To return to the top of the page, click on the ^ next to each title.

1 . Beyond Florence: The Value of Dialectology in Italian Studies - by Teresa Fredericks^

The celebrated Yiddish linguist Max Weinrich said, "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy."1 His tongue-in-cheek observation brings to light the fact that the distinction between language and dialect is subjective and sociopolitical, rather than objective and structural. This concept is particularly pertinent in Italy, where Standard Italian is merely a codified literary version of the fourteenth century Tuscan dialect, which has since gained cultural, economic and political power to become the hegemonic language of the unified Italian State. At the time of political unification in 1861, only 2.5% of the largely illiterate population could use the national language fluently, whereas the vast majority of Italians continued to use the local languages, or dialects, which had existed centuries before the imposition of standardized Tuscan.2 Though use of Standard Italian predominates in contemporary Italian society, the peninsula hosts a wealth of dialect-speaking communities whose diverse linguistic heritage has shaped the history and culture of the Italian people.

Despite the impact of these dialects, not only on the historical and social reality of contemporary Italy, but on the linguistic reality of Italian itself, dialectology is often neglected as a discipline in conjunction with the study of Italian. Misconceptions surrounding the nature of Italian dialects abound, even in the relevant academic community, a fact which underscores the need for reform in Italian language and philology curricula around the world.3 Socioeconomic and geographical factors affecting language use in Italy have given rise to an erroneous perception of dialects as crude vernaculars, spoken by communities whose lack of education and illiteracy led them to deviate from the pure form of the standard language, creating corrupted offshoots. Rather than viewing dialects as deviations from a pure form, the study of dialectology reveals that these languages evolved synchronically with Standard Italian as descendents of popular Latin. Thus, the Italian dialects belong to the same group of the family of Latinderived Indo-European languages as Standard Italian and not a sub-group derived from it, such that Sicilian, Lombard and Calabrese occupy the same position in the Indo-European linguistic genealogy as French, Spanish and Rumanian. Dialectology in Italian philology programs can potentially restore the dignity of these minority languages, educating students about their historical, cultural and linguistic significance.

Such a curriculum in dialectology would include three principle components, the first of which is history. A historical overview of the Italian language and its role in civilization would address the origins of the language and the many factors contributing to its evolution. The many tribes that came into contact with the Roman Empire, particularly Germanic invaders after the fall of Rome, left imprints of their languages on Latin and its popular descendents.4 Historical linguistics and etymology offer fascinating insights into language contact, which resulted in certain lexical and morphosyntactic phenomena and continues to manifest itself in the contemporary era, as Italian copes with globalization and the international hegemony of American English. Since the Italian language is actually standardized literary Tuscan, rooted in the works of Dante and Petrarch, it is necessary to study the spectrum of Italian dialects which evolved alongside it to appreciate the fact that the selection of the Tuscan dialect as the national language was somewhat arbitrary. Investigation into the process of language standardization, beginning in the Renaissance, reveals that the cultural unification of Italy and subsequent nationalism were founded on an artificially constructed national linguistic identity.5 Cultivated Italian society, particularly during the Romantic era, engaged in many debates surrounding the legitimacy of popular dialects and the existence of literary works written in dialect.6

An understanding of the relationship between Italian culture and its languages is incomplete without addressing the profound impact of fascism on language use. Italian fascism and nationalism are intimately entwined, such that the legitimacy of the fascist regime rested largely on the notion that it expressed the will of the Italian people. Thus, the Italian people must be culturally, religiously, and linguistically homogenous. Mussolini’s policies ensured the suppression of regional languages to safeguard a Rome-centric definition of Italian identity.7 In the post-war era, many Italians chose to embrace populism and revitalize local language use, but sweeping demographic, technological and economic changes necessitated increasing use of the national language for the sake of pragmatism.8 Nevertheless, bilingualism in dialect and standard remains prevalent among Italians, and the historical impact of the dialects and their speakers on the evolution of Italian society remains paramount to a complete understanding of the sociopolitical context out of which originated the Italian language as it exists today.9

The second component of a dialectology segment to enrich Italian language and philology courses should cover sociological and cultural issues relating to language use and literary production in Italy. The principle goal of this section of a course would be to instill in students a greater respect for speakers of dialect and to dispel the misunderstandings which have often led to a depreciative view of non-standard languages. Sensitivity in this regard is particularly important when dealing with students from Italian immigrant families, as the largest waves of immigration from Italy occurred when dialect was still the primary means of communication for the lower classes, and many of these families had little or no contact with Standard Italian.10 In Italy, as in many other countries with both national and local languages, language use crystallized geographic and socioeconomic cleavages between North and South, educated and uneducated, old and young, and bourgeois and worker. When discussing the sociological significance of language use for Italians throughout the centuries, it is important to be aware of what sociolinguists have labeled diglossia, "where matters of importance are the reserve of a "high" language, while matters of affection or private affairs are discussed in a "low" language."11 The high language, in this case, Standard Italian, can be labeled a prestige language, a marker of socioeconomic class sought by those who wished to ascend the social ladder.12 Along with the potentially detrimental psychological and emotional affects of diglossia, it can bring about the lexical impoverishment of the subordinate languages, decreasing their ability to resist the forces that endanger them, which has certainly occurred as many Italian dialects have entered into decline with the contemporary hegemony of Standard Italian.13

Familiarization with Italian dialects themselves and with their respective literature gives students access to a wealth of poetry, drama, novels, music and folklore which form part of the Italian canon. Part of the joy of studying the literature associated with a particular community comes with the insights it offers into the group’s cultural values, sense of humor, and stylistic tendencies. Italian philology thus extends beyond proficiency in the masterpieces of Dante, Boccaccio and Machiavelli to encompass the Sicilian poetry of Giovanni Meli, the Neapolitan plays of De Filippo, and the Calabrese social criticism of De Marco.14 Italian literature in dialect across the centuries is as diverse as it is prolific, including the spectrum of genres from farcical plays to naturalist poetry; a fact which suggests the inherent aesthetic and sociological merit in studying it. Exposure to dialects also equips students with an arsenal of vocabulary and regional idiomatic expressions which appear not only in dialect literature, but also in Standard Italian works.

The third feature of a dialectology curriculum would address purely linguistic topics. This component of a course would explore Italy’s historical linguistic situation in more detail, bringing to light the specific contributions of colonized and neighboring peoples to Classical and popular Latin during the Roman Empire. In the fifth century, invading Germanic tribes also had a significant impact on the linguistic situation of the Latinized peoples, which can be studied for lexical and morphosyntactic data.15 In later centuries, the geographical boundaries delineating specific linguistic groups become crystallized, and explain the origins of similarities and differences between Italian languages and other Romance languages. A historical linguistic survey would also shed light on modern and contemporary language contact and change, accounting for the structure and lexicon of Standard Italian as we know it today.

The rich grammatical, phonological and lexical diversity of the Italian dialects not only provides a wealth of data to perform cross-linguistic comparisons with Standard Italian, but also conceals explanations for certain grammatical phenomena within Standard Italian. Morphosyntactic variations between the dialects and the standard can reveal interesting possibilities for pronoun clitic placement, tense formation, and pluralization. Phonological comparisons between the languages of the different regions explain historical and contemporary controversies surrounding orthographic reform and present students with the data to reach their own conclusions. Historical and contemporary study of the lexical contributions of non-Italian and other Italian peoples on specific dialects, including Standard Italian, illuminates the evolution process and the way in which individual dialects have coped with loanword adaptation. This is particularly relevant as American English dominates international communication, causing other languages to assimilate a great deal of its vocabulary.

