Look! It's another language post!

So here are some interesting thoughts about using Spanish at work, specifically in how I'm learning to use the many forms of the pronoun "you".

In English, as my husband often likes to complain, we only have one second person subject pronoun: you. In Spanish, there are up to four different ones (depending on your location). There is tú - informal you singular, used for friends and often family members or people younger than you. Then there's usted: formal you singular, used for people older than you, people you don't know, or just generally anyone your supposed to show respect to. Thirdly there's ustedes: that's you plural, for a group of people. In Mexico and much of Latin America, that's it (though some countries, such as Costa Rica have different variations of what they use). If you go to Spain, you also have vosotros: informal you plural, used for groups of people consisting of people you'd call tú.

So in school I had to study all the forms (though not so much the vosotros form). It wasn't until I started teaching the Spanish GED class that I realized how deficient I was in speaking in you plural. I'd never really had to think about whether I was addressing one person or a group: in English I don't have to, and I had never really talked to groups of people in Spanish before. Suddenly I had to constantly remind myself to use uds. instead of the tú form. It took some doing, but I think I've finally got a decent handle on it, including at least most of the irregular commands, which I kept forgetting to use at first. I still get confused going back and forth between group and individual. Then there's nebulous questions that I guess a native speaker would intuitively understand or not care about, like, what subject do I use when one student asks a question, but I'm answering it for/in front of the whole class?

Another thing is that I'm not used to being called "usted" (or, as I functionally shift it in my head, usted-ed). My students at school all call me usted if they address me in Spanish, which is as it should be, culturally. Still, it's weird to me, because I'm not used to it. Sometimes it gives me a vague sense of power, but it also makes me a little uncomfortable because I'm not used to dividing society into two levels of people. I guess in English we do it some by using or not using titles such as Mr. or Mrs. It just feels a little different, I guess, because in English, that differentiation doesn't run all the way down to pronouns....though, if I remember correctly, it used to. (You vs. thou)

My Informal, Linguistic Analysis of "Just"

So, I mentioned this long ago, and I'll finally get to making my analysis of the common use of the word "just" in current speech. It's my attempt at linguistic analysis, but I'm not particularly thoroughly trained in this, so take it for what it is. I just think language is interesting.

I noticed the word "just" first being used commonly in evangelical circles during prayer. E.g. "Father, I just wanna thank you...." However, since noticing it there, I've also heard it in other informal speech. E.g. "I just want to mention that...." Here are my takes on the way it's used:

1. "Just" is used informally. It's not used in the same manner in formal writing or speech and thus emphasizes a closeness or familiarity. (In the prayer example above, it implies a closeness with God.)

2. In all the cases I've been observing (as opposed to other uses and definitions of the word just, such as in "just war"), it is used as an adverb, whose primary meaning is to downplay a statement or request. It's a way of humbling oneself or what one has to say. In an example I cited earlier, a group of teachers were bidding farewell to a retiring teacher, and most started out with "I just want to say that...." That seemed to me to be two-fold: emphasizing that what they would say would only be a small gesture and would only represent one small part of that teacher's contribution, and also was a deference to the rest of us, saying they wanted to acknowledge this teacher but weren't going to take all day. This becomes an interesting paradox when looked at in the prayer example above. At the same time, the one word implies closeness but also gives a degree of aloofness and submission. (God is really important and has lots of things to do, so I'll only say/ask this one thing.) I haven't quite unravelled how those two exist simultaneously but I think they're both valid interpretations of the meaning.

3. Related to #2, just is a de-emphasizing word, but can also be used as a justifier (no pun intended). What I'm trying to say is that "just" generally downplays the askers request, but can also be used to metaphorically club one over the head. E.g. "Well, I just wanted to see what was on the other channel." Translation: I only wanted to do a small thing and there's nothing wrong with that, so why are you so stubborn? *Pbbbbbt!!!* (That last bit depends on the tone of voice....) In this case, de-emphasizing is emphasizing the righteousness of the speaker - I just wanted this one thing so what's wrong with that? I remember deciding years ago that I was not allowed to use the word "just" in arguments with Jeff, because once I pulled that little word out, it was all downhill.

