U THE MYTH OF NON·ACCENT

6 For a first per.>On :lccount of accent issut"S in the aCtluisit io n of a s.t.'Comll:Illb-'l.l:tge as an adult, see Abrx (1001).

7 I a\'oid an in-depth dis.t.'Ussion of (.'Ol1l1liunkati\·c comllCtcnce here, bcC".!.usc it r.!.iSt.'S the issue o f culrurJI and ~tylis lic appropriateness, which will be :ld{l rl"SSeti bte r.

Suggested further reading

Dcrwing and ,\lun ro's Pllrring A rallt ill lIS Pilla : Rnbil1kil1g Ohmlrirs 10 COlllfll/lfI;Cllrioll (2009) provi(ies an e.'lce llc nt o\'cr\,icw of rescareh on the socio linguistic :ISpCCts of foreign accent, alo ng with :In extensi\'e bibliognphy,

Other articles that would supplemt:nt th is chapter include:

FinCb":ln, E. (201H) AlIlerican English and its Disrim:tiveness, In E. Finegan 31111j . RicHard (cds.) l .nnglfllKr ill thr {;s.+ Tlxmr! for thr T-:..nrnry_ffrn em",'], Cambridge: Cllnbridge Unin:rs ity Press.

Si..:ge l, R. ( 1999) Comm entary: Foreig n ACl1!nt ,\by Be a Detriment to an Immigrant. In transcript of / 111 Tbi/lf{J COl/sitlrml, Nad on:!l Public Radio, O cwber 26.

T :lgl iamonte, S. (200 1) Comt:/Callle Variation in English Dialects. AlllrrioJ/l Sprub 76: ~2-6 1.

' I'an, A, (1?90) Mother T Ollg\IC. Tbr 'l7Jrupr/l/lJ Rf"I.'if'/;: ~J: 7-8. \\'olfram, \V. lind Schill ing-Estes, N. (2006) Social and Ethnic Dialects. In Amrri((w

RlIgftsh: Ditlluts 111111 Vt,ritJtiOIl. O :<for& Bhlckwcll.

The standard language myth 4

I therefore claim to show, not how mc n think in myths, but how mrrhs OllCf:l.te in men's minds without their being aware of the fal..1:.

Lcd -Stf:l.uss(19M)

It slmuld be dear by now why linguists consider the idea of a ~poken sr:lIIdardi7.ed bngu~ge to be a h}'pothcti(.~1 (.XJnstruCI. In his sun,e)' of the evolution of the conccpt of:1 st:lIluard, Crt)\\ Icy (2003) uscs the [efm idf(t!;~(1 /iIl/KlIIIKf, \\ hich t':1ptllrcs the ~ensc of an hononble

and rightful perfection. ?'\m mudl has ch:mged sincejollath:1Il Swift \\fo tc his ~A propos:! 1 fo r correcting,

illlproving :lI1d ascertaining the Eng lish conb'l.le" ( 1712). Those who take it upon Ihemsch·I..'S to protl.."I.."t English from its spea kers arc still Ijuite S\lre of their right to do so. j :lI11es Kil p:ltril'k is :1 modem-lby c.~;lmple of someone whu hrinb'S tremenllous ellloti(Hl ;lnd more than ;1 linle Il1dolll';lLlla to \\ h:lt he clearl)' 'iCes aS;I banle for rhe o ne true English:

The le.'licngrapher's ioh is to dist ill the grapes of IIS;\gc ~ t the different Ic\·cb. Thus, -he doe!>n 't go thefe anymore" (.'On~·e)"S the samt: information that is tr:lIlslIIined by "ht: don't bTfllhere no IllOre," hutlhe one is st:uub rd Amcric~n English ~nd the other is nOI .

Is t he (lne Minferior" to the other? Of ("Qursc. \ Vho sars ~o? Th is is [he si lent, cOll1mon ju{lgmell t of II Titers, cJirnrs, tClichers ami p rescripti\'e lexicog'f:l.phefs. The setting of ~ I ~ndards in lanb'l.l:lgc is:\ content ious 11LL!>ines~, hur some1xH.I}' has to do it, \Vithotlt st:mdards, without dcli nitions, \\ ithnut stnlctunl bw, we bpse into lill b'l.l istic anarch y.

(Kilpmid: 19(9)

(;t)ogle sean:hes prm'i{le :I sc:nse of how large ritest: issu<:s loom in the minds of peop le morc generall)' ( fabl e ~.I ), :\ sUf\'ey o f discussions on the topic uf gr:l!llmar hrin,!,'S up hundreds of t:.~amples. A large po rtio n of thcm h3\'e not to do with gr:umnar in Lhe w~r it has heen defincd here, but with maner'S of p Ullctu:n ion. No m:\Ucr rhe wpic, the tone ca n be :Iffronted, SUTl':lstic, condescend ing, servile :md, o n occasion, silly to the 1)C)jm of absurdity ;IS in an unanribure\1 ~daptation of :.l. Nal.i l)()sterorij:,'inlllly de<iigned for llOSting in IIolland (Figure.J. 1).

Table 4.1 Number of Googlc hits for grammar terms

Google lerm search

"bad grammar" -grammar adVICe" "English grammar orrOlS'

No. hilS 811(ly October 2009

8,4 10,000 8,630,000 5,050,000

1

56 THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

Figure 4 t Bad grammar destroys nahoos

The ille3 of (I 't:lmbrd bnb'1.L:lgC is eUllstmeted and re-const ructed on an on-b'Oing b.bis

h~' thu sc who ha\(~ :1 \i$ICd interest in the concept. At this juncture, It i~ nel'e)sary to

conside r in somc de tai l eX:letlr wh:lt this Ill} lhici l heast C:IlIed U.S. English i~ 'upposed to be.

THE STANDARD LANGUAGE M"l'rH 51

Standard (American ) English

'.'un_lin/-''lJI\ISL 3re quite enlllfurl:lhie wHh lhe id~"";I of ,I st:mdJrlllanL."L .I~e , so !11ul·h!>O thJI the .I\er:l!!e IlCl"1>IlI1 is lery \Iilling to de'oCrihe .lIld define it, much-in -the ~:nne \\3y th,lt nll"t peoplc could dral\ ;1 uni(;urn, or d(;\crihe:1 heing from StUI' Trrk's planet \ ·uk:1I1. or tcll lh "hu King- \rlhur IIJS ami Ilh~' he needell (I Round T;lhle. For the mOSI P;lrt people 11111 underuke ll e~crih Lllg any of theSe l'len though tht:r knOll that the thlllg the~ !Ire Ikscrihmg i~ im:lgin:ll)" Th.1t i~, )'om lic)l,Tiprion of:1 unil'Mn woulll be a gre;lt de:lllill: CII:I") [,ody d,e'~, 11t.~'Uusl: the I:Orll'ept of (1 unil'Oni i~ a P;lTt of utLr ~h.lred cultuml heritage. r Oil pid.:l:d up )our IIlcnullmage (a ImJ'M: with a )lnglc pointt.'lllmrn grollill!! frolll it:' forciu; .. ul) '<)llll:pbce ,Ilung the line; I11ml [lrub:lhl~' rou lluLl't feJ11l:lIlhl:f "hl:n Of 1\ here.

Ihe ~al11e i, true for \Ih:1I h:IS been l-,llIcd. ttl thl\ 1)llim, Stalllbrtl \l1il:ril':lll rngli~h. \ cnmp;ln~0I1 of puhh'hed JehnitLuns for this term n;Ie:lls 'o()IllC l 'OI1lIllOn themes. Fwm Pod'''' !-(';.:.:/('rj .\lot/em fllgli.fh L"Silgr:

StJnd;ml .\meril':lll Engli .. h. T he tcrm h:l~ IlCcn ':Lriou~ly {Idined :Illd hCJ\ il~

IMllitkl7l:d, htU e'Sl:nli;III~' il i~ Ihe form of Fn~h~h Ih:1\ i~ mo~1 \Iiddy ~l'ecpted :1ml umll:r'UII)(1 in an Fngli~h-'llC"llillg COUIl1I}' .1IId tend, to he [,:Ised on the I:duc3ted ' l)Ccdl flf a p~rtkl1br area. . It I~ uscli in nI.'l' ~p<lpeN ~nd hro;ldclstlllg and is the fonn norrnalJ~, (";lug-ht to le:lmer~ of English.

\ mure recent ddinitinn frolll .\!!'rlllrlJl-IIrl'strrj D/mrmlflyUn(9), which prudanlls itself l or J '0/,( uf. lruhority:

SlJnJ~f{1 .\meric .. 1rl English: the Engli~h Ih:lt II ilh re~pel't to ~ I>c ll in g. gr.nllmar, pronunl'i:lIinn. :lIld \·()(.""ahubrr is )ILh,t;lIlti~lly ullIfunn though nOI Ikl'oul of fl:giomll ditlcfenl·e~ . tll .. lt is IIelll:'I,lhli)hell by u":Ige in Ihe form:ll :lIld infonn31 ~pl:eeh 3nd II riting of till' l'llul':1ted. 3ml that is \\iticl~ r~'(;n!!nized a~ ~ccept.lble II herel er Fnglish I) ~p(lken :1Ild undl: ..... tOOl.t.!

Bnth ddininuns .. hSUnle Ih:u the "riHen :Iml "1)(lken bll!ru:lge 3ft' ellu:11. both III tenlh of hUll ther arc u-;cd .. m.! how they should IlC use,!. .HI'ITI,lIIr- II '(/'sur sets ~J>cllin!! ~nd pronullci3tinn on I.."OnlLllon fl.loting, :Lml COnLpuurlJ~ this error by [ml1g-ing in bl.lt h fomml ~nd Inf"nn~ll~nguage u~c.

\\ 'hile the llcJini t i on~ nu ke )oI.lLllI.' mum for reb"mn(11 different·cs, they make none at all for "ilCial oneS, ~Llli in I;ll·t, it is IllLltc ddinire aillllLl thl: ,I)cial con~trunion of thl: h~'lm ­

the(il~ll st;\ml:ird: it is the bnf,'lI'lgc of the eduC"'.lIed. \ \ 'hn is nle;lnt b)' "educlleJ" I~ kft ull)t:lted and neither :lr\! Ihe imphC"'Jliun~ e~pl()re(1

;ll1~'1lhere d~e in the llktion:!,,'. People II·ho :lfe not l:ducntcll- "hoeler they ma), lle ­:lre It r:llln intu the ,Idinition hy its lin:ll eompmlent: "St:mdard .\mcriC"'~n Fnglish i~

aeeeptabic II herel'er Engll)h is '1)llken and understOt)(I." The lexicogr:lpher :I~~urncs th~1 tlll)';e wi lh le~'>Cr eduGltion 1\ ill III)\\' 10 the :1Uthurit)' of those \llIh more eltueati(lIl, hec:luse Ih:lt is what we .Ire tT:linell to cln.

L't11I1/orMgr .·/r!:·fIIlrt,d I..Hlntrrj DktlOlIlII)" , (2009 ) dctinition i, more ~ul.·"(:im:t. hut it al~o IIra\1 ~ O il Ihe ide .. 1 of elilleated people as the 'OUTee of acccpt:lhie Engli~h: M[Thl:1l:mb'lI:lge de~l:ribed 35 stall(\;)rd i~ the form of th.lllnngtiage I\bieh is eonsidl:rcd acccpt,l],!c .1Ilt! (urreci hy mi ~t I:ducated USI:r.i nf it: .\ l u~t announlef"S on thc BBe sl>C:II.: StJIHbrll Hriush Engli~h."

.t'-PAI\'" o@ o v ,

,,", .. ,,'"

o~@I'''I\''b v ,

"'f"'~"

S8 THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

Alore specific information on exactly how the lexicographer draws on the language of the eduCllted is provided by interviews with the pronunciation editor at.Hrrrilllll-IVrbstrr,

which followed from the dictionary's temh edidon. It f.l lIs to the pronuncia tion editor to decide which possible pronunciations arc included in thc dictionary, :md how they are ordered. "Usage dict:ltcs acceptability," he is reported as saying. "There is no other nOI1-

arbitrary way to decide" (NeillY 1993). In order to pin down usage, the: editor listens to "talk shows, medical shows, interviews,

ne:ws, comment\lry, the weather" (ibi d.) on the: f:ldio and on television. The etlitorial prefuce to the dictionary is more specific aoom this procedure: the list of those who are consulted ahout pronullciadoll includes politicialls, professors, curators, art ists, Illusicians, Joctors, engineers, preachers, acti\'ists, and journalists:

In truth. though, there can he no objective standard for correct pronul1!.:iation other than the us"ge of thoughtfu l and, in particula r. educated speakers of English. Among such ~pe;l kers one hears much varia tion ill pronuncia tion ... [our :lttempt is toJ include all variants of a word th:n art! used h)' educated speakers.

(Jh""iflm-Wr/mt!!" 2009: 8J)

The editors cla im an uhjective st:l11tl:ml (the language of the educa ted) :l11d :It the .~allle t illle they :Icknowledge v;lriation :llI1ong educlteJ sl>C:lkers. T his apparent inconsistenc}' is re.~o l \'ed by the poliey which includes fill t'llrilmrs that :Ire used by e{\ucated speakers. A dose look :lt the pronunciations listetl in the dictionary, however. indicates mat this cannOt he the case. An entry with three or more possible pronunciations is rare. If M rl"";(IIII­

~V(bstt:"'s Dietiolllll, truly intends to include all pronunciations of the educ:ltcd, then this definition of edw.:·:lted must be very narrow.

The goal is to be rcprescnwd\'e, hut how do the editors of tile dictionary go :Ibout g:lthcr­ing a rcpresentati\'e s~llI1 plc? If the primary source: of da ta comcs frolll hro;ulcast media, then the s:lmple is \'ery ~h;l llow indeed. How Illally penple appear regularly in a fUnllll wh ich is bro:ldcast to a wider aud ience? The lesser educated, who by the dictionary definition must constimre the greatest nUIllI>cr of native spe:l kers of English, ;Ire rnrcly heanl from.

,\ b ybe: there is no W:I}' to eompile:1 d iction:lry which is tnlly descriptive in terms of pronullci:nion; maybe it is necessary to choose nne social grou p to serve ,IS a lllodeL Perhaps there is e\'en some rationale for using those with more education as this group. But mere is nothing ohjective about this pr-dctice. It is the orde ring of socia l groups in tenlls of who h:l ... ;Iuthority to determ ine how bnb'l.I.lge is hest used.

The radonale for this ordering derives at least in part from the percei\·cd superiority of the written language. Persons with more education arc morc exposed to the written lanb'Uage and literary tr.lditions; the:y may, in simple terms, be hetter writers th:ln those with les§ education. \\'lJy this should me.1n that their pronuncia tion and synta.t are some­how more: infor1lled. more gelluine, lIlore 'IUthorit.uivc - that is Ill:\,cr m'lde dea r.

Deiinitiolls of standard l:lIlb'l.lage suppl ied h)' peoplc who do lIot edi t dinion:l ries fo r a living echo mallY of the thellles al re:ldy e!>tablishcd. but they sometimes hecome very "p<.'Citic . .. \ccnrding to Compu$efye (1995): ·SAE is .

• having your nouns :Ind ~'ollr verbs agree. • thc English legitinu ti7.ed b~' wide usage: ami (.·cnili ed hy e.~pert consensus, as in a

dinionary uS;lge panel. • the proper 1:lIlguagc Ill}' mother Stressed fro m the time I ..... as old elHlugh to talk.

THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

• one th:ll few people would ("a ll ei ther stilted o r " low," deliverecl wi th a \'oice nei I:ofllttural nor stridcnt, dearly enunciated but not priggish about it, with no one so ha\'ing a noticeably distinctive character. It is a non -regional Sl>ccch but clearly e\lsily understood in :111 regions . .. Srand:l rd American English uses, in gencr;II, ( one syllable l>cr enunciated vowel so most accents from the South and \Vest are 10 the pattern.)

These references to the authority of educational insti tutions and unnamed exp correspond to the dictionary definitions in ,\ fairly predictable way. Like the d i<:tiOl clclinitions, the written and spoken lanbfllages arc l>cing considered :IS one and the s thing. What is different about these personal definitions is the will inbrness to ider specific grammatical and phonological poi n t.~ which distinguish the hypothe:tical st;lIld ;Ind a highly emotional and personal clement in the defin itions. People feel stronglY:l1 language and will defend it: " Ln extreme cases ... the tone is (IUasi-religious, even :I]>'

lyptic. . The ideological basis of the most extreme complaints ... is :mthori tari:ltl : seemingly, transcendental" (,\lilroy 1999: 20).

'rhe most extreme ideological dclinidons of standard Irlllgu.lge collie fro m those · make a living promoting the concept. \\'riters like Edwin Ncwman,John Simon and)a Kilp:urick ha\'e puhlished extensively on how English should be spoken and written. >1 llo not :Iddress the source nfthei r authorit),dircctly; that is t;lken for granted. ' rhey aSS1 you wi ll gran t them authority l>cca use they demand it, .Hld because it h'ls alwa),s l gntnted, T hese men, and other mcn and women like them, h:we made careen; fo r th selves as prescriptivists because they meet a demand they created.

The social dOlllain of the standard has heell established: it is the language: of educated, in particular those who have achie\'ed a high le\·eI of skill with t he wri language (the lack of logic here will he discussed 100te:r) or those who control the wri or broadc:lst media. Howe\·cr, this attempt at:1 simple definition of ·SAE begins to f: when lanb'l.mge variation over ~pace is added [0 the mix.

Denn is Preston hascornpi1cd a brnly of cmpirical smdies in which he has l]uantified summarized non-li nguists' heliefs about the geographic distribution of a stane language. In "\\,hcre they ~peak correct English." he asked 76 young white native Southern Indiana to rank all 50 states as well as New York City :md \V:Ishington. The l>cst Engl ish was I, and the worst, 52. Figure 4.2 provides Preston's visua l reo sentation of the means for the respondents' rankinbrs.

If a high level of education is ,I pl"i lllary characteristic o f the hypothetical ·S:\.£, 1 the opinions of these college students from Ind iana would ~eem to provide rele' information about just where th,lt la nb'U\lgc is spoken. Preston's ,lnalysis indic,\tes thcse informants found the most correct English in five areas: North Central (incll\( their own speech); l"lid-Atlantic (excludi ng New York C ity); New England: Color and the \Vt:st Coast. Standar(1 deviations indica ted that the sn.dcnts :Ire most consis in their posi tive evalu.ltion in the case o f ,\lichigan, l\ linnesow and \Visconsin, with t

agreement decreasing:ls they 1ll00'e E.lstwarJ through Ohio. Pennsylvani:l, I\laryl. Delaware :lIl(lfin:llly \VashinbTtOn, DC (which showed little consisten<.'Y in ranki ng' :l st:lIldanl deviation of 15.67). l 'he worst st:lIldard deviation is for New York Ci ty. Pre~

hypothesizes this has to (10 with conflicting stereotypcs about the city: from the ccnt~ culture to the center of crime.

,\-Iost in teresting perhaps is the incredibly high Icvel of consistenc), in the way subjects found:1 lack of correct English in the South. ,\lississi ppi r:lIlked last in tem

" ii~ ~" ..

60 THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

~eans

0 38- 45

0 31 - 38

D 24-31 * .17-24 °

. 10- 17 0

* New York CUy [) Rhode Island o Washington, DC

Figure 4.2 Ratings of the fifty states, New York City. and Washington, DC, for language ~correclness~ on a scale of 1 to 52 (!owest = '"best" by seventy· six young. first, and second'year, white undergraduates from $OtJthern Indiana

Source: PresIon (1989b: 54)

l'orrect English nnd nlso was the most consiste ntly r,1Ilked state. Preston t!J kcs the -;cores for the Southern sta te~ as ~t'u rther proof of the s,llience of :lrea" sel!n ,IS nonst.lml.lrd" (19R% : 5() .

From IIl1..'se various definitions,:I. picture hegins to emerge. The hypothetic<l1 Standard is the h1llguage spuken :and wrilten hy persons:

• with no region:al ;H.-CC ru; • who reside in the ,\lidwcst. F,lr "'est or perh,lps ~ome parts of the i\'urthc;lst (but

l1e\'er in the South): • with more than ,j\'er:lge or superior c(luC"Jtion: • who arc thernscln:~ cduc;ltors o r hro:uknsters: • who p:lr :lttention to speech, ,lIld :Ire not sl op)l~' in tcrms of pmnuneiation or gr:HlImar; • whll :lfe c:l'ii ly undcrstoml by :111; • who enter into a cunsensus of other ind ividU;ll s like themo;eh'cs ,Iho llt what is proper

in language.

It seems that we want bnb>'llage to be geogr:lph il";llly ncutrnl, hecause wc believc th:1t this ncutra lity wi ll hring with it ,I gre:lter r:lngc uf cOllllllllnicniun, The assumption, of course, is th:n .\lidwcst is neutral-:lt ie:lst, that i~ the way srudcnu in Indiall:l see it. St:Hltbrd bllh>'llage idl'oloh':o' is responsible for the fact that aiarge pl!rceTlt:lgc of ..;tudents frolll other 1';lr15 of the countr}' agree with them.

\\ 'c want bnguage to he :-.tructu red and rule·governed ,lIld clc:ar. Something as import:lnt as I:lIlgu'lge C,HlIlot he left [0 itself: 1101'111;11 people :Ire 1I0l ~m:lrt enough, not a\l.lre enough, to he in eh:lrge of their 0\1 n 1;lIlgu;lg:e. Therc must he e ,~pcrts, IlCrsons in (.'h;lrge, ~trll(.'ttlrcd :lUthuritr, In the minds of the re'"porHlellts. the :lre,IS oft-he l'OII1Hry in 1\ I11Ch the hrpotheti(''';11 St:lntiard is not spoken (the South, :"'\e\\ York City). :Ire the lo!!iell home of ;lc(."Cnt. From this aS~lIm ptioTl it follows th,1t el'errbndr else spc'lks thc h),po·

--- ......... ----

THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

thctic:II St,lTu\;ml :llld thus, h:ls nu ;ICCl!nt. A nati\'C of ,\ lississi ppi or Brook lrn 1I1:1}'

e.uctly the same educltional background, intelligence. ,lnd puint to make as thcir euu' IMrtS in {)hio and Colorndo, but many believe that tht: :lccenr must(.'oll1prol1l isc the ql of the performance.

T his mindset is S<!t clown (Iuite de,l rl}' in the Oxford l~lIglisb Dit1irmnry (1989):

[.\ccent isl Thc mode of utter:mce peculiar to an individual, loc:llity, Of natiun,:l h:ls:l slight nt:cent,:l srrong provinci,ll accent,:l1l indisputably Irish, Scotch, Allier French or (;erm:1I1 accent" ... This \ltter:mee consists 1I1:lillly in;1 prevailing I II of m ne, or in a peculi:lr ~l ter;1tion of pitch, hut may include rn ispnlllllllci;ni( \'0\\ cis or COnSOIl;) IHS, misplacing of ~trcss, and rnisinflectillil of:a sentencc. loc:llil}' of:l spe;lker is gellcr:llly dearly lIl:l rked hy Ihis kind of accent,

The jud',>'lllent'JI tone is llllite c\'itlellt e\'en without the he;wil)' signifil,,;uH choil mif/lrrJflIIlf(ifltioll, lIIisp/flcing, ami mis;lljft:Clioll. It follows from this dcllnition th:lt ther correct region;11 pronUlKiatioll. bm it is not cxplit'itly identified.

From :1 leg:11 perspective, j\l ,I L~ud:1 notes the si rnihlri ties uetwcen the consrructi( the hrJXJthetical St!Jndard. or English without :1I1 :Iccent, on olle hand. :lnd hidden 1\.

co<lllil!ll ill ou r leg-a l ilhtinltiolls, 0 11 the other:

As feminist theorists h:l\'e poillted Out, everyone h:l" :I gender, but the hidden r in hlw is 1II;lle. As cri ticil r;lce theorists h:I\'c Iminted out, everyone h,15;1 r;lce, bu hidden norm in law is white, In ,Ill}' d)'allic relationship, the two cnds arc equidi from e;lch other. If the pa rties .1fe equnl ill power, we see them as e(lu'llly diffl from each other. \\'hcn the p:l nies ,Ire in a relationsh ip of domination ami ordination we tend to say [hat the {lornin:lIlt is nonn:l!. :lIld the subordinate is diff, frolll norm:l!. ... \1Id so it is with accent. , . People in lX)wer :lfe perceived as sJle:l norl1l:ll, unaccented English. ,\ny speech that is different from th'lt construct<.!J r is callcd <In ,lcccnt.

(.\I:\tsUlI:t 1991:

Thc mph of stalUlard 1.1Il6>'l1;lge IlCNi ~ts bce,lllse it is c.trcfllily tended ,md prop'lgmcd, huge, ;llmmt uni \'Crs,11 "uccess, so tll:at language. the mO~t flindalllent':ll of human SI..

i1.ation tools. bccoll1e~ a cnmlllodity. This i" thc (.'Ore of:1I1 ideology of s[-Jndardi1.: which empowers l:ert,lin individu;lls and in ~timtions to 1ll,lkc these decisions ami ill1 them all others,

Words about words

One \'ery thorn)' prohlem that i~ not r:lised \ery often hy "ociolinguisb is the fact lh: are, as indi\·idll .ll~ :and ,IS a group, JUSt ,IS hampered hr l:lIlbTuage ideol" g}' as the rest 0 I>opul;uion (Uucholrl.l003 ; EA.'kert 2008; GoI20(l5; \\ 'infonll003; \\'ulfrJllIl(07). i, he~ t illll~t ratell h~' the f:lCt lhar nJ()~t soci()lingu i ~L" continue to u~e terllls like Sf(1f,

and (worse ~t i ll ) 1I01l·sfllllllll,.d even \\ hi le the~' :Ire arguing that thc~~t: terms arc ideolo :I nd inaccurate,~ L lho\" s seminal p,lper "The Logic of Non-St:llHl :ml Engli~h" (19 is ,I tour·de· forcc (,lIld pUfJ)()~efully polemic) delilonstr;ltion of the fact th:at the )'I

men II ho ~pe:lk ;\.\ VE :Ire ill~t .I~ capable of (.'onstrllcting Illbrlcal arb'lllllcilts (and somet

62 THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

hener 3t it) as roung men who spe:lk other v;lricticS of English. In the forty yea rs since it W:"I S lirst puhlished there have been hundreds of studies [hat reinforce Laboy's lindinb'S·

The persistence of the terllls rtll/lt/llnJ and " Oll-st llllllllrd :llllong linguists is a testament (0 ,he deep roots ofl:mgu:lgc id!.:olob'Y' This is a problem with no C:lsy solution. Coupl;lnd

summarizes:

"Sr:andardncss" and "non·srandardncss" afC tOO deeply ingra ined inm socioiinbruistic theory :md methods for us 10 dispense with received perspectives and begin :lgai n,

conceptua lly. Evcn so, there 3fC good reasons to move on from olHo\ogic,\l per­SI>CL'tivcs that rdfy, describe and :I<.'(;Ollnt for Sr:andard American English as a "natural"

or "necessary" sociolinguistic rC:llity. (2002,632)

In [he first edition of this book I :luemptcd to sidestep the usc of standard and non­stambrd by borrowing IIl1lillstrtlffll as :I reference to the varieties of t\meric;'tll English \\ hieh were hro:ldly considered to be correct by prescriptivists. tn the ~'e ;'trs si nce then. I h:lve conu: to the conclusion that 11I(li"stI'MIIf is just :IS inaccurale :IS the tenll sf(lIlflnrd.

Thus in this rcvised edition. I will usc a tenn which. while not perfect. is all improvement lin hoth stambrdlnonst:lntbnl and lI1ainstream/peripher.ll.

If rou recall, syntacticians lise an asterisk to Imlrk utterances which arc judged g'r.lmmaticaliy in:nlthcntic. I am adapting tha t practice here, ami will use "SAE to refer to

that mythic:II be~st, the ide:! of a homogenous, standard Americ:m English. There is also the i ~suc of names and labels for bnguagc varieties, race and ethnieity,

T he Census Burcau's terminology for race ( rablc -U ) can be challenged on many lcvels, but it docs observe the distinction between race ami ethnicity. You'll note that there :\rc no terms in this list for someone whosc f:uu ily originated in a Spanish -spcaking country, That is bec'Jusc Latinos (or Hispanics - morc about this below) can he and are

any racc. 'In [his volume my policy is to usc those labels lh:lt people choose for thetnseh'cs.

s In

the else ofSpanish-spc:lking Americ:lIls, the sit'u-ation is f:lr more complex in part because there arc so many (Iiffcrcnt culturcs represcnlcd , a topic that will be d iscussed in Chapter

H in more dcmi\. "\-Vhire" as :I category used by the Census BureflU is a descriptive term that does not

parnllcl "AfriClll American" o r "Asian," European Americ:m is awbyard and incxact; in Canad-a AlIglopbol/r h:ls come to re fer to their English-speaking (rather than French­spe:lking) population. i-iistoricall), . l lIglo has to do with the Anglo-Saxons in the British Isles, but the term has gained wider usage. H ere I will usc Anglo, Anglo·American, and

sometimes, \Vhire.

Table 4.2 U.S. Census Bureau naming conventions and alternatives

Naming convention

WhIte Black 01' African American Hispanic Amencan Indian ASian Native Hawai'ian

Alternative

Anglo, While African American, Black Latino/a" American Indian" Asian" Hawaiian

THE STANDARD LANGUAGE MYTH

For thc Afril":l11 American 1:lI1g'uagc cOlllllluni ty I usc AfriC/m ;/1II('r;C(lII Vrnlllrl//(/r ellgl.

(AA \'E), AfriCil" . I",erimll Ellglish (AAF.), or Blnck l:.'IIglish. I will not use the ter Ebonies except in quot;'ttiolls of work that is nO[ my own, o r in discussion of the rcr itself. Scbfani relates an anccdote whil·h is an excellent illustration of the corruption the [enn :

I was once lectured bY'1 retired :!irlinc pi lor :J[ a wedding reccprion on the differen' between African Americ:m English and Ehonies; hc held th:!t the fo rmer was " legitimate l;'tnb'lI:lge" ;'tm! the hlttcr W:IS "tha t horrihle slang yOli hear on cable T V

(Scb funi 2008: 50:

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND EXERCISES

• The Free Onfine Dictiorl8ly'. (2009) definition of ·SAE is interesting. Howdoes the usage note relate to the deftnition? I, it complementary, or contradictory?

Standard American English: The variety of Englieh that is generally acknowledged as the model for the sp6ach and writing 01 educated speakers.

Usage note: People who invoke the term "SAE rarely make clear what they have

in mind by it, and tend to slur over the inconvenient ambiguitiea tf'iaillfe inherent in the term. Sometimea it is used to denote the variety of English prescribed by traditional prescriptive nonna, and in this sense it includes rulea and usages that many educated speakers do nol systematically conform to in their own speech or writing. 8uch as Ihe rules for use of who and whom. In recent year8, however, the term has more often been used to distinguiSh the speech and writing of middle-class educated speakers from the speech 01 other groups and classes, which are termed nonstandard, . . Thus while the term can serve a useful

descriptive purpose providing the context makes ita meaning clear, ;tshouldn't be CQ(Istrued 8S conferring any absolute poaitive evaluation.

• English PkJs+ (Bair 2009; hltp:Jlenglishplus.com), a website Ihat offers reBOOrcea to prepare for the SAT, provKies a deftnition of 'SAE which covert! evel)' poa8!bi~ty;

Standard American English, aIao known as Standard Written English or SWE, is the form of English most widely accepted as being clear and proper.

Publishars, writers, educators, and others have over the years developed a

consensus of what "SAE coosists of. It includes word choice, word order, punctuation, and speWing.

Standard American English is especially helpful when writing because it maintaina a fairly uniform standard of communication whIch can be underatood by all

apea.kers and U8efS of English regardleaa of differences in dialect, pronunciation, and liI~age. This is why it ia &ometimea called Standard Written English.

There 8le a few minor differences between standard usage in England and the

United States, but these differences do not significantly affect communication

in the English language.