the n-word: I’ll say it, out loud
The n-word is this: nonstandard. To use this word is to validate the idea of a dichotomy: on one side what is good and acceptable, and on the other side what is aberrant, and unacceptable. Everyone who has been trained in linguistics — and lots of people who haven’t, but who think clearly — will tell you that this way of talking about language is a misrepresentation. It is misleading, and it validates a lot of divisive and discriminatory ideas.
Every human language is suited to its community of speakers, and every language evolves as the needs of the community evolve. The idea that speakers of Language A are better able to express themselves than speakers of Language B is based on a lot of false assumptions about the way language works. As linguists we bemoan the general lack of open-mindedness when it comes to the way people think about language.
But we are ourselves to blame, at least in part, and we are to blame because we do not practice what we teach.
At the annual conference for sociolinguists this past October, I set out to count the number of times I heard academic linguists use the words ‘non-standard’ and ‘standard.’ When I raised the subject (why are we using these terms which feed into the very inequalities we are examining?) the expressions I saw in response were irritated or clueless. The excuse I’ve heard and read in any number of peer reviewed article goes like this: The ‘standard – nonstandard’ contrast, erroneous as it is, is too deeply ingrained to change.
To this I say: bullshit.
The usage is ingrained because the underlying ideology is rock solid. It’s too ingrained, we can’t change it: this is a rationalization, and a lazy, self serving rationalization, at that. Of course it’s going to be hard to break the habit. A Google search for the string “non-standard English” nets 2,830,000 hits; “standard English” gets 2,960,000.
The idea that some languages are bad and some languages are good is perpetuated every day. By us. And here’s a simply solution: stop using the word. Stop using both words. Bann ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ from your mind; take the time to express the concept you’re reaching for in other terms.
The sentence ‘non-standard languages are stigmatized’ is a tautology.Any academic worth her salt should be able to see that, and find a way to express the idea hiding there. And if not, if we can’t give up these terms, there’s little hope that we’ll ever be able to make people understand what’s wrong with them. Or to stop using them. Or stop acting on them.
I try to use “accepted” and unaccepted” in place of standard and nonstandard. I’m not always consistent, though, but after reading this I’ll try harder. Thanks!
Ronald — I know it’s hard. I struggle with it too. Recently someone suggested ‘dominant’ as in Dom-English and Nondom-English, which almost works. I keep thinking about it, at any rate. In writing I use *English for Dom-E, which is kind of a sneaky way to avoid the issue.
rosina
I don’t see how “accepted” and “unaccepted” solves the dilemma . . . . that sounds more loaded to me.
Hmm, Schoolbook English and Real English?
English as taught from books to foreign speakers and English as learned from a native English speaking community?
Stylized Formal English and the Way People Really Speak English?
Narrow English and Broad English?
Ivory Tower English and Living English?
theresa– you’re right, of course. As yet nobody has come up with a realistic and concise way to deal with this.