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. If l

>> 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.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > You can look at how regional UK dialects affect employability and education outcomes. If you apply for a job in China and you only speak broken Chinese, resembling a pidgin language, it’s not “discrimination” if you are not hired. Similarly, if you apply to a position where you are expected to speak standard English and you only speak a lesser known dialect, that is not discrimination either. It’s not meeting job requirements. Yes it’s unfortunate that those who don’t have the skill of speaking standard English cannot obtain those jobs, just as it’s unfortunate non-Chinese speakers cannot obtain jobs in Chinese-speaking areas. The good news is that we have brains that are capable of learning new skills. > My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination. This is just false. Discrimination is a social phenomenon that itself is causal to your so-called prescriptive approach to language, not the other way around. In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa. It’s silly to blame racism/classism on the promotion of correct English. Especially when the existence of a standard for correct English makes it clear and unambiguous for new people entering the English-speaking world how they can most effectively communicate with existing English speakers.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > just as it’s unfortunate non-Chinese speakers cannot obtain jobs in Chinese-speaking areas Except the dialects are often local to the places where the opportunities are being sought and can exist due to a long history of racism driven segregation...so you analogy is completely erroneous. > In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa. I'm glad to hear you admit alteast part of this. If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions? This is precisely my point: this history and the current reality means that we should be care about how and when it is worth spreading prescriptive approaches to language, ideally limiting it to times when ambiguity is created or meaning is lost.

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.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> You can look at how regional UK dialects affect employability and education outcomes. If you apply for a job in China and you only speak broken Chinese, resembling a pidgin language, it’s not “discrimination” if you are not hired. Similarly, if you apply to a position where you are expected to speak standard English and you only speak a lesser known dialect, that is not discrimination either. It’s not meeting job requirements. Yes it’s unfortunate that those who don’t have the skill of speaking standard English cannot obtain those jobs, just as it’s unfortunate non-Chinese speakers cannot obtain jobs in Chinese-speaking areas. The good news is that we have brains that are capable of learning new skills. > My claim was that prescriptive approaches to language facilitate and magnify discrimination and have historically frequently been used to justify and enforce discrimination. This is just false. Discrimination is a social phenomenon that itself is causal to your so-called prescriptive approach to language, not the other way around. In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa. It’s silly to blame racism/classism on the promotion of correct English. Especially when the existence of a standard for correct English makes it clear and unambiguous for new people entering the English-speaking world how they can most effectively communicate with existing English speakers.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > just as it’s unfortunate non-Chinese speakers cannot obtain jobs in Chinese-speaking areas Except the dialects are often local to the places where the opportunities are being sought and can exist due to a long history of racism driven segregation...so you analogy is completely erroneous. > In other words, the pre-existing discriminatory attitude causes the exclusionary behavior in language not vice versa. I'm glad to hear you admit alteast part of this. If you grant that discrimination leads to some language prescriptions, is it that hard to see how those prescriptions, when used normatively by people with no intention of racism, can end up perpetuating the exact racist attitudes that lead to the creation of those language prescriptions? This is precisely my point: this history and the current reality means that we should be care about how and when it is worth spreading prescriptive approaches to language, ideally limiting it to times when ambiguity is created or meaning is lost.