English she speaks; nor is a shipping clerk in an auto parts store likely to
be called onto the carpet because of her phonology;^2 only the tiniest
proportion of the population will ever submit a complaint or start legal
proceedings on the basis of language-focused employment discrimination,
and thus few will ever experience the way the judicial system and courts
claim authority in these matters.
But a very large proportion of the population has regular and intense
exposure to broadcast or print news media of one kind or another.
Language – the intrinsic and functional variability of language – is far
more deeply integrated into our understanding of the world than any
external symbol of wealth or influence. Linguistic variation linked to
social identity is far more subtle. One way to think about this is by means
of what Bourdieu calls the linguistic marketplace. In this theoretical
model, an exchange between speaker and listener is about more than
deciphering surface meaning. Sociolinguistic markers are “also signs of
wealth, intended to be evaluated and appreciated, and signs of authority
intended to be believed and obeyed” (Bourdieu and Thompson 1991: 66).
A speech act’s value is based on power relations that have already been
established, such as the mastery of linguistic competences marked for
class.
Linguistic utterances or expressions are always produced in particular
contexts or markets, and the properties of these markets endow linguistic
products with a certain “value” (ibid.: 18). It is important to note that there
are multiple linguistic marketplaces, so that in some contexts a
stigmatized variety of vernacular U.S. English may in fact have more
persuasive power and capital than the smoothest talking National Public
Radio reporter. This complexity was absent in the theory as Bourdieu first
developed it, but other scholars – in particular, anthropological linguists –
have refined it (Gal 2005; Schieffelin et al. 1998; Seargeant 2009;
Woolard 2008).
Media representatives have claimed for themselves a spot as national
role models. And in fact, we allow them to chide us when our language
differs from those varieties of English they speak, or think they speak.
They have convinced us that they have the right to do this, and we do not
challenge them. That unwillingness or inability to question such claims of
authority does the real damage. “The most successful ideological effects