Links to my bibliography from A to Z:
Last update: August 7, 2020
PART A- LIST:
Taguieff, Pierre-André (1987), ‘Le nouveau racisme de la différence’, in Mario Bettati and Bernard Kouchner (eds.), Le Devoir d’ingérence (Paris: Denoël), p. 261.
— (2003), ‘L’emprise du Néoprogressisme: renaissance de la “question sociale” ou émergence d’une nouvelle radicalité’, Le Figaro, mercredi 2 juillet 2003, p. 13.
Takaki, Ronald (ed.), (1994), From Different Shores: Perspectives On Race And Ethnicity In America (2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Taleb Ibrahimi, A. (1981), ‘De la décolonisation à la révolution culturelle (1962-1972)’, (SNED).
Tamir, Yael (1993), Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Tandonnet, Maxime (2014), Au coeur du volcan. Carnets de l’Elysée 2007-2013 (Paris: Flammarion).
Tarnanen, Mirja, Rynkanen (2014), ‘integration training responding to the needs of the migrants in Finland’, paper given at New Speakers in Multilingual Europe, Barcelona, Catalonia.
Taskforce, Language Policy (1978), ‘English and Colonialism in Puerto Rico’, in James Crawford (ed.), Language Loyalties: A source-book on the Official English Controversy (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 63-71.
Tauli Corpuz, Victoria , et al. (2017), ‘International Perspectives on Reconciliation Panel Session’, paper given at WIPCE 2017, Toronto, 28 July 2017.
Taylor, Charles (1994), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of recognition, ed. Amy Gutman (2nd expanded edition edn.; Princeton: Princeton University Press) 175.
Te Hau-Grant, Rawhia (2017), ‘Te Ara Whakamua- the Pathway Forward’, paper given at WIPCE 2015, 24-28 July 2017.
Teale, Alan (2017), ‘New South Wales: Governance and its impact on education
‘, paper given at WIPCE 2017, 24-28 July 2017.
Temple Adger, Carolyn ‘Issues and Implications of English Dialects for Teaching English as a Second Language’, TESOL Professional Paper.
TESOL (1992), ‘Statement on the Role of Bilingual Education of Children in the United States’, (Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages).
Thiébaud, Marcel (1914), ‘L’emploi des projections lumineuses et du cinématographe dans l’enseignement’, (Recueil de monographies pédagogiques publié à l’occasion de l’Exposition nationale suisse (Berne 1914 Conférence Romande des Chefs de l’Instruction publique): Quartier de la Tente, Payot), 460-67.
Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence (1988), Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Thompson, E.P. (1968), The Making of the English Working Class (London: Penguin).
Thompson, Kristin (1985), Exporting Entertainment: American in the World Film Market 1907-1934 (London: British Film Institute).
Thompson, J.H. and S.J., Randall (1994), Canada and the United States, Ambivallent Allies (Montreal &Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press).
Thompson, Elisabeth (2000), ‘Quebec divisible: Indians,” Bill 99 ignores our right to self determination, First Nations tell National Assembly hearing”‘, The Gazette, Feb.9, 2000, p. A1, A12.
Tobias, John L. (1976), ‘Protection, Civilisation, Assimilation: an outline of Canada’s Indian Policy’, Journal of Anthropology, 6 (2), 13-30.
Todd, Emmanuel (273), Qui est Charlie? Sociologie d’une crise religieuse (Paris: Seuil).
— (1994), Le destin des immigrés. Assimilation et ségrégation dans les démocraties occidentales (Paris: Le Seuil).
Todorov, Tzvetan (1978), Symbolisme et Interprétation (Paris: Le Seuil).
— (1995), ‘Du culte de la différence à la sacralisation de la victime’, Esprit, (Juin 1991), 90-102.
Tollefsson, J.W. (1991), Planning Language, Planning Inequality : Language Policy in the Community (London: Longman).
Tomlinson, John (1991), Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction (London: Pinter Publishers) 187.
Touraine, Alain (1990), ‘L’Hymne à la Nation: l’expression d’une angoisse identitaire’, Le Monde, 1990.
Trasviña, Diego (1992), ‘Bilingual Ballots: Their History and a Look Forward’, in James Crawford (ed.), Language Loyalties: A Sourcebook on the Official English Controversy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 258-64.
Traube, Elisabeth (1992), Dreaming Identities: Class, Gender and Generation in 1980s Hollywood Movies (Boulder: Westvew Press).
Traverso, Enzo (2013), La fin de la modernité juive: histoire d’un tournant conservateur (Paris: La Découverte).
Trawny, Peter (2014), Heidegger et l’antisémitisme. Sur les “Cahiers noirs”, trans. Julia Christ and Jean-Claude Monod (Paris: Seuil).
Trierweiler, Valérie (2014), Merci pour ce moment (Paris: Les Arènes) 317.
Truchot, Claude (ed.), (1994), Le Plurilinguisme Européen 1 vols. (1ère edn., 1; Paris: Honoré Champion) 423.
Trudeau, Pierre Elliott (1979), Federalism and the French Canadians (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada) 212.
Trudeau, Justin (2015), ‘Statement by Prime Minister on release of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’.
Trudgill, Peter (1974), Sociolinguistics: An introduction to Language and Society (London: Penguin Books).
Trudgill, P. and Hannah, J (1982), International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English (London: Edward Harnold).
Truffaut, François (1981), ‘que vivent les cinéclubs’.
Tucker, G.R. (1991), ‘Developing a language-competent American Society: the role of language planning’, in A.G. Reynolds (ed.), Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and second language learning (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum), 65-79.
— (1993), ‘Language learning for the 21st century: challenges of the North American Free Trade Agreement’, Canadian Modern Language Review, (50.1.), 165-72.
Tully, James (1995), Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Tunstall, J. (1977), The Media are American (London: Constable).
Turi, Joseph-G. (1994), ‘Typology of language legislation’, in Tove Skuttnab-Kangas and Robert Phillipson (eds.), Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination (Contributions to the Sociology of Language, 1; Berlin-New York: Berlin-New York), 11:117.
Turner, Lorenzo Dow (1949), Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Turner, Brian (2005), ‘Global Religion, Diaspora and the Future of Citizenship’, in Masamichi Sasaki (ed.), 37th International Institute of Sociology Conference: Migration and Citizenship (Stockholm, Norra Latin, Aula 3d Floor: National University of Singapore).
Twain, Mark The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (New York: Scholastinc Inc. Appel Paperbacks).
Tylor, Edward Burnett (1871), Primitive Culture.
PART B- Details and notes:
Taguieff, P.-A. (2003). L’emprise du Néoprogressisme: renaissance de la “question sociale” ou émergence d’une nouvelle radicalité. Le Figaro. Paris. 13.
Avec l’entrée dans le troisième millénaire est devenue perceptible l’emprise d’une nouvelle “pensée unique”, figure inversée de la première. Cette nouvelle idéologie dominante, dont les contours sont encore flous, s’est imposée à la faveur des succès médiatiques des postures “antimondialisation”. En matière de “politiquement correct” et de terrorisme intellectuel, elle n’a rien à envier à la première, dont la thèse principale était, comme chacun sait, que la “mondialisation” est la route du bonheur et qu’il “n’y a pas d’alternative” . La seconde “pensée unique” fonctionne à la fois comme une vulgate répandue surtout à gauche (illustrant l’émergence d’un nouveau “progressisme”) et comme un substitut de l’idéologie socialo-communiste, voire de l’utopisme révolutionnaire.
Cette nouvelle “pensée unique”, dernière figure identifiable du conformisme idéologique à la française (mais facilement exportable) , se présente comme un mélange d’antiaméricanisme et d’antisionisme, sur un fond de haine anti-occidentale, que vient transfigurer un mixte d’utopie et de messianisme à demi-sécularisé, parfaitement résumé par la profession de foi: “un autre monde est possible”. Les plus extrémistes pensent même que “tout est possible”. Ce monde, disent-ils, celui dans lequel viv ent les misérables humains victimes de la “mondialisation”, est intrinsèquement injuste: il mérite donc de disparaître. L’utopie de la refonte totale de l’homme et de l’ordre social est de retour. Mais le nouveau “progressisme” sombre, mû par un immense resentiment, voire, chez certains, par une insatiable soif de vengeance et de revanche, qui semble illustrer une fois de plus la vieille traque : “Fiat justicia, pereat mundus” (la justice absolue ou le chaos !) .
La seconde “pensée unique”, née à la fin des années 90, n’est pas totalement nouvelle. Reprenant pieusement l’héritage idéologique de ses ancêtres communistes et gauchistes – le tiers-mondisme, l’anticapitalisme et l’anti-impérialisme- , le néoprogressisme a pris figure nouvelle à travers une critique radicale de la “mondialisation néolibérale”, une haine totale de l’Amérique (traitée comme une entité mythique répulsive, hyperpuissante et dyperdéclinante à la fois), un parti pris indiditionnel en faveur de la “résistance palestinienne” (angélisée) et une complaisance pronconcée vis-à-vis du terrorisme islamiste, justifié ou célébré en ce qu’il serait provotqué par la misère, l’injustice et le désespoir, effets supposés de l’arrogance impérialiste et de l’avididité capitaliste de l’Occident. La nouvelle “pensée unique” est inséparablement islamophile (ouvertement) et judéophobe (d’une façon plus ou moins voilée). Le “sionisme” n’est-il pas “une forme de racisme”? L’islam n’est-il pas “la religion des pauvres” Ces clichés font partie de l’arsenal des partisans de la nouvelle “pensée unique” portée par l’idolâtrie du “peuple”, entendu non pas comme communauté des citoyens mais comme communauté des pauvres et des exclus.
Le misérabilisme subersif est au coeur de la nouvelle idéologie dominante. On reconnait sa présence à la concomitance de quatre attitudes diéologico-politiques: diabolisation de l’Aamérique et d’Israel (couplés dans les formules poliémiques visant l'”Alliance”, la “complicité”, le “plan” ou le “complot américano-sioniste”); négation ou minimisation de la menace islamiste; dénonciation litanique de l’islamophobie (surestimée là où elle est observable, inventée là où elle est absente); négation ou minimisation de la judéophobie (l’argument d’appoint étant ici que la dénonciation de la judéophobie ne ferait que refléter le “communautarisme juif” – signaler donc ses préjugés ou ses illusions-, tout en faisant le jeu des “ultrasionistes” ou des “extrêmistes juifs”).
La nouvelle “pensée unique” a ses militants et ses agitateurs, dans la presse comme dans l’Université. Pour ces fervents partisants du port “libre” du foulard islamique dans les lieux scolaires, il n’est d’intégrisme véritable et dangereurx que du côté des défenseurs de la laïcité. Le cliché polémique circule: “les intégristes de la laïcité” . Le néoprogressiste, qui se veut “vigilant”, est en réalité un visionnaire: il voit des “racistes” des “sionistes”, des “islamophobes” et des “réactionnaires” partout, et engage furieusement le combat contre les porteurs supposés de ces abstractions redoutables (rejet, exclusion, stigmatisation, réaction) . Illusion narcissique suprême, qui prête à sourire: le conformiste de type nouveau s’imagine “résister” à tout moment, il se prend pour un “grand résistant”. Lorsqu’il est agent du service public, au nom de la préservation des “acquis”, il se donne le droit de casser ou de dévaloriser son instrument de travail par la grève permanente et sauvage, mais il exige, pour ces actions “citoyennes” d’être respecté et rémunéré. Erostrate foncionnaire: personnage comique imprévu.
Dans les années 1990, ce qu’on a justement caractérisé (et fustigé) comme la “pensée unique” se présentait comme un système de croyances sommaire fondé sur la conviction que l’humanité était entrée d’une façon irréversible, dans la phase finale de son unification pacifique, grâce aux nouvelles technologies de l’information et de la communication, aux bienfaits de la “nouvelle économie” , aux progrès du droit international” et au dépassement définitif du modèle de l’Etat-nation. Fin des idéologies, fin des conflits entre nations, fin de l’histoire: le “progrès” se redéfinissait par ces trois promesses en cours de réalisation. La première “pensée unique” était donc aussi un “progressisme” postulant la vision classique du progrès nécessaire, irréversible, linéaire et continu, le “progrès en pente douce” (Hugo).
L’accès au village planétaire était pensé comme la merveilleuse conséquence du triomphe de l’économie de marché (garantie supposée d’une prospérité croissante”, du passage au post-national (et/ou au multiculturalisme) en vue de l’établissement d’une “démocratie cosmopolite” (ou “gouvernance mondiale”) et du respect universel des droits de l’homme, par-delà les clivages et les conflits idéologiques issus du XIXe siècle). De la vieille “pensée unique” à dominante “libérale” , la nouvelle a fait siennes certaines composantes: l’éloge du “cosmopolitisme”, la célébration en toutes choses du “métissage” ou de l'”hybridation”, l’usage immodéré de la rhétorique des droits de l’homme, l’antiracisme de style compassionnel fondé sur une victimisation sélective de catégories d'”autres” (ceux qu’il faut éviter à tout prix de “stigmatiser”), l’obligation de “repentance” (impliquant la criminalisation du passé occidental). Mais alors que les idéologues de la “mondialisation heureuse” chantaient le bonheur de vivre à une si merveilleuse époque – la leur- , les prêcheurs de la lutte finale contre la “mondialisation néolibérale” font revivre le mythe moderne de la lutte des classes et renaître le mythe romantique révolutionnaire du résistant-rebelle-partisan en lutte contre un monstre planétaire polymorphe (FMI, OMC, Banque mondiale, Pentagone, etc.).
La dénonciation démonisante de la “marchandisation du monde” a conduit les “altermondialistes” à intégrer dans leur corpus rhétorique des fragments de la thématique écologiste, agrémentés par la célébration systématique d’actes de violence commis au nom de la “bonne cause” (modèle “Greenpeace-Attac-José Bové”) . “Actions citoyennes” disent-ils. Les niaiseries optimistes de mondialisateurs heureux ont été refoulées par le simplisme frénétique des nouveaux manichéens, “en lutte contre le Nouvel ordre mondial”. On est passé d’une “pensée unique” à une autre, qui s’affirme comme tout autre, mais par simple inversion. Passage dune vision optimiste du progrès continu de l’humanité réconciliée avec elle-même à une vision guerrière des nouveaux “damnés de la terre” en lutte pour leur libération finale ou pour la purification de la plnète, contre les nouveaux “maîtres du monde” , inévitablement exploiteurs et pollueurs.
La grande sociodicée du capitalisme s’est effacée au profit de la gnose anticapitaliste, incluant une démonologie inséparable de la vision du complot. Car la vieille rumeur est toujours là: les “gros” complotent contre les “petits”, “ceux d’en haut” contre “ceux d’en bas”, etc. A l’angélisme niaiseux du néobourgeois satisfait s’est substituée la haine diabolisatrice du vengeur incendiaire et du rebelle vindicatif. L’intelligence de la réalité sociopolitique n’a rien gagné au change. Quant à l’interprétation du devenir de l’espèce humaine, elle a progressé dans la confusion. Glissement vers le pire…Peut-on, dans ces conditions, échapper totalement à la mélancolie?
note de DRM: manque lutte contre les exclusions mais à part cela tout y est!
Taguieff, Pierre-André (1987), ‘Le nouveau racisme de la différence’, in Mario Bettati and Bernard Kouchner (eds.), Le Devoir d’ingérence (Paris: Denoël), p. 261.
261: (…) il est légitime d’affirmer le droit à la différence, mais des limites doivent être assignées aux prétentions différentialiste, c’est à dire aux droits que s’accordent les identités différentielles (…) Le droit à la différence ne doit pas être compris comme un droit collectif, un “droit des communautés” mais comme un “droit du sujet à l’insertion communautaire”: chaque sujet a droit à sa culture, aucune culture n’a de droit sur le sujet (…) il faut penser les droits culturels comme des droits individuels”
Takaki, R. (ed.) (1994). From Different Shores: Perspectives On Race And Ethnicity In America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taleb Ibrahimi, A. (1981). De la décolonisation à la révolution culturelle (1962-1972). SNED.
cité par Benrabah, M. (2004). Language and politics in Algeria. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 10, 59-78.
Tamir, Y. (1993). Liberal Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tarnanen, Mirja, Rynkanen (2014), ‘integration training responding to the needs of the migrants in Finland’, paper given at New Speakers in Multilingual Europe, Barcelona, Catalonia.
“living in a country without knowing the language! I think…it is a road that leads to a dead end” (one respondent)
Working age migrants and their situation in the Finnish labour market: employment is difficult and formal education does not always correspond to the needs of the Finish populations.
Conceptual problematization in this paper: simultaneous focus on three settings: migrants prepared to participate, achievement of migrants entering working communities, abandonment and marginalization of migrants.
Integration training in Finland: Acto of the promotion of integration (2010) and Acto on the Public Employment Service (2009)
Finish-Swedish language and communication skills
civic and working life skills
Challenges of Integration training: teachers highly educated but with eak ties to working life and little experience of using authentic material of working life, cf. Roberts and Cook 2009 and Lindberg and Sandwall 2012
Teacher-oriented, grammar-based, textbook and handout driven (->adult perspectives )
Research questions: what do migrants with experience of integration talk about….
Data: Survey and narrative interviews of migrants. Migrants views were quite contradictory.
finish language complexity.
Contradiction of experiences and expectations of adult learners: the goals of integration training do not seem to be reached in an optimal way. Various parallel and contradictory talk about language learning among migrants.
Learning and learner centered, individual and contextual perspectives –
Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
PUBLIC institutions, including government agencies.schools, and liberal arts colleges and universities, have come under severe criticism these days for failing to recognize or respect the particular cultural identities of citizens. In the United States, the controversy most often focuses upon the needs of African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women. Other groups could easily be added
to this list, and the list would change as we moved around the world. Yet it is hard to find a democratic or democratizing society these days that is not the site of some significant controversy over whether and how its public institutions should better recognize the identities of cultural and disadvantaged minorities. What does it mean for citizens with different cultural identities, often based on ethnicity, race.
gender, or religion, to recognize ourselves as equals in the way we are treated in politics? In the way our children are educated in public schools? In the curricula and social policy of liberal arts colleges and universities!
