Mythbusters

Juwerya Abdi, 1st year

Non-standard dialects have been derided as imprecise and incorrect, and hence not equal in value to the standard language, which is regarded as more prestigious (Gordon, 2012). In this essay, I will argue against the myth that non-standard dialects are deficient. Firstly, I will discuss the preconceptions and attitudes that influence our views on dialect, and people's perceptions as to what speaking a non-standard dialect entails. As a result, perceptual dialectology, which aims to discuss public perceptions of dialects, will be a focal point in the first section. Secondly, I will draw on evidence that shows how non-standard dialects are perceived as linguistic diversion in education, and how nonstandard dialects are frequently connected to negativity and speech-correction. This section will argue that non-standard dialect variations do not reflect a lack of educational understanding, but rather the failure of educational intuitions to put resources in place to promote diversity in language varieties. Finally, I will discuss how non-standard dialects are perceived on a global scale, their significance in conversations about linguistics compared to standard dialects, and how they reflect certain cultures, as well as their importance to different social groups.

Perceptual dialectology:

The study of how non-linguists evaluate dialect diversity is known as perceptual dialectology. As a result, this section will concentrate on these dialect perception issues and how they present the distinguishing of standard and non-standard dialects as problematic and subjective. In many societies, this distinction has been reinforced by prejudices and ideological biases. For example, Boughton’s (2006) study assessed how people from a variety of French dialects perceive one another and discovered social prejudices between regions. There were particularly noticeable prejudices for and against dialects from the West and Centre, as well as the capital Paris, which hosts the country’s standard dialect, and common social attitudes were supplied when applying the correct dialect to location. For example, when applying dialects to north and east regions, social prejudices were equated. Similarly, Iannàccaro and Dell’Aquila’s (2001) research on European dialect perception focused on geographical location and discovered that people perceived dialects differently depending on which part of the country they originated from. The perception of language played a minimal role, but depending on where an individual came from and their language community, those who shared a language variety were less prejudiced than those who spoke different dialects. These findings support the idea that social views influence how we perceive dialect variations, and that “non-standard” dialects are considered to be entirely acceptable in particular social contexts. With these social biases in mind, one cannot reasonably describe dialect variations as deficient. For example, Bucholtz et al. (2007) highlighted perceptual dialectology variations within California. Their results revealed that Californian dialect distinctions were characterised by linguistic and stylistic traits connected with a particular area rather than just regional location. These considerations demonstrate that dialects can be more culturally and regionally proclaimed and are not synonymous with deficiency.

Regarding the varieties of dialect that exist in our society, Fridland and Bartlett (2006) highlights that our perception of dialects can be personal matters through assessments of correctness and pleasantness. Their findings demonstrated that those from southern American states evaluated their own correctness of speech lower than those from other American states, but they did not perceive their own accents as less pleasant or those from other states as more pleasant. This shows how dialects can be understood depending on characteristics. Labelling what we perceive to be a non-standard dialect as wholly insufficient may thus be inaccurate. On the contrary, we should recognise that it is difficult to maintain a standard dialect given the many different variations thereof within a language’s larger speaking community, a community which is already in itself subject to change. For example, Robinson’s (2007) research shows just how grammatically diverse usage of the verb ‘to be’ is in English dialects spoken across the UK. There are numerous cities especially in the north that use the form ‘were’ for both singular and plural, whereas those in the south use the distinction ‘was’ and ‘were’ for singular and plural subjects. This highlights dialectal variation across the United Kingdom and shows how unwieldy the concept of a standard dialect has become. Conversely, respecting and identifying that these linguistic variants are part of a homogenous group and hold significant social value is crucial in dealing with negative perceptions of non-standard dialects.

Furthermore, it is important to understand the historical evolution of dialect variations has seen several become the ‘standard’ and some fall out of favour. Maxwell’s (2006) study highlights that dialect variation within the Slovak speech community has been exacerbated by political and ideological factors. These influences have been observed to spread throughout the region and have had an impact on the development of their language. As a result, a range of dialects have emerged from historical factors, and speakers’ dialogue preferences have been linked with the same political issues. The perceptions of nonstandard dialects can extend beyond the goal of being defective, and countries have developed to recognize the standard dialect. However, according to Preston (1999) regional dialect diversity has become influential prior to historic and structural influences on 17 language development. This corresponds to the Clopper and Pisoni (2006) study, which found that regional location and geographic mobility had an impact on determining where a person sounded like they were from as well as adding perceptions to dialects. These findings show how dialects, whether regional or historical, are objects of cultural significance, and that, discarding those we consider to be non-standard makes it more. Non-standard dialects in Education:

Within the educational field, the perception of a non-standard dialect has become increasingly negative. The belief is that students who speak a widely prevalent and approved language variation are often in a better position in the classroom than those who speak a different variety (Hart Blundon, 2016). For instance, Cushing’s (2021) study highlighted that Standard English in classrooms is ingrained as part of school policies. Teachers are compelled to utilise Standard English in the classroom, and students are expected to follow this standard in their education. This perspective highlights how children observe from a young age that their dialect is less prestigious, and this unjust judgement can have an impact on how children understand what it means to have a dialect. Similarly, Messier’s (2012) research conducted on Ebonics English varieties found that efforts to employ these dialects in the classroom have seen difficulty and resistance due to institutional and cultural biases towards Standard English. This emphasises how the narrative of non-standard dialects being inferior is deeply recognised and embedded in the educational field. However, moving towards inclusivity and promoting nonstandard dialects in areas such as education can help shape people's understanding of what it means to have a non-standard dialect. Tan and Tan (2008) examined sentiments towards non-standard English in Singapore and discovered that they were linked with substantial social affiliations. Their findings indicated that non-standard English should be integrated into schooling to promote a better awareness of language issues. This could foster a better understanding of what a non-standard dialect entails and can raise the standing. of non-standard dialect usage from a deficiency to an alternative means of linguistic communication. Labov’s (1972) study found that BEV’s (Black English Vernacular) syntax involved complex structures such as deletion of the final vowel structures which require significant grammatical skill. Likewise, Green (2002) discovered that AAVE (African American Vernacular English, formally BEV) used concepts such as be form and bin verbs to emphasise varied meanings, and that adverbs are unnecessary in this situation. This highlights an interesting case on how grammar is marked in different dialects. This further demonstrates how non-standard dialects, abundant as they are in grammaticality, cannot simply be presented as defective or simplified versions of English in the realm of education. As a result, by broadening dialect comprehension in education from standard to different varieties, students can better understand dialects, allowing them to be less prejudiced and recognise the linguistic differences seen in diverse cultures. Therefore, modifying the perspective of a non-standard dialect in schools can have a lasting effect on generations to come.

Non-standard dialects on a global scale:

Non-standard dialects have a global impact by providing a shared language to communities and social groups. A study by Jaffe (2000) demonstrated how AAVE orthography indicates the genuineness and originality of the language, as well the importance it holds in the social context of a community, in comparison to standard language variations, which may not represent intimate personal engagement with language use. This underlines the belief that non-standard dialects and language variations have important cultural significance. Similarly, Mufwene’s (2015) research on creole language showed that numerous varieties of the language existed in the community, demonstrating the unstable character of languages in changing, multicultural environments. Mufwene (2015) also commented on how shifts in language variation may be directly or indirectly caused by colonisation. These findings show the significance of linguistic variations across many cultures, and that the dialects people choose to speak can be the result of either distancing themselves from or collectively acknowledging as a community the discrimination they have faced.

The view that non-standard dialects cannot become globally significant can be refuted by research demonstrating the importance of non-standard dialects in running parts of society. Zhu and Grigoriadis’s (2022) research discovered the importance of Chinese dialect varieties and how they affect economic development and government spending. This shows how having an array of dialects inside a country can foster progression. This finding also shows that non-standard dialects can help rather than hinder the societies we live in.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, there are numerous possible arguments against the myth that a non-standard dialect must necessarily be deficient. For example, one can better understand how people judge non-standard dialects through linguistic frameworks such as perceptual dialectology. Furthermore, non-standard dialects within a country have significant regional or historical importance, which is sometimes overlooked when applying perception to dialects. As a result, viewing a non-standard dialect as deficient can be reductive. Additionally, investigating the role of education in defining standard and non-standard dialects might help to debunk the idea of more and less acceptable language varieties. Changing how nonstandard dialects are discussed in an educational context may also help combat the aforementioned myths and improve their standing amongst students. Lastly, realising that non-standard dialects have an innate connection with the individuals who speak them is crucial, and being mindful of how their language variants are evolving allows for a deeper understanding of the non-standard dialect's community.

Reference list

Boughton, Z. (2006). When perception isn’t reality: Accent identification and perceptual dialectology in French. Journal of French Language Studies, 16(3), pp.277–304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0959269506002535

Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., Edwards, L. and Vargas, R. (2007). Hella Nor Cal or Totally So Cal? Journal of English Linguistics, 35(4), pp.325–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207307780

Clopper, C.G. and Pisoni, D.B. (2006). Effects of region of origin and geographic mobility on perceptual dialect categorization. Language Variation and Change, 18(02). doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394506060091

Cushing, I. (2021). Policy Mechanisms of the Standard Language

Ideology in England’s Education System. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 22(3), pp.1–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2021.1877542

Fridland, V. and Bartlett, K. (2006). Correctness, Pleasantness, and Degree of Difference Ratings Across Regions. American Speech, 81(4), pp.358–386. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2006-025

Gordon, T. (2012). Relevant linguistics: A Textbook for Language Teachers. Charlotte, Nc: Information Age Pub. Green, L.J. (2002). African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hart Blundon, P. (2016). Nonstandard Dialect and Educational Achievement: Potential Implications for First Nations Students. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology, 40(3).

Iannàccaro, G. and Dell’Aquila, V. (2001). Mapping languages from inside: Notes on perceptual dialectology. Social & Cultural Geography, 2(3), pp.265–280. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360120073851

Jaffe, A. (2000). Introduction: Non-standard orthography and nonstandard speech. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(4), pp.497–

513. doi https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00127

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University Of Pennsylvania Press.

Maxwell, A. (2006). Why the Slovak Language Has Three Dialects: A Case Study in Historical Perceptual Dialectology. Austrian History Yearbook, 37, pp.141–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0067237800016817

Messier, J. (2012). Ebonics, the Oakland resolution, and using nonstandard dialects in the classroom. The English Languages: History, Diaspora, Culture, 3.

Mufwene, S.S. (2015). The emergence of creoles and language change. In: N. Bonvillain, ed., The Routledge handbook of linguistic anthropology. New York; London: Routledge, p.pp. 362-379.

Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of perceptual dialectology: Volume 1. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Robinson, J. (2007). Regional voices: Non-standard grammar.

[online] The British Library. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/british-accents-anddialects/articles/regional-voices-non-standard-grammar.

Tan, P.K.W. and Tan, D.K.H. (2008). Attitudes towards nonstandard English in Singapore1. World Englishes, 27(3-4), pp.465–479. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467971x.2008.00578.x

Zhu, J. and Grigoriadis, T.N. (2022). Chinese dialects, culture & economic performance. China Economic Review, 73, p.101783. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2022.101783