At school we are introduced to Standard English as the desired written form of English and will be encouraged to use the grammar and lexis of this variety in our writing. If we are successful in our efforts at assimilating this new variety of English it can be argued that we become bi-dialectal as we are able to use Standard English in it’s written form and also, to a certain extent, as a spoken variety in very formal situations.
In-keeping with the view of language as a form of self-expression Jackson & Stockwell (1996:24) also argue that we may make a conscious effort to alter our dialect or accent in order to project a desired impression of ourselves or to make ourselves easier to understand. However, it is also possible that we may alter our use of language unconsciously depending upon whom we are speaking with and the situation within which we are speaking. This alteration, conscious and unconscious, may take two forms, convergence and divergence. If we want to be accepted or viewed favourably by a group during discourse we may mirror or imitate certain features of their speech so that our own speech converges with theirs. Conversely we may wish to distance ourselves from a particular group, in this instance we would alter our speech so that it was different to the group and so diverges. We may accentuate our regional accent or dialect in order to display our dialect loyalty and this can be a feature of either convergence or divergence.
Such language manipulation can, however, have pitfalls particularly if the speaker is not altogether linguistically adept. Attempts to modify speech patterns in order to mirror those of people from a different region or social class may result in hyperadaptation which occurs when the speaker over modifies and changes the pronunciation of words that are not pronounced differently in the target dialect.
What can be seen from the discussion on context is that much of the context within which language is used is derived from social situations and expectations. Whilst dialectologists may approach all dialects as linguistically equal it is apparent that not all dialects are viewed as socially equal. Certainly within the UK, and to a similar degree in the US, assumptions regarding a person’s social class and education may be made on the basis of that person’s accent and use of language. Indeed much has been written regarding prevalent social attitudes towards accent and dialect both here and in the US with much of the commentary supporting the idea of a social ‘pecking order’ of dialects and accents. Trudgill (Bex & Watts eds. 1999:117) Hudson (2000:2) and Metcalf (2000) all make the argument that Standard English is the variety of English most associated with ‘educated’ or ‘professional’ people and educational establishments. Trudgill (1999:121) and Jackson & Stockwell (1996:6) expand this argument by asserting that Standard English is primarily a social dialect that is spoken predominantly by those at the higher end of the social spectrum, and one which carries more prestige than other varieties of English.
The same assertions are also made with regard to Received Pronunciation. Trudgill (1999:118) and Jackson & Stockwell (1996:119) identify RP as being the accent which carries the highest status and prestige in the UK and one that can be uniquely categorised as a purely social accent used by people from upper or middle class backgrounds.
However, if RP is considered the prestige accent in the UK all other accents are not considered equal behind it. A person’s accent can have a profound affect upon the person hearing it and judgements will be made regarding the speaker’s intellect, competence and trustworthiness. Jackson & Stockwell state that Scottish and Welsh accents are highly regarded whilst Scouse and Cockney accents are disliked; indeed it is unlikely to be a coincidence that many companies choose to situate their call centre operations in Scotland, and it could be argued that this is the start of a wider backlash regarding RP.
Taking the points made above, regarding the prevalent social attitudes toward Standard written and spoken English, into consideration it is not difficult to see that limited language and literacy skills may put individuals at a disadvantage with regards to education and employment opportunities. The effects of poor literacy skills upon individuals education and employment opportunities have come under increased scrutiny since the publication of Sir Claus Moser’s working group report, A Fresh Start-Improving Literacy and Numeracy, in 1999.
Statistics included in the report conclude that approximately one in five adults in the UK do not have the literacy skills expected of an eleven year old (DfEE, 1999:1). The report also uses statistics to support assertions made regarding the effects of such low levels of literacy, particularly upon an individual’s employment opportunities. Research by City University cited in the report suggests that those with low levels of basic skills are most likely to be in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs and four times more likely to experience long-term unemployment (DfEE, 1999:17).
This view is supported by Parsons and Bynner in their study Basic Skills and Social Exclusion (2002:8), however they also go further by stating that poor readers are also more likely to have lower than average earnings. Parsons and Bynner (2002:7) also studied the effects upon an individual’s education and discovered that a high proportion of poor readers were not entered for any national qualifications at 16 years of age and that an even higher percentage were found to finish their education at this age. Given the views outlined above, that Standard English is considered to be the language of education, it is easy to see the correlation between being unable to use written Standard English and acquiring a high level of education.
If it is easy to see how a low level of literacy skills may affect an individual in education and employment it is equally easy to see that being unable to converse using a spoken form of Standard English may have a similar impact. Given that we use spoken language depending upon the context of the situation we are in, an inability to modify spoken language is likely to be viewed in a negative light by employers and to create a disadvantage throughout an individual’s education.
Whilst it is possible to argue that how a person speaks should not be a measure of their ability, in truth it is often used as such. Every time we speak to a person for the first time they will make judgements regarding our competence based upon how we use language. In the US this viewpoint is supported by many in the debate over Ebonics, or Black English, as a language separate from English. CNN (Dec 22, 1996) report that whilst African-American students make up only 52% of the total students in Oakland, California, they account for 71% of those on special-education courses. The argument is also made that this dialectal form of English is unsuitable for the workplace and is likely to hinder an individual in their search for employment.
In conclusion, it is apparent that the influences upon the way we learn and use language are many and varied, and also that they cannot each be viewed in isolation. The issue of context and an individual’s ability to use language to suit a given situation is an unavoidable aspect of discussing the social aspects of language use, and the same is true of a discussion regarding the effects of limited language skills. Furthermore, as context is often derived from social situations, and as places of education and employment are social situations it would be difficult to study the social aspects of language acquisition and use without consideration for contextual and economic factors. This inter-relatedness can make achieving a satisfactory level of understanding difficult. However such an understanding is necessary, as is the recognition that these influences also often constitute barriers, in order to successfully and effectively enable basic skills learners to improve their language and literacy skills.
References
-
Trudgill, P. (1994) Dialects. London: Routledge.
-
Jackson, H & Stockwell, P. (1996) An Introduction to The Nature and Functions of Language. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.
-
Trudgill, P. (1999) Standard English: what it isn’t. In Bex, T & Watts, R. (eds) Standard English: the widening debate. P117-128. London: Routledge.
-
Department for Education and Employment (1999) A Fresh Start – Improving Literacy and Numeracy (The report of the working group chaired by Sir Claus Moser). London: DfEE.
-
Parsons, S & Bynner, J (2002) Basic Skills and Social Exclusion. London: The Basic Skills Agency.
-
Metcalf, J (2000) The Standard Is Superior.
-
CNN (1996) ‘Black English’ proposal draws fire.
-
Hudson, R (2000) The Language Teacher and descriptive versus prescriptive norms: The educational context.
Jackson & Stockwell (1996:2) argue that even as young children we assume several different roles, those of child to our parents, sibling, friend and pupil, and that we alter our use of language depending upon which of these roles we assume.
Jackson & Stockwell (1996:121) citing Labov, W (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns.