Ask or aks? How linguistic prejudice perpetuates inequality (2022)
essex.ac.uk
essex.ac.uk
> Decades of research shows that the idea that any variation from standard English is incorrect (or, worse, unprofessional or uneducated) is a smokescreen for prejudice. Linguicism can have serious consequences by worsening existing socio-economic and racial inequalities.
No, this is utter rubbish. While languages do change over time, most modern languages have their own standard form. You can't just say that it's prejudicial just because someone gets called out or judged for mispronouncing a word. In fact, they should be. Proficiency in the standard form of a nation-state's language is crucial to being an informed citizen.
Not everybody's whim should be accommodated. At some point, people need to take personal responsibility. Leave this ideological post-modern woke BS out of linguistics.
How about you leave your pre-modern prescriptive prejudice out of linguistics.
If you want to discriminate against people for how they speak, that's your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with linguistics as practiced.
It seems to me that linguistics should note that, yes, it is used, and it has a very definite meaning, and it has a connotation about the social class and education of the speaker, and is therefore considered socially improper even if it is linguistically proper.
The comment I was responding to was deriving moral law from a "standard form" and shaming those who were grown or educated in an alternative form. In fact not just shaming, but proclaiming the righteousness of discrimination based upon one's dialect.
A linguist or sociologist would describe that some form does get used and discrimination happens because of it. But they would not be prescriptive in either, and especially not the latter.
- several of my classmates would pronounce 'ask' as 'aks'.
- I and many others used glottal stops in place of the 't' sounds in words like 'satellite'.