People
often do not realize the implications and ideologies embedded within their
language use. We tend to take for granted that if we speak the same
language, we will understand each other. However, misinterpretations often
occur between people speaking the same language but in different dialects or
nonstandard forms of that language. For example, African American English is a
nonstandard form of English spoken among many African Americans, as well as
other groups, including whites. However, many people mark this form as merely
slang or just plain wrong. A key step toward better communication and mutual
understanding in America is to first acknowledge that there are many different
forms of the English language spoken in this country.
This article describes white Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s apology for
controversial remarks about President Obama last January. Reid said that
“Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his
‘light-skinned’ appearance and speaking patterns ‘with no Negro dialect, unless
he wanted to have one’ ”. Senator Reid, as a “proud and enthusiastic supporter
of Barack Obama during the campaign” who “worked as hard as [he could] to
advance President Obama’s legislative agenda”, probably did not intend any harm
or offense in his comments. In fact, Senator Reid may not even realize the many
ideological implications behind his seemingly straightforward remarks. First,
he refers to a “Negro dialect”, acknowledging the existence of a nonstandard
form of English, namely African American English. Furthermore, in his
recognition of a nonstandard form, he unavoidably implies the existence and
relevance of a standard form of English. In Michael Silverstein’s article
“Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic
Hegemony”, he describes the process of standardization: “Standardization, then,
is a phenomenon in a linguistic community in which institutional maintenance of
certain valued linguistic practices…acquires an explicitly-recognized hegemony
over the definition of the community’s norm” (285). This idea of standard
English is set in direct opposition to the nonstandard “Negro dialect” that
Reid refers to.
Senator
Reid’s remark that President Obama has “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to
have one” has numerous implications. The phrase “unless he wanted to have one”
depicts the idea of “code switching”. This involves the ability to accommodate
one’s dialect or form of speech to different contextual situations, whether
deliberately or subconsciously. For example, a teenager might speak Standard
English in school, when assuming the role of a student, then switch to a
nonstandard form after school when assuming the role of a friend or peer. The
act of code switching involves an element of performance, or portraying a
persona. This raises questions about linguistic authority and flexibility. The
phrase “unless he wanted to have one” suggests that Obama has the ability and
authority to switch back and forth between standard and nonstandard English.
This phrase seems problematic on different levels; first, Reid is making
assumptions about Obama’s speech practices. How does he know Obama’s
relationship to African American English, including when and how often he uses
it? Does he mention specifically a “Negro dialect” simply because Obama is
black, or does he recognize nonstandard features of it in his speech and
suggest that Obama incorporates African American English as a rhetorical
strategy in public speeches? If this is the case, it raises the question of
authenticity in languages. Since Obama supposedly has the ability to code
switch, is he an inauthentic African American English speaker? Is he then also
an inauthentic Standard English speaker?
Among
the most significant implications behind Senator Reid’s comment is the
connection between race, language, and politics. He suggests that race and
language can affect one’s access to political opportunities and success. He
acknowledges that different languages and different forms within a language are
intertwined with racial implications and ideologies. In Urciuoli’s article,
“Racialization and Language”, she describes how “hegemonic perceptions of
difference” make the “structural limits and pressures that shape race/ethnic
experience seem natural, even common-sensical” (16). Hegemonic structures and
institutions have helped perpetuate ideologies of race embedded within our
perceptions of and approaches to language. In Urciuoli’s article, “Good English
as Symbolic Capital”, she asked a sample of people to identify the
racial/ethnic backgrounds of voices on her tape recorder. The participants used
elements of both content and form to determine the speakers’ ethnicities:
sound, tone, accents, words, and grammar. People tended to identify nonstandard
or “improper” forms of English with minority groups, particularly blacks and
Hispanics. They also tended to associate standard or “proper” English with
whites. This concept of determining people’s racial backgrounds based solely on
their speech demonstrates the unavoidable relation between language and
ethnicity. The participants also associated the people’s languages to certain
occupational statuses. They tended to associate the speakers they identified as
black and Hispanic with low-income blue-collar jobs, while identified white
speakers were presumed to be professionals or academic superiors. Urciuoli’s
article “Racialization and Language” describes how “language difference is
routinely racialized, typified as an impediment to class mobility” (16). Therefore,
Irvine and Gal’s process of iconization happens on two levels; both forms of
languages and levels of occupations get mapped onto certain racial groups. Senator
Reid seems to be aware of this process, suggesting that Obama’s language and
skin color are influential factors in determining his political success.
Uriuoli
states that the “local linguistic identity [of a stigmatized group] contrasts
sharply with middle-class, white English…largely characterized by its lack of
localizing features” (Urciuoli 121). Furthermore, the article suggests that
nonwhites are “marked” while whites are “unmarked” in American society;
consequently, nonstandard forms and languages are marked, while Standard
English is unmarked (Urciuoli 121). This recursive process of defining through
creating an opposition is referred to in Reid’s comments. He suggests that
Obama’s “ ‘light-skinned’ appearance” will benefit him in his political experience.
Essentially, darker skin is marked while white skin is unmarked; therefore, the
closer Obama is to white skin, the closer he is to political success. Bucholtz’
article, “The Whiteness of Nerds: Superstandard English and Racial Markedness”,
expands the idea of markedness to include the “hyperstandard”. She describes
how abiding too closely to Standard English, students become marked as being “
‘too white’ ” or nerdy (Bucholtz 86). Some of the white students embraced this
markedness in fears of becoming associated with markedness on the opposite
spectrum: African American English and, subsequently, blacks themselves. In the
article, many of the “nerdy” students associated the marked nonstandard
languages with low success, academically and occupationally. Therefore, the further
they distanced themselves from nonstandard language forms, the closer they
believed themselves to be to success. Reid’s comments seem to mirror this
ideology; the further Obama distances himself from a black identity, the better
his political chances will be.
What
is perhaps most interesting about the controversy surrounding Senator Reid’s
remarks is the reaction to them. He apologizes for his comments: “In a
statement to CNN, Reid said, ‘I deeply regret using such a poor choice of
words’ ”. Nevada state Senator Steven Horsford, an African American, claimed he
was “disappointed in Senator Reid’s comment and choice of words”. These, among
other reactions, raise an important question: What was really offensive about
Senator Reid’s comment? Was it what
he said or how he said it? Horsford
seems to imply that it was both: his “comment and choice of words”. Reid, however, claims he regrets “using such
a poor choice of words” and apologizes for his “improper comments”. What made
his comments improper? Was it his choice of words or the comments themselves?
Reid seems to be more apologetic for how
he said it—his word choice. After all, he uses the term “Negro” which, while
once the preferred and acceptable term, is now certainly outdated and somewhat
stigmatized. This demonstrates Lippi-Green’s point that “all spoken language
changes over time” (“The Linguistic Facts of Life” 10). Perhaps Reid’s
reference to Obama as “light-skinned” may also offend some people, yet this,
along with his use of the term “Negro”, might appear to be trivial matters to
some. What, then, is most offensive about Reid’s comments? After all, there is
no denying that there is some truth behind his statements. The intertwining of
racial and linguistic implications certainly affects access and opportunities,
especially in the political world. However, there still remains something
unsettling about his remarks. If it is, in fact, how he said it, then he proves his point that language certainly
matters in significant and subtle ways. Perhaps we just have trouble handling
the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment