Johnson’s writing is the issue of labeling; a construct that is contextualized to annihilate the cognition of a group. It is evident that language stains the social cognition of the individual. Language is a make for deep social strife, and lasts as long as scars from physical conflicts. Johnson highlights the likelihood of language usage when he says that “On one such afternoon one of the black boys turned suddenly on his tormentors and hurled a slate; it struck one of the white boys in the mouth, cutting a slight gash in his lip” (Johnson 1912, 16). We may argue that words are wind, but wind has physical characteristic that is possible to annihilate places, lives, cities, nations, and continents. As such language, in the form of words, carries the same physiological properties as those in the natural form – like (1) sexual abuse, (2) civil war, (3) corporal punishment, and (4) so on.
One day near the end of my second term at school the principal came into our room and, after talking to the teacher, for some reason said: “I wish all of the white scholars to stand for a moment.” I rose with the others. The teacher looked at me and, calling my name, said: “You sit down for the present, and rise with the others.” I did not quite understand her, and questioned: “Ma’m?” She repeated, with a softer tone in her voice: “You sit down now, and rise with the others.” I sat in dazed. I saw and heard nothing. When the others were asked to rise, I did not know it. When school was dismissed, I went out in a kind of stupor. A few of the white boys jeered me, saying: “Oh, you’re a nigger too.” I heard some black children say: “We knew he was coloured” ((Johnson 1912, 17)
Some of the potent issues within Johnson’s monograph are not (1) colouredness, (2) hypocrisy, (3) insensitivity, or (4) the lack bitterness in ignorance but the (i) separatism, (ii) social exclusion, (iii) language cultivation, (iv) the role of the mega-structure in labeling phenomena within a contextual perspective that someone may be scared because of the choice of language in explicating setting, or social experiences. Johnson’s social setting reveals the importance of knowledge of self. This should have been done prior to venturing into the wider society, which has its own definition of what is. The passage emphasizes how the use of label can be symbol of social exclusion – ‘nigger’. In retrospect, I was told that ‘words are mightier than the sword’, an issue that deludes me for years while in my childhood. But it is a set of social construction that is aptly crafted by cultures to highlight the value, essence, and destructiveness of words. The comparative approach of ‘words’ to ‘sword’ is not limited to the same consonants and vowels but high devastation of each social construction. This was evident in the Johnson’s experiences, as the reality of his culture differs and contradicts that of others that reside in close proximity to his. Within this contradiction and dialectic of cultures stand the use of language to intimidate, describe, classify and contextualize social happenings? Some may argue that language is synonymous with fluid nothingness, but what occurs in Johnson’s life must have fashioned his existence thereafter. In order to establish this powered phenomenon, language, let us see what Johnson says, “Since I have grown older I have often gone back and tried to analyze the change that came into my life after that fateful day in school. There did come a radical change, and young as I was, I felt fully conscious of it, though I did not fully comprehend it” (Johnson 1912, 20).
The intricacies of language is not easily recognized by some people, as lingo (words, monologue, tongue, and idiom, language) embodies cultures, socialization, biases, perception, abstraction and every natural and social event that man’s (either gender) cognition seeks to imagine (explicate). Johnson emphasizes this when he says that:
And so I have often lived through that hour, that day, that week, in which was wrought the miracle of my transition from one world into another; for I did indeed pass into another world. From that time I looked out through other eyes, my thoughts were coloured, my words dictated, my actions limited by one dominating, all-pervading idea which constantly increased in force and weight until I finally realized in it a great, tangible fact (Johnson 1912, 20)
Deena (2004) in wanting to allow the readers to grasp the pluralism of past Britons and forward a theorizing on the difference in contemporary society argue that race, class and gender roles were critical institutions in ‘Victorian Britain’. Another scholar cites that “…separating ‘ladies’ from working-class women, whites from non-whites, ‘gentlemen’ from labouring men, and those with few pretension to humanity”(Dathorne 2004, 192), indicating pluralism, which clearly shows how language was used to structure society and how roles were predisposed to men (plural gender). From the words used by Dathorne, it is clear that there is plurality occurring within the various language classifications as each group is further subdivided into two strata. The primary issue is not race, by the social experiences of the lived society. Johnson summarizes this for us, when he forwards his experiences that:
