more on language and descrimination
This is the reply email sent to me by a girlfriend who has studied language's a bit thru college. I really enjoy what she had to say and so am posting it. I agree with much of what she has written too.
I posted it in the comments of my last LJ post. But decided it should be a seperate post too.
And thank you to my other 'commenters'! I hope to respond shortly. :)
The idea that there is one "standard" English that everyone should speak is a myth perpetuated by English teachers who actually have little to no training in linguistics. I know at MTSU, future English teachers are not required to take ANY linguistics courses, and History of the English Language is an elective. These teachers will repeat what THEY learned in school without ever knowing anything different. A standard spoken English was an idea formed largely in the 18th century by aristocrats who wanted a way to distinguish themselves from the rising merchant class. It was a way to discriminate against those who were wealthy but not titled. This is a little different from the idea of a standard written language. That began mostly because of the printing press. If you read earlier texts, you will find that they were often written by regional standards, sometimes with very different grammar and spelling. That was fine for local purposes, but did not work so well after the written word began to be more widely available. Unfortunately, the wealthy and titled often decided that not only should people write a certain way but that those people were inferior if they did not speak that way as well.
Spoken language is both cultural and personal. It is our way of expressing our inner thoughts to others. When you tell someone that they speak "bad" English, you are implying that there is something wrong with their thinking, as well. Aside from personal expression, it is a social contract. A tree is called "tree" because we agree to call it that. The grammar and word choice of a specific dialect are part of their social contract and is how that culture has agreed to describe the world. So again, saying that a dialect is "bad" is an implied criticism of that culture. No one speaks the "standard" English that English teachers have been teaching for generations. To be honest, it is virtually impossible. Aside from differences in dialect, our brain does not process language that way. When we speak, we have processing errors. We skip words, pause, restart sentences in the middle, etc. "Well, geez, I was going to--oh, I don't know..." The written grammar that is supposed to be "standard" is processed differently. In fact, many linguists consider spoken and written language to be different languages. One is learned automatically, and one must be learned deliberately. You can take plenty of time while writing to check your grammar, and you can go back and edit your words before anyone ever sees them.
As for the "hillbilly" dialect specifically, you might be surprised to know that it has its own grammar. In this case, I'm talking about the fundamental rules that define a certain dialect or language--without them, communication would be impossible. (You don't have to read the Harbrace to know that "dog car in saw I by while walking a the" is not a sentence). Walt Wolfram did an interesting study on this, actually, though I'm not sure if you can find it online. He analyzed the a' prefix before verbs ("I'm a'going...") and found that there is a grammatical pattern to when it is used. Who are we, who speak a different dialect, to say that this is "wrong"? What makes the grammar of our specific dialect better? I would say that repressing dialect is a GREATER form of cultural repression and annihalation. It is no coincidence that those in power will attack the language of the weaker as a means of control. Actually, this isn't much different from the argument about whether a company has the right to discriminate based on whether you smoke. Your language is as much (or more!) your personal choice and identity than any substance you put in your body. Did you know that some companies have been known to require employees to take classes to "improve" their language? There are countless people who are denied jobs for nothing more than the way they speak.
About the "neutral Midwestern" used on television--consider that many of these people are reading from teleprompters or a script, which is a fusion of written and spoken language. This is not spontaneous speech. Also, I believe the Midwestern dialect varies by region the same as others. Consider how different the Southern dialect can be. Heck, there can be a huge difference in speech between someone who lives in Nashville and someone who lives in Woodbury. Living near an interstate can even alter dialect!
Okay, I'll stop now. LOL
I posted it in the comments of my last LJ post. But decided it should be a seperate post too.
And thank you to my other 'commenters'! I hope to respond shortly. :)
The idea that there is one "standard" English that everyone should speak is a myth perpetuated by English teachers who actually have little to no training in linguistics. I know at MTSU, future English teachers are not required to take ANY linguistics courses, and History of the English Language is an elective. These teachers will repeat what THEY learned in school without ever knowing anything different. A standard spoken English was an idea formed largely in the 18th century by aristocrats who wanted a way to distinguish themselves from the rising merchant class. It was a way to discriminate against those who were wealthy but not titled. This is a little different from the idea of a standard written language. That began mostly because of the printing press. If you read earlier texts, you will find that they were often written by regional standards, sometimes with very different grammar and spelling. That was fine for local purposes, but did not work so well after the written word began to be more widely available. Unfortunately, the wealthy and titled often decided that not only should people write a certain way but that those people were inferior if they did not speak that way as well.
Spoken language is both cultural and personal. It is our way of expressing our inner thoughts to others. When you tell someone that they speak "bad" English, you are implying that there is something wrong with their thinking, as well. Aside from personal expression, it is a social contract. A tree is called "tree" because we agree to call it that. The grammar and word choice of a specific dialect are part of their social contract and is how that culture has agreed to describe the world. So again, saying that a dialect is "bad" is an implied criticism of that culture. No one speaks the "standard" English that English teachers have been teaching for generations. To be honest, it is virtually impossible. Aside from differences in dialect, our brain does not process language that way. When we speak, we have processing errors. We skip words, pause, restart sentences in the middle, etc. "Well, geez, I was going to--oh, I don't know..." The written grammar that is supposed to be "standard" is processed differently. In fact, many linguists consider spoken and written language to be different languages. One is learned automatically, and one must be learned deliberately. You can take plenty of time while writing to check your grammar, and you can go back and edit your words before anyone ever sees them.
As for the "hillbilly" dialect specifically, you might be surprised to know that it has its own grammar. In this case, I'm talking about the fundamental rules that define a certain dialect or language--without them, communication would be impossible. (You don't have to read the Harbrace to know that "dog car in saw I by while walking a the" is not a sentence). Walt Wolfram did an interesting study on this, actually, though I'm not sure if you can find it online. He analyzed the a' prefix before verbs ("I'm a'going...") and found that there is a grammatical pattern to when it is used. Who are we, who speak a different dialect, to say that this is "wrong"? What makes the grammar of our specific dialect better? I would say that repressing dialect is a GREATER form of cultural repression and annihalation. It is no coincidence that those in power will attack the language of the weaker as a means of control. Actually, this isn't much different from the argument about whether a company has the right to discriminate based on whether you smoke. Your language is as much (or more!) your personal choice and identity than any substance you put in your body. Did you know that some companies have been known to require employees to take classes to "improve" their language? There are countless people who are denied jobs for nothing more than the way they speak.
About the "neutral Midwestern" used on television--consider that many of these people are reading from teleprompters or a script, which is a fusion of written and spoken language. This is not spontaneous speech. Also, I believe the Midwestern dialect varies by region the same as others. Consider how different the Southern dialect can be. Heck, there can be a huge difference in speech between someone who lives in Nashville and someone who lives in Woodbury. Living near an interstate can even alter dialect!
Okay, I'll stop now. LOL