Language Standardization & - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Language Standardization &
Linguistic Subordination

Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk &
Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

Language standardization involves minimizing variation, especially in written
forms of language. That process includes judgments about people who don’t or can’t
use the standard forms. These kinds of judgments can unfairly limit people’s access
to opportunities, including in educational and professional realms. En este ensayo, nosotros
discuss standardized language varieties and the specific ways beliefs and ideologies
about them allow judgments about language to become judgments about people,
especially groups of people who share, or are presumed to share, género, carrera, eth-
nicity, social status, education status, and numerous other socially salient identities.
After describing how the process of standardization occurs, we illustrate how the
expression of language peeves becomes embodied. Finalmente, we discuss how ideolo-
gies about standardized language circulate in higher education to the detriment of
many students, and include a range of suggestions and examples for how to center
linguistic justice and equity within higher education.

L anguage peeves seem harmless, which only enhances their power. Cómo

serious could it be to complain about people’s use of apostrophes or dou-
ble negatives or the contraction ain’t? The features under fire are relatively
trivial when it comes to mutual comprehension. Al mismo tiempo, many articu-
lations of language peeves, intentionally or unintentionally, belittle or humiliate
those who have “transgressed,” which is not trivial. Such peeves can become a ref-
erendum on the people themselves rather than “just” their language. Por ejemplo,
someone who uses ain’t may be understood as uneducated; or an expression like
we don’t want none of that is presumed to be illogical and thus a sign of a speaker’s
inability to think precisely. And these kinds of judgments can unfairly limit peo-
ple’s access to opportunities, including in educational and professional realms.

To understand the unfairness of these judgments and their real-world impli-
cations, it helps to return to our use of scare quotes around “just” in the previous
párrafo. The languages we speak are essential parts of our identities; ellos son
not just how we talk about the world but are part of who we are and part of our

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

© 2023 by Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler Published under a Creative Commons Attribution- No comercial 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC 4.0) licencia https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02015

cultures and communities. Más, the languages we speak are part of how we un-
derstand the world we live in. Por ejemplo, one of the authors of this essay, OMS
is from the Southern United States, can use multiple modal verbs to indicate fin-
er distinctions in grammatical mood than are available with a single modal verb.
In the sentence “We might should go to the beach today,” the speaker indicates
both that it is an action that probably needs to be done and an action that may or
may not be feasible. This construction, acquired by speakers in toddlerhood, cre-
ates a different flavor for modal verbs and is tied to how a speaker shows polite-
ness. Multiple modals are nuanced and helpful. They are also often framed, ambos
by those who don’t use them and by some who do, as highly “incorrect” and as
signaling a lack of education and intelligence.

Given the connection of language to identity, cultura, and community, judg-
ments about individuals’ language use are frequently linked to groups of people
(rather than specific individuals), particularly those connected by race, etnicidad,
identidad de género, social status, geographic location, and education. At their most
troubling, overt judgments about language and imagined “correct” ways of speak-
ing reinforce social hierarchies and deny the richness of linguistic diversity. El
language gatekeeping that happens routinely in institutions of higher education
and elsewhere ultimately promotes the ideologies of the powerful and disempow-
ers those who are disenfranchised based on the various social groups of which
they are a part.

Language gatekeeping happens in both formal and informal ways in higher
education. Por ejemplo, all four authors of this essay know colleagues who have
policies in their courses that penalize students if their written work contains, decir,
more than three “errors” per page. Other colleagues give their students a list of
their language peeves (Por ejemplo, using different than rather than different from, o
ending a sentence with a preposition, or using anyways rather than anyway, or using
multiple modals such as might could) that students should not use in their written
work if they want to please their instructor and receive a better grade. At a less for-
mal level, students themselves may “correct” their peers for saying something like
“aks” in “aks a question.” While not a formal correction tied to a grade, this judg-
ment and gatekeeping take multiple forms, from an explicit correction to derisive
laughter or eye-rolling. Similarmente, we have all heard other instructors complain-
ing to a colleague that their students “can’t write” because they confused the ho-
mophones their and there or sent in their “collage application essay.” We’ll return
to the different kinds of language that are being corrected in these examples–
and the harmful language ideologies that justify this powerful gatekeeping.

These instructors and students are participating in a gatekeeping discourse
that circulates broadly in institutions beyond education, including popular me-
es. Considerar, Por ejemplo, a 2021 feature in Reader’s Digest titled “11 Grammar
Mistakes Editors Hate the Most,” which offers a collection of grammatical peeves

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

sourced from language experts like editors and college instructors.1 The “mis-
takes” by “offenders” range from confusion of homophones (their/they’re/there)
to nonstandard apostrophes to the use of I for me. One editor-in-chief, irritated
by the abundance of grammatical errors on public signs, used her own pen to
correct them. She explains, “I’ve only done it once or twice, but when a mistake
makes my skin crawl, I have no shame.”

