Language variety discrimination: SAE (Southern American ...



The language variety subordination of Southern American English

R. Jared Hogue, MSE

November 21, 2005

2252 words

In modern society, discrimination against a person based on their race, ethnic heritage, or disability is against the law and perceiving that person based on a bias or stereotype is not only wrong, it has gotten many into hot water. This is not so in the world of linguistics. One of the few remaining socially acceptable forms of discrimination is dialectical in nature, or negatively judging someone based on their pronunciation language, or even the colloquialisms in their idiolect. This is not applicable to those who are non-native English speakers, but according to the research and to current laws, it is true for native born English speakers with a regional language variety (Lippi-Green 160).

Every culture has a certain sub-culture identifiable by features, normally including linguistic, which mark them for separation by members of the “accepted” culture. So Southern American English is not unique, other language varieties are relegated to the same fate as well. But, why? Simple: language subordination. If someone from the mainstream sector can keep another out then he or she doesn’t have to accept responsibility for not understanding how that other person speaks (Lippi-Green 69-73). And far too often we are guilty of demeaning that which we don’t understand. Although...it is easy to see the differences.

Many people couldn’t tell the differing varieties of a language spoken in a foreign country. For example, most Americans might miss the differences between speakers of differing varieties of British English. However, those same Americans could clearly identify the different regional varieties of American English (to a general area anyway). In a recent study, results showed that “90 % of respondents from Michigan and Indiana recognized Southern American English as a distinct variety of American English.” However, both groups also evaluated Southern American as the most “incorrect” variety of American English (Bailey & Tillery).

One might wonder if the Michigan and Indiana respondents used any data or personal observations in their opinions, or perhaps the media influenced their judgment. Subtle discrimination against Southern American speakers can be seen in movies and television, in the print and on the web, in our businesses and forums, and maybe even in our education system. These southern stereotypes have long plagued the media, often damaging southern culture and speech with hyperbolic dramatizations, often portraying the speaker of Southern American as a person of below average intelligence, or worse.

Throughout this paper, examples will illustrate the negative impact that language subordination and generalization has had, not on southern culture, but how the southerner is perceived by the non-southerner.

On the Silver Screens

The Dukes of Hazzard, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Larry the Cable Guy are all gross generalizations of Southern American English which have had a hidden effect on perception of southerners (Bailey & Tillery). While these types of programs appear to be produced for southern audiences, that is their hidden danger. They damage the southern persona by being nationally available and easily misunderstood by those people north of the Mason-Dixon, when non-southern audiences watch these programs and assume that all speakers of Southern American are as they are portrayed on the screen. And while this is damaging to southern culture, it is easily identifiable and ignored by those who recognize it for what it is. A more subtle approach has also appeared in movies and television.

Many examples of Southern American stereotypes are evident in children’s programming as well, especially programs with main characters who are voiced by Standard American English-voiced actors but whose side characters, often silly ones, are voiced with a southern regional language variety. Warner Brothers have for years made cartoons featuring a rooster named Foghorn Leghorn, who is typically good natured, but often out-smarted. His Southern American drawl is extremely thick and his phrasing is stereotypically over-the-top, creating a false image of those who may speak like him. Many of his idioms are reminiscent of a deep southern dialect, unfamiliar even to a great many speakers of Southern American, but this is unknown to the non-southern population.

More recently, Nickelodeon’s SpongeBob SquarePants, presents a character from Texas, Sandy, who is replete with southern stereotypes. She constantly talks about herself as a cow-roping, bull-wrangling, land “critter”. Aside from her constant use of the word “critter”, she had a dialogue in one episode with the show’s title character, SpongeBob-a Standard American-voiced character, in which she asked SpongeBob to repeat what she said (Sandy, SpongeBob, and the Worm).

Sandy: “Ain’t nuthin’ too big or too ornery for me to catch.”

SpongeBob: “There isn’t anything-” [Sandy cuts him off, forcefully.]

Sandy: “AIN’T NUTHIN’…”

SpongeBob: [High-pitched voice, with much difficulty.]

“Ain’t nu-uthin’…”

In this example, the standard-voiced character smoothly changes the wording of the southern-voiced character. This innocent exchange from a children’s cartoon opens many topics for linguistic discussion. Does the second speaker, SpongeBob, have any right to alter the wording of the southern-voiced character, Sandy? Did this imply that the character, or at least the writers in this case, viewed the southern dialogue as incorrect? And why did he have noticeable trouble switching to the southern dialect? These are all interesting questions, but no matter the answer, the end result is the same. The southern-voiced character is portrayed as grammatically incorrect, and therefore, sounding less intelligent.

It is interesting to note, that just before this dialogue, SpongeBob-attempting to keep Sandy from doing something dangerous (read as ignorant?), disguises himself as Sandy’s father and forbids her from leaving to do this thing. He says, “Y’all come back here, young lady!” Looking at the previous paragraph where he is shown correcting Sandy’s grammar, it is interesting to note that Sandy does not correct him for his incorrect use of the plural second-person pronoun when addressing her in Southern American. According to Cynthia Bernstein (109), “non-Southerners misrepresent Southerners as using y’all consistently to refer to a singular addressee.” Of course, it could have been because of her southern manners that she did not.

Hot off the Press

This kind of negative portrayal also finds a home in the print media. In Rosina Lippi-Green’s work on accent discrimination, she includes an interesting article from a small newspaper (208). In the excerpted column, which was meant to be funny, differing states have a state motto question drawing strongly on a stereotype, “but the southern states are distinct from the northern in a distinct way:

Vermont: Is it completely organic?

Florida: So how much did he leave her?

New York: You got a problem with that, buddy?

California: You got a green card, buster?

Montana: You from the government?

Texas: Yuh shure ah cain’t carry it concealed?

Alabama: Ain’t that right, Jimmy Bob?

S. Carolina: May ah see yo driver’s license and registration?

Mississippi: Hunh?

It’s interesting to note that in this example, although New York is an area with a distinct regional language variety, no phonology is evident in the example question. While this is meant to be light-hearted, the southern states’ questions are tainted with negativity with the Mississippi response being downright insulting.

Another good example was provided in Ms. Lippi-Green’s book a few pages later. When reporting on how Charles Kuralt has reported the news for the last thirty-seven years, the Lansing State Journal felt it necessary to point out that “beneath that deceptive North Carolina drawl, there’s a crisp intelligence.” (emphasis added) Once again the media points out that if someone has intelligence and a southern accent, then the latter masks the former, deceiving the audience. There is also a derogatory tone in the phrasing of “crisp intelligence”, which makes a stark contrast to the word “drawl” and leads one to believe that even if a southerner were born with intelligence, the chances that it would be a “crisp intelligence”, or keen intellect, or sharp wit, is rare if not completely unheard of.

The Business World

Many recent studies have shown that having a regional speech pattern or way of speaking can hinder your chance of obtaining a new job or advancement in your current place of employment. In a society which prizes the middle of the road standard, any deviation could prove costly. Once again, it is those individuals speaking Southern American who are facing the proverbial wall because of language subordination.

One often quoted study performed at the University of North Texas by Dianne Markley and Patricia Cukor-Avila, shows that job-seekers who speak the Southern American language variety of English were “more often recommended for lower level jobs that offer little client or customer contact (Wood).” This study appears in numerous business magazines and online employment sites. The interesting thing to note is not necessarily that the research reveals this data, but that the way in which it was reported supported the findings. In the business forum, the focus was not on trying to stop language variety discrimination in the workplace, but rather to inform the reader so that he or she can be responsible for their speech. Taeyma Sapp quoted this study and ended her article with this simple statement, “Bland is best (Sapp).” The author is telling the audience that the speaker is responsible for any shortcomings and, implying, that it is okay for some employers to demand that their employees speak a certain way.

It would seem that subordination and discrimination would be something for the courts to settle, but that businesses must surely be wrong when denying employment to qualified southern candidates based on their speech. This is not so.

When looking at foreign-born, American citizens who speak English, the law does offer protection. The first language variety-based issue of discrimination was brought by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1992 on the behalf of an Indian-born credit manager who lost his job because customers complained that they couldn’t understand him. This man won his case, opening the doors for many similar language-based discrimination lawsuits (Deibel).

However, these cases have all dealt with foreign born English speakers whose native tongue phonology had interfered with their English clarity. Does the same legal protection hold for native born English speakers with a southern language variety? According to Regina Aberini Young, a labor and employment attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, the answer is no. Young states that it is not illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of an employee’s or applicant’s regional speech. “In order for one to have a claim for discrimination or harassment, one has to be in a ‘protected class’. One’s American roots, in terms of region, are not protected” (Faulkner).

As the law is an ever changing entity, struggling to keep pace with a changing society, it is surely only a matter of time before regional language variety discrimination is recognized by the courts. Anytime qualified applicants are passed over for employment for a reason that does not prevent them from executing the job, it is discrimination, whether it is due to race or use of the plural second-person pronoun “y’all”.

Not Unnoticed

It does not escape the attention of the oppressed when they are treated as such, and the same goes for language variety sublimation. There are those with southern speech who are making a stand for their language. Dr. James Kibler speaks out for the League of the South on their website in support for Southern American English and compares those who would denigrate it to the forcible replacement of Gaelic with English when England took control of Ireland (Kibler). The author of the site fears the same fate will meet the south which met Ireland: cultural and linguistic subordination. And his example is correct; many examples are evident of people who speak Southern American being offered help to cure their speech. Rosina Lippi-Green describes this process as a cultural homogenization and gives many examples its ability to wash away our heritage and sense of identity (134-147).

Conclusion

It is clear that Southern American language variety discrimination and subordination exists in American culture, what is unclear is what to do about it. As stated previously, every culture has at least on sub-culture which is outside the mainstream and is open to scorn. The real question is: what do we want to do about this? The easy answer is that every one should accept responsibility for their own end of the conversation, no matter how the other participant sounds, and listen for what is said and not how it is said. Of course, this is unfounded optimism.

Works Cited

Bailey, Guy and Jan Tillery. “Do You Speak American? American Varieties: Sounds of

the South.” PBS. Ed. Joe Frost. 3 Nov. 2005. .

Bernstein, Cynthia. “Grammatical Features of Southern Speech: yall, might could, and

fixin to.” English in the Southern United States. Eds. Stephen Nagle and Sara

Sanders. Cambridge: University Press, 2003. 106-118.

Deibel, Mary. “The Drawl Debate.” Simply Family. Ed. Unnamed Editor. 30 Oct.

2005. .

Faulkner, Diane. “Speaking Up for Refined Speech.” Human Resource Executive

Magazine. Ed. Anne Freedman. 11 Nov. 2005. .

Kibler, James E. “Verbal Independence.” League of the South. Ed. David Jones. 18 Nov. 2005. .

Lippi-Green, Rosina. English with an Accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination

in the United States. New York: Routledge. 1997.

“Sand, SpongeBob, and the Worm.” SpongeBob Squarepants. Nickelodeon.

Hollywood. 2005.

Sapp, Taeyma. “Job-Seekers’ Tip: Lose the Accent.” BusinessWeekOnline. Ed. Robert

McNatt. 11 Sept. 2000. 10. Nov. 2005. .

Wood, Lindsay. “Regional Accents Can Hurt Job Opportunities.” The Galt Global

Review. Ed. Unnamed Editor. 15 Nov. 2005. .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download