Standard vs non-standard, language attitudes and discrimination.
Language, Power, and Inequality
Language is never neutral. The way we speak marks us as belonging to particular social groups, and society assigns different levels of prestige to different ways of speaking. These language attitudes have real consequences -- they can open doors or close them, include people or exclude them, empower communities or marginalize them.
Who decides what is "correct" language?
There is a persistent belief that some forms of language are "correct," "proper," or "educated," while others are "incorrect," "sloppy," or "uneducated." But from a linguistic perspective, all natural varieties of language are systematic, rule-governed, and capable of expressing complex thought. The varieties that are considered "standard" or "prestigious" are not linguistically superior -- they are simply the varieties spoken by those who hold social and economic power.
Language attitudes and social hierarchy:
Consider these examples:
- In England, Received Pronunciation (RP) -- the accent associated with the upper class and BBC broadcasting -- is widely perceived as more intelligent, competent, and trustworthy than regional accents like Cockney or Brummie.
- In the United States, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is often stigmatized despite being a fully systematic language variety with consistent grammatical rules.
- In Norway, certain dialects carry more prestige than others, and the status of Nynorsk versus Bokmal remains a politically charged issue.
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.
Language ideology: A set of beliefs and attitudes about language that reflect the social, political, and economic interests of particular groups. Language ideologies are often presented as common sense but actually serve to maintain existing power structures.
Standard language ideology: The belief that there is one correct way to speak and write a language, 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
- Stigmatizes non-standard speakers as uneducated or lazy
- Benefits speakers of the standard variety in education, employment, and social status
- Ignores the systematic, rule-governed nature of non-standard varieties
Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism:
- Prescriptivism: The approach that says language should follow established rules and that deviations are errors. ("You should say 'whom,' not 'who' in that sentence.")
- Descriptivism: The approach that observes and documents how language is actually used, without making judgments about correctness. ("Speakers increasingly use 'who' in all positions.")
Most modern linguists are descriptivists, while public discourse about language tends to be prescriptivist.
Consider the following scenarios. In each case, identify how language attitudes lead to discrimination:
1. A job applicant with a strong regional accent is not hired despite having the best qualifications.
2. A student whose first language is not English is placed in a lower academic track at school.
3. A politician is mocked in the media for using grammatical forms associated with working-class speech.
Scenario 1 -- Employment discrimination:
The employer is judging the applicant not on competence but on accent. Research consistently shows that accent-based discrimination is widespread in hiring. Speakers of non-standard varieties are perceived as less intelligent, less competent, and less suitable for public-facing roles -- even when their actual abilities are equal or superior. This is language discrimination functioning as class discrimination.
Scenario 2 -- Educational gatekeeping:
The student's academic potential is being assessed through the lens of language. Students who speak non-standard varieties or who are still developing proficiency in the school language are often underestimated. This can become a self-fulfilling prophecy: placed in lower tracks, they receive less challenging instruction and have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their abilities.
Scenario 3 -- Public shaming:
Mocking a politician's language is a way of attacking their social background and legitimacy. Working-class speech patterns are used to imply that the speaker is not intelligent or sophisticated enough for public office. This reinforces the idea that only certain types of people -- those who speak the "right" way -- deserve positions of authority.
Common thread:
In all three cases, language is being used as a proxy for social class, intelligence, or competence. The discrimination is ultimately not about language itself but about the social groups associated with particular ways of speaking.
Why do linguists consider "standard language ideology" problematic?
Language Rights and Linguistic Justice
The recognition that language discrimination is a form of social injustice has led to growing attention to language rights.
What are language rights?
Language rights are the rights of individuals and communities to use, maintain, and develop their languages without facing discrimination. They include:
1. The right to use one's language in private life -- speaking your language at home and in your community without punishment or stigma.
2. The right to education in one's language -- access to mother-tongue education, especially in the early years.
3. The right to public services in one's language -- access to healthcare, legal proceedings, and government services in a language one understands.
4. The right to maintain and develop one's language -- including the right to create media, literature, and educational materials in one's language.
International frameworks:
- 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 signatory states to protecting and promoting minority languages.
- The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) recognizes indigenous language rights.
Linguistic justice in practice:
The concept of linguistic justice asks us to consider who benefits and who is disadvantaged by current language arrangements. When English is used as the default language of international business and science, native English speakers enjoy an automatic advantage. When a country conducts all its official business in only one language, speakers of minority languages are disadvantaged.
Achieving linguistic justice requires balancing practical considerations (the need for a common language) with respect for linguistic diversity and the rights of minority language speakers.
Language discrimination (linguicism): Discrimination based on a person's language or dialect. Can affect employment, education, housing, and legal proceedings.
Linguistic prejudice: Negative stereotypes or judgments about people based on the way they speak.
Prestige variety: A language variety that is associated with social status, education, and economic power. Often (but not always) the standard variety.
Covert prestige: The hidden prestige of non-standard varieties within their own communities. For example, speaking with a strong local accent may carry prestige among peers even though it is stigmatized by wider society.
Linguistic justice: The principle that language arrangements in society should not systematically disadvantage any group. Includes fair access to education, services, and opportunities regardless of language background.
Language rights: The legal and moral rights of individuals and communities to use, maintain, and develop their languages.
What is "covert prestige" in sociolinguistics?
Analyze language and power in the English-speaking world.
Explain the difference between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Give an example of each approach to the sentence "Me and him went to the store."
How does the concept of "standard language ideology" help us understand why certain accents are perceived as more intelligent or trustworthy? Use a specific example.
Discussion essay (200-250 words): "English as the international language of science disadvantages non-native speakers." Do you agree or disagree? Discuss this statement with reference to the concepts of language and power, linguistic justice, and language rights.
From a linguistic perspective, which statement about non-standard language varieties is correct?
- 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
- Language prejudice functions as a proxy for social prejudice (class, race, ethnicity, region)
- Language discrimination has real consequences in employment, education, and public life
- Prescriptivism focuses on rules and correctness; descriptivism documents how language is actually used
- Language rights are increasingly recognized as human rights
- Linguistic justice requires us to consider who benefits and who is disadvantaged by language arrangements in society
- Non-standard varieties are linguistically equal to standard varieties -- they are systematic, rule-governed, and expressive
Dette kapitlet er skrevet av Anthropics toppmodeller (Claude Opus og Claude Fable) og er foreløpig ikke manuelt gjennomgått — kvalitetskontrollen gjøres av uavhengige KI-agenter, og innmeldte feil rettes fortløpende. Funnet en feil? Meld fra, så retter vi den. Les mer om hvordan innholdet lages.