ch 8 villa clegg

THINKING ABOUT HOW WE THINK

The Relationship Between Theory and Practice

Language Categorization

• In Chapter 2, the use of categories to classify language was introduced.

• The process of categorization is examined in greater detail:

  • Bills and Vigil (2008: 3) noted: "A principal characteristic of human language is labeling. We determine that a collection of things in the real world (or in our imaginations) seems to form a class, and we impose on that class a convenient label."

  • Categorization is recognized as a human invention, hence there are various ways to classify items into categories.

Traditional Categorization Methods

• One method prominent in Western culture is influenced by Greek philosopher Aristotle’s logic system.

  • Smith (2020) reviews Aristotle’s logic, highlighting a key point in linguistic categories:

  • “Each [category] falls under no other genus, and each is completely separate from the others.”

  • Implication: Categories are preordained, discovered by humans to make sense of the world.

• Taylor (1991) discusses the classical approach of linguistic categorization:

  • He explains the Aristotelian law of contradiction:

  • "The law of contradiction states that a thing cannot both be and not be, it cannot both possess a feature and not possess it, it cannot both belong to a category and not belong to it."

• Example from grammar: verb conjugations divided into categories by tense.

  • A Spanish textbook might illustrate this with the verb hablar (“to speak”):

  • Present tense: habla (You speak); Past tense: habló (You spoke); Future tense: hablará (You will speak).

  • Each form belongs to only one tense category.

Classroom Application of Categories

• Spanish students are taught these categorizations and tested on them:

  • Test Example:

  • Conjugation task for the verb hablar:

    • Present: _

    • Past: __

    • Future:

  • Common grading resulting in low marks for incorrect answers, justified by the instructor using authoritative sources (textbooks).

The Limitations of Binary Categorization

• Language does not neatly fit into binary categories, like past, present, and future tenses.

  • Example of conversational Spanish:

  • ¿Ese tipo habla español? (Does that guy speak Spanish?)

  • Response: No sé si lo hablará (I don’t know if he speaks it).

  • The verb hablar is in future tense but used in a present context.

  • This reflects the fluidity of language that cannot always conform to rigid categories.

Prototypical Categories

• Taylor (1991) presents an alternative to Aristotelian categorization: prototypical categorization.

  • Recognizes that items may belong to multiple categories simultaneously, emphasizing that categories are human creations—not discoveries.

  • Example: bowl and cup definitions may circularly define each other.

  • Learning English speakers often struggle to categorize these without definitive boundaries.

• William Labov (1973) used the terms bowl-ness and cupness to study linguistic categorization.

  • Findings: No clear dividing line; categories merge gradually.

  • Practical example in everyday discussions:

  • Understanding the use of hablará in both direct future and present contexts illustrated the importance of context in language classification.

Applications of Prototypical Categories

• Examining linguistic user practices through prototypical categories:

  • Study findings on verb use among Spanish speakers revealed:

  • 7% of forms used for a future reference

  • 70% of forms used for present contexts (Villa Cresap, 1997: 61).

• Clarifies the difference between linguistic identifiers like idiolect, dialect, variety, and language in a prototypical context.

The Light Spectrum Metaphor

• The light spectrum analogy illustrates categorical overlaps in language, indicating boundaries are not distinct as certain colors transition naturally into one another.

  • Example: Words common in both French and English, like attention, complicate binary distinctions without contextual understanding.

Monoglossic Ideology

The Case of Spanish

• Examination of the deep-rooted ideologies surrounding categories of language:

  • Lippi-Green (1997: 61) identifies the problem language scholars face, noting:

  • As linguists, they also adhere to language ideologies, for example, using terms like standard and non-standard despite advocating against their inaccuracies.

The Standard/Non-Standard Distinction

• The persistence of binary language categorizations:

  • Historical origins mark the division of human language into discrete categories, which can distract from natural linguistic variation.

  • Example of how grammatical terms (e.g., noun, verb) may mislead by creating false natural boundaries.

• Focus on the historical emergence of monoglossic ideology in Spanish with reference to Antonio de Nebrija’s Gramatica de la lengua castellana (1492).

  • This grammar served to codify a distinct language for dominating the Spanish territories.

Language as a Tool of Control

• Nebrija’s work was seen as a potential political tool for empire-building; oratory practices were formalized for governance and domination over diverse speaking populations.

  • The historical significance of language hierarchies remains prevalent in educational and sociolinguistic settings today.

Standard Language Ideology

Definition and Implications

• Standard language ideology posits an idealized homogenous spoken language, often neglected in reality due to inherent language variability.

  • Quotation by Lippi-Green (2012: 67) elucidates the bias toward abstracted language models stemming from dominant institutions:

  • “Imposed…by dominant block institutions.”

• Teachers and institutional norms uphold specific language forms, often disregarding regional or individual variations.

  • The concept of non-standard features manifests discrimination against linguistic minorities.

Navigating Language Diversity

• Lippi-Green (1997) highlights the challenges of accent discrimination faced by speakers of non-standard dialects, perpetuating societal biases against certain linguistic identities.

  • The issue emphasizes the need for awareness and support against such biases in educational frameworks.

Regional Variation and Language Fluidity

Geographic and Demographic Influences

• Discussion of how borders in populations influence language use:

  • Borders may be political and arbitrary, not reflecting the real cultural and linguistic experiences of speakers.

• Historical context gives insights into how early Spanish settlers shaped language through geography along the Rio Grande and migration pathways.

Modern Mobility and Linguistic Change

• Advancement in transportation has enabled greater mobility of language varieties:

  • With faster transportation, unique language features can mix and propagate across regions without geographic restraint.

Case Study: Cunque and Bil

• Bills and Vigil (2008) analyze evidence of lexical items like cunque (coffee grounds) and bil (bill for utilities).

  • These terms exemplify regional influences and the diffusion processes in USMS, linking to broader linguistic traditions.

Conclusion

Reflection on Language Ideologies

• Evaluating the implications of historical and ideological constructs on language education:

  • Considering how standard language ideologies affect perceptions and real-world implications on USMS speakers.

Discussion Questions and Activities

1. Reflect on instances of prototypical categorization in daily life and its influence on decision-making.

2. Identify Aristotelian categories influencing decisions in a binary fashion.

3. Discuss the real-world impact of standardized language constructs on academic and professional opportunities.

4. Compare historical language interactions with contemporary influences on language evolution.

5. Explore who qualifies as speaking the “best” language varieties and why these perceptions exist.

Additional Readings

• Daniel Erker discusses named language varieties and their sociolinguistic implications in the U.S.

• Margarita Hidalgo's work examines the distinction between standard and dialectual forms and implications for teaching.

• Lippi-Green studies language ideology surrounding discrimination in the U.S. alongside other linguists.

La lógica aristoteliana postula que cada categoría gramatical pertenece a una sola categoría gramatical. Este enfoque, que forma parte del pensamiento clásico sobre la categorización lingüística, implica que las categorías son predefinidas y que cada elemento encaja estrictamente en una de estas categorías, funcionando como parte de un sistema lógico más amplio.

El estudio mencionado se enfoca en cómo una forma como "hablará" se utiliza en contextos temporales del futuro. Según los hallazgos, se revela que el 70% de las formas se utilizan para referirse a contextos presentes, aunque la forma gramatical corresponda al futuro.

Una de las contribuciones más útiles de la RAE es un diccionario, que proporciona definiciones y descripciones completas del español, sirviendo como una herramienta fundamental para entender y usar correctamente el idioma.