Why is dialect discrimination (unlike sexual or ethnic discrimination) still openly legitimised in the workplace?
Legitimising dialect discrimination
Thank god it is still OK! Nevertheless, one day very soon I fear this too will be swallowed up by the PC whirlwind lashing our civilisation, cracking our hides and impeding our most necessary of necessities.
Believe me - it's only a matter of time........ :-( Only a matter of time before it's "illegal" to slag off Glesca, Dundee, Scouse, Geordie, Brummie, West Yorkshire, Mancunian, Estuary, Bristolian, Black Country, South Welsh Valleys, East Anglian......and Kirkcaldy.....especially Kirkcaldy as that's where muppet Gordon Brown comes from...... :-)
Aye....the PC whirlwind will ravage the linguistic landscape before much more water has flowed beneath the Forth Bridge.....
Aye....the PC whirlwind will ravage the linguistic landscape before much more water has flowed beneath the Forth Bridge.....
I have found this kind of discrimination in the workplace in America, although it tends to be more based on "dialect" (use of irregular grammar) than "accent" (the way people pronounce things).
The same reason that students in high school must learn the prescriptivist form of their language. Some dialects (for example AAVE and Pittsburghese) are not very mutually intelligible and it's necessary to have a standardized form which is taught throughout the country, which every student knows. The inability to speak the standardized form is probably viewed as an indicator of how serious an individual was about other subjects in school.
I agree with Trawicks above. In the US, "alternative" grammar is perceived as less educated, and people who use them are deemed less educated.
As far as accents go, if you travel across the US you'll encounter many different accents and you'll find that people speaking with various accents regularly acheive high paying corporate positions, become physicians, etc. In fact, of the most recent presidents of the US, two, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both have strong southern US accents.
However, alternative grammar (e.g. ebonics or Appalachian) is generally not used publically by people who have completed a 4 year university degree. You won't hear your physician say "Well Billybob, I done forgot where I put my prescription pad. I'd ask my nurse but she don't know where it's at neither." So since this type of grammar is used almost exclusively by people who are not well educated, it's not likely you'll see its speakers embraced in the boardroom.
As far as accents go, if you travel across the US you'll encounter many different accents and you'll find that people speaking with various accents regularly acheive high paying corporate positions, become physicians, etc. In fact, of the most recent presidents of the US, two, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both have strong southern US accents.
However, alternative grammar (e.g. ebonics or Appalachian) is generally not used publically by people who have completed a 4 year university degree. You won't hear your physician say "Well Billybob, I done forgot where I put my prescription pad. I'd ask my nurse but she don't know where it's at neither." So since this type of grammar is used almost exclusively by people who are not well educated, it's not likely you'll see its speakers embraced in the boardroom.
You bring up a good point here. I've always maintained that language is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices remaining in our increasingly PC society. I think it stems in part from a number of factors (and Skippy very accurately honed in on them).
For institutional uniformity, all languages tend to have a "prescriptivist form" (to use Skippy's excellent term). Such a form is understandably useful in providing a common base of language instruction. This is the so-called "standard language" which ends up being used as the benchmark for "correct grammar" and formal speech and writing. This standard language generally has its origins in nothing more authoritative than the fact it stems from the dialect spoken by the most influential social class.
And language being that most human of abilities, it's not surprising that it should take on associations of class, education and intelligence. Those who do not speak the preferred dialect of the language are often considered lower in class status, less well educated and, in extremis, even less intelligent.
But it can work in reverse too: in the UK, an upper-class accent is no longer necessarily seen as a positive attribute.
"Speak that I may know thee." And boy, isn't that true?
For institutional uniformity, all languages tend to have a "prescriptivist form" (to use Skippy's excellent term). Such a form is understandably useful in providing a common base of language instruction. This is the so-called "standard language" which ends up being used as the benchmark for "correct grammar" and formal speech and writing. This standard language generally has its origins in nothing more authoritative than the fact it stems from the dialect spoken by the most influential social class.
And language being that most human of abilities, it's not surprising that it should take on associations of class, education and intelligence. Those who do not speak the preferred dialect of the language are often considered lower in class status, less well educated and, in extremis, even less intelligent.
But it can work in reverse too: in the UK, an upper-class accent is no longer necessarily seen as a positive attribute.
"Speak that I may know thee." And boy, isn't that true?
**Thank god it is still OK! Nevertheless, one day very soon I fear this too will be swallowed up by the PC whirlwind lashing our civilisation, cracking our hides and impeding our most necessary of necessities. **
So you'd prefer to allow discrimination, both sexual and ethnic, in the work place, would you, Ezikiel?
So you'd prefer to allow discrimination, both sexual and ethnic, in the work place, would you, Ezikiel?
What discrimination are you referring to?
It seems that MollyB is referring to the type of discrimination that both Damian in Edinburgh and Ezikiel support.
It seems that MollyB is referring to the type of discrimination that both Damian in Edinburgh and Ezikiel support.
<<The inability to speak the standardized form is probably viewed as an indicator of how serious an individual was about other subjects in school. >>
How would choosing to use one's dialect in the working place be a sign of being unable to speak the standard form? Some people can use more than one dialect, even if you can't.
How would choosing to use one's dialect in the working place be a sign of being unable to speak the standard form? Some people can use more than one dialect, even if you can't.
**I agree with Trawicks above. In the US, "alternative" grammar is perceived as less educated, and people who use them are deemed less educated. **
And in the US, women and ethnic minorities are still discriminated against because they are considered by many people to be less-able and less educated. The idea is to prevent such discrimination having free reign, isn't it?
And in the US, women and ethnic minorities are still discriminated against because they are considered by many people to be less-able and less educated. The idea is to prevent such discrimination having free reign, isn't it?
<<This is the so-called "standard language" which ends up being used as the benchmark for "correct grammar" and formal speech and writing.>>
A benchmark for whom?
A benchmark for whom?
<<<<This standard language generally has its origins in nothing more authoritative than the fact it stems from the dialect spoken by the most influential social class. >>>>
And that class, being the class in power, imposed its dialect on many of us.
And that class, being the class in power, imposed its dialect on many of us.