The Signifying Monkey
Bizzell and Herzberg point out that “language and culture are inseparable, and though it is common practice to forget the cultural forces at work in descriptions of Standard English—that is, white English—it is impossible to forget, when examining the development of Black English, the often agonized relationship between white people and black people in the United States” (1544).
Question: What kind of list can we come up with to help identify some of the "cultural forces at work in...Standard English?" Let's critique ourselves a bit more.
“A distinct feature between black rhetoric and what we might call white rhetoric is the typical relationship between speaker and audience. In most white speech interactions, as in traditional classical rhetoric, the speaker speaks and the audience listens; in black speech interactions, the audience responds almost constantly, with set responses, encouragement, suggestions, and nonverbal signals. … Black discourse is…highly ‘dialogic.’” (1546)
Questions: How have the previous rhetoricians (particularly, British) played roles in creating a passive white audience? Yes, I'm making a generalization here, but it (generally) fits. Can we foresee a time when being proper and correct in speaking and writing is less important than reaching wider, more diverse audiences? I'm trying to force my mind beyond its limitations here, perhaps, but I think of theory written in more dialogic forms, for example.
By studying community behaviors, Gates studies not only linguistics but rhetoric, and “his analysis is located at a critical juncture of culture, linguistic operation, social interaction, and political marginality. Gates is forced to be inclusive, to see rhetoric as the connective force and to see tropes as cognitive and epistemic forms of language. Here, rhetoric means daily speech as a form of action” (1549).
Question: What are some community behaviors we've witnessed in other forms of speech (white, Mexican-American, etc.), and how does community impact our speech? (If this is the same as my first question, well, roll them into one nice response!)
posted by Travis @ 2:26 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I am really interested in this concept. The sort of 'socialized rhetoric' of the community education not only seems real, it actually makes a lot of sense. If you decide that you even believe in socialization (something I've wrestled with since I took a class on it in high school, a class that really had me questioning myself and 'who I am'), then of course it would make sense to include rhetoric and speaking style into that equation. What is oratory other than a fancified conversation that one person dominates completely? If this is the case, then we must learn from every single interaction we have, straight from learning to speak and up.
The question I have then is does it make a difference? I would assume yes. For example, someone who has learned their rhetoric in the style of inner-city English may (I'm using an inconclusive word on purpose) be less successful in, say, an upper class bourgeois neighborhood, and of course vice versa. But within the respective learning community, the person's rhetoric is likely to be incredibly effective. In a world stuffed full of people everywhere, is it more important to have successful rhetoric in your area, wherever it might be? Having a 'centralized' rhetoric is like saying unaccented academic English is the best way to speak or write, which of course isn't true.
I find that trying to reach a diverse audience may be more and more impossible as we develop individualized speaking styles. A community that favors family and family-related metaphors is not going to be moved by the same speech styles and appeals than a community of a style like, say Wysteria Lane (yes, yes, I watched the first season of Desperate Housewives, and it was fantastic. the rest was terrible though). Because we live in a country obsessed with trying to be politically correct, it seems dangerous to try and use appeals that aren't your own, to put out the other hand. I really don't know. Interesting..
The talk about this subject has made me consider how language differs across ethnic groups even when the language is the same. VTB's example reminded me of a TCE class I took a year ago. The instructor shared a story about how one of his students at an inner-city school would turn in writing filled with ebonics, definitely defying conventional English as we know it, but his idea formulation and ability to communicate were exceptional.
Tropes seem to provide cultural identification both on the individual level and in connection with others who are similar. Among the same race language can differ greatly over varying geographic regions and communities, and while people will, like with anything else, scoff at others who are different, it's worth it to take a detached viewpoint and realize that whether certain language is absolutely better or worse for someone is subjective anyway.
That said, I will stand by using the word 'pop' over 'soda' or 'coke' until my dying day and there is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind ever.
Post a Comment
<< Home