A number of strands in contemporary politics turn on the need, sometimes the demand, for recognition. The need,
it can be argued, is one of the driving forces behind nationalist movements in politics. And the demand comes to the fore in a number of ways in today’s politics, on behalf of minority or “subaltern” groups, in some forms of feminism and in what is today called the politics of “multiculturalism.”
Thus some feminists have argued that women in patriarchal societies have been induced to adopt a depreciatory image of themselves. They have internalized a picture of their own inferiority, so that even when some of the objective obstacles to their advancement fall away, they may be incapable of taking advantage of the new opportunities. And
beyond this, they are condemned to suffer the pain of low self-esteem.
An analogous point has been made in relation to blacks: that white society has for generations projected a demeaning image of them, which some of them have been able to resist adopting. Their own self-depreciation, on this view becomes one of the most potent instruments of their own oppression. Their first task ought to be to purge themselves of this imposed and destructive identity .
Recently, a similar point has been made in relation to indigenous and colonized people in general. It is held that since 1492 Europeans have projected an image of such people as somehow inferior, uncivilized,” and through the force of conquest have often been able to impose this image on the conquered. The figure of Wiban has been held to epitomize this crushing portrait of contempt of New World aboriginals.
We can distinguish two changes that together have made the modern preoccupation
with identity and recognition inevitable. The first is the collapse of social
used to be the basis for honor.
As against this notion of honor, we have the modern notion of dignity, now used in a universalist and egalitarian sense, where we talk of the inherent “dignity of human beings,” or of citizen dignity.
More recently, for similar reasons,'”Mrs” and “Miss” have been collapsed into “Ms” Democracy has ushered in a politics of equal recognition, which has taken various forms over the years, and has now returned in the form of demands for the equal status of cultures and of genders.
But the importance of recognition has been modified and intensified by the new understanding of individual identity that emerges at the end of the eighteenth century. We might speak of an individualized identity, one that is particular to me, and that I discover in myself. This notion arises along with an ideal. that of being true to myself and my own particular way of being.
This fact is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness, in which we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths.
Being true to myself means being true to my own originality, which is something only I can articulate and discover. In articulating it, 1 am also defining myself. 1 am realising a potentialitv that is properly my own. This is the background understanding to the modern ideal of authenticity, and to the goals of self-fulfillment and self-realization in which the ideal is usually couched. I should note here that Herder applied his conception of originality at two levels, not only to the individual person among other persons, but also to the culture-bearing people among other peoples. Just like individuals, a Volk should be true to itself, that is, its own culture. Germans shouldn’t try to be derivative and (inevitably) second-rate Frenchmen, as Frederick the Great’s patronage seemed to be encouraging them to do. The Slavic peoples had to find their own path. And European colonialism ought to be rolled back hi give the peoples of what we now call the Third World their chance to be themselves unimpeded. We can recognize here the seminal idea of modern nationalism, in both benign and malignant forms.
We become full human agents, capable of understanding ourselves, and hence of defining our identity, through our acquisition of rich human languages of expression. For my purposes here, I want to take language in a broad sense,covering not only the words we speak, but also other modes of expression whereby we define ourselves, including the “languages” of art. of gesture, of love, and the like. But we learn these modes of expression through exchanges with others People do not acquire the languages needed for self-definition on their own.
the development of the modern notion of identity, has given rise to a politics of difference. There is, of course, a universalist basis to this as
well, making for the overlap and confusion between the two. Everyone should be recognized for his or her unique identity. But recognition here means something else. With the politics of equal dignity, what is established is meant to be universally the same, an identical basket of rights and immunities; with the politics of difference, what we are asked to recognize is the unique identity of this individual or group, their
distinctness from everyone else. The idea is that it is precisely this distinctness that has been ignored, glossed over, assimilated to a dominant or majority identity.
The politics of difference grows organically out of the poll ties of universal dignity through one of those shifts with which we are long familiar, where a new understanding of the human social condition impairs a radically new meaning to an old principle. lust as a view of human beings as conditioned by their socioeconomic plight changed the understanding of second-class citizenship.
For those who had not gone along with this changed definition of equal status, the various redistributive programs and special opportunities offered to certain populations seemed a form of undue favoritism.
So members of aboriginal bands will get certain rights and powers not en-
joyed by other Canadians, if the demands for native self-government are financially agreed on, and certain minorities will get the right to exclude others in order to preserve their cultural integrity, and so on.
This brings us to the issue of multiculturalism as it is often debated today, which has a lot to do with the imposition of some cultures on others, and with the assumed superiority that powers this imposition. Western liberal societies are thought to be supremely guilty in this regard, partly because of their colonial past, and partly because of their marginalization of segments of their populations that stem from other cultures.
One of the key authors in this transition is undoubtedly the late Frantz Fanon, whose influential Les Damnés de la Terre (The Wretched of the Earth)” argued that the major weapon of the colonisers was the Imposition of their image of the colonized on the subjugated people. These latter, in order to be free, must first of all purge themselves of these depreciating self-images. Fanon recommended violence as
the way to ~his freedom, matching the original violence of the alien imposition. Not all those who have drawn from Fanon have followed him in this, but the not~on that there is a struggle for a changed self-‘mage, which takes place both within the subjugated and against the dominator, has been very widely applied. The idea has become crucial to certain Strands of feminism, and is also a very important element in the contemporary debate about multiculturalism.
The main locus of this debate is the world of education in a broad sense One Important focus Is university humanities departments, where demands are made to alter, enlarge, or scrap the “canon” of accredited authors on the grounds that the one presently favored consists almost entirely of “dead white males.” A greater place ought to be made for and for people of non-European races and cultures. A second focus is the secondary Schools, where an attempt is being made, for instance, to develop Afrocentred curricula for pupils in mainly black schools.
The notion that any of the standard schedules of rights might apply differently in one cultural context than they do in another, that their application might have to take account of different collective goals, is considered quite unacceptable. The issue, then, is whether this restrictive view of equal rights is the only possible interpretation. If it is, then it would seem that the accusation of homogenization is well founded. But perhaps it is not. I think it is not, and perhaps the best way to lay out the issue is to see it in the context of the Canadian case, where this question has played a role in the impending breakup of the country. In fact, two conceptions of rights-liberalism have confronted each other, albeit in confused fashion, throughout the long and inconclusive constitutional debates of recent years.
The issue came to the fore because of the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which aligned our political system in this regard with the American one in having a schedule of rights offering a basis for judicial review of legislation at all levels of government. The question had to arise how to relate this schedule to the claims for distinctness put forward by French Canadians, and particularly Quebeckers, on the one hand, and aboriginal peoples on the other. Here what was at stake was the desire of these peoples for survival, and their consequent demand for certain forms of autonomy in their self-government, as well as the ability to adopt certain kinds of legislation deemed necessary for survival.
For instance. Quebec has passed a number of laws in the field of language. One regulates who can send their children to English-language schools (not francophones or immigrants); another requires that businesses with more than
The Meech amendment proposed to recognize Quebec as a “distinct society,” and
wanted to make this recognition one of the bases for judicial interpretation of the rest of the constitution, including the Charter.
The Canadian Charter follows the trend of the last half of the twentieth century, and gives a basis for judicial review on two basic scores. First, it defines a set of individual rights that are very similar to those protected in other charters and
bills of rights in Western democracies, for example, in the United States and Europe. Second, it guarantees equal treatment of citizens in a variety of respects, or, alternatively put, it protects against discriminatory treatment on a number of
irrelevant grounds, such as race or sex. There is a lot more in our Charter, including provisions for linguistic rights and aboriginal rights, that could be understood as accordingpowers to collectivities, but the two themes singled out dominate in the public consciousness.
The Americans were the first to write out and entrench a bill of rights, which they did during the ratification of their Constitution and as a condition of its successful outcome. One might argue that they weren’t entirely clear on judicial review as a method of securing those rights, but this rapidly became the practice. The first amendments protected individuals, and sometimes state governments,'” against en-
croachment by the new federal government. It was after the Civil War. in the period of triumphant Reconstruction, and particularly with the Fourteenth Amendment, which called for “equal protection” for all citizens under the laws, that the theme of non-discrimination became central to judicial review. But this theme is now on a par with the older norm of the defense of individual rights, and in public consciousness
perhaps even ahead.
For many non-francophone Canadians, both inside and outside Quebec, this feared outcome had already materialized with Quebec’s language legislation.
For instance, Quebec legislation prescribes, as already mentioned, the type of school to which parents can send their children; and in the most famous instance, it forbids certain kinds of commercial signage. This latter provision was actually struck down by the Supreme Court as contrary to the Quebec Bill of Rights, as well as the Charter, and only re-Enacted through the invocation of a clause in the Charter that permits legislatures in certain cases to override decisions of the courts relative to the Charter for a limited period of time (the so-called notwithstanding clause).
Even if overriding individual rights were not possible, espousing collective goals on behalf of a national group can be thought to be inherently discriminatory. In the
modern world it will always be the case that not all those living as citizens under a certain jurisdiction will belong to the national group thus favored. This in itself could be thought to provoke discrimination. but beyond this, the pursuit of the collective end will probably involve treating insiders and outsiders differently.
Thus the schooling provisions of Law 101 forbid (roughly speaking) francophones
and immigrants to send their children to English-language schools, but allow Canadian anglophones to do so.
It is axiomatic for Quebec governments that the survival and flourishing of French culture in Quebec is a good. Political society is not neutral between those who
value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual Real of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survivance for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can’t capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language available for those who might choose it. This might be seen to be the goal
of some of the measures of federal bilingualism over the last twenty years. But it also involves making sure that there is a community of people here in the future that will want to avail itself of the opportunity to use the French language.
But a society with collective goals like Quebec’s violates this model.
59: the community, for instance, in their assuring that future generations continue to identify as French-Speakers. There is no way that these policies could be seen as just providing a facility to already existing people.
60: Each society misperceived the other throughout the Meech Lake debate. But here both perceived each other accurately-and didn’t like what they saw. The rest of Canada saw that the distinct society clause legitimated collective goals. And Quebec saw that to give the Charter precedence imposed a form of liberal society that was alien to it, and to which Quebec could never accommodate itself without surrendering its identity.
There is a term of the politics of equal respect, as enshrined in a liberalism of rights, that is inhospitable to difference, because (a) it insists on uniform application of the rules defining these rights, without exception, and (b) it is suspicious of collective goals. Of course, this doesn’t mean that this model seeks to abolish cultural differences. This would be an absurd accusation. But
I call it inhospitable to difference because it can’t accommodate what the members of distinct societies really aspire to,which is survival. This is (b) a collective goal, which (a) almost inevitably will call for some variations in the kinds of law we deem permissible from one cultural context to another as the Quebec case clearly shows.
I think this form of liberalism is guilty as charged by the proponents of a politics of difference.
The supposed beneficiaries of the politics of recognition, the people who might actually benefit from acknowledgment, make a crucial distinction between the two acts. They know that they want respect, not condescension.
In fact, subjectivist, half-baked neo-Nietzschean theories are quite often invoked in this debate. Deriving frequently from Foucault or Derrida, they claim that all judgments of worth are based on standards that are ultimately imposed by and further entrenched structures of power. It should be clear why these theories proliferate here. A favorable judgment on demand is nonsense, unless some such theories are valid. Moreover, the giving of such a judgment on demand is an act of breathtaking condescension.
Temple Adger, C. Issues and Implications of English Dialects for Teaching English as a Second Language. TESOL Professional Paper.
Educational issues concerning dialectal variation in the English language have received a great deal of scholarly and popular attention. Yet overall, schools have not satisfactorily addressed these issues. The fact that dialects are a natural, normal aspect of language has been acknowledged only superficially: Educational programs typically do not thoroughly explore the dialectal differences that are clearly manifested in the communities they serve or confront the complex social attitudes surrounding variation in English. The persistent myth of a singular English has meant that English as a second language (ESL) programs have not had the informational resources nor the institutional power to address testing, placement, and instructional questions concerning variation in the language that they teach. Issues about dialect are not widely understood, and there are few program models to emulate. This paper presents some issues stemming from language variation for teaching ESL, identifies research strands relevant to program development, and describes two dialect program exemplars. It also suggests considerations for developing educational policy with respect to dialects and programmatic responses to it.
Perspectives on English Dialects in the Schools
Variation in English presents considerable challenge to schools, grounded as they are in standard English norms. The fairly uniform written standard English of school texts and tests is generally more accessible to students from middle class backgrounds who have been socialized into oral standard English and baptized in literacy than it is to students from other dialect backgrounds. Because written language plays a central role in determining students’ school success or failure, dialect mismatch has important implications. Dialect differences in oral English are also likely to disadvantage students from vernacular backgrounds because talk conveys metamessages about social identity, along with other meanings (Tannen, 1984). A student’s accurate, insightful contribution to classroom discourse may be devalued when she or he uses vernacular dialect features in speaking. Moreover, such evaluation may be formally backed by local or state standards that call for students to use standard English in academic discourse.
As a society, we still harbor language prejudice to a far greater degree than we tolerate other ethnically related bias, at least publicly (Wolfram, 1991). Schools have not developed scientifically based language awareness programs to illuminate language variation and its social meanings. Programs to strengthen the standard English skills that schools require do not consistently point out predictable contrasts between standard and vernacular dialect features, nor do they adequately address the social functions that dialects serve. Because educators contribute powerfully to defining students’ school identities, this persistently weak educational response to dialect issues at school must be exposed and corrected. As the well-known Ann Arbor Decision (1979) showed, not taking dialect into account at school violates students’ civil rights. Schools can rectify their neglect and ignorance of students’ dialects when they must.
New Dialect Challenges for School Programs
As schools have failed to adequately address the dialect issues raised in the 1960s and 1970s concerning standardized testing and literacy (Wolfram & Christian, 1989; Wolfram, Christian, & Adger, forthcoming) educational concerns related to dialects have grown more complex. The student population has changed. Early sociolinguistic scholarship had focused most intently on the dialect that was then called Vernacular Black English because African Americans were the largest vernacular-speaking group (e.g., Labov, 1972; Wolfram, 1969; Wolfram & Fasold, 1974). Now, however, schools that never adequately addressed indigenous vernacular dialects of U.S. English are also serving students who speak one of the many dialects of English that Kachru (1988) has labeled World Englishes: those used as first or subsequent languages around the world, especially in the former British colonies.
The rising numbers of World English speakers in schools have brought dialect challenges to ESL programs that had not directly faced them previously (Crandall, 1993). TESOL had historically considered vernacular dialects to fall within its purview,4 but local ESL programs have generally restricted their clientele to speakers of languages other than English. In cases where ESL programs have enrolled vernacular dialect speakers in order to teach them standard English, communities have objected on a number of points (Baugh, 1995). Parents of vernacular speakers have protested that ESL placement is inappropriate and insulting because their children already speak English; and ESL teachers have pointed out that their expertise is in language teaching, not dialect teaching. But World English speakers are forcing schools to re-examine their policies regarding English speakers and ESL.
A central issue for school language policies and programs is the mutual intelligibility of language varieties. In linguistic study, intelligibility is an important criterion by which languages and dialects are distinguished: Language systems that contrast with each other in some ways but can be mutually understood by their speakers are dialects of a language; systems that contrast and cannot be understood are distinct languages. However, intelligibility is not a fail-safe criterion. Some dialects are hard to understand at first but only take time; others require learning. At schools, U.S. English speakers may have difficulty understanding varieties of World English with which they are less familiar, such as those of West Africa and Southeast Asia, and those World English-speaking students may have trouble understanding teachers and students who speak U.S. English dialects. More familiar nonindigenous dialects, such as the Received Pronunciation (RP) dialect of Britain and the variety of Australian English spoken by educated people, do not present such problems. Beyond familiarity, though, is the matter of social status. Although there is no linguistic reason to prefer one dialect to another, RP is generally regarded as more prestigious than the Englishes of the Caribbean, India, and West Africa. This bias may affect intelligibility judgments. Questions arise as to the role of the speaker’s ethnicity or race in judgments about intelligibility and the locus of responsibility for making interaction intelligible. Must all World English speakers learn U.S. English? If not all, then who? What aspects of U.S. English must they learn? What changes are expected of students, and what of teachers? Despite the difficulties surrounding intelligibility as a criterion, it remains a useful notion in considering the changing responsibilities of ESL programs. In the case of English-based creole languages, intelligibility seems more straightforward because creoles are generally agreed to be not fully comprehensible to speakers of English dialects.5 Yet language prejudice persists: Even among creole speakers there is the view that creoles are deficient versions of English. To meet the language performance demands of schools and career, creole speakers need English language instruction that respects their language as a legitimate linguistic system. Instructional programming for these students needs to pay attention to the similarities between the creole and English as well as the differences, and to combat linguistically unwarranted language bias.
No consensus has emerged as to the obligation of ESL programs to serve speakers of nonindigenous English dialects or even those of English-based creoles. Apparently, many schools approach the matter informally, depending on teachers’ judgments of which World English-speaking students need ESL because of intelligibility considerations as well as teachers’ interest and ability in teaching them. Some states (e.g., New York and Maryland) have rewritten their ESL placement policies to accommodate speakers of other Englishes and creoles. Now local education agencies are searching for appropriate instructional programs and placement procedures.
The usual ESL services are not a good match for World English and English-based creole speakers. The language learning content of beginning and intermediate ESL services is inappropriate for students who know much of the grammar and lexicon of U.S. English. Instructional programming for teaching U.S. English to speakers of a World English variety would need to focus on contrasts in the phonological, grammatical, and lexical systems. Advanced ESL classes that take a contrastive approach might be appropriate for World English speakers. Effective programs for teaching standard U.S. English to speakers of U.S. vernacular dialects could be modified to target differences in the grammatical, syntactic, lexical, and pragmatic systems of the English dialects at issue. A local needs assessment to determine which English varieties students speak should be linked to a resource review that would identify sources of information on students’ Englishes (Crandall, 1993). For some World English-speaking students in the United States, the greatest educational needs are improving literacy and academic oral language skills because, as with some English language learners, they may have endured interruptions in their education and hardships in their family life (Lutz, 1994). Educational programs for these students need to be tailored to their educational level as well as to their language situation, and to offer counseling and other services as warranted (Walsh, 1991). World English speakers with comparable but different educational histories in their countries of origin will still need appropriate U.S. English language learning opportunities.
Assigning World English speakers to appropriate programs is likely to require refinements to placement procedures as well. School or district intake procedures involving home language inventories usually elicit the language(s) spoken in the home but not pedagogically relevant distinctions about language varieties. Speakers of nonindigenous Englishes are not identified by the language category. Creole speakers may be overlooked as well if they indicate that they speak English at home, out of a belief that their language is a variant of English, rather than another language. Moreover, speakers in the African diaspora may be further masked by racial identification so that they fall together in home language surveys with African Americans. Place of birth may also fail to identify World English speakers because some may have been born outside of their parents’ heritage country. As a result, students who are proficient in an English-based creole language but not in a dialect of English may not be identified as needing ESL services, and World English speakers may not be assigned to appropriate programs. Oral language interviews by linguistically knowledgeable interviewers may help to overcome such problems.
ESL and Indigenous English Dialects
ESL programs must also acknowledge variation in U.S. English. It is unrealistic to aim for a “dialect-neutral” version of English in the ESL curriculum (Wolfram, 1995); in fact, the teacher’s dialect usually becomes the model. Moreover, because ESL students interact with vernacular U.S. dialect speakers, they are likely to acquire vernacular dialect features. English language learners need accurate sociolinguistic information about the dialect differences they hear around them, just as native English speakers do.
Dialects and Teacher Education
Curricular and procedural demands connected to variation in English continue to challenge schools and teachers who may not be prepared to meet them. Teacher education programs are still struggling to prepare ESL teachers in sufficient numbers (Crandall, 1993), and few have addressed the panoply of English dialects (Kachru, 1992). Increasingly, schools of education are requiring that all teacher interns have at least one course in cultural diversity, but dialect diversity continues to be treated perfunctorily (Cazden, 1988; Smitherman, 1995). Preparing teachers to recognize, value, and accommodate cultural diversity is crucial, especially those from mainstream backgrounds with limited personal exposure to cultural diversity (Zeichner, 1993), but all teachers, including ESL teachers, need dialect knowledge in order to support students’ language development. To accommodate the language learning needs of World English and creole speakers and convey the information students need about English variation within the United States, teachers require a more substantive sociolinguistic education than they typically receive (Champion & Bloome, 1995).
Several research traditions can contribute to professional development and program design regarding English dialects.
The early sociolinguistic research that contributed to TESOL’s initial concern with teaching standard English emerged from the tradition of linguistic description of regional dialects established in the 1930s. That work had collected regionally distributed vocabulary items and phonological features, particularly in the vowel system (e.g., Kurath & McDavid, 1961). With time, there was increased attention to the social variables associated with language differences — age, gender, ethnicity, and social class (Labov, 1966; Shuy, Wolfram, & Riley, 1968). Although the work of dialectologists and sociologists merged into the new discipline of sociolinguistics, the dialectologist’s concern with describing regional differences in language continues to the present, and applications to education continue to be explored. For example, Wolfram and his students have recently completed dialect investigation on the island of Ocracoke (Wolfram & Schilling-Estes, in press), and they are currently conducting field work in other isolated communities. Among their products is a dialect curriculum that introduces middle school students to the scientific study of language variation, including the rule-governed nature of their own dialect. A second example of current dialectology is the massive work in progress to build the Dictionary of American Regional English (Cassidy, 1985; Cassidy & Hall, 1991; Cassidy & Hall, 1996).
Both the scientific approach to language study and the accumulated knowledge about linguistic and social constraints on formal features are relevant to education. As an example, Baltimore City Public Schools has revised its speech-language assessment procedures to accommodate the local vernaculars, incorporating research findings on vernacular structures distilled from quantitative study (Wolfram & Adger, 1993). Tailoring the structural inventories of vernacular features drawn from research to the indigenous vernacular required careful field work by speech-language pathologists and sociolinguists.
Studies of language use for social purposes in the overlapping traditions of ethnography, pragmatics, and discourse and interactional analysis have included some work on language at school and on ethnically related discourse patterns. Those that examine the practical and symbolic role of dialects in everyday life have important implications for program design and teacher education. Zentella’s (1995) long-term ethnographic study in the New York Puerto Rican community, showing young people’s use of multiple dialects of both English and Spanish, challenges educators to recognize and respond to the complexity of students’ language proficiency and needs. Fordham’s (1996) study of African American high school students found that they avoided standard English as one emblem of “acting white.” Baugh’s (1983) work on “black street speech,” one of many styles that may be used by African Americans, reveals the linguistic repertoire on which members of a social group may draw, as well as the boundary-maintaining function of social dialects.
Beyond attention to the language code, a wealth of studies has characterized ethnic differences in interactional style in educational and other institutional settings and in community life. Kochman’s (1981) well-known work on contrasting argumentation styles among black and white Americans suggests one way in which misunderstanding and suspicion between these groups is perpetuated. Tannen’s (1984) work on Jewish conversational style — in terms of turn-taking and other conversational mechanics, as well as what is considered an appropriate contribution — shows how interaction across ethnic groups runs afoul of different ways for creating community. Such studies provide a needed perspective for teacher education — which has often assumed a unified interactional model that does not accommodate group-based differences.
Studies of language in the classroom show how language skills learned at home may conflict with teachers’ expectations. Heath’s (1983) close, ethnographic study of language socialization in two Piedmont working class communities — one white, one black — followed students to school where their language conflicted in some important ways with school expectations. For example, stories at school did not match students’ experience with stories in their communities, and thus they had to learn new conventions. Likewise, Michaels’ (1981) discourse analysis detailed structural conflict between African American students’ episodic narratives and the topic-centered stories valued by teachers. The episodic style was also valued by middle class African American graduate students of education at Harvard (Cazden, 1988). Studies of cross-cultural interaction between native American students and their white teachers show that the interactional expectations of teachers who do not share ethnicity with their students interfere in teaching and learning (e.g., Erickson & Mohatt, 1982; Philips, 1983). Studies showing implications of social differences in language behavior for educational practice can be instructive for teacher interns.
Critical Language Study
Many scholars maintain that it is insufficient to detail group differences in language structure and interactional patterns without considering the power associated with certain ways of speaking (e.g., Fairclough, 1992). The traditional linguistic claim that dialects of a language are equal in terms of structural regularity and viability for communication is viewed as secondary because entrenched social attitudes clearly create another reality. In educational (and other institutional) situations that profoundly affect students’ biographies, decisions about appropriate language use often appeal to systems that do not treat dialects as equal. Moreover, certain groups are more likely than others to be negatively evaluated. While critical discourse study has flourished in Europe, work in the United States has been influenced by Ogbu’s (1978) scholarship, which traces patterns of groups’ power to the circumstances of their immigration. In essence, groups whose ancestors came to the United States unwillingly, such as African and Mexican Americans, now constitute a castelike minority whose students generally show low school achievement scores; whereas those who immigrated to seek a better life, such as European Americans, have fared better. Scholarship within this critical domain generally endorses a politically explicit approach to education (e.g., Delpit, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Milroy & Milroy, 1985), including acknowledging the political realities associated with speaking certain dialects.
An impressive body of research into World Englishes has built on work in several linguistic research traditions, including the study of pidgins and creoles (e.g., Winer, 1989). This work offers an increasingly important resource for educators, both because it challenges some sociolinguistic myths,6 such as the privileged status of the native speaker as a source of linguistic knowledge, and because it provides some sociolinguistic understandings and descriptive knowledge of varieties of World Englishes.
Scholars have represented in several ways the relationships among English varieties. Kachru’s (1992) intersecting circles show that English is expanding most rapidly among nonnative speakers. McArthur’s (1987) circle of World English echoes the sociolinguistic insight that the varieties of a language are related to each other in terms of where structural variants of a dialect fall along a standardness/nonstandardness range. McArthur posits a “remarkably homogeneous but negotiable ‘common core’ of World Standard English” (McArthur, 1987, p. 11), a written variety, around which other somewhat heterogeneous standard varieties cluster. In juxtaposition to these standards are other varieties, many of them vernaculars.
In sum, updating professional development regarding variation in English can appeal to a broad and vibrant research base. At the same time, however, the familiar need to explicitly translate theory into practice has not been addressed with any thoroughness. Forming partnerships among educators and researchers to apply the various strands of research to educational policy and strategy is of the essence.
Until quite recently, educational programs related to dialect differences have focused on teaching standard U.S. English to students from indigenous vernacular language backgrounds. Earlier views of variable features as errors in “proper” or “correct” English gave way, at least in theory, to the view that these variants were regular features of nonstandard language varieties; and standard English has been seen as constituting a second dialect for vernacular speakers, rather than a replacement. One instructional approach involved contrastive analysis of formal features and emphasized the contrasting domains of use for vernacular and standard dialects (e.g., Feigenbaum, 1970). Despite the numbers of vernacular English speakers in U.S. schools and the enduring public perception that success beyond school requires standard English, these products did not become commercially available.8 Newer programs to teach standard English, such as one now being tested in Los Angeles (Butler, Sata, & Snyder, 1992), have developed their own materials. Devising materials that reflect the local dialect(s) is certainly advisable because social dialects vary regionally, but there seem to be few linguistically accurate materials available.