4. Finally, I think this word in certain circles becomes engrained in a language pattern, somewhat similarly to how some of us have gotten used to using "like" as a filler word. The difference between the two is that "like" is generally used before a noun and just before a verb. There are other differences, but I'm sure anyone trying to read this is already nodding off, so I won't go into those right now.

Well, if anyone made it to the end, let me know if you notice any other interesting language trends!

A Laugh

I started receiving Dilbert in my inbox. Sometimes I wonder why I get why it's funny...I've never worked in a cubicle and don't intend to. But looking at this strip, it's quite clear....


How could I resist something with a combination of sarcasm and a linguistic joke!?! Sigh.

Of human frailties

Recently I've been noticing how dependent we are on our bodies. I'm sure it'll be much more apparent when I'm 50...or 75...or 90.... The other day after work, I thought to myself, "My feet hurt!" This is not uncommon for me after a long day of standing. However, it was uncommon at that moment, because I realized I thought, "My FEET hurt," NOT, "My FOOT hurts," which is how it's been since August. Yay!

I also recently went to the eye doctor for my annual check up. (And got new glasses!) After the beginning glaucoma check and other miscellaneous tests with the nurse, I was led to my exam room and sat down. Then the nurse said, "Bye, have a good afternoon" and I repeated more or less the same thing back to her. The funny thing was, at that moment, I suddenly felt like a complete idiot, because I was cheerily smiling at her, as one politely does when speaking those rather meaningless pleasantries. That's normal for me. I like to be cheery and friendly, at least when I've got the energy. But at this time, I had my contacts out, and the nurse was all the way across the room, so I couldn't see her face at all. I presumed she was cheerily smiling back at me, but it was at that moment I realized how deeply we rely on these little, nonverbal social clues. Sure, I assumed she was smiling at me, and had I seen it, I would have smiled back without thinking. But being blind, as far as I knew, she was sticking out her tongue at me, so it was a little disconcerting to happily smile "back" at who-knows-what.

Just another thing we healthy people take for granted most of the time....

"World Peacekeepers"

Today is my fall break, so I'm not working! So, in my free time, I decided to go to Kroger to go shopping. (Wait, I'm still introducing the topic....) When I pulled into the parking lot, I saw Dollar General, and decided to look in there while I was around to see if there were any fun pencils or anything else cheap I might want to have around at school. I didn't find anything to buy, but while walking out of one aisle, an action figure caught my eye. It was a pretty normal-looking GI Joe -type character, and I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, had I not caught the name on the box: "World Peacekeeper".

There were actually two different "peacekeepers" in the aisle. Both had military uniforms and helmets. One came equipped with body armour, a pistol, and what looked like some kind of automatic rifle. The other came with a rifle, hand grenades, and some larger bomb-looking things.

When I got home, I googled it to see if this is an actual existing toy or if it's going out of the market. (It WAS at Dollar General.) On Amazon.com, I found the following set you can buy for $19.99 complete with action figure, and 99 other pieces of military paraphenalia. The blurb runs like this:

"It's Power Team Elite to the rescue with this 100-piece playset. You can stage your own battles and rescue missions with this massive collection of military equipment. Includes weapons, map and other military necessities. Also includes one 12" action figure with a super articulated body and highly-detailed military uniform."


So....we are teaching our children that "peacekeeping" involves carrying weapons and blowing things up? I probably would have been struck by this toy at any time, but the discontinuity hit me particularly hard as I'd taken a shopping break from watching the movie Gandhi, depicting the life of one of the most progressive leaders for nonviolence in the history of the world. (For the record, I think his teachings and leadership in nonviolence are the most revolutionary (that I've heard of, anyway), since Jesus.) As I was watching the movie, I was thinking about the real power of nonviolence and how organized, peaceful resistance can be so much more effective. I really think that more people are beginning to see this, and it is the best way of resisting injustice. That's why toys like this are so unfortunate, because they only reinforce the dominant culture of violence and try to endue themselves with moral superiority by invoking the word "peacekeeper". And people wonder why our children today are killing each other.

