7 ms·
> Linguicism is an idea invented by human-rights activist and linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas to describe discrimination based on language or dialect. The prejudi
by SSJPython 2y ago
> Linguicism is an idea invented by human-rights activist and linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas to describe discrimination based on language or dialect. The prejudice around “aks” is an example of linguicism.
> 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.
- rjbwork 2y agoLinguistics as practiced for a long time is descriptive. It is the only practice that makes any sense given the extreme diversity of linguistic forms present in the world. 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.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoHow about this: Yes, linguistics is descriptive. In the world we live in, some people say "aks". And that is regarded as a marker of lower class/uneducated people, and is not generally used by educated/upper class/professional people. 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.
- ohmyiv 2y agoLet's hear from a linguist: https://youtu.be/I6duEGj04Mg https://youtu.be/I6duEGj04Mg
- rjbwork 2y agoSure, maybe it ought to be denoted in academic terms that in a particular geographical area that a particular linguistic form is reflective of certain socio-economic attributes of the speaker. 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.
- o11c 2y agoAs much as I'm a prescriptivist, the particular case of "aks" has just as much historical correctness as "ask" in English. The only place that "ask" wins is when comparing similar words in Continental languages.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoReally? Source?
- ohmyiv 2y agoHere you go. https://youtu.be/3nysHgnXx-o https://youtu.be/3nysHgnXx-o
- ahazred8ta 2y ago"Chaucer used ask, ax, and axe interchangeably." but ask was the original form: "From Middle English asken (also esken, aschen, eschen, etc.), from Old English āscian, from Proto-West Germanic aiskōn" -- wictionary