4 ms·

> This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination. It does that right now, no "may" about it. > Again

by shkkmo 5y ago

> This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination. It does that right now, no "may" about it. > Again, whether a language standard is promoted or not, people will discriminate against others who differ from them. "Promoted" is a too nice a word when the reality is that the standard is used limit the opportunities of people who don't follow the standard. > You are suggesting we pretend that a standard form of English does not exist It doesn't exist. There is no single standard English, there isn't even a standard set of spellings for English. > Judging people as stupid comes from differences in people, not language standards. I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause. > Whoever is the appropriate authority of the language. It could be a national government or an academic organization. Language standardization isn’t a new concept, nearly all European languages have gone through a standardization phase. There is no such authority for English, so there is no standard? Also, "standardisation" didn't work for German or Spanish (the other two European languages I speak) as local dialects diverge significantly from the "official standard". It is far from "solved". > This is the equivalent of saying we can’t standardize Python because there is no obvious way to decide who is allowed to standardize it. That isn't what I said at all. > In the absence of the existence of a “correct English” the judgements would transition from “you are not speaking correct English” (which is shared by all) to “you are not speaking my tribe’s English” (which is unique to a single tribe and would be a lot more tribally divisive). Those judgements already happen. Teaching people about each other's dialects would make them less foriegn and lead to less judgement and better understanding. When you take that position that there is "one correct English", that makes it harder to encourage people to learn each other's dialects and it encourages discrimination against people whose dialects differ more from the one correct English. Finally, I'll repeat myself: I am not wholey opposed to language standards on principle. A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive). English does not have such a such a standard and other language standards I am aware of are not super effective and tend to be rather eurocentric and not inclusive of their broader populations.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
>> This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination. > It does that right now, no "may" about it. If language standards indeed cause discrimination, please demonstrate how. Otherwise this is a baseless claim. > I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause. So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid? > A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive). Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad. Just a note to everyone reading this: the subject of making people feel bad is a social phenomenon that is entirely orthogonal to whether or not a language standard is “proscriptive.” The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > If language standards indeed cause discrimination, please demonstrate how. Otherwise this is a baseless claim. That wasn't my claim. My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination. You can look at how regional UK dialects affect employability and education outcomes. You can look at the way speakers of the ebonics dialect have been forces to learn to change not just their dialect but their accent to get jobs. There is such a wealth of examples of the roles that language plays in descrimination that suggesting otherwise seems odd to me. > So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid? I think if we encouraged people to gain more exposure to other dialects in school and didn't teach people that those dialects are wrong then there would be less judging of people based on how they speak rather than what they are saying. > Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad. That is not what I said. I might support a standard, depending on how that standard is determined, how it is promoted and how flexible it is to change. My concerns with linguistic standards has nothing to do with "making people feel bad" and everything to do with denying opportunities to people. I've stated this repeatedly so I'm not sure why this isn't getting through... > The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree. No, the term is the one I used originally but then mistyped in my last response "prescriptive" ("proscriptive" is the opposite, telling people what not to do rather than what what to do.) "Normative" and "prescriptive" are similar but distinct terms. When you tell people how to speak, that is prescriptive, when you judge people based on how they speak, that is normative. So in my view, prescriptive linguistics encourages normative behaviors around language.

by shkkmo 5y ago

CyberRabbi 5y ago

>> This is a failure to demonstrate how promoting language standards may result in increased discrimination. > It does that right now, no "may" about it. If language standards indeed cause discrimination, please demonstrate how. Otherwise this is a baseless claim. > I've literally had people tell that they assume someone is stupider if they use the "me" instead of "I" in an "and" clause. So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid? > A good language standard would be determined inclusive organization that is representative of all its speakers, would be a living standard that changes as the underlying language and it's dialects change (i.e descriptive), and would understood as common reference point for communication rather than as the one correct way of using that language ( i.e. not proscriptive). Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad. Just a note to everyone reading this: the subject of making people feel bad is a social phenomenon that is entirely orthogonal to whether or not a language standard is “proscriptive.” The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree.

shkkmo 5y ago
> If language standards indeed cause discrimination, please demonstrate how. Otherwise this is a baseless claim. That wasn't my claim. My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination. You can look at how regional UK dialects affect employability and education outcomes. You can look at the way speakers of the ebonics dialect have been forces to learn to change not just their dialect but their accent to get jobs. There is such a wealth of examples of the roles that language plays in descrimination that suggesting otherwise seems odd to me. > So you think if a standard English did not exist, then people would no longer judge others who speak differently from them as stupid? I think if we encouraged people to gain more exposure to other dialects in school and didn't teach people that those dialects are wrong then there would be less judging of people based on how they speak rather than what they are saying. > Right so you support the idea of a language standard, likely for all the benefits I’ve listed, except when people use them to make other people feel bad. That is not what I said. I might support a standard, depending on how that standard is determined, how it is promoted and how flexible it is to change. My concerns with linguistic standards has nothing to do with "making people feel bad" and everything to do with denying opportunities to people. I've stated this repeatedly so I'm not sure why this isn't getting through... > The term he is looking for is “normative” and all standards, language or not, must be normative to a degree. No, the term is the one I used originally but then mistyped in my last response "prescriptive" ("proscriptive" is the opposite, telling people what not to do rather than what what to do.) "Normative" and "prescriptive" are similar but distinct terms. When you tell people how to speak, that is prescriptive, when you judge people based on how they speak, that is normative. So in my view, prescriptive linguistics encourages normative behaviors around language.