Postcard from Uganda: language

Greetings from Kampala, Uganda! We arrived about 10 days ago to work as visiting scholars at Makerere University, and there have been many interesting things to observe in this initial time, including some language points.

I have noticed the following systematic uses in Ugandan English that are different from Australian English, which may well be a feature of other Englishes elsewhere:

• 'pick' - instead of 'pick up', e.g. 'I called the number you gave, but no one picked, so can you call me back on Monday?' and 'I'll come and pick you around 2.30pm'.
• 'thank you too' - in response to a 'thank you', as an adjacency pair, e.g. in the supermarket when I thank the checkout person they often say this, as opposed to just 'thank you'.
• 'born-agains' - used to differentiate Christians who have been spiritually born again from 'nominal' Christians. For example, our apartment attendant asked 'are you people born-agains?' and another friend introduced us to someone else saying 'these people are born again, too'. In Australia asking 'are you people Christians' would probably get the answer she was looking for because people are less likely to identify as Christians unless they are actually believers. But a larger proportion of Ugandans would identify as Christians (statistically about 84%!), at least nominally, so the word 'Christian' doesn't have quite the same value here. It's almost the default. Hence 'born-again' is a useful alternative.
• 'done' - meaning finished, e.g. waiters/waitresses might ask 'are you done', rather than 'have you finished?' This usage also occurs in American English I think. But there is another usage, when a waiter/waitress might say 'the chicken is done', meaning there is no more. I think this meaning is less common in American English, as the expression would normally mean 'it is cooked and ready'.
• 'You are welcome' - as an elaborated form of the simple 'welcome', which is more common in Australian English. I have heard this from a wide range of people: new colleagues at the university, students, supermarket attendants (especially the friendly guys at the meat counter at the nearby supermarket), waiters/waitresses,  and people at the church we visited. I find it rather endearing and somehow more sincere than just 'welcome'.
• 'dear' - seems to be used as a generic term to address someone who might be a peer (rather than specifically as a term of endearment), e.g. the young woman who sat next to me in church on Sunday wrote me a note on her bulletin that said 'My dear, I would liked to speak to you after the service', and a colleague replied to a line in an email I sent with 'thank you dear'.
• 'what': in a number of teaching contexts (church sermon, Bible study group, introductory linguistics lecture), I have heard the teachers/leaders using a construction in which they use 'what' in a sentence to prompt the hearers to supply the word they are about to say (at least internally). An example (loosely based on a lecture I attended this morning) would be something like 'Morphology is the study of the internal structure of words. We say that words have one or more morphemes, which are the smallest meaningful units of words. For example the word 'students' has two meaningful units: 'student' and 's'. So we say it has two - what? - morphemes.' The construction has a particular prosodic and intonational pattern - there is a slight pause before the 'what' and and a slight rising intonation on 'what' followed by falling intonation on the rest of the clause (which is usually just one key word or phrase that the teacher wants to emphasise).
• etc: On a number of occasions I've heard teachers (and some others not in a teaching role) use 'etc' to indicate that they are providing an incomplete list. But instead of saying 'etcetera', they say 'e. t. c', i.e. spelling out the abbreviation.

Hopefully I will discover more as we go along!

What stops you from learning?

What things stop you (or have stopped you) from making the most of the educational opportunities available to you?

Perhaps...

• a lack of interest? (the lecturer obviously knows what they’re talking about but is really boring to listen to)

• a lack of motivation? (my parents want me to study this but I’d rather be doing a different course)

• a lack of energy? (working part time, studying full time, and trying to maintain a social life means sleep is hard to come by)

• a lack of time? (all my extra-curricular activities are making it hard to get my assignments done well and on time)

• a lack of money? (it’s hard to afford to buy text books and a computer, as well as pay rent and buy groceries, when I only work a few hours a week as a casual in retail)

Or...

• the lack of a pencil?

The late Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski, in his book 'The Shadow of the Sun’, wrote about an encounter with Ethiopian children:

“It is enough to stop briefly in a village, a town, or simply in a field - a group of children will instantly materialise. All of them indescribably tattered. Little shirts, pants - all frayed and shredded beyond belief. Their entire treasure, their sole nourishment, is a small calabash with a bit of water in it. Each piece of bread or banana will disappear, inhaled, in a fraction of a second. Hunger for these children is something permanent, a way of life, second nature. And yet they do not ask for bread or fruit, or even for money.
They ask for a pencil. The price? Ten cents. Yes, but where can they possibly get ten cents?
They would all like to go to school, they would like to learn. And sometimes they do go to school (a village school is simply a spot in the shade of an enormous mango tree), but they cannot learn to write because they have nothing to write with - they do not own a pencil.” (Kapuscinski, 1998, pp.230-231)

• the lack of feminine hygiene products, meaning that, if you’re a girl, you can’t go to school for a week every month?

A research group from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, spent some time in remote regions of Uganda focusing on literacy and developmental needs in the communities. In one study, they discovered that the teenage girls were all getting very behind in their education. They couldn’t go to school while they had their period because they couldn’t afford any sanitary products, and so they were missing a week of school every month. A number of innovative aid projects started as a result of this finding. One of these was Afripads, which set up a local manufacturing project to make affordable, reusable sanitary products so that the monthly period would no longer be an obstacle to girls going to school. It also provided work and income for local women involved in the manufacturing.

Is the family history?

I recently read an article that made me quite sad about the explicit untruths and inaccuracies that are allowed to be published in reputable publications. It was an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, in which he claimed that those who advocate heterosexual marriage have fabricated a history of the family as a heterosexual institution.

Rather than go on for ages about all the things that bothered me about the article, I’ll just focus on one, the following paragraph:

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel to behold. Its promoters are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that ''if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple''. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

There are some truths in this passage that mask the untruths and inaccuracies of his interpretation of the Bible. I think it’s true that the modern 'nuclear family’ (mother, father and biological children living together) is not itself a Biblically mandated institution. Rather, it is a cultural manifestation of the Biblical principles of lifelong monogamy (Gen 2:23-24, Ex 19:14, Mt 5:31-32), multiplication (Gen 1:26-28), and passing on the knowledge of God and His promises and commands to the next generation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:7, Deut 6:1-9). We must be careful to separate out what is merely cultural from what is necessarily Christian. Sometimes they work together, but often they do not. In the case of the nuclear family, it’s a cultural phenomenon that seems compatible with the Biblical principles. Living in community with other families or generations of an extended family could also work, and in fact the descriptions of the early church in Acts suggest this kind of arrangement (e.g. Acts 2:42-47).

The Bible passage Monbiot refers to here is Luke 14:25-26. In the passage immediately before this (Luke 14:15-24), Jesus had been talking to people at a dinner party at the home of the ruler of the Pharisees, telling a parable of a rich man who gave a great banquet and invited all his friends but when the time for the banquet came, they all sent their apologies because they had work to do, or economic concerns to act on, or family to attend to. So the man had to find other guests among the poor and homeless - those whom respectable people wouldn’t normally invite to a banquet - to fill the house for the banquet. There should be nothing to distract them, and even if there was, they would recognise the value of the offer and accept it.

In the passage in question (Luke 14:25-26), the scene changes to Jesus speaking to the enormous crowds that were accompanying him. But I think Luke wants us to make the connection with the previous passage, as the point is the same. Jesus extends an invitation to everyone, including those who have all kinds of potential distractions, and we must count the cost of accepting his generous and valuable offer.

As Jesus says elsewhere (Mt 6:24), you cannot serve two masters - we either serve Jesus as King, or our family, or our job, or whatever. The same underlying principle was inherent in the command given to God’s people at the revelation of his commandments at Mount Sinai (Deut 6:4-5) - "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength". We are to be undivided. But we are also to love our neighbours (including our family as well as complete strangers) as ourselves, and so Jesus’ challenge to ‘hate’ our own parents and siblings does not absolve us of family responsibility. Our family responsibility rather becomes part of the way we love and serve God and obey his commands.

While it’s true that Jesus did not issue any direct injunction against homosexuality, it’s grossly misleading to say that Jesus perceived 'heterosexual love’ as a ‘threat’. In the passage Monbiot quotes, Jesus was merely warning his would-be disciples that following him would mean they could not let their family get in the way of their allegiance to Jesus and obedience to God. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly condoned faithful heterosexual marriage, as on several occasions he spoke strongly against adultery and sexual immorality. He had hard words to say to the Samaritan woman he met at a well (John 4:1-30), who had been married five times and was now sleeping with someone other than her husband. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus said ‘from now on sin no more’. He wanted (and still wants) people to live God’s way, the way they were created for, walking in the light rather than in darkness (John 8:12).

Book Review: The Language of God (Francis Collins)

A few months ago I wrote that I had started reading Francis Collins’ book 'The Language of God’. I have now finished it! That took a bit longer than anticipated... So I thought I’d write a review of it, having also given a verbal review of it at training this week.

As I said in my earlier post, and as you can learn from the book’s blurb and Wikipedia, Francis Collins is trained as a physician and geneticist, and was head of the Human Genome Project which did some real ground-breaking work in the late nineties and ended up presenting the world with a complete ‘map’ of the human genome. He is now Director of the National Institutes of Health in the USA, having been appointed by Obama in 2009.

Although it’s called ‘The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief’ it’s not really about trying to prove God with scientific evidence, which can’t ever be done as far as we know. The title is a bit of a misnomer in that respect. What Collins is trying to do is explain why he believes in God and why, for him, being a scientist does not present an obstacle to faith in God. It’s an argument about the compatibility of science and faith more than an argument for faith.

The book is set out in three parts: the first section is about the perceived chasm between science and faith; the second section is about questions of human existence and Collins’ findings from the human genome project and related investigations; and the third section is on the relationship between faith and science in the past, and the options for now, highlighting that even if people insist on choosing between science and God, they are still putting faith in one or the other.

I enjoyed the way the author shared his life story (as I mentioned in my earlier post), and the way he systematically explained his scientific observations and reasons for his beliefs about God and about the world. I found it clearly written and strategically crafted, and the scientific explanations (e.g. how human DNA works) were accessible but not patronising. The crafting of the book intrigued me because, for most of the book, there is no mention of Jesus; I wondered all along “so he believes in God, but what does he think of Jesus?”. That made me quite wary of his argument, not being very sure about where he stood in relation to Jesus. It’s only at the very end of the book, when he has made a very compelling argument for his beliefs, that he finally shares his testimony about how he came to realise that Jesus was Lord, and decided to follow him.

There were several ideas and debates that I thought were set out in a helpful way, for example different world views and objections to religion, and questions about human existence. There was also an interesting discussion of historical changes in the relationship between science and faith especially in relation to discoveries that we now take for granted (e.g. the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around - a theory which brought Copernicus, its first advocate, strong criticism, and saw Galileo, a firm supporter, tried by the Roman Inquisition and put under house arrest until his death!). I also found the appendix on bioethics a very worthwhile inclusion, as it was generally well reasoned and sensible about issues that tend to be over-sensationalised in the public arena.

I did have a few reservations about the book, though. I’m not completely sold on Collins’ ideas about theistic evolution, and need to do some more investigation before I can come to my own conclusions. But I appreciate his strength of conviction and the reasoning he has gone through to get to his ‘BioLogos’ perspective on the way the organisms of the world came to be the way they are now. He is fairly critical of creationism and intelligent design, however, which has no doubt alienated a lot of Christians who identify strongly with those perspectives. I also thought that leaving his testimony right to the very end, while strategic in one sense, may mean that many readers never read it if they abandon the book part-way through (for whatever reason), and that would be a shame.

I would say it’s a worthwhile read for non-believers who are interested in reading a scientist’s testimony of their faith, as they get the science and the faith reasoned out together. It’s also a good place to go for people wanting to form a view on the evolution/creation debate - but just as one perspective. One would need to read other perspectives also, and make an informed comparison. I’ve been recommended ‘Unnatural Enemies’ by Kirsten Birkett, although this one is also from a Christian perspective.

The journey continues...

Students are people, not numbers

Last week the Macquarie University Vice Chancellor’s blog published a post by Arts Faculty Executive Dean Prof John Simons about the current debate about universities being allowed to widen participation through an abolishment of government caps on student numbers.

There are so many variables and issues involved that it is really hard to work out what’s a reasonable position. But there were a few things that he said in his post that I want to respond to as a teacher of first-year students who wants see students properly cared for.

"What this debate is about, of course, is widening access. It’s about giving people from diverse backgrounds the opportunity to benefit from higher education. It’s about being fair. It’s about making sure we use all the talent available not just some of it. This appears to be scary."
The only scary thing here is the suspicion that it’s not actually about universities wanting to give more people the opportunity to receive a higher education. If universities were serious about wanting more people to benefit from higher education, rather than just be entered into the system, I would expect to be able to see them putting infrastructure in place in anticipation of increased student numbers in order to be able to care for them properly. This would include in particular employing adequate numbers of full-time/permanent teaching staff so that class sizes could be kept at reasonable levels (15, rather than 25 or more!) and so that there could be sufficient staff consultation hours to go around to support students who need extra help (particularly in first year).

"Aptitude for success in higher education is not necessarily the same as aptitude for success at school."
I completely agree with this, having seen a number of my school friends who had not been brilliant at school absolutely flourishing when they got to university. They had increased motivation from being able to choose their own study paths and be accountable to themselves for what they did or didn’t do. However, lowering entrance scores is not necessarily the best way to give increase participation from lower socio-economic backgrounds. There are many other underlying variables that are involved, such as the quality of high schools in such areas, students’  and parents' attitudes to and support for education, and the simple fact of the need to survive financially through university.

Many students who come into university on a lower entrance score are simply not ready for university. It can be a very difficult transition culturally (although recent efforts to implement ’transition programs’ at various universities have helped alleviate this somewhat), let alone intellectually. The problem of maturity can certainly also be true of students who gain entry with higher scores, but would perhaps not mean the difference between passing and failing - just passing instead of getting a credit or higher.

It may be too much to expect students who have not so far achieved well academically to be able to keep up with a full-time student load AND maintain a part-time job (or multiple) AND carry out other life responsibilities, and be able to pass. And so I wonder if granting entry to students who have not so far shown the aptitude at school is giving them a false notion that they will be able to pass their university subjects and gain a degree. So if such students continue to be enrolled, there need to be greater support mechanisms - including financial support - to allow them to spend the required time and intellectual effort to keep on top of the new ideas they are learning and be able to flourish at uni so that they gain the social and intellectual capital to effect positive social change. Otherwise we will just see increased enrolments followed by large numbers of withdrawals, and I don’t think that’s the desired outcome.

The power of words

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". From childhood we are encouraged to dismiss the power of words to affect us. But how much power can words really have?

As a linguist, I'm a big fan of words and how they fit together to allow us to make meaning. I think there is a great deal of power in words and language, for good or ill. Indeed, there are some sub-fields of Linguistics - I'm thinking of Critical Discourse Analysis and Positive Discourse Analysis - that have sprung up with the aim of deconstructing, respectively, discourse that embodies "ideologically driven discrimination, with respect to gender, ethnicity, class and related social variables" (Martin 2006) and discourse that "functions to make the world a better place" (Martin 2006). The very existence of these trends of linguistic application assumes that language has the power to harm or improve society, and perhaps even individual lives.


I was thinking about this because the 'mid year conference' at UNSW, where I'm doing some ministry work with staff and postgrad students, is on the topic of 'Beyond Words', focusing on what happens when Christians read the Bible:

4000 years ago, Moses encountered God on Mt Sinai. It was beyond words. The storm raged, the lightning struck and the fire and smoke poured out of heaven. Today, Christians read a slightly beaten up paperback book over breakfast and claim to be meeting God. 

Aren't we missing something? Why doesn't God speak directly to me? Should I expect a still small voice or something more? 

 You can watch one of the video ads for the conference on Youtube - it highlights the fact that many forms of everyday language can have a significant impact on our lives. It also prompts us to wonder why Christians don't often register the same kind of impact when we read the Bible, which we believe to be the words of the Living God!


The Bible tells me that I should love it and delight in it (Psalm 119), store it up in my heart (Psalm 119:11), meditate on it (Psalm 119:148), and even value it above money (Psalm 119:72) and food (Matthew 4:1-4)! God promises that if I read His Word with sincerity and obedience, and with Him working in me by His Spirit, the words of scripture will give me life and blessing (James 1:25), guide my decisions (Psalm 119:105), and turn me from doing things that displease God (Psalm 119:11).


Furthermore, the gospel - the story that Jesus Christ, the Song of God, dies for the sin of the world and was raised again to rule the world - has the power to save those who believe it! "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.” (Romans 1:16). That’s some truly powerful words!


References:
Martin, J. R. (2006). Positive Discourse Analysis: Power, Solidarity and Change, Journal of English Studies, 4(14), 21-35.

Christianity is not incompatible with multiculturalism

Last July, I blogged in response to the shocking news about Norwegian Anders Breivik, who killed around 70 of this countrymen and was unhelpfully labelled 'Christian' although his actions demonstrate otherwise and his motivations seemed rather more racial, political and fearful than religious.

This week Breivik has been facing trial in Norway for his actions (see reports from BBC, The Guardian, ABC). At one stage he was allowed to make a 30-min statement, which became 70 min! I find that rather disturbing, but I suppose if that is a right of anyone standing trial then he is entitled to it.

Apparently one of his arguments was that 'Multiculturalism is a self-destructing ideology'. He seems to think that the 'Christian minority' he is supposedly trying to defend cannot be compatible with multiculturalism. I have already argued that the labeling of Breivik as 'Christian' was unhelpful, and here we see further evidence. There is no incompatibility between Christianity and multiculturalism.

Recently I have been reading the book of Revelation, and one of the most exciting parts for me is where the writer, the apostle John, tells that he "looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with plan branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"' (Rev 7:9-10).

This is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of people from all nations coming to salvation through Jesus (the Lamb who was slain), either. Both the Old Testament (the Jewish sacred book included in the Christian Bible) and the New Testament have many references to this idea. The Old Testament tells us that when Solomon built the first temple, he prayed to God: "when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you" (1 Kings 8:41-43).

In the New Testament, we see Jesus commissioning his disciples after his resurrection. He says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20).

There are many other places besides. I get the impression from Revelation that the final state will not be a homogeneous people all of one colour and language, but a multicultural group united in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain for every one for them no matter what their language or ethnicity. Awesome!