Tebowing

In the past 6 weeks, no one has gotten more attention than Denver Broncos quarterback, Tim Tebow. Turning around a thought to be hopeless football season, Tebow, as the new starting quarterback, has won 6 games in a row. Tebow has almost single-handedly reversed the Bronco's previous 2-5 record to a playoff contending 8-5 record. He has gotten so much attention that he has now officially left an imprint on the English language itself.

"Tebowing"- the act of 'taking a knee' in prayerful reflection in the midst of an athletic activity. According to the Global Language Monitor, this was accepted as an English language word a few days ago. The word was first popularly used in the dramatic overtime victory of the Denver Broncos over the Miami Dolphins on October 23, 2011. During the victory celebration, Tim Tebow ‘took a knee’ and was photographed in a moment of prayerful reflection.

So how exactly does one get a word added to the English language? I always thought it was almost impossible to get a "made-up" word just added to the language like that; I always thought storylines of that sort belonged in the fictional world of my childhood favorite, Frindle. Contrary to popular belief, there is no official agency for accepting new words into the English language. Instead, the Global Language Monitor accepts new words once they meet the criteria of a minimum number of citations across the breadth of the English-speaking world, based on the depth of usage on the Internet, in social media and in the top 75,000 global print and electronic media.

This begs another question, is this an accurate/proper way of adding words into the English language? Some disagree.

Graeme Diamond, principal editor of the New Words group at the Oxford English Dictionary, once said:

"People would be wrong if they thought of us typically reading something in the paper one day and sticking it into the dictionary the next. We want to resist putting ephemera in, because the OED never takes anything out."

This raises an important distinction to be made. Acceptance by the Global Language Monitor is not equivalent to gaining acceptance to Webster's Dictionary for example. Just because the word's usage has been spreading all over the nation in the last 5 or so weeks, just because it's all over the Internet and Tumblr, just because it is approved by the Global Language Monitor, does not make it a word. Actual professional lexicographers have nothing to gain by putting "Tebowing" in a dictionary. There are many points of criticism for thinking to do so. "Tebowing" would be treated as a slang word. And there's been very little formal research on slang, there's no agreement on when slang becomes word.

Others criticize the written source itself, the Global Language Monitor. They say the Global Language Monitor does nothing but find ways to put the latest bait headlines in a press release. The release draws enormous attention because people are eager to consume the cult of Tebow, and they don't really understand how language works. It's interesting to note that these "cults" are most often formed in relationship to athletics. Sports have become important generators of new cultural trends that extend beyond the athletic arena (i.e. "Do the John Wall." "Teach Me How to Bucky.").

"Tebowing" provides an excellent example in how rhetorical phenomena can emerge and the powerful impact it can have on language and society. So what's your view? Should "Tebowing" be adopted as an official English word in the dictionary? Remember to vote above!

Western Rhetoric Towards the Veil

It's interesting to say the least how much controversy a piece of clothing can cause. It's interesting how words to describe a piece of clothing can take on a universal symbolic meaning. It's interesting how this symbol can be used to help warrant an unnecessary war in Afghanistan. This is exactly what the Islamic veil has done.

It's commonly understood that the West sees the veil as a universal symbol of oppression. However, Brigitte Johnson wants to take this further. In this article, she "explores the ways in which dominant Western rhetoric of veiled Muslim women subject these women to a kind of double oppression—by constructing them as universal victims of “barbaric” Islamic patriarchy, and by implicitly erasing their agency and appropriating their actions and voices—and how this kind of Western discourse can be manipulated to reinforce Western hegemonies."

Western language towards the veil ignores the historical background of why it is worn. And thus, Western language has consistently constructed veiling practices as ahistorical, monolithic, and homogenous—a set of unchanging, one-dimensional religious practices that illustrate the oppressiveness of Islamic society. The consequence of this type of language is grave and occurring right now. This discourse shapes Western identity just as much as it shapes Islamic identity. The West sees itself as superior, better, higher. The veil becomes a reassuring confirmation of the East's inferiority.

This misrepresentation through language can direct action. During America's 2002 military intervention in Afghanistan, universalized images of Afghani women burqas spread rapidly. Seeing it as a symbol of oppression, the media helped "dehistoricize the US invasion of Afghanistan by erasing its 20-year track record of financing and equipping mujahideen rebels and later the Taliban itself, and in which the trope of the oppressed, veiled Muslim woman was used explicitly as justification for the war."

The manner in which the media talked about the veil persuaded its viewers to see the intervention in a new light. We, America, would become saviors for those oppressed.

The media constructed Afghani women as victims in need of saving by the US, while it refrained from analyzing how the US had been complicit with the Taliban’s abuses, which US officials had had full knowledge of when they were funding the mujahideen and later the Taliban.

It's interesting how misunderstanding the meaning of an object can cause us to act. Sometimes, we need to be the ones to shed our veil of ignorance.

Lost in Translation

Even though English is the dominant language around the globe, a significant amount of classical and contemporary literature is written in other languages. The only way these works are accessible to those who don't know the language is through translation. However, literature isn't easily converted from one language to another; even the simplest sentence can be translated with multiple interpretations. Translation changes text, and thus changes content. Nevertheless, translation is a necessity.

One important issue to be aware of is the consequences of twice-removed translations and translations from people unfamiliar with the language it was written in originally. These are unfortunately both common practices today. All texts are negatively affected when translated from one language http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifto another, so an effort should be made to keep this damage to a minimum. Since most literary damage occurs during the "leap" from one language to another, it seems logical to make this jump as direct as possible (i.e. foreign literature should directly be translated into English). However, this isn't always the case. English translhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifations via third languages- the English version being based on the French translation of a book originally written in Polish- continue to be published frequently. This ugly practice should decrease and awareness about it needs to be made. Foreign works that have been translated through this process should go back and be translated in a more direct and accurate fashion. Translation through a third language should only be used when it is a necessity.

Another interesting issue worth examining is why more foreign writers aren't published in America? Publishing Perspectives writes that there are many obstacles which explain this unfortunate phenomenon.

The often cited reason for the difficulty of placing translations with American publishers according to the article is the limited number of US editors who speak a foreign language. There isn't a large scale effort focused on bringing foreign authors into the US market. Put difficult economic calculations that publishers face in taking a translation to market in play, and the situation becomes significantly more gloomy.

Additionally, the books that are sold for translation here are more likely to come through the handful of US agents with close ties to one region or another, who are themselves usually working through professional relationships with particular agents or publishers abroad. If a foreign work has a US agent, it makes the entryway into the US market much easier. Usually, translations or partial translations are available this way, and the US agent will have the piece packaged in a way that’s the most accessible and maximizes its potential for the American market. Without a US agent, it takes a lot of work on the part of the editor in order for a foreign work to get published. Considering the massive influx of stories hoping to get published annually, editors have little time to do this, thus decreasing the changes for foreign works without US agents getting published here in America.

Along with that, especially in the case of foreign literature, there is a greater reliance on recommendation as determining factors on whether or not a foreign work gets published. Since editors don't always speak multiple languages, they have to go on reports from other people and the reputation of the author overseas, which makes it difficult for small, unknown authors from different regions.

In the end, an unfortunate cycle emerges for foreign literature where the difficulty of placing books in the US makes it less likely foreign publishers and agents will invest in packaging their authors to submit here, which makes it harder for US editors to develop an understanding of foreign markets and what authors might be the best match for their audience. This contributes to the slim chances translations have in finding success here in American markets.

Language Towards Africa- Part 2

Continuing my post on “Language Towards Africa”, there are many criticisms with the phrase “Sub-Saharan Africa” commonly used in scholarly context. According to Professor Godfrey P. Okoth (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_199710/ai_n8771151/print), the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” is an arbitrary, Eurocentric one that’s accompanied by excessively undesired rhetorical baggage. The term “sub-Saharan Africa” was created by European scholars to split Africa into two parts-where non-Africans are stereotyped to the north and Africans to the south. The phrase has strong rhetorical effects. The phrase is racist and balkanizes Africa-preventing it from achieving unity and contributing fully to the globe. This stifles Afro-centrism and Pan-Africanism which are necessary ideologies required to resist intellectual imperialism and post-colonial oppression.

Cultural historian and academic, Owen ‘Alik Shahadah (http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/ language%20new%20reality.htm), explains that the term "Sub-Saharan" Africa is a colonial term used to confine Africans to a "make-believe location." European imperialists tied Africans to the bottom of civilization in an attempt to foreclose African contribution to society. It creates a superficial distinction between “civilized” and “uncivilized” peoples, condemning all of Africa to be generalized with primitive status. In other words, the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” is not objective geographic fact. Instead, it http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifis a product of a specific way of viewing Africa and of framing the distinction between what is and is not “African”.

Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, Nigerian political scientist, historian, and Director of the Centre for Cross-Cultural Studies in Senegal, articulates an excellent example (http://www.africaresource.com/component/option,com_alphacontent/section,3/cat,36/task,view/id,281/Itemid,211/). He explains that Apartheid South Africa was excluded from the “Sub-Saharan Africa” definition but was added after the government became “African” after the liberation. There are other examples, but the basic point is simple: when we label countries “Sub-Saharan African” we are not just objectively describing their geographic position but are saying something about them.

What are we saying? The phrase “Sub-Saharan Africa” has a negative connotation of inferiority, helplessness, and chaos. The phrase creates this distinction where “Northern Africa” has made meaningful contributions to global culture and is not really “African,” and “Sub-Saharan Africa” is the largely useless and undeveloped mass that spans the rest of the continent.

As an everyday citizen, it’s difficult to truly imagine the rhetorical impact certain words or phrases contain. Nevertheless, the language we use to describe and discuss certain things matters. Failure to critically examine our rhetorical choices can have negative implications. This is what foreign diplomats need to be especially aware of. When speaking with others of a different region or of a different language, one needs to avoid unintentionally speaking something that could be taken offensively. In this world where relations with people matter, language matters.

In Response to "Adversity and Optimism"

I may have told a little white lie in my previous post. I know I promised to continue my discussion of "Language Towards Africa" in this next post; however, I'm taking a little break to respond to a fantastic post from my good friend, Patrick. In his post titled "Adversity and Optimism", which can be found on http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhis blog (http://devianceanddenouement.blogspot.com/), Patrick talks about his summer experience in Ghana and how its citizens remain so lighthearted amidst a scarcity of resources. I found a similar emotional pattern in my summer experience in a different location- New Delhi, India.

During one of my sightseeing tours, one my of program coordinators mentioned that India statistically has the happiest people on Earth. International surveys indeed support this (http://www.nshima.com/2011/04/indians.html). Like Pat, I find it surprising that India's people can remain so happy amidst so much poverty. I think the reason for their happiness lies in the roots of India's democracy. India's people have such nationalistic spirit. They all gather around the national sport of cricket for example. Finally, they appreciate the minute things in life. People in India don't have expectations of living a luxurious life. They are comfortable with what they are given. Simplicity is happiness.

Language Towards Africa- Part 1

Exploring the world of language in the realm of Africa is interesting I must say. The connotations are grounded in history and still persist today. One can study from many different angles the implications of all sorts of language towards the African region. Having said that, I will split the discussion of this topic into two posts since there is so much to cover.

Let’s start with the most popular phrase used to describe people from the African region: “black people.” According to African scholar, Alik Shahadah (http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/language%20new%20reality.htm), black isn’t a race nor an ethnic group. It is a construction which describes a recent social-political reality of people of color. It has no historical or cultural association. It was born when Africans were broken down in to labor units and transported as chattel to the Americas. Political blackness is therefore not an identity but consequence of a world which after colonialism and slavery existed in those color terms. When you look at the world, only two ethnic groups commonly adhere to color definitions: the Africans (the oppressed) and the oppressor, the Europeans (White people). Africans have gone from Negro (Spanish for Black) to Black (English for Negro). This illustrates the diffusion of the color usage to define identity. It’s extended across Hispanic languages and crossed over into American/European languages. It’s difficult to be called “black” when identity is often geographical and ties people to their native environment their core doctrine (Jews of Judaism, Muslims of Islam, Chinese of China). There is no “Blackland” or “Black Region” or “Black religion.” Additionally, very few Africans are actually black in color. The term “black” was created by Europeans for comparing African skin color relative to the Europeans’ pale pigment. “Black” reflects the European attempt to remove African identity. Europe gave Africans the lowest color on Earth, reflecting the social place of Africans from the European view. Thus, “black” is from the eyes of the “other” or the “foreign.”

However it’s interesting to note that some Africans connect stronger to the word “black” than African. For example, former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice feels there is nothing cultural, ethical, aesthetic, nor outlook-wise that resembles the continent her ancestors came from. “She has replaced Africa with America, and finally Africaness with dreams of the White ideal.” The fact that “black” has no geographical origin comforts some who don’t prefer to be geographically identified in that manner. On the other side, the term “African” has Berber Tunisian origins meaning “a sunny place” (qtd. in Shahadah). Notice the contradiction with the use of the word “black.” The word “black” actually places Africans outside of their connection to history and culture. Furthermore, the words “African” and “black” are not interchangeable. Self-determination allows a people to re-examine definitions and sculpt them to their reality. In academic circles, “black” is facing linguistic extinction. Pan-Africanist American writer and professor John Henrik Clarke says, “Black tells you how you look without telling you who you are. A more proper word for our people, African, relates us to land, history and culture.”

