This week's readings seem to be an introduction into some more experimental fields in linguistics. In Rickford's paper, he discussed both the influence of AAVE on the study of sociolinguistics while also critiquing the linguistic community for not reciprocating the support towards the African American community. Then, with a shift into psycholinguistics, we got the Lupyan paper discussing how we can perceive something as simple as a triangle so differently if it is simply referred to using slightly different, but still equivalent language.
In regards to the Rickford reading, it reminded me of our first reading that showed how linguistics can provide insight into gender stereotypes in society. It reminded me how much knowledge about a society there is to gain simply by studying the language. However, as Rickford writes, that knowledge doesn't do anyone but academics a whole lot of good without actually giving back to the community that is studied. Sure we know more about AAVE and its structure, but how can that be put to use in inner city schools to help teach Standard English? It may have been experimentally proven that gender is performed, but how can that help us counteract harmful gender stereotypes? I feel like these sorts of real applications are the real benefits of the field of sociolinguistics. Learning more about language helps us learn more about people, but if we can't use what we've learned to help those people then really what is the point?
As for the more psychology-based Lupyan reading, I found it very interesting how we can perceive a visual representation of a basic shape differently just by using slightly different language. When thinking about this in relation to brain function, it is intriguing to think about why we make certain connections to particular words or phrases rather than others, leading us to draw a slightly different shape whether we hear "triangle" or "three-sided polygon".
Hi Jesse! I agree with your point about how in order to be beneficial to society at-large, sociolinguistic conclusions should be analyzed and put into play by social action groups, policymakers, and businesses. I think a lot of the findings from sociolinguistic research, such as the aspect that gender is performed, can be used as factual evidence to back up and market movements such as the gender inclusivity movement, giving it scientific linguistic validity that helps to perpetuate a credible message.
ReplyDeleteI, too, found it interesting how we make connections subconsciously as described in the Lupyan reading. Do you think there are any harmful impacts of this, though? Perhaps this could be an underlying reason for our tendency towards assumption and stereotyping towards the atypical? It would be interesting, as you said before, to examine the tangible impacts of Lupyan's findings in society rather than isolating them in the scientific and theoretical world of linguistics.
Love that you consider the effects of exposure to different words on how we internalize their meaning (Lupyan reading). Although the Lupyan reading was more scientific than the Rickford, I think both definitely have value in examining linguistics a social context.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your reflections on how we can use linguistic data to make societal changes! I've been thinking about this in regards to academia in general. What is the purpose of collecting all this information, gaining all this knowledge, and educating ourselves if we're not doing anything with all that we've gained? Academic papers are interesting, but how can we use these to make actual changes in society?
ReplyDeleteI really like your social applications here, I feel like this issu of using knowledge to benefit/giving back to the communities/issues studied is something that arises in all academic fields (from psychology to art to medicine), but I had never thought about before in the context of linguistics. After all, knowledge doesn't do a whole lot unless it is applied, and here it should be applied for positive change.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to look more into what you mentioned about contributing study of AAVE etc. to inner city schools, do you (or do others??) happen to have any ideas on this, or maybe examples of similar implementations? It's definitely a powerful idea.
I also agree that both readings contribute a lot to the social context of linguistics. I am a huge fan of using the information from the readings to actually create meaningful changes in society, and it was also something I've thought about during a lot of the readings. "If we can't use what we've learned to help those people then really what is the point?" :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is interesting that we are able to draw such large differences in how we think of think of things by simply changing the words that we choose. It really draws attention to how important diction is, and it makes me wonder how much of our understanding of things is purely social.
ReplyDelete