An Open Letter to Dr. Suellen Reed

The following is a copy of a letter that is going out in the mail this week. Copies are going to state and federal representatives, as well as GW and the Federal Secretary of Education. (The federal letters differ slightly.)

Just some definitions so I bore you less with edu-babble - Dr. Reed is the Superintendent of Education in Indiana. The ISTEP+ is the state exam given every year to all students (now required for graduation), and the ISTAR is an exam formarly given to many students in special education and ENL, which allowed for students to be evaluated at their level. Apparently now that's not ok.

If you're inspired, write a letter to your legislators! You can even copy mine if you want! (Though you might want to take out the bit about having my job....)

Without further ado.....

Dear Dr. Reed:

I am an ENL teacher at West Noble Middle School and High School in Ligonier, IN. I spent approximately one complete school week in September administering the ISTEP+ exam to my students.

As I understand the situation, the ISTAR did not meet No Child Left Behind guidelines, so students who previously used ISTAR (such as special education students and my ENL students) now had to take the ISTEP+.

I am very concerned with the position these students are put in. A small number of students who had been here for less than one year were exempted from the English portion of the test, but had to take the other sections. The rest of the students had to take all of the test, with some modifications, but no translation allowed other than tiny bilingual dictionaries on the approved list, which did not contain many key words on the test. I would have less objection to my students taking a math exam if it was a valid exam for them: i.e. if it really measured what it purports to measure - math. Instead, the number and complexity of word problems mean that it really tests knowledge of English and reading comprehension first, and secondarily math. This is not fair to the majority of my students who have been learning English for far less than the 5-7 years shown in studies to be the time it takes to learn academic English and to catch up with peers in school.

I tested two groups of students, most of whom for which the test was not valid, and they had no chance of passing. Instead, they spent hours desperately trying to understand, but ending up feeling stupid. On top of that, I lost an entire week (1/36 of a school year!) of instructional time during which we could have been working on English skills.

My only comfort in all this was that I could tell my students to do their best, and that next year, they could see how much they could improve their scores, with the goal of eventually passing. Were I a special education teacher, I might have some students to whom, in good conscience, I could not say even this.

I urge you to develop an alternate assessment for ENL and special needs students that allows these students to show what they do know. An English-only exam for students who do not yet have on-grade English skills is invalid, inappropriate, and racist. Giving any student an exam they have no chance of passing is a waste of our state's time and money, a burden on those students, and a detriment to our educational system.

I realize there are federal guidelines with which you must comply, but I urge you to search out creative minds that can develop a valid, appropriate assessment that ensures all our students are receiving a quality education, not cookie-cutter tests.

Thank you for your work and care for the students of our state.

Sincerely,
Lisa Rose Martin

It's back!

The word of the day is:

revived!

No, I will not be posting the WOTD every day on my blog, but I have reinstated my e-mail WOTD list. For those of you who are unfamiliar with WOTD, it began my freshman year of college as a fun little thing to amuse myself, but eventually expanded into a reasonably large daily e-mail to a group of people whose assignment was to use the word as often as possible during that day. I sent the WOTD by e-mail today to the people who were on the list the longest and that I figured wouldn't be annoyed by it. If you are interested in subscribing (or unsubscribing) to my daily randomness, e-mail:

wotdqueen@yahoo.com

You are also welcome to send me suggestions for your choice of WOTD (I refuse to guarantee that I will select your word, but usually I use suggestions). Previously, WOTD has generated a lot of "reply all" conversations, so I also had a "no reply" list for those people who couldn't handle the deluge in their inboxes. If a similar thing starts again, I'd probably start two lists again as well. Let me know.