3.4 Language and Power

Language, Power, and Inequality

Language is never neutral. The way you speak marks you as belonging to particular social groups, and society quietly assigns different levels of prestige to different ways of speaking. These attitudes have real consequences -- they can open doors or close them, include people or exclude them, empower communities or push them to the margins.

Who decides what counts as "correct" language? There is a persistent belief that some forms of language are "proper" or "educated" while others are "sloppy" or "uneducated." But from a linguistic point of view, all natural varieties of language are systematic, rule-governed, and capable of expressing complex thought. The varieties considered "standard" or "prestigious" are not linguistically superior -- they are simply the varieties spoken by those who hold social and economic power. Consider: in England, RP is widely perceived as more intelligent than Cockney or Brummie; in the USA, African American Vernacular English is stigmatised despite being fully systematic; in Norway, some dialects carry more prestige than others. The key insight is that language prejudice is really social prejudice -- when people judge a way of speaking, they are usually judging the people who speak that way.

Standard Language and Hidden Ideology

To understand how this works, we need two concepts. A standard language is a variety that has been codified -- given official grammar rules, dictionaries, and spelling -- and that is used in education, government, and media, and generally perceived as "correct." A language ideology is a set of beliefs about language that reflects the social, political, and economic interests of particular groups, often presented as common sense while actually serving to maintain existing power structures.

The most powerful of these is standard language ideology: the belief that there is one correct way to speak and write, and that this standard is inherently better than non-standard varieties. This ideology presents the standard as neutral and natural when it is actually a social construct; it stigmatises non-standard speakers as uneducated; it benefits speakers of the standard variety in education and employment; and it ignores the systematic, rule-governed nature of non-standard varieties.

A related distinction is between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Prescriptivism says language should follow established rules and that deviations are errors ("You should say 'whom,' not 'who'"). Descriptivism observes and documents how language is actually used, without judging correctness ("Speakers increasingly use 'who' in all positions"). Most modern linguists are descriptivists, while public discourse about language tends to be prescriptivist. The consequences of these attitudes are serious. Picture three scenarios: a job applicant with a strong regional accent is not hired despite the best qualifications; a student whose first language is not English is placed in a lower academic track; a politician is mocked for using working-class grammar. In every case, language is being used as a proxy for social class, intelligence, or competence. The discrimination is not really about language at all -- it is about the social groups associated with particular ways of speaking.

Language Rights and Linguistic Justice

Recognising that language discrimination is a form of social injustice has led to growing attention to language rights -- the rights of individuals and communities to use, maintain, and develop their languages without facing discrimination. These include the right to use one's language in private life, the right to education in one's language (especially in the early years), the right to public services like healthcare and legal proceedings in a language one understands, and the right to maintain and develop one's language through media and literature.

International frameworks have begun to enshrine these rights: the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996) asserts that all language communities have equal rights, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) commits states to protecting minority languages, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) recognises indigenous language rights.

The broader principle is linguistic justice, which asks who benefits and who is disadvantaged by current language arrangements. When English is the default of international business and science, native English speakers enjoy an automatic advantage. When a country conducts all official business in one language, speakers of minority languages are disadvantaged. Achieving linguistic justice means balancing the practical need for a common language against respect for diversity and minority speakers' rights. A few terms sharpen the picture: language discrimination (linguicism) is discrimination based on language or dialect; prestige variety is a variety associated with status and power; and intriguingly, covert prestige is the hidden prestige non-standard varieties carry within their own communities -- speaking with a strong local accent may win respect among peers even when wider society stigmatises it. The deepest point stands firm: non-standard varieties are linguistically equal to standard ones -- systematic, rule-governed, and fully expressive.

Summary

Language is never neutral -- different ways of speaking carry different levels of social prestige. Standard language ideology presents one variety as inherently correct, but standards are social constructs that reflect power structures, and language prejudice functions as social prejudice (class, race, region). This discrimination has real consequences in employment, education, and public life. The distinction between prescriptivism (rules and correctness) and descriptivism (documenting actual usage) clarifies how linguists differ from popular discourse. Growing attention to language rights and linguistic justice -- supported by frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights -- asks who benefits and who is disadvantaged by language arrangements. The underlying truth never changes: non-standard varieties are linguistically equal to standard ones, systematic and fully expressive.