I am sure that at this time the majority of my white school-mates did not understand or appreciate any differences between me and themselves, but there were a few who had evidently received instructions at home on the matter, and more than once they displayed their knowledge in word and action. As the years passed, I noticed that the most innocent and ignorant among the others grew in wisdom (Johnson 1912, 21)
One of the lingering ironies of 21st century societies is the similarities that they hold to previous centuries’ settings despite the evolution of knowledge, technology, education, language, experience and science along with the arts in the refutation of may myths, and truths. In an article that captures my cognition titled ‘Redefining Progresses’, Smith (unknown) laments that
In the developing field of family annals the major question has been whether industrialization in Europe and in North America did, or did not, transform family relations. Whether stated in terms of modernization theory, psycho-social analysis, or demography, family annals in those areas primarily has been concerned with the family’s relation to changing patterns of work, urbanization, altered life expectancy, increased social and geographic mobility, and loss of functions to schools, factories, hospitals, fast food franchises and other agencies of social welfare (Smith unknown, 337)
Over the years, decades and centuries, many scholars, pundits and scholarships have highlighted that social transformation is responsible for new societies and ideologies – these include the enlightenment period, modernization theory, Europe and North America. Taylor (2003) sidelines Europe’s claim of the ‘Enlightenment’ as being responsible for the present knowledge base or the evolution of modern thinking as spurious language. According to Taylor, “…to suggest that sociology emerged out of the Enlightenment would be a simplistic faux pas” (Taylor 2003, 7). Once more the social construction of an event, as seen through the language of one group, is used as an explanation of ‘truth’ as though it were an absolute reality. In wanting my readers to grasp the complexities (dialectic) in language and its tenets, I will provide information on the seeming great accomplishment of French philosopher Socrates from the view point of George James in Taylor (2003) monograph. According to Taylor “…George James in the Stolen Legacy James (1988) attempts to give the lie to this assumption. According to James, the fundamental teachings of Socrates are directly linked to Egyptian antecedents” (Taylor 2003, 11). Socrates was not the only great that Orville Taylor embodies in the discourse of Stolen Legacy, as he questions the potency of the scholarships of Plato, and Aristotle (Taylor 2003, 11).
Aspects of the works of Plato according to Taylor could not have been the case, as the culture of Europe at the time was void of particular activities. Taylor (2003) brings into focus the contradiction in the monographs of Plato. He says that, from James writings, ‘…the allegory of horses and chariots’ were distinct to Egypt and not the Greek society; and both scholars argue that Aristotle works are taken from Egyptian provenances. Summarizing the contributions of Aristotle, Taylor cites that:
Similar to the two, these ideas are essentially Egyptian in provenance. The doctrine of the opposite, a binding feature among them, comes from the Mystery System. James notes that Egyptian gods are both male and female and there are symbols on the pillars of their temples which reflect this dualism. The teleology, wherein phenomena are linked to a final cause and the notion of a drive towards perfection are all part of the Mystery System (Taylor 2003, 11)
The issue of language and owner the media and financial resources hold the keys to the doctrine of perspective. It is not simply the single position but it is a grouped culture by consensus. This is sometimes limited to a certain culture but may be engrafted in another society because of the migration of peoples within the two different cultures, which explains the infusion of Egyptian’s perspective in that of European’s reasoning. One of the challenges of history is sometimes to distinguish and make generally available to people the commencement of a position and its gradual inclusion in another culture. The reason behind this is directly related to the owner of the media and financial resources, which justifies why European’s culture appears to be some similar to that of the Egyptian’s. Simply put, it is a ‘stolen legacy’ by the plutocracy.
Despite the reality that there are unfounded social truths in the social construction of our social or natural world, language and its historians hold the key to its truths. Hence, the question that arises here is – Is the contemporary Caribbean family any different from days, years, decades, or centuries gone by; or, is the family redefined with the new language of time? In an attempt to understand this issue, we must deconstruct all the social construction but not from the perspective of structure but within the parameters of the disadvantage and the rationale for the social edifices. This is made possible through language. Indeed contemporary societies have modernized as the structure has redefined itself, and so the new societies must reflect the cultures in which they reside.