The study of philology is comprised of various elements. Literally, "love of the word," a comprehensive education in this field, when applied to a language like Italian, must include history, sociology, literature, and linguistics. Thorough study of Italian dialectology, both in Italy and in Italian philology programs abroad, enriches the students’ understanding of the complex sociolinguistic history of the Italian people. Curricula and teachers need to equip philology students with the knowledge and tools to arrive at this multifaceted level of comprehension. A true lover of the Italian word will seek to understand it through a variety of lenses: historical, sociopolitical, artistic and theoretical.

End Notes:

1 Ripetti, Lori. "Teaching about the Other Italian Languages: Dialectology in the Italian Curriculum." Italica. 73.4 Linguistics and Pedagogy. (1996)
508-515. (509)
2 Haller, Hermann. The Other Italy: The Literary Cannon in Dialect. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. (14)
3 Ripetti, Lori. "Teaching about the Other Italian Languages: Dialectology in the Italian Curriculum." (509)
4 Haller, Hermann. The Other Italy: The Literary Cannon in Dialect. (10)
5 Haller, Hermann. The Other Italy: The Literary Cannon in Dialect. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. (13)
6 Ibid. (4)
7 Migliorini, Bruno. The Italian Language. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1966. (469)
8Haller, Hermann. The Other Italy: The Literary Cannon in Dialect. (6)
9 Ibid (14)
10 Ripetti, Lori. "Teaching about the Other Italian Languages: Dialectology in the Italian Curriculum." (511)
11 Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. "The Globalisation of (Educational) Language Rights." Globalisation, Language and Education. Spec. Issue of International Review of Education. 47.3/4. (2001): 201-219. (293)
12 Kahane, Henry. "A Typology of the Prestige Language." Presidential Address delivered to the LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore, December 1984. (495)
13 Haller, Hermann. The Other Italy: The Literary Cannon in Dialect. (6)
14 Ibid. (19)
15 Lepschy, Anna Laura and Giulio Lepschy. The Italian Language Today. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd., 1977. (19)

2 . Trench Talk: The linguistic aftermath of war - by Mallory Ferland^

From day one the American language has operated in a state of limbo — a no man’s land of unceasing change and expansion that is wholly impervious to conquerors. The personification here of language as the elusive wood nymph is not solely an attempt at romance, for all languages are organic entities whose purpose is not only that of communication but also of identity. Language adapts and formulates around its users: from beliefs, culture, attitude, location, ingenuity, and events. For that matter the evolution of American English has not merely emerged as an adaptation of mother English, but rather as a distinct language altogether.

In the early nineteenth century, America struggled to create a national identity distinct from that of the European world, resulting in a deliberate modification of the language with such creations as Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language in which was witnessed the lexical massacre of the ‘ou’ and ‘re’ as well as the inclusion of overtly ‘American’ words. The arrival of the American Dictionary reflected a conscious molding of the language, however the majority of linguistic augmentation since has resulted naturally from evolving culture, technology, and events that inevitably produce new words, definitions, and meanings that whether inducted into formal definition or not, are an ever present reflection of American cultural heritage and identity. In the extended English vocabulary, technology has provided the mouse, blog, and spam, pop culture the flapper, mosh pit, and blingbling, and nature the five-day forecast, global warming, and leaded or unleaded. However, among the myriad categories and events responsible for the shaping of cultural identity, and therefore the linguistic makeup, the experience of war stands second to none.

The presence of war permeates most functions of life whether occurring on home soil or across the globe, and leaves an irrevocable imprint on a nation’s identity that is seen, felt, and heard. Words born of war have assimilated into colloquial and even conventional usage throughout the country, often used, however, by those completely unawares. Blitz, jeep, nazi, friendly fire—war provides a plethora of new vocabulary that works simultaneously out of necessity as well as an outlet for new events and emotions lacking in lexical definition. Terming someone a nazi will forever invoke emotions of militarism, power, and lack of feeling; the ‘Sports Blitz’ on the evening news intends to offer a lightning quick recap of the Monday night game and not, in fact, an "extraordinarily" quick all-out aerial bombing accompanied by an armored ground attack. All wars leave a linguistic stamp in their wake; and most scholars agree that among America’s many conflicts, the Great War, World War II, and the Vietnam War have had the most profound influence on the American language.1

