Myths and
mystification are two central concepts to this week’s readings. The readings do not tell fairy tales, but
they include myths such as the commonly held belief that there is no accent in
Standard English. Chapter 2 of
Lippie-Green states that all language speakers do have an accent. From my experiences traveling throughout
Europe and other parts of the United States, I know this to be true. What sounds normal to me may sound strange or
foreign to English speakers from other regions.
The reading goes on to talk about accents, which can be defined in a
variety of ways. To simplify, I will
define accent as a reference to phonological differences in speech between two
speakers of the same language. Among L1
speakers, different accents are normally separated by geographical
barriers. These accents are typically
much less noticeable than the accents of L2 speakers. L2 speakers often have much more phonological
differences than native speakers because their native phonologies do not
produce certain sounds common in the target language. Although most accents are portrayed in a
negative light or to be signs of inferiority, the truth is that there is no
ideal way of speaking a language.
Chapters 3 and 4 of the Lippie-Green
reading reveal why there are negative connotations associated with certain
accents and dialects. The use and
dominance of Standard English is a social and political construct designed by
the upper class. Page 58 lists the
characteristics common to speakers of Standard English: those who reside in the
Midwest, above average educations, and those in the media and education. People who speak with a Southern accent and
are in the lower class are perhaps the two biggest targets of language
discrimination. Since racial and
economic discrimination are largely illegal, language discrimination is used as
a way of maintaining the social hierarchy by the upper class. Page 64 elaborates on this theory with the
concept of gatekeeping. A different
accent is a way of recognizing someone as not belonging to the elite social
class. It prevents them from entering
into the upper class even if they meet all other requirements. This discrimination and portrayal in the
media eventually has an effect on how people see and view themselves. The concept of Standard English is mystified
and glorified so that those who do not belong can only seek to obtain it.
The issue of Standard English again
arises during Chapter 5 of the McKay book.
The most interesting concept to me was the issue of intelligibility
(140). This debate centers on the
ability of speakers that use different dialects of English to understand each
other both now and in the future. One of
the major advantages of Standard English claim the movement’s proponents is
that Standard English ensures mutual intelligibility worldwide and will
maintain this intelligibility in the future.
Without a universal way of speaking English, it is feared that separate
languages may emerge or that the differences will simply become too great to
enable mutual understanding. From this
perspective, the idea of a Universal English to communicate across borders and
cultures is appealing. Certain rules to
regulate the use of English in international contexts could prevent conflicts
and ensure understanding and efficiency.
However, the challenge is to make sure that this dialect of language is
not considered superior to all other versions.
If there is going to be a universal way of speaking or writing English,
it needs to be for business, educational, and communication purposes—not as a
social construct. Some Spanish speakers
from different countries cannot understand each other due to such differences
in the language. I do not think English
speakers would benefit from the language becoming so diverse and mutually
unintelligible across cultures similar to how Spanish has.
No comments:
Post a Comment