DOI: 10.12731/wsd-2014-9.2-19 UDC 316.74:81
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY AND ORAL COMMUNICATION
Skachkova I.I.
Abstract. In a multilingual environment of the vast majority of modern states scientists are exploring language ideology, which is the basis of the language policy of any state.
Purpose. Consideration of language ideology in terms of evaluating communication partners each other's speech peculiarities on the example of the United States.
Method and methodology of work. Scientific methods are used: analysis and synthesis, comparison, generalization, systematic approach.
Results. The author makes the conclusion that, despite the systematic and structured variability of spoken language and an abstractness of national standard, many citizens of multinational states such as the U.S., evaluate the speech of the interlocutor in terms of standard language ideology.
Practical implications. The results are applicable in the theory of linguistics and sociolinguistics.
Keywords: language ideology; ideology of the standard language; language subordination; assimilation; need for an identity.
It is well known that language is flexible and constantly flexing tool for the emblematic marking of social allegiances. We use variation of language to construct ourselves as social beings. In addition, members of the communicative community define social allegiances of communication partner on the basis of chosen pronunciation, grammatical and lexical variants available. This evaluation process is a functional part of spoken communication and does not apply to the written language. As the reference position of this paper we will follow T. Zibs thesis about the potential independence pronunciation of the letter: «All written signs are symbols that offer a greater or lesser range of the sound interpretation» [1, p. 18]. In this article we will consider the language ideology in terms of how communication partners judge each other relying on language traits on the example of the United States.
Study of language ideology at this point is important because in the United States discrimination on racial grounds is prohibited, but there is a hidden discrimination on language grounds. For example, most people believe that there is such a thing as «good» and «bad» languages. Many Americans would not find anything unusual or wrong with a teacher of Puerto Rican students who proposes to solve the language problem in the Puerto Rican school in the following way: «These poor kids come to school speaking a hodge podge. They are all mixed up and don't know any language well. As a result, they can't even think clearly. That's why they don't learn. It's our job to teach them language - to make up for their deficiency. And, since their parents don't really know any language either, why should we waste time on Spanish? It is «good» English which has to be the focus» [2, p. 8-9].
Scientists involved in the study of U.S. language policy say that many English-speaking Americans believe that some types of the English language are «more English» than others, and that there is one perfect and appropriate kind of English that everyone should speak. From point of view of these Americans the failure to speak it is an indication of stupidity, willfulness or misguided social allegiance. Moreover, representatives of the mainstream have convinced the people who speak the criticized varieties of English to believe it too. This behavior is based on language ideology, which is currently being studied by many scientists, including sociolinguists.
There are many definitions of ideology. Most often, ideology is defined as a belief system. American scientist Rosina Lippi-Green defines ideology as «the promotion of the needs and interests of a dominant group or class at the expense of marginalized groups, by means of disinformation and misrepresentation of those marginalized groups» [3, p. 293]. It should be noted that the definition has strong ideological bias. V. Naumov argues that ideology is the basic social «arm» of the state, the aim of which purpose is to influence the basic spheres of human life [4, p. 127]. The language is used as a means of objectifica-tion of the state ideology, vocabulary has a leading role in this process, but in this article we are interested in the dichotomy: ideology vs. oral speech. Many scientists link ideology to language, but French philosopher Michel Foucault, who considered the way in which discourse is «controlled, selected, organized and redistributed» - what he called disciplined, said «discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized» [5, p. 110]. Rosina Lippi-Green says that the «disciplining» of discourse
has to do with who is allowed to speak on the topic - and, thus, who is heard on the topic [3, p. 293]. Investigating the problem of language standardization linguists often use the term «standard language ideology». Standard language ideology is a bias toward an abstract, idealized, non-varying spoken language that is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions [3, p. 293]. This definition refers mainly to the spoken language, but it can also be applied to the written language. As for the speech, all scientists note that there is no single version of speaking, oral form of language. «Uniformity of the code perceived as «the same» by all members of a speech community, is nothing but a fiction» [6, p. 458]. But despite this, standard language ideology proposes that an idealized nation-state has one perfect homogeneous language [7, 8]. Standard language ideology becomes the means by which discourse is seized and provides a rationalization for limiting access to discourse [9]. Authority that is associated with education is the best type of rationalization in this process [3]. In the U.S., there is a system of compulsory education, and therefore the opponents believe that access to discourse is at least theoretically possible: marginalized groups can, by going through the education system, make themselves heard in their own languages. But Michel Foucault points out the fallacy of the assumption of education as an evenly distributed and power-neutral cultural resource. «Any system of education is a political way of maintaining or modifying the appropriation of discourses, along with the knowledge and powers which they carry» [5, p. 123]. Modern Russian researcher S. Kara-Murza called school ideological mechanism «producing human» part of the society. [10]. Rosina Lippi-Green called education the heart of the standardization process [3, p. 294].
As we said above, standard language ideology proposes that an idealized nation-state has one perfect homogeneous language that is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions. In the U.S. that language is primarily white, upper-middle class, and middle Americans. Although the language is often claimed «unaccented», it is accented, like all other language varieties.
There are two sides to this process of standardization: first, devaluation of everything that is not politically, culturally or socially mainstream; and, second, the validation of the social and linguistic values of the dominant institutions. Linguistic assimilation to an abstracted standard is portrayed as a natural process, necessary and positive for the greater social good [11].
Next, we will consider the process of linguistic subordination, research of which focuses not on the communicative behavior of the individual but on how language ideologies become a part and parcel of institutional practices. «Institution» is often used to refer to social relationships between people, for example, «the institution of mar-riage». In this paper, we use the definition of «institution» given by Rosina Lippi-Green. She defines institution as any organization that has social and structural importance and a specific set of goals important for continuing the established social structures of the community [3, p. 294]. Such institutions include the educational system, the mass media, the entertainment industry, the business sector, the government, the legal system (which largely exists to define and delineate social institutions), the army and religious organizations. The institutional approach relies on a simplistic model: language is communication; communication must be clear to be effective; to be clear, language must be unvarying, static, standardized. This model at first
glance seems reasonable, but it is based on erroneous assumptions. As we have said, scientists have argued that spoken language is not homogeneous and cannot be. Communication is more complicated than the simple sharing of information. And most importantly, the goals of written and spoken language are different.
US scientists study the economic damage caused by using several varieties of English and some foreign languages in daily communication [12]. So many representatives of mainstream wonder why immigrants cannot assimilate linguistically. This issue is currently open for study and there are two different points of view: many people assume it is possible to substitute one accent for another, while others believe such a thing is almost impossible. But the fact that linguistic assimilation is not demanded of all citizens is even more important. Some people speak a distinctive regional and social variety of English that is not subject to public prosecution, for example, entertainer Garrison Keillor, speaking the strong upper Midwest English, television broadcaster Tom Brokaw and Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking Boston English. Other individuals speak a less favored variety of English but they possess other kinds of assets (social, political or economic power) that offset the effect of their less preferred varieties of English. For example, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mexican President Enrique Peña Niet
Для дальнейшего прочтения статьи необходимо приобрести полный текст. Статьи высылаются в формате PDF на указанную при оплате почту. Время доставки составляет менее 10 минут. Стоимость одной статьи — 150 рублей.