cassandrashipsit:

samanticshift:

christinakelton:

luvtheheaven:

samanticshift:

samanticshift:

“i don’t judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.”

i hate to burst your pretentious little bubble, but linguistic prejudice is inextricably tied to racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, and ableism.

ETA: don’t send me angry messages about this…at all, preferably, but at least check the tag for this post before firing off an irate screed.

no one seems to be following the directive above, so here’s the version of this post i would like all you indignant folk to read.

no, i am not saying that people of color, women, poor people, disabled people, etc, “can’t learn proper english.” what i’m saying is that how we define “proper english” is itself rooted in bigotry. aave is not bad english, it’s a marginalized dialect which is just as useful, complex, and efficient as the english you’re taught in school. “like” as a filler word, valley girl speech, and uptalk don’t indicate vapidity, they’re common verbal patterns that serve a purpose. etc.

because the point of language is to communicate, and there are many ways to go about that. different communities have different needs; different people have different habits. so if you think of certain usages as fundamentally “wrong” or “bad,” if you think there’s a “pure” form of english to which everyone should aspire, then i challenge you to justify that view. i challenge you to explain why “like” makes people sound “stupid,” while “um” doesn’t raise the same alarms. explain the problem with the habitual be. don’t appeal to popular opinion, don’t insist that it just sounds wrong. give a detailed explanation.

point being that the concept of “proper english” is culturally constructed, and carries cultural biases with it. those usages you consider wrong? they aren’t. they’re just different, and common to certain marginalized groups.

not to mention that many people who speak marginalized dialects are adept at code-switching, i.e. flipping between non-standard dialects and “standard english,” which makes them more literate than most of the people complaining about this post.

not to mention that most of the people complaining about this post do not speak/write english nearly as “perfectly” as they’d like to believe and would therefore benefit by taking my side.

not to mention that the claim i’m making in the OP is flat-out not that interesting. this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. the only reason it sounds so outlandish is that we’ve been inundated with the idea that how people speak and write is a reflection of their worth. and that’s a joyless, elitist idea you need to abandon if you care about social justice or, frankly, the beauty of language.

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications–in employment (tossing resumes with “black-sounding names”), in the legal system (prejudice against rachel jeantel’s language in the trayvon martin trial), in education (marginalizing students due to prejudice against dialectical differences, language-related disabilities, etc), and…well, a lot.

no, this doesn’t mean that there’s never a reason to follow the conventions of “standard english.” different genres, situations, etc, have different conventions and that’s fine. what it does mean, however, is that this standard english you claim to love so much has limited usefulness, and that, while it may be better in certain situations, it is not inherently better overall. it also means that non-standard dialects can communicate complex ideas just as effectively as the english you were taught in school. and it means that, while it’s fine to have personal preferences regarding language (i have plenty myself), 1) it’s worth interrogating the source of your preferences, and 2) it’s never okay to judge people on the basis of their language use.

so spare me your self-righteous tirades, thanks.

Oh my gosh YES, this post got so much better.

this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. 

and

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the
basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real
ramifications

I don’t agree. The school system has abandoned minorities for far too long. To let these young people go into their adult lives without the ability to read, spell, or properly punctuate is a shame. To pat them on the head and say, “write how you want because you’re a minority” is telling them that you don’t care about their education or their capacity to learn. Furthermore you’re okay with that because they’re minorities? Have you no shame?

with all due respect, this is a terrible comment. truly terrible.

first of all, i went to great detail about how other dialects and usages, while perhaps not appropriate in every context, are valid, useful, and complex, so blathering on about how students just don’t know how to read, write, or spell completely misses the point. saying that certain usages are just wrong is a value judgment made overwhelmingly about language common to marginalized people (who are not necessarily minorities, but anyway). this is not a new or bold assertion. this is fundamental to the field of sociolinguistics, and i’ve never seen anyone present a compelling case in favor of linguistic prejudice. no one’s patting anyone on the head–we’re saying that grammar cops suffer from a basic misunderstanding of how language works. as i wrote in the very long post you don’t appear to have read, the point of language is communication, so if people are communicating effectively, language is functioning exactly as it’s meant to.

but what really gets me about this abysmal response is your assumption that linguistic descriptivism = not teaching grammar, spelling, or reading at all. that’s not even remotely the case–in fact, here’s a post i wrote about my success in bringing a descriptivist approach to the classroom. i’ve done this same kind of thing in one-on-one tutoring and have found it far more effective than any “this is wrong, this is right, grammar is set in stone” approach. teaching descriptivism leads to better writing, a deeper understanding of grammar, and fewer assholes.

in conclusion, please take your melodramatic “have you no shame?” bullshit as far away from me as possible.

I just look at this and somehow OF COURSE the asshole racist commenter is not only in the DA fandom but a fucking Solas stan.