The use of phrases like “makes my skin crawl” is an example of language em-
bodiment, which in this case describes a physical response to a visual grammatical
“error.” It reflects how beliefs about language correctness are deeply held and how
they are both cognitively and physically naturalized–to the point where people
articulate that perceived mistakes cause physical pain (Por ejemplo, ears or eyes
hurting, feeling ill). Cifra 1 illustrates such embodiment.

Throughout this essay, we provide further examples of embodiment/embodied
responses that occur in the name of language standardization to illustrate how
deeply ingrained beliefs about what is and isn’t “correct” are.

Discussing language standardization is critical, given how deeply ideologies
about language use and correctness are embedded in our social interactions with
one another and in our cognitive capacities to both produce and interpret lan-
guage. Standardization often hides the fact that all varieties of all human languages
are equally capable of being “grammatical” in the sense that users have strong un-
derstandings of the rules that govern the variety. Por esta razón, we don’t use the
term dialect or accent to refer to less standardized varieties. En cambio, we use variety.2
Al hacerlo, we are committing to the position that standardized varieties are not
better or worse than less standardized varieties. Yet the discourses that position
standardized varieties as better, correcto, or the “real” language naturalize the as-
sumed superiority of the standardized variety. We must take seriously the power
of this naturalized discourse about language “correctness” because it facilitates
and often overtly promotes discrimination, both deliberate and unintentional.

We urge readers to consider the implications of language standardization
within their own fields. Language standardization supports one of the most con-
sistent forms of gatekeeping, and one in which every field represented in the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences participates. The ideological power of
language standardization holds true for English and for other languages, incluir-
ing many found in the United States. Por ejemplo, there is a general prestige as-
sociated with the standardized form of Spanish used in Spain that relegates oth-
er forms of Spanish, such as Cuban or Mexican Spanish, to a significantly lower
status.3 This version of an ideology about standardized language facilitates dis-
crimination against those who use varieties of Spanish other than those found in
Spain–and, por supuesto, the same discrimination against minoritized varieties hap-
pens in Spain itself. When we unquestioningly reinforce the belief that the stan-
dardized variety is inherently “correct,” we almost always marginalize those who

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

Cifra 1
Standard Grammatical Use of the Contraction “You’re”

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Fuente: RD.com, Getty Images, https://www.rdasia.com/true-stories-lifestyle/humour/
23-grammar-memes-thatll-crack-you-up?pages=2 (accessed May 30, 2022).

are minoritized in ways that appear neutral but are in fact classist, racist, sexist,
and in other ways discriminatory.4

H igher education in the United States (and many places with a long histo-

ry of standardization) presupposes a standardized, edited written form
of English as the model for what is “correct” linguistically. We often talk
about this variety, “Standard English” (or even just “English”), as a stable, neu-
tral, locatable entity. Let us be clear: It is none of those things. De hecho, the very act
of trying to defi ne Standard English reveals how slippery this notion is. Para esto
reason, it can be useful to start a discussion of Standard English with the process
of standardization, rather than the variety itself.

Standard languages do not magically or neutrally appear; they result from the
process of language standardization. The central goal of standardizing a language

152 (3) Verano 2023

is to minimize variation in the selected variety, which can then be used to facili-
tate communication across regional and social dialects of a language. A common
by-product is shoring up social hierarchies based on who has access to the stan-
dardized variety, which comes to represent not only a shared standard but also
the one “correct” or “proper” way to use the language. Variation is natural to any
living language, so the process of standardization must always work against the
natural tendency for a language to morph over time, espacio, and social identities.

The process of language standardization is often described in four stages, primero

outlined by sociolinguist Einar Haugen, which we’ve summarized below:

• Selection: A dialect of the language is chosen as the variety that will be
shared more broadly. Typically, this variety carries social, political, and/or
economic prestige based on the status of its speakers.

• Elaboration: As a more local variety is asked to take on a wider array of func-
ciones (Por ejemplo, legal documents and scientific writing), its available
resources–such as vocabulary and written style–must expand to meet the
varied needs of speakers and writers.

• Codification: As the variety comes to be more broadly shared, it starts to
become more regulated in an attempt to minimize variation across speak-
ers and writers.

• Acceptance: The variety is institutionalized as a standard in education, a mí-
es, administrative functions, and elsewhere, and mastery of it becomes a
qualification for higher education and many professional careers.5

Sociolinguists James Milroy and Lesley Milroy, who describe standardization as
an ideology in addition to a process, expand this model to include more stages:
selección, acceptance, difusión, elaboración, maintenance, codification, and pre-
scription.6 In these late stages (which are not necessarily linear), the standardized
variety often acquires prestige.

There is nothing formalized about these stages; no one “decides” to select a
variety and elaborate on it. Bastante, selection often follows from the institution-
alized social power of particular users, and the stages follow the idea, promoted
within powerful social, cultural, and legal institutions, that standardized varieties
are inherently better than varieties that are less standardized. The standardized
variety is then available to confer social prestige on those who use it while the less
standardized varieties are seen as evidence of lower social prestige. Por ejemplo,
in the United States, a roughly Midwestern variety of spoken English was “select-
ed” by broadcasters in the early to mid-twentieth century because it was neither a
Southern nor a Northeastern variety of American English.7 One of the important
aspects of this selection can be seen in films from the early through the late 1950s,
in which varieties associated with the Northeast become less and less prestigious.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

In the film Philadelphia Story (1940), Katherine Hepburn’s character Tracy Lord
uses language associated with the Northeast to mark her upper-class status. Por
1954, sin embargo, Marlon Brando’s Terry Malloy in On the Waterfront uses language
associated with the Northeast (specifically New York) to mark lower-class status.
The selection of the “standard” variety is not neutral, nor are the parties re-
sponsible for its codification, maintenance, and prescription. In some countries,
there is an identifiable institution that promotes standardization, como el
Académie Française in France. En los Estados Unidos, por el contrario, standardization
is enforced by a loose network of language authorities, including editors, enseñar-
ers, dictionary and usage guide writers, language pundits, and the like. In English,
codification and prescription took hold in Britain and the United States and be-
yond in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with the proliferation of dictio-
naries and then style guides that would become standard reference tools in the
educational system.

Standardization works to limit change and variability within a language vari-
ety. Change still happens in standardized varieties (Por ejemplo, the introduction
of the passive progressive–the house is being built–in the nineteenth century), pero
it is often resisted and only slowly accepted (Por ejemplo, the use of “they” as a
singular pronoun, which occurs as early as the fourteenth century).8 Por lo tanto,
we use the phrase Standardized American English to capture the dynamic processes
at work in this variety. Standardized American English (henceforth referred to in
this essay as SAE) is easier to distinguish in writing than in speech. While we can
identify some features that are prototypically standard (Por ejemplo, single nega-
ción, use of third-person singular -s in the present tense as in she thinks, he dreams),
SAE is often identified by what it isn’t (Por ejemplo, fixin to, ain’t, multiple modals,
merger of the vowel in pen and pin [but the merger of the vowel in cot and caught
is not stigmatized as nonstandard], aks rather than ask).9 As these few examples
captura, these distinctions between standardized and nonstandardized language
features are often raced and classed.

While SAE is often described as neutral or unmarked, it is neither. It may not
have distinctive markers of geographical location, but SAE indexes whiteness and
higher socioeconomic class.10 It is enforced and reinforced through discourses of
“correctness” in our educational system, editorial practices, a proliferation of us-
age guides and style manuals, and technologies such as grammar checkers built
into word processors.

It is important to note here that language gatekeeping and the discourse of cor-
rectness are not entirely consistent and apply to variety and register (or stylistic)
differences as well as spelling and punctuation. Let’s return to the examples in the
introductory section of common language gatekeeping practices in higher educa-
ción. Some of the examples involve nonstandard pronunciations or grammatical
features associated with social groups, such as aks, anyways, and multiple modals.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

Some of the examples are stylistic distinctions, in which arguably both variants
fall within standardized usage (Por ejemplo, different from versus different than or
ending a sentence with a preposition). And especially with these kinds of pre-
scriptive rules, not all language authorities will agree on what counts as an error.11
Por ejemplo, not all readers of this essay will care equally, or at all, about different
than, or hopefully used to mean “it is hoped,” or the use of impact as a verb. The list
goes on. Then there are typos and “grammos” or homophonous grammar errors
(Por ejemplo, their/they’re, its/it’s), which are entirely written phenomena–and in
some cases created by autocorrect functions found on mobile devices that, for in-
postura, often revert the possessive its to the contracted it’s, despite attempts by the
typers to change it.12 At some fundamental level, when we think about language as
a communicative system, these grammos are trivial (we cannot even hear them in
speech) and most writers have made them when writing quickly or in less proofed
genres. Yet the stakes for making them can be socially and professionally high:
they can be seen as markers not just that a writer may not have proofed carefully
but also that a writer is lazy, unintelligent, unqualified.

The consequences of language standardization are significant because of the
beliefs the process creates and sustains. Mientras, in theory, the standardized variety
could coexist with nonstandard varieties in a way that legitimizes and celebrates
the richness and systematicity of linguistic diversity, the commonsense belief that
the standardized variety is inherently better results in the degradation of other va-
rieties, including both regional and social varieties of the language that are core
cultural markers of communities. This ideological system, typically referred to as
Standard Language Ideology (SLI), can be summarized as “a bias toward an ab-
stract, idealized language, which is imposed and maintained by dominant institu-
tions and which has as its model the written language, but which is drawn primar-
ily from the spoken language of the upper middle class.”13 As a result, SLI allows
those in power to exclude and restrict access to power for speakers of minoritized
varieties in many sectors of the public domain.

