3 questions

Question

Three interesting questions from Tony Bex & Richard J. Watts (eds), Standard English: the widening debate. London: Routledge. 1999

Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be opposed?

Are standard languages hegemonic forms to be acquired?

Does access to standard language give people greater social and economic mobility, or is this another myth associated with standard languages?

How would you tackle them?

Kooyeen · Accepted Answer

I don't have a clue what a hegemonic form is supposed to mean.
And I don't know what you mean by standard language.

Anonymous · Answer

HEGEMONY (hegemonic): The processes by which dominant culture maintains its dominant position: for example, the use of institutions to formalize power; the employment of a bureaucracy to make power seem abstract (and, therefore, not attached to any one individual); the inculcation of the populace in the ideals of the hegomonic group through education, advertising, publication, etc.; the mobilization of a police force as well as military personnel to subdue opposition.

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/terms/hegemony.html
-----------------------------

A standard language (also standard dialect or standardized dialect) is a particular http://www.EnglishForward.com/wiki/Variety_%28linguistics%29 of a http://www.EnglishForward.com/wiki/Language that has been given either legal or quasi-legal status. As it is usually the form promoted in schools and the media, it is usually considered by speakers of the language to be more "correct" in some sense than other dialects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_language

Kooyeen · Answer

I still don't understand. Are there hegemonic forms in a language? There might be common forms, but they are not imposed. Speakers in a certain community just pick them up naturally. And it seems to me that "standard languages" are not very used in fact, generally speaking. As an example, if I'm not mistaken, almost no one speaks standard Arabic. Standard Italian? LOL. Standard English? Hmm. We all talk using the language we've picked up somewhere, for some reason, mainly growing up. If for some people it's standard, it's just a coincidence.

Shaved · Answer

I think the bias behind the writers' original intent is clear. (rant incoming...)

There is a belief in many 'linguist circles' that the most common or official language of a region that is host to multiple languages (ex. English in Southern California) is somehow responsible for oppressing those who don't speak it (for whatever reson). Many postmodern sociolinguists and anthropological linguists use this argument as a "scientific" lever for acheiving political gain (Quebec's independence movement, Basque separatist movements, amnesty for illegal immigrants in the US, and many other pet issues).

This view posits that native speakers of the common language exclude those individuals who don't speak their language from all aspects of the economy but the lowest sectors, INTENTIONALLY- BECAUSE THEY ARE EITHER RACISTS OR RADICAL NATIONALISTS. (That's at least the underlying premise, and sometimes authors go as far as to spell it out.)

I'm not making arguments for or against this trend (at least not in this thread), but I thought someone should at least point out the issues these questions are dancing around.

Anonymous · Answer

As an example, if I'm not mistaken, almost no one speaks standard Arabic. Standard Italian? LOL. Standard English?

Are we only talking about spoken form? BTW, Mr P says there's such a thing as "standard spoken British English". Do you disagree with him?

<If for some people it's standard, it's just a coincidence.>

Could you expand on that?

Anonymous · Answer

<Basque separatist movements>

What do you think happened to Basque and Catalan speakers during Franco's regime?

Kooyeen · Answer

AnonymousAre we only talking about spoken form? BTW, Mr P says there's such a thing as "standard spoken British English". Do you disagree with him?

Nope... but for many languages, it seems the "standard" is not that common compared to local dialects, variations, or varieties that are not 100% standard. You might hear the standard form on some TV channels, or on newspapers, but other than that the real language is not 100% standard.

Anonymous<If for some people it's standard, it's just a coincidence.>

It's just that I think people don't usually speak the way they are taught, or following any rule or standard. We just speak a variety we picked up, with some features that develop for some reason that is not clear... that's why we don't all talk the same way even in the same community. If you don't say "y'all", it's not because you were taught it's wrong, but it's because you don't live in Texas. If you cringe when you hear "between Pam and I", it's not because you were taught it's grammatically wrong, it's just because you've never used it and never picked it up. Young people who grew up hearing "between you and I" now use it interchangeably with "between you and me", and don't cringe. And teaching them that form is wrong won't stop them from keeping on using it on a daily basis.

Shaved · Answer

AnonymousWhat do you think happened to Basque and Catalan speakers during Franco's regime?

I know what happened to them. Your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

The authors of those questions are refering to people who move out of the region where their language is dominant and refuse to learn or use the dominant language of their new home. The question is about whose responsibility it is to bridge the language gap.... the immigrant or the host population?

I don't think there's a question at all here. But the mindset behind these questions is this:

The fact that there is a single dominant language in any given area is not fair to those people who don't speak the language but still live in the area.

This is the syllogism:

P1 Immigrants are forced to learn the language of the place they move to (or face poverty because they can't participate in the economy without the language).

P2 Being forced to do something in order to avoid poverty is economic coersion.

P3 Economic coersion is basically an evil act.

Therefore, encouraging immigrants to assimilate linguistically is an evil act.

Their questions attack the premise that it behooves a person to assimilate linguistically, which is an ignorant position at best and a woefully irresponsible one at worst.

Anonymous · Answer

<The authors of those questions are refering to people who move out of the region where their language is dominant and refuse to learn or use the dominant language of their new home. >

Sorry? You mentioned Basque Separatists. Why? How are they relevant to your argument?

Anonymous · Answer

<Their questions attack the premise that it behooves a person to assimilate linguistically, which is an ignorant position at best and a woefully irresponsible one at worst.>

Would you say it is equally an ignorant and irresponsible position to have the premise that it behooves every person to assimilate linguistically?

3 questions

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions