Michael Stubbs’s essay “Some Basic Sociolinguistic Concepts” looks at the social stereotypes associated with dialects and usage of language. He studies the way people in general make assumptions about others based on the way they speak, and then examines more particularly the way this affects the classroom between the teacher and the student.
What struck me most about this essay was part 5 (78-79) when Stubbs discusses the effects that the teacher’s language has on a child, with or without the teacher’s knowledge or intention. He writes that “even if the teacher expresses no overt disapproval of the child’s language, the teacher’s own language…may be an implicit condemnation of the child’s language.” When I was a child, I had a really heavy country accent, as did my father. I never knew that it wasn’t “normal” until I went to school, and my teachers spoke in a less distinguishable accent. Nobody ever told me my dialect was wrong, but I grew to understand the social stigma associated with southern accents and I remember making a conscious effort to speak in a more “standard” accent when I got into middle school and especially into high school.
My question is where is the balance between what’s “socially acceptable” in language and what’s insignificant? It’s tough to be burdened by the stereotypes associated with your dialect, but if you’re being understood (and we see that dialect has no significant bearing on a child’s learning capability) then why should you be considered at a disadvantage? Especially with the ties between dialect and culture, should you almost sacrifice your culture for the sake of seeming better educated?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Lisa Delpits, "No Kinda Sense"
ReplyDeleteDelpit addresses an often over looked phenomenon in the language debate. She sheds light on the concept of language association. Using her daughter's experience as a backdrop, Delpit calls to the forefront the idea that minorities may not acquire Standard English simply because they do not associate themselves with the language.
In Hall's post, she asked why one who doesn't speak Standard English, but is completely understood, would be considered at a disadvantage. My answer would be that language association is the culprit behind this event. Standard English is the language often associated with business, politics, and finance. More importantly, Standard English is associated with success. I feel that, as Delpit showed minorities who are predominately not successful don't want to subscribe to SE, a reverse effect is occurring. Since minorities are not as successful, their language has become associated with failure. Thus as minorities can't associate with SE, SE speakers are not associating with speakers of other dialects. Since SE speakers are dominant, this puts the minority speaker at a disadvantage. They are at a disadvantage because they become unable to be identified with success, thereby limiting themselves in the future.
This by no means mean that they aren't capable of being successful or lack the knowledge to become. The disadvantage comes because they are going to have to rely on SE speakers and they will not be able to associate with one another. It makes it harder for them to be successful. This is the problem that dialect speakers face.