It is worth noting that the creation and use of a military language is a two-front necessity in every conflict: first for efficiency and technicality, and second for sheer human need. The US Department of Defense maintains a regularly amended Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms in which the standards of combat lingo for all branches of the US military are kept. Aside from the copious yet tragically monotonous list of some eleven thousand terms, most of which are acronyms, the dictionary’s role is stated as "mandatory for use by…[everyone who has to do with national security and defense]…and used without alteration unless a distinctly different context or application is intended in order to provide a common interpretation of terminology at home and abroad."2 As is to be expected one finds neither Charlie between Charged Demolition Target (CDC actually) and Chart base, nor body bag tucked in between boattail and bomb disposal unit (a BDU). Naturally these fall under the DOD’s category for alteration out of need for "a distinctly different context and application". What one will find however is a catalogue of CFR’s such as the well known R&R, BmC41, 1stIOC, the ever popular HTERRCAS, and the most coveted RELCAN (that is, releasable to Canada).3 The military dictionary has only been in existence since 1983, and does not provide the more commonly used slang terms adopted by the general public. Conversing in acronyms is tedious, and aside from those who spend their evenings with Hawkeye and Mulcahy do not use them. Most acronyms are not adaptable, and are oftentimes more difficult to use than the words they represent. As such most military terms are left to the officers—while those not technically catalogued that arise from the other category of necessity find their place in the mainstream of American vocabulary termed slang.

War creates circumstances and emotions wholly new to the world in context and application, and therefore in need of an entirely new lexical definition. While in country it becomes necessary to separate life in the world of war from the familiar life of a civilian back home. In most wars the violent and blood-saturated atmosphere is chaotic, numbing, and psychologically disorienting to the extent where it may be questioned whether or not the notion of humanity ever existed. In war newly experienced emotions arise from tragedies and events that exceed the scope of available words; a German soldier in the Second World War reflected, "My impression is that all words and syllables were perfected to describe unimportant things … Cruelty has never been more fully realized, nor can the word ‘horror’ ever adequately express what happened."4 Therefore, for want of expression, terms are created to describe the indescribable and to distinguish between the irrational and rational worlds of war and peace. A soldier does not die, that is an action fulfilled by a grandmother or sickly brother. To live with death as common as the need for food is impossible, therefore the anesthetic of euphemism becomes vital. In WWII a soldier was taken care of or bumped or rubbed out, in Vietnam they were wasted, smoked, and blown away, in the Gulf War and Dessert Storm off’d, clipped, and whacked,5 and in The War on Terror it is described by the CIA as an act of neutralizing the enemy. Distancing oneself from the ‘old life’ creates a void that in turn is filled by the invaluable commodity of comradeship.

In war the comrade, camarade, komerad, comarada, komrat replaces the role of family. Innumerable accounts from veterans have avowed that they continued through the most desolate tides not for national glory, heroic virtue, or even the safeguarding of the loved and innocent, but for their brothers in arms. The comrade provides a tangible physical object with meaning juxtaposed to seemingly meaningless deaths and abstract notions of country and glory. To help foster camaraderie, slang is developed and shared among soldiers as binding fraternal jargon. Military slang is often derogatory and sarcastic in nature, a preferable outlet for channeling fear. Sarcasm is a coping mechanism, for it is somehow less frightening to haphazardly imagine a stay at the Hanoi Hilton rather than the miserable Hoa Loa POW prison. Notorious are the terms used to describe disagreeable situations and combat orders, such as SNAFU (Situation Normal: All Fouled Up) which first appeared in WWII, FUGAZI (Fouled Up, Got Ambushed, Zipped In)6 a signature of Vietnam referring to jungle combat, and the melodic warning of YUCATAN (You’re Under Certain Annihilation, Throw A Nuke!). Also common among military slang are derogatory titles for the enemy. Racism aside, the aim of non-flattering labeling serves the purpose of villanizing and dehumanizing the enemy; a natural desire when one is forced to kill another human. Enemy name-calling is apparent in virtually any armed conflict in any location and on any side: Yankee (originally meant to be derogatory), Gooks, Reds, Charlie, Chuck, Pinko, Ivan, Japs, Chinks, and Haji to name a few. Serving the similar purpose of enemy villanization is the labeling of factions such as an axis, or regime.

