Talk:Linguicism

Arvindn: Hi. Original (and so far only) contributor here. I'm putting the stub message back because this article really needs some work; it stinks. I'm hoping someone who knows more on this subject will work on it, but it's by no means near complete, or really very valuable at this point. (I'm not an expert in this field; just someone who knows what it is and saw that there wasn't already an article on it.) It is my opinion that it is still very stubbish. S'awright? Garrett Albright 13:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Esperanto?
Is the section on Esperanto really relevant? Compared to the real-world difficulties faced by people with accents or limited vocabularies, whose social status and economic wellbeing may be deeply affected by the language they speak (or can't speak), the difficulties faced by Esperanto-speakers surely aren't much more serious than those faced by, say, devotees of manga and anime. What I mean is, speaking Esperanto is a choice made by people with time to spare. They may feel upset that people don't take them seriously, but it isn't a serious problem like the inability to speak English in an English-speaking country. Perhaps if there was more discussion on the status that people assign to different languages (high prestige for English, low prestige for, say, Hausa -- just a random example) maybe the note on Esperanto would sound a little less ridiculous... Bathrobe 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of Wikipedians are artificial language advocates, and such people tend to have a bit of a persecution complex. I encourage you to go ahead and smooth out or delete that section, but be warned you may be setting yourself up for an editing war with someone who thinks Esperanto deserves the same status as legitimate languages. (Just for clarification, I, the original creator of this article, most certainly would not be one of those people.) Garrett Albright 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really have an issue with their contention that Esperanto deserves the same status as "legitimate languages". Any language is legitimate as long as it is used as a means of communication and not an intellectual game. The problem is, people dismissing a language (Esperanto) as somehow irrelevant, and people discriminating against a person on the basis of his linguistic abilities, are not really the same thing! This, I think, is my point. Because the point of linguicism, if I understand it correctly, is that discrimination is practised against people. Bathrobe 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the paragraph as it doesn't fit the definition "making judgments about one's wealth, education, social status, and other traits based on their use of language". The person who added the paragraph is identified only by his/her ISP address, and was only active a short time in 2004. If there are people who feel strongly that this paragraph belongs in the article, please post a note here. Esperanto is a legitimate language and Esperantists may have problems with their language being taken seriously, but I think we need something to back up the claim that this represents "linguicism" as defined in the article. Bathrobe 09:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

An American phenomenon?
''a person who has a thick Mexican accent and uses only simple English words may be thought of as poor, poorly educated, and possibly an illegal immigrant by many of the people who meet them. However, if the same person has a diluted accent or no noticeable accent at all and can use a myriad of words in complex sentences, they are likely to be perceived as more successful''

Isn't this essentially the moral of Pygmalion / My Fair Lady? This is not merely an American or even modern phenomenon. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 00:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not. It's just that the examples given are American.
 * Bathrobe 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

English in Quebec?
The person who added the example of English in Quebec clearly has an axe to grind. I am puzzled as to how broad the net of Linguicism should be cast. Discrimination against English there may be, but this sounds more like a "campaign" (in fact a campaign to try and protect French) than subtle social discrimination.

To compare linguicism with sexism, the difference might be between subtle or overt discrimination against individual women in seeking jobs, and a fully-fledged social campaign to get women out of the workforce. (Or ageism: subtle or overt discrimination against older people and a virulent social campaign against older people in the workforce).

I guess both could be called sexism or ageism, but there seems to be a difference. The overt campaign against English is quite vicious, but can it really be put in the same category as social discrimination? What about attempts to force Russian speakers in the Baltic states to speak Latvian, Estonian, etc.? Is this also linguicism?

Perhaps this should be spelled out in the article.

Bathrobe 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it's a little vague. It's like equating racism with apartheid - they share roots, but are expressed differently.  Now, I've lived in Québec - and to be honest, the linguistic laws aren't that much of a bother, unless you are a pure monolingual or own a sign somewhere (admittedly, I belong to neither category).  Besides, there is a rationale (a debatable rationale, but nonetheless) for the province's linguistic policies.  That debate should be in another article; a line should certainly be drawn between a political and a social phenomenon.


 * It must be said that there is a social stigma to speaking English well, though (or should I say, "speaking in the standard dialect"? :P). It's not exactly universal - it's more of a "noticable minority" thing.  Certainly real, though - particularly when they think there are no anglophones nearby.  I myself don't quite know how to go about doing so, but perhaps someone should go about editing the Québec paragraph, so as to be clearer that what is being exemplified is social, and not institutional?  I've tried to tone it down, at least.  Perhaps (doubtful) there is something of an academic source that could be cited on a social, not political, phenomenon?  Otherwise, perhaps more specific criticisms should simply be moved to another, more specific article.


 * In any case, I shall briefly specified the social nature of linguicism in the second paragraph, in contrast to the political version (what could be called the political equivalent, so as to provide a link? Linguicide seems too strong).  Feel free to pretty it up, if anyone so pleases.


 * EDIT: The largest paragraph, dealing with AAVE, seems rather large, and clumsy in relation to the following paragraph which deals with a similar issue.  Perhaps this should be rearranged, though I daren't try.


 * I've tried somewhat


 * PheonixSong 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Plan for improvement
This topic has captured my interest as a sociolinguist. However, it needs a lot of work. It has great potential for expansion to include citation of some very interesting, and very recent sociolinguistic and dialectological research. I plan on making a major edit to this soon, it will include the following:


 * Information on linguiscism in various cultures and in various time periods including the Welsh under the British Empire, African-Americans in the US, Ainu in Japan, national languages in the USSR and the language politics of modern South Africa.


 * A section discussing how linguicism ties into other forms of discrimination.


 * A section on linguicism and power.

And yes, I will have citations for all of this.

Does anyone else have ideas for what I should add? I'll be making the changes hopefully within 96 hours.

Szfski (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead! I'm sure anything you miss will be added or suggested by people later.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis
This page is a mess of synthesis. All content must stem from sources. A blatant example is the the "japanese in france" in the intro. If its from a source, then cite it, if not, why is it there? Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)