SLI generally works invisibly, by nature of its “commonsense” approach to
right and wrong (or better and worse) language patterns. It allows, if not encour-
siglos, the dissemination of misinformation about language variation, and speak-
ers of all varieties tend to accept SLI without question. This ideology captures the
power of convincing speakers that their own language varieties, which they use
for diverse communicative purposes, are “wrong” if they do not correspond with
what is seen as standard. This bias applies not only to SAE but also to many lan-
guages in the United States such as Spanish, which is spoken variably by people
in the United States depending on their background and origin. Because the stan-
dard variety of a language functions as the uninterrogated norm, other varieties
are relegated to the margins as linguistically inferior, even if they may carry so-
cial capital. Those who speak nonstandardized or semistandardized dialects are

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

labeled ungrammatical, which translates to illogical and untrustworthy. Such dis-
information consolidates power, reifies it, and naturalizes its reification.

T he embodiment of negative reactions to linguistic (primarily orthograph-

ic) “errors” presents a fascinating aspect of the language standardization
proceso, which can link bodily sensation to beliefs about standardized and
nonstandardized forms of language. Eyerolls, por ejemplo, are a form of embod-
ied annoyance, as is saying someone’s grammar makes you sick (o [sic]), as seen
En figura 2.

Though theories of embodiment have made their way across fields, from cog-
nitive neuroscience to robotics to anthropology to some areas of linguistics, ellos
have not been widely incorporated into theories of language standardization.14
Sin embargo, embodiment offers fertile ground for understanding linguistic judg-
ment and prejudice. When a person expresses that grammatical errors “make
their skin crawl,” or when certain speech modalities such as creaky voice or up-
talk are described as an “embodied contagion” or metaphorical viral infection, nosotros
see a direct link to specific ideologies about language that set up the standardized
form as correct, beautiful, saludable, and pure.15 Further, these embodied physio-
logical responses to language variation suggest how deeply naturalized standard
language ideologies are, including among the most highly educated.

Language production and perception–spoken, written, or signed–always en-
gage the body directly: the hands, the mouth, the larynx, the lungs, the ears, el
ojos, the motor system, and the processing systems in the brain.16 This materi-
al physicality is simultaneously involved in both producing and perceiving lan-
guage, including linguistic forms understood as being correct because they are
standardized. Most important, these responses embody the power of standard-
ization and the challenges involved in dislodging that power. Por lo tanto, engaging
with and changing SLI, especially those that subordinate other people’s linguistic
producción, requires confronting their embodiment.17

One area of embodiment that occurs with some frequency when grammar
“errors” are under consideration is laughter. Laughter is a physical characteristic
of and reaction to a range of affective states, including playfulness, amusement,
joy, but also discomfort, despido, schadenfreude, or tease.18 In the context of
language standardization, attempts to evoke laughter most typically involve teas-
En g, schadenfreude, and superiority, all of which are negatively valenced toward
the user of grammar “errors.”

The connection between public humor about grammar and a taunting or supe-
rior affect can be seen in the frequency with which the “humor” of many grammar
memes derives from metaphors of sickness and death, as seen in Figures 3 y 4.
In examples like Figures 3 y 4, in which the memes discuss pain and death as be-
ing brought on specifically by grammatical “errors,” it becomes clear how ideolo-

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

Cifra 2
Bad Grammar Makes Me [Sic]

Fuente: Logo of the public Facebook group “Bad Grammar Makes Me [Sic]."

Cifra 3
“When You Use Bad Grammer [sic] It Kills Me Again”

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Fuente: Taken from Lenia Crouch, “Grammar Memes to Make Your Day,” The EMS Sound,
Febrero 6, 2018, https://emssound.net/1560/fun-and-games. Made using https://imgfl ip.com.

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

Cifra 4
“My Eyes Are Burning”

Fuente: Taken from Rose Ledgard, “Grammar Memes,” Rose Ledgard: MA Major Project, Oc-
tober 10, 2012, https://roseledgarddesigns.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/grammar-memes.
Made using https://quickmeme.com.

gies about the inherent correctness and superiority of the standard are reinforced
through the representation of embodied illness.

In surfacing these ideologies about a standardized language, memes and other
“humorous” displays of grammar errors are immediately available to denigrate
socially and linguistically marginalized groups of people. For instance, artículos
such as Business Insider’s “The 13 Celebrities with the Worst Grammar on Twit-
ter” are meant to elicit a visceral and critical response.19 Despite the availability
of many celebrities with “poor grammar” who embody a range of identities on
Twitter, eleven of the thirteen celebrities in this article are People of Color, incluir-
ing Queen Latifah who is criticized for using “U” in place of “you” in a tweet, y
Snoop Dogg for using numbers “2” and “4” in lieu of “to” and “for” (ver figura 5).
These forms are clear (and at this point, largely standardized) ways to reduce
the number of characters in a tweet since Twitter limits how many characters a
single tweet may have. These celebrities are using the orthographic norms of the
medio; nonetheless, they are criticized for using especially poor grammar.

Many news organizations have features about poor grammar that are framed
in terms of the embodiment of grammar scorn, por ejemplo, BuzzFeed’s article
“19 Grammar Fails That Will Make You Shake Your Head Then Laugh Out Loud,"
CNBC’s article “The 11 Extremely Common Grammar Mistakes That Make People

152 (3) Verano 2023

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

Cifra 5
Snoop Dogg Tweet Using Numbers “2” and “4” in Lieu of “To” and “For”

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Fuente: Kirsten Acuna, "El 13 Celebrities with the Worst Grammar on Twitter,” Business In-
sider, Junio 25, 2013, https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-celebrity-grammar-2013-6.

Cringe–And Make You Look Less Smart,” and the BBC’s article “Have We Mur-
dered the Apostrophe?”20 These types of articles present negatively embodied re-
sponses to other people’s intelligence, social class, racial or ethnic background,
and presumed lack of education. Such responses incorrectly reduce language to
el (formal) written language. More insidiously, they mobilize ideas about lan-
guage to make strongly negative assessments of people who are marginalized or
otherwise oppressed for reasons beyond language.

D eep-seated beliefs about language correctness circulate so broadly in U.S.

culture that they metaphorically become part of the air we breathe. Eso
dicho, we must pay particular attention to their pervasiveness in K–12

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

spaces and in higher education. Early in their literacy careers, children are taught
to write adhering to specific forms and conventions: capitalize the first word of
a sentence, write homophones correctly, and end each sentence with appropri-
ate punctuation. They also learn that some linguistic features are not appropriate
for school, be that ain’t or the pronunciation “aks” or constructions such as me
and my mom went. As students progress through their literacy and writing curricu-
lums, the forms and conventions become increasingly specific to the preferences
of SAE. While there are many varieties of English spoken around the world, y
indeed many varieties spoken in the United States, rarely are “nonstandard” va-
rieties permitted for high-stakes–or even low-stakes–uses in schools. Especially
for academic writing and standardized testing, the use of SAE is normalized as the
only appropriate linguistic variety.

The consequences in schools can be devastating. Students get silenced because
they are told they talk “incorrectly.” As students experience the dissonance be-
tween home and school ways of speaking, they must navigate complex emotional
terrain as they decide how to present themselves. This cascade of events and cir-
cumstances can undermine students’ confidence as well as their identity and can
result in attrition: students drop out of school because they don’t see themselves
as belonging there or are told, with or without words, they don’t belong there. Todo
of this runs counter to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that are
making their way across the United States. Yet not nearly enough attention has
been given to countering SLI as part of DEI initiatives.

In spaces of higher education, whether it be composition classes or writing
centros, language is typically taught as one specific, idealized, standardized form.
While teaching SAE to the exclusion of other varieties in schools is the normal-
ized practice, there have been movements recently to permit students to use their
home language varieties in schools, sometimes as a learning tool for translation or
code-switching to help students acquire SAE, and occasionally, but increasingly,
for academic purposes.21 Historically, code-switching approaches, which taught
students to switch between their home language codes and school codes, took a
language awareness approach that taught students to use their knowledge of their
own language to acquire SAE. Problematically, students sometimes interpret this
practice to mean their home language is inferior in school and professional set-
tings, reinforcing deficit ideologies about their home languages and identities.
Given the interconnections of language, dialect, carrera, and identity, some explain
the practice of code-switching as “race-switching,” meaning non-white people
are expected to put on linguistic patterns of whiteness to be taken seriously in
schools and professional settings.22

Recognizing the challenges of switching on the formation of students’ linguis-
tic identities, there has been an increasing call in education to allow students to
use their home language varieties for school and professional purposes.23 Allow-

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

ing students to speak and write in their home varieties in schools moves toward
greater linguistic justice, but it is predicated upon an essential ideological shift
in the infrastructure of schooling. Before students can bring their full linguis-
tic identities into the classrooms, the systems of schooling must create inclusive
spaces in which all language varieties are treated as equally valid for academic pur-
poses. Given the associations of particular language varieties with various social,
económico, étnico, and racial groups, just treatment of all varieties is a radical ap-
proach for education, one that relies on those with power and influence to deliber-
ately redistribute power to those whose language varieties have historically been
discriminated against in schools.

