I felt like almost half the class presented on working in the medical field. There seemed to be a reoccurring theme among each of the presentations as well: doctors and nurses need to strive to build a bond with their patients. Considering this is what my presentation was on, it was easy for me to relate to and understand.
Howevere there were a few presentations I found much more diverse. The presentation on hostage negotiators definitely ranks high on the scale of diverse occupations. I mean, I know hostage negotiators exist, but I never really thought about how they get their job, why they get their job, and the actual details of their job. It really made me think about all the odd jobs in this world. I thought it was very interesting how hostage negotiators approach the situation at hand. I would think that they go into a hostage situation with some sort of a game plan, but never a specific list of steps. Not to say that all of them use the steps listed in the presentation, but I'm sure each of them have a list of objectives they wish to cover when attempting to safely
negotiate.
There were also a few presentations that I was eager to see how communication and language could relate to. Jobs like being an accountant or an engineer do involve communication and language. However, off the top of my head I probably could not list one way they do so. It obviously takes a little bit of research and concentration to decide the specific ways language is used in occupations that may not use it as much as a doctor or negotiator.
I thought it was fascinating that in every major or occupation, even accounting or engineering, communication is somehow used. This will probably sound very English-teacher-ish, but that just proves the importance of a good background in reading, writing, and speaking. The base one builds in their skills in language and communication can basically decide their future.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Language in Nursing
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a nurse is a person who or thing which nurtures or cares for others. For as long as nurses have existed, their goal has been to reach out to those who need assistance. Nurses have a specific way of relating to the patients that have ailments. It is vital that nurses understand how to express information in a way that people with low health literacy, deaf people, and those from other parts of the world can understand.
Simply because someone is born with a disability or is not taught to speak correctly, does not mean he or she does not deserve the best treatment possible. Each person deserves equally adequate care regardless of race, age, intelligence, and so on. It is important that nurses and other healthcare professionals comprehend how to communicate with each type of person in order to show no sign of discrimination or unequal care. There are many methods practiced to avoid running into complications in communicating with patients who may possess these specific afflictions.
Almost ninety million Americans said that they struggle to understand health information according to a recent statement from the Institute of Medicine. In 2003 the National Adult Literacy Survey stated that 43% of adults retain primary or below primary reading competence. There is now a major concern in regards to the capability of those Americans to operate properly in settings which involve their health. Being able to read and understand health information is necessary for one who needs to make suitable judgments about their health.
There is a significant difference between poor literacy and poor health literacy. Having poor health literacy is strictly content related. Someone who has poor health literacy may still be quite capable of reading and writing but strain to understand unaccustomed medical jargon. Low health literacy is linked to many sources such as the steadily growing diversity in the United States and rising healthcare costs, among other factors. Those who possess low health literacy understand less about their medical condition causing it to worsen.
Usually, underprivileged individuals, minorities, the elderly, and those who live in rural settings are most likely to attain low health literacy. There is a strong correlation between having poor health literacy and poor health outcomes. Because of this, it is extremely vital that the barrier of communication is taken down. Most healthcare professionals attempt to remove this barrier by way of using print materials. The only problem is that reading and comprehending is critical when analyzing print materials and doing so is quite a struggle for those with low health literacy. Another hindrance in using this technique is that it relies solely on the patient to read, interpret, and make progress with the information retained. Though the written materials may be very informative and useful, they may be completely worthless to those who do not understand them. Verbal guidance from nurses or doctors is what patients are more likely to solely rely on.
Most individuals who suffer from low health literacy are embarrassed of their disability. Usually, they require a translation of the vocabulary used by the medical professionals. Experiments and observations on this topic have served as useful and accurate tools in attempting to solve this problem.
“Nurses play a pivotal role in promoting access to culturally competent health care services for those who experience linguistic and cultural barriers. Nursing strategies to facilitate and enhance the Deaf community’s access to health care services are provided.” The above quote, taken from an article by Christine Lieu, portrays the fact that nurses must find a way to break down any communication barriers that may stand in the way of giving proper medical treatment.
Roughly 28 million Americans are deaf or have hearing problems (Lucas, Schiller, & Benson, 2004). It is a nurse’s job to ensure that those who possess disabilities are treated as equal as those who may not be disabled. The nurses must advocate patient’s happiness, learning, and the advancement of health. Deaf patients have a legal right to make decisions as well as a legal right to clearly understand what may be defective with their health. Also, deaf patients reserve special rights because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nurses are the people who can influence the administration of the health care and patient’s view of that care.
The use of sign language and other communication services for the deaf are not popular in health care providers. Many providers see sign language as a second language rather than a first. Sign language is merely a foreign language to many. The lack of usage of sign language has made it nearly impossible for medical providers to become close with Deaf culture and ways of communication.
The attempts around sign language are usually weird and contracted. Deaf people usually attempt to escape the awkward conversation because it is much too difficult to be speaking in your language to someone who does not know how to speak your language. It is critical that nurses know how to address these types of situations and are knowledgeable in how to not offend someone. Deaf people will be easily turned off by someone who lacks communication skills. It is the nurse’s job to be the “people person” and know how to fit comfortably in this somewhat awkward situation.
Imagine walking into a building where you are in dire need of medical attention and having no way to explain what is wrong with you. You try so hard to illustrate it with your hands in a way that you think everyone would understand. Still, no one understands what you are attempting to get across. Many times, this is how people who need medical attention feel. Deaf people have no way of describing their ailment to a doctor or nurse just the same way people with low health literacy cannot properly explain their problem. Generally it is a nurse’s mission to know how to break the language or communication barriers and supply any struggling patient with treatment.
Simply because someone is born with a disability or is not taught to speak correctly, does not mean he or she does not deserve the best treatment possible. Each person deserves equally adequate care regardless of race, age, intelligence, and so on. It is important that nurses and other healthcare professionals comprehend how to communicate with each type of person in order to show no sign of discrimination or unequal care. There are many methods practiced to avoid running into complications in communicating with patients who may possess these specific afflictions.
Almost ninety million Americans said that they struggle to understand health information according to a recent statement from the Institute of Medicine. In 2003 the National Adult Literacy Survey stated that 43% of adults retain primary or below primary reading competence. There is now a major concern in regards to the capability of those Americans to operate properly in settings which involve their health. Being able to read and understand health information is necessary for one who needs to make suitable judgments about their health.
There is a significant difference between poor literacy and poor health literacy. Having poor health literacy is strictly content related. Someone who has poor health literacy may still be quite capable of reading and writing but strain to understand unaccustomed medical jargon. Low health literacy is linked to many sources such as the steadily growing diversity in the United States and rising healthcare costs, among other factors. Those who possess low health literacy understand less about their medical condition causing it to worsen.
Usually, underprivileged individuals, minorities, the elderly, and those who live in rural settings are most likely to attain low health literacy. There is a strong correlation between having poor health literacy and poor health outcomes. Because of this, it is extremely vital that the barrier of communication is taken down. Most healthcare professionals attempt to remove this barrier by way of using print materials. The only problem is that reading and comprehending is critical when analyzing print materials and doing so is quite a struggle for those with low health literacy. Another hindrance in using this technique is that it relies solely on the patient to read, interpret, and make progress with the information retained. Though the written materials may be very informative and useful, they may be completely worthless to those who do not understand them. Verbal guidance from nurses or doctors is what patients are more likely to solely rely on.
Most individuals who suffer from low health literacy are embarrassed of their disability. Usually, they require a translation of the vocabulary used by the medical professionals. Experiments and observations on this topic have served as useful and accurate tools in attempting to solve this problem.
“Nurses play a pivotal role in promoting access to culturally competent health care services for those who experience linguistic and cultural barriers. Nursing strategies to facilitate and enhance the Deaf community’s access to health care services are provided.” The above quote, taken from an article by Christine Lieu, portrays the fact that nurses must find a way to break down any communication barriers that may stand in the way of giving proper medical treatment.
Roughly 28 million Americans are deaf or have hearing problems (Lucas, Schiller, & Benson, 2004). It is a nurse’s job to ensure that those who possess disabilities are treated as equal as those who may not be disabled. The nurses must advocate patient’s happiness, learning, and the advancement of health. Deaf patients have a legal right to make decisions as well as a legal right to clearly understand what may be defective with their health. Also, deaf patients reserve special rights because of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nurses are the people who can influence the administration of the health care and patient’s view of that care.
The use of sign language and other communication services for the deaf are not popular in health care providers. Many providers see sign language as a second language rather than a first. Sign language is merely a foreign language to many. The lack of usage of sign language has made it nearly impossible for medical providers to become close with Deaf culture and ways of communication.
The attempts around sign language are usually weird and contracted. Deaf people usually attempt to escape the awkward conversation because it is much too difficult to be speaking in your language to someone who does not know how to speak your language. It is critical that nurses know how to address these types of situations and are knowledgeable in how to not offend someone. Deaf people will be easily turned off by someone who lacks communication skills. It is the nurse’s job to be the “people person” and know how to fit comfortably in this somewhat awkward situation.
Imagine walking into a building where you are in dire need of medical attention and having no way to explain what is wrong with you. You try so hard to illustrate it with your hands in a way that you think everyone would understand. Still, no one understands what you are attempting to get across. Many times, this is how people who need medical attention feel. Deaf people have no way of describing their ailment to a doctor or nurse just the same way people with low health literacy cannot properly explain their problem. Generally it is a nurse’s mission to know how to break the language or communication barriers and supply any struggling patient with treatment.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Cultural Nursing
One of the articles I am using is centered around the Vietnamese population receiving health care in the United States. Cuturally, there are so many differences between people that live in the United States and the native Vietnamese. Religion, language, dress, etc... are all things that are very diverse from the U.S. culture. In health care it is vital that those practicing it are respectful and courteous to those who may not understand some of their customs.
The Vietnamese people who have fled to America are here because they wanted to escape the life they had in their homeland. They want escape the war and possible death. When treating the Vietnamese, health care professionals must be cautious to understand the difficulties faced by Vietnamese.
Communication is obviously vital for proper health care. The number one language in Vietnam is Vietnamese but the second is English. There are a couple complications with this though. In Vietnamese many English words mean the same thing. Thus, causing many communication issues. They also have a gender specific language. It is important for care givers to use simple, concise statements that get to the point while still explaining them carefully. Beginning with quiet small talk directed toward the oldest member of the group is the first step to successful communication.
Non-verbal communication can be very tricky when attempting to facilitate a healthy non-verbal relationship between someone of a Vietnamese background versus someone of the United States. To Vietnamese people, hugging and kissing is seen as strictly behind closed doors activity. To greet one another men shake other men's hands but men do not shake women's hands unless the woman offers to do so first. This is a major difference in today's U.S. culture. Also, to VIetnamese, looking directly in one's eyes may be considered disrespectful, while in the U.S. culture that is deemed as the opposite.
Cultural differences are not impossible to overcome, but work to do so is required. United States citizens offering care to those of other cultures and customs must learn the most respectful and courteous way to communicate in order for proper care to be provided.
The Vietnamese people who have fled to America are here because they wanted to escape the life they had in their homeland. They want escape the war and possible death. When treating the Vietnamese, health care professionals must be cautious to understand the difficulties faced by Vietnamese.
Communication is obviously vital for proper health care. The number one language in Vietnam is Vietnamese but the second is English. There are a couple complications with this though. In Vietnamese many English words mean the same thing. Thus, causing many communication issues. They also have a gender specific language. It is important for care givers to use simple, concise statements that get to the point while still explaining them carefully. Beginning with quiet small talk directed toward the oldest member of the group is the first step to successful communication.
Non-verbal communication can be very tricky when attempting to facilitate a healthy non-verbal relationship between someone of a Vietnamese background versus someone of the United States. To Vietnamese people, hugging and kissing is seen as strictly behind closed doors activity. To greet one another men shake other men's hands but men do not shake women's hands unless the woman offers to do so first. This is a major difference in today's U.S. culture. Also, to VIetnamese, looking directly in one's eyes may be considered disrespectful, while in the U.S. culture that is deemed as the opposite.
Cultural differences are not impossible to overcome, but work to do so is required. United States citizens offering care to those of other cultures and customs must learn the most respectful and courteous way to communicate in order for proper care to be provided.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Revised Essay :)
The Transformation of the Word “Retard”
“Dude, you are such a retard!” one boy yelled to another. However, the boy who was yelled at had no mental handicap at all. Was the first boy meaning that the second was a hindrance or prevention? Or was he implying that the second boy was simply acting silly and inane? The word “retard” can mean either of those things; the first being the more actual definition and the second being the more slang definition. Over the years, the definition of the word has changed and evolved significantly.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first record of the usage of the word "retard" is from circa 1489. At that point in time, that word meant to keep back, hinder, or impede. Now, in 2008, the word "retard" is used in common vernacular as a replacement for the word "idiot" or "dummy". This was not a direct or instantaneous change, but a change that took centuries and centuries to occur. Not only has the definition of the word changed but the nature of word has been altered over time as well. It has become more popular to use “retard” as a noun rather than a verb, when 200 years ago it was the opposite. Also, the pronunciation of the word has been modified over time because of its added meaning. Why and how has the word changed so greatly?
Well, the word “retard” was first found printed in American newspapers in 1704. It was used to describe the slowing down or the diminishing of something. The 1704 article from the Boston News Letter reads “…but the Precarious Title of the present King of Spain is likely to retard the fame.” That word was used numerous times in newspapers in the 1700s. In 1720, in the American Weekly Mercury, the word “retard” was defined as creating some sort of hindrance. One article from 1720 reads “In order to remove all obstacles, which may in the least retard what is so conducive…” One major change that occurred in the 1700s was the addition of the word “retard” as a noun as well as a verb. The definition of the word was now “delay”. An article from the 1788 Independent Gazetteer reads “…in a school among giddy boys, who will delight to cause a retard in progress…” Though the definition did not change radically, the usage of the word could be broadened and more abundantly used in other grammatical situations. Throughout the articles from the 1700s containing the word “retard”, the definition in context remained relatively constant. There was no great alteration to the significance of the word until many years later.
During the early 1800s, the meaning of the word “retard” did not encounter any major alterations. In 1895, the first major change to the definition in context of the word occurred. Though the definition is not wildly different, the definition in context took quite a turn. In G. E. Shuttleworth’s Mentally-Deficient Children, he uses the word “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person. The sentence reads, “Such children are also described as ‘backward’, or of ‘retarded mental development’.” This is the first time the word “retard” or “retarded” had been used related to a mental deficiency.
In 1922, the word “retard” is used in the Charlotte Sunday Observer to be defined as to prevent or hold back. The article reads, “Even live steam…failed to retard the flames.” Though the word was beginning to evolve, the definition of “to prevent” or “to delay” was still utilized. In the later 1900s, the word “retarded” became very popular and prevalent when referring to the mentally disabled. Not only was it a medical term but it became slang for someone who is mentally handicapped. In 1970 in Time Magazine a sentence reads, “There are…heroin addicts, Air Force and CIA mental retards and Broadway Indians doing a Broadway Snake Dance.” This use of the word “retard” is very much informal and almost slang. In 1971 an article in The New Yorker reads, “The younger son, self-described as ‘a hard-core retard’, dreams of escaping to the wilds of Oregon to gambol with the bears and squirrels.” Again, though referring to someone who is mentally handicapped, the word “retarded” is simply shortened to “retard” to become quicker and somewhat slang. In 1979 in the Observer is the first record of the word “retard” being used as “dummy” or “idiot”. The sentence reads, “These are men who have been out of England for years on end... Social retards, they can still hold onto their given obsolete ideas and prejudices about women because of their geographical isolation, and their marooned intellects.” The men referred to are not actually mentally retarded, they are just struggling, socially speaking. This definition became very popular in the later 1900s and early 2000s.
Now, one could hear the word “retard” used as an insult to someone by using it to call them “dumb” or “ignorant”. While insulting the one being named, is that not also insulting those who really are mentally handicapped? Is that not so very rude to those who actually are mentally handicapped? If I were mentally handicapped, I would not appreciate the word “retard” being paralleled with the word “dumb”. Just like I do not like the word “blonde” associated with the word “dumb”. Although some mentally handicapped people do not understand this association, many do. So basically, in stead of calling that person mentally handicapped, it would be okay to call them mentally idiotic? I think not. I do not think anyone likes a word that describes themselves also describing something derogatory and negative.
Many people have close relatives that are mentally handicapped that also take serious offense to this connotation. “You’ll never hear me callin’ anyone a retard,” said my high school Economics teacher. His daughter is mentally handicapped. “I just can’t stand it when people replace the word “dumb” with something like “retarded”. My daughter is actually very intelligent though she may be a little different than you or me.” Mr. Bradley is very sensitive to the usage of that word because he feels that when it is used in a derogatory sense, it is a severe insult to actual mentally retarded people.
I believe the best definition for the word “retard” is to delay or slow down. I also think using “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person is legitimate if strictly being used in a medical sense. There is a significant difference in using the word “retarded” as a medical term or as an insulting description. When used as an insult in a derogatory manner, I believe the word “retard” is very inappropriate and should be more carefully looked upon. It is easy to justify the utilization of the word as a medical definition, but how can it be justified as mockery? The word “retard” has now evolved so greatly that using it as an insult will probably seem like no big deal in the next few years. It is important that we recognize the transformation of this word and attempt to use it with caution.
“Retard.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.NewsBank/Readex. The Boston Newsletter. Editorial. America's Historical Newspapers. 26 May 1704. 11th ed. Boston, Massachusetts.
NewsBank/Readex. American Weekly Mercury. Editorial. America’s Historical
Newspapers. 7 April 1720. 16th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
NewsBank/Readex. The Courier. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 4 May
1800. 12th ed. Norwich, Connecticut.
The Georgia Telegraph. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 5 April 1849. 29th
ed. Macon, Georgia.
Charlotte Sunday Observer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 17 June 1922. 20th ed.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Independent Gazetteer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 30 March 1788. 14th ed.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bradley, Mark. Personal Quotation. 20 September 2008.
“Dude, you are such a retard!” one boy yelled to another. However, the boy who was yelled at had no mental handicap at all. Was the first boy meaning that the second was a hindrance or prevention? Or was he implying that the second boy was simply acting silly and inane? The word “retard” can mean either of those things; the first being the more actual definition and the second being the more slang definition. Over the years, the definition of the word has changed and evolved significantly.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first record of the usage of the word "retard" is from circa 1489. At that point in time, that word meant to keep back, hinder, or impede. Now, in 2008, the word "retard" is used in common vernacular as a replacement for the word "idiot" or "dummy". This was not a direct or instantaneous change, but a change that took centuries and centuries to occur. Not only has the definition of the word changed but the nature of word has been altered over time as well. It has become more popular to use “retard” as a noun rather than a verb, when 200 years ago it was the opposite. Also, the pronunciation of the word has been modified over time because of its added meaning. Why and how has the word changed so greatly?
Well, the word “retard” was first found printed in American newspapers in 1704. It was used to describe the slowing down or the diminishing of something. The 1704 article from the Boston News Letter reads “…but the Precarious Title of the present King of Spain is likely to retard the fame.” That word was used numerous times in newspapers in the 1700s. In 1720, in the American Weekly Mercury, the word “retard” was defined as creating some sort of hindrance. One article from 1720 reads “In order to remove all obstacles, which may in the least retard what is so conducive…” One major change that occurred in the 1700s was the addition of the word “retard” as a noun as well as a verb. The definition of the word was now “delay”. An article from the 1788 Independent Gazetteer reads “…in a school among giddy boys, who will delight to cause a retard in progress…” Though the definition did not change radically, the usage of the word could be broadened and more abundantly used in other grammatical situations. Throughout the articles from the 1700s containing the word “retard”, the definition in context remained relatively constant. There was no great alteration to the significance of the word until many years later.
During the early 1800s, the meaning of the word “retard” did not encounter any major alterations. In 1895, the first major change to the definition in context of the word occurred. Though the definition is not wildly different, the definition in context took quite a turn. In G. E. Shuttleworth’s Mentally-Deficient Children, he uses the word “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person. The sentence reads, “Such children are also described as ‘backward’, or of ‘retarded mental development’.” This is the first time the word “retard” or “retarded” had been used related to a mental deficiency.
In 1922, the word “retard” is used in the Charlotte Sunday Observer to be defined as to prevent or hold back. The article reads, “Even live steam…failed to retard the flames.” Though the word was beginning to evolve, the definition of “to prevent” or “to delay” was still utilized. In the later 1900s, the word “retarded” became very popular and prevalent when referring to the mentally disabled. Not only was it a medical term but it became slang for someone who is mentally handicapped. In 1970 in Time Magazine a sentence reads, “There are…heroin addicts, Air Force and CIA mental retards and Broadway Indians doing a Broadway Snake Dance.” This use of the word “retard” is very much informal and almost slang. In 1971 an article in The New Yorker reads, “The younger son, self-described as ‘a hard-core retard’, dreams of escaping to the wilds of Oregon to gambol with the bears and squirrels.” Again, though referring to someone who is mentally handicapped, the word “retarded” is simply shortened to “retard” to become quicker and somewhat slang. In 1979 in the Observer is the first record of the word “retard” being used as “dummy” or “idiot”. The sentence reads, “These are men who have been out of England for years on end... Social retards, they can still hold onto their given obsolete ideas and prejudices about women because of their geographical isolation, and their marooned intellects.” The men referred to are not actually mentally retarded, they are just struggling, socially speaking. This definition became very popular in the later 1900s and early 2000s.
Now, one could hear the word “retard” used as an insult to someone by using it to call them “dumb” or “ignorant”. While insulting the one being named, is that not also insulting those who really are mentally handicapped? Is that not so very rude to those who actually are mentally handicapped? If I were mentally handicapped, I would not appreciate the word “retard” being paralleled with the word “dumb”. Just like I do not like the word “blonde” associated with the word “dumb”. Although some mentally handicapped people do not understand this association, many do. So basically, in stead of calling that person mentally handicapped, it would be okay to call them mentally idiotic? I think not. I do not think anyone likes a word that describes themselves also describing something derogatory and negative.
Many people have close relatives that are mentally handicapped that also take serious offense to this connotation. “You’ll never hear me callin’ anyone a retard,” said my high school Economics teacher. His daughter is mentally handicapped. “I just can’t stand it when people replace the word “dumb” with something like “retarded”. My daughter is actually very intelligent though she may be a little different than you or me.” Mr. Bradley is very sensitive to the usage of that word because he feels that when it is used in a derogatory sense, it is a severe insult to actual mentally retarded people.
I believe the best definition for the word “retard” is to delay or slow down. I also think using “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person is legitimate if strictly being used in a medical sense. There is a significant difference in using the word “retarded” as a medical term or as an insulting description. When used as an insult in a derogatory manner, I believe the word “retard” is very inappropriate and should be more carefully looked upon. It is easy to justify the utilization of the word as a medical definition, but how can it be justified as mockery? The word “retard” has now evolved so greatly that using it as an insult will probably seem like no big deal in the next few years. It is important that we recognize the transformation of this word and attempt to use it with caution.
“Retard.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.NewsBank/Readex. The Boston Newsletter. Editorial. America's Historical Newspapers. 26 May 1704. 11th ed. Boston, Massachusetts.
NewsBank/Readex. American Weekly Mercury. Editorial. America’s Historical
Newspapers. 7 April 1720. 16th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
NewsBank/Readex. The Courier. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 4 May
1800. 12th ed. Norwich, Connecticut.
The Georgia Telegraph. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 5 April 1849. 29th
ed. Macon, Georgia.
Charlotte Sunday Observer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 17 June 1922. 20th ed.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Independent Gazetteer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 30 March 1788. 14th ed.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Bradley, Mark. Personal Quotation. 20 September 2008.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Transformation of the Word "Retard"
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first record of the usage of the word "retard" is from circa 1489. At that point in time, that word meant to keep back, hinder, or impede. Now, in 2008, the word "retard" is used in common vernacular as a replacement for the word "idiot" or "dummy". This was not a direct or instantaneous change, but a change that took centuries and centuries to occur. Not only has the definition of the word changed but the nature of word has been altered over time as well. It has become more popular to use “retard” as a noun rather than a verb, when 200 years ago it was the exact opposite. Also, the pronunciation of the word has been modified over time because of its added meaning. Why and how has the word changed so greatly?
Well, the word “retard” was first found printed in American newspapers in 1704. It was used to describe the slowing down or the diminishing of something. The 1704 article from the Boston News Letter reads “…but the Precarious Title of the present King of Spain is likely to retard the fame.” After reading that sentence in context, I found the word “retard” to mean slow down or diminish. That word was used numerous times in newspapers in the 1700s. In 1720, in the American Weekly Mercury, the word “retard” was defined as creating some sort of hindrance. The article reads “In order to remove all obstacles, which may in the least retard what is so conducive…” Again, after reading that line in context, it seems that “retard” is supposed to be defined as “to hinder”. One major change that occurred in the 1700s was the addition of the word “retard” as a noun as well as a verb. The definition of the word was now “delay”. Though the definition did not change radically, the usage of the word could be broadened and more abundantly used in other grammatical situations. Throughout the articles from the 1700s containing the word “retard”, the definition in context remained relatively constant. There was no great alteration to the significance of the word until many years later.
In The Courier in 1800, an article was produced using the word “retard” as a replacement to describe the process of slowing down. This usage was very similar to many of the usages in the 1700s. Obviously over these years, the language did not evolve so greatly. In 1849, in The Georgia Telegraph, the word “retard” is used like the word “prevent”. It says, “Nothing can prevent or ever retard these results”. In that sentence itself, it describes “retard” as to prevent. In 1895, the first major change to the definition in context of the word occurred. Though the definition is not wildly different, the definition in context took quite a turn. In G. E. Shuttleworth’s Mentally-Deficient Children, he uses the word “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person. The sentence reads, “Such children are also described as ‘backward’, or of ‘retarded mental development’.” This is the first time the word “retard” or “retarded” had been used related to a mental deficiency.
In 1922, the word “retard” is used in the Charlotte Sunday Observer to be defined as to prevent or hold back. The article reads, “Even live steam…failed to retard the flames.” Though the word was beginning to evolve, the definition of “to prevent” or “to delay” was still utilized. In the 1900s, the word “retarded” became very popular and prevalent when referring to the mentally disabled. Not only was it a medical term but it became slang for someone who is mentally disabled. In 1970 in Time Magazine a sentence reads, “There are…heroin addicts, Air Force and CIA mental retards and Broadway Indians doing a Broadway Snake Dance.” This use of the word “retard” is very much informal and almost slang. In 1971 an article in The New Yorker reads, “The younger son, self-described as ‘a hard-core retard’, dreams of escaping to the wilds of Oregon to gambol with the bears and squirrels.” Again, though referring to someone who is mentally handicapped, the word “retarded” is simply shortened to “retard” to become quicker and somewhat slang. In 1979 in the Observer is the first record of the word “retard” being used as “dummy” or “idiot”. The sentence reads, “These are men who have been out of England for years on end... Social retards, they can still hold onto their given obsolete ideas and prejudices about women because of their geographical isolation, and their marooned intellects.” The men referred to are not actually mentally retarded, they are just dumb, socially speaking. This definition became very popular in the later 1900s and early 2000s.
Now, one could hear the word “retard” used as an insult to someone by using it to call them “dumb” or “ignorant”. While insulting the one being named, is that not also insulting actual retards? Is that not so very rude to those who actually are mentally handicapped? If I were mentally handicapped, I would not appreciate the word “retard” being paralleled with the word “dumb”. Just like I do not like the word “blonde” associated with the word “dumb”. Although some mentally handicapped people do not understand this association, many do. So basically, in stead of calling that person mentally handicapped, it would be okay to call them mentally idiotic? I think not. I do not think anyone likes a word that describes themselves also describing something derogatory and negative. Many people have close relatives that are mentally handicapped that also take serious offense to this connotation. “You’ll never hear me callin’ anyone a retard,” said my high school Economics teacher. His daughter is mentally handicapped. “I just can’t stand it when people replace the word “dumb” with something like “retarded”. My daughter is actually very intelligent though she may be a little different than you or me.”
I believe the best definition for the word “retard” is to delay or slow down. I also think using “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person is legitimate also. However, when used as an insult in a derogatory manner, I believe the word “retard” is very inappropriate and should be more carefully looked upon. So next time you are thinking about calling someone a “retard”, think about all the people you could be hurting or insulting.
“Retard.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.NewsBank/Readex. The Boston Newsletter. Editorial. America's Historical Newspapers. 26 May 1704. 11th ed. Boston, Massachusetts.
NewsBank/Readex. American Weekly Mercury. Editorial. America’s Historical
Newspapers. 7 April 1720. 16th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
NewsBank/Readex. The Courier. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 4 May
1800. 12th ed. Norwich, Connecticut.
The Georgia Telegraph. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 5 April 1849. 29th
ed. Macon, Georgia.
Charlotte Sunday Observer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 17 June 1922. 20th ed.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bradley, Mark. Personal Quotation. 20 September 2008.
Well, the word “retard” was first found printed in American newspapers in 1704. It was used to describe the slowing down or the diminishing of something. The 1704 article from the Boston News Letter reads “…but the Precarious Title of the present King of Spain is likely to retard the fame.” After reading that sentence in context, I found the word “retard” to mean slow down or diminish. That word was used numerous times in newspapers in the 1700s. In 1720, in the American Weekly Mercury, the word “retard” was defined as creating some sort of hindrance. The article reads “In order to remove all obstacles, which may in the least retard what is so conducive…” Again, after reading that line in context, it seems that “retard” is supposed to be defined as “to hinder”. One major change that occurred in the 1700s was the addition of the word “retard” as a noun as well as a verb. The definition of the word was now “delay”. Though the definition did not change radically, the usage of the word could be broadened and more abundantly used in other grammatical situations. Throughout the articles from the 1700s containing the word “retard”, the definition in context remained relatively constant. There was no great alteration to the significance of the word until many years later.
In The Courier in 1800, an article was produced using the word “retard” as a replacement to describe the process of slowing down. This usage was very similar to many of the usages in the 1700s. Obviously over these years, the language did not evolve so greatly. In 1849, in The Georgia Telegraph, the word “retard” is used like the word “prevent”. It says, “Nothing can prevent or ever retard these results”. In that sentence itself, it describes “retard” as to prevent. In 1895, the first major change to the definition in context of the word occurred. Though the definition is not wildly different, the definition in context took quite a turn. In G. E. Shuttleworth’s Mentally-Deficient Children, he uses the word “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person. The sentence reads, “Such children are also described as ‘backward’, or of ‘retarded mental development’.” This is the first time the word “retard” or “retarded” had been used related to a mental deficiency.
In 1922, the word “retard” is used in the Charlotte Sunday Observer to be defined as to prevent or hold back. The article reads, “Even live steam…failed to retard the flames.” Though the word was beginning to evolve, the definition of “to prevent” or “to delay” was still utilized. In the 1900s, the word “retarded” became very popular and prevalent when referring to the mentally disabled. Not only was it a medical term but it became slang for someone who is mentally disabled. In 1970 in Time Magazine a sentence reads, “There are…heroin addicts, Air Force and CIA mental retards and Broadway Indians doing a Broadway Snake Dance.” This use of the word “retard” is very much informal and almost slang. In 1971 an article in The New Yorker reads, “The younger son, self-described as ‘a hard-core retard’, dreams of escaping to the wilds of Oregon to gambol with the bears and squirrels.” Again, though referring to someone who is mentally handicapped, the word “retarded” is simply shortened to “retard” to become quicker and somewhat slang. In 1979 in the Observer is the first record of the word “retard” being used as “dummy” or “idiot”. The sentence reads, “These are men who have been out of England for years on end... Social retards, they can still hold onto their given obsolete ideas and prejudices about women because of their geographical isolation, and their marooned intellects.” The men referred to are not actually mentally retarded, they are just dumb, socially speaking. This definition became very popular in the later 1900s and early 2000s.
Now, one could hear the word “retard” used as an insult to someone by using it to call them “dumb” or “ignorant”. While insulting the one being named, is that not also insulting actual retards? Is that not so very rude to those who actually are mentally handicapped? If I were mentally handicapped, I would not appreciate the word “retard” being paralleled with the word “dumb”. Just like I do not like the word “blonde” associated with the word “dumb”. Although some mentally handicapped people do not understand this association, many do. So basically, in stead of calling that person mentally handicapped, it would be okay to call them mentally idiotic? I think not. I do not think anyone likes a word that describes themselves also describing something derogatory and negative. Many people have close relatives that are mentally handicapped that also take serious offense to this connotation. “You’ll never hear me callin’ anyone a retard,” said my high school Economics teacher. His daughter is mentally handicapped. “I just can’t stand it when people replace the word “dumb” with something like “retarded”. My daughter is actually very intelligent though she may be a little different than you or me.”
I believe the best definition for the word “retard” is to delay or slow down. I also think using “retarded” to describe a mentally handicapped person is legitimate also. However, when used as an insult in a derogatory manner, I believe the word “retard” is very inappropriate and should be more carefully looked upon. So next time you are thinking about calling someone a “retard”, think about all the people you could be hurting or insulting.
“Retard.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.NewsBank/Readex. The Boston Newsletter. Editorial. America's Historical Newspapers. 26 May 1704. 11th ed. Boston, Massachusetts.
NewsBank/Readex. American Weekly Mercury. Editorial. America’s Historical
Newspapers. 7 April 1720. 16th ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
NewsBank/Readex. The Courier. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 4 May
1800. 12th ed. Norwich, Connecticut.
The Georgia Telegraph. Editorial. America’s Historical Newspapers. 5 April 1849. 29th
ed. Macon, Georgia.
Charlotte Sunday Observer. America’s Historical Newspapers. 17 June 1922. 20th ed.
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bradley, Mark. Personal Quotation. 20 September 2008.
Friday, March 7, 2008
This Means That and That Means This
We recently did a reading from our About Language book on the word "macho". Before reading that, I had never viewed that word as an insult or as a derogatory description. To me, macho is a strong, well-built man who can handle anything. In the article "macho" (to Americans) means basically a guy who is a pig. "Macho" is not the only word that is easily interpreted.
I was speaking to my friend last week (we'll call him Eric) and I learned a new meaning for the word "bad". A very attractive girl walked by us and Eric said, "Dude, she's bad." I was a bit confused for a while and that was obvious to him. He then explained that by calling her "bad", he is calling her "very good-looking". He also explained that the word "bad" can be used for a good song or a nice car. After that, I was intrigued. I asked him what other alternatively defined words he or his friends used.
He laughed and then began thinking of all the words or phrases he uses that do not necessarily mean what they are defined as in the literal sense. One phrase he brought up that I found interesting was "I'm down with that", which to he and his friends means "Yeah, that's fine" or "I'll be there". However, if you think of that phrase in the actual sense, it would appear that by saying that, he is down on the ground or floor with whatever they are referring to, when obviously he is not.
Another different example of this phenomenon is the use of the "n" word. The "n" word can usually be used appropriately between two black men who are friends. If a white man or woman uses it towards a black man or woman, it is definitely considered a derogatory comment and is very offensive. In my Africana Studies class we discussed this, and a few of the black students said that there are even certain black people that use the "n" word and it seems offensive. Honestly, I don't know who you have to be or how you have to act to be able to use the word appropriately, but I find it interesting that it has two very powerful extremes. If a man is another man's "n" word, he is his friend, his companion. That way it is used as a compliment. However, if a white man belittlelingly says it to a black man, it is the worst of insults.
Words evolve and change everyday. The word "the" will probably mean something completely bizarre and different in twenty years! So who really knows what "I'm down with being bad and macho" means?
I was speaking to my friend last week (we'll call him Eric) and I learned a new meaning for the word "bad". A very attractive girl walked by us and Eric said, "Dude, she's bad." I was a bit confused for a while and that was obvious to him. He then explained that by calling her "bad", he is calling her "very good-looking". He also explained that the word "bad" can be used for a good song or a nice car. After that, I was intrigued. I asked him what other alternatively defined words he or his friends used.
He laughed and then began thinking of all the words or phrases he uses that do not necessarily mean what they are defined as in the literal sense. One phrase he brought up that I found interesting was "I'm down with that", which to he and his friends means "Yeah, that's fine" or "I'll be there". However, if you think of that phrase in the actual sense, it would appear that by saying that, he is down on the ground or floor with whatever they are referring to, when obviously he is not.
Another different example of this phenomenon is the use of the "n" word. The "n" word can usually be used appropriately between two black men who are friends. If a white man or woman uses it towards a black man or woman, it is definitely considered a derogatory comment and is very offensive. In my Africana Studies class we discussed this, and a few of the black students said that there are even certain black people that use the "n" word and it seems offensive. Honestly, I don't know who you have to be or how you have to act to be able to use the word appropriately, but I find it interesting that it has two very powerful extremes. If a man is another man's "n" word, he is his friend, his companion. That way it is used as a compliment. However, if a white man belittlelingly says it to a black man, it is the worst of insults.
Words evolve and change everyday. The word "the" will probably mean something completely bizarre and different in twenty years! So who really knows what "I'm down with being bad and macho" means?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
"i" Before "e" Except After "c"
Everyone remembers the "i" before "e" except after "c" rule. Except, is it always true? No, what about words like science or society? What about prescient or conscience? In grade school we are taught concrete rules that stick in our minds without learning the loop holes. Like Robert Klose said in "A Rarity: Grammar Lessons from Dad", blame must be put on someone and he simply places in on the schools. I believe he has a valid point, especially when he states that the younger teachers do not focus on the so called loop holes of grammar because they were not exposed to them either.
Grammar is misused millions or even billions of times each day. Some people consciously say "ain't" even when they know the proper way to put that thought into words is by using "isn't" or "aren't". People say "if I was you..." when the grammatically correct way to put that is "if I were you..."
Some of us were never taught the correct rules of grammar and some of us just never chose to accept them. And of course, some just slip up every now and then and say something incorrectly. Ignoring the correct grammar is the problem. Just like Klose illustrates in his essay, learning simple grammatical rules can be fun and easy if it is taught the right way. In a matter of seconds his son learned a grammatical concept and put it into practice immediately.
Accepting and learning grammar is not only about the intake of the knowledge but also about the output of that knowledge. How is the information presented? Does it seem interesting? It is very easy for someone to shut out something that is completely boring and uninteresting.
Though I have jumped around a lot in this post, my point remains: If grammar is being misused, there is generally a reason behind it. That reason may be one of many but there will be a reason. Whether it is basic ignorance or lack of opportunity to learn, correct grammar can be easily looked over.
Grammar is misused millions or even billions of times each day. Some people consciously say "ain't" even when they know the proper way to put that thought into words is by using "isn't" or "aren't". People say "if I was you..." when the grammatically correct way to put that is "if I were you..."
Some of us were never taught the correct rules of grammar and some of us just never chose to accept them. And of course, some just slip up every now and then and say something incorrectly. Ignoring the correct grammar is the problem. Just like Klose illustrates in his essay, learning simple grammatical rules can be fun and easy if it is taught the right way. In a matter of seconds his son learned a grammatical concept and put it into practice immediately.
Accepting and learning grammar is not only about the intake of the knowledge but also about the output of that knowledge. How is the information presented? Does it seem interesting? It is very easy for someone to shut out something that is completely boring and uninteresting.
Though I have jumped around a lot in this post, my point remains: If grammar is being misused, there is generally a reason behind it. That reason may be one of many but there will be a reason. Whether it is basic ignorance or lack of opportunity to learn, correct grammar can be easily looked over.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Organized Disorder
"How big is the English language?" Bill Bryson asks.
No one knows. Even if someone devoted years and years to the study of how many words exist, they could not find the answer because new words are created every single day. Maybe for one moment, one brief moment, someone could know, but soon after a word or group of words would evolve into something else.
Of course people have attempted to estimate the number of words that subsist and to define each of them. Over the years, dictionaries and their authors have searched and researched every word possible. In the very first paragraph of "Order Out of Chaos" by Bill Bryson, he lists the different numbers of words in four different dictionaries. They all differ greatly in count. Are words like "whoa" and "cutie" actually defined as words? I mean, they are a part of many people's vocabulary, but are they correct depictions of words according to Webster or Random House?
There are also words that people know exist and do exist in the dictionary but people never use. Bryson makes an example of the words "inflationist", "forbiddance", "moosewood", and "pulsative". I agree with this because, yes, I know these words exist but I don't think I have ever used them and I probably will not anytime soon.
We have taken this chaotic pile of letters, sounds, and syllables and created some sort of organized system out of it. Does every single person have the same system? No, I don't think so. That doesn't mean many people won't have similar systems but no ones will be identical. Everyone has their own twist on dialect and jargon, but that is what makes someone individual and different. That is what keeps us from becoming robots and being exactly the same as everyone else.
No one knows. Even if someone devoted years and years to the study of how many words exist, they could not find the answer because new words are created every single day. Maybe for one moment, one brief moment, someone could know, but soon after a word or group of words would evolve into something else.
Of course people have attempted to estimate the number of words that subsist and to define each of them. Over the years, dictionaries and their authors have searched and researched every word possible. In the very first paragraph of "Order Out of Chaos" by Bill Bryson, he lists the different numbers of words in four different dictionaries. They all differ greatly in count. Are words like "whoa" and "cutie" actually defined as words? I mean, they are a part of many people's vocabulary, but are they correct depictions of words according to Webster or Random House?
There are also words that people know exist and do exist in the dictionary but people never use. Bryson makes an example of the words "inflationist", "forbiddance", "moosewood", and "pulsative". I agree with this because, yes, I know these words exist but I don't think I have ever used them and I probably will not anytime soon.
We have taken this chaotic pile of letters, sounds, and syllables and created some sort of organized system out of it. Does every single person have the same system? No, I don't think so. That doesn't mean many people won't have similar systems but no ones will be identical. Everyone has their own twist on dialect and jargon, but that is what makes someone individual and different. That is what keeps us from becoming robots and being exactly the same as everyone else.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Are You There?
I found the article about linguistic profiling very interesting. Unfortunately, I feel as if it does exist. If I were a businesswoman, and I was attempting to sell a piece of property or give a job interview over the phone, I would expect to hear clear and concise sentences. Many African Americans or Mexican Americans may speak with a different accent and use fragments and informal language. There is nothing wrong with that because just like we discussed in class: grammatically speaking, what they are saying is correct.
Those African Americans or Mexican Americans speak the way they do because of how and where they were born and raised. Many do not know any different. It is usually not that they are ignorant or uneducated, but that they were taught that their way of speaking was the right way. Is there really a "right" way to speak? Or has the white upper class really decided what the "right" way to speak is because usually they hold the most power?
In a previous blog, I referred to the Africana Studies class I am taking. We are actually studying something quite similar to this phenomenon. In the 1920s, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) was formed by W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a black man. A few years later it was taken over by whites. The white men had forced themselves into positions of higher power in this organization. Consequently, the NAACP was more successful and was well run. Was it because the white men were smarter? Were they persuasive? Well, what my professor suggested is that people who were considering becoming supporters of the NAACP took it more serious when they saw a group of white men and only a few black men as the leaders. Even my own African American teacher said that he himself would take the NAACP more seriously if he saw more white men than black men running the show. Unfortunately, the stereotype that whites are greater and will always be greater than blacks is enforced in this case.
In that same way, when a white person calls to purchase property or interview for a job, they may be considered more seriously for what they are applying for than a black person may be solely due to the way they speak.
Those African Americans or Mexican Americans speak the way they do because of how and where they were born and raised. Many do not know any different. It is usually not that they are ignorant or uneducated, but that they were taught that their way of speaking was the right way. Is there really a "right" way to speak? Or has the white upper class really decided what the "right" way to speak is because usually they hold the most power?
In a previous blog, I referred to the Africana Studies class I am taking. We are actually studying something quite similar to this phenomenon. In the 1920s, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) was formed by W.E.B. Du Bois, who was a black man. A few years later it was taken over by whites. The white men had forced themselves into positions of higher power in this organization. Consequently, the NAACP was more successful and was well run. Was it because the white men were smarter? Were they persuasive? Well, what my professor suggested is that people who were considering becoming supporters of the NAACP took it more serious when they saw a group of white men and only a few black men as the leaders. Even my own African American teacher said that he himself would take the NAACP more seriously if he saw more white men than black men running the show. Unfortunately, the stereotype that whites are greater and will always be greater than blacks is enforced in this case.
In that same way, when a white person calls to purchase property or interview for a job, they may be considered more seriously for what they are applying for than a black person may be solely due to the way they speak.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Million Dollar Communication
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/feb/01/simmons-sign-language-at-center-stage-of-super/
This article is describing the different types of advertisements that will be shown during the Super Bowl game this year. First, a Bridgestone Tires commercial is described. Fox Network will be recieving 2.7 million dollars for every thirty seconds a commercial airs. The rest of the article describes the commercials that will be played during the game, and how much they will cost each company airing them.
This article contains cultural information that describes what type of society we live in. In our culture, one thirty second chance to sell something, anything, is worth 3 million dollars. That just doesn't seem right. That shows that we are so caught up in the business of selling and buying that people are willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to try to do so. It is hard to imagine a million dollars. To these advertisers though, it is chump change.
If a fieldworker were interested in this situation, he or she may want to inquire about certain things. He or she may ask, "How many people will see these commercials?" or "Is business helped so much by this thirty second spot that it is worth three million?". It comes down to priority. What are these advertisers really trying to do? Sell their product? Or make a name for themselves by spending the most on their Super Bowl commercial? Is communicating with a potential buyer really worth that much?
A fieldworker's questions may be different than those of a journalist. A fieldworker would ask questions like "how?" and "why?", while a journalist only attempts to get the cold hard facts. The only thing the journalist wants is the full scoop, while the fieldworker is interested in knowing why the company is choosing to do what they do.
To answer the question of "What's going on here?", a fieldworker would have many options. Maybe he or she could interview the producers of the commercials to see what type of message they want to relay and how much it is really worth. Is using a persuasive language to attempt to sell a product that literally costs a company 3 million dollars really necessary? It is not really the importance of the language here, but the timing of the language used.
A fieldworker could use research of other Super Bowls. How much did companies spend in years past? Also, he or she could find out how much sales really increase after these commercials are played. The fieldworker may also want to interview some of the people who are really "in the know". The producers, people at the network or the company head would all give insightful information on this topic.
To research the topic, the fieldworker could use one of many resources. He or she could use the internet or delve deeper into research at the library. To speak and interview with the other individuals, the fieldworker would need to seek out where they are. He or she could participate in a personal interview (face to face), which may take a bit more effort, or a phone interview.
Attempting to understand the true worth of this million dollar communication is a hard concept. For years, companies have been spending millions on that one Super Bowl day to even barely et their name out there. Persuasive language usually does penetrate its subject, but there are no guarantees. So maybe this persuasive language turned into million dollar communication is all just a scam. So, this question is: Is it all really worth it? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
This article is describing the different types of advertisements that will be shown during the Super Bowl game this year. First, a Bridgestone Tires commercial is described. Fox Network will be recieving 2.7 million dollars for every thirty seconds a commercial airs. The rest of the article describes the commercials that will be played during the game, and how much they will cost each company airing them.
This article contains cultural information that describes what type of society we live in. In our culture, one thirty second chance to sell something, anything, is worth 3 million dollars. That just doesn't seem right. That shows that we are so caught up in the business of selling and buying that people are willing to spend millions and millions of dollars to try to do so. It is hard to imagine a million dollars. To these advertisers though, it is chump change.
If a fieldworker were interested in this situation, he or she may want to inquire about certain things. He or she may ask, "How many people will see these commercials?" or "Is business helped so much by this thirty second spot that it is worth three million?". It comes down to priority. What are these advertisers really trying to do? Sell their product? Or make a name for themselves by spending the most on their Super Bowl commercial? Is communicating with a potential buyer really worth that much?
A fieldworker's questions may be different than those of a journalist. A fieldworker would ask questions like "how?" and "why?", while a journalist only attempts to get the cold hard facts. The only thing the journalist wants is the full scoop, while the fieldworker is interested in knowing why the company is choosing to do what they do.
To answer the question of "What's going on here?", a fieldworker would have many options. Maybe he or she could interview the producers of the commercials to see what type of message they want to relay and how much it is really worth. Is using a persuasive language to attempt to sell a product that literally costs a company 3 million dollars really necessary? It is not really the importance of the language here, but the timing of the language used.
A fieldworker could use research of other Super Bowls. How much did companies spend in years past? Also, he or she could find out how much sales really increase after these commercials are played. The fieldworker may also want to interview some of the people who are really "in the know". The producers, people at the network or the company head would all give insightful information on this topic.
To research the topic, the fieldworker could use one of many resources. He or she could use the internet or delve deeper into research at the library. To speak and interview with the other individuals, the fieldworker would need to seek out where they are. He or she could participate in a personal interview (face to face), which may take a bit more effort, or a phone interview.
Attempting to understand the true worth of this million dollar communication is a hard concept. For years, companies have been spending millions on that one Super Bowl day to even barely et their name out there. Persuasive language usually does penetrate its subject, but there are no guarantees. So maybe this persuasive language turned into million dollar communication is all just a scam. So, this question is: Is it all really worth it? I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Gap Between Word and Reality
After reading "On Being A Cripple" by Nancy Mairs, I have really started to analyze and think about the words I choose and why I choose them. To Nancy Mairs the word "cripple" is equal to the words "handicapped" or "disabled". Personally, I would probably never refer to someone as "cripple" because I feel like that word is insulting. Though to Mairs that word is not an insult, to other handicapped individuals, it may be.
Another example of this is the naming of races. To white people, calling an African American person "black" is uncomfortable. To black people, calling a Caucasian person "white" is a bit awkward. I witnessed this in my Africana Studies class this week. When the teacher referred to the white people in the room as "white", the African American people in the class began looking around as if he had just cursed at us or deeply insulted us. He then proceeded to ask why they looked as if they felt so awkward. They replied in agreement that they all felt uncomfortable referring to Caucasians as "white" and one individual even stated that she would feel more comfortable saying "non-black" or "Caucasian" in reference to white people. In the same way, white people feel strange calling African Americans "black". Even in typing this blog, I felt a little uncomfortable saying "black people" over and over. Most white people do not get insulted when referred to as "white" and most black people do not get offended when referred to as "black". The point I'm trying to get at is that we are so self conscious of the words we use when a lot of times we should not worry so much. I am not encouraging that everyone says whatever is on their mind by cursing and insulting each other, but being capable of using language properly in a casual way is just as important as using it properly in a formal way.
Finding the gap between word and reality is important. Learning which words can be insulting and which are just casual words that could possibly be awkward to use is vital to communicating. In the same way that Mairs is cripple and doesn't mind being referred to as that, a white person does not mind being referred to as a white person. Her condition or someone's skin color is not their choice or their fault, it is just the way they are and stating their condition will not offend them. Figuring out language and how to use it in this "informal" manner is vital to putting it into practice.
Another example of this is the naming of races. To white people, calling an African American person "black" is uncomfortable. To black people, calling a Caucasian person "white" is a bit awkward. I witnessed this in my Africana Studies class this week. When the teacher referred to the white people in the room as "white", the African American people in the class began looking around as if he had just cursed at us or deeply insulted us. He then proceeded to ask why they looked as if they felt so awkward. They replied in agreement that they all felt uncomfortable referring to Caucasians as "white" and one individual even stated that she would feel more comfortable saying "non-black" or "Caucasian" in reference to white people. In the same way, white people feel strange calling African Americans "black". Even in typing this blog, I felt a little uncomfortable saying "black people" over and over. Most white people do not get insulted when referred to as "white" and most black people do not get offended when referred to as "black". The point I'm trying to get at is that we are so self conscious of the words we use when a lot of times we should not worry so much. I am not encouraging that everyone says whatever is on their mind by cursing and insulting each other, but being capable of using language properly in a casual way is just as important as using it properly in a formal way.
Finding the gap between word and reality is important. Learning which words can be insulting and which are just casual words that could possibly be awkward to use is vital to communicating. In the same way that Mairs is cripple and doesn't mind being referred to as that, a white person does not mind being referred to as a white person. Her condition or someone's skin color is not their choice or their fault, it is just the way they are and stating their condition will not offend them. Figuring out language and how to use it in this "informal" manner is vital to putting it into practice.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
No Comprendo
"¿Puede tomo sus bolsas?"
"Uhh... Yes, I mean, sí gracias", I replied to the man offering to take my bags.
We had just landed in Acapulco, Mexico and were retrieving our bags from the luggage claim. For two weeks, a group of fifteen other students and I were going to be living in the most deprived area of Acapulco. We were going to be working with the Casa Hogar orphanage spending time with the children, cleaning, doing construction, and sharing the word of God.
After having three years of Spanish classes in high school, I assumed that the language barrier would be no problem at all for me. However, I figured out rather quickly that I crack under pressure. When it came time for me to translate or carry on a conversation, I froze. I had been trained for hours and hours on how to understand and reply to anything spoken to me in Spanish. Understanding was not the problem, fumbling to piece a response together was. Over the course of a few days I became more relaxed and less nervous when put on the spot to speak to a native Spanish speaker. Though my grammar was as bad as nails on a chalkboard and my accent wreaked of East Tennessee, they could somewhat understand me. I realized that hand gestures and motions really helped too. Sometimes the children would giggle and laugh at my pathetic attempt to converse. Especially when I would accidently say "buenos dias" as they were going to bed. Hearing other people in my group speak so fluently and efficiently to the native Spanish speakers made me so jealous. Why couldn't I just understand and respond like they could? I studied so hard to be able to accomplish the very thing I could barely do.
As I would attempt to speak to the Hispanic children, they would get so frustrated when I couldn't understand or when I was unsure of how to respond. To them it was my fault that I could not communicate fully. They expected me to be able to speak as well as them and I just couldn't.
I then realized that the way I was feeling then is probably how non-English speakers all over the world feel. Americans travel places every day expecting everyone there to understand them and respond to them regardless of their native language. For example, English speakers are usually learn one or two words when travelling to a Spanish speaking country. Those words usually being baño or cerveza. We travel to these non-English speaking countries and expect everyone to be able to communicate with us using English in stead of their native language. To Spanish speakers, their language is of highest status. They respect their language and it is a valued part of their culture. For someone to barely attempt to undertand it and then try to speak it is almost an insult to them.
I have heard so many people complain about having to deal with a Hispanic person here in the States. "I can't even understand him!", "Send them back to where they came from!" they would shout. Most Americans find zero patience when it comes time to attempt to understand someone of another culture. I highly doubt that when we completely butcher a Spanish phrase as simple as "¿hola cómo son usted?", Spanish speakers suggest we high tail it back to "where we came from."
Being thrown into a culture I was unfamiliar with taught me so many things. Spanish culture is completely different than American culture. Hispanic people love their language and they love to utilize it to share with each other and appreciate each other. I have never seen people that care so much about one another and use their words to show it. I learned from this experience to respect other cultures, especially the language portion of it. For the most part, Americans could care less about how our language is used, but to other people in other cultures it is different. Their language is what their beliefs and culture is founded on. Learning to appreciate all language is what we must do to be respectful and careful of others.
"Uhh... Yes, I mean, sí gracias", I replied to the man offering to take my bags.
We had just landed in Acapulco, Mexico and were retrieving our bags from the luggage claim. For two weeks, a group of fifteen other students and I were going to be living in the most deprived area of Acapulco. We were going to be working with the Casa Hogar orphanage spending time with the children, cleaning, doing construction, and sharing the word of God.
After having three years of Spanish classes in high school, I assumed that the language barrier would be no problem at all for me. However, I figured out rather quickly that I crack under pressure. When it came time for me to translate or carry on a conversation, I froze. I had been trained for hours and hours on how to understand and reply to anything spoken to me in Spanish. Understanding was not the problem, fumbling to piece a response together was. Over the course of a few days I became more relaxed and less nervous when put on the spot to speak to a native Spanish speaker. Though my grammar was as bad as nails on a chalkboard and my accent wreaked of East Tennessee, they could somewhat understand me. I realized that hand gestures and motions really helped too. Sometimes the children would giggle and laugh at my pathetic attempt to converse. Especially when I would accidently say "buenos dias" as they were going to bed. Hearing other people in my group speak so fluently and efficiently to the native Spanish speakers made me so jealous. Why couldn't I just understand and respond like they could? I studied so hard to be able to accomplish the very thing I could barely do.
As I would attempt to speak to the Hispanic children, they would get so frustrated when I couldn't understand or when I was unsure of how to respond. To them it was my fault that I could not communicate fully. They expected me to be able to speak as well as them and I just couldn't.
I then realized that the way I was feeling then is probably how non-English speakers all over the world feel. Americans travel places every day expecting everyone there to understand them and respond to them regardless of their native language. For example, English speakers are usually learn one or two words when travelling to a Spanish speaking country. Those words usually being baño or cerveza. We travel to these non-English speaking countries and expect everyone to be able to communicate with us using English in stead of their native language. To Spanish speakers, their language is of highest status. They respect their language and it is a valued part of their culture. For someone to barely attempt to undertand it and then try to speak it is almost an insult to them.
I have heard so many people complain about having to deal with a Hispanic person here in the States. "I can't even understand him!", "Send them back to where they came from!" they would shout. Most Americans find zero patience when it comes time to attempt to understand someone of another culture. I highly doubt that when we completely butcher a Spanish phrase as simple as "¿hola cómo son usted?", Spanish speakers suggest we high tail it back to "where we came from."
Being thrown into a culture I was unfamiliar with taught me so many things. Spanish culture is completely different than American culture. Hispanic people love their language and they love to utilize it to share with each other and appreciate each other. I have never seen people that care so much about one another and use their words to show it. I learned from this experience to respect other cultures, especially the language portion of it. For the most part, Americans could care less about how our language is used, but to other people in other cultures it is different. Their language is what their beliefs and culture is founded on. Learning to appreciate all language is what we must do to be respectful and careful of others.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Say What??
"One such struggle is learning how to say something in English--the delivery", says Tara Elyssa.
Each English speaking person adds their own little twist to the language. Whether it is a northern accent, a southern twang, or just a habit picked up over the years, everyone slightly alters the language in their own way. The raising and lowering of one's voice when pronouncing a word can completely change the tone of what is being said. The phrase can become sarcastic when the purpose of the phrase was to be a question, or the phrase can turn from a question to a statement. However, as Elyssa states, the changing of pronunciation is completely lost on those who are not fully educated in the same language.
Something that correlates with the above paragraph would be English speakers creating words that stand for something else, like nicknames. Like we said in class, Eskimos have over fifty words for the word snow. In that same way, it seems English speakers create words or names for objects that we commonly refer to. For example, the word "food". English speakers probably have at least ten other words that associate with the word "food". (Not to mention what that says about our culture...) Grub, fuel, lunch, eatin', dinner, brunch, breakfast, etc... Native English speakers would most likely relate all those words to the idea of some type of food.
Not only do we create other words for commonly referred to objects, we create words to combine commonly used words. Words like "gonna" or "wanna". If you turn to G in the dictionary, no, "gonna" will not be listed. But ask any English speaker, and he or she will automatically know that "gonna" really means "going to". Soon, as we discussed during class time, words like "gonna", "wanna", or "shoulda" will actually become part of the English language.
Language is a beautiful thing, and without it, we would lack almost all of the communication we attain. However, it is changing everyday and it is imperative that we closely observe those changes and utilize them to adapt to our surroundings and communicate daily.
Each English speaking person adds their own little twist to the language. Whether it is a northern accent, a southern twang, or just a habit picked up over the years, everyone slightly alters the language in their own way. The raising and lowering of one's voice when pronouncing a word can completely change the tone of what is being said. The phrase can become sarcastic when the purpose of the phrase was to be a question, or the phrase can turn from a question to a statement. However, as Elyssa states, the changing of pronunciation is completely lost on those who are not fully educated in the same language.
Something that correlates with the above paragraph would be English speakers creating words that stand for something else, like nicknames. Like we said in class, Eskimos have over fifty words for the word snow. In that same way, it seems English speakers create words or names for objects that we commonly refer to. For example, the word "food". English speakers probably have at least ten other words that associate with the word "food". (Not to mention what that says about our culture...) Grub, fuel, lunch, eatin', dinner, brunch, breakfast, etc... Native English speakers would most likely relate all those words to the idea of some type of food.
Not only do we create other words for commonly referred to objects, we create words to combine commonly used words. Words like "gonna" or "wanna". If you turn to G in the dictionary, no, "gonna" will not be listed. But ask any English speaker, and he or she will automatically know that "gonna" really means "going to". Soon, as we discussed during class time, words like "gonna", "wanna", or "shoulda" will actually become part of the English language.
Language is a beautiful thing, and without it, we would lack almost all of the communication we attain. However, it is changing everyday and it is imperative that we closely observe those changes and utilize them to adapt to our surroundings and communicate daily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)