Teaching Other Tongues: Addressing the Problem of "Other" Languages in the Library

Q2 Arts and Humanities Journal of Information Ethics Pub Date : 2011-09-01 DOI:10.3172/JIE.20.2.42
Emily Drabinski
{"title":"Teaching Other Tongues: Addressing the Problem of \"Other\" Languages in the Library","authors":"Emily Drabinski","doi":"10.3172/JIE.20.2.42","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Language-the words we use, our syntax and our grammar-is always deployed in a context. We might refer to a collective group as y'all in one context (casually, among friends) but simply as you in another. When students enter our library instruction classrooms, they also enter a new discursive context, this one marked by Boolean syntax, arcane controlled vocabularies, and Aristotelian classification structures that divide the universe of knowledge in ways foreign to the naive user. For example, nothing about using Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) or SocINDEX database descriptors is natural, nor is the use of and and or as formal structures. Students who seek use of library resources inevitably must learn to navigate these strange new linguistic worlds.Library instructors must balance the demand to teach students how to search successfully in these formal linguistic contexts against a desire to respect the languages and modes of thought students bring from elsewhere into the classroom. As advocates for equity of access to materials, librarians must negotiate the realities of dominant, standard structures of language and organization-often our discursive homes-with the diversity of linguistic and cognitive approaches of our students. These politically and ethically impelled negotiations require us to teach library research as a context in which language struggles take place, rather than as an arena where some words and phrases are simply and acontextually correct. Indeed, when students are taught that only one language variety is \"correct,\" instructors consciously and unconsciously reinscribe systems of linguistic dominance that allocate access, opportunity, and reward unevenly among social groups.Composition Studies has long explored this difficult balancing act. In the pages that follow, this article articulates the work done by composition scholars to understand and politicize the problem of multiple discourses in the classroom, as well as conceptualize a potential solution. Rather than arguing for or against the use of different language varieties, Composition Studies has used the concept of the contact zone to imagine the classroom as a space of dialogic struggle where no single language is \"better\" or \"correct.\" Instead, the classroom and the blank page become sites of interpretive struggle for meaning.Following this discussion of the contact zone in the writing classroom, I suggest that teaching librarians might re-conceptualize the contact zone in our own field. Library advocacy work on the problem of standardized language has primarily worked to perfect and change that standard language so that it better reflects a pluralist embrace of the language of our users. While a vital part of an ethical linguistic practice, the focus on \"correcting\" library language reinscribes the idea that any language can ever be \"correct\" outside the context of its use. Curiously, the library field has paid less attention to conceptualizing the concrete spaces in which these linguistic struggles take place: the search boxes inside our databases and OPACs. Particularly when we teach students to grapple with their own vocabulary and the controlled vocabularies of library resources, we are already teaching in a contact zone. By articulating and conceptualizing a concept of the database search interface as a contact zone, this article suggests that teaching librarians might work to interrupt the power of dominant language and knowledge schemes rather than re-inscribe them as correct through our teaching practice. In deploying a critical approach to the contact zone, library instruction can be a site of productive struggle between our users and the dominant discursive systems we might all seek to change.Language Varieties in the College ClassroomStudents entering college for the first time are entering more than just new physical facilities. They also enter new discursive communities. One of the primary roles of college teaching is to introduce students to these particular discourses. …","PeriodicalId":39913,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Ethics","volume":"20 1","pages":"42-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Information Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.20.2.42","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Language-the words we use, our syntax and our grammar-is always deployed in a context. We might refer to a collective group as y'all in one context (casually, among friends) but simply as you in another. When students enter our library instruction classrooms, they also enter a new discursive context, this one marked by Boolean syntax, arcane controlled vocabularies, and Aristotelian classification structures that divide the universe of knowledge in ways foreign to the naive user. For example, nothing about using Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) or SocINDEX database descriptors is natural, nor is the use of and and or as formal structures. Students who seek use of library resources inevitably must learn to navigate these strange new linguistic worlds.Library instructors must balance the demand to teach students how to search successfully in these formal linguistic contexts against a desire to respect the languages and modes of thought students bring from elsewhere into the classroom. As advocates for equity of access to materials, librarians must negotiate the realities of dominant, standard structures of language and organization-often our discursive homes-with the diversity of linguistic and cognitive approaches of our students. These politically and ethically impelled negotiations require us to teach library research as a context in which language struggles take place, rather than as an arena where some words and phrases are simply and acontextually correct. Indeed, when students are taught that only one language variety is "correct," instructors consciously and unconsciously reinscribe systems of linguistic dominance that allocate access, opportunity, and reward unevenly among social groups.Composition Studies has long explored this difficult balancing act. In the pages that follow, this article articulates the work done by composition scholars to understand and politicize the problem of multiple discourses in the classroom, as well as conceptualize a potential solution. Rather than arguing for or against the use of different language varieties, Composition Studies has used the concept of the contact zone to imagine the classroom as a space of dialogic struggle where no single language is "better" or "correct." Instead, the classroom and the blank page become sites of interpretive struggle for meaning.Following this discussion of the contact zone in the writing classroom, I suggest that teaching librarians might re-conceptualize the contact zone in our own field. Library advocacy work on the problem of standardized language has primarily worked to perfect and change that standard language so that it better reflects a pluralist embrace of the language of our users. While a vital part of an ethical linguistic practice, the focus on "correcting" library language reinscribes the idea that any language can ever be "correct" outside the context of its use. Curiously, the library field has paid less attention to conceptualizing the concrete spaces in which these linguistic struggles take place: the search boxes inside our databases and OPACs. Particularly when we teach students to grapple with their own vocabulary and the controlled vocabularies of library resources, we are already teaching in a contact zone. By articulating and conceptualizing a concept of the database search interface as a contact zone, this article suggests that teaching librarians might work to interrupt the power of dominant language and knowledge schemes rather than re-inscribe them as correct through our teaching practice. In deploying a critical approach to the contact zone, library instruction can be a site of productive struggle between our users and the dominant discursive systems we might all seek to change.Language Varieties in the College ClassroomStudents entering college for the first time are entering more than just new physical facilities. They also enter new discursive communities. One of the primary roles of college teaching is to introduce students to these particular discourses. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外语教学:解决图书馆中“其他”语言的问题
语言——我们使用的单词,我们的语法和语法——总是在一个上下文中部署的。我们可能会在一种情况下(在朋友之间)把一个集体称为“y’all”,但在另一种情况下,我们会简单地称之为“you”。当学生进入我们的图书馆教学教室时,他们也进入了一个新的话语环境,这个环境以布尔语法、神秘的受控词汇和亚里士多德式的分类结构为标志,这些分类结构以一种对天真的用户来说陌生的方式划分了知识的世界。例如,使用国会图书馆主题标题(LCSH)或SocINDEX数据库描述符是不自然的,使用and和or作为正式结构也是不自然的。寻求利用图书馆资源的学生不可避免地必须学会驾驭这些陌生的新语言世界。图书馆教师必须在教导学生如何在这些正式的语言语境中成功地进行搜索的需求与尊重学生从其他地方带入课堂的语言和思维模式的愿望之间取得平衡。作为公平获取资料的倡导者,图书馆员必须与学生语言和认知方法的多样性进行协商,以适应语言和组织的主导、标准结构(通常是我们的话语家园)的现实。这些政治上和道德上推动的谈判要求我们把图书馆研究作为语言斗争发生的背景来教授,而不是作为一些单词和短语简单和上下文正确的舞台。事实上,当学生被教导只有一种语言是“正确的”时,教师会有意无意地重新建立语言优势系统,在社会群体中分配机会、机会和奖励。构图研究长期以来一直在探索这种困难的平衡行为。在接下来的几页中,本文阐述了作文学者所做的工作,以理解和政治化课堂上的多重话语问题,并概念化潜在的解决方案。“作文研究”并没有争论支持或反对使用不同的语言变体,而是利用“接触区”的概念,把课堂想象成一个对话斗争的空间,在这个空间里,没有哪一种语言是“更好”或“正确”的。取而代之的是,教室和空白页变成了为意义进行解释斗争的场所。在讨论了写作课堂中的接触区之后,我建议图书馆员在我们自己的领域中重新定义接触区。图书馆在标准化语言问题上的倡导工作主要是为了完善和改变标准语言,以便更好地反映我们用户对语言的多元拥抱。虽然这是道德语言学实践的重要组成部分,但对“纠正”图书馆语言的关注重新体现了这样一种观点,即任何语言在其使用环境之外都可以“正确”。奇怪的是,图书馆领域很少注意概念化这些语言斗争发生的具体空间:我们数据库和opac中的搜索框。特别是当我们教学生如何处理他们自己的词汇和图书馆资源的受控词汇时,我们已经在一个接触区教学了。通过阐明和概念化数据库搜索界面作为接触区域的概念,本文建议教学图书馆员可以中断主导语言和知识方案的力量,而不是通过我们的教学实践将它们重新铭文为正确的。在向接触区部署一种批判性的方法时,图书馆教学可以成为我们的用户和我们都可能寻求改变的主导话语系统之间富有成效的斗争的场所。第一次进入大学的学生所接触到的不仅仅是新的物理设施。他们也进入了新的话语社区。大学教学的主要角色之一就是向学生介绍这些特定的话语。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Information Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity Matters: Economic Inequality and Policymaking During a Pandemic A Survival Guide to the Misinformation Age: Scientific Habits of Mind Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age Hate Crimes in Cyberspace We Believe the Children: A Moral Panic in the 1980s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1