For the redistribution of linguistic power to take place in schools, the acade-
my has to make a fundamental ideological shift away from language standardiza-
tion toward a preference for language diversity. In the K–12 setting, students learn
from teachers who are trained, explicitly and implicitly, in SLI through the acad-
emy. Beyond K–12 teacher education curricula, the academy trains its students to
practice and prefer the standard, through the use of SAE in course materials, class-
room discourse, and unstated expectations for formal and informal writing, incluso
in low-stakes academic assignments. The practice of SAE for academic purposes
is so naturalized within the academy, it is often omitted from the syllabus or as-
signment expectations, despite being expected from students. On formal writing
assignments, the conventions of SAE often appear on grading rubrics, absent any
discussion of the politics of language and standardization.

There are several tangible actions those of us in the academy can pursue to fur-
ther diversity, equity, and inclusion when it comes to the treatment of SAE. The first
action is to teach students about the politics of language standardization.24 This ap-
proach, sometimes now called Critical Language Awareness, aims to make students
aware of standardized language forms while also being explicit about the socially
constructed nature of standardization. The goal is to empower students as speakers
and writers to make informed choices about what language varieties and styles they
want to use in a given context, with a specific audience, and to empower them to
challenge systems of power that promote standard language ideologies. This con-
versation should also extend to colleagues across a university’s campus. DEI work
that does not include attention to linguistic justice cannot achieve its goals because
of the mutually sustaining relationship between language and identity.

A second action is to challenge the preference for standardization within the
discourse of the academy. In addition to naming linguistic justice and inclusion
as a pillar of classroom discourse, academics can issue explicit calls for invited
speakers, documentos, dissertation formats, journal abstracts, and more that are pre-
sented within a framework of linguistic justice.

If this feels impossible, it is because the system has made SAE unchallengeable.
Teachers and academics struggle to see linguistically diverse writing and speaking

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

styles as part of cultural and intellectual diversity. Even when permitted to use di-
verse language varieties, researchers and writers may be hesitant because hyper-
standard academic norms are difficult to subvert. Rather than erasing the richness
of linguistic diversity, we could teach the standardized version of the language as
content rather than the only correct way to speak and engage.

The discriminatory consequences of language standardization go far beyond
escuelas. Por ejemplo, language standardization is problematic in legal spaces
where standardized languages are privileged and others are ignored.25 Unsurpris-
ingly, many court reporters are trained only in standardized English, focusing on
accuracy and typing speed, and these reporters may be ill-equipped to transcribe
diverse English dialects. Fortunately, there are linguists who are teaching lin-
guistics in prisons, such as Nicole Holliday, training court transcribers in African
American English (AAE), such as Sharese King, and writing articles about court
transcriber accuracy to bring awareness to these issues.26

M any scholars across the disciplines consider how interactions with in-

stitutions affect people who are in relatively minoritized groups. Cómo-
alguna vez, little research pays careful attention to the ways in which minori-
tized language forms are part and parcel of those interactions. In our conversa-
tions with education specialists, psychologists, political scientists, sociologists,
and others in both the social sciences and the humanities, we regularly encounter
surprise at the suggestion that language, especially language attitudes, form an-
other materialization of many of the topics they investigate. En efecto, this material-
ization is frequently embodied, metaphorically and literally, in feelings of disgust,
enfermedad, and discomfort. We ask of them, as we ask of you, to rethink the assump-
tions about language that inform scholarship, as this is one concrete way to dis-
mantle some of the consequences of beliefs about standardized forms of language.
We have suggested some solutions to many of the issues we’ve highlighted in
this essay; sin embargo, implementing solutions in a meaningful way first requires
recognition of how important language variation is for our everyday interactions
with others. Segundo, implementing solutions depends on recognizing how our
ideas about language (standardized or not) can pose a true barrier to meaningful
cambiar. Such recognition includes the understanding that much of what we think
about language often stands as a proxy for what we think about people, who we
are willing to listen to and hear, and who we want to be with or distance ourselves
de.

Acts of language oppression are generally directly tied to ideas about the
“proper” or “correct” way to use language, and ideas about what is correct gener-
ally follow from very specific beliefs regarding standardized language forms and,
often much more specifically, forms that are expected in formal, written prose.
While there are also plenty of contexts in which standardized, written prose is not

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

welcome (por ejemplo, on many social media platforms), the majority of us par-
ticipate in the reification of standardized language expectations. These ideas cir-
culate in virtually all of our institutions–in employment, banking, medical prac-
tice, housing, education, and business. In our own practices within higher educa-
ción, we have a responsibility to regularly rethink how we teach and then come to
expect standardized forms in at least some contexts. We can also learn to have a
heightened awareness of how those expectations can easily slip into language dis-
crimination and general oppression of people who use linguistic systems that are
minoritized in many contexts.