Presidential and Congressional Rhetoric

When you think about it, it is extremely interesting to observe the rhetoric used by both the President and the United States Congress. Intricate details often go unnoticed from a language perspective and the impact of Congressional rhetoric is attached with its consequences as well.

For example, in President Obama’s speech on the American Jobs Act (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8751376/Barack-Obamas-American-Jobs-Act-speech-in-full.html), he uses some form of the phrase “Pass this bill!” a total of 17 times. President Obama obviously makes clear his desire for passing this legislation. However, what’s more interesting to look at is the tactics President Obama uses to push legislation he is not as confident about. In contrast to the American Jobs Act, when it came to talking about his deficit-reduction proposal, three words were absent from his speech (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/19/full-text-obamas-statement-to-congress-on-his-plan-for-deficit-reduction-which-would-pay-for-american-jobs-act/). Obama never said “Pass this bill.” Not once. The reason being is that Obama even knew there was no chance that a bill resembling his proposal would pass. Columnist Ezra Klein puts it best when he says, “Republicans would sooner adopt a resolution honoring Karl Marx and Eugene Debs for their commitment to the working man” rather than pass Obama’s deficit reduction proposal. Obama knows this. Republicans know this. And most of us know this too. Thus, Obama’s hesitancy in regards to this proposal is illustrated in Obama’s lack of language. Silence is often more powerful than words.

You and I both know that especially today it seems like Congress can’t get anything achieved. But let me give you a statistic that drives the point home. A recent study by a Harvard professor analyzed 64,033 press releases sent out by all U.S. senators from 2005 to 2007 and found that members of Congress spend 27% of their communication taunting each other (http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/04/07/18579/budget-crisis). Negative rhetoric in this example hinders action. In an environment where governmental representatives spend over a quarter of their time insulting each other, compromises are difficult to reach. Congressional rhetoric is connected to the internal politics and tension that appears on the political battlefield called Washington, D.C.

Welcome!

Welcome, readers! My name is Darrell and I congratulate you for stumbling upon my first post on this blog. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long and healthy relationship between you, reader, and me, writer. I warn you to avoid entering this relationship with too rigid of expectations on what exactly this blog will discuss. Because I cannot even accurately answer that question. The specifics are in the works and constantly changing. I’m setting out to observe and discuss some of the unnoticed details that occur in the world we live in and along that journey, I will keep you updated at different stopping points.

First things first, a little bit about me. I’m your 18-year-old average guy who’s anxiously waiting for college to begin yet living senior year to its fullest. I’m one of those people that have a tendency to get too bogged down in the details. Sometimes, I miss the overall big picture of things. I’m a policy debater, I’m in marching band, and I’m an avid volunteer in the community- all activities I enjoy, all activities where the details matter. I’ve written blog posts before, and I’ve had blogs prior to this; however, never a blog quite like this one. This one will have a nice balance of being personal enough to express the thoughts on my mind yet also formal enough to discuss important and interesting issues. That being said, this will prove to be as much a learning process for me as it will for you (depending on your familiarity/experience with following blogs). For me, I still have my training wheels on. I hope to unscrew the axle nuts holding them in place as we begin this ride.

So what will be the focus of this blog, you ask? I’ll be examining various events and ideas and other content of this world through a unique lens- rhetoric. I’ll be zooming in on the language, craft, rhythm, and meaning behind the discourse that governs so much of what we do. Words are everywhere- both written and spoken orally. The concept of language is universal. There is simply so much to talk about: the rhetoric used in Congressional debates on pieces of legislation, the discourse used in the field of international relations, dialogues that occur in personal relationships. Looking through this lens, I will attempt to analyze the impacts and meanings of the global content. Looking through this lens can lead to many interesting discoveries. I also have the perspective of a young teenager (whether or not that’s a good thing is up for debate). I’ll examine topics that may peak the interest of teenagers.

Hopefully, this introduction has left you curious on what’s to come. Because I’m excited to show you!

Thanks for reading!