A very different approach to dialects involves teaching students about language variation, in contrast to teaching them the standard dialect. One such program, described here, involves sociolinguistic education for all students, including English language learners.
Language awareness arose as a topic of study in England, where educational policy had endorsed the notion that World English speakers, many of them from countries that had been British colonies, ought to learn to speak standard British English and that the way to accomplish that goal was to introduce them to sociolinguistic facts surrounding language variation. British language awareness programs acknowledge the viability of students’ own language systems, but they gloss over the matter of language dominance, implying that speaking a standard is politically neutral (Clark, Fairclough, Ivanic, & Martin-Jones, 1990).
Walt Wolfram and his colleagues have been experimenting with an approach to language awareness that does not link to teaching standard English necessarily, although it provides linguistic knowledge that is useful for learning a second dialect (Wolfram, Detwyler, & Adger, 1992; Wolfram, Schilling-Estes, & Hazen, 1996). Language awareness curricula address the following goals:
* Scientific: Students discover the rule-governed nature of English dialects by examining sets of phonological and syntactic data, developing hypotheses, and testing them against more data. They also gather and analyze data in their own speech communities.
* Sociohistorical: Students learn about historical and social bases for dialect development with particular focus on the dialect of their community.
* Humanistic: Students confront the social attitudes surrounding language variation through a variety of video and audio exercises involving language differences.
Versions of these curricular materials have been pilot tested in Baltimore City Public Schools with upper elementary and middle school students, and in five different North Carolina communities. Student evaluations report enthusiasm for activities such as role playing a language contact situation in which speakers must innovate a rudimentary pidgin and make generalizations about data sets.
Language Awareness and Teaching Standard English
Other language development programs combine sociolinguistic education about languages and dialects as human systems with instruction in standard U.S. English. An exemplary program is the Caribbean Academic Program (CAP) at Evanston Township High School, Illinois, which is designed to teach English to classes including speakers of several Caribbean English-based creoles (in this school, primarily those of Jamaica and Belize) (Fischer, 1992). This is the sociolinguistically complicated case of a creole language with dialects, but because the language is viewed by many, including its speakers, as a deviant form of English, variability may be regarded as evidence of deficiency. The CAP program confronts these language attitudes by providing students with historical and linguistic information to substantiate the claim that these creoles are languages distinct from English though related to it. Through reading and writing Creole, students experience its regularities and discover inter-island dialectal differences in Jamaican Creole as well as regular contrasts among Caribbean creoles. Fischer reports that “students who clearly distinguish English as a separate language from Creole develop the motivation to tackle English language acquisition” (p. 100). In addition to sociolinguistic education, she supports students’ sociolinguistic inclinations concerning code switching, teaches English grammar using activities from ESL textbooks, emphasizes written English, uses Caribbean literature, and organizes “Creole Days” during which students perform in Creole.
Given the society’s idealized view that schools should allow only standard U.S. English, it seems remarkable that this program is not challenged in the community. The key to the CAP program, as well as to experimental programs in California that are reviving the dialect reader (Rickford & Rickford, 1995), is parent involvement. The CAP program is carefully explained to parents by teacher and students, and a CAP parent group meets regularly. “Parents are usually supportive when they see that someone at the school is taking a personal interest in their children, and addressing the special needs which their children have” (Fischer, 1992, p. 110).
Language awareness instruction — sociolinguistics in the schools — is relevant to language variation in schools on several fronts. When it underlies standard U.S. English instruction, it addresses two key barriers to learning that dialect: misinformation and motivation. Asking students to learn standard English because it is important for career development indexes a vague future. Showing them how standard English plays a role in their lives currently and how their own dialect contrasts with other systems gives students a knowledge base for developing a second language or dialect. In addition, language awareness instruction can play an important role in exposing dialect prejudice when all students — not only vernacular speakers — have the benefit of this knowledge.
These two exemplary programs suggest possible dimensions of curricula that deliver sociolinguistically accurate and practical information about dialects to students.
* Issues and Implications of English Dialects for Teaching English as a Second Language (part 3 of 3)
* Issues and Implications of English Dialects for Teaching English as a Second Language (part 2 of 3)
* ESL Standards: References for Further Reading
* ESL Standards Introduction: Promising Futures
* ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students: Grades 9-12
TESOL (1992). Statement on the Role of Bilingual Education of Children in the United States. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
TheAge (1998). http://www.theage.com.au:80/news/wik-index.htm.
Thiébaud, Marcel (1914), ‘L’emploi des projections lumineuses et du cinématographe dans l’enseignement’, (Recueil de monographies pédagogiques publié à l’occasion de l’Exposition nationale suisse (Berne 1914 Conférence Romande des Chefs de l’Instruction publique): Quartier de la Tente, Payot), 460-67.
466: On peut se figurer sans peine la valeur des vues résumant, par exemple, l’histoire de certains produits: culture et récolte du coton, manipulation qu’il subit et phases successives de sa transformation entissus: ou encore l’histoire du fer, extraction minérale, fusion de celui-ci dansles hauts fourneaux, grande et petite métallurgie
Thieberger, Nicholas. 1990. ‘Language Maintenance: Why Bother?’, Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 9: 333-58.
Quoted by Zuckermann, Ghil’ad , and Michael Walsh. 2011. ‘Stop, Revive, Survive: Lessons from the Hebrew Revival Applicable to the Reclamation, Maintenance and Empowerment of Aboriginal Languages and Culture. ‘, Australian Journal of Linguistics: 111-27
Thomason, S. G. & T. Kaufman (1988). Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson, E. (2000). Quebec divisible: Indians,” Bill 99 ignores our right to self determination, First Nations tell National Assembly hearing”. The Gazette. Montréal. A1, A12.
Quebec is divisble and aboriginal peoples have the right to decide whether they and their territory would be part of a soverigh Quebec, Quebec’s first Nations told a National Assembly committee heraring yesterday.
Ghislain Picard, regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, said Bill 99, outlining Quebec’s right to self determination, once again turns a blind eye to the fact that Quebec’s aboriginals also have their own right to self-determination.
Thompson, E. P. (1968). The Making of the English Working Class. London: Penguin.
Thompson, J. H. & R. S.J. (1994). Canada and the United States, Ambivallent Allies. Montreal &Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Thompson, K. (1985). Exporting Entertainment: American in the World Film Market 1907-1934. London: British Film Institute.
Tobias, J. L. (1976). Protection, Civilisation, Assimilation: an outline of Canada’s Indian Policy. Journal of Anthropology 6: 13-30.
Todd, Emmanuel (1994), Le destin des immigrés. Assimilation et ségrégation dans les démocraties occidentales (Paris: Le Seuil).
Rouland, Norbert (ed.), (1996), Droit des Minorités et des Peuples Autochtones (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France) le cite p. 21 à propos de l’exception française
Todorov, T. (1978). Symbolisme et Interprétation. Paris: Le Seuil.
“Alexander Pope écrivait : ” j’admets qu’un lexicographe pourrait peut-être connaître le sens du mot en lui-même, mais non le sens de deux mots reliés. ” Et Cicéron, bien longtemps avant lui : ” Les mots ont une première valeur pris isolément, une seconde unis à d’autres. Pris isolément il faut bien les choisir ; unis à d’autres, bien les placer. ” Et Montaigne [disait] : J’ay un dictionnaire tout à part moy. ” >> cité par Boulou de B’béri, mémoire préliminaire
___ (1995). Du culte de la différence à la sacralisation de la victime. Esprit: 90-102.
Tollefsson, J. W. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality : Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman.
Tomlinson, J. (1991). Cultural Imperialism: a critical introduction. London: Pinter Publishers.
2: The term “cultural imperialism” does not have a particularly long history. It seems to have emerged, along with many other terms of radical criticism, in the 1960s.
2-3:”cultural imperialism” is a generic concept, it refers to a range of bradly similar phenomena.
3: “The use of political and economic power to exalt and spread the values and habits of a foreign culture at the expense of a native culture” (Bullock , A., and O. Stallybrass, eds. The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. London: Fontana Books, 1977: 303)
4: “Culture is…that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, custom and any other copabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, E.B. Primitive Culture, 1871 cité dans Goudsblom, J. Nihilism and Culture. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980, p. 56)
5: “In this view of other delegates culture permeated the whole social fabric and its role was so pre-eminent and determining that it might indeed be confused with life itself” (UNESCO. “Final Report of World Conference on Cultural Policies, Mexico City 1982: 8).
What we need to understand is not what culture is, but how people use the term in contemporary discourses. This is precisedly the approach Raymond Williams takes when he identifies three “broad active categories of (modern) usage: (1) as a description of a “general process of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development”; (2) as indicative of “a particular way of life, whether of a people, a period, a group, or humanity in general”; or (3) as a reference to the “works and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity”.
This pluralising of the concept of culture -which can be traced to the ideas of the eithteenth-century German Romantic, Johann Herder- was a decisive development in the career of the concept. To speak of “cultures” in the plural is to dispute the idea that there is one “correct” pattern of human development – as is implicit , say, in the Eurocentric notion of “civilisation” . The pluralism introduced by the sense of “a culture” as a distinct way of life of a collectivity is of major importance in modern (Western) thought. It can be seen, for example, as a founding concept in anthropology, the academic disciplin which more than any other claims culture as its object.
