The word craft is an interesting word, especially in a discussion section
for Stanford archaeology class in the year 2014. Such a discussion uses two
dialects of English: American vernacular English and academic English. And each
of these dialects uses craft in very
different ways. This was a source of some confusion for the class, but more
importantly, a source of inspiration for this blog post.
Last
year, I took a class in Spanish composition and learned about the idea of an
“academic dialect.” In a class on academic writing in Spanish, this was an
important concept to learn since different dialects of Spanish often use the
same word to denote very different things. The purpose of the academic dialect
of the language was to give writers a dialect to use when they wanted their
ideas to transcend the pragmatic constraints of both their vernacular and the
vernacular of their reader. Before this discussion, I never took the idea of an
academic dialect and applied it to English. But thanks to the word craft, now I am.
I
wasn’t cognizant of the fact that I was switching between my own dialect of
American English and academic English until I was made aware of one of my
classmate’s confusion on the meaning of craft
in one of the readings we were assigned. They read craft and understood the word as it exists in their own dialect of
English. When they described their definition of the word, they described craft as associated with feminine gender
roles and having a relative lack of social value. This surprised me, as my own
definition of craft for the purpose
of the discussion was devoid of connotation. I understood craft, in the context of archaeology, to be something that was
fashioned by human hands. In a more vernacular context, my definition of craft was more in line with that of my
classmate, yet still differed in some ways. This made me think about how we
come to understand words as they apply to certain contexts. In this case,
everyday life and academia.
Our culture uses craft in everyday speech to denote
something very different from what archaeologists denote when they use the
word. My classmate’s definition of craft is the result of years of exposure
to the word craft in the context of
their own vernacular, which is why it carried such heavy connotations. My own
definition of craft, when used in my
vernacular, was also colored by connotation. However, in an academic dialect of
English, in order to allow the author’s ideas to transcend dialect, craft should be taken at its most basic
definition: “an activity involving skill in making things by hand” (Google).
This definition removes the connotation of craft
and makes the word more conducive to communicating ideas across dialects. I
think it’s very important for people to understand the difference between
vernacular and academic dialects of their language when participating in
academic discussion. Some may attribute the changes between vernacular and
academic language to a change in linguistic style, however, having explored the
concept of an academic dialect in Spanish academia, I have come to the
conclusion that academic language is, in fact, a dialect.
This idea of context
dependent dialects of English is not novel. Even if this blog were the first
thing published that explicitly states that English different dialects used for
different purposes, one can see the knowledge of the existence of these kinds
of dialect everywhere from University classrooms to comedy skits.
Thanks for reading my blog! I hope
it was worth your time.
The distinction between academic and vernacular dialects seems really interesting to me, particularly in the way that they interact. In your post you mentioned that in an academic setting it was necessary to consider the literal and dictionary definition of the word rather then the connotations associated with its vernacular usage. This may be the case here but there also seem to be times when language is used academically in ways that are not consistent with their literal or dictionary definitions. It seems that academic language can often acquire its own connotations that only those used to reading academic literature are familiar with and can understand (even if they had dictionary definitions of those words, dictionaries would not help truly define them). The way that language is used in academia also seems like an interesting topic. Because in so far as language can acquire specialized meaning in an academic context, it seems like that academic material is made inaccessible to those only familiar with vernacular usages.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post, it was certainly worth our time! I have thought about the notion of an academic dialect quite often, surprisingly, but perhaps in a slightly different context.
ReplyDeleteIn 2012, in the heat of the presidential election cycle, President Obama begun receiving major flack for his apparent "academic" speech. Pundits, critics and the likes would take turn jabbing at the President's slow, impersonal speech during interviews and impromptu statements. He would sometimes use vague but specifically chosen words that to the everyday American seemed devoid of common humanity, as if he were stuck in an ivory tower. Yet, strikingly, President Obama struck a very different tone during planned speeches. In speeches, the President came off as a well spoken, charismatic leader with mastery of vocal control. Why, on the one hand, was speech deemed "academic" while on the other deemed exceptional?
Again, this comes down to the same idea you presented: that the dialect of academic language has a very specific. Just like the archeology professor uses "craft" differently than do I, so too does the careful Barack Obama, trained in the essential art of legalese, use academic language when seeking to narrowly scope the semantics of his spoken words. This is important as the words of an American president, and not necessarily the delivery, are broadcast around the world and scrutinized by speakers of other languages.
I found your idea of differentiating between multiple types of dialects very interesting. Never having heard your classmates’ definition of the word craft got me thinking; why are there so many different dialects – not just in the way we pronounce different sounds, but also in the manner in which we use certain words and formulate thoughts – associated with the English language? After all, we all speak the same language and use words in the same vocabulary.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you brought up a very interesting point when you said you realized you had been “switching between [your] own dialect of American English and academic English.” When writing essays for an English class, or when presenting a project in an academic environment, we tend to convey our ideas using a different vernacular than when we are casually talking to friends or family members. Although this may seem like an obvious and silly point, I feel like it is an important idea linguists have to keep in mind. Why is there such a clear distinction in the manner in which we communicate when we are found in informal and formal situations?
The main argument of this post is that we use different vocabulary in different settings because of social norms. Moreover, in spoken word, attributes such as diction, tone, and pitch also give character to the semantic meaning expressed. To me, this alludes to a more general question, which is: why does this happen? Inherently, there is no real reason for this, other than it is perhaps a byproduct of humans wanting to harness the biggest expressive range possible. As you point out, words mean different things in different contexts, but the explanation of “why” someone used a word is more complicated. Is it just their particular idiolect? Is it because they are from the South, where they were raised in a different dialect? Or is it because of the particular social setting? These questions point out the difficulty listeners face in trying to understand someone’s words, especially when their perceptions about what words are appropriate may vary stochastically. This is something, as other commenters have pointed out, that often worries politicians and other public speakers, which are very cognizant of how they are perceived. When a mismatch occurs between speaker and listener, the result is often discomfort; however, the difficulties described make adaptation exceedingly difficult.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting post. You talked about the need to remove vernacular connotations when using an academic dialect – or, in other words, the need to look at words in terms of their pure, undiluted denotations rather than their various connotations (or even their ‘non-standard’ denotations). I definitely agree with you that this is a necessary aspect of cross-cultural communication. For example, an Argentinian Spanish-speaker has to understand that “chucho,” which can mean “cold” in Argentina,” means “dog” in Guatemala, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteBut do you think it’s ever truly possible to entirely strip a word of its connotations? To me, personally, it seems that, when one hears (or reads) a word, its connotations jump instantly and inevitably to mind. So while I definitely think it’s possible to try to focus on a word’s most widely-accepted denotation, I wonder if it’s really possible to entirely forget that word’s various connotations.
And also, how is it that we decide which denotations are those that are accepted as part of the academic dialect and which aren’t? To return to my previous example, which is the more ‘neutral’ meaning of “chucho,” a word which has at least 5 separate meanings (cold, dog, cheap, Jesus, prison) depending on where it is used?
Alden, I think that when we use a word in an academic dialect of a language, it's less stripping the word of connotation and more re-contextualizing the word. Our words exist within a context that's unique for every individual and based on their unique experiences that led them to acquire the linguistic competencies that they possess. Saying that we are stripping the connotation makes it seem like we are taking a word and removing meaning from it. I feel that the change that word meanings undergo when used in an academic context is better described as re-contextualization. We remove the words from the context of our personal understanding of how it is used (our own linguistic competence) and transpose (sorry, I can't think of a better word) them into a different context -- an academic context, in which the ideas conveyed by these words are able to transcend differences in dialects. This does not mean that the meaning of the word is reduced. It just means that we are looking at the same word through a different lens. The word is just as meaningful, but the meaning is different depending on the context.
DeleteI believe that academic language's need to transcend dialect precludes the use of slang in the academic dialect. So, you would probably not see "chucho" very much in Spanish academia. Instead, you would most likely see "frío" for cold, "perro" for dog, "barato" for cheap, Jesús would likely retain its form as a formal name, and "prisión" for prison. You will find that academic writing in many languages tends to shy away from words with ambiguous and dialect-dependent meanings, instead opting to use a less ambiguous synonym. While "chucho" may be used frequently in Spanish vernaculars, its ambiguity and strong association with slang would probably keep it from being used often in academic writing... unless, of course, someone were to write a linguistics paper on it. ;)
In a language with so many synonyms, it actually doesn’t surprise me that some words are perceived as more academic. However, I think for many words there is an inverse correspondence between words used in conversation to those used in formal writing, by which I mean we often choose to write using synonyms more obscure in verbal communication. In third grade, my teacher had four words he called thesaurus words—nice, good, thing, and stuff—and he would send us to the thesaurus if he found any of them in our writing. I realize now that it’s a rare occurrence when I would write any of those four words in a paper for a class, but I use them in speech all the time. I think this academic dialect may, then, have some roots in perception; by using these uncommon words we think we may be seen as more intelligent, worldly, or well-versed, and thus more credible as an academic source.
ReplyDeleteGriffin, I think you bring up a fascinating point. It is very interesting how formal writing tends to use a more extensive vocabulary that sometimes ventures into the obscure. There are a lot of reasons a writer may do that. Maybe they want to flaunt their knowledge of their languages vocabulary, or maybe they want to use more "colorful" words. The "thesaurus words" you mentioned are words with a somewhat binary meaning (nice:mean::good:bad) or words that apply to an unspecified object or objects. I think that a writer would prefer not to use these words because other words in the English language can more concisely express more nuanced ideas.
DeleteI really love your point about the use of obscure words in formal writing. That is a really fascinating topic that would be awesome to research and see why certain writers use certain vocabularies and how those vocabularies change depending on the type of writing, the audience, etc.
What a great point! I had never even given thought to the possibility of switching dialects subconsciously based on context. You bring up the fascinating point that words can attain different meanings, and I realize that they can also attain different value. Take the example of the word, "publication", for instance, which has crucial importance in the academic setting, yet a more descriptive, passive value in other settings. What's interesting for me is how that looks at the cognitive layer, that is, how the brain is constantly switching the mode that labels words as important. It would be incredibly interesting to see this through fMRI in real time, and see how the frontal cortex lights up with different intensities for different words in different dialects. And moreover, how does this process affect our own perceptions of word values? Maybe something related to the dialect we're most exposed to?
ReplyDeleteYou bring up the insightful point that words can attain different meanings, and I can't help but wonder, can grammar also face similar alterations? Can there be a dialect-based change in syntactic functions?
A very interesting post and follow-up discussion! I think this observation relates to a common criticism of academic writing and discussion. Specifically, there's a sense in which academic language, particularly discipline-specific academic language, such as the case with the Anthropology example you talk about, has become far removed from vernacular language. This separation between the vernacular and the academic raises the barriers for understanding academic research to such a height that someone not trained in the field cannot be expected to understand the research at all. Not only do words sometimes have different meanings in an academic sense, as you suggest, but there are also whole lexicons of words specific to each discipline. If academic language is very discipline specific, how will this impact interdisciplinary thinking and broad accessibility to academic knowledge?
ReplyDeleteDistinguishing academic English from SAE leads to very interesting questions about what defines a dialect. Academic English, and legal English as an extension (“legalese”, as my old PI used to say) is in many ways mutually unintelligible with more colloquial dialects. Similarly, like any other dialect, legalese and academic English substitute, perhaps sometimes unnecessarily, “academic” expressions and buzzwords with everyday equivalents. A quick glance at this week’s cover articles for Nature Biology, for example leads me to discover abstracts with phrases like, “Breast-cancer-associated mortality remains high owing to clinical relapse associated with metastasis to distant organs”.Are technical jargon, and formal language more generally, able to be considered their own dialect?
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest reason to classify these as part of SAE and other established dialects is that these putative dialects do not differ in the pronunciations of words, but rather they use new ones entirely. Furthermore, they are confined to writing and virtually never take oral form. (As a lab researcher myself, I can guarantee that scientists don’t actually talk like this). But, if they’re not dialects, how can we classify this form of English, especially given that its properties are so unique and distinct?
The meaning of words that we use conversationally is always context specific, as most words have varied meaning based on the situation they are said. For example, if you referred to a 'string' when talking in a computer science setting, string would mean a series of characters. I think this problem is something that is not just between normal vernacular and academic vernacular, however. I am English and as such my vernacular was very British when I came here, and many words that are purely conversational have caused great confusion in meaning to my American friends. For example, people sometimes gave me an odd look if I called a friend my "mate", as in England mate is used in most conversational settings to mean friend, whereas over here people thought I was coming on to them! One study I saw showed that of the most common 121 nouns used in english there are on average 7.8 meanings associated with it- no surprise context specific clarification is needed!
ReplyDelete