Legitimising dialect discrimination

<<There are no such places where people are taught dialect in universities. >>

Why do you need a university to teach you how to use alternative dialects? You have the people themselves, websites, etc.

Don't you get the feeling that standard English speakers are the laziest people on earth? They never seem to go out of their way to learn another dialect, to understand a number of accents, etc. I'm from South Africa, have spent a lot of time in Britain, and can understand many accents from that land. Most of the British standard English speakers Imet are so, sooo mono-dialectal you wouldn't believe it. As the speaker above points out, the Brits have had people like me (immigrants) living in their country for many years, but most Brits just whinge on about "his awful accent", "her way of speaking", etc. Conclusion, they feel safe in their standard, expect everyone else to use it, and are too lazy to learn and listen to others who use another dialect.

So much for standards.

I was speaking more about dialect discrimination in the workplace and not at the interview. It seems that even in companies where there is a mix of dialects, it is the standard English speakers who discriminate against the rest.

<Conclusion, they feel safe in their standard, expect everyone else to use it, and are too lazy to learn and listen to others who use another dialect.>

You said it.

It's true that language use is linked to social identity. So, why are mono-dialectal standard English speakers allowed to "express" their identity in the workplace and speakers of mono-dialectal speakers of other dialects not allowed to do so or are discriminated against if they do?

Judging someone's pronunciation (or grammar or word choice) as wrong may lead to unwarranted judgments about their intelligence or ability.

If people had a better understanding of how language works, they would probably be less inclined to make negative judgments about speakers of different dialects.

Molly B:

The trouble is this - the vast majority of Indians and Pakistanis in the UK live in comparatively small, well defined areas of the country, and invariably in the more urban, metropolitan areas, and even within these narrow confines they live in separate "colonies", more or less. They form little Asiatic "countries" within a country, if you like. There are parts of towns and cities which are almost entirely Asian - places like Glasgow, Leicester, Bradford, Leeds, Southall (West London) and other towns across the country. Walking along streets in some of these areas you could well think you were in Mumbai or Madras or Karachi, amd mosques grace the skyline.

Practically every town in the UK has all sorts of Asian restaurants, but in these areas Asians (and people of Caribbean or Afrian origin or whatever - same situation) are very thin on the ground, so that leaves vast tracts of the UK where people do not come into contact with Asian voices and accents on an everyday basis at all. To see a non-white face is a rarity in much of rural or suburban Britain outside of the metro areas. They only time they do is when they ring up these call centres.

People in rural areas of the UK are MUCH more familiar with Eastern European accents, and Eastern Europeans meld much more easily into those communities in the British Isles than do non Europeans. They are fellow Europeans after all!

That's what we've been doing all these years! ;-)

It seems like this thread has gone on for awhile with several people trying to answer the question but it seems we're all missing the mark... possibly because we don't understand what you mean by discrimination. For example:

<<It seems that even in companies where there is a mix of dialects, it is the standard English speakers who discriminate against the rest.>>

That accusation is both bold and vague at the same time. Are there published studies on this that would explain what you mean by a dialect and that show that this actually happens or is this just your subjective impression? Are you talking about real dialects like Gullah or Scouse or do you mean "dialect" in the more generic sense, as in people who speak with incorrect subject and verb combinations along with non-standard pronunciaion (as in "them there sure is some purty flars"

Also, what kind of discrimination are you talking about? If it's not discrimination in the hiring process then what form does the discrimination take? Is it just your impression that standard English speakers are not friendly toward those who speak a dialect of English or are they excluded from being promoted, get lower raises than the standard English speakers etc.?

<<Judging someone's pronunciation (or grammar or word choice) as wrong may lead to unwarranted judgments about their intelligence or ability. >>

It's always interesting to hear that no matter how horrible a person's grammar might be, it's not a reliable indicator of whether they are educated. So I'd be interested in hearing how many people you know, personally, who are well educated and don't bother or know how to use standard grammar. I'm not talking about Americans who don't use "shall" or even "whom" correctly. How many people with collecge degrees do you know who say "Them's purty flars we bought up d'mamaw's place"? I bet it's not many. I've not met one person with a college degree who doesn't know how to make their subjects and verbs agree.

Is this untrue?

"People who speak stigmatised dialects such as African American Vernacular English or Southern vernacular English continue to be rejected on the basis of their speech even when their dialects have nothing to do with their performance of job-related tasks and general competence. (Wolfram, W. 1993.)"

**"dialect" in the more generic sense, as in people who speak with incorrect subject and verb combinations along with non-standard pronunciaion (as in "them there sure is some purty flars" **

Why would those be incorrect? In whose eyes would they be so?

<<Why would those be incorrect? In whose eyes would they be so? >>

Um.... I'm betting you're not a native speaker of English. The sample sentence in question would be incorrect in the eyes of every native speaker of English and would be incorrect according to every documented grammar textbook. Even the people who speak like that understand that it's incorrect and most teach their children that it's incorrect and I have a feeling that you wouldn't use it either, even though you seem to champion its use. As an aside, I actually grew up in a family where most of us used non-standard English similar to my example. Because it's a "dialect" that's used almost exclusively by uneducated rural people, most of us abandoned its use as we explored beyond the boundaries of our rural community. Certainly by the time we entered university we no longer spoke that way.

I understand your argument that the assignation of this dialect as "undesirable" is arbitrary, but why have any rules at all? Why not say that from now on I will refer to automobiles as "yarn" and my accounting reports will from now on be known as "jabberwocky"? It would be correct only by my own newly created lexicon, but that should be good enough for everyone.

<<<The sample sentence in question would be incorrect in the eyes of every native speaker of English and would be incorrect according to every documented grammar textbook.>>>

So you mean "incorrect" according to the prescriptive rules of standard English, do you?

<As an aside, I actually grew up in a family where most of us used non-standard English similar to my example. Because it's a "dialect" that's used almost exclusively by uneducated rural people, most of us abandoned its use as we explored beyond the boundaries of our rural community. Certainly by the time we entered university we no longer spoke that way. >

Do you feel you lost anything special, precious, or particular along the way?