Within higher education, one solution is to consider standardized forms, par-
ticularly formal written prose, as a type of content rather than simply a content deliv-
ery system. Por ejemplo, discuss the variation linked to genres of speaking and writ-
ing as a form of information. Other practical solutions include: 1) working with others
to develop an ongoing meta-awareness of how attitudes about language surface–
por ejemplo, asking students to survey their friends and peers about responses to the
use of forms found on social media; 2) asking ourselves and others how much of our
assessment of a person is tied to something about their language–for instance, por
first writing a reflection about a particular person’s language use and what it seems
to indicate and then sharing those reflections for further discussion; y 3) consid-
ering how our assessments of individuals lead to broader assumptions about groups
of people who share an identity or identities. We can all talk together, with curios-
ity and generosity, about what we think about language and why we may react to
particular linguistic forms in the ways we do. Finalmente, we can all embrace the rich-
ness, creativity, and wonder that comes when we recognize what linguistic diversity
brings to the experience of being human together in the world.

authors’ note

The four authors worked together at the University of Michigan on the Language
Matters initiative, an interdisciplinary initiative to increase recognition of the role
of language diversity, to create linguistically inclusive classrooms, and to contribute
to an inclusive campus climate. The authors are listed in alphabetical order.

about the authors

Anne Curzan is the Geneva Smitherman Collegiate Professor of English, Linguis-
tics, and Education at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Gender Shifts
in the History of English (2003), How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction (with Michael
Adams, 3rd edition, 2012), Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History (2014), y

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

First Day to Final Grade: A Graduate Student’s Guide to Teaching (with Lisa Damour, 3rd
ed., 2011).

Robin M. Queen is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Linguistics, Inglés, and Ger-
man at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Vox Popular: The Surprising
Life of Language in the Media (2015), Through the Golden Door: Toward an Effective Delivery
Strategy for Low-Schooled Adolescent Immigrants (with Betty Mace-Matluck and Rosalind
Alexander-Kasparik, 1998), and several other works related to Turkish-German bi-
linguals, American lesbians, and American films dubbed into German.

Kristin VanEyk is an Assistant Professor of English at Hope College. Her most
recent publication is “What Women Write: On Decanting Macaroni and Saying
Goodbye to Ghost Trains,” which appeared in Writing on the Edge.

Rachel Elizabeth Weissler is a postdoctoral scholar in Linguistics, Psicología,
and Black Studies at the University of Oregon, where she will begin as Assistant Pro-
fessor in Linguistics in fall 2023. Su investigacion, which uses experimental methods to
investigate linguistic perception and production, has recently been published in Ap-
plied Psycholinguistics and Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, while her public scholar-
ship has appeared in The New York Times, Vice, and the PBS series Otherworlds.

notas finales

1 Molly Pennington, “11 Grammar Mistakes Editors Hate the Most,” Reader’s Digest, Decem-

ber 26, 2022, https://www.rd.com/list/grammar-mistakes-editors-hate.

2 For more on varieties in sociolinguistics, see Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil
l. nelson, editores., The Handbook of World Englishes (Hoboken, NUEVA JERSEY.: Blackwell Publishing,
2006).

3 Salvatore Callesano and Phillip M. Carretero, “Latinx Perceptions of Spanish in Miami:
Dialect Variation, Personality Attributes and Language Use,” Language & Comunicación
67 (2019): 84–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.03.003.

4 John R. Rickford and Sharese King, “Language and Linguistics on Trial: Hearing Rachel
Jeantel (and Other Vernacular Speakers) in the Courtroom and Beyond,” Language 92
(4) (2016): 948–988, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0078.

5 Einar Haugen, “Dialect, Idioma, Nation,” American Anthropologist 68 (4) (1966): 922–

935, https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040.

6 James Milroy and Lesley Milroy, Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 3rd

ed. (Londres: Routledge, 1998).

7 Lesley Milroy, “Britain and the United States: Two Nations Divided by the Same Lan-
guage (and Different Language Ideologies),” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10 (1)
(2000): 56–89, https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2000.10.1.56; and Thomas Paul Bonfiglio,
Race and the Rise of Standard American (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002).
8 Oxford English Dictionary: Word Stories, https://www.oed.com/discover/a-brief

-history-of-singular-they (accessed August 16, 2023).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

152 (3) Summer 2023Anne Curzan, Robin M. Queen, Kristin VanEyk & Rachel Elizabeth Weissler

9 Peter Trudgill, “Standard English: What It Isn’t,” in Standard English: The Widening Debate

ed. Tony Bex and Richard J. vatios (Londres: Routledge, 1999), 117–128.

