Editor for this issue: <>
To all of you who sent letters in support of the Boston University Program in Applied Linguistics and the annual Conference on Language Development: THANK YOU! We are very pleased to announce that the Program in Applied Linguistics now appears to be secure. In fact, we expect that we will be announcing a new Master's Degree program in Applied Linguistics in the near future. Thanks to an offer from the Linguistic Society of America, the BU Conference on Language Development *WILL* be held during the coming year jointly sponsored by the LSA, in conjunction with the annual LSA conference that will take place in Boston in January of 1994. A call for papers will be sent out within the next month, with abstracts due by July 31. We plan to resume our annual fall conferences as of October or November of 1994. Carol Neidle, on behalf of the Program in Applied Linguistics and the 1993-94 Conference CommitteeMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
An interesting tidbit that might interest you sociolinguists out there: A recent firing of a Central Michigan University coach has raised the question of the issue of the boundaries of the usage of racial terms, in this case "nigger". Keith Dambrot, head coach of the CMU Chippewas basketball team, was fired for saying, "What this team needs is a few more niggers," and then indicating his assistant coach as an example. Dambrot is white, and the assistant coach and most of the players are black. None of the players complained; the firing followed public outrage as the incident leaked to the media. Dambrot is suing that his 1st Amendment rights are being breeched, since he and everyone in the room knew that by "nigger" he meant "aggressive African-American" (the meaning of the term in my idiolect as well, although I don't use it in public). He also stresses (as is known) that the term is in wide use of the term "nigger" between African-Americans. His firing suggests that context is irrelevant: that ANY use of a racial term with a negative connotation used by a member of a power group towards a member of a non-power group, regardless of the speaker's intention (which in this case, I think, is fairly clear), is inappropriate. (The sharp-eyed among you might have noticed a true irony in this story: the name of the team is the Chippewas, despite the concern a few years back by Native American groups about such team names. Is P.C. giving preferential treatment to certain groups?) -- Paul Kershaw, Michigan State UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue