Lippi-Green, R. (2004). Language ideology and language prejudice. In E. Finegan & J. R.

Rickford (Eds.), Language in the USA: Themes for the twenty-first century (pp. 289–304).
Cambridge University Press.

15
l nguage ideology and
language prejudice
ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

Editors' introduction
This chapter is about an issue that has occupied Americans for centuries - and especially
since the Civil Rights era of the 1960s. It is about prejudice (adverse pre-judgment) against
people based on specific traits, like ethnicity or religion. The trait on which the chapter focuses
is language, a discriminatory trait about which we are much less conscious and much less
concerned. The chapter begins with a list of nine examples where people's intelligence, job
effectiveness, or other personal and professional characteristics are unfairly evaluated on the
basis of the varieties of English they speak.
In this chapter, Rosina Lippi-Green concentrates on the existence of a "standard language
ideology" in the USA- "a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, non-varying spoken language"-
and the various institutions (schools, the media, the courts) that promote it. She exposes some
of the fallacies in this ideology (non-mainstream accents can be difficult if not impossible to
change and they often do not impede communication per se) and the uneven, discriminatory
ways in which it is used to effect language domination (not all ethnic or foreign groups are
asked to change). But she also documents the different responses such domination elicits from
the dominated (resistance versus acquiescence). The author also constructs a model of the
language subordination process (including the uses it makes of authority, mystification, and
misinformation) in order to expose and undermine it.
Although all linguists are to some extent aware of and critical of language prejudice, this
chapter takes the radical position (like Sledd 1972) that the burden of change should rest on the
discriminators alone. Alternatively, or additionally, some linguists encourage the dominated
to keep their non-mainstream dialects for informal use but to become bidialectal, developing
competence in a standard or mainstream variety for work, school, and other formal contexts in
which it is preferred (see Alatis 1970).

Let's begin with the experiences of real people in everyday situations:

A young woman comes to the United States from Uganda. After receiv­
ing a Master's Degree from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, she
accepts employment in that university's Office of Affirmative Action and
Equal Opportunity. During the next four years three different supervisors
are so satisfied with her performance that she is promoted to Administrative
Program Specialist. Then a new Assistant Chancellor for Equal Opportu­
nity, an African American woman, is hired. In the next few months, the new

289
290 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

compan
supervisor makes numerous and documented demeaning and hostile remarks
quite fra
about the woman’s Ugandan accent, excludes her from making oral presen
and espe
tations that she has been making successfully for four years, and restricts her
was, ‘Th
responsibilities in other ways. After complaints and counter complaints to
anything
the Chancellor and to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commis
sion, the new supervisor issues notice that the young woman’s employment The bite
contract will not be renewed. (Kyomugisha v. Clowney) from wo:
on the ‘ii
A woman phones into an Oprah Winfrey taping on “Black English” to make
abilities.
her opinion known: “I guess what I’d like to say is that what makes me feel
that blacks tend to be ignorant is that they fail to se that the word is spelled A officia
A-S-K, not A-X. And when they say aksed, it gives the sentence an entirely commen
different meaning. And that is what I feel holds blacks back.” (1989) down an
for welfa
In 1992, 403 residents of Westfield, Massachusetts (a town of about 36,000
is under
people and a broad ethnic mix), sign a petition and present it to the school
Californ
board. The petition specifically urges that no teacher be assigned to first or
second grade classrooms “who is not thoroughly proficient in the English
language in terms of grammar, syntax and most important the accepted
—
—

These stories, and 1

and standardized use of pronunciation.” (Associated Press 1992)
many people woulc
A professor originally from the south, later employed by a university in the judge others. This i
midwest, relates this story of his first job search: “I got an interview with an but a human behavi
extremely elite undergraduate college in the northeast. They conducted the is among other thi
—

first substantial part of the interview in [another language] and it went well. marking of social a]
When they switched to a question in English, my first answer completely as social beings, to
interrupted the interview. . they broke out laughing for quite a while. I
.

ers choose among:

asked what was wrong and they said they ‘never would have expected’ me
expressions, gramu
to have such an accent. They made a big deal about me having a [prestigious
accent in the second language] and such a strong Southern accent. Of course, that are obvious an
I had been aiming for bland standard English. After that, I got a number of cess is a functional
questions about whether I’d ‘be comfortable’ at their institution. Subtle, but a basic design featt
to me it was not ambiguous.” (Lippi-Green 1997) These sociolingt
do not transfer to ti
In a Seattle bank, a Cambodian-American man with a long history of excellent
in response to dem
work evaluations is repeatedly denied official promotion to a position he is
afready filling and performing well, but not being paid for. A managerial level the purpose of a wi
employee tells him that he is not being promoted because he cannot speak removed from its o
“American.” (Xieng v. Peoples National Bank) are not capable of s
after us or because
The novelist Orson Scott Card (2003) writes: “When I was at Brigham Young
limitations of mem
High School in Provo, Utah, the town of Lehi was seen as the ultimate hick
town. Its major landmark was a grain elevator; its speech was the most extreme
The demands m
version of that hard-R rural Mormon accent that semi-sophisticated people time and space, am
like me delighted in scorning (unaware, of course, of our own less-than-elite paralinguistic featu
accents).” context of any kind
excessive variation
A doctoral candidate relates this story about her fieldwork: “The passenger in
of spoken human la
the seat next to mine asked about [the recording equipment], and I explained
other) writing systt
briefly about my research. He told me that he worked in sales for a large
. .
 Language ideology and language prejudice 291

e remarks company in San Diego, and that it was his job to hire salesmen. He told me
ii presen- quite frankly that he would never hire anyone with a strong foreign accent,
stricts her and especially not a Mexican accent. I asked him why. His only response
plaints to was, ‘That’s smart business. I have to think of the customers. I wouldn’t buy
Commis- anything from a guy with a Mexican accent.” (Spicher 1992: 3—4)
ployment The Internal Revenue Service removes an agent with a solid work history
from working with clients “because of concern about the effect of her accent
“to make on the ‘image’ of the IRS, not any lack in either communication or technical
s me feel abilities.” (Park v. James A. Baker III, Secretary of the Treasury)
is spelled A official elected to the state Assembly in California notes the multilingual
n entirely commerce in his home town with considerable trepidation: “. .you can go
.

(1989) down and apply for a driver’s license test entirely in Chinese. You can apply
for welfare today entirely in Spanish. The supremacy of the English language
Ut 36,000
is under attack.” (from a report on pending English-Only legislation in
he school
to first or California, “CBS Evening News,” October 1986)
e English
accepted
These stones, and thousands of others just like them, provide evidence of what
2)
many people would acknowledge without dispute: we rely on language traits to
ilty in the judge others. This is not a cultural phenomenon particular to our place and time,
w with an but a human behavior that is characteristic of all language communities. Language
is among other things a flexible and constantly flexing tool for the emblematic
— —

vent 11
marking of social allegiances. We use variation in language to construct ourselves
mplet:ly
as social beings, to signal who we are, and who we are not and cannot be. Speak
—

a while. I
cted’ me ers choose among sociolinguistic variants available (alternative pronunciations,
restigious expressions, grammatical structures), and their choices cluster together in ways
)f course, that are obvious and interpretable to other speakers in the community. This pro
iumber of cess is a functional part of the way we communicate. It is not optional, but rather
ubtle, but a basic design feature of spoken human language.
These sociolinguistic behaviors are specific to the spoken language alone; they
‘excellent do not transfer to the written language. Writing systems are a strategy developed
tion he is in response to demands arising from social, technological, and economic change;
erial level the purpose of a writing system is to convey information over time and space —

not speak removed from its original context. We write things down because our memories
are not capable of storing masses of information for ourselves or those who come
after us or because we consider the message worthy of preserving beyond the
am Young
mate hick limitations of memory.
t extreme The demands made on written language are considerable: we want it to span
ed people time and space, and we want it to do that in a social vacuum, without the aid of
than-elite paralinguistic features (such as intonation and gestures) and often without shared
context of any kind. Thus, the argument goes, written language needs to be free of
excessive variation. This lack of variation the variation that is an essential part
—

ssenger in
explained of spoken human language is the most distinctive characteristic of our (and most
—

‘or a large other) writing systems. The discussion in this chapter has to do exclusively with
292 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

et variation in English” than others

spoken language and particularly the way speakers use and interpr
that everyone should
spoken language.
success, ity, willfulness, or m
Independent of issues of language effectiveness or communicative
language. that they have convi
most people believe that there is such a thing as good language and bad
of language of English to believt
Many assume that it is perfectly reasonable to judge others on the basis
Most would be surprised selves interesting and
variety rather than on the content of what they have to say.
individ ual on origins, propagation,
(if not shocked) at an employer or a teacher who turned away an
a teacher In the most overly
the basis of skin color; most would find nothing unusual or wrong with
solved: tern” or “body of ide
of Puerto Rican students who sees her students as a problem to be
has multiple ideologi
These poor kids come to school speaking a hodge podge. They are all mixed food: “This tape is a
up and don’t know any language well. As a result, they can’t even think of raw-foodism.” Ta]
clearly. That’s why they don’t learn. It’s our job to teach them language to
—

power. But there are

make up for their deficiency. And, since their parents don’t really know any social context, ideok
language either, why should we waste time on Spanish? It is “good” English language studies, wh
which has to be the focus. (cited in Zentella 1996: 8—9)
for more on languag
learn that
And most people are very surprised, disquieted, and even angry to For example, to unde
and this
this fund of commonsense knowledge about language on which they —
begin with the cultui
and
teacher depend so heavily is filled with inaccuracies, false assumptions,
—
“English has always
simple mythology. stand how such argui
they
There is a great deal of evidence to indicate that what people believe is to understand how
works. This
know about language is very different from the way language actually Theorists provide
ical
phenomenon has been observed widely by linguists of many different theoret guage studies ideolo
orientations. One psycholinguist notes this: a dominant group oi
disinformation and in
Most educated people already have opinions about language. They know that cally, when looking a
it is man’s most important cultural invention, the quintessential example
of
unprecedente d event irrevo refer to a “standard la
his capacity to use symbols, and a biologically
ized, non-varying sp
cably separating him from other animals. They know that language pervades
institutions. Of coun
thought, with different languages causing their speakers to construe reality
in different ways. They know that children learn to talk from role models and impossibility.
caregivers. They know that grammatical sophistication used to be nurtured Ideology has been
in the schools, but sagging educational standards and the debasements of philosopher Michel
popular culture have led to a frightening decline in the ability of the average “controlled, selected.
person to construct a grammatical sentence. They also know that English is a
zany, logic-defying tongue.. In the pages that follow, I will try to convince
.
...ashi
you that every one of these common opinions is wrong! (Pinker 1994:
translates
17—18) by which
[Foucault
What is of interest in this chapter, however, is how people use false assump
l
tions about language to justify judgments that have more to do with race, nationa
In the simplest terir
origin, regional affiliation, ethnicity, and religion than with human language and
allowed to speak on
communication. In public situations it has become unacceptable to reject individ
language ideology, v
uals on the basis of the color of their skin, but some can and do reject individuals
homogeneous langu
because of the variety of English they speak or the accent they speak it with.
provides a rationaliz
Somehow, many have come to believe that some types of English are “more
 Language ideology and language prejudice 293

iation in English” than others; that there is one perfect and appropriate kind of English
that everyone should speak; that failure to speak it is an indication of stupid
success, ity, willfulness, or misguided social allegiance. Many hold this belief so firmly
Lnguage. that they have convinced the very people who speak the stigmatized varieties
anguage of English to believe it too. Because these behaviors and beliefs are in them
urprised selves interesting and important, linguists have studied language ideologies, their
idual on origins, propagation, evolution, and effect.
t teacher In the most overly simplistic terms, ideology can be defined as a “belief sys
tern” or “body of ideas.” On this basis, everything is ideological and everybody
has multiple ideologies, as in an advertisement promoting the consumption of raw
all mixed
food: “This tape is a MUST for anybody who actively propagates the ideology
ien thiak
of raw-foodism.” Taken so broadly, ideology has little descriptive or analytical
uage to
power. But there are other approaches, and in the examination of language in its
—

now any
English social context, ideology provides a framework for what has been called critical
language studies, where much of the work on language subordination (see below
for more on language subordination) and the limiting of discourse takes place.
arn that For example, to understand arguments for standardization or for English only, we
and this begin with the cultural conceptions that underlie such arguments (for example,
ns, and “English has always been dominant; it must remain dominant”). To first under
stand how such arguments are linked to particular power structures and interests
ve they is to understand how and why they work.
rks. This Theorists provide dozens of possible definitions of ideology. In critical lan
oretical guage studies ideology is taken as the promotion of the needs and interests of
a dominant group or class at the expense of marginalized groups, by means of
(now that
disinformiition and misrepresentation ofthose marginalized groups. More specifi
ample of cally, when looking at the larger issues of language standardization, linguists often
nt irrevo- refer to a “standard language ideology,” that is, a bias toward an abstracted, ideal-
pervades ized, don-varying spoken language that is imposed and maintained by dominant
ue reality institutions. Of course, everyone speaks a dialect, and a uniform language is an
odels and impossibility.
nurtured Ideology has been linked to language by many thinkers, but it was the French
melts of philosopher Michel Foucault who considered the way in which discourse is
e average “controlled, selected, organised and redistributed” what he called disciplined:
—

iglish is a
convince
as history constantly teaches us, discourse is not simply that which
.

er 1994:
translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thingfor which and
. .

by which there is struggle, discourse is the power which is to be seized.

assump- [Foucault 1984: 110; italics addedi
national
Jage and In the simplest terms, the “disciplining” of discourse has to do with who is
individ- allowed to speak on a topic and, thus, who is heard on that topic. A standard
—

lividuals language ideology, which proposes that an idealized nation-state has one perfect,
it with, homogeneous language, becomes the means by which discourse is seized, and
e “more provides a rationalization for limiting access to discourse.
294 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

best The institutional a

Authority that is associated with education is the most often cited and cation; communicati
be argued that,
established type of rationalization in this process. Thus, it might unvarying, static, sta
in the edu
in a culture like that of the USA, which obliges everyone to participate but because it rests o
alized
cational system, access to discourse is at least theoretically possible: margin that spoken languag
system, make themse lves heard in
groups can, by coming through the educational communication is rn
by pointin g out the
their own languages. Foucault anticipates part of this argument tion, and most cruci
neutral
fallacy of the assumption of education as an evenly distributed and power- cannot apply to spok
or
cultural resource: “Any system of education is a political way of maintaining (speed and mileage)
with the knowledges and powers
modifying the appropriation of discourses, along Given the serious
which they carry” (123). of English and some
on
Of course, access to education itself is controlled and disciplined, in part viduals described e
be the
the basis of language variety and accent; the educational system may not don’t they just join U
beginning, but it is the heart of the standardizati on process. Asking childre n who
order to find validat ion med very closely.
speak non-mainstream languages to come to the schools in for another. In fact,
voices,
for themselves, in order to be able to speak their own stories in their own Even more importar
is an unlikely scenario. everybody. Because
Dominant institutions promote the notion of an overarching, homogeneous English that is not c
and
standard language. That language is primarily white, upper-middle class, of radio entertainer
middle American; it is often claimed to be “unaccented.” But of course is it
or the Boston Englis
accented, like all other language varieties. It just happens to be the accent of Other individuals d
the mainstream. Whether the issues at hand are larger social or political ones or they possess other k:
more subtle, whether the approach is coercion or consent, there are two sides to power) that offset U
this process of standardization: first, devaluation of all that is not (or does not anyone insisting thai
seek to be) politically, culturally, or socially mainstream; and second, validation Mexican president
s of
of the social (and linguistic) values of the dominant institutions. The proces Secretary General K
linguistic assimilation to an abstracted standard is portray ed as a natural one,
the Caribbean island
necessary and positive for the greater social good. Schwarzenegger att
In the USA at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the “dominant group In the USA at th
or class” is a matter of both race and economics: the social and political power rarely be overtly stig
is predominantly white and upper-middle class. Some would claim it is also a immigration from F
matter of education, but education is an extension of economics and, arguably, of varieties of English
a developing class consciousness. Of course, individuals work together in insti time reveal a great
tutions, and thus much of the work on language subordination focuses not on At the time of writir
the behavior of individuals (what John said to Maria) but on how language ide with New York City
ologies become part and parcel of larger institutional practices. “Institution” is Africa, the Near Ea
often used to refer to social relationships between individuals, as in “the insti recent cases heard ii
tution of marriage.” Here, institution can be defined simply as any organization Civil Rights Act (a
that has social and structural importance and a specific set of goals important or Scottish or Norw
for continuing the established social structures of the community. Such institu moment.
tions include the educational system, the news media, the entertainment indus Even if it were pc
try, the business sector, the government and the legal system (which in large to adopt or drop a
part exist to define and delineate social institutions), the military, and religious first, would it make
organizations.
 Language ideology and language prejudice 295

