Grammatical constraints on code-switching

Grammatical constraints on code-switching Grammatical constraints on code-switching The behaviour of bilingual and multilingual speakers in a wide variety of speech communities and a broad range of social contexts has been the subject of research since the 1970s. Specific attention has been paid in the literature on bilingualism/multilingualism to the phenomenon of code-switching, one of the results of which has been the proposal of and subsequent debate surrounding a number of different grammatical approaches to it. This essay will attempt to examine and discuss some of the main grammatical approaches to code-switching, and go on to look at the arguments advanced to support (and undermine) these. As Poplack (1980) mentions, authors of the early literature when not focusing on the sociolinguistic and discourse elements relating to code-switching concluded that code-switching was a phenomenon that occurred at random. Subsequent research has shown that there are code-switching patterns and that switching is, in fact, subject to grammatical rules; the debate now is centred on what, exactly, those rules are. The various theories put forward by scholars in this field of research seek to elaborate universally-applicable rules that account for all instances of code-switching in all language pairs. As will be seen in this essay, and as is claimed by Gardner-Chloros and Edwards (2004) and Alvarez-Cà ¡ccamo (1998), none of these theories achieves its aim. It is worth bearing in mind that, broadly speaking, there are two main â€Å"types† of code-switching: intersentential and intrasentential. The latter is arguably of greater interest to researchers as â€Å"it is only there that the two grammars are in contact† (Myers-Scotton and Jake (1995)). There are several main grammatical approaches to code-switching which fall into a number of broad categories, each of which will be discussed in turn. Gardner-Chloros and Edwards (2004: 3-4) argue that any given grammatical approach to code-switching depends on the sense of the word â€Å"grammar†. They claim that at least five senses of the term can be identified and, of those five senses, grammatical approaches to code-switching have focused (explicitly or otherwise) on the following two: Formal grammar; and Chomskyan/Universalist grammar Poplacks study of code-switching amongst a sample of bilingual Puerto-Ricans in New York City (1980) is an empirical test of two simple constraints that, she claims, are universally applicable: the Equivalence Constraint and the Free Morpheme Constraint. The Equivalence Constraint dictates that intrasentential switches will only be made by any bilingual speaker (regardless of the speakers proficiency in his or her L2) â€Å"at points in discourse where juxtaposition of L1 and L2 elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either language, i.e. at points around which the surface structures of the two languages map onto each other†. So a bilingual speaker implicitly obeys the syntactic rules imposed by the respective grammars (which, in this model, are deemed to share rules that apply to the use of particular lexical items or language constituents) and will only make a switch from one code to the other at points where that switch will not violate the rules of either grammar. Indeed, the title of Poplacks paper is a case in point: (1) Sometimes I start a sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol(â€Å"and finish in Spanish†) Here, the switch is made at a point in the sentence where the Spanish subordinate clause â€Å"y termino en espanol† does not violate the grammatical rules of English (which are deemed to set the framework for the sentence): the verb â€Å"terminar† is correctly inflected (â€Å"termino† first person singular, present indicative) as the English verb â€Å"to finish† would be (i.e. â€Å"I finish†) had the clause been uttered in the latter language and indeed, the grammar of the subordinate clause does not violate any grammatical rules of Spanish, were the entire sentence to be uttered solely in Spanish. The Free Morpheme Constraint states that an intrasentential switch may be made by any bilingual speaker â€Å"provided [a] constituent is not a bound morpheme†. Thus a sentence such as: (2) And what a tertuliait was, Dios mio! (And what a gathering it was, my God!) is acceptable under the Free Morpheme constraint (note that idiomatic expressions such as Dios mio above are â€Å"considered to behave like bound morphemes in that they show a strong tendency to be uttered monolingually†), unlike a sentence such as: (3) *Estaba type-ando su ensayo (She was type-ing her essay) Subsequent discussion and research have shown that Poplacks Constraints theory is not universally applicable to all language pairs or all instances of code-switching. It would appear that the Constraints model sits perfectly with Poplacks own data set drawn from her sample Puerto-Rican speech community, and may be appropriate for language pairs which share particular grammatical, syntactic or lexical features, such that these facilitate switches that indeed do not violate any grammatical rules of either of the languages in contact. Nevertheless, Poplack has continued to defend and refine the model, arguing that instances of code-switching that violates either or both of the constraints are not code-switches at all, but rather what are termed by Poplack â€Å"nonce borrowings† (a term first coined by Weinreich (1953)). These, it is argued, are tantamount to single-word code-switches: words from the L2 are used in an L1-dominant utterance but have yet to become an established pa rt thereof. Poplack argues that the Free Morpheme constraint is â€Å"a consequence of the nonce borrowing hypothesis (Sankoff et al, 1990)†. However, further research has yet fully to substantiate the claim of universal applicability of the Constraints model to all language pairs and all instances of code-switching. Other constraints models have also been put forward, amongst others, by Pfaff (1979) in her study of Spanish-English code-switching and borrowing. She argues that there are four main types of constraints on constraints: functional, structural, semantic and discourse-related.   Further constraints have also been formulated by Woolford (1983) in her generative model of code-switching (again based on data from Spanish-English bilinguals). Such constraints models can be contrasted with the far more elaborate Matrix Language Frame model developed and advocated by Myers-Scotton and her collaborators (1993 and subsequently refined: 1995, 2000), in which sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics are combined within a grammatical approach to code-switching. The notion of a base or matrix language was not new when the MLF model was initially published by Myers-Scotton. Work by Klavans (1985), Joshi (1985) and others had already posited a â€Å"frame† or â€Å"matrix† into which elements of the other language could be embedded. The broad lines of the MLF are as follows. Myers-Scotton makes the case for code-switching to involve a base or matrix language (ML), into which pockets of embedded language are inserted. The ML, then, is the â€Å"unmarked† language choice that provides the grammatical structure for the utterance or discourse, with â€Å"islands† of EL inserted at grammatically acceptable points of that utterance. She distinguishes between different types of morphemes and the role they play in code-switching: the ML supplies the system morphemes (closed-class items) in the sentence, while the EL supplies a proportion of the content morphemes (open-class items). There is also a psycholinguistic dimension to the MLF model, in that the ML is deemed to be more â€Å"activated† than the EL; it therefore lends itself more readily to providing the frame for code-switching between a bilingual speakers two (or more) languages. In seeking to define â€Å"matrix language† Myers-Scotton argues that the decision made on the part of bilingual speakers to make intrasentential switches is â€Å"based on social, psychological and structural factors†. It is these factors that essentially form the basis of a definition of the ML. There are two structural criteria involved:  § The ML is the language that projects the morphosyntactic frame for the CP that shows intrasentential CS. This is operationalised by two principles: the morpheme order principle, which states that the â€Å"surface morpheme order (reflecting surface syntactic relations) will be that of the ML†; and the system morpheme principle, which states that â€Å"all system morphemes that have grammatical relations external to their head constituent (i.e. participate in the sentences thematic role grid) will come from the ML†.  § The ML generally supplies the greater number of morphemes in intrasentential code-switching. The sociolinguistic aspects of the MLF model underpin the psycholinguistic ones: as stated above, the ML is the â€Å"unmarked† or expected language choice for the exchange between code-switching speakers. It is pointed out, however, that this is not always the case, for instance when the speakers do not share the same first language. It is also argued that the ML can change over the course of an exchange, in relation to situational changes for example. The distinction between content and system morphemes is central to the MLF model, in that they help to identify the ML and EL. Under the MLF model, content morphemes come mainly from the EL, with system morphemes coming principally from the ML to form the frame in which code-switching can occur. There are, however, difficulties in using morphemes to identify the ML, particularly when a speakers bilingualism is quite balanced. The quantitative criterion states that the majority of the morphemes in a code-switched utterance will come from the ML. However, this raises the issue of sample size which Myers-Scotton herself concedes is difficult to determine and comes up against instances of code-switching by balanced bilingual speakers who use both of their languages more or less equally; the number of morphemes from each language will, therefore, be more or less equal, thus undermining the applicability of the quantitative criterion posited in the MLF model in identifying the ML. . Like the Constraints model, subsequent research and commentary have led to the MLF model being refined into its current form, the 4-M Model. In this theory, further distinctions are drawn between categories of system morpheme. Attempts are also made to resolve issues in the original MLF model, such as double morphology. An interesting aspect of the MLF model is that it does not adopt the â€Å"sentence† as an appropriate unit for the grammatical analysis of code-switching. Myers-Scotton instead uses the CP (complement phrase) as an analytical unit, which she defines as a syntactic structure expressing the predicate-argument structure of a clause, plus the additional syntactic structures needed to encode discourse-relevant structure and the logical form of that clause. Because CP explicitly assumes that the unit of structure includes COMP (complementizer) position, it is a more precise term than either clause or sentence. For all of its innovation and complexity which sets it in stark contrast with the simplicity of the Constraints model discussed above the MLF model does not account for all instances of code-switching in all language pairs, fitting only with certain language pairs, and particularly with Myers-Scottons data set drawn from East African languages and dialects; as well as â€Å"cases of very asymmetric bilingualism† where the speakers proficiency in one or other of the languages in contact is weaker. So neither the Constraints model nor the MFL model gives a complete grammatical description of code-switching; instead, they each describe a particular form or class of code-switching into which particular language pairs or forms of bilingualism fit. A more complete view is therefore required. Muysken (2000) proposes a typology of code-mixing (a term that he favours over â€Å"code-switching†, which he reserves for referring to instances of rapid interchange between languages in the same discourse) that attempts to encompass both of the models discussed above, with an additional component that he terms â€Å"congruent lexicalization†. He argues that there are three main types of CS: Alternation: this is a form of code-switching in which bilingual speakers alternate between their two (or more) languages. An example of alternational code-mixing is Poplacks Constraints model. Insertion: in this form of CS, speakers insert chunks of switched constituents from the L2 into discourse framed in L1. Muysken argues that the MLF model is an illustration of insertional code-mixing. Congruent lexicalization: this is code-mixing between language pairs that share close morphological and phonological ties. An example of one such language pair (and the corresponding code-switching) is provided by Clynes study of Dutch-English code-switching in Australia (1987). Muysken argues that different language pairs will fit into one or other of those types. So, rather than proposing a â€Å"one size fits all† grammatical approach to code-switching/code-mixing, he acknowledges that code-mixing/code-switching between different languages pairs will display different characteristics, rather than claiming that all instances of code-mixing/code-switching will fit into a single immutable model or theory. It is interesting to note that Muysken is also a proponent of the Chomskyan Government model of code-switching. In a paper co-authored with Di Sciullo and Singh (1986), it is argued that the government constraint, whereby there can be no switch in codes between a governor constituent and its corresponding governed item, will serve to predict which switches will and will not be acceptable, regardless of the languages in contact in a bilingual persons lexicon. The model, however, does not account for or predict all instances of code-switching; indeed, bilingual speakers will code-switch at any point in any given utterance, Government or no. Even when the scope of the model is restricted to lexical government by non-function words (Muysken 1990), it remains an overstatement. It must also be borne in mind that this model will change as many times as Chomskys theory of Universal Grammar goes through its various transformations; in its current incarnation of the Minimalist Program, the not ion of Government has been cast aside altogether owing to definitional difficulties Another take on the generativist approach to code-switching is the â€Å"null theory† of code-switching. A number have been put forward (Mahootian (1993), Chan (1999), MacSwan (1999, 2000), Woolford (1983)). The basic premise of the â€Å"null theory† approach whether it is couched in terms of Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi 1985) or the Minimalist Program/Principles and Parameters is that code-switching can be described in terms of grammatical principles relevant to monolingual grammars, without postulating additional devices or constraints that are specific to code-switching itself. This is an attractive argument, but far from compelling. Generativist models are highly abstract, to the point where they are too far removed from the realities of bilingual speech. The underlying premise of Chomskys notion of the monolingual â€Å"ideal speaker† is not helpful here, as it leads to generalisations about bilingual speakers that are simply not accurate, as they are not a reflection of how bilinguals combine their languages in speech. Additionally, the â€Å"ungrammatical† nature of speech weakens any grammatical model of code-switching (see below). There are a number of reasons why none of these models (perhaps with the exception of Muyskens proposed typology of code-mixing) can account for all instances of CS. 1. Variability: As Gardner-Chloros and Edwards rightly point out, this variability is found between communities, within a single community, right down to the speech of individuals and even within the speech of a single individual within the same conversation (2004: 4). This may be the end result of and, at the very least, related to the idiolectal competence of individual speakers. 2. Nature of bilingual speech: Bilingual speakers are known to employ all kinds of devices and â€Å"tricks† to avoid being constricted by the dictates of grammatical rules. Speakers use pauses, interruptions and other means to neutralize any grammatical awkwardness resulting from switching at a particular point in the sentence.These devices serve a functional purpose in allowing speakers to make full use of both of their languages, and legitimising combinations from languages that are typologically different (e.g. word order). 3. Abstract nature of the notion of â€Å"grammar† and â€Å"sentence†: These are abstractions used by linguists to conceptualise language behaviour, in this instance amongst bilingual speakers. The issue here is whether such abstractions are relevant to the analysis of CS as seen in bilingual speech. The concept of the â€Å"sentence† may not be appropriate to the analysis of code-switching in any event: speakers rarely utter fully-rounded, grammatical sentences in everyday discourse and code-switch at will with seemingly little concern for the grammaticality of the (intersentential or intrasentential) switches that they make so effortlessly. Furthermore, from a grammatical analysis perspective, Gardner-Chloros and Edwards argue that even if the sentence were to be accepted as the â€Å"upper limit of grammar† and a meaningful unit in the context of code-switching, this would mean that grammatical approaches would only seek to explain intrasentential swit ches whilst omitting intersentential switches and conversational â€Å"moves† (2004: 5). The fundamental question at issue is whether or not a grammatical approach to code-switching is even appropriate. Given the variability of code-switching and the nature of speech in general and bilingual speech more specifically it seems particularly difficult to formulate any kind of universally applicable principle or constraint that accurately predicts how, where and when a bilingual speaker will switch codes, let alone whether that switch will â€Å"grammatical†. Variability lays at the very heart of code-switching; it is a reflection of a human ability to handle and manipulate language in any way that serves the speakers purpose in any given situation and with any given interlocutor(s). Another salient point that emerges is whether code-switching is even an observable fact. Gardner-Chloros (1995) argues that CS is an â€Å"analyst construct†, a product of linguists conceptualisations of language contact and language mixing and, as such, not separable from borrowing, interference or pidginisation (1995: 86), be it in ideological or practical terms. She also argues that the abstract concept currently accepted in bilingualism research is â€Å"fuzzy† and should in fact be used as a much broader term for a range of interlingual phenomena in which strict alternation between two discrete systems is the exception rather than the rule (1995: 68). If that is indeed the case, is it possible to begin to formulate a â€Å"grammar of code-switching† when there is still uncertainty as to what code-switching actually is? The arguments put forward by Alvarez-Cà ¡ccamo (1998) are also related to the points raised by Gardner-Chloros. In tracing the development of code-switching as a field of bilingualism research and of applied linguistics as a whole, he distinguishes between linguistic varieties and communicative codes, arguing that code-switching pertains to the former category and, as such, suggests that â€Å"code-switching† is perhaps a misnomer. He proposes that the concept of CS in its current form be both narrowed to exclude unrelated phenomena that have come under the banner of â€Å"code-switching†, and broadened to include those elements that have been excluded (including aspects of monolingual speech). It is difficult to see how an all-encompassing approach to code-switching can be put forward until the phenomenon of code-switching has been properly identified (and presumably labelled: â€Å"In order to argue convincingly for or against the existence of â€Å"code-switching constraints† and â€Å"code-switching grammars† () research should first convincingly prove that (a) speakers who code-switch possess two (or more) identifiable systems or languages, each with its identifiable grammatical rules and lexicon; and (b) â€Å"code-switched† speech results from the predictable interaction between lexical elements and grammatical rules from these languages.† (Alvarez-Cà ¡ccamo (1998: 36)) However, the issue here again lays in the conceptualisation of bilingual speech. Abstractions used by linguists in examining language phenomena such as code-switching remove the â€Å"human† element reflected in discourse strategies employed by bilingual speakers (discussed above; see below). A further aspect of code-switching, while not strictly grammatical, is discussed by Bentahila and Davies (1995):   the variables related to language contact situations, and how those change depending on developments in the contact situations. In a study of different generations of Moroccan Arabic-French bilinguals, they examine the relationship between patterns of code-switching and patterns of language contact and the influence of extraneous factors on those patterns. They point out that code-switching is affected by the nature of the contact between a particular pair of languages: duration of contact, for instance, and the impact of governmental language planning policies. They found that while all the bilingual speakers in their sample speech community used the same languages, their use of those same languages depended on their proficiency in both, which in turn depended on their age and the effects of governmental language planning and nationalist policies pursued in the post-c olonial continuum. It could be argued that evolving patterns of code-switching contribute to the variability of code-switching practices amongst bilingual speakers and, therefore, constitute another (indirect) reason why grammatical approaches to code-switching so often fall short. In summary, then, a number of grammatical models of intrasentential code-switching, with each claiming to predict where in the sentence a bilingual person will switch languages and that such switches will be made in such a way as not to violate any of the grammatical rules of either of the languages in contact. It is contended that, rather than achieving that aim, each model is specific to the data sets on which they are based, and can only really apply to similar language pairs. They therefore only describe an aspect of a phenomenon that is far more complex than the models would suggest. Furthermore, the applicability of the various models also depends on the â€Å"kind† of bilingual concerned and their proficiency in their respective language pairs: the Constraints model appears to be more relevant to more balanced bilinguals, for instance, while the MLF model seems to be more appropriate to more asymmetric bilinguals. It must be remembered that the models are not in stasis but rather continually refined and amended in relation to developments in their particular theoretical backdrop: the Government model of code-switching, for instance, is based on a theory of Universal Grammar that is itself evolving over time. Muyskens typology of bilingual speech (2000), which draws on the leading models of code-switching/code-mixing and seeks to account for all instances of code-switching by taking into account the various aspects involved therein, appears to be the most rounded of the grammatical approaches to the phenomenon, in that it encompasses the disparate aspects that have formed the focus of individual models. There is also the issue of whether code-switching is a phenomenon in its own right and, if not, what linguistic phenomena the concept of code-switching can be deemed to cover. Has the concept become an umbrella term used to describe a number of different linguistic devices employed by bilingual speakers? Or are these elements that are indistinguisha ble from a wider phenomenon? To conclude, it would appear that research into and grammatical approaches to code-switching have lost sight of the fact that code-switching is an abstraction used by linguists to conceptualise an aspect of the behaviour of bilingual speakers. After all, â€Å"languages do not do things; people do things, languages are abstractions from what people do† . Such a conceptualisation has led to researchers attempting to fit bilingual speech behaviour to a particular model rather than the other way around, discounting aspects such as variability, bilingual discourse strategies and the fact that code-switching is a creative, innovative process designed, it would appear, almost to avoid grammatical constraints altogether. Abstract grammatical models cannot reflect the realities of language contact and use. Not only that, but code-switching is also a gauge of language change and shift; this being the case, it is plausible that a grammatical shift would ensue, thus undermining a given m odel. Factors such as those mentioned by Bentahila and Davies (1995) must also have some kind of impact on grammatical models when these are based on a language contact situation which is shifting and evolving. A step back towards the realities of bilingual communication and speech acts, combined with an acceptance of the variability that they necessarily entail as reflected in the typology proposed by Muysken (2000) would constitute a more appropriate starting point for any grammatical approach to code-switching that sets out to be all things to all bilingual speakers.

James Madison

At a time when only 12% of the American people possess a positive attitude towards the current job that our representatives in Congress are doing, it would behoove those who believe that government is completely out of touch with the needs of its people and that nothing good ever came out of government. In American history, there are hundreds of examples to the contrary. Out of these many examples comes one of the most underrated of them all: James Madison. Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, instrumental in the passage of the Louisiana Purchase, the renewal of the charter for the national bank,   a two term President and intrigue part of the founding of the country, James Madison is one of the most important figures in American history. James Madison became involved in the formation of a new nation; the United States of America at an early age. At only the age of 24, Madison served in the Virginia state legislature from 1776, until 1779.[1] It was then that Madison became a protà ©gà © for Thomas Jefferson and the two would work very close together until Jefferson’s death fifty years later. The two shared similar beliefs on government. Madison was instrumental, along with the help of Jefferson, in drafting the Declaration of Religious Freedom which disestablished the Church of England and broke up any claims towards power that the church attempted to have in state matters. One of these was Patrick Henry’s push for an involuntary tithe to be paid to the congregation of one’s own choice. Madison and Jefferson believed this to be a violation of the separation of church and state; an idea that is not found in the Constitution but because of the efforts of Madison and Jefferson, many believe to this day is actually in the founding of this country. It was and is a belief that many Americans hold very dear to their hearts. While in the State legislature, Madison became a strong advocate of a strong central government; a government which was impossible to flourish under the Articles of Confederation which favored the rights’ of states and as a result, left an impotent federal government. This sentiment was shared by a large majority of his countrymen at this time who although many were advocates of states’ rights themselves, knew that the Articles of Confederation could no longer correctly govern the country. A Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified by all thirteen states in the immediately following years.[2] Although seen as a foregone conclusion by the casual contemporary observer, our current government’s formation was not written in stone. Although a shy man in private, Madison pushed exceedingly hard for the views and beliefs that he felt in his heart, was in the best interest of the country. Madison was a loud and strong advocate for a three branch government as we have today as well as a strong federal government who, if needed, could overrule the actions of the states if it was deemed to be a mistake and contrary to the good of the country as a whole. Madison made his opinions known in one of his most famous writings, who with Thomas Jefferson advocated their beliefs about where the government should be headed. In doing so, not only was Madison instrumental in forming a new political party with Jefferson: The Republicans, who would later be known as the Democrat Republicans, but his writings would cement him as one of the most important of the Founding Fathers. Madison stated: â€Å"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.†[3] Madison was stating how a large country and its many different interests and factions could till represent the people and their needs to a greater degree and support republican values better   than a small country that was dominated by special interests. It would not be until the 20th century that Americans finally got around to recognizing the wisdom of Madison and adapted to a greater degree than ever before, this sentiment within the American government. Madison would fight hard for the ratification of the new Constitution but was not in favor of a Bill of Rights as he believed that it was not necessary and included roles that, he felt, were not in the best interest of the federal government. Nevertheless, it was Madison who was the author of the Bill of Rights and as a result, forever cemented his legacy in American History. Madison originally advocated the need for twelve amendments but it was later agreed on ten. Despite his initial reluctance towards a Bill of Rights, Madison was tireless in advocating the need for the passage of the amendments once he partook in the task of forming a Bill of Rights. Such a career would have been more than enough for one man and had Madison’s career ended there, he would still have been talked about to this day. However, when Thomas Jefferson was elected the third president in 1800 and served from 1801 until 1809, he took Madison with him and made him the Secretary of State. As a result, Madison was instrumental in constructing one of the most lopsided international agreements in world history. The 1803 Louisiana Purchase, who’s 830,000 square miles of land which stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains and which cost $15 million, Madison was also instrumental in that coming to pass.[4] In doing so, America doubled the size of its land overnight. Never in human history had so much land been acquired in so little time. Jefferson had only expected to purchase the city of New Orleans but when Napoleon offered all of Louisiana, Madison jumped on the opportunity and despite the scoffing of the price tag by many members of Congress, made sure to broker the deal. The implications for the country were huge and every day, from then until the end of time, America has and will continue to benefit from the Louisiana Purchase. After Thomas Jefferson walked away from the Presidency in 1809, Madison won the Presidency and would spend two terms in the White House. During his presidency, Madison would deal with two events which would come to define his presidency. The first was the renewal of the national bank’s charter which was scheduled to expire after twenty years in 1811. Since Madison fought the passage of the first national bank, he again was in opposition to it again in 1811 and fought its renewal in 1811.[5] This would help to affect Madison’s second mistake; the allowance of another war with Britain. The absence of a national bank made it increasingly difficult to finance a war. Throughout Jefferson’s presidency, America’s Armed Forces, especially the Navy, was dismantled to such a size, that it became a non entity and was not considered a force in the opinion of any of the world’s leaders. When it was recognized that Madison’s impotence during the months leading up to the war and its consequences could not now be avoided, Madison did all that he could to incite as much public support as possible. Also, in all of American history, no president has lost his bid for reelection during a war; neither did Madison who won reelection. The War of 1812 ended in another American victory and the signing of the treaty of Ghent in 1815; officially put an end to the war. Upon learning his lesson, Madison pushed for the formation of a national bank, although one that was stronger than the previous one. With the help of such nationalist opinion from men such as John Calhoun and Daniel Webster, a second national bank was formed in 1816.[6] In the last years of the Madison presidency, James Madison continued to push for a strong central government and against state’s rights. In his last act before leaving office, Madison vetoed a bill for internal improvements because it was formed on the grounds of state’s rights. In his veto, Madison commented: â€Å"Having considered the bill†¦ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. The powers vested in Congress are specified and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers.†[7]   Madison denied that such legislation was supported by the General Welfare Clause in the Construction when he responded: â€Å"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.†[8] This would highlight a continued debate which rages today: What is the role of the federal government in the daily lives of its people? The answer continues to change and will most likely change again with the result of the next presidential election. Madison would retire to Montpelier, his home in Virginia. Madison was sixty five then and would spend the rest of his life, incited by his anxiousness regarding his legacy, began to change the details in his various writings and other forms of evidence which he later began to feel, portrayed a contrary message to the one which he hoped would be judged by history. Madison died on June 28, 1836, anxious about his ability to justify his actions to both himself and to historians.[9] Historians in general have been kind to Madison. Madison was there when the country needed him the most and as a result, contemporary Americans are still enjoying the fruits of his labor and wisdom. WORKS CITED Burns, Ken  Ã‚   Thomas Jefferson Los Angeles: Time Warner & PBS Productions 1997 Commanger, Henry Steele Documents of American History New York: Century Publications 1947 Ellis, Joseph   Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation New York: Alfred Knopf Publishers 2000 Kuralt, Charles On the Road: American Heritage New York: CBS Productions 1989 Wills, Gary   James Madison: The American President Series New York: Times Books 2002 [1] Kuralt, Charles On the Road: American Heritage New York: CBS Productions 1989 [2] Ellis, Joseph   Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation New York: Alfred Knopf Publishers 2000 pg. 156 [3] Commanger, Henry Steele Documents of American History New York: Century Publications 1947 section ii. Pg 55 [4] Kuralt, Charles On the Road: American Heritage New York: CBS Productions 1989 [5] Burns, Ken  Ã‚   Thomas Jefferson Los Angeles: Time Warner & PBS Productions 1997 [6] Burns, Ken  Ã‚   Thomas Jefferson Los Angeles: Time Warner & PBS Productions 1997 [7] Commanger, Henry Steele Documents of American History New York: Century Publications 1947 section iii. Pg 57 [8] Kuralt, Charles On the Road: American Heritage New York: CBS Productions 1989 [9] Wills, Gary   James Madison: The American President Series New York: Times Books 2002 pg. 277   

My Different Kinds of Friends

I have formed many friendships in life. Each friend, however, is different. Some are closer than others. Some are more important to keep than others. There are friends made out of necessity and some formed as if by fate. Friends, certainly, are of various kinds. I have one best friend. We share many similarities in character and preferences. We have been through a lot since we first met. The best friend is someone whom you think you could trade personalities with. He is someone whom you could share your secrets, dreams and problems.He will accept you for both your good and bad traits and could be depended on in both happy and sad times. The other type of friend I have made is the group-friend. The clique is a group of people whom you go in a group with. I am part of one in school and another in the neighborhood. When I start working in a company, I know I will be part of another. Although the closeness is less than that of the best friend, belonging to a clique means having a group t o hang out with, play games with, and sympathize with each other’s life stories.Then, there are the friends I keep in close contact with but am not really close enough to confide in. I keep a good relationship with them because I see them regularly. They are schoolmates, sons and daughters of my parents, neighbors, and other people whom I interact with in a regular basis. Finally, there are the friends whom I make at various stages in my life but whom I lost contact with through the years. For instance, childhood friends who went to different schools or have already moved to other places.I keep in contact with some of them through email and sometimes I see them but a long distance friendship is different to having a regular friend around. Friends change every year or so. Even a best friend can become a mere acquaintance later on in life. There are no permanent friends unless one takes the extra effort. Friends are important to have in life, however, in that they are like life -saving crafts. We need them during fun times, but we need them more during the low moments of life.

Essay about Censorship and Catcher in the Rye - 751 Words

Christi Johnson English 11 Pd. 5 Censorship Essay The Catcher in the Rye has been an instant classic since it was first published. It has been on the New York Times Best Seller list along with being among the most banned books in the U.S. It has been banned for its harsh language and bad behavior. But truly these are not good reasons to ban a book; a book that is so enjoyed by many readers and the reality of the protagonist. It is never good to hear profound language but the book is just showing how the teenage world actually is in many cases. Most teenagers are going threw a lot at that time in their lives, not always to the extreme like Holdren, but hard times none the less. The language in the book is nothing teens are not†¦show more content†¦He wants everything to be easily understandable. Holdren does not acknowledge that adulthood scares and mystifies him, but rather says that adulthood is a world of superficiality and hypocrisy, while childhood is a world of innocence, and honesty. The book really exemplifies just how difficult it can be for some teens at times. It is a time you have to be changing whether you like it or not. The book displays an important message that is critical for teens to be reminded of at times. If teens and readers only are ever told about the ups and good things in life, then it will not prepare them for the â€Å"real world†. Therefore, The Catcher inThe Rye should not be censored but rather taught in the high school environment with the goal that students will grasp the message of dealing with change involved in the transition to adulthood. Some problems do arise when incorporating controversial books into the school system. The main and biggest problem is the complaints of parents. Sometimes parents see the books their kids are reading, a preconceived negative perception, then immediately decide they do not want their kid â€Å"exposed† to such material. Parents do have every right to say and decide that. But the feelings of a few pare nts should not dictate the masses of students. If parents were educated beforehand about the material their children would