The sinister, racy, euphemistic, and sarcastic character of soldier-made slang is a reflection of frustration and can be viewed, in a sense, as defiance to the government and military’s own doublespeak. The myriad terms for death lay bare the insincerity of casualty, and surely no other Police Actions besides the Korean and Vietnam Wars have left over five and a half million people dead. The glossily-termed Phased Departure from Vietnam fooled almost as many as the US liberation rather than occupation of Iraq did. Aside from any conjecture on deliberate defiance, war slang at its simplest is an amusing and liberating outlet in a zone where life is reduced to discipline, calculation, and regulation. Jarhead, quagmire, REMF, grunt, Shake n’ Bake, and countless others have crossed lines into multiple conflicts, ensuring multiple generations of combatants at least some sense of solidarity.

Many words germinated in war have found their way out of the trenches and battlefields and into the linguistic identity of the American public (as well as the Oxford English Dictionary). As the media and other forms of public propaganda are the primary agents responsible for introducing the language from the front lines to the citizen, it is no surprise that the Vietnam War (as a widely broadcasted war) had such a tremendous impact on the language of America. The nature of the words that emerged from Vietnam confirmed the power the media held over public opinion during the 1960’s and 70’s: the pessimism and depravity of the chosen words complied with the media’s disdain and negative portrayal of the war. Due to its universality, language is a representation of the degree of impact an event or an idea has on a society. Therefore, as a top provider of permanent amendments to the American language, it goes without saying that war has a cataclysmic affect on the shaping of national identity. It is most certain that the Second Gulf War will leave its linguistic stamp on the nation; exactly what it will stick is yet to be determined. We will have to wait and see.

End Notes:
1 Paul Dickson, Slang: American Fighting Words and Phrases from the Civil War to the War in Iraq, (Potomac Books, 2003)
2 US DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Sect. 3 Application.
3 Ibid.
4 Guy Sajer, The Forgotten Soldier (Potomac Books, 1971)
5 Paul Dickson, War Slang: American Fighting Words and Phrases from the Civil War to the War in Iraq, (Potomac Books, 2003)
6 Gregory R. Clark, Words of the Vietnam War (McFarland & Comp. 1990)

3 . In defense of gender - by Kristin Deasy^

The turmoil of ‘60s and ‘70s swirled into a cultural tidal wave that has thoroughly soaked universities around the world. One of the stronger currents changed how people viewed sexuality. Gender theory initiated Gender Studies, a curriculum now offered as a concentration or major at various universities, and sparked the touchy nature vs. nurture debate in the late ‘70s. Gender studies continue to affect everything from the way we talk (inclusive language) to a reconsideration of the way we act (gender roles).

Not being a biology major or a gender/women’s studies major, I will not pretend to command comprehensive knowledge of the human person understood scientifically or as understood by gender theorists. But I am a journalism major, so I am concerned with language. I think this is a subject that needs more investigation from our own generation because it will continue to shape the very words we use to describe ourselves—our only thumbprint for history.

The question, then, is whether the words "man" and "woman" signify realities or social constructs. Gender theorists consider "man" and "woman" projections of the mind; more importantly, they consider them projections that reinforce a gender stereotype. For some gender theorists, sex is not inherently different from gender, but for others, sex refers to the biology of our bodies and gender refers to the ways which sex is understood culturally. Because the field is still young, it is difficult to write with clarity using widely agreed distinctions and definitions. I apologize now for any unintended inaccuracies.

Gender theorists are concerned with the process of "genderizing" that figuratively begins the
moment kids are handed a doll or a dinosaur. They believe that dolls and dinos are, by way of example, how children learn to "act," as opposed possessing an innate understanding of their roles as male or female. The doll and its corollary to maternity sends the message that girls only do certain things, such as wear dresses and hold tea parties; similarly, the boy is given the dino because of "his" social context, that of a rough-and-tumble little boy who likes to roar.

Gender theorists, particularly feminist gender theorists, believe that these roles need to free
themselves from an oppressive historical tradition, and strongly object to any "sexist" use of language. This is a complex subject, but at its simplest it is an objection to any language reflecting the masculine/ feminine dichotomy. This objection has been, and continues to be strong enough to affect everything from term papers to political speeches.

Those who do not agree with gender theory believe that girls and boys are given these toys not
because societies before them defined their roles, but because little boys and little girls play differently by their very nature (i.e., gender reflects an innate sexual difference). The debate took off from there, exploding about a decade before we students were born.

Though the term gender was originally taken from the biological understanding of sexuality,
many gender theorists resist a formal definition for it. "Gender fluidity is the ability to freely and knowingly become one or many of a limitless number of genders, for any length of time, at any rate of change. Gender fluidity recognizes no borders or rules of gender," wrote the author Kate Bornstein in "Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women and the Rest of Us."

Some gender theorists argue that gender differences appear even before birth, and these arguments cause some to believe that science should have more of a say in its definition. Babette Francis, author of the article, "Is gender a social construct or a biological imperative?" writes:

Perhaps I was the only member of the Committee who had looked into a microscope and had seen the difference in appearance and behavior between androsperm, the boy-producing sperm, and gynosperm, the girl-producing sperm. Obviously social conditioning and ‘sexism’ were not the cause.

Francis was the only scientist on the 1975 Victorian Committee on Equal Opportunity in Schools.
She is wary of the belief that "human nature is completely malleable, and that babies arrive as lumps of soft playdough on which society, i.e. parents and teachers, can imprint whatever they choose."

Lucy Gilbert and Paula Webster, authors of "The Dangers of Femininity: Gender Differences:
Sociology or Biology," respond by arguing that, "although many people think that men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blueprint, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals."1

Believed to be socially constructed or a concrete reality, it is this "true nature" that I believe our own generation is most concerned with. Gender theorists are on to something when they assert that our bodies have a greater meaning than their mere physicality. I suspect that this fuzzy idea of a nature beyond our "chromosomal sex" is an indirect challenge to the modern belief in the human person as only "a mind" plus "a body."

But that is not the scope of this article. The scope of the article is first of all a defense of gender, arguing against the aspersion that its only purpose in language is one of oppression, and second, to question the purposeful control of language.

The observation that back in the day the word "man" was linguistically and culturally inclusive is an important one. I am not going to argue that it is, or could be, true now. We have clearly gone beyond that. But the historical point should be taken: examine Aristotle’s famous statement, "man is a rational animal." Today that qualifies as a sexist statement. But Aristotle was of course not speaking English. Christina Hoff Summers examines this in her essay, "Against the Theory of ‘Sexist Language":

Greek and Latin both ‘mark’ the male as well as the female in their vocabulary: anér in Greek and vir in Latin  both mean ‘man=male’; gyné in Greek and femina in Latin both mean ‘woman’; and ánthrôpos in Greek and  homo in Latin both mean ‘man=person.’ Aristotle said ‘ ánthrôpos,’ not ‘ anér’; and Classics scholars are  usually happy to point out the inclusiveness of the former term.

She goes on to ask, "So was Aristotle sexist after all? If so, then we are still using a sexist expression in ‘human beings’ because ‘human’ is from homo, which had masculine gender to
start with."

Any manipulation of language, despite the best of intentions, is a misguided project. There is very little evidence to suggest that controlling language can, in and of itself, change the way society functions. When we are misunderstood, we all understand the distinction between what we say and what we mean. Does any intellectual movement, however sympathetic you may feel towards it, deserve the right to interpret the latter?