In order to grasp the role of language in cultural biases, racial discrimination and segregation, I will forward an issue argued by Martinez-Alier that “…as the large number of illegitimates at the time shows, the population increased all the same” (Martinez-Alier 1974, 12). This statement is one of many made by the court in a ruling in regard to interracial marriage. Of importance is the language used in the verdict, that of – illegitimate, population increase and all the same. Illegitimacy implies cultural biasness, discrimination, family and societal norms, a social reality, and the language in communicating these cultures. With respect to the phrases population increase and all the same, these constructs imply social justification, and social biasness.
The issue of language(s) affecting thought or could it be that it is perception that is the source that influences monologue is of itself a discourse of plurality and social dialectic. This thesis accepts that language fulfills linguistic epistemological modes and cognitive expressions but that this discourse argues that language embodies the human spirit, the essence of being human, the spirit of enquiry, the abstraction of abstractions, the irony of sorts, the fusion of spirits, a social construction of epistemologies, and the completeness of actions. Language seemingly is built on the premise of the mechanical philosophies of grammar or a “mirror of mind” (Chomsky 1996, 1), but in it is trapped the free spirit of humans. People will use language and its sub-tenets to communicate an intended meaning but the interpreter may be misled because of his/her set of experiences, knowledge in the area or limitedness in cognitive skills.
The configuration of symbols, grammar, and the in-depth understanding of linguistic are simply insufficient in seeking to grapple with human language usage. There is a mysterious apparatus embedded in this phenomenon, which even the use of action researchers will not be able to unearth – that of the spirit of expression and human essence. This aspect to the discourse is its plurality. As expression is not tied to the spoken words, but the choice of the people to capture time, space and feeling simultaneously while communicating a thought.
The use of the different typologies of languages is an avenue in the creation of a culture. At the core of this phenomenon is an insight into an epistemological mode that fashions a more in-depth understanding of the human language, while clarifying the development of linguistics and psychology of the people in a general space. Language is a life form of confounding assumptions and a qualitative assessment of social ontology. Initially language may have evolved from the bowel of spoken words as principally to communicate behaviours but this tradition has expanded many folds since. The techniques fashioned in construct are not limited to social constructions and deconstructions and reconstructions. While contemporary settings have changed to the point where language is now a studied body of constructions, even within oral traditions are hidden the forms of dialectics and pluralisms of behaviours. This is the sum of human language, the real essence of being human, which is fostered by emotions, traditions, epistemology of the world, and the normal discourse of human perception.
Oral tradition is used to preserve and transmit the ideologies of a former generation with the objective of ensuring that the past becomes lasting. Language is seen in this medium, but few recognize language within gestures, symbols, signs, articulations and language itself. In all human constructions of what we see and seek to explicate, language plays a pivot role. It also embodies social processes, naturalistic happenings, the social epistemologies of people from different constructions and of itself it is a live individual with all the characteristics, structures and form of a living organism. The very reconstruction of the post-Apartheid South Africa is attained by transmitted language inside and outside of that society. Despite the perspective that began Apartheid, Hitler’s Germany, the present America, Socialism, Capitalism, and other social construction, man’s accomplishments are that within the elaborate realm of language.
Orville Taylor’s perspective is a deconstruction of a phenomenon using language and so are all other scholarships, views, gestures, and symbolisms (Taylor 2003). Johnson notes that language is not merely words, phrases, sentences and syntax but it is a complex tool as words – sorry this is incorrectly spelt – the correct spelling is – sword. Language, however, fashions biases such as racism, class structure, segregation, exclusion, perception, ideologies, and the making of edifices, equipment, machines, and vegetations and so on. The difficulties in this schema are (1) to understand the ‘truth’ to the construction, (2) to deconstruct the dialectic in an attempt to grasp the biases, (3) to fathom the reason behind the language, (4) to see the structure in all the happenings, (4) to examine the culture of the language in an attempt to construct a meaning system, (5) to void oneself of biasness in the investigation, and (6) to forward the primate reason for the unwritten or unspoken language.
I understand that Johnson’s social development fosters a clear understanding of the social and system integration to which he happens to live, as Johnson’s social reality is not limited to colour by a social order that used language to construct a mega-structure, but a lived reality. It is evident from various readings that language guides, binds, creates, and fosters system integration. Identity development (or the lack thereof) is created through a culture. But, a Johnson’s, DuBois’, Garvey’s, Martin Luther Kings’, Nelson Mandela’s development aided a new social construction that led to the renaissance of a new era and the toppling of a structure that existed as a truth. Embedded in language are the deceits, the biases, the idiosyncrasies, and the social order that supports the developers. Language, ergo, is plural symbolism as it (1) offers an understanding of cultural happenings of a particular society, (2) provides a scope of social construction, (3) gives meanings to settings, and (4) is the hallmark for revolution, definitions and viewpoints.
Language embodies culture, as it is a multipersonal phenomenon. Haralambos, Holborn and Heald write that “Human beings learn their behaviour and use their intelligence whereas animals simply act on instinct” (Haralambos, Holborn and Heald 2006, 2), which explains how language fosters culture and this adds value to the institution’s role in socializing the young. It is not just thoughts but it is a system of social constructions, deconstruction, social orders, dialectics, discourses, definitions (language) and abstraction with idiosyncrasies that fashions a holistic society. In understanding the messages of this potent invention, man has sought to code meanings of their social settings and have hidden these in their language. The phenomenon has become so vast that it is not easily recognizable any more. What is so, is even in the deconstruction of language, the language creates a bias and it is in this that ‘untold stories’ linger for days, weeks, months, years, decades and even centuries. Orville Taylor, on his door at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, has a note that reads “write your history before the historians comes” implying that language will be interpreted and sold based on the giver. Language, ergo, is not absolute truth, but provides that premise upon which we can begin an investigation of some ‘socially constructed truths’ and more a faux of objective truth, as all societies, within a particular general construction, (capitalism, socialism or so on) seek to use language to express its cultural dynamism, symbolism and social happenings. Haralambos, Holborn and Heald contextualizes this appropriately that “The infant has a lot to learn. In order to survive, it must learn the skills, knowledge and accepted ways of behaving of the society into which it is born” (Haralambos, Holborn and Heald 2006, 3).
Chief among the issue of socialization according to Hamalambos et at. is the knowledge which is acquired through various forms of language; which helps to concretize what a group of scholar refer to as “…culture determines how members of the society think and feel: it directs their actions and defines their outlook on life” (Haralambos et al. 2006, 3). This speaks to the function of teaching and learning of socio-physical world, the imparting and modification of the current paradigms (which may be faulty) and the non-static approaches to the degree and efficiency of linguistic relationships. Language, therefore, is the translating machine of the world seen through the eyes, psyche, of men (plural gender).
Language facilitates pluralism, as one of the capacities of men is their aptitude to think rationally, and through language give the explanation of different socio-natural happenings. Some scholars believe that this creation of man allows him to be influenced by and to influence the social world. Sociologists have sought to contextualize the cultural underpinnings of language, and how it fosters a changing social culture. It should not be assumed that the primary agent of human’s language is the phonemics or linguistics mechanisms but how ‘homo sapiens’ have sought and continue to explore its evolution in understanding their development, history, and position in the world. This implies that the acquisition of language is equally a psychological matter, linguistic, as well as the combination of the general construct of social behaviour dynamics and the communicative achievement of man. Within a scope of this phenomenon is the paradoxical mode of plurality, cultural conventions and change, and how people do adapt to their physical surrounding through socialization while maintaining their social order irrespective of its oppressive (or accommodating) nature. Contrary to this is man without language, a lower animal. Despite the challenges in language, the phenomenon is dialectic and pluralistic in nature as within this creature man is superior to the homo sapiens with plethora of socio-biological and natural challenges. Language is a contradiction in term as it provides answers to issues while complicating others. It is a plural dialectic in that many issues are exposed while others are hidden with grace.
REFERENCE
Allport, D. A. 1983. Language and cognition. Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Ardener, Edwin. 1983. Social anthropology, language and reality. Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Beare, Kenneth. 2006. Society’s role in language acquisition. Retrieved on November 18, 2006 from http://esl.about.com/cs/reference/a/bl_society.htm
Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 4th. USA: Pearson Education.
Behren, L., Rosen, L.J., and B. Beedles. 2002. A sequence for academic writing. R.R. Donnelly and Sons.
