Language contains a lot of social information and therefore should be analyzed through a critical lens. Different ideologies related to the norms of interaction might be a cause of conflicts. This phenomenon is especially common in case of intercultural communication. Language, which is one of the essential components of effective communication, might also become a burden that creates inequalities among people and is the root for prejudice and interethnic or interracial tensions. From this point of view, language is a structuring device that both formulates and defines the distribution of power in the process of communication and interaction’s outcomes. In addition to this, language is often used to legitimize inequalities and reinforce the system of stereotyping and discrimination. This paper analyzes two case studies of language playing the role of a structuring and legitimizing mechanism that reinforces inequalities.
Different practices of the verbal displaying of respect play an important role in enforcing misunderstanding and miscommunication, especially in a culturally diverse setting. While the problem of cultural miscommunication is not new, it seems to be especially relevant now, when the world is becoming more and more globalized. Namely, as shown by Benjamin Bailey, due to different concepts of the appropriate relationship between customers and shopkeepers, the representatives of Korean American and African American cultural groups regarded each other’s behavior as disrespectful, which have led to more serious consequences such as riots and physical violence. To be more precise, whilst African Americans saw the avoidance of communication shown my Korean immigrants as a sign of racism, Korean Americans regarded interpersonal involvement demonstrated by African Americans as a sign of interpersonal imposition or selfishness. From this point of view, language served a device for miscommunication, creating perceived inequalities between the two racial groups. To be more precise, the seemingly indifferent behavior of Korean shopkeepers created a perceived subordinate status that African Americans were not willing to accept. In contrast, the excessive, in the eyes of Korean Americans, focus that blacks put on interpersonal communication, was regarded by Korean immigrants as an example of African Americans’ poor breeding, which also to some extent created inequalities.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Language Ideology".
It is also important to understand the role that language plays in shaping individual’s perceived status. For instance, black children’s dialect was in the past regarded as a sign of verbal deprivation. This eventually was used demonstrated black children’s lower linguistic capacity, if compared to middle class, predominantly white children. Yet, this is only a way of using language as a mechanism to legitimize inequalities. For instance, the social situation in which a black child is encouraged to speak is crucial in terms of revealing his or her actual linguistic skills. Labov (1972) provides the findings of a number of experiments that confirm this claim. He shows that when an asssymetrical situation is created where anything that a child says can be used against him or her, the child is unlikely to reveal his or her real linguistic real capacity (Labov, 1972:206). Apart from this, the author tries to refute the misconception that middle class children demonstrate higher level of logical assumptions and creativity in their language. On the contrary, Labov (1972) shows that middle class individuals often use various stylistic devices to create the illusion of being educated, intelligent, or logical that, nevertheless, do not reflect any complicated thoughts. On the contrary, whilst the language of black children might be simple from the point of view of the stylistic devices used, it reflects a complicated process of thinking that will often happen if there is a need to put one’s thoughts in a simple and shorts sentence. Finally, in his essay Labov (1972) demonstrates that regardless of a popular belief, BEV follows the same rules as Standard English and is not less logical as long as grammar is concerned. The author thus emphasizes the limitations of the Theory of Verbal Deprivation, and the importance of taking into account the cultural context when trying to measure one’s verbal skills (Labov, 1972). The system of education should therefore be changed accordingly given that ‘any nonstandard vernacular itself is not an obstacle to learning’ (Labov, 1972:239). The author in his essay manages to reveal the biases that are embedded in the study of class and racial differences in the use of English and once again shows how language is used as a structuring mechanism.
All the evidence above shows that ideology and language are closely intertwined. Different ideologies related to the norms of interaction might be a cause of conflicts. This phenomenon is especially common in case of intercultural communication. As seen from Bailey’s study, whilst African Americans saw the avoidance of communication shown my Korean immigrants as a sign of racism, Korean Americans regarded interpersonal involvement demonstrated by African Americans as a sign of interpersonal imposition or selfishness. In addition to this, it is important to understand the role that language plays in shaping individual’s perceived status. Language is often used as a means of legitimizing inequalities. This is especially evident from the example of the biases that are embedded in the study of class and racial differences in the use of English. For instance, there is a misconception that middle class children demonstrate higher level of logical assumptions and creativity in their language. Empirical research, however, shows that middle class individuals often use various stylistic devices to create the illusion of being educated, intelligent, or logical that, nevertheless, do not reflect any complicated thoughts.
- Labov, William. The logic of non-Standard English. In Language in the inner city, ed. William Labov, 201-240. 1972. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
