Pragmatics, raciolinguistically.

By: JM

           I’m writing this post having been inspired by our last lecture given by Dr. Julie Kerekes on pragmatics. During the lecture, we learned about ‘speech acts’ and how these might be realized through a variety of phrasings. For example, to achieve the speech act of making an invitation, we could say “Wanna grab a bite?” or “I was wondering if you might want to get something to eat”. I’ve always understood these differences in speech act realizations as that of appropriateness; that is, speech which is congruent to its context. Thus, we would probably use a casual expression if the context is such that we are familiar with the interlocutor, and perhaps use an expression that is more polite or distant in formal contexts. If someone were to break these norms of appropriateness, especially a racialized speaker, they would probably be seen through some sort of deficiency-based lens as an ‘incompetent’ or ‘improficient’ speaker. How has that come to be?

          Flores and Rosa (2015) argue that “discourses of appropriateness involve the conceptualization of standardized linguistic practices as objective sets of linguistic forms…” (p. 150), adding that “linguistic stigmatization should be understood less as a reflection of objective linguistic practices than of perceptions that construe appropriateness based on speakers’ racial positions” (p. 152). Their argument, in particular, gets at why it is necessary to abide by these norms, since in doing so, these linguistic norms related to appropriateness are perpetuated, (re)constituted, and (re)legitimated.

An appropriateness-based model of language education, then, is problematic not only because the burden is placed on racialized speakers to “mimic the white speaking subject”, but also because “it is premised on the false assumption that modifying the linguistic practices of racialized speaking subjects is key to eliminating racial hierarchies” (p. 155). Further, the idea of appropriateness is less based on what speakers do with the language, but more on “how they are heard by the white listening subject” (p. 160).

            Moving forward, the authors argue that the conversation needs to shift from “trying to improve the linguistic practices of language-minoritized students toward challenging the ways that their linguistic practices are taken up and interpreted by the white listening subject” (p. 167). Lee (2018) echoes this sentiment in his conceptual framework of inscrutability.

            I can imagine that this concept has ruffled more than a few feathers, and perhaps counter-arguments to this position might even be seen as its own distinct speech act: ‘white defensiveness’. Speech act realizations might include:

• “It’s just not proper”
• “That’s not even English!”

Can you think of any that could be added to the list?   

References

Flores, N. & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistics ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard educational review, 85(2), pp. 149-171

Lee, J. (2018). The Politics of Translingualism: After Englishes. New York: Routledge