Language: material, structural, social, spiritual
What do we do with theories or explanations of language which take material/biological descriptions of things related to language as ultimate -- that is, as explaining all that needs to be explained about language?
The nice thing about these explanations is that we don't need to do away with them. What we can do, though, is show why they don't adequately address important questions about language. I can imagine four related approaches to big questions about what language is, what it does, what it means, etc: material, structural, social, and spiritual. (Although maybe the spiritual is close enough to the social.) Material would be stuff like how we physically are able to make words, how our brains know how to make language, etc. Structural would be a detailed descriptions of what languages or language actually is -- all its components like words and sounds and stuff. Social (obviously primary for me) would be communication, discourse, and all the things people do with language. Spiritual would be a kind of bottom-line basis for language from a theistic view of the world —language/ meaning/logos as something uniquely given to humans by our Creator for certain reasons, and implications for that.
I don't mean to keep running into these ultimate questions about language, but I keep seeing these books and articles about neo-Darwinian materialism (not related to language specifically, though occasionally), and I feel like I want language people to have a thicker and deeper understanding of why that kind of thing probably won't work for "explaining" everything about language.
"...Fear for the English Language"
I did my presentation on acceptability judgments and other stuff related to my dissertation research, and it was fine, but there was some interesting discussion from the audience afterwards, including from one woman who said something like "I'm just starting to learn about world Englishes, and what I feel after learning about this stuff is fear for the English language."
I handled her concern/comment as best I could, I think, but it made me realize that there is a divide between teachers who buy into the idea that variation is OK/inevitable in practice, and those who are keen to promote a standard and more ideologically opposed to accepting variations.
To me, all these new-ish perspectives, like EIL, ELF, world Englishes, etc., aren't threatening to English -- they're just ways of describing what actually goes on with the language. And I don't think they necessarily have all that many implications for teaching, other than "know your context" -- which is a pretty big one, and probably shakes out differently if you accept WEs/ELF stuff as an accurate depiction of reality.
So let me try to lay out some ideas that would explain a more variation-friendly perspective to someone like the audience member who was worried about English, presumably because she thinks WEs & related perspectives are all about eliminating standards:
1. English is an old language that came about as the result of contact between numerous European languages in what is now England.
2. It started to come into something more like its current form sometime in the last 300 years or so, also in England.
3. English has moved from the place it began to a lot of other places
4. Like all languages, conventions in English vocabulary, grammar, words' meanings,, etc, change from time to time, due to idiosyncrasies of its users.
5. Because of #3, this happens differently in different places.
6. Because of #4, there is a need and desire for language standardization in societies, and it is useful to have a standard English for things like education, media, literature, etc.
7. Because of globalization, there is probably a greater need than ever for literacy in standard American and British English
8. However, that need is probably only felt by a small group of people who desire lives in which English is necessary -- those who travel internationally, those who work in internationalized fields like education, government, big business, etc.
9. Those people should be and are taught standard Am/Br English
10. Almost everyone else in the world who learns English is also taught standard Am/Br English*.
HOWEVER,
11. Most people in the world who know and use English are not American or British.
12. Most people in the world who teach English are not American or British.
13. Most communication in the world in English takes place between two people for whom no variety of English is their mother tongue.
14. Since these encounters often take place in transnational, transcultural, etc. contexts, #6 above is less important in these situations.
15. Therefore, the earmarks of standard American English and standard British English are often not particularly relevant in these situations, as long as intelligibility is achieved.
16. Whether people in these situations are satisfied with the degree of intelligibility achieved in their uses of English should probably be up to them.
17. Some of them are probably OK with speaking English in a way that sounds different or wrong to people from the US or the UK.
18. On the other hand, some of them are probably not OK with it, and would like to further learn standard Am or Br English in order to have a better grasp of it.
19. Those people can take some more English classes, if they want, where they will probably be taught standard Am/Br English.
20. Despite this teaching, people -- non-native and native speakers -- will continue to use language idiosyncratically at all time and in all places, and this will eventually lead to small changes in standard English.
---
* I assume one of the fears is that accepting non-native varieties of English or being tolerant about variations will somehow lead to teaching Ss that there's no right or wrong. This probably isn't true, but more needs to be said to assuage those fears, since some of the trendier positions on this do make it sound like we should just abandon teaching any kind of standard.
SEXY S1NGLES WANT TO CH@T ABOUT JUDEE SILL
Do you find that your nights are sad and lonely deserts, arid landscapes punctuated only by occasional oases of dvr'd sitcoms and frozen dinners?
Be lonely no longer -- hot, sexy, and available singles in YOUR AREA are waiting on the line now to chat with you about cult-favorite 1970s singer/songwriter Judee Sill. They're skimpily dressed and ready to talk about anything with you --anything relating to a certain misunderstood female folk singer with a penchant for religious imagery, baroque music, and creative string arrangements, that is!
Don't delay! All you need to provide is a credit card number, and we will INSTANTLY connect you to hotties whose ultimate fantasy is to discuss the minute differences between live versions of "The Kiss," whose deepest desire is to debate you about whether Sill's spirituality was influenced by Rosicrucianism, whose sexy secret wish is to listen to "The Donor" with you while ruminating about the relationship between liturgy, the desperate predicament of human nature, and the singer's own mental health.
So what are you waiting for? Call our toll-free number, put your Rhino Handmade edition of "Judee Sill" on the hi-fi, and dial 1-888-HRT-FOOD.
My Summer 2001 Mixtape
SIDE A
Bettie Serveert - Crutches
The Smiths - Panic
Jeff Buckley - Vancouver
Lost Dogs - Breathe Deep
Superdrag - Hellbent
John Lennon - Oh Yoko
Beulah - If We Can Land a Man on the Moon, Surely I Can Win Your Heart
Morella's Forest - Fizzle Kiss
U2 - Staring at the Sun (live)
Radiohead - Polyethylene Pts 1 & 2
Gorillaz - Clint Eastwood
SIDE B
Weezer - Photograph
Mates of State - A Control Group
Joy Electric - Candy Cane Carriage
Starflyer 59 - No New Kinda Story
Stephen Malkmus - Jenny and the S-Dog
The Lemonheads - It's a Shame about Ray
My Bloody Valentine - Don't Ask Why
The Flaming Lips - What is the Light?
DC Talk - What Have We Become?
Brassy - I Gotta Beef
Live - Stage
Matt Basinger - Out of Here
PFR - Say