Groovy Cosmic Monkey

While reading one of my linguistics textbooks I came across an interesting passage that I thought may stimulate interesting conversation in respect of linguistic prejudice:

Of course, what they're referring to is the persistent railing against certain non-standard terms or phrases that are considered "incorrect". In Australia, it's common to hear someone say youse (pronounced 'yooz') when referring to more than one person, rather than using the "correct" "you". Many people still see such terms as debased, slovenly, corrupted forms of the language and are subsequently prejudiced against people who use them.

The same can be said of using double negatives (eg. "I didn't do nothing"), ending sentences with prepositions, and all sorts of other weird and wonderful English "rules".

Those who grow up in perhaps a lower-class environment where they are taught to speak in this way, or who use these dialectal phrases to have solidarity with people of their social class, gender, sexual orientation, etc., are consistently criticised and patronised by people who consider their speech to be a corruption of the English language.

As the book continues:

So, what do you think? Is linguistic prejudice morally acceptable?

Javaman

Morally, no. But I'll qualify that answer with this; it makes no difference because we'll continue to do it. I usually try to think of stuff like this as it applies to a job interview. If two equally qualified people apply for a job and one follows the accepted rules of grammar and the other has non-standard speech patterns, the former, I believe, would be hired a majority of the time.

Society forms opinions about all of us based on many things, one of which is how we speak. Granted, even the most pedantically verbose people make mistakes* but the more "correct" we are, the better other's view us.

* I use "A lot" with "are" all the time because it sounds better but I know it's wrong. I should say, "A lot of {things} is..." and not, "A lot of {things} are..."

enfant terrible

This is not prejudice. There is correct and incorrect language usage. Of course it is not exact like math or physical sciences, but that does not mean that all grammatical patterns were created equal.

Standard language is necessary for effective communication. Without it, we would be like Humpty Dumpty: we would be free to decide what our words meant, but no one would understand us.

This is very different from categories like race, religion, sex... where it makes no sense to say that one is objectively better than another, and such a view can only reflect prejudice.

BTW, "a lot of things are" is correct. "A lot of" is an adjectival phrase, so the noun "lot" is not the subject of the sentence.

echidna

GCM, love your name.

I strongly suggest you check out Gurdur's linguistics thread over in PD.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=1

Javaman

That'll learn me to listen to folk who tell me ah'm wrong, durn it. Thanks.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

This is exactly what I'm talking about. People who speak non-standard dialects are told that they speak an 'incorrect' and therefore lazy or corrupted form of language, which, as the linguists I referred to earlier identified, has much more profound implications than telling someone the breakfast cereal they eat is unhealthy.

As Burridge and Mulder also note, language isn't solely for the purpose of communication - it also provides a solidarity function:

Saying that a speaker of a non-standard dialect speaks a corrupted or lazy form of the language undermines more than simply their use of language itself - it undermines the group (whether that be socio-economic, regional, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) to which they belong.

That is why I would consider this a form of prejudice. Standard English speakers exalt themselves as speakers of the correct dialect whose way of speaking is necessary for effective communication; hence, speakers of any other dialect are subject to unnecessary judgement as being lazy or stupid or just plain wrong.

Of course, I'm not advocating the removal of every standard. But language changes over time. It's interesting to note that the same people who marvel at the way English has developed over time from Old English to Middle English to Modern English are often the people who are most opposed to change in English as we currently speak it - insisting that you cannot end sentences with prepositions or split infinitives, etc.

The plural pronoun youse instead of you makes a finer distinction than Standard English is capable of, which would logically lead to the conclusion that Standard English is linguistically deprived. Similarly, there is nothing in sentences like "I don't want nothin' to drink" and "I done all I need to do" that renders communication ineffective. Any judgements on those who speak in such ways is therefore not based on the obvious linguistic superiority of Standard English; it's based on a prejudice.

Furthermore, who decides what is and isn't "correct" English? Who came up with the annoying rule that you can't end sentences with prepositions, for instance?

As I said before, just because making judgements on speakers of non-standard dialects is an unfounded prejudice doesn't mean we are somehow free to make up whatever we want. It simply means that rather than taking a largely prescriptive approach to langauge, we should take a largely descriptive one, identifying not what people should say, but what people actually do say, so that we can communicate more effectively.

callmejay

Languages weren't designed; they evolved. English speakers have been saying "ain't" for hundreds of years and yet it's deemed incorrect. In my opinion, this sort of nonsense is simply a way for elitests to convince themselves that they are better than the "commoners." Grammar books can describe a grammar, but they can't describe all grammar for a given language. The only thing that makes Harvard grammar better than street grammar is snobbery. (Why the fuck can't you end a proposition with a preposition? It's just an arbitrary rule, like the proper way to hold a fork, that lets the elites know who is good enough to associate with. )

</rant>

Calzaer

This is the kind of thing that up with which I will not put.

enfant terrible

You need to decide what you are arguing against. That something is non-standard is a fact. That it is incorrect is then an obvious consequence in some contexts (like editing an article for publication) and dubious or meaningless in some others (like a chat between old friends). That it is "lazy or corrupted" is a value statement that has nothing to do with linguistics.

Standard language is not a dialect.

Of course, but so what? If the standard is bound to change over time, that is no reason to give up having a standard at all.

There is no contradiction. Language is like oil in a shock absorber. To do what it's supposed to do, it must be viscous - it must flow (change) in an attenuated, slow way. If it is too hot and changes all the time, or too cold and rigid, it fails. It is necessary that the standard language change under the force of the spontaneous changes, and that there be a resistance to that change, so it is possible to know what the standard is at any given time.

There is no linguistic deprivation in not distinguishing morphologically between two grammatically different objects. For example, I don't know of any English dialect in which the gerund and the present participle have different forms, but this does not mean that English is inferior to other Indoeuropean languages.

On the other hand, I wouldn't understand the word "youse" (and I don't know if you would understand the Southern American "y'all") which is a real impediment to effective communication.

Sure there is. If the rule in English is that one negative makes the sentence negative, this means, literally, "I demand something to drink". Just like in some other languages, which require paired negatives, using only one can change the meaning.

That depends on how you define linguistic superiority. If it is based on society-wide effectiveness on communication, then the linguistic standard is superior to dialects. Under different definitions, it is not.

In English, it is an informal consensus of the people who use language professionally - writers, editors, linguists - and possibly other influential people. This is much more informal than e.g. in France, where the French Academy has the official authority over the language.

No one. There is no such rule.

Calzaer

I'll be damned. You're right.

Quoting my Harbrace College Handbook (1998, brief thirteeth edition):