1. In what ways can you see the objectives of linguists involved in language documentation conflicting with the priorities of the speakers?
2. What do you think might cause a speech community to harbor a distrust of linguists? How can these tensions be alleviated?
3. What resources and actions are required on the part of the community in order to engage in a long-term language revitalization/maintenance plan? On the part of the linguist(s)?

Discussion Questions for “Language with an Attitude” – Preston (2002)

1. Preston notes that, contrary to language ideologies based in “folk theories,” “linguists… find the structure of language everywhere complex and fully articulated.” He goes on to say that “nevertheless, understanding the relationship between group stereotypes and linguistic facts…appears to be particularly important in accounting for the social identities we infer and respond to.” Languages do not exist in a vacuum; our ideologies about them can still be influenced by stereotypes and social constructs. What do you think our approach as linguists should be then in combatting negative language/dialect attitudes? Do you think changing these attitudes should be the goal of future language attitude research?
2. In a discussion of Labov’s work in the 1960s on New York City inhabitant’s pronunciation of “r,” Preston writes that New Yorkers are “aware of the low regard in which their variety is held” and as a result have “rather severe linguistic insecurity.” To what degree do you think sociolinguistic research bringing certain speech patterns to light could be hurting speakers of the studied varieties and making them self-conscious?
3. Preston cites a study by Purnell et al. (1999) in which respondents were asked to identify the ethnicity of a single speaker saying the word “hello” in Chicano-English, AAVE, and Standard American English. The results showed that sometimes the AAVE-voice was misidentified as a Standard American English voice. What makes a voice “AAVE,” “Standard English,” or any other variety based on the pronunciation of a single word?

Blog Post for 10/28 – Language Attitudes and Language Ideologies

The readings for this week focused on attitudes and ideologies towards different languages and dialects. A theme I noticed all the articles sharing was that they all looked at language attitudes from a hearer-centric point of view. That is, the focus was predominantly on what a hearer’s attitude was towards a variety that was not necessarily their own. The abstract of Preston’s article opens with this exact notion, that the study of language attitudes “focuses on the linguistic clues that both guide a hearer to a speaker’s group membership and trigger the hearer’s beliefs about the group” (Preston 2002:157).

Early on in the course, we discussed the consequences of “naming languages;” the drawing of linguistic distinctions based on culture-specific notions of who speaks what “language” can have effects ranging from stereotyping to discrimination. The naming practice entails an outsider’s view of what is a language and what is a dialect, overlooking the ideologies of the speakers themselves who, especially case of speakers of Creoles or endangered languages, have Westernized notions of “purism” and “language” forced onto them. These notions of purism are present in this week’s readings: D’Arcy addresses the lament of older generations that language is “degenerating” and that the media and teenagers are to blame. (D’Arcy 2007:386-387). Preston’s studies bring to light that the idea of a certain region of the United States having a spoken variety that is closest to the “standard,” something associated with constructs of “purity” and “correctness,” is a cognitively real phenomenon. Woolard and Schieffelin emphasize that Western ideologies of the most “pure” and “authentic” versions of the mother tongue, while initially appearing well-meaning in the maintenance and revitalization of endangered languages, are actually counterproductive. A “pure” language documentation free of outside influence might be valued in the fieldwork process, but this could be counterproductive in saving endangered languages in societies where multilingualism is more typical and even valued (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994:61). As a result, the ideologies of the speakers themselves can get disregarded in the process.

The naming phenomenon has consequences that are evident from these articles; they have given rise to many of the language attitudes we are familiar with today. Qualifying a spoken variety as a “language” or “not a language” can birth ideologies that either positively or negatively affect the people associated with those varieties. Woolard and Schieffelin note that our beliefs about what constitutes a language and the notion that “languages can be isolated, named, and counted,” can qualify or disqualify speakers of those languages from “access to domains of privilege.” (Woolard and Schieffelin 1994:63). The creation of a standard for a language is a double-sided coin, especially in the case of marginalized languages. On the one hand, a group’s association with a single standard language of their own can strengthen claims to nationhood; on the other hand, if too strong an importance is placed on upholding a standard, this can bleed into a nation’s politics and negatively affect speakers who speak a variety different from the standard. (Woolard and Schieffelin 1994:60). A similar problem can arise from creating an orthography for an endangered language; while this may strengthen a spoken variety’s status a “language,” orthographies typically are used as a basis for a “standard,” putting varieties deviating from those standards at risk of further discrimination.

The effects of the concept of a “standard language” are also evident in Preston’s evaluation of people’s attitudes towards regional American dialects. These ranged on a continuum from most to least “correct” or “pleasant.” The studies discussed were only from the perspective of speakers in Michigan and Alabama, but here we actually see a glimmer of what speakers from those states value in their own respective varieties. Speakers from Michigan ranked their variety of English as the most “correct” in the United States, while speakers from Alabama ranked their variety as the most “pleasant.” We see a return to the concept of linguistic capital in these results, which Preston uses to make the claim that Michiganders are invested in using their variety as a vehicle for “correctness,” while Alabamians are more concerned with sounding “pleasant.” When ideologies are examined from the point of view of the speakers of the variety in question, it becomes clear how people choose to spend their linguistic capital. (Preston 2002:173-176).

D’Arcy’s article analyzed the various uses of “like,” but this, too, focused on perception of the interjection in general rather than studies prompting a reflection of one’s own use or avoidance of the variable. On a particular note, I was unsure of D’Arcy’s goal in debunking the stereotypes associated with “like.” She provides plenty of evidence supporting its multifunctional properties and use by people outside of the “valley girl” category. But after stating the general feeling that it is an overused interjection, mostly used by women, and associated with a “less educated, intelligent, or interesting” individual, she goes on to say that “it is not the aim of this article to change such attitudes…” (D’Arcy 2007:388). What should the goal of sociolinguists be if it is not to use our so-called ability to see all language, as Preston puts it, as “complex and fully articulated,” to combat these negative attitudes? (Preston 2002:158). Even with all the results presented in her article, negative ideologies tied to this variable still persist, along with negative attitudes towards variables more recently associated with the speech of young women (the (over)use of “literally” and vocal fry also come to mind). Her debunking of the myth that women use “like” all the time by showing that men often deploy the form too is not all that impactful to me. The presentation of evidence that “like” is commonly present in male speech, contrary to the stereotype, does not do much to change the much larger systematic devaluing of women’s speech.

The main thought I am left with after reading these articles is that there is value in shifting the study of language attitudes away from the perceptions of outsiders towards an insider’s reflection of their values and thoughts on their language use. This would be a more empowering, interesting approach to see in future research, especially research involving speakers of endangered languages and the varieties that have come to hold negative stereotypes in the minds of outsiders.