10 Bethany Davila, “The Inevitability of ‘Standard’ English: Discursive Constructions of
Standard Language Ideologies,” Written Communication 33 (2) (2016): 127–148, https://
doi.org/10.1177/0741088316632186.

11 José M.. williams, “The Phenomenology of Error,” College Composition and Communica-

ción 32 (2) (1981): 152–168, https://doi.org/10.2307/356689.

12 Julie Boland and Robin Queen, “If You’re House Is Still Available, Send Me an Email:
Personality Influences Reactions to Written Errors in Email,” PLOS ONE 11 (3) (2016):
e0149885, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149885.

13 Rosina Lippi-Green, English with an Accent: Idioma, Ideology and Discrimination in the United

Estados, 2y ed.. (Londres: Routledge, 2011), 64.

14 Mary Bucholtz and Kira Hall, “Embodied Sociolinguistics,” in Sociolinguistics: Teórico
Debates, ed. Nikolas Coupland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 173–
198; and Suresh Canagarajah and Valeriya Minakova, “Objects in Embodied Sociolin-
guísticos: Mind the Door in Research Group Meetings,” Language in Society 52 (2) (2023):
183–214, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000082.

15 Tyanna Slobe, “This American Creak: Metaphors of Virus, Infection, and Contagion in
Girls’ Social Networks,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American An-
thropological Association, Mineápolis, Minnesota, Noviembre 2016, https://static1
.squarespace.com/static/5a7f8cf0f6576e9725b83c31/t/5ac551aa03ce644a7d456434
/1522881038322/Slobe_This+American+Creak.pdf; and Tsung-Lun Alan Wan, lauren
Hall-Lew, and Claire Cowie, “Feeling Disabled: Vowel Quality and Assistive Hearing
Devices in Embodying Affect,” Language in Society, Septiembre 5, 2022, http://doi.org
/10.1017/S0047404522000380.

16 Bucholtz and Hall, “Embodied Sociolinguistics”; and Canagarajah and Minakova, “Ob-

jects in Embodied Sociolinguistics.”

17 Chris Sinha and Kristine Jensen de López, “Language, Cultura, and the Embodiment of
Spatial Cognition,” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1–2) (2001): 17–41, https://doi.org/10.1515/
cogl.2001.008; and Nguyen Tat Thang, “Language and Embodiment,” VNU Journal of
Ciencia, Foreign Languages 25 (4) (2009): 250–256, https://js.vnu.edu.vn/FS/article/view
/2440.

18 Diana P. Szameitat, André J. Szameitat, and Dirk Wildgruber, “Vocal Expression of Af-
fective States in Spontaneous Laughter Reveals the Bright and the Dark Side of Laugh-
ter,” Scientific Reports 12 (1) (2022): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09416-1.
19 Kirsten Acuna, "El 13 Celebrities with the Worst Grammar on Twitter,” Business Insider,
Junio 25, 2013, https://www.businessinsider.com/worst-celebrity-grammar-2013-6.
20 Kevin Smith, “19 Grammar Fails That Will Make You Shake Your Head Then Laugh Out
Loud,” Buzzfeed, Octubre 31, 2017, https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevinsmith/compete
-is-in-our-nature; Kathy Petras and Ross Petras, "El 11 Extremely Common Grammar
Mistakes That Make People Cringe–And Make You Look Less Smart: Word Experts,"
CNBC, Marzo 24, 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/24/common-grammar-mistakes
-that-make-people-cringe-and-make-you-look-less-smart-word-experts.html; and Hélène
Schumacher, “Have We Murdered the Apostrophe?” BBC, Febrero 24, 2020, https://
www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
5
2
3
1
8
2
1
5
5
8
5
5
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
2
0
1
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & SciencesLanguage Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

21 Christine Mallinson and Anne H. Charity Hudley, “Balancing the Communication Equa-
ción: An Outreach and Engagement Model for Using Sociolinguistics to Enhance Cul-
turally and Linguistically Sustaining K–12 STEM Education,” Language 94 (3) (2018):
e191–e215, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0048.

22 Vershawn Ashanti Young, “‘Nah, We Straight’: An Argument Against Code Switching,"

JAC 29 (1/2) (2009): 49–76.

23 April Baker-Bell, Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity, and Pedagogy (Nuevo

york: Routledge, 2020).

24 Anne Curzan, “Says Who? Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar,” PMLA 124

(3) (2009): 870–879, http://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2009.124.3.870.

25 Rickford and King, “Language and Linguistics on Trial.”
26 Taylor Jones, Jessica Rose Kalbfeld, Ryan Hancock, and Robin Clark, “Testifying While
Negro: An Experimental Study of Court Reporter Transcription Accuracy for African
American English,” Language 95 (2) (2019): e216–e252, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan
.2019.0042.