8: “The cultural imperialism thesis claims that authentic, traditional and local culture in many parts of the world is being battered out of existence by the indiscriminate dumping of large quantities of slick commerical and media products, mainly from the United States.” (Tunstall, J. The Media are American. London: Constable, 1977.)
11: One fairly obvious fact to consider here is that the vast majority of published texts on the subject will be in a European language. Indeed, the majority of all published texts are in European languages According to UNESCO estimates, “more than two thirds of printed materials are produced in English, Russian, Spanish, German and French” (MacBride, S. “Many Voices, One World.” Paris: International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, UNESCO, 1980,: 49.).
Antony Smith notes that “Asian alone has more than 140 English-Language daily Newspapers, part of the explanation for this is, as he points out, an economic one:”it takes far less newsprint to reproduce the same informaiton in English as in most Asian writing systems”(Smith, A. The Geopolitics of Information. London: Faber and Faber, 1980: 48-49). When we consider that some 3500 verbal languages and some 500 written ones are estimated to exist in the world, this fact ight strike us as at least emblematic of some sort of cultural imperialism.
12: I write in English because it is the only language I can write in adequately; because I assume any likely readership to be English speaking; and so on. Similarly I rely for the main part on tzranslations for my sources. And even if I were to any extent polyglot, this would probably be limited to a relatively few major European languages. It would be unlikely to extend to the 1250-odd languages spolien ont he continent of Africa.((MacBride, S. “Many Voices, One World.” Paris: International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, UNESCO, 1980,: 49.).
13: This reality is one of internationalism – in a system of nation states – and, it must quickly be added, multinationalism- in a system of capitalist production.
28: First ther is the question of language. As I said erlier, we whould share a certian uneasiness over the fact that our text is wrtten in one of the “arch-imperialist” languages of the world today. There is a sense in which writing in English, and drawing primarily on English-language sources, may be reproducing the practices of culturl imperialism in the very act of discussing them. My writing and your reading in English helps to maintain this whole debate as the cultural property of the Enlgish-speaking world. And this is not merely occiedental: a whole history of global dominance – of imperialism and colonialism- stands behind our present privileged discursive position.
72: “Clearly, if language is central to cultural identity, cultural identity cannot be equivalent to national identity, as various linguistic groups may inhabit a given nation-state or be otherwise linded byond its confines”(UNESCO. “Final Report of World Conference on Cultural Policies.” Paper presented at the World Conference on Cultural Policies, Mexico City 1982: 60).
73: “Today, more and more people are realising that the world is “plural”; that is to say, the so-called “nation-state” is rarely a true appellation, for few states have ehnically homogeneous populations. On the contrary: most are composed of two or more ethnic communities, jostling for influence and power, or living in uneasy harmony within the same state border”(Smith, A.D. The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981: 9.)
73-74: Most nations then are not homogeneous cultural entities, and in a great many active struggle and contestation is a significan feature of contemporary politico-cultural life. This is not a residual phenomenon, having to do with a few ethnic conservative factions surviving in predominantly unified nations, but, as Smith argues, a significant developing trend in nations in the period roughly since the endo fo World War II: what he calls “the ethnic revival”.
75: Granted, the States are not as united in cultural terms as they advertise themselves; the famous “melting pot” has not formed a homogeneous nation out the world’s huddled masses (cf. Smith, A.D. The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, chap. 8, discussion of assimilation). This does not prevent us from identifying the “American way” as a hegenomic culture (or at least one aspiring to hegemony) within the contested terrain of United State culture. It is clear that, for example, black, Hispanic or American Indian curltures are in real senses dominated by a mainstream white (WASP?) American Culture.
79: Most commonly the aim in accounts of nationalism is to locate its historical orignins in the nation-state and other phenomena of modernity, such as capitalism, indusstrialism and mass communications. In such accounts, the concept of national identiy is often treated as the outcome of certain developments, for instances, in Ernest Gellner’s argument, of pressure of industrial society to produce “large, centrally educated, culturally homogeneous units” (Gellner. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983: 35).
81: all cultural identities -be they national, regional, local- are, in one way, of the same order. They are all representations (in the sense that imagination is a representative faculty) of belonging. Anderson is quite right to say that nationalist sentiments are no less “true” than identifications with a region or even a small “organic” community” where people think beyond the immediate presence of others, which is today almost everywhere, they “imagine a community” to which they belong.(Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spead of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.).
A certain convergence of historical events towards the end of the eighteenth centruy made “nation-ness” imaginable.
Touraine, A. (1990). L’Hymne à la Nation: l’expression d’une angoisse identitaire. Le Monde. Paris.
Pourquoi aujourd’hui parle-t-on si peu de société et tellement de nation, et pourquoi parle-t-on de celle-ci en termes si défensifs, comme si l’identité nationale se perdait, menacée en bas par les Arabes et en haut par les Allemands ou les Américains? Pendant l’industrialisation de l’après-guerre, l’idée de nation fut associée à celle de modernisation et fut même recouverte par celle de société, car celle-ci était traversée par des convlits assez profonds pour masquer l’unité de la nation. Aujourd’hui, l’idée de nation est nourrie de la peur de perdre une identité menacée partout par la culture de masse transnational
Trasviña, D. (1992). Bilingual Ballots: Their History and a Look Forward. In Crawford, J. (ed.) Language Loyalties: A Sourcebook on the Official English Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 258-64.
Congress largely failed to recognize the history of electoral and Other discrimination against Hispanics, Asian Americans, American Indians, and other language minorities when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A camerstane of the Great Society, passed in response to civil rights marches and sit-ins and the violent reactions to those efforts, the Voting Rights Act focused on electoral discrimination against African Amencans in the South. The law virtually stripped the powers of local and state officials in that reg~on to conductand regulate elections.It authorizedthe attorney general of the United States to “pre-clear” changes in local and state election laws and to appoint election examiners to monitor enforcement. Also, literacy tests were banned for the five-year life of the Act .
When the Voting Rights Act was due for reauthorization in 1975 the House and Senate ludiciary committees for the first time considered extending the Act’s principles from banning racial discrimination to addressing discrimination based on language.
So in the 1975 Voting Rights Act amendments, Congress required that written materials and oral voter assistance be made available in languages other than English under certain circumstances: a single language-minority group must account for at least 5 percent of a jurisdiction’s voting-age citizens, and (1) the English literacy rate must be below the national average, or (2) the jurisdiction must have conducted the 1972 election only in English and have attracted the participation of fewer than 50 percent of potential voters.” (“Language minority group” was defined to include “persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage”. These criteria resulted in targetted coverage of more than 300 counties, mainly in the Southwest, including jurisdictions as small as Loving County, Texas (200 persons) and as large as Los Angeles County, Calilfornai (7 million persons) .
The Voting Rights Act guarantees that a non-English speaker will be able to cast an independent, informed vote. It offers, in a language that he or she can understand, the same assistance and explanatory materials that English-speaking voters receive. This removes the need for intervention by third parties. well meaning or othenvise. Similarly, with the expansion of mmonty language media and tefecommunications today, candidates can advertise in many languages. and debates can be readily translated on radio and television and in newspapers. By no means is the non-English speaker relegated to the status of a “bossed” voter who must cast a ballot without knowing issues
Traube, E. (1992). Dreaming Identities: Class, Gender and Generation in 1980s Hollywood Movies. Boulder: Westvew Press.
Trierweiler, Valérie (2014), Merci pour ce moment (Paris: Les Arènes) 317.
62: -Es-tu allé sur le tournage de son film?
Il m’assure que non. Mais cette fois ma patience a atteint ses limites. Je m’énerve. Il le sent. J’exige un démenti. Il sera fait dans l’heure. Je laisse plusieurs message sur le répondeur de Julie Gayet lui demandant de me rappler, ce qu’elle ne fera jamais. J’étais aussi aux abonnés absents pour Ségolène Royal, comme il me le demandait, lorsqu’elle me téléphonait en 2006. Irionie du cycle de l’infidélité…
85: (…)je réfléchis à ce qui m’a poussée à commettre cette faute de 139 lettres. D’abord ma fidélité à Oliver Falorni, la double injustice qui lui a été faite, mais surtout la la situation politique impossible qui aurait résulté de l’élection de Ségolène Royal. Lui, François Hollande au palais de l’Elysée, elle, à l’hôtel de Lassay. Chacun dans son palais. Je ne vois pas où aurait été ma place.
Truchot, C. (ed.) (1994). Le Plurilinguisme Européen. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Trudeau, P. E. (1979). Federalism and the French Canadians. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.
Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin Books.
—- and Hannah, J (1982), International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English (London: Edward Harnold).
Truffaut, François (1981), ‘que vivent les cinéclubs’.
Tucker, G. R. (1991). Developing a language-competent American Society: the role of language planning. In Reynolds, A. G. (ed.) Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and second language learning. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 65-79.
— (1993). Language learning for the 21st century: challenges of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian Modern Language Review: 165-72.
Tully, J. (1995). Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tunstall, J. (1977). The Media are American. London: Constable.
Turi, J.-G. (1994). Typology of language legislation. In Skuttnab-Kangas, T. & R. Phillipson (eds.) Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin-New York: Berlin-New York. 11:117.
Major language legislation in the area of language policy is evidence. within certain poiitical contexts, of contacts, conflicts and inequalities
among languages used within the same territory. Objectively or apparently. these languages co-exist uneasily in a dominant-dominated relationship. thereby leading to a situation of linguistic majoritics and minorities.
The fundamental goal of all Ianguage legislation is to resolve in one way or another, the linguistic problems arising from those linguistic contacts. conflicts and inequalities. by legally determining and establishing the status and use of the languages in question. preference is given to the protection. defence or promotion of one or several designated languages through legal language obiigations and language rights drawn up to that end.
Canadian language legislation (the Official Languages Act) is an example of off?cial legislation that applies language obligations and language rights to two designated languages. English and French.’ Quebec’s language legislation (the Charter of the French Language) is an example of exhaustive legislation that applies, in a different way, language obligations and language rights to French, to a few more or less designated languages and to other languages to the extent that they are not designated.’
Language legislation can be divided into four categories, depending on its function; it can be official, institutionalizing, standardizirlg or liberal.
Legislation that fulfills all these functions is eshaustive language legislation, while other language legislation is non-exhaustive.
Official language legislation is legislation intended to make one or more designated, or more or less identifiable, languages official in the domains of legislation, justice, public administration and education. Depending on the circumstances, one of two principles is applied: linguistic territoriality (basically, the obligation or right to use one or more designated languages within a given territory) or linguistic personality(basically, the obligation or the right to use one’s own language or any language). As such, making one or more designated languages official does not necessarily or automatically entail major legal consequences.
The legal sense and scope of officializing a language depends on the effective legal treatment accorded to that language (for instance, when the law states that only official texts, or only certain official texts, are “authentic” so that they prevail, legally, over texts in one or more other languages – see Fishman, this volume, for consideration of European Community languages).
Institutionalizing language legislation is legislation which seeks to make one or more designated languages the normal, usual or common languages, in the domains of labour. communication. culture, commerce and business.
Standardizing language legislation is legislation designed to make one or more designated languages respect certain language standards in very specific and clearly defined domains, usually official or highly technical.
Liberal language legislation is legislation designed to enshrine legal recognition of language rights implicitly or explicitly, in one way or
113:another. But language law, viewed objectively (as legal rules on language).
make a distinction in language rights, which are subjective so that they belong to any person, between the right to “a” lanlguage (the right to use one or more designated languages in various domains, especially in official domains) and the right to “the” languugf (the right to use any language in various domains, particularly in unofficial domains). These language rights, based iespectively on the principle of territoriality and the principle of personality, are both individual and collective. Moreover, if language rights are also collective rights, they can belong to artificial persons (e.g. corporations) as well as to natural persons. After all, a human being is not only an individual but also a “political animal”, that is to say a person living in a variety of social organizations.
Language legislation never obliges anyone to use one or more languages in absolute terms. The obligation stands only to the extent that a legal act covered by language legislation is or must be accomplished.
For example, the obligation to use one or more languages on product labels holds only if there is, in non-linguistic legislation, an obligation to put labels on products.
Both linguistic content and linguistic form can be the object oflegislation that generally is not explicitly linguistic, such as the Quebec Civil Code, the Charter of Human Ilights, or the Consumer Protection Act.
Generally speaking, linguistic terms and expressions or linguistic concepts (mother tongue, for instance) are the focus of language legislation only to the extent that they are formally understandable, intelligible, translatable, usable or identifiable, in one way or another, or have some Ineaning in a given language.’
For example, Section 58 of Quebec’s Charter of the French Language states that, allowing for exceptions, public signs must be solely in French.
Therefore, if a word is posted and it is understandable in French, it is legally a French word. In this case, the public sign is legal (for instance, “ouvert”). In other respects, if a word is posted and it is not understandable in French, it is not legally a French word only if it has some meaning 114: in another specific language and it is translatable into French. In this case, the public sign is illegal (for instance, “open”).
In principle, language legislation is aimed at the speakers of a language (as consumers or users) rather than at the language itself (as an integral part ol` the cultural heritage of a nation) unless that legislation is clearly a public policy law (a public policy law is any law comprising legal standards so fondamental and essential, individually and collectively, in the interests of the community, that they become imperative in absolute terms so that they cannot be avoided in any way).
While the presence of a language or the “quantity” of its usage can be the object of exhaustive language legislation, language “quality” or correct usage belongs to the realm of example and persuasion where language usage is unofficial, and to the schools and government where language usage is official.
116:that accompany them. Otherwise, the right to “the” language will be but a theoretical fundamental right, like several fundamental rights, proclaimed in norms with directive provisions that cover language rights but have no real corresponding sanctions and obligations.
By ruling, in Section 89 for instance, that “Where this act does not require the use of the official language (French) exclusively, the official language and another language may be used together”, Quebec’s Charter
117:of the French language recognizes and enshrines the right to “a” language and the right to “the” language, by creating an interesting hierarchical solution between them in the field of
Turner, B. (2005). Global Religion, Diaspora and the Future of Citizenship. In Sasaki, M. (ed.) 37th International Institute of Sociology Conference: Migration and Citizenship. Stockholm, Norra Latin, Aula 3d Floor: National University of Singapore.
[Calhoun, 2005 #6]
Morawska, Ewa, University of Essex: Immigrants and Citizenship: An Ethnographic Assessment
Although Intellectually committed to cosmopolitanism as a strategy in the modern world, I am pessimistic.
Contributary enlightenment, broad changes in labor market, decline of family, aging of population: Nathan Glazer: we are all multicultural now. Olivier Roy, political Islam, neofundamentalist theory.
Legacy of WKymlicka, development of group rights. Difficulty from argument that this theory can be applied only if you have exit rights.
Challenge to cosmopolitan elite compes up against legal pluralism. embracing diversity implies legal pluralism. Reestablishment of charian law along british law in Malaysia: multicultural diverse society can flourish only while retaining strong sense of citizenship, yet citizenship is by nature exclusive.
Turner, L. D. (1949). Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Twain, M. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Scholastinc Inc. Appel Paperbacks.
xi ” EXPLANATORY
In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri Negro dialect, the extremest form of the backwookds Southwestern dialect, the ordinary “Pike County” dialect, and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork, but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech. I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would supppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding”
100-102: I never see such a nigger. If he got a notion in his head once, there warn’t no getting it out again. He was the most down on Solonom of any nigger I ever see. So I wnet to taking about other kings and let Solomon slide. I told min about Louis Sixteenth that got his head cut off in France long time ago: and bout his little boy the dolphin, that would ‘a’ been a king, but they took and shut him up in jail, and sone say he died there.
“Po’ liitle chap”
“But some says he got out and got away, and come to America.”
Dat’s good`! But he’ll be porrty lonesome-dey ain’ no kings here, is dey, Huck?”
Den he cain’t git no situation. What he gwyne to do`?
Well, I don’t know. Some of them gets on the police, and some of them learns people how to talk French”
Why, Huck, doan’ de French people talk de same way we does?
No, Jim, you couldn’t understand a word they said-not a single word
Well, now, I be ding-busted! How do dat come ?
I don’t know, but it’s so. I got some of their jabber out of a book. S’pose a man was to come to you to say Polly-voo-franzy- what would you think?
I wouldn’t think nuffn; I’d take en bust him over de hed-dat is, if he wan’t white. I wouldn’t ‘low no nigger to call me dat”
Shucks, it ain’t calling you anythig. It’s only saying, do you know how to tak French?
Well den, why couln’t he say it?
Why, he is a-saying it . That’s a Frenchman’s way of saying it.
Well, it’s a blame ridiculous way, en I doan’ want to hear no mo’ bout it, Dey ain’ no sense in it
Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do
No a cat don’t
Well, does a cow
No a cow don’t nuther
Does a cat talk like a cow or a cow like a cat?
No, dey don’t
It’s natural and right for ’em to talk different from each other, ain’t it?
And ain’t it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk different from us? you answer me that.
Is a cat a man, Huck?
Well, den, dey ain’t no sense in a cat talkin’ like a man. Is a cow a man? -er is a cow a cat?
No, she ain’t neither of them
Well den she ain’t got no business to talklike either one or the yuther of ’em. Is a Frenchman a man?
Well, den! Dad blame it, wyh doan’ he talk like a man? You answer me dat!
I see it warn’t no use wasting words -you can’t lean a nigger to argue. So I quit.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture.
cité en note par Rouland, Norbert (1996), ‘Troisième partie: le Droit des Peuples Autochtones’, in Norbert Rouland (ed.), Droits des Minorités et des Peuples Autochtones (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France), 347-553.
une notion parait particulièrement importante, celle des droits culturels, dans la mesure où les autochtones revendiquent prioritairement le respect de leurs cultures, au sens anthropologique du terme (précision en nbp: soit la définition canonique donnée en 1871 par E.B. Tylor (Tylor, Edward Burnett (1871), Primitive Culture): “ensemble complexe incluant les savoirs, les croyances, l’art, les moeurs, le droit, les coutumes, ainsi que toute disposition ou usage acquis, par l’homme vivant en société”. Cette conception large a été (…) critiquée par J-L. Harouel, Cuture et contre-cultures, Paris, PUF, 1994.