Transcending networks’ boundaries: losses and displacements at the contact zone between English and Hebrew

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (254) ◽  
pp. 185-204
Author(s):  
Efrat Eilam ◽  
Julianne Lynch
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Contact Zone ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Informal Education ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Modern Language Association ◽  
Modern Language ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Complementary Education ◽  
English Speaking

Abstract This conceptual article applies a theoretical-linguistic analysis for examining the socio-cultural-historical networks that gave rise to two distinct forms of out-of-school education. One form is practiced in western English speaking cultures and termed “informal education”. The other form is practiced in Israel and termed “complementary education”. The process of examination applies the theoretical lens of Actor-Network-Theory (ANT) to analyse how social- historical-cultural-political processes have interacted to produce “complementary education” in Israel. This is followed by analysis of the bi-lingual translation processes that take place at the contact-zone (Pratt, M. L. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession, ofession, 33–40. Modern Language Association Publishers.) between the two languages. The ANT analysis revealed a network consisting of a unique educational model that closely aligns with Ivan (Illich, I. 1971. Deschooling society. New York, USA: Harper and Row.) model presented in his seminal book Deschooling society. The examination also revealed that over time, the Anglophone term “informal education” displaced the Hebrew term “complementary education”, yet the network itself with its unique model continues to thrive. Examination of the contact zone between English and Hebrew found a strong Anglophone dominance, which permits only unidirectional translation from English to Hebrew. The discussion argues for developing post-monolingual research which provides opportunities for bi-directional translation processes to take place, thus eliminating losses of valuable knowledge at both sides of the contact zone.

Women Writing in English

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty Travitsky
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Modern Language Association ◽  
Women Authors ◽  
Low Literacy ◽  
Modern Language ◽  
British America ◽  
Writing Practices ◽  
Early Modern Women ◽  
Interdisciplinary Journal

However much of a Renaissance early modern Englishwomen writers may, or may not, have experienced—a question raised in 1977 by Joan Kelly (“Did Women Have a Renaissance?” in Becoming Visible: Women in European History, ed. Renate Bridenthal and Claudia Koonz [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977], 137–164) and revisited in 2013 in a forum in Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary Journal (8); see Trends in Modern Interpretation—their writing practices seem not to have been immediately affected by the coming of the book. Of over thirty-three thousand entries in A Short-title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, & Ireland and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1475–1640, compiled by A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave (London: Bibliographical Society, 1976–1991), eighty-five have been assigned to women authors, or approximately 0.5 percent, and these titles appeared predominantly between 1545 and 1640. The dramatic increase in printed writings by women from 1641 to 1700 constitutes approximately 1.2 percent of the titles in print from a period in which fewer than seven hundred titles have been assigned to women of the over 120,000 recorded titles in Donald Goddard Wing’s Short-title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and British America, and of English Books Printed in Other Countries, 1641–1700 (New York: Modern Language Association, 1972–1988). These small numbers of works can be explained, in part, by relatively low literacy rates among women compared to men and by the disapproval of women’s expressing their thoughts in public(ation). With the fairly recent growth of research into manuscript writings by women, it seems indisputable that most early modern Englishwomen writers raised their voices in manuscript rather than in print and in what we now term private, noncanonical forms like letters and diaries. It also seems that most of those women who wrote poems or dramas or prose of traditional types circulated their writings in familial and social manuscript networks (a proportion suggested by recovered materials); scholars are turning increased attention to these manuscript writers and writings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document