<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Linganth] The Nine Lives of "Linguistic Deficiency"</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>On 9 Feb 2007, , at 9:19 PM, Harold F. Schiffman wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">...Whether we like it or not, knowledge and skill with "standard" language and <BR>
> orthography has "cash value", and trying to teach teachers-to-be that it's <BR>
> just "all ideology" won't get far with them.<BR>
> <BR>
</FONT><BR>
This issue is somewhat parallel to what I do with the "race" concept in my <BR>
classes. I deconstruct the biological notion of subspecies, showing that <BR>
it's not a biologically valid taxonomic category. Then I point out that <BR>
"race" is another term for "subspecies"; therefore, "races" are not valid <BR>
biological taxa either. Human "races" then are elements of of a <I>folk model</I> <BR>
of human variation that reflect socially and culturally constructed <BR>
ideologies, if you will (cliché), but that are not <I>biologically real</I>.<BR>
<BR>
Having said that (cliché encore), I then process to point out that races, <BR>
despite not being <I>biologically real</I>, do have real-life consequences for the <BR>
real lives of the real people assigned to them (in the US, by the <BR>
hypodescent rule). These consequences may begin before birth, with mothers’ <BR>
systemically different likelihood of access to adequate prenatal care, and <BR>
continue on thruout life.<BR>
<BR>
I think a similar case can be made for language difference. The consequences <BR>
of being raised speaking a non-standard dialect are real, even if the <BR>
alleged differences in linguistic worthiness between it and the standard are <BR>
not. The difference of course is that for the most part you can’t really <BR>
learn your way out of a hypodescent group, while you can learn any number of <BR>
new dialects and languages for use in the appropriate contexts. But only to <BR>
a degree, because as I think Walt Wolfram and others have suggested, <BR>
linguistic discrimination is mostly not really about language; it’s about <BR>
the people we dislike or are suspicious of for whatever reason. Walt <BR>
presents this nicely in American Tongues: we favor urban folk over rural <BR>
ones; middle class over working class or poor; “white” over “black” (heaven <BR>
help you if you’re a poor, rural African American).<BR>
<BR>
So what I try to convey in my classes is that we use dialect as metonyms for <BR>
the people who speak them. We can’t (usually) say we don’t like you because <BR>
you’re black, or from the Appalachians, so we say we like <I>you</I> but you just <BR>
need to learn to talk like <I>us</I> for us to fully accept you, build decent <BR>
schools for your children, pay you adequately for your labor, and so on.<BR>
<BR>
Years ago, when foreign languages were still housed along with English here, <BR>
we were searching for a new French professor. One of the applicants was an <BR>
African American woman from somewhere in the south. During her campus visit <BR>
a number of people spoke with her in French and certified that she was <BR>
near-native, with perhaps a touch of West African (she had studied in one of <BR>
the Francophone countries). Toward the end of her interview with the search <BR>
committee, which of course had to be in English, she asked whether “you have <BR>
anything else you want to aks me.” Holy crap, she said “aks”! The white male <BR>
English profs didn’t like that at all, and altho she was interviewing to <BR>
teach French, not English, she got (dare I say it) the axe. As the lone <BR>
linguist I was outraged, but at that point in my career my outrage counted <BR>
for nothing.<BR>
<BR>
So... Who is at fault here: the candidate for saying “aks” instead of “ask,” <BR>
or the sublimely ignorant professors of <I>English</I> who should have known that <BR>
“aks” is a dialectal variation of “ask” (and a historically prior one at <BR>
that!), not an index of some kind of intellectual or moral incapacity? And I <BR>
should mention that this was an English department chaired at the time by a <BR>
person from India whose Indian English was virtually unintelligible!<BR>
<BR>
Frankly, in my own small and feeble way, I’d rather side with the wronged <BR>
candidate. But I do try to make this position clear to my students.<BR>
<BR>
Sorry for the meandering...<BR>
<BR>
Ron<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>