Whenever I meet someone new when I go out, I am inevitably asked the question "What do you do?" I've never cared for the question, really. It doesn't seem fair to ask someone to sum up their life in a few words. But people expect a brief answer, so I say, "I'm a student," because that is what I do -- I study. Naturally, this leads to the question "What do you study?"
"Linguistics," I reply. The facial expressions of reaction are always different whenever I say this. Most of the time people don't know what this is. If they are familiar with it, they will most likely make some sort of reference to Chomsky. True, Chomsky is one of the pioneers of modern linguistic theory, but since I don't really study syntax I don't get into Chomsky that much. Indeed, his political commentary is personally more interesting, but that is another matter.
But if people aren't familiar with the field of linguistics, the painfully inevitable next question is "What's that?"
Now this is a difficult question to answer because most people expect a simple explanation. I usually just go for some Wikipediaesque answer like "Well, it's the science of language," but this really does the field a great injustice. Indeed, the subject of linguistics is so vast and covers such a wide range of fields of study that it would take me about half an hour to summarize all the aspects of the science. As a linguistics student, I am ashamed by my gross oversimplification, but I don't want to bore people. They want to know about me, not some obscure, fetishist science.
So, after explaining what I study in a brief fashion, the next question I usually get is naturally, "Oh, how many languages do you speak?"
This association that people form between linguistics and polylingualism perplexes me. Why does everyone assume that linguists are polyglots? Most are not. Sure, most linguists can speak more than one language, but a good deal don't. In fact, it's more likely that a professor of linguistics may be familiar with the grammars of dozens of languages, but be completely incapable of speaking them. Multilingualism is more the line of work of translators and interpreters than linguists. Of course, that's not to say that being able to speak several languages is not important for being a linguist -- because it is -- but linguistics in no way equals polylingualism.
So of course, I have to say, "Almost one," which is true. I could say that my Turkish is pretty good, but it does no good to boast. This response is usually met with an anticlimactic "Oh."
After this comes the linguistic anecdotes -- the observations about accents (especially between Americans and Britons), personal assessments of linguistic competence, Chomsky, geographic linguistic questions, grammatical questions, etc. Lately, I've noticed that these are always the same. In fact, every time someone asks me what I do the conversation that ensues is a near replica of the last one I had the last time someone asked me that question. And while I'm out just trying to have a drink and enjoy myself, I get sucked into talking about the same topics, again and again. Not that I don't like chatting about linguistic stuff; I do, but more interesting stuff. Like how Japanese speakers will hear epenthetic vowels that aren't there. Or how speakers will alter their speech to accommodate who they are talking to. Or how the formants in proficient bilinguals' L1 vowels will resemble those of the L2 over time. Why can't that stuff come up in conversation?
Regardless, I'll have to find something else to talk about soon, because as of yesterday I'm not really a student anymore -- term time has ended, and the rest of my time as a "student" will be spent writing my thesis. And with all the work that lies ahead of me, when I do take a break and go out for a social night I probably won't want to talk about linguistics!
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Identity Crisis
The United Kingdom is in the middle of an identity crisis, which in itself calls into question the aforementioned official title. Perhaps "Great Britain" would be a better reference. No....actually, let's just use to term "Britain" from here on.
It is a succession of recent television series that leads me to jibe at the use of "United Kingdom". I actually think the appropriately misspelled Untied Kingdom would be more appropriate, but I'll try to stay PC here.
Of course, everyone around the world has a solid preconception of what "Britishness" is (and I already realize that an American prescription of Britishness may infuriate many to no end and be completely inappropriate for some, but please take it as it is -- based on more than 6 months of personal observation). Of course, we all think of cups of tea, red phone booths, bad weather and umbrellas, queues, Hackney Carriages, terrible food (have no idea where that one came from though), country cottages, and of course, that posh, intelligent-sounding accent. However, living in the UK will dispel any of these stereotypes of Britishness one may hold in their mind.
Perhaps my perceptions have been jaded because I have been living in London (which I am convinced is the most diverse and cosmopolitan city on the planet, hands down). But Britishness is none of these things, apparently. Sure, people drink lots of tea. And there are Hackney Carriages everywhere. And bad weather. And queues (If you're up there, thank you, God). But that's about as far as it goes. Being British is, apparently...........a dodgy question. For the residents of this country, at least.
I watched a couple TV programs recently. One was called Make Bradford British, the other Proud and Prejudiced. In Make Bradford British, some of Bradford's British residents (some white ladies and chaps) were made to live with some other British residents of the town (headscarfed Muslim woman, buff Islamist bodybuilder, razzy black chap, etc.). The point of the show was to make the people overcome their racial differences. In worked for the most part in the end, but the most interesting thing about the show -- and the topic that was most prevalent -- was the idea of "Britishness": the characters battled furiously about who was or wasn't British, despite all of the participants being born and bred under the Union Jack.
Similarly, Proud and Prejudiced documented two different groups of extremists in an English town (I believe it was Luton): far right English Nationalists EDL, who called for the expulsion of Muslims from the country, and Islamic extremists, who called for death to all English police. Naturally, both groups are "British". Yet their distinctly separate radical ideologies blurred any specific national identification.
Such polarized anger and a weekend out on the town in England might convince you that belligerence is what makes one British: the whites hate the non-whites, the non-whites despise the whites, the English English go out at the weekend and get unbelievably pissed and destroy the towns, vomiting over everything in the process (Britons behave badly at home, too), Muslims plotting attacks against their countrymen.....the list goes on. Underneath it all, there is a pulsing vein of anger underneath the skin of British society - the drunken husband beating his wife, the Asian man killing his sister to preserve the "honor" of his family, the unbridled drunkenness fueled by corner shop cheap liquor, the rage directed at queue jumpers and loud talkers on the bus...it manifests itself in many ways. One might think that being pissed off is what constitutes Britishness.
But it's not fair to sell the British short like so. I'm sure its not as cut-and-dry and simplistic as my American proclivities might impel me, as American identity is a matter of black and white.
But one thing is for certain - despite stereotypes established by decades, it is clear that the British have a new, inchoate sense of identity, and are struggling not simply to come to terms with it, but to define it.
It is a succession of recent television series that leads me to jibe at the use of "United Kingdom". I actually think the appropriately misspelled Untied Kingdom would be more appropriate, but I'll try to stay PC here.
Of course, everyone around the world has a solid preconception of what "Britishness" is (and I already realize that an American prescription of Britishness may infuriate many to no end and be completely inappropriate for some, but please take it as it is -- based on more than 6 months of personal observation). Of course, we all think of cups of tea, red phone booths, bad weather and umbrellas, queues, Hackney Carriages, terrible food (have no idea where that one came from though), country cottages, and of course, that posh, intelligent-sounding accent. However, living in the UK will dispel any of these stereotypes of Britishness one may hold in their mind.
Perhaps my perceptions have been jaded because I have been living in London (which I am convinced is the most diverse and cosmopolitan city on the planet, hands down). But Britishness is none of these things, apparently. Sure, people drink lots of tea. And there are Hackney Carriages everywhere. And bad weather. And queues (If you're up there, thank you, God). But that's about as far as it goes. Being British is, apparently...........a dodgy question. For the residents of this country, at least.
I watched a couple TV programs recently. One was called Make Bradford British, the other Proud and Prejudiced. In Make Bradford British, some of Bradford's British residents (some white ladies and chaps) were made to live with some other British residents of the town (headscarfed Muslim woman, buff Islamist bodybuilder, razzy black chap, etc.). The point of the show was to make the people overcome their racial differences. In worked for the most part in the end, but the most interesting thing about the show -- and the topic that was most prevalent -- was the idea of "Britishness": the characters battled furiously about who was or wasn't British, despite all of the participants being born and bred under the Union Jack.
Similarly, Proud and Prejudiced documented two different groups of extremists in an English town (I believe it was Luton): far right English Nationalists EDL, who called for the expulsion of Muslims from the country, and Islamic extremists, who called for death to all English police. Naturally, both groups are "British". Yet their distinctly separate radical ideologies blurred any specific national identification.
Such polarized anger and a weekend out on the town in England might convince you that belligerence is what makes one British: the whites hate the non-whites, the non-whites despise the whites, the English English go out at the weekend and get unbelievably pissed and destroy the towns, vomiting over everything in the process (Britons behave badly at home, too), Muslims plotting attacks against their countrymen.....the list goes on. Underneath it all, there is a pulsing vein of anger underneath the skin of British society - the drunken husband beating his wife, the Asian man killing his sister to preserve the "honor" of his family, the unbridled drunkenness fueled by corner shop cheap liquor, the rage directed at queue jumpers and loud talkers on the bus...it manifests itself in many ways. One might think that being pissed off is what constitutes Britishness.
But it's not fair to sell the British short like so. I'm sure its not as cut-and-dry and simplistic as my American proclivities might impel me, as American identity is a matter of black and white.
But one thing is for certain - despite stereotypes established by decades, it is clear that the British have a new, inchoate sense of identity, and are struggling not simply to come to terms with it, but to define it.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Library
I just finished a most hellish two weeks which has been a delightful cocktail of early mornings at work, late nights, microwaveable pasty dinners, and about 12,000 words in assessments. Most of my late nights were spent in the library, where I like to go to escape from home during the day (from which I'll be leaving in a month anyway).
Now I realize that I might sound like an old curmudgeon by saying this, but I still go to the library to do work. Yes, in my day that's what libraries were for, silent studying and independent academic work. But that was long ago. Nowadays, libraries are for fun, games, and socializing. It's a highly social atmosphere, something like a mix between that dusty-book hipster cafe on the corner, a Korean gaming arcade, and a sports bar.
Yes, there isn't much you can't do at the library nowadays. It really is the all-purpose social hotspot. You can have a coffee and chat as loud as you want with your friends. You can play cricket in the stairwell. You can sing out loud if you want. You can make out with your latest fling. You can have a laugh watching YouTube videos with your friends, watch a football game, and check facebook or Weibo on one of the many computers in the library. Of course, if you need to go out for a bite to eat with your friends, you can just put the computer on lock so no one will take it when you leave, and whenever you decide to come back it will be there waiting for you.
Yes, we really are fortunate to have so many resources available to us as students that facilitate good use of time and socialization. It really makes for an enjoyable academic experience, and I was glad to have the hardest two weeks of the semester made easier by my time in the library.
Now I realize that I might sound like an old curmudgeon by saying this, but I still go to the library to do work. Yes, in my day that's what libraries were for, silent studying and independent academic work. But that was long ago. Nowadays, libraries are for fun, games, and socializing. It's a highly social atmosphere, something like a mix between that dusty-book hipster cafe on the corner, a Korean gaming arcade, and a sports bar.
Yes, there isn't much you can't do at the library nowadays. It really is the all-purpose social hotspot. You can have a coffee and chat as loud as you want with your friends. You can play cricket in the stairwell. You can sing out loud if you want. You can make out with your latest fling. You can have a laugh watching YouTube videos with your friends, watch a football game, and check facebook or Weibo on one of the many computers in the library. Of course, if you need to go out for a bite to eat with your friends, you can just put the computer on lock so no one will take it when you leave, and whenever you decide to come back it will be there waiting for you.
Yes, we really are fortunate to have so many resources available to us as students that facilitate good use of time and socialization. It really makes for an enjoyable academic experience, and I was glad to have the hardest two weeks of the semester made easier by my time in the library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)