Language in Society

a
‐ prefix use related to 
prepositions. But there is still another aspect to the pattern of 
a
‐ prefix use. This 
time, however, it is related to pronunciation. For the following ‐
ing
words, try to 
figure out what it is about the pronunciation that makes one sentence sound better 
than the other. To help you figure out the pronunciation trait that is critical for this 
pattern, the 
stressed
or accented syllable of each word is marked with the symbol 
´
. 
Follow the same procedure that you did above and choose the sentence in each pair 
that sounds better.
List C: Figuring out a pronunciation pattern for the 
a
‐ prefix
1 a She was discóvering a trail.
b She was fóllowing a trail.
2 a She was repéating the chant.
b She was hóllering the chant.
3 a They were fíguring the change.
b They were forgétting the change.
4 a The baby was recognízing the mother.
b The baby was wrécking everything.
5 a They were décorating the room.
b They were demánding more time off.
Say exactly how the pattern for attaching the 
a
‐ prefix works. Be sure to include 
the three different details from your examination of the examples in Lists A, B, 
and C.
In List D, say which of the sentences may take an 
a
‐ prefix. Use your understand-
ing of the rule to explain why the ‐
ing
form may or may not take the 
a
‐ prefix.
List D: Applying the 
a
‐ prefix rule
1 She kept handing me more work.
2 The team was remémbering the game.
3 The team won by playing great defense.
4 The team was playing real hard.
5 The coach was charming.

---

Dialects, Standards, and Vernaculars
7
There have been heated debates in American society about the linguistic integrity of 
socially disfavored language varieties at various times over the past half‐century. For 
example, during the late 1960s and 1970s, there were many debates in educational circles 
over the so‐called 
deficit
–
difference
controversy
, with language scholars arguing 
passionately that dialect variation was simply a matter of 
difference
, not
deficit
, while 
some educators argued that variation from the socially accepted standard constituted a 
fundamental deficiency in language. In the mid‐1990s, the debate flared up again, this 
time centered on the status of the ethnic variety African American English. This time, 
the controversy even spread as far as a US Senate subcommittee hearing on the topic 
and state legislation about the legitimacy of this variety in school settings.
When dialect differences involve groups that are unequal in their power relations, it is 
quite common for the 
principle
of
linguistic
subordination
to come into operation 
(Lippi‐Green 2012: 70) and for the language varieties of subordinate social groups to be 
relegated to subordinate linguistic status. When this happens, “ordinary” people feel 
insecure about their linguistic usages and come to rely on the authoritative guidance 
offered by language “experts” – those well known for good writing or familiarity with 
prescribed rules. In the process, misinformation about the presumed 
linguistic
logicality 
and clarity of 
socially
preferred forms may be perpetuated in order to validate evaluations 
of linguistic usages and language varieties that are actually grounded in social inequities. 
Most of us were instructed to avoid double negatives such as 
She didn’t do nothing
because 
“logic” dictates that two negatives equal a positive. In reality, though, language doesn’t 
work like math, and what we are really being taught is to avoid using language structures 
associated with the language varieties used by socially disfavored speakers. (In fact, in 
some other languages, for example Spanish, French, and Italian, double negatives are 
perfectly acceptable, indeed the only way to form negative sentences “correctly.”). When 
the dialects of socially disfavored groups become subordinated to the language forms 
preferred by the “right” people, non‐mainstream dialects are trivialized or marginal-
ized, and their speakers considered quaintly odd at best and willfully ignorant at worst. 
Furthermore, linguistic subordination comes with explicit promises and threats; 
opportunities will arise when we use a “standard” variety and doors will close when we 
speak a socially disfavored one. According to this principle, the speech of a socially 
subordinate group will be interpreted as linguistically inadequate by comparison with 
that of the socially dominant group.
Linguists, who study the intricate patterning of language apart from its social evalua-
tion, stand united against any definition of dialect as a corrupt version of the standard 
variety. A resolution adopted unanimously by the Linguistic Society of America at its 
annual meeting in 1997 asserted that “all human language systems – spoken, signed, and 
written – are fundamentally regular” and that characterizations of socially disfavored 
varieties as “slang, mutant, defective, ungrammatical, or broken English are incorrect 
and demeaning.”
When the term “dialect” is used to refer to a kind of corrupt or unworthy English, it 
obviously carries very strong negative connotations. A clause such as “but it’s a very 
colorful way of speaking,” as in Quote 2 above, may soften the negative associations, but 

---

8
Dialects, Standards, and Vernaculars
such statements must be made explicit to mitigate the commonly held assumption that 
some dialects aren’t as good as others. Typically, the popular use of the term “dialect” 
carries connotations ranging from mildly to strongly negative.
Finally, the term “dialect” may be used popularly to refer to a specific, socially disfa-
vored variety of English. A person speaking a recognized, socially stigmatized variety of 
English may be said to speak “the dialect” (“The kids … speak the dialect”). Such 
designations have, for example, been used to refer to the speech of low‐income African 
Americans or rural Appalachians as a kind of euphemistic label for the varieties spoken 
by these groups. With the inclusion of the definite article, “the dialect” functions more 
like a proper noun than in the generic, neutral sense in which the term is used by linguis-
tic scientists.