Migrant, Refugee, or Dreamer?

In a highly popular blog post by its English online editor, Al Jazeera last month dropped the word “migrant”, preferring to use “refugee”; the former term has become mainly, and wrongly, associated with economic migrants when others fleeing war and oppression are involved:  “Migrant deaths are not worth as much to the media as the deaths of others - which means that their lives are not. Drowning disasters drop further and further down news bulletins. We rarely talk about the dead as individuals anymore. They are numbers” (“Why Al Jazeera Will Not Say Mediterranean 'Migrants'”). Later, Adam Taylor of the Washington Post asked whether the word “migrant”, amongst other questionable terms, should be avoided in future discussions of refugees, citing the concern over “words that convey an exaggerated sense of threat” as expressed by Alexander Betts, the Director of Oxford’s Refugees Studies Centre (“Is it Time to Ditch the Word ‘Migrant’”?) Taylor points out that the definition of a migrant varies from one organization to another, and that the definition of the Institute of Migration refers to a person who has travelled as a deliberate choice, to improve their prospects or those of their family, in contrast with a refugee, who has generally been forced to flee. Other  inappropriate words Taylor cited include “swarm”, “siege”, “invasion”, “horde”, “war zone”, and “marauding”.

In “The Battle Over the Words Used to Describe Migrants”, the BBC’s Camila Ruz discusses the naming of refugees, citing a study by Oxford’s Migration Observatory. Based on the analysis of 58,000 UK newspaper articles, the Observatory had concluded that “illegal” was the adjective most frequently associated with “immigrant”. Ruz refers to various criticisms of the term “illegal immigrant”, including one about the term’s connoting crime, and those of the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, both of which modified their style guides in 2013 in such a way as to recommend against using it. Besides, some critics cynically point out that western immigrants are referred to as “expatriates” instead: “There has been some satirical commentary about the differences between the terms,” says Ruz. She adds that “alien”, which is out of currency in the UK, is still used in the US. On a positive note, however, she points out that the Obama administration has proposed the label “Dreamer” for “undocumented young people who met the conditions of the Dream act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors)”.

The well-known linguist and philosopher Steven Pinker indicates in his “euphemism treadmill” metaphor that changing minds is more important than changing words. As long as people’s views of others are negative, using different words to describe them will not help; the negative connotations might become associated with the new words, in an endless vicious circle.

 

 

"Mx" Replacing "Mr" etc.

When the title “Ms.” was invented, it was meant to replace “Mrs.” and “Miss”. This alternative was promoted by feminists and others who believed that a woman’s marital status should not be a matter of public concern. The logic was that if “Mr.” is enough for men, why shouldn’t “Ms.” be enough for women? The new title was ironically introduced as a third choice for women on forms etc., instead of replacing the other two terms altogether. Men did not have so many choices, yet they were not bothered. More recently, however, some men – and women – have become annoyed with all these old titles. For them, not only is marital status not to be revealed, but gender itself. “Mx” is the title now beginning to replace the conventional titles, including “Ms”.

Transgender people, and some who do not identify with either gender, are promoting the use of “Mx”, to the extent that it is now accepted by government departments in the UK, as well as banks and some universities, such as Birmingham, Cambridge, and Oxford; the Oxford English Dictionary is also on its way to incorporating it (“Mr, Mrs, Miss... and Mx: Transgender People Will be Able to Use New Title on Official Documents”).

Stan Carey says that the term “Mx”, which has been around since the 1970s, is a gender neutral alternative. The Macmillan Dictionary has already added the term, after it was submitted to its crowdsourced dictionary (“ ‘Mx’—A New Gender Neutral Title”). The web site “Nonbinary.org” , “arguing for equal access to employment, services and medical treatment for those who don't fit the gender binary”, encourages the use of various gender neutral titles, including “Mx”; among these are “Ind” (for individual), “M”, “Misc”, and “Msr”.

Apparently, the new title has been well received in Australia, according to ABC News, yet language expert Professor Roland Sussex believes it sounds awkward, and Lisa Sinclair of Genderqueer Australia rightly notes that changing a word will not necessarily change mentalities: “As an international idea it might work, but it's going to take a bit more than a gender-neutral pronoun to overcome the very gendered societies we have in the West and around the world. Having a gender-neutral pronoun is very nice, but there's much more to having acceptance of gender-neutral people than just a word" ("Mx Flagged as Possible Title for Transgender and Other Gender Neutral People, According to Oxford English Dictionary”). On the other hand, Merriam-Webster is still watching the new term, uncertain whether it will catch on in the US or whether it might take decades for it to be accepted, like “Ms” (“A Gender-Neutral Honorific”). Whatever the outcome, flirting with such new terms is merely another example of language evolution in line with perceived political correctness.

Politically Correct Language

When David Cameron was recently criticised for using the word “swarm” to describe illegal immigrants entering Britain, a fuss followed. For many, the use of the term is politically incorrect while for others it is neutral. Cameron had told ITV News that the immigration problem had worsened because “… you have got a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain because Britain has got jobs, it’s got a growing economy, it’s an incredible place to live”.

Human rights groups, including the Refugee Council, were the first to object, referring to the language used as “dehumanizing” and “extremely inflammatory”;  Labour leadership candidates described the usage as “disgraceful” and “not prime ministerial”; and Labour’s interim leader remarked that Cameron should remember “he is talking about people, not insects”. On the other hand, some people, such as Brian Maloney, citing the Merriam-Webster dictionary, found the term neutral, commenting that the incident was used to “fan the flames of anti-Conservative Party anger”. To back his claim, he cited examples of usage from the dictionary, which were not necessarily derogatory, such as “swarms of sightseers” and “a swarm of tourists” (“David Cameron Under Fire for Using ‘Swarm’ to Describe Illegal Immigrants’”).

Jeremy Butterfield, a lexicographer, has questioned the usage of “swarm” to describe immigrants, on both his personal blog and that of the Oxford Dictionaries. He notes that while many dictionaries do not indicate a pejorative sense for the word, the OED does (“A very large or dense body or collection; a crowd, throng, multitude. (Often contemptuous)”). Butterfield concludes that the connotations of the word are as follows:

 ■a large group;

 ■a compact group;

 ■a group in energetic motion;

 ■(perhaps optionally) confused motion; and

 ■ the group is undesirable.

 

Butterfield finds the critics’ reactions understandable though, to him, the possibility that Cameron did not mean the word in the pejorative, inflammatory sense is plausible. In any case, the example shows the importance of word choice in the public sphere, the language of politics, while illustrating the politics of language, especially in critics’ reactions.

Experience Is a Jewel

Shakespeare once said, through a character in The Merry Wives of Windsor, that experience is a jewel, and it had need be so, for it is often purchased at an infinite rate.

As teachers with experience to share, my blogger colleagues and I value each other’s teaching experience and share our reflections unreservedly. In April, we offered a workshop to share our vision and experience with regard to blogging. Entitled “Blog for Blog’s Sake”, the workshop was so well received that we are already planning another one for next year. Before that, in February, three of us had given a conference presentation entitled “Teacher Blogging as Social Constructivism”. Sharing our ideas and experience is so important to us that we aim at expanding our blogging community by encouraging others.

Students also need experience, of course, to get ahead: work experience, writing experience, and so forth. Everyone can learn from their own trials and errors, as well as those of others. Here are some more quotations on the importance of practical experience in life:

· Information's pretty thin stuff unless mixed with experience. Clarence Day

· Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced. John Keats

· Be brave. Take risks. Nothing can substitute experience. Paulo Coelho

 Oscar Wilde once cynically claimed that experience is simply the name we give our mistakes – yet to Albert Einstein, “the only source of knowledge is experience”. One cannot help agreeing more with the latter.

Spreading the Word

As part of our effort to encourage other teachers to blog about their work, my blogger colleagues and I have organized a workshop at AUB for fellow teachers entitled “Blog for Blog’s Sake”. Why not join us? Part I is tomorrow, April 27, and Part II is on Wednesday 29. Here are some details:

Part I Thoughts on Teacher Blogging
Monday, April 27

1.            Objectives and points of reflection (May Mikati)

2.            What we do and why (Jessy Bissal)

3.            Blogaddiction (Amany Al Sayyed)

4.            Dipping your toes (Amin Kurani)

5.            A love hate relationship (Marwa Mehio)

6.            Teacher blogging versus blogging in other contexts (Dania Adra)

 

Part II Getting Started

Wednesday, April 29

This is the hands-on part of the workshop, for those who would like to start a blog now.

 

We hope you can join us!

 

Word of the Year 2014

Every year there are winners. Here are this year’s winning words from various sources:

• Chambers Dictionary – “Overshare”:
The Guardian reported that “‘Overshare’ is Chambers Dictionary’s Word of the Year 2014”. The word refers to excessive disclosure of personal information on social media.

• Collins Dictionary – “Photobomb”:
The Daily Mail reported that “After Receiving Royal Seal of Approval Photobomb Beats Twerk, Tinder, Bakeoff and Normcore to be Named Word of the Year”. The verb refers to the act of appearing in the background of a picture without the subjects’ knowledge. Though the word was first used in 2008, it did not spread till 2012 when a number of photographs that were photobombed went viral on the web. In 2014, the word was linked to many celebrity appearances, including royalty.

• Dictionary.com - “Exposure”:
The choice of this word was justified by linking it to impactful current events: the spread of Ebola, theft of personal information, and violence exposed on the news.

• Oxford Dictionaries – “Vape”:
Having originated as an abbreviation of “vapour” or “vaporize”, the verb refers to inhaling and exhaling the substance given off by an electronic cigarette. Apparently, the use of the word peaked in April when the first “vape café” opened in the UK and New Yorkers protested against a ban on indoor vaping.

• The American Dialect Society - #blacklivesmatter:
Though it does not fit the traditional definition of a word, this hashtag spread like wildfire after the controversial deaths in Missouri and New York recently.

• Global Language Monitor - The heart symbol ♥:
 This ideograph, yet another very unconventional “word”, topped the list as it is used daily by billions of people across the world, in different languages. The popularity of such symbols shows how communication technologies are affecting language, as explained by Paul Payack, President and Chief Word Analyst of the Global Language Monitor: “The English Language is now undergoing a remarkable transformation unlike any in its 1400 year history — its system of writing, the Alphabet, is gaining characters at amazing rate.  These characters are ideographs or pictographs that are called emoji and emoticons.   There are about a thousand emoji characters now officially recognized by Unicode Consortium, the official keepers of coding that forms the basis of the Internet.”

One can never overshare on such topics. What will the 2015 word of the year be?

·