md best The institutional approach relies on a simplistic model: language is communi

ied that, cation; communication must be clear to be effective; to be clear, language must be
the edu- unvarying, static, standardized. This model may seem reasonable on the surface,
inalized but because it rests on basic fallacies it is not reasonable. We know with certainty
heard in that spoken language is not homogeneous and can never be homogeneous, that
gout the communication is more complicated than the simple sharing of surface informa
‘-neutral tion, and most crucially that the goals we have developed for written language
.ining or cannot apply to spoken language any more than our expectations for automobiles
I powers (speed and mileage) can be applied to the way we walk.
Given the serious and detrimental repercussions of speaking certain varieties
part on of English and some foreign accents in the USA, you may wonder why the mdi
)t be the viduals described earlier don’t just give up and assimilate linguistically: Why
ren who don’t they just join the mainstream? This question is often asked but rarely exam
ilidation med very closely. Many people assume it is possible to substitute one accent
i voices, for another. 1n fact, there is reason to believe that such a thing is impossible.
Even more important is the fact that linguistic assimilation is not demanded of
geneous everybody. Because some people speak a distinctive regional or social variety of
ass, and English that is not overtly stigmatized (e.g., the strong upper midwest English
irse it is of radio entertainer Garrison Keillor or television newsbroadcaster Tom Brokaw
ccent of or the Boston English of Senator Ted Kennedy), they are not asked to assimilate.
[ones or Other individuals do speak a less favored or stigmatized variety of English but
sides to they possess other kinds of currency (social power, political power, or economic
Joes not power) that offset the effect of their stigmatized speech. It is hard to imagine
ilidation anyone insisting that political figures like US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
ocess of Mexican president Vicente Fox, US president John F Kennedy, United Nations
iral one, Secretary General Kofi Annan (of Ghana), or Nobel Laureate Derek Walcott (of
the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia), or actors Antonio Banderas and Arnold
nt group Schwarzenegger attend classes for accent reduction or “better” English.
al power In the USA at the beginning of the twenty-first century, an Irish accent will
is also a rarely be overtly stigmatized, but Irish accents were often greeted negatively when
uably, of immigration from Ireland was at a high point in the nineteenth century. Those
in insti- varieties of English and non-native accents that are out of favor at any particular
s not on time reveal a great deal about the cultural and political climate of the moment.
iage ide- At the time of writing this, the accents that seem most stigmatized are associated
ution” is with New York City and the deep South, as well as with immigrants from Asia,
:he insti- Africa, the Near East, and Central and South America. By contrast, none of the
Lnization recent cases heard in US courts concerning alleged violations of Title VII of the
uportant Civil Rights Act (a topic to which we return below) involve speakers with French
or Scottish or Norwegian accents, which all enjoy a certain social prestige at the
t indus-
moment.
in large Even if it were possible simply to exchange one variety of English for another,
religious to adopt or drop a particular accent at will, then two questions would remain:
first, would it make any difference, if the underlying animosity is not really about
296 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

money, success, recc

language, but about race, ethnicity or some other less-than-pleasing affiliation?
talk, pay some attent
And most relevant to the USA as it looks back on a century in which civil rights
can do little or nothi
battles were fought and won at great cost, should it matter? Is it right to ask
This day-by-day,
individuals to reject their own language? We do not under US law cannot ask
—
—

While many accept

a person to change religion, gender, or skin color, but we unhesitatingly demand
munities, others rea
of some people that they suppress or deny the most effective way they have of
people going throu
situating themselves socially in the world. Accent serves as the first point of
bring organized resil
gatekeeping because we are forbidden by law and social custom, and perhaps
class scheduled in a
by a prevailing sense of what is morally and ethically right, from using race,
dent interest; a move
ethnicity, homeland, or economics more directly.
in Wisconsin that pi
What we don’t understand clearly, what remains mysterious but is important
English and their w
to comprehend, is not so much the ways in which dominant groups deny non-
individuals who file
dominant groups permission to be heard in their own voices, but more so how
guage traits linked t
and why those groups cooperate. How do institutions manage to convince whole
of bilingual student5
groups of human beings that they do not fully or adequately possess an appropri
But the language
ate human language? Even more mysteriously, why do those groups hand over
unnoticed; its repres
this authority? One critic puts a more personal face on this question when he
selves as protectors
summarizes one way that ideology works:
validate their favore
The study of ideology is among other things an inquiry into the ways in resistance and coun
which people may come to invest in their own unhappiness. It is because against small group
being oppressed sometimes brings with it some slim bonuses that we are process.
occasionally prepared to put up with it. The most efficient oppressor is the
one who persuades his underlings to love, desire and identify with his power;
and any practice of political emancipation thus involves that most difficult of
all forms of liberation, freeing ourselves from ourselves. [Eagleton 1991: A model of the
xiii—xiiv]
There have been m
to do directly with I
When persons who speak languages that are devalued and stigmatized consent
constant in the case
to the standard language ideology, they themselves become complicit in its prop
those who claim to
agation against themselves, their own interests and identities. Many are caught
good models.
in a vacuum: when an individual cannot find any social acceptance for her lan
Of course, lingui
guage outside her own speech communities, she may come to denigrate her own
extent authority base
language, even while she continues to use it.
Standard language ideology provides a web of commonsense arguments in The announced goa
the claim “All livir
which the speaker of a non-mainstream language can get tangled at every turn: at
aesthetics, but obsei
school, in radio and television news, at the movies, while reading novels, at work,
equally supportable
people are told that the language that marks them as Mennonite, Hawai’ian, or
Other parts of tli
Ugandan, for example, is ugly, unacceptable, incoherent, illogical. This is coun
persons and instituti
tered, daily, by experience: these same people do communicate, effectively, with
is about and are the
those who are closest and most important to them, who mark their language sim
Misinformation ab(
ilarly. They even manage to communicate with the people who are criticizing
every day of the w
them, in spite of the complaints. The things being said about their home lan
way young people t
guages, about family and community make them uncomfortable and unhappy.
(“Shakespeare spot
The promises they hear about the rewards of assimilation may be very seductive:
 Language ideology and language prejudice

liation? money, success, recognition. They may think about trying to change the way they
ii rights talk, pay some attention to grammatical points that have been criticized, but they
to ask can do little or nothing about accent.
9t ask— This day-by-day, persistent devaluation of the social self has repercussions.
lemand While many accept this devalued notion of themselves and their language com
have of munities, others react with anger and personal resistance. If there is a group of
oint of people going through the same experience, consistent negative feedback might
erhaps bring organized resistance. There are occasional signs of this: an accent reduction
ig race, class scheduled in a South Carolina school that must close because of lack of stu
dent interest; a movement to validate Hawai’ian Creole in public forums; a group
Lportant in Wisconsin that publicizes their commitment to African American Vernacular
iy non English and their wish to have it recognized for the functional language it is;
so how individuals who file suit against employers who reject them on the basis of lan
whole guage traits linked to protected categories; teachers who stand up for the rights
propri of bilingual students.
ad over But the language mainstream does not let these small acts of resistance go
‘hen he unnoticed; its representatives strike back, and hard. The institutions that see them
selves as protectors of the values of the nation-state wage an ongoing effort to
validate their favored place in that state, in part on the basis of language. This
ways in resistance and counter-resistance that pits the empowered language mainstream
because against small groups or individuals who struggle for recognition is an ongoing
we are process.
r is the
power;
ilcult of
)fl 1991: A model of the language subordination process
There have been many models of ideological processes, not all of them having
:onsent to do directly with language. But the elements of subordination are surprisingly
s prop- constant in the case of language. The first step is the seizing of authority, in which
caught those who claim to have better or superior human language set themselves up as
ier lan good models.
ier own Of course, linguists also claim authority about language, but it is to a large
extent authority based on training in observation, experimentation, and deduction.
Lents in The announced goal of linguistics is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so that
turn: at the claim “All living languages change” is not a matter of faith or opinion or
Ltwork, aesthetics, but observable fact (which is not to say that all claims by linguists are
‘ian, or equally supportable by fact).
s coun Other parts of the subordination process include mystification (where some
Ly, with persons and institutions convince others that they alone understand what language
ge sim is about and are the only possible resources and authorities) and misinformation.
icizing Misinformation about language is rampant. It can be found in any newspaper
ne lan every day of the week and ranges from the truly trivial (“I am disturbed by the
thappy. way young people these days misuse the word like”) to the historically unfounded
luctive: (“Shakespeare spoke the best English, and since then it’s been all downhill”) to
298 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

to learn English the but not for all of

the divisive and discriminatory (“If those people don’t want
to where they came from!”). or to African Am
way it’s supposed to be spoken, they should go back
entatio n centers on Hawai’i, where if
A great deal of misinformation and commonsense argum
inate on the basis Filipino national
communication, and this is also where most persons who discrim
g against [Taiwanese, foreign accent or
of language will focus their rationalizations. “I’ve got nothin
just can’t understand them. So black communiti
Appalachians, Blacks],” the argument will go; “I
help not understanding deal of tension b
maybe they can’t do anything about their accent, but I can’t
and the Caribbe
them either.”
and another when they hear S
Communication seems to be a simple thing: one person talks
sion focuse s on accent , however, customer, while
listens; then they change roles. When the discus
simpli stic. The social the same situatic
the characterization of communication becomes overly
of the people you through our langi
space between two speakers is not neutral, in most cases. Think
of calculations fled in rejecting t]
talked to today. Each time you begin an exchange, a complex series
? Do I owe her respec t? Does she of us.
begins: Do I need to be formal with this person
me? The Civil Rig
owe me deference? What do I want from her, or she from
position, we may recourse for wor]
Or we might simply refuse to communicate. In an adversarial
but still respond religion, sex, or r
understand perfectly what our partners, parents, friends say to us,
ally, the listene r is relieved of any address trait-base
with “I simply cannot understand you.” Magic
is put directly on the origin). The Equ2
responsibility in the communicative act, and the full burden
dare you to make me responsible for tF
speaker. “I can’t understand you” may mean, in reality, “I
Discrimination b
understand you.”
accent that is origin discrimina
When native speakers of USA English are confronted by an
, they must first decide
foreign to them or with a variety of English they dislike . br
in the act of corn- .

whether or not they are going to accept their responsibility OPPOl

members of the
munication. What can be demonstrated again and again is this: orbec
ered to reject their portion of the
dominant language groups feel perfectly empow 0 ana
is, an accent that differs
burden and to demand that a person with an accent (that
sibility in The spirit of the 1
from their own accent) carry a disproportionate amount of the respon
impediments refuse to promot
the communicative act. On the other hand, even when there are real
crowde d and noisy room speakers an allegiance to
to understanding a bad telephone line, a
—

are well dispos ed. have determined

make special efforts to understand those toward whom they
talk to or must of his customers
When speakers are confronted with a new person they want to
external cues, not be rejected c
talk to, they make a quick series of social evaluations based on many
ge and accent . Those socioli nguistic customers find a
one of them being the other person’s langua
ty and other factors linked to a categ
cues are directly linked to homeland, the race and ethnici —

own personal origin. In contras

the entirety of the social self of the other person. Based on our
—

comprise a set of in matters of lar

histories, our own backgrounds and social selves (which together
talk to), we will take a communicative upon an individu
filters through which we hear the people we
of the burden . Sometimes, job performance’
stance. Most of the time, we will agree to carry our share
teristics we seq.).
if we are especially positive about the configuration of social charac
lly important Let’s return nc
see in the person, or if the purposes of communication are especia
of that burden . Kyomugisha lost
to us, we will accept a higher-than-usual share
urations. communication
Each of us would group the accents we come across in different config
positiv e ones, note that after its
For the majority of Americans, French and Swedish accents are
 Language ideology and language prejudice 299

Lish the but not for all of us. Many have strong negative reactions to Korean accents,
rom! “). or to African American Vernacular English, but certainly not everyone does. In
ters on Hawai’ i, where there is a long history of animus between people of Japanese and
ie basis Filipino national origin, one person with a foreign accent may reject a different
vanese, foreign accent or reject the creole that is spoken by so many in the islands. In
em. So black communities in the Bronx (in New York City) and elsewhere, there is a great
;anding deal of tension between African Americans and recent immigrants from Africa
and the Caribbean. In other communities, some people may cringe or glower
mother when they hear Spanish spoken on the street or spoken between sales clerk and
)wever, customer, while others may smile broadly to hear Italian or Polish spoken in
social the same situations. The languages and language varieties we hear must pass
pie you through our language ideology filters. In extreme cases, we feel completely justi
ilations fled in rejecting the communicative burden and, in so doing, the person in front
—

oes she of us.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (speciflcaiiy Title VII of that law) provides
ye may recourse for workers who are discriminated against on the basis of race, color,
espond religion, sex, or national origin. The scope of the law was broadened in 1980 to
of any address trait-based discrimination (for example, language that is linked to national
on the origin). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (abbreviated EEOC) is
ake me responsible for the overview and administration of Title VII. In its Guidelines on
Discrimination because ofNational Origin, the EEOC currently defines national
that is origin discrimination
decide
corn- ..
broadly as including, but not limited to, the denial of equal employment
.

of the opportunity because of an individual’s, or his or her ancestor’s place of origin;

or because an individual has the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics
of the
of a national origin group. [Federal Register 1988: ¶ 1606.1; italics added]
differs
ility in The spirit of the law is clear: an employer may not reject ajob candidate or fire or
Liments refuse to promote an employee because the employee externalizes in some way
eakers an allegiance to another culture. In the case of racial discrimination, the courts
sed. have determined that no personal preference (neither the employer’s nor that
w must of his customers) can excuse discrimination. Similarly, a qualified person may
ii cues, not be rejected on the basis of linguistic traits the employer or the employer’s
Lguistic customers find aesthetically objectionable, as long as those linguistic traits are
ctors — linked to a category protected by the Civil Rights Act, and that includes national
rsonal origin. In contrast to racial discrimination, however, an employer has some latitude
a set of in matters of language: “An adverse employment decision may be predicated
icative upon an individual’s accent when but only when it interferes materially with
— —

times, job performance” (Civil Rights Act of 1964, §701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e et
tics we seq.).
portant Let’s return now to the story we began with at the head of the chapter. Florence
Kyomugisha lost her job at the University of Wisconsin in part because of alleged
ations. communication difficulties with her supervisor, Ms. Clowney. It is important to
ones, note that after its independence from Great Britain, Uganda adopted English as its
300 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

I
official language. English is the Janguage of government and commerce and the ATTORNE
primary medium of education; official publications and most major newspapers
appear in English, and English is often employed in radio and television broad
casts. Ms. Kyomugisha, a fluent speaker of Runyankole and Luganda, is also a CLOWNE
native and fluent speaker of Ugandan English. As the chancellor of the univer
sity acknowledged in 1996, while Ms. Kyomugisha does not speak “Wisconsin ATTORNE
English, she nevertheless speaks perfectly fine English” (Kyornugisha v. Clowney,
complaint filed October 16, 1997).
In her complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Ms. Kyomugisha
claimed national origin discrimination linked to language traits. This is a subject CLOWN E’
her attorney explored during the deposition of her supervisor, Ms. Clowney, who
is also an attorney. (A deposition is testimony taken under oath as part of the ATTORNE
preparation for a thai.) The attorney uses the term animus to refer to prejudice or
malevolent ill will.

ATTORNEY: . You know about discriminatory animus from your pro-

. .
CLOWN E

fessional preparation in the field of affirmative action and

discrimination law; isn’t that correct?. you were respon
. .

sible for doing the investigations of discrimination at the

university, and you need to know what the law is about that,
correct?
CLOWNEY: . .Yes,sir.
.

ATTORNEY: And you know about the sociology of discrimination, ATTORNE

right?
CLOWNEY: Yes.

ATTORNEY: And you would agree that the process of communication

between two individuals involves a degree of burden shar
ing between the two individuals for purposes of making C LOW NE

each other understood, correct?

CLOWN E Y: Sometimes. It depends on the nature of the two individuals.
I would agree that the burden is more on an investigator to
be understood in an university community than employ
ees. The burden is more so on the professional than the
nonprofessional.
ATTORNEY: Now, I’m speaking of two people who speak with each
other, who have divergent accents. You agree that you have
an accent, correct?
CLOWNEY: At times I might. I don’t know if I do or not; you tell me.
ATToRNEY: Well, isn’t ittrue that alipeople have an accent of one kind ATTORNE

or another?
C LOW NE Y Not all people, some people. My mother is a schoolteacher
and she doesn’t necessarily have an accent. CLOWNEY
 Language ideology and language prejudice 301

and the ATTORNEY: Well, do you think somebody from another part of the coun
ispapers try who speaks with a different intonation would say that
i broad- that person in fact has an accent?
is also a CLOWN E Y: Possibly, yes.
univer
isconsin ATTORNEY: And communication between two such people involves the
‘lowney, acceptance of a certain responsibility for burden sharing
between each other in order to effectuate communication;
nugisha isn’t that correct?
• subject CLOWNEY: It can. It depends on the relationship between the two indi
.ey, who viduals.
I of the ATTORNEY: One of the factors in that relationship that could make the
udice or communication difficult is when one individual refuses to
accept burden, a burden in connection with effectuating
comprehensibility; isn’t that correct?
ourpro- CLOWNEY: How about the burden on the other person to go and take
ion and courses and study and to be understood as well. What about
respon why should the burden I also understand diversity, but
— —

n at the why should the burden be on the recipient rather than, I

out that, mean, if you look at modem-day diversity studies, we’d be
here all day. There’s a double burden; there’s a dual burden.
I’ll I’ll say there’s a dual burden.
—

ination, ATTORNEY: Isn’t it true that in some conversations where one person
has a racial animus of one type or a national origin ani
mus of one type that person refuses to accept a burden,
any burden for effectuating the communication and
. . .

ication thereby make makes the allegation that the person is

—

n shar incomprehensible?
making CLOWNEY: I’m not going to answer that. I’m not an expert on com
munications skills. I’ve written papers on communication
viduals. skills and racial animus. I can’t say that. You’re you’re—

ator to asking me to draw inferences here and I can’t say that.

mploy There are people I know that are trained who don’t have
han the any kind of animus; and if they can’t understand someone,
they get frustrated, and then have nothing to do with race,
th each sex, religion, whatever. But the bottom line is that, you
u have know, it’s you have to listen a little bit carefully, but, you
—

know.
I1 me.
ne kind ATTORNEY: Do you feel like you accepted your portion of the burden
in trying to understand Florence’s oral communications?
teacher
CLOWNEY: Yes.
302 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN

ATTORNEY: . .whether you feel that you accepted your portion of the
.
and deeply disturb
burden to comprehend what Florence was saying to you democratic, even-I
when she was orally communicating with you? standard language
CLOWNEY: Yes, Ido.
ATTORNEY: Do you feel that you made a reasonable good faith effort
to understand Florence?
Suggestions fo
CLOWNEY: Yes, Ido.
ATTORNEY: Is it your testimony that notwithstanding that effort that was Lippi-Green (198’3
not enough and you still had oral communication problems prejudice and disci
with Florence? lywood characters
CLOWNEY: Yes, Ido. cal correctness, se
drawn largely from
Subsequent to this deposition, the university decided to settle this case before
addresses ideologi
it came to trial, and Ms. Kyomugisha received compensatory damages, back
analysis of discoui
pay, and the attorney’s costs she had incurred. The university’s lawyers did not
(1988) gathers in a
disclose the reasons the university decided to offer a settlement, but from her
the USA, particula
deposition there would seem to be some question about the true origin of Ms.
cal perspective and
Clowney’s communication difficulties with Ms. Kyomugisha. She asked, “How
Herman and Chon
about the burden on the other person to go and take courses and study and to
model of the press
be understood as well why should the burden be on the recipient
. . .
.?“ . .

corporations into i
After Ms. Kyomugisha had worked successfully for four years with three other
them. Fairclough
supervisors, it would be difficult to justify a claim that her accent was a bur
guage awareness ai
den or barrier in any general sense. As Ms. Clowney herself seems to acknowl
historical roots of
edge, racial or national origin anirnus can raise a barrier of its own to successful
Theodore Rooseve
communication.
the issues surroun
Ms. Kyomugisha was knowledgeable about the law, and she had the strength
Woolard and Schie
of will necessary to pursue her legal rights. She was successful, but many others
of language ideo1o
are not. Everyday in the USA, individuals are taught that the language they speak
of who has the rig]
marks them as less-than-good-enough. Some turn away from them, pretending
to those questions.
not to understand their language. The repercussions of such linguistic rejection
power in social life
are vast, because

our identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence, often by the References
misrecognition of others, and so a person or group of people can suffer real Alatis, James. 1970.”
damage, real distortion, if the people or society around them mirror back Languages or D
to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves. on Linguistics
[Taylor 1994: 25] Associated Press. 199
l,p. 12.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 199
Linguists are interested in the process of language subordination how it works,
—

Trans. 0. Rayni
why it works, and why we let it work. Standard language ideology is introduced Cameron, Deborah. Ic
by the schools, vigorously promoted by the media, and further institutionalized by Card, Orson Scott.
shtml
the corporate sector. It is underscored and underwritten in subtle and not so subtle Crawford, James, ed.
ways by the judicial system. Thus, it is not surprising that many individuals do not troversy. Chical
recognize the fact that, for spoken language, variation is systematic, structured, Eagleton, Terry. 1991.
and inherent, and that the national standard is an abstraction. What is surprising Fairclough, Norman, e
 Language ideology and language prejudice 303

and deeply disturbing is the way that many individuals who consider themselves
democratic, even-handed, rational, and free of prejudice hold on tenaciously to a
standard language ideology.

Suggestions for further reading and exploration

Lippi-Green (1987) exposes and indicts social institutions that instill language
prejudice and discrimination, including how the spoken accents of animated Hol­
lywood characters perpetuate stereotypes. Cameron (1995) is strong on politi­
cal correctness, sexist language, and linguistic prescriptivism, but with examples
drawn largely from Britain. Less accessible and more theoretical, Eagleton (1991)
addresses ideologies from a Marxist point of view. Gee (1996) begins his excellent
analysis of discourse and literacy from a moral perspective. McKay and Wong
(1988) gathers in one place descriptions of contemporary language minorities in
the USA, particularly Hispanic and Asian groups; some chapters offer a histori­
cal perspective and others address educational implications of language diversity.
Herman and Chomsky (1988), relying on case studies, propose a propaganda
model of the press and argue that the press is manipulated by government and
corporations into playing a role in shaping events, rather than fairly reporting
them. Fairclough (1992) gives good representation to analyses of critical lan­
guage awareness and critical discourse analysis. Crawford (1992) documents the
historical roots of US language policy (with pieces by Benjamin Franklin and
Theodore Roosevelt, among many others), the official English movement and
the issues surrounding it, and the symbolic implications of language conflict.
Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) reviews and analyzes the literature on the subject
of language ideology. Foucault (1984), in a classic treatment, addresses questions
of who has the right to speak and be heard and the implications of the answers
to those questions. Bourdieu (1991) is a classic treatment of the role of symbolic
power in social life.

References
Alatis, James. 1970. "Linguistics and the Teaching of Standard English to Speakers of Other
Languages or Dialects." In Alatis 's Report ofthe Twentieth Annual Round Table Meeting
on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Associated Press. 1992. "Debate Over Teachers with Accents," New York Times. July 5, Sec.
1, p. 12.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Ed. and intro. by J. B. Thompson.
Trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London and New York: Routledge.
Card, Orson Scott. 2003. http://www.hatrack.com/osclreviewslrestaurant/utah/gardenwall.
shtml
Crawford, James, ed. 1992. Language Loyalties: a Source Book on the Official English Con­
troversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eagleton, Terry. 1991. Ideology: an Introduction. London: Verso.
Fairclough, Norman, ed. 1992. Critical Language Awareness. London: Longman.
304 ROSINA LIPPI-GREEN
r
Foucault, Michel. 1984. “The Order of Discourse.” In Language and Politics, ed. Michael
Shapiro. New York: New York University Press. Pp. 108—38.
Gee, James Paul. 1990. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. London and
New York: Falmer.
Herman, E. S. and Noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of
(6
the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon.
Kyomugisha, Florence G. v. Charmaine P. Clowney and University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.
Case No. 97C 1089. Deposition taken July 7, 1998.
Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination
in the United States. London: Routledge.
McKay, Sandra Lee and Sau-ling Cynthia Wong, eds. 1988. Language Diversity: Problem or
Resource? A Social and Editcational Perspective on Language Minorities in the United
States. Boston MA: Heinle.
Oprah Winfrey Show. November 19, 1987. No. W309. “Standard and ‘Black English’.”
Produced by D. DiMaio; directed by J. McPharlin.
Park, Kee Y. v. James A. Baker III, Secretary of the Treasury, EEOC No. 05870646. 1988.
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: W. W. Morrow and Co.
Sledd, James. 1972. “Doublespeak: Dialectology in the Service of Big Brother,” College Editors’ introdi
English 33: 439—56.
Spicher, Lori Lea. 1992. “Language Attitude towards Speakers with a Mexican Accent: Ram This chapter explores
ifications in the Business Community of San Diego, California.” Unpub. Ph.D. diss., tional and sociopolitic
University of Texas at Austin. Ebonics as the primar
Taylor, Charles. 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: this resolution was bo
Princeton University Press. in the USA in the twe
Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1994. “Language Ideology,” Annual Reviews
In this, as in other r
ofAnthropology 23: 55—82.
language of African i
Xieng, Phanna K. et a! v. Peoples National Bank of Washington. Washington State Supreme
Court, opinion dated January 21, 1993. No. 59064—8. dants people who, ir
—

Zentella, Ana Celia. 1996. “The ‘Chiquitafication’ of US Latinos and their Languages, OR languages or have eq
Why We Need an Anthropolitical Linguistics.” In SALSA III. Proceedings of the Third linguists who first de
Annual Symposium about Language and Society, eds. R. Ide, R. Park, and Y. Sunaoslci. municative competen
Austin: University of Texas: Texas Linguistic Forum 36, 1—18. origin” (Williams 197
Oakland school board
which portrayed it pri
resolution of the Lin
and discusses the rea
vernacular of African
English.

Orientation
Ebonics came to g
Oakland, Californi
“predominantly pri
linguistic assertion
student attending
and research event
African descent sp
often residing in th
tries, such as Tanza
ancestry to Black J