Read on Twitter
This is me on talking to @DrMatthewSweet, @TimandraHarknes, @selina_todd and @David_Goodhart about language, class and social mobility. At the end of my segment I was told fairly firmly that linguistic inequality in the UK is over. It's not. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000rvhp
Yes, maybe it isn't quite as solid as it once was, but that doesn't mean it's over. Sure, there are people with 'regional accents' in parliament. There are some people in parliament who are not white men - does that mean racism and misogyny are over?
How do I know that linguistic inequality isn't over? Because of a huge body of linguistic research, but for something current and accessible, have a look at @AccentismProj, where @erincarrie and @RobDrummond have been collecting people's experiences.
https://accentism.org/
https://accentism.org/
There is also loads of research about how linguistic prejudice is carried subconsciously, and how it excludes and structurally disadvantages marginalised speakers. It's real. Trust me.
I've talked to a lot of marginalised speakers about their experiences of linguistic inequality. I spoke about it a lot during my PhD research, with working-class teenagers in Glasgow.
They didn't always tell me straight away about their experiences of linguistic inequality, but over time I found that this was because they had accepted linguistic inequality so thoroughly that they took it for granted as the natural way things are.
They would say things like 'We don't speak properly round here. If I wanted to do Job X I'd need to learn how to speak properly.' But they didn't see that as anything worth talking about: it's just the way things are.
If you think that linguistic discrimination doesn't exist, it might be because you lack knowledge and understanding of experiences other than your own. But it might be because you are so used to seeing linguistic inequality everywhere that you've become blind to it.
Every time we talk about 'bad grammar' or 'proper English' or 'speaking correctly', and almost always when we call someone 'well-spoken' or 'eloquent', that is linguistic inequality. In statements like these, we see a hierarchy where one way of speaking is placed above another.
Even those of us who don't believe that we live in a meritocracy often carry around the unspoken belief that we live in a linguistic meritocracy.
Even those of us who don't believe that the Queen is where she is because she's the best person for the job often have an implicit belief that the 'Queen's English' occupies a special position in society because it's the best language for the job. It isn't.
There is absolutely nothing special about the 'Queen's English'. It's just another way of speaking, one that we've put on a pedestal for so long that it seems like we can no longer see the pedestal.
Working-class linguistic varieties have all of the same expressive possibilities as the 'Standard English'. They have 'rules', patterns, structures and precision. They have rich vocabulary. They are just as easy understand, if you have enough exposure and listen properly.
Growing up with working-class language does not need to put people at a disadvantage. We make it that way, by using language as a tool to exclude people. We use language as a vehicle for classism, racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, and more. We do it all the time. It's real.
I suppose the other thing that might make people think that linguistic inequality is over is that they've seen expressions of the pride people have in marginalised ways of speaking. And yes, there can be so much power in the use of marginalised language. Of course there can.
But it's a different kind of power to the power of 'Standard English'. It's not the power to decide who gets to speak, and whose words are listened to. It's not the power to decide who has access to education, and who gets the job, and who has authority, and who is silenced.
The 'cultural capital' that might (sometimes) be available through the use of marginalised language (in very restricted circumstances) isn't evidence of any kind of equality.
We use language as a way to put people in their place, and to enforce and police our social hierarchy. Perhaps we might permit a working-class person to hold a position of authority or to speak on the television, but only if they speak like a rich person.
If they don't adjust enough, they're very often scolded for it, explicitly. It's never rich white people who are asked to leave parts of themselves outside the door, or to do the work it takes to adjust. It just isn't.
We live in an unequal society, and language is just another expression of that inequality. I'm yet to be persuaded otherwise.
P.S. This episode of @accentricitypod is basically this thread, but with some other voices included. https://www.accentricity-podcast.com/episodes-1/episode-1-making-assumptions
