Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 3621:2024:6 [2024/01/15 23:05] – Ryan Schram (admin)
+++ 3621:2024:6 [2024/01/16 21:30] (current) – [Week 6—Listening for modernity] Ryan Schram (admin)
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 We continue to discuss the historical consequences of the ideological coupling of nation and language. Nation-states reinforce their legitimacy by creating and imposing standardized national languages. But this neat coupling is never perfectly realized in everyday life, because everyday life takes place in a world of different people, and is thus a world of heteroglossia (many ways of speaking). So two things happen:
-  - People who are committed to national identity and its expression an ideal monoglot, standard speaker, they get very anxious. If you believe nations have languages, but no two people in one nation really do speak the same language the same way, then you might be afraid something is wrong.
+  - People who are committed to national identity and its expression in an ideal monoglot, standard speaker, they get very anxious. If you believe nations have languages, but no two people in one nation really do speak the same language the same way, then you might be afraid something is wrong.
-  - Language difference is a social and indeed moral problem. The heteroglossia of everyday life in the real world is reinterpreted in a lens of us and them, but the them is an internal other.
+  - Language difference becomes a social and, indeed, a moral problem. The heteroglossia of everyday life in the real world is reinterpreted in a lens of us and them, but the them is an internal other.
 So far, so good. This was Jane Hill’s point about the everyday language of white racism. This week we consider another side of national anxiety and fear of the internal other. The other is also viewed as an object. An ideology of national standard language also constructs an imaginary ideal listener who is able to judge the rightness and rationality of people’s speech.