Focus on Accent: A Sociolinguistic Perspective of Diversity in the Classroom

Abstract Past studies have shown that language differences, in accent and grammar, found in both native and foreign language speakers, elicit reactions in listeners that transfer over to judgments about the speakers' personalities. The current study examines such sociolinguistic responses in the setting of a college classroom. We conclude that an increased awareness on both the part of the instructors and students, and an examination of biases and preconceived ideas of accents, will result in more efficient teaching and learning. Throughout the world, stereotypic attitudes are commonly held towards groups of people in terms of such traits as race, gender, religion, and nationality. In the same vein, biases exist toward speakers of other languages or language varieties. It seems that people are very ready to judge others based on their speech. Sociolinguistics is a field of study that looks at the connection between language and society. Dell Hymes, one of the pioneers of the field, believes that the structure of society may influence our use of, and attitudes toward, particular kinds of language, especially accents. Language may then be used to discriminate against and to control certain segments of society. Groups associated with a linguistic trait that is stigmatized (pronouncing aks for ask) are also stigmatized (Hymes, 1974; Newman, 2002). Sociolinguists would argue that there is nothing intrinsic to a linguistic feature that, on its own, makes it abhorrent. Instead, biases against a group are validated by devaluing certain linguistic markers associated with that group. Some perceptions of speech quality do seem to be common in society. For example, English spoken with a foreign accent is labeled broken English (Reich, 2000). Even the speech of native speakers is vulnerable to judgment. Speech that has a good deal of nasal resonance is labeled unpleasant and unclear (Blood & Hyman, 1977). Speech with glottal sounds is labeled as harsh speech. Speech spoken quickly may be labeled pushy and aggressive (Tannen, 1990). Yes, a language may have certain nasalized sounds, glottal sounds, a particular rate and melody. These judgments about speech are more than descriptive, however, and they are often transferred to judgments about the speaker. Hence, the speakers are unpleasant, harsh, aggressive. Further, the process of judging and categorizing people by speech can be quite unconscious or even seem natural, something people would not question. If a subordinate social group holds a negative view about speakers in a dominant social class, there is much less social consequence than if a dominant group holds prejudices against a group with less social power. The latter situation may influence public policy, educational decisions, and contribute to intolerance of others. For example, bilingual education has been under attack in California, Texas, and a growing number of other states (Krashen, 1999). Further, one can think of the language police in Montreal, who patrol for violations of French dominance (Bonvillain, 2000). Then there is the long-term debate over African American Vernacular English, more recently renamed Ebonics, an issue which linguists view as essentially a struggle over language form and social power (Linguistics Society of America, 1997). The classroom is a natural forum for discussing linguistic stereotypes and attitudes. We have found that such discussions increase students' awareness of self, their behavior and attitudes, as well as their views of native accents and those of students learning English as a second Language (foreign language accents). How are our language personalities viewed by others? By ourselves? We will review studies that show a marked degree of sensitivity to aspects of language by speaker group and by listener group. Indeed, some studies found instructors' responses to accents to differ more harshly from the responses of non-educators. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.