How we talk or how we write simply does not determine how we think; this is a simple critical
thinking-type fallacy, for the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is our thinking that produces our expressions, not vice-versa. The day science discovers a baby learning to talk with no conceptual preparation is the day I re-evaluate the process of understanding.

It is often said that gendered language leads directly to oppressed societal structures. Yet there is absolutely no history to support the contention that gender systems do or do not result in patriarchic systems. Summers writes:

Why didn’t the ‘gender free’ Persian language create a feminist utopia? This goes to show us that gender in language is completely irrelevant to the sexual openness of society ... the whole idea of sexual equality was conceived in languages (English, French, German) with strong or remnant gender structures, while other languages with gender structures (Sanskrit, Arabic, Swahili) or without (Persian, Chinese, Malay) produced nothing of the sort.

Gender studies have developed into a wonderfully diverse way of exploring the human person
and it seeks—quite bravely—to honestly examine the human person, often in the context of experience. Like everything, however, it has its weaknesses. Taking the grammatical "he" and "she" out of English should not be the focus: the focus should be on what we mean when we say he or she. A friend of mine was writing a paper and needed to illustrate her point with an example. She wrote something similar to, "A man goes to the store to buy oranges." She was marked down for using sexist language. Is this fair? If it is, what will the novels of the next century look like? Clearly, such thinking is de-humanizing, though its intent is the opposite. Gender theorists often write about gender roles in terms of "he" and "she." Some use gender-neutral words like "ze," but this becomes impractical when the writing concerns male/female gender roles, just as it becomes impractical in daily life. It would appear that this literature is exempt from the linguistic criticism it expounds.

Language, like all art, is a reflection of the age. It does not directly form the age, but it does inform it. An over-reaction regarding genderized language has its dangers, because individuals are lost in politically safe terms like "them," "human person," and certainly "ze." It is in our best interest to maintain a personal dimension in our language and in our culture, and though these words do reflect something very human indeed, sexual identity, it is clear that they signify more than mere genetics. This is not an essay endorsing sexism, but an essay arguing a distinction between words, their intent and their interpretation. Just as the world is not black and white, so too using "he" does not mean you are sexist, but at the same time it does not mean you are "inclusive" because that was how the word was used centuries ago. Let’s allow words to mean what the speakers intend — that freedom is what I fear losing.

End Notes:

1 Lucy Gilbert and Paula Webster: "The Dangers of Femininity: Gender Differences: Sociology or Biology"
[The quotations from Kate Bornstein, Lucy Gilbert and Paula Webster are taken directly from Babette Francis’ article, "Is gender a social construct or a
biological imperative?" The article is available in full here: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc7/francis.html.]

4 . The Language of Txt - Katie Love^

As someone who has never been particularly fond of acronyms or abbreviations, I’ve recently come to realize definite communicative limits in my attempt at modern expression. Inundated with text and instant messages proclaiming snippets of language such as "rofl" and "btw," I oftentimes find myself scratching my head in a mixture of fascination and confusion. Of late I have been reading articles that depict today’s youth as poor communicators—a consequence of supposed excessive acronym and slang usage. However, my problem with the surge of written and spoken acronyms has nothing to do with my generation’s inability to effectively communicate with bosses, professors, and grandmothers. In fact, I can even respect the dedication it must take to memorize endless amounts of consolidated phrases. The principles that I cannot get past, however, are that most pop culture acronyms are not only confusing, but superfluous in nature. Furthermore, many popular text and instant message abbreviations and acronyms undermine the innate intelligence and cleverness of humans. For clarification, let us look to a small list of commonly used pop culture acronyms:

1.)"LOL"; This is a phrase that has not only transformed the way that people communicate through mainstream written and technological communication but it has also breached the borders of spoken language. However, I have one simple question: What other kind of laughing is there? If one "laughs" in one’s head, this is not a true laugh, but in fact a humorous thought. So then what’s the point of telling someone that you are "laughing out loud"? Well of course you are laughing out loud! By its very nature, laughing produces sound, consequently rendering the acronym "lol" completely superfluous.

2.)"CUL8R" and "2MORROW"; Out of all possible abbreviations, these scenarios might be the most insulting text message one could compose. Not only does one look ridiculous for creating a word that includes a number, but such a message undermines the intelligence of the recipient to assume that they would be able to decipher "c u l8er" with more clarity than they would "see you later." Furthermore, if these types of abbreviations are masks for the poor spellers of the world, have no fear! Trust me, you will look ten times more ridiculous throwing a "2" in front of "tomorrow" than somehow misspelling the word altogether.

3.)"WTF"; Although this phrase presents problems for me in terms of content and meaning, my difficulties in understanding why someone would use it are twofold. "Modern" youths spend significant amounts of time texting and instant messaging using pop culture acronyms. A lot of the time, young people will transfer so-called "written" language into spoken language. Now, fancy me this: During a family event, a young person has used the expression "wtf" so frequently that he or she utters it in front of the grandparents. As my mother likes to say, this person is now "up the creek without a paddle." Not only did the person insult his intelligence by expressing himself through an acronym, but he is now left with the daunting task of explaining "wtf" to his family. Call me old-fashioned, but my anticipated embarrassment at having to explain the term "wtf" to my grandparents greatly outweighs my desire ever to message or speak such an acronym.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I understand that acronyms and abbreviations have become a necessary facet of American communication. In the age of technology, it is nearly impossible to go through life without having to say acronyms such as "DVD" "DNA" and "JPEG." However, I would encourage people to think about the quality of acronym or abbreviation they use. For instance, "ASAP" and "RSVP" are not only socially acceptable and condoned, but they have also withstood the test of time. However, "RSVP" isn’t even rooted in the English language, but rather the French language. Not only did we have to depend on the French to aid the establishment of American independence, as well as toast and fries, but our best acronyms come from them, too! OMG!

5 . At a loss for words, literally - John T. Lucian^

When the world's greatest catastrophes unfold right before our eyes reporters, newscasters, and commentators all go silent. Mesmerized by the adversity at hand, journalist’s turn away from descriptive adjectives and imagery-laced language, instead, they fill airtime with a few worn out idioms. "I am at a loss for words," one will say, or, "you cannot possibly put into words what we have just seen here!" Many years ago these idioms merely exaggerated the severity of an incident, or the magnitude of a tragedy, but today, we simply have no words that do our
greatest tragedies and accomplishments justice.

Louisiana experienced the wrath of Hurricane Katrina and New York absorbed the brunt of / . The entire country, and world, felt both. The memories, and the destruction, are overwhelming. Whether it be the chilling panorama of an illustrious city underwater, or the unforgettable sight of two titanic buildings tumbling down, the images make us all tremble. We see the pictures, the videos, and we hear the stories. We see the movies, read the books, and watch the wars. The effects are evident, and the adversity, crystal clear. Even so, there is no one word that can effectively sum up, or describe, the world’s most monumental events.

So why is it that when words are needed most, they suddenly become obsolete? It is common in society to praise mediocrity. Powerful adjectives are typically used to illustrate rather ordinary events. In turn, events that are described as spectacular, are hardly spectacular, and occurrences that are deemed unbelievable, are, in fact, very believable. Sportscasters praise "terrific catches," and weathermen warn of the "unbelievably ferocious storms" looming out in the Pacific.

The fact is we have seen that very catch a million times, and every year, similar storm systems drench billions of citizens worldwide. When something truly amazing, unprecedented, or groundbreaking actually happens, commanding adjectives simply do not properly conjure up the appropriate, or necessary, images. Something genuinely unbelievable cannot be described using forceful adjectives, because those very adjectives, after years of being watered down and misused, no longer pack the punch they once did. They have no value.

Therefore, catastrophic events such as Katrina, and the events of / go un-described. With a language so vast, complex, and intricate, it is truly awful that the events that need to be talked about most, simply cannot be. I would try, but I too, am at a loss for words.