4 ms·

> 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, rese

> 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.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > 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. “Local” is totally subjective. The core point is that requiring that a job application speaks in a certain manner is not necessarily unjust and likely in the vast majority of cases is a pragmatic matter. Language / dialect is not an intrinsic property of someone’s identity. People are able to learn new accents, dialects, and languages. Accents being the easiest to learn. It’s not a protected class. The existence of a standard makes it easier for newcomers to learn the language. > 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? No, that’s nonsense. If someone’s feelings are unintentionally hurt because they are made aware that their English is not correct, that is not racism.

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.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> 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. “Local” is totally subjective. The core point is that requiring that a job application speaks in a certain manner is not necessarily unjust and likely in the vast majority of cases is a pragmatic matter. Language / dialect is not an intrinsic property of someone’s identity. People are able to learn new accents, dialects, and languages. Accents being the easiest to learn. It’s not a protected class. The existence of a standard makes it easier for newcomers to learn the language. > 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? No, that’s nonsense. If someone’s feelings are unintentionally hurt because they are made aware that their English is not correct, that is not racism.