Today, we will be discussing racism, elitism, history, and the discourse that brings it all together.
The article in question which we will be examining is one
America's War on Language by Dennis Baron. This article, published on September 3rd of this year, gave a rousing look into a war that I at least was not entirely aware of. The "War on Language," according to Baron, began around the time of World War I. The language war, an ideological spin-off of the Great War, intensified the purge of all languages other than English (though the primary target was German, go figure) on American soil. This purge is still in effect with, as Baron puts it, "immigrants abandoning their first languages faster than ever." This idea of American elitism has been ingrained into the population's psyche, and though we are no longer chanting "I will say a good American 'yes' and 'no' in place of an Indian grunt 'un-hum' and 'nup-um' or a foreign 'ya' or 'yeh' and 'nope.'" in schools we are still looking down on the use of of anything other than English in our day-to-day lives.
"Why should I care about this?" you may be asking yourself. "What does this have to do with discourse and intertextuality?"
Why, I'm so glad that you asked.
In fact, this article packs a large punch in terms of the discourse community. For our purposes we will be looking into how this article ties in with the works of
Frank D'Angelo and
James Porter. Let's begin with D'Angelo...
The first of D'Angelo's three main points is that of exigence. The first set of exigence questions-- that is, the question that deals with the fundamental issues of the article-- concern what I stated in the beginning paragraph: Dennis Baron's piece deals with racism and the lack of foreign acceptance. Digging deeper, it deals with the shift of ideologies and how the discourse of the media and public figures influences such ideologies. The second set of questions-- dealing with what prompted the discourse-- comes from the centennial anniversary of World War I and the continuing schism with how Americans deal with those whose native language is not English. Finally, the third and the deepest set of questions-- dealing with the goals of the discourse-- is a push to relieve persons of their ignorance and elitism. In order to be fully knowledgeable of proper discourse, one must be able to appropriate the knowledge of different languages, cultures, and ideologies that are not one's own.
The second of D'Angelo's points is that of the audience, both the audience addressed and the audience invoked. This point is the most straightforward of the three. Seeing as that this article was posted on the website for the University of Illinois, it is rather obvious that the audience addressed are the students and peers of the university. Not only that, but the audience addressed is for any of those who research or are interested in the topics discussed in the article. Audience invoked includes a much wider spectrum of people. These include that of the entirely of the education system, as well as American history scholars and those interested in the politics behind some of the more elitist tendencies in the minds of America.
Thirdly, there are a number of constraints for the article are numerous and broad in value. Despite the connotation that comes with the word "constraint," the meaning that D'Angelo gives is "restraints that the rhetor harnesses so as to “constrain the audience to take the desired action or point of view." These restraints include those of guilt, reflection on the past, and appeal to the elitism in the public forum (the push to 'freedom fries' instead of french fries and 'freedom cabbage' instead of sauerkraut). These constraints, put together and given into the environment of high-tempered rights politics, make an illustrative argument.
James Porter, on the other hand, has fewer points to share with Baron's article. That does not mean that his points are less relevant or intriguing. In fact, the main point that I take from Porter is the most compelling of them all and could spark a conversation lasting for days. Before we get to the good stuff, though, let us look at his views of presupposition and Baron's role in said realm.
Presupposition is a powerful tool which Porter expands upon. Every author has presupposition about its audiences, and Baron is no exception. There is basic knowledge one must have to fully understand the argument that Baron makes in his article. Firstly, one must have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the horrors of World War I. He does not, however, presuppose that his readers know what happened "on the homefront" so to speak, hence his numerous examples of the events and publications that reveal how so much changed over the course of a war and how it continues to shape the daily lives of the people in the country. Other presuppositions involve that of possible knowledge of some of American's elitism regarding the English language, as well as the historical knowledge of America's disregard for foreigners/natives (which is basically the early history of America).
However, the most important point Porter gives is the one heavier than most of the points given by D'Angelo. The intertextuality of it all is what Porter is all about. Baron's article is saturated with intertextuality to the point that if one were too look up all the texts used, one would be reading for days. He uses sources from the New York Times, the Executive Department of Iowa, posters from the Art Institute of Chicago, etc. etc. One could create a museum on the topic that Baron which Baron barely scratches the surface. The article and everything that it deals with is fascinating to say the lease, and the underlying themes of the discourse could fill a book.
Sources:
Baron, Dennis. "America's War on Language." The Web of Language. N.p., 3 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Sept. 2014.
Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5.1 (Autumn 1986): 34-47. JSTOR.
D’Angelo, Frank. “The Rhetoric of Intertextuality.” Rhetoric Review 29.1 (Dec. 2009): 31-47. JSTOR.
