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.

Textbooks are outrageously expensive. I wish there was something I could do about it, but as there is not, I’m giving away a copy of the softcover edition, which costs something like $45. If you leave a comment here in about a month’s time I’ll draw a name at random and send you the book. I’m leaving this open for a whole month because things are rather quiet here and I need to drum up some traffic.

Once thing that is true of all academic conferences: people look at your badge before they look at you. They want to know if (1) they’ll recognize your name and (2) what university you’re at. I admit it’s odd for me to be listed as an independent scholar, after so many years with big-name schools on my badge.

Small bonus: I adore Portland. It’s my favorite city on the west coast, and I would love to live there. Probably will never happen, but a girl can dream. While I’m there I will pay a visit to Papa Haydn‘s for some Boccone Dolce.

I’m especially interested in incidents on college campuses. Even if you are unsure of the details, I’d like to hear from you. I will always check and double check any information provided for accuracy by going to primary sources.

Examples (and these are all real-life)

Newspaper headlines:  “We likee Hirally! She best quality!”

One-off definitions (this one from the Urban Dictionary): Ching chong bing bong: The language of those born to the Asian countries. It is the root of all evil and when heard for an excessive amount of time, causes one to vomit uncontrollably. Excuse me, I can’t understand your ching chong bing bong, please try English when you are in America.

News stories (television, print media, internet, radio are all great):

Vincent Chin was beaten to death by two jobless auto workers because  they had mistaken  him for Japanese. According to the police report, a bystander heard one of the two men of say to Chin, “It’s because of you little motherfuckers that we’re out of work.”

San Jose, CA: A 58-year-old Latino speaking on his cell phone in Spanish was punched in the face by a 28-year-old Anglo male, who shouted “Speak English!”

Connecticut, 2010: A study of traffic tickets issued by the East Haven police department over an 8-month period established that while Latinos/as make up less than 6 percent of the population, they accounted for more than 50 percent of tickets issued. In addition, the study found that police officers routinely misrepresented the race of the person receiving the ticket in their reports.

Parodies (from the Princeton student newspaper, this fake letter): Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science. Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring bells? Just in case, let me refresh your memories. I the super smart Asian. Princeton the super dumb college, not accept me.

Rumors (which I will validate before using) Two students at (college) gather signatures to present to the administration with the goal of having a professor who graded too harshly fired. They cited his foreign accent as the biggest part of the problem.

—————————-

Or anything else you come across. I would VERY MUCH appreciate any help that comes my way.  I’d like to set up a database, which will be made available to students and  researchers who are interested in language discrimination.

—————–

To the editor:

Mr. xxx of Bellingham writes to encourage readers to work for the passage of official English legislation in Washington. He believes legislation establishing English as the official language of the state is necessary, and that without it national unity and well being are at risk.

Across the country, calls for similar legislation rely on the same myths, hyperbole and lack of historical fact and logic. What Mr. xxx cites as good and necessary can also be seen as xenophobic, mean-spirited, restrictive, discriminatory and protectionist. The reasons cited most often in support of such legislation are all transparently false.

• English is not threatened in any way: it is the predominant language of trade globally and of all spheres of public life in the U.S.
• The proportion of non-English speakers was larger at the turn of this century than it is now (the 1890 census recorded 4.5 times as many non-English speakers than did the 1990 census). In 1910 the census recorded that no English was spoken by 23 percent of foreign-born whites, 39 percent of Japanese, 41 percent of Chinese, and 66 percent of other immigrants. In 1990, only 10 percent of foreign born residents spoke no English.
• All immigrant groups have gradually become Anglicized but this process was not legislated; it came about as a part of the larger process of assimilation.

Facts like these are never countered with similar hard data by proponents of language protectionist legislation or English Only. They provide anecdotal evidence and unsupported claims founded in racism and xenophobia. Such groups would like to cut federal services, restrict access, and deny legal protection on the basis of language, but they conveniently overlook the fact that some 40,000 people are on waiting lists for English as a Foreign Language classes in California alone. As has been pointed out time and time again, laws making English the official language do nothing to increase or fund language classes, nor do they teach a single person English.

The simple fact is, the status of English as the majority language was much more of a question in earlier times, but it survived without intrusive legislation. Official English legislation violates the first amendment as well as the fourteenth, which forbids abridging the privileges and immunities accorded to naturalized citizens.

Finally, this legislation is short sighted and mean spirited. It does not promote national unity; it is a gatekeeping mechanism aimed at very specific populations. English Only legislation and the organizations which promote it are countered by principled resistance from other civic, religious and professional organizations, among them the National Council of Teachers of English, the Modern Language Association, TESOL, American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages, the Center for Applied Linguistics, the American Psychological Association, the National Council for Black Studies, and the National Council of Churches of Christ. All of these organizations have published position papers which provide more background.

We have so many better things to do with our time and energy. Please encourage your legislators to put aside this hurtful, impractical and short sighted legislation to take up more important issues.

I did my graduate work at linguistics — at Princeton — some twenty years ago, I can affirm this is true. At that time linguistics was embedded in the German department, and did not exist on its own. Still the case now. I doubt the administration is going to pony up the money to establish a department (they’d have to hire a slew of people) but if in fact they decide to do this, I know a linguistics PhD who would volunteer for duty. Well, not volunteer, but you know what I mean.

You are welcome to use these materials in class or as a reference, but please be sure to attribute the work to me and/or provide a link to this website.