language and politic group 6 1.risqi sugiarti(2201410006) 2.niken larasati wening (2201410009)...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
212 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Language and Politic
Group 61. Risqi Sugiarti (2201410006)
2. Niken Larasati Wening (2201410009)3. Mazidatur Rizqiyah (220141004. Fatimah (22014105. Lilik Suryani (220141
Beginnings: The Politics of LinguisticCorrectness and Persuasion
POLITIC POLIS CITY
The study of language and politics is aimed at
understanding the role of linguistic
communication in the functioning of social units,
and how this role shapes language itself.
Beginnings: The Politics of LinguisticCorrectness and Persuasion
• The city as an organized social unit depends on
linguistic communication for its functioning, and urban
life places functional demands on language that are
substantially different from those in a sparsely
populated rural setting.
• Politics is the art, and language the medium,
• They position themselves to get what they need, and
what they want.
Beginnings: The Politics of LinguisticCorrectness and Persuasion
• The example of Transactional conversation
between Crispin and John. John said “Bring to
me” Crispin replay “Bring it to me”.
• The use of “standard” forms of language in politic
will make the audience more persuasive , when it
comes to convincing and this persuasiveness may
well carry on throughout the life.
• The “correction” in question is of a usage over which
native speakers disagree, both across and within
dialects.
• “Bring me it” is acceptable to many but not all
speakers;
“Bring it me” is likewise semi-acceptable, but only in
parts of England. “Bring them them” is fine for me in
spoken usage, though not in writing, and most
native speakers seem to reject it in either mode.
• Interpreting language use in this way is a
political act.
• It determines who stands where in the
social hierarchy, who is entrusted with
power and responsibility
• In modern times, particularly in the climate of
twentieth-century ideas about the unconscious
mind and the possibility of thought control, it has
come to be classified under the still more loaded
rubric of “propaganda.”
• In the twentieth century, the understanding of
language and politics was shaped by an ongoing
conflict and tension between structuralism (and
later “poststructuralism”)
Ernest Renan (1882 p,26)
A national is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things
that are actually one make up this soul, this spiritual
principle. One on the past, the other in the present.
One is the common ownership of a rich legacy of
memories; the other is the present day agreement,
the desire to live together, the will to continue
validiting the heritage that has been inherited jointly.
It is in this sense that powerful “ideologies of
language” may be said to condition language
choice, from the level selecting a national
language down to what one will speak, and how,
in a given conversational situation.
• Phillipson (1992) has very influentially promulgated
the idea that the spread of English is being brought
about through “ English Linguistic Inperalism” as set
of practicies through which the dominance of English
is asserted and maintained by the establishment and
continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural
inequalities between English and other languages”.
• One of the most powerful tools of linguicism
according to phillipson is laguage teaching and
multilingual education. “linguicism
occurs...........if there is a policy of supporting
several languages, but if priority is given in
teacher training, curriculum development, and
school timetables to one language” (1992, p.47)
• The other most important applied linguist
working in the area of “linguistic human rights” ,
it regularly asserts that “languages are today
being killed and linguistic diversity is
disappearing at a much faster pace than before
in human history” (Skutnabb-Kangas,2000).
• The most significant development in opposition
has been the concept of “linguistic
hybridity”(Pennycook,1998). Hybridity denies
that spread of English wipes out other language
and culture, providing evidence instead of how
resilient adaptive language and cultures are to
intermingling.
Politics in Discourse (Approaches in the Marxist Line)
• In the English-speaking world, the connection between language
and politics was first brought to general attention in a 1946 article
by George Orwell
• The linguistic “bad habits” consist of strings of words that form
well-worn patterns, coercing their users to think in certain ways.
• The detachment of language from observable reality is what
makes it possible for a political party to maintain orthodoxy
among its followers, and in the most extreme cases, to dupe those
it wishes to enslave
• In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Newspeak is English
re-engineered through massive vocabulary reduction and shifts
of meaning
• The aim of Newspeak is “to make all other modes of thought
impossible.” For instance, according to the Party, 2 + 2 = 5.
• There are 3 slogan >> “WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS
SLAVERY / IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
• Propaganda can only be combated by rational analysis and
argument.
• In the nineteenth century, the ideology of Standard English was
part of a wider ruling-class project to extend its hegemony over
a growing working class and to meet the demands of mass
education on its own terms.
• With Standard English and education: indoctrinating all
working-class children to speak and write like the ruling class
would represent the latter’s ultimate triumph over the former.
• In continental Europe, significant contributions to a
Marxist account of language would be made by Ferrucio
Rossi-Landi (1921–85) and Michel Pêcheux
• the most important turn in the Marxist line has been that
of someone who is clearly post-Marxist, Jürgen Habermas
• Habermas has remained in the Marxist line, where the
politics of language use is real, and its analysis trivial in
so far as it is abstracted away from this reality.
Structuralist
Saussure (1920)
Lévi-Strauss 1955
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897– 1941)
Alan S. C. Ross (1907–80)
Michel Foucault (1926–84)
Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002)
Structuralist
Person who concern in structuralism. a system of ideas used in the study of language, literature, art, anthropology and sociology, which emphasizes the importance of the basic structures and relationships of that particular subject
In the 1920s the mainstream of
linguistics shifted from the historical enquiry of the nineteenth century
to the “structuralist” analysis of language
systems at a given point in time, following
the inspiration of Saussure
It was not therefore congenial to a political understanding of language, and the linguists who occasionally touched upon the subject, such as
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897– 1941) and Alan S. C. Ross
(1907–80), did so in popular writings rather than in articles
for linguistics journals.
It was not therefore congenial to a political
understanding of language, and the
linguists who occasionally touched upon the subject,
such as Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897– 1941) and
Alan S. C. Ross (1907–80), did so in popular writings rather than in articles for
linguistics journals.
In France, this was the period in which structuralism ascended from a linguistic method to a general intellectual paradigm, propelled by the great success of Lévi-Strauss (1955) (see Joseph, 2001). The two French structuralists who would have the most profound and lasting impact on language and politics, Michel Foucault (1926–84) and Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002), would seem on the surface to have as much in common with the post-Marxist line represented by Habermas as with linguistic structuralism. There are indeed important points in common with Habermas, especially in Bourdieu’s case.
THANKYOU
top related