Best, Curwen. 2001. “Caribbean Music videos and the ideology of construction”. Journal of Caribbean Studies, 16(1 & 2): 99-116.
Brown, Susan L. 2005. “Solidarity and individualism in an Archipelago State: A Bahamian cultural model in Historical Context. Journal of Caribbean Studies, 19(3): 129-150.
Brown, R and E. Lenneberg. "A Study in Language and Cognition." Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Eds. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Bruner, Jerome. 1983. The social context of language acquisition. Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Chilton, Paul A. 1997. “The role of language in human conflict: Prolegomena to the investigation of language as a factor in conflict causation and resolution.” Current Issues in Language and Society, 4(3): 175-189.
Chevannes, Barrington. 2001. Learning to be a man: Culture, Socialization and Gender Identity in Five Caribbean Communities. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1996. Powers and prospects. United Kingdom: Pluto Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Language and the mind, 2nd ed. United States: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Clark, Andy. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997
Clarke, Edith. 1957. My mother who fathered me. London, England: George Allen and Unwin.
Clarke, Herbert, H. 1997. Using language, 2nd. England: Cambridge University Press.
Dathorne, O.R. 2004. “At the periphery: Race, Class and Gender in the ‘Minority’ Text.” Journal of Caribbean Studies, 18(3): 183-203.
David, Jay. 1973. Growing up Black, 4h. USA: William Morrow and Company.
Deena, Seodial Frank H. 2004. “Multicultural and postcolonial interpretations of Caribbean Literature and its environment.” Journal of Caribbean Studies, 18(3): 151-162.
Dinneen, Francis P. 191983. Language and Linguistics. Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Douglas, Jack D. 1973. Introduction to sociology: Situations and Structures. US: MacMillan Publisher.
Durkheim, Emile. 1961. Moral education. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1953. Sociology and Philosophy. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1950. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.
Eschholz, P.A., Rosa, A.F., and V.P. Clark, eds. 1974. Language awareness. U.S.A.:
St. Martin’s Press.
Firth, J. R. 1937. The tongues of men. London: Watts and Company.
Gumperz, John J. and Stephen C. Levinson. "Introduction to Part I." Rethinking LinguisticRelativity. Eds. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Hall, Stuart. (Unknown). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. Washington, D.C, United States: UNESCO.
Haralambos, Michael, Holborn, Martin and Robin Heald. 2006. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 6th. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Kodotchigova, Maria A. 2002. Role play in teaching culture: Six quick steps for classroom implementation. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 7, July 2002. Retrieved on November 19, 2006 from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kodotchigova-RolePlay.html.
Kay, Paul. "Intra-Speaker Relativity." Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Eds. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Johnson, James W. 1912. The autobiography of An Ex-coloured Man. USA: The new American Library of World Literature.
Lucy, John A. Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Ludlow, Peter. 1998, ed. Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. United States: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lukács, Georg. 1968. History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Berlin, Germany: Hermann Luchterhand Verlag Gm bH.
Maciones, John.
Mintz, A.P., Quint, B., Piper, P.S., Detwiller, S.M., Kassler, H., Arnold, S.E., Ebbinghouse, C., Chuck, L.B., Humphries, L., Feldman, S. Liddy, E.D. 2002. Web of deception: Misinformation on the internet, 2nd. USA: Thomas H. Hogan, Sr.
Muhlhausler, Peter. 1983. Language and communicational efficiency: The case of ToK Pisin. Harris, Roy, ed. 1983. Approaches to language. United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Pinker, S. Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989.
Slobin, Dan. "From Thought and Language to Thinking and Speaking." Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Eds. John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Smith, Raymond T. 1984. “Anthropology and the concept of social class.” Annual Review Anthropology, 13: 467-94.
Taylor, Orville W. 2003. “Re-Appropriating the Stolen Legacy: The African Contribution to the Provenance of Sociological Thought.” Ideaz 2(1): 6-19.
Young, Mack. 1968. Sociology: Social Life, 4th. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Whatmough, Joshua. 1956. Language a modern synthesis. London, Great Britain: Robert Cunningham and Son.
Wilhoit, Stephen W. 2004. A brief guide to writing from readings, 3rd. USA: Pearson Education.
Whorf, Benjamin. Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. J.B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1956.