With very few adjustments, this quote applies also to the study of
language and linguistics. The primary difference is here: economics is a
specialized discipline that most people consider “dismal science.” In fact,
people are generally very interested in language. Unfortunately, our
institutions are very good at producing citizens who truly believe that they
understand the inner workings of language, and that their understanding is
enough to justify not only vociferous opinions but also to act on those
opinions in ways that sometimes will be detrimental and even destructive
to others. To put this another way: for the most part, the public does not
see the difference between opinion and fact when it comes to language.
Part of what I hope to accomplish here is to make the difference visible.
Of course, this text is not simply a list of facts. I cannot claim that this
work is no more than a neutral presentation of observations about
language. Where the facts end, interpretation and analysis begin and
questions are raised which have consequence in the real world. My
opinions are informed by careful thought and by research, but they are
opinions. You are, of course, entitled – and encouraged – to disagree. I am
not offended by disagreement; I do not equate it with personal animosity.
To be clear, I would summarize my stance with two general statements:
There is something deeply inequitable and unacceptable about
the practice of excluding the few from the privileges of the
many not on the basis of what they have to say, but how they say
it.
The demand that the disempowered assimilate linguistically and
culturally to please the empowered is – purely in linguistic
terms – an impossibility. For that reason, such demands are
misleading, unreasonable and demeaning.There is a challenge here for the reader. Can you be objective about
language? Can you examine what you think you know about your own
language? And more difficult, are you willing to explore why you may be
so very protective of common sense arguments about language which have
no demonstrable basis in fact?
This book is about reluctance to acknowledge language for the social
construct that it is, and the repercussions of such resistance. When I use
this book as a classroom text, sooner or later someone asks me what I hope