3 Cultural and Linguistic Difference as Obstacles to Care

2020 ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Jonathan Rosa ◽  
Nelson Flores

This chapter presents a raciolinguistic perspective, which theorizes the historical and contemporary co-naturalization of language and race. Rather than taking for granted existing categories for parsing and classifying race and language, the chapter explores how and why these categories have been co-naturalized and imagines their denaturalization as part of a broader structural project of contesting white supremacy. The chapter explores five key components of a raciolinguistic perspective: (1) historical and contemporary colonial co-naturalizations of race and language; (2) perceptions of racial and linguistic difference; (3) regimentations of racial and linguistic categories; (4) racial and linguistic intersections and assemblages; and (5) contestation of racial and linguistic power formations. These foci reflect an investment in developing a careful theorization of various forms of racial and linguistic inequality, on the one hand, and a commitment to the imagination and creation of more just societies on the other.


Arabica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 68 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 216-280
Author(s):  
Benjamin Koerber

Abstract The article presents a sociolinguistic profile of “Mock Jewish,” or the stylized varieties of Judeo-Arabic deployed for humorous purposes in early twentieth-century Tunisian public culture. We assembled a corpus of texts from both print and audio-visual media, including newspaper columns, television and radio performances, folktales, and plays, in which “Jewish” (yahūdī) or “Israelite” (isrāʾīlī) voices are stylized with exaggerated forms of linguistic difference. The purpose of the analysis is not to evaluate the inauthenticity of Mock Jewish vis-à-vis Judeo-Arabic proper, but to understand how performers deploy these markedly “Jewish” stylistic tactics to create diverse social meanings and assess the effects of these performances on language and society. We argue that Mock Jewish forms part of the broader “ideologies of linguistic differentiation” that construct Jewish speech as separate and distinct from non-Jewish varieties. However, the performances of Mock Jewish are not limited to sectarian polemic, but engage diverse targets, derive from different motivations, and provoke divergent responses from audiences.


1983 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Young

The tendency of much of the research on educational disadvantage has been to see schooling as a constant rather than a variable. Working-class disadvantage is theorized as attributable, in part, to schools valuing performances in such a way as to turn cultural or linguistic differences between children into deficits for working-class children. In this view the school is assumed to be ‘middle-class’ and thus to be well adapted to the middle-class child. However, much of the research which underpins this view can be reconstrued from a different perspective. Whatever schools do, it is for the most part mediated through verbal communication. A re-examination of communication research shows that it is possible to theorize in terms of a school communication failure rather than a working-class cultural/linguistic difference-cum-deficit. This failure is evident when school talk is examined from the standpoint of its metacognitive quality. The school communication pattern is ill adapted to both working-class and middle-class clients but middle-class children survive it better.


1974 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 589-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane N. Bryen

The educational practice of grouping children on the basis of ability has recently been charged as discriminatory because the tests used for educational placement may be linguistically and culturally biased and may serve to place disproportionate numbers of minority group children (especially speakers of nonstandard English) into special classes. Because of this indictment, the linguistic deficit and the linguistic difference models are explored as possible explanation of the verbal behavior of linguistically different children. In addition, educational implications of each model are discussed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Rojczyk ◽  
Andrzej Porzuczek ◽  
Marcin Bergier

The paper investigates immediate and distracted imitation in second-language speech using unreleased plosives. Unreleased plosives are fairly frequently found in English sequences of two stops. Polish, on the other hand, is characterised by a significant rate of releases in such sequences. This cross-linguistic difference served as material to look into how and to what extent non-native properties of sounds can be produced in immediate and distracted imitation. Thirteen native speakers of Polish first read and then imitated sequences of words with two stops straddling the word boundary. Stimuli for imitation had no release of the first stop. The results revealed that (1) a non-native feature such as the lack of the release burst can be imitated; (2) distracting imitation impedes imitative performance; (3) the type of a sequence interacts with the magnitude of an imitative effect


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-313
Author(s):  
Sarah Dolscheid ◽  
Franziska Schleussinger ◽  
Martina Penke

In English, a lexical distinction is drawn between the indefinite determiner “a” and the numeral “one”. English-speaking children also interpret the two terms differently, with an exact, upper bounded interpretation of the numeral “one”, but no upper bounded interpretation of the indefinite determiner “a”. Unlike English, however, German does not draw a distinction between the indefinite determiner and the numeral one but instead uses the same term “ein/e” to express both functions. To find out whether this cross-linguistic difference affects children’s upper bounded interpretation of “ein/e”, we tested German-speaking children and adults in a truth-value-judgment task and compared their performance to English-speaking children. Our results revealed that German-speaking children differed from both English children and German adults. Whereas the majority of German adults interpreted “ein/e” in an upper bounded way (i.e. as exactly one, not two), the majority of German-speaking children favored a non-upper bounded interpretation (thus accepting two as a valid response to “ein/e”). German-speaking children’s proportion of upper bounded responses to “ein/e” was also significantly lower than English children’s upper bounded responses to “one”. However, German children’s rate of upper bounded responses increased once a number-biasing context was provided. These findings suggest that German-speaking children can interpret “ein/e” in an upper bounded way but that they need additional cues in order to do so. When no such cues are present, German-speaking children differ from both German-speaking adults and from their English-speaking peers, demonstrating that cross-linguistic differences can affect the way speakers interpret numbers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document