This week’s readings reminded
me of an article that I’d previously read about the use of language in media
outlets. The article explained that in media, “prestigious” language is
selected as the standard because it relates to a majority of the audience—which
are assumed to be middle to upper-class citizens. On the other hand, use of
colloquial language is discouraged, because words such as “ain’t” or “wanna”
are more informal and often associated with illiteracy. In fact, the article
noted that most words that are discouraged by media style handbooks are those
that are common in AAVE. Meanwhile, words such as “a la carte” and words with
European origins were pegged as acceptable for media usage.
In Sumner’s papers, Sumner
discusses how words are associated with social attributes. As such, information
that is perceived through words/speech varies depending on the speaker’s
identity, the context, the accent, etc. In her collaboration with King, Sumner
explains how different voices give different impressions, and shows that words
can be associated with different meanings when it is spoken by a man versus by
a woman. With Kataoka, Sumner considers the effect of different variations in
voice on the listener. She found that a listener is able to remember
word-for-word what a speaker said when the speaker has a “prestigious accent,”
whereas they are only able to remember pieces of the conversation when the
speaker has a stigmatized accent.
Sumner’s research seemed to relate a great deal
to the article on language in media. In particular, the article demonstrates the
“prestigious accent” phenomenon, and shows that certain words are indeed attached
to certain social attributes. At the same time, the article showed that there
is indeed a problematic side to language. It seems to me that news outlets strive
to present content in a relatable manner through language style. However, if
the style that is commonly chosen caters only to a certain demographic (aka
mostly upper and middle-class), then what about the
rest of the people?
It is certainly strange how to this day preferential treatment is given to speakers of 'proper' English. It seems the information that we communicate about class and race through our speech can often be lazily interpreted as a proxy for trustworthiness and aptitude. A salient example of this would be at a job interview: performing as if one were well-to-do is almost seen as table stakes. It is somewhat distressing that, say, media organizations have not taken it upon themselves to prioritize public understanding over status signaling. I do take hope, however, in the idea that the news media may one day become aware of its duty to be more inclusive in its word choice, or at the very least, its economic incentive to do so.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if one could say that English is "splitting" into a high-English which is the kind you notice in news and literature and several forms of low-English. I don't know if these forms of English really are diverging, but it feels like it sometimes. I'm thinking mostly of German when I make this point, which has haute-Deutsch and vernacular forms of language. I also know that languages like Arabic have a similar split.
ReplyDelete