- It seems as though Pratt is arguing that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity? Do you agree with this argument: And, if so, why is it problematic?
- Pratt mentions perspectives of power, how can these asymmetrical power relationships, like teacher-student for example, be made more equitable?
Answering Pratt’s First Question
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Pratt that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity. Common understandings of implied connotations of language give members of a particular community a feeling of a “utopian” society in the sense that the members of said society may feel as though all people understand their use of language. The first point quoted regarding the “three features that characterize the style in which the modern nation is imagined” begins with its limitations. People may falsely feel bonded by language associated by the area in which they live. Having a false boundary line allowing them to assume that the language they speak is the dominant language spoken everywhere, instead of just the . Language can be distinguished and differentiated into two separate categories, official languages (such as English, Spanish, etc) and cultural languages (the difference between English spoken at school and the English used between friends or among specific cultural groups). This may become problematic because if members of a community believe that their language will be understood universally, it may prohibit members from furthering their linguistic skills beyond what they are comfortable with. Groups need to be shown that being monolingual is a detriment to them. It is nearly impossible to expect or rely on other’s willingness to learn the language another person is comfortable speaking. Being monolingual will limit communications between cultures to “all but the most limited and scripted” exchanges. Pratt calls for more encouragement of heritage language learning and using local non-English linguistic communities to fulfill needs in language learning and cultural understandings.
Hopefully this answered the question correctly, I was a little unsure as to whether the way I interpreted the story coincided with what the author had intended.
I agree with Pratt’s statement that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity. In the current education system, we assume that the words we speak can be understood with the right meaning and context of our true intention. The differences of mean in cross-cultural settings is underestimated or often times ignored. The idea of an ideal homogenous community appears to set back the importance of diversity and uniqueness of various cultures. Only understanding or promoting a single language creates a realm which stories become unilateral without a dimension for expansion. As with many other articles we read, the standardizing of a community leads to major issues such as the loss of originality, creativity, and culture, which is hugely problematic. Humans are not meant to be the same, we have personalities and essences that sets up apart for others, we engaging and enjoy in the company of diversity, we thrive in an environment that is not structured and thus grow and develop into something greater than anything we can achieve alone. As the same applies to words, in Bakhtin’s essay, he mentions that even words are not neutral or impersonal, others interpretation of the same word might be different from our own. Based on that argument, it is wrong to promote a single language in the first place, but couple that with Bakhtin’s idea, even if cultural homogeneity existed, the maximum understanding of communication between the people within this community is still impossible. It is a huge assumption that we can understand us through a fictitious speech community comprised of imagined entities and this assumption simply allows people in power to have the mentality that they are on top and in control, meaning languages other than their own does not provide any benefit to literacy which results in the a loss of cultural context and discourages people to go beyond a imaginary border or limit set by the community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pratt’s argument that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity, which she mentions that languages are viewed as living speech communities. The reason why I find this to be problematic is that these cultural homogeneities only allow one specific language to embody the identity of a whole culture, as this causes all members to associate themselves and build a culture that is solely based upon that one particular language. In addition, I also find this to be problematic that these speech communities are theorized to be “held together by a homogeneous competence or grammar shared identically and equally amongst all the members.” In other words, this would mean that all members of the same speech community would be able to speak the same language, know the same grammar, and communicate the same way as everyone else in their community or culture. In the process, this could become problematic in the case that if new members wanted to join this speech community, as this would create language barriers in which the old members of the speech community may not want to identify themselves with the other language introduced by the new members of the speech community. Furthermore, this could create conflicts between the two groups of members in which they identify with one out of the two different languages in their speech communities, which this could create problems of some members wanting one “official” language and abandoning the other language that would represent the entire speech community. Finally, I find this to be problematic in the sense that the speech community could make one group of members abandon their native language for the official language, since then this could cause inner conflicts for members who lose their cultural language in the process of joining a new speech community.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHee Ryung Kim
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pratt’s argument that the notion of a speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity. Author mentioned that communication and culture “languages were seen as living in ‘speech communities’, and these tended to be theorized as discrete, self-defined, coherent entities, held together by a homogeneous competence or grammar shared identically and equally among all the members.” It means members of same speech community speak same language, like same grammar, and same tone etc. It would be problematic because each speech community member hard to speech communicate. In addition, if new member comes to join this speech community, it would be difficult to adjust. And also if member of same speech community speak same languages, the language will be lack of creativity, which is problematic. It could cause losing languages. Finally, I think people never can be same. Humans can be learning from each other. However, each human have different personalities and identities. It is up to what workings of language you want to see or wan to see first, on what you choose to define as normative.
I don't know why my name appear as Unknown......
In most human cultures there exist a relationship people who possess more power and those who lack the power. This asymmetrical power relationship is defined as contact zone, in which the two cultures grapple with one another in which the more powerful culture dominates in this zone of contact. However, the people of a lesser power do not have to acculturate completely, that is they could learn and adapt to what they feel comfortable with. This process is termed transculturation. An example was given in the text in which the Peruvians still used pictorials as a means of communication as well as the Spanish language. Moreover, there exists an asymmetrical power struggle among teachers and students, in which a teacher’s culture and perceptions get imposed upon a student by the grading system deems whether a student’s work is satisfactory to the teacher’s standards, as shown in the author’s anecdote regarding his son. Therefore, in order to receive exceptional grades, one must fully acculturate to the teacher’s standards. However, this pedagogical style does not promote critical, creative thinking, and actually limits students to one answer.
ReplyDeleteIn order to promote a better learning environment in which students receive different perceptions and means of answering a problem, the asymmetrical power relationship between teachers and students must be made more equitable. This can be done through a more democratic style of teaching. As stated in the reading, Manuel still had respect for the norms when his new school did not enforce any rules. However, the power struggle can be eliminated if there were teacher-students and student-teachers. The teachers would just act as facilitators to guide the students to the correct answers. This process will allow teachers and students to discover new means of attaining answers; therefore, the students will exercise their ability to creatively and critically analyze while also removing the power struggle.
Andre Adao
In “Arts of the Contact Zone”, Pratt argues that throughout the world as well as through time, power struggles have existed and permeate societies. Whether represented though exploitation of the working class or by teacher-student subordination, these power struggles propagate the notion of inequality between different peoples/cultures. She refers to her “contact zones”, which are transcultural areas affected by cultural transmission of ideas, invention, and literacy. It is from the contact zones where both profound learning and exchange as well as exploitation and racism and prejudice develop.
ReplyDeleteDespite the dichotomy of the contact zones, Pratt makes a salient acknowledgement, that is: to observe and make a concerted effort to understand the forms of literacy and modes of culture present throughout time. In doing so, subordination to those in power currently can be reformed, and equality can be promoted and eventually achieved now and in the future.
The student-teacher relationship, unfortunately, is one of these forms of subordination that can be remediated. Pratt references her son’s homework which contained questions such as “what invention would you make for your teacher?” Instead of isolating the student as his/her own position in school, an integration of student-teacher values, goals, and expectations can and should be produced, as opposed to segregating the two groups. By facilitating this relationship based in equality and collaboration between student and teacher, both can eliminate the unnecessary subordination of the student to the teacher.
Nicolas Robinette
I would like to answer the first question.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the argument that Pratt is arguing that the notion of a speech community is predicted on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity. As to the reading material, Pratt quoted Anderson’s understanding of imagined communities which have three obvious features, which is limited, sovereign and fraternal. However, from my point of view, this kind of speech community leads to the kind of ‘utopian community’ in which everyone has the equal social status, properties are common wealth and people wearing uniforms. It seems that in this kind of society, the culture is homogeneity and people all have the same knowledge background, but actually this society doesn’t exist. It only appears in people’s illusion. A speech community is established on the characteristic of language, intension of communication and self-identity. It is the difference between people that stimulates the progress of culture. Only under the various understanding can people realize the potential of their culture and figure out the improvements. If people in a speech community are predicted on the assumption of cultural homogeneity, the problem is that it restraints the communication between different cultures. And under the assumption of their language being the same, people would have the problem of improving their linguistic skills. What Pratt is arguing reflects that people have the consciousness of constructing a better society, however, the way of achieving this ideal society lies in the realization of cultural difference.
I agree with Pratt’s idea that the notion of speech community is predicated on a false assumption of cultural homogeneity. According to Pratt, speech community can be theorized as discrete, self-defined, coherent entities and so on. I would find a problematic matter in learning second language. Let’s suppose that every person in a specific speech community use same language as a first language. The coherence in this group would be high among group members. So they do not need to learn second language, because they can live by maintain their cultural homogeneity. According to linguists, coherence in a first language group should low when learning second language. The second language acquisition would occur well when coherence in a first language group is low. In this way, they might resist other cultural backgrounds and it would relate to the problematic effect on cultural homogeneity.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, each person use different feature of language such as intonation, tones, sentence structure, vocabulary. However, according to the Pratt’s idea, every person in a same group should use same pattern of language. It is a problem that Pratt’s idea of “speech community” could not explain the difference usage of language among same group people.
Yurina Lee