Like many of us, I suspect, I’ve
been giving some thought to our recent experience with Eduard Hanganu.
While it is unquestionably true that he has insulted people on the list and
that he has, to a lesser degree than he claims, been treated roughly by some of
us, I think there is an important side to the entire experience of the last few
weeks that has been missed. Eduard’s presence represents the world
that we work in breaking in upon our discussions. The findings of
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and educational research that inform our
discussions of language variation, dialect, correctness, appropriateness, and
related issues are not findings that are widely known or accepted beyond
language specialists. Many of us have lamented the prevalence of myth and
misinformation about language among the general public and especially in school
boards, PTAs, and even Colleges of Education and Departments of English.
What we haven’t come up with is a good information strategy to combat
this misinformation and to correct the ill effects of it. In some of the
earlier discussions of the New Public Grammar, this need has been discussed,
but even there little progress has been made. The laudable work on scope
and sequence is valuable but only builds a common body of pedagogical theory
and content that we can agree on among ourselves. It doesn’t
address the problems of the audiences we have to present it to and convince.
Eduard represents that audience:
intelligent, articulate, passionate about education, but whose views of
language have not been affected by the linguistic and sociolinguistic research
of the past half century and more. It’s not that people like Eduard
are wrong on a few points. It’s rather that Eduard has a coherent
view of language, society, and education that appeals to a certain elitism in
society and that holds fast to measures of correctness that serve as gateways
to success. In my undergrad Language and Society classes we get to a
certain point where I ask my students to consider implications of their command
of standard English, to use a term which I acknowledge to be problematical, compared
to that of their high school classmates who didn’t go on to
post-secondary education. This leads usually to a fairly incisive
discussion of the ways in which Standard English and beliefs about it serve as
a gateway to achievement in American society. Certainly, one can achieve career
and financial success without a good command of it; just watch local ads by car
dealers and carpet merchants. But it takes remarkable ability to do
so. Those who succeed at the English standards that are expected have
doors open to them more easily.
Eduard’s presence among us is an
opportunity to talk with someone whose background, interests, and opinions
represent the very audience we need to be addressing, and I fear we have shown
our lack of preparation for this task. We have to expect our ideas to be
attacked. They threaten dearly held cultural beliefs, as we have all seen
on many other occasions. And for that very reason we can’t expect
such discussions to proceed without some rough spots. But we are the ones
trying to change these attitudes, and that places a special responsibility on
us. The painful lesson of these past few weeks is that we haven’t
risen well to that challenge.
Our task is much more than an academic and
pedagogical one, as crucial as that part of it is; our task has an even more
important political and social public relations side to it, and that’s
the kind of activity we academics are too ready to neglect, sometimes to the point
of disdain.
Herb
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 11:45
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Civility
Between a very long self-defense and very short general apology, Eduard
Hanganu wrote: "It makes me sad to see how biased people can be, and how
unfair. Is is (sic)possible that out of 250 people on this mail list nobody has
seen how *rude* and *offensive* Johanna Rubba has been towards me under the
false pretense of promoting fairness, decency, and civilized dialogue on
this forum?"
It seems to me that Mr. Hanganu is unaware of how biased and
unfair he appears to be in many of
his own comments on this list. Perhaps a few examples might help him
understand why we are all rushing to Johanna's well-deserved defense (and
sometimes as well to our own defenses). As one who has felt personally
insulted by Mr. Hanganu, perhaps I have a stake in presenting some of these
examples, and perhaps I could begin by offering him the benefit that I suspect
he is unaware of the insults! we feel and that he did not intend them to be
insulting.
Here are a few:
I've already responded personally (and I might add with good humor) to
this. I still doubt the accuracy of calling me provincial; after all, Mr.
Hanganu does not know me from Adam. I don't know, by the way, that there is any
statistical evidence to support the claim that such provincialism is common
among my colleagues or among American linguists generally. Also, I might point
out that my previous response did not point out his constant misspelling of the
word "linguists."
My last response should have proven this hasty assumption to be a
fallacy. I have some knowledge of the history of language, and I am well aware
of the academies. My opinion of such academies, I admit, is not as high as Mr.
Hanangu's opinion, but that is beside the point. The comment would have not
been so insulting had the word 'probably' been replaced with
'perhaps', for he does not know what my education consists of. There's not
enough space here to fill in that lack of information.
Now this is a curious statement. I'm not sure what "no
history" is intended to mean, but the chauvinism is so obvious in this
statement (emphasized by the all capitals) that I'm surprised it did not jump
out of the screen and smack Mr. Hanangu in the face. Doe! s he really think
that he is better than me because his continent has an older history than
my country? My ancestors go back to Europe and the
The capitals again provide the insult. One can disagree with the
concept, but here Mr. Hanangu clearly calls the holders of this idea (like
perhaps Johanna Rubba, Herb Stahlke, Craig Hancock, [I'd add 'me', but I'm
not in their linguistic league], ... ) nonsensical. Argue the merits of the
idea, not the intelligence of the people who hold it. This is called an Ad
Hominem fallacy. It's al! so insulting.
Although the words "I believe" help to soften this insult,
there are three problems with this comment. first it suggest that the rest
of have little understanding of the functions of languages; then that
we are narrow minded and cocky. Finally, it assumes that we all believe
that only citizens of the
T! here are five example here from only a single posting by Mr.
Hanangu. I would not be so rude as to try to match his 13
misrepresentations of Johanna's postings in his recent "apology." I'm
sure I could find more, but I don't have the time or the interest right now.
My one hope is that he see this not in the apparently paranoid fashion
that I have inferred from his last posting, but in the spirit that it was
intended: That is to return to thoughtful and civil discussion of the issues
that we are all interested in. Remember the Greek origin of the term argument is clarification, not diatribe.
Let's return to argument.
Paul D.
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable
fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). To join or leave this LISTSERV
list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave
the list"
Visit
ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/