be covering, it might alleviate someShow MoreRelatedCensorship of The Catcher in the Rye948 Words   |  4 PagesThe Catcher in the Rye is a book that is an entertaining and compelling novel portraying, to some extent, the typical journey every person goes through in adolescence. Its relatable to many in that stage of life between childhood and adulthood. But is it to explicit and should it be banned or censored from schools? My opinion is that censorship is a little extreme for this book. This novel should not be banned or censored because it is relatable to people in Holden Claufields age group, it doesRead More The Reason Behind the Censorship of Salingers Catcher In The Rye853 Words   |  4 PagesThe Reason Behind the Censorship of Salingers Catcher In The Rye Many charges have been made against J.D Salingers The Catcher in the Rye in attempts to censor the book. Most of these charges are used as a smoke-screen for the real reason this book is considered dangerous. There have been several attempts to have Salingers novel removed from High School libraries and reading lists. The most notable instances are: 1978 -- it was removed from an optional reading list at a High SchoolRead MoreAmerican Library Association Vs. Salinger s The Catcher s The Rye 1230 Words   |  5 Pages J.D. Salinger’s, The Catcher in the Rye, holds the honor of appearing on â€Å"Time† magazine’s 2010 list of the 100 best English-language novels written since 1923 (Lacayo). In contrast, the American Library Association (ALA) notes that the novel also holds the dubious honor of being the tenth most challenged book in the United States from 1990 to 1999. In 2001, 2005, and 2009 the book again made the ALA top ten most frequently challenged book list (Banned and Challenged Books). In the lightRead MoreEssay about The Catcher In the Rye, Banned For a Reason894 Words   |  4 Pagesnovel, The Catcher In the Rye. The novel follows only a few days of Holden’s life, but exploits Holden’s reckless behavior and poor decision making skills; therefore encouraging bad behavior on young readers. The story also follows a constant repetition of inappropriate words and swears; that one might consider profane. Lastly the story contains inappropriate scenes and dialogue that is sexually explicit. The adult content found in this novel makes it unsuitable for eighth graders. The Catcher In theRead More salinger Essay843 Words   |  4 Pagescontroversial in the Catcher in the Rye. Salinger is also known for many of his writings such as Franney and Zooey, Nine Stories, and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters. The summer of 1930 he was voted â€Å"The Most Popular Writer†. â€Å"Salinger is a beautifully deft, professional who gives us a chance to catch quick, half-amused, half-frightened glimpses of ourselves and our contemporaries, as he confronts us with his brilliant mirror images† (Lomazoff 1). In the novel, Catcher in the Rye, there is a relationshipRead MoreThe Catcher In the Rye Should Not be Banned Essay789 Words   |  4 Pages The Catcher In the Rye Should Not be Banned nbsp; nbsp; nbsp; Since its publication in 1951, The Catcher In the Rye, written by J.D. Salinger has served as a conflagration for debate and extreme controversy. Although the novel has been the target of scornful criticism, it has also been the topic of wide discussion. The novel portrays the life of sixteen year old, Holden Caufield. Currently in psychiatric care, Holden recalls what happened to him last Christmas. At the beginningRead MoreThe Catcher Of The Rye By William Shakespeare And Mark Twain1732 Words   |  7 PagesFree†). Many people feel that J.D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher In The Rye is dangerous because it contains vulgarity, violence, and sexual content (Chandler). Although The Catcher in the Rye was put on the banned book list shortly after its first publication in 1951, it is a fascinating and enlightening classic that everyone should have the opportunity to read. Holden Caulfield, the main character and narrator of The Catcher in the Rye, is a teenager growing up in the 1950’s in New YorkRead MoreSummary Of The Great Gatsby By F. Salinger904 Words   |  4 PagesWorld War II, was born on January 1, 1919 in New York City. Little is known about his early life except for his education. He attended schools on the upper west side of Manhattan, which would later be the setting of his most famous novel, The Catcher in the Rye. After flunking out of several prep schools, including McBurney’s, his parents sent him to Valley Forge Military Academy. At Valley Forge he maintained average grades and was involved in several clubs and organizations, many of which had toRead MoreCatcher in the Rye1601 Words   |  7 PagesInnocence, Compassion, and some ‘Crazy Cliff A novel, which has gained literary recognition worldwide, scrutiny to the point of censorship and has established a following among adolescents, The Catcher in t he Rye is in its entirety a unique connotation of the preservation of innocence and the pursuit of compassion. With certain elegance the writer J.D. Salinger, substantiates the growth and perils, which lie between childhood and adulthood. Embellishing the differentiation between innocence andRead More Censorship in Public Schools Essay1625 Words   |  7 PagesStephen Kings Carrie and Patrick Manns Dog Day Afternoon (Jones 33). -An Indiana school board takes action that leads to the burning of many copies of a textbook that deals with drugs and the sexual behavior of teenagers (Berger 61). These cases of censorship in public schools are not unusual and there is evidence that such challenges are increasing (Woods 2). These challenges are actually typical of the ones being leveled against school libraries today. These challenges can come from one person or a