Why the accent-reduction industry is booming

What does it mean to "lose an accent" and use "standardized pronunciation"? Do all listeners perceive "standardized pronunciation" the same way?

As we’ve discussed in the past two newsletters, myths are powerful ideas that operate quietly in the background of our lives. They’re ideas few question because they’re often thought of as “common sense:” things that everyone just knows.

Last week, we talked about how the U.S. is factually not an English-speaking country, especially considering that that term connotes the sole existence of English, which is untrue. Underlying this ideology, though, is the myth that one sole standardized language is needed for national unity.

In this newsletter, we’re going to discuss how these ideologies came about historically, and how concepts like accentlessness operate today. Most importantly, we’re going to discuss how all these ideologies have little-to-nothing to do with language itself.

Have standardized languages always existed?

As far as human history goes, the idea of a standardized language is a relatively new one, that traces back to the French Revolution (1789-1799). The ideals of the French Revolution included the pursuit of égalité: equality for all.

One way of spreading égalité was through language. Une nation, une langue meant national unity through a sole language.

In order to promote national unity, one language, the language of the elite—the Île de la Cité version of Parisian French— was chosen and promoted through the education system.

In 1789, only 10% of people living in France spoke present-day French. Today, almost all people do.

Before the French Revolution, only 10% of the population spoke present-day French. Most people spoke other French languages, like Occitan or Breton. Today, over 97% of the population of France speaks French. And the number of speakers of languages other than French has greatly declined.

The two points I’m trying to make are: 1) Standardized languages being needed for national unity is a relatively new idea, and 2) It wasn’t that French was the best or most correct language, but rather that they chose the language of the elite as the standardized language.

So, what exactly is standardized language?

Standardized language is a myth; it doesn’t actually exist because no one actually speaks the standardized language (just think about it—a standardized language is an attempt to pause language at a certain optimal point, but everyone’s language is constantly changing).

The mysterious thing about myths is that they have cultural significance, which means that you could ask ten people to say what types of people speak standardized English, and they’ll likely give similar answers.

According to Lippi-Green (p. 60), standardized English in the U.S. is often associated with:

• Being accentless

• Being from the Midwest (but also the Far West and parts of the Northeast)

• Being educated

• Being a news anchor or teacher

• Being someone who cares about correct language

• Being someone whose language is understood by everyone

The problem with these answers is two-fold: 1) all these characteristics are related to power and language, and 2) all of these characteristics are subjectively perceived.

Take the idea that standardized English is associated with the Midwest. There are hundreds of thousands of bilingual speakers with so-called foreign accents in the Midwest. Are those the speakers that come to people’s minds?

As Matsuda argues, the accentless people that are related to this myth are often people who are associated with power:

As feminist theorists have pointed out, everyone has a gender, but the hidden norm in law is male. As critical race theorists have pointed out, everyone has a race, but the hidden norm in law is white. In any dyadic relationship, the two ends are equidistant from each other. If the parties are equal in power, we see them as equally different from each other. When the parties are in a relationship of domination and subordination we tend to say that the dominant is normal, and the subordinate is different from normal. And so it is with accent . . . People in power are perceived as speaking normal, unaccented English. Any speech that is different from that constructed norm is called an accent (Matsuda, 1991, p. 805).

Matsuda also alludes to the second point: every accent only exists in the subjective perception of the listener. That means that someone could be speaking a certain way and one person might perceive them to be speaking with an accent, while another person might perceive them as speaking without an accent.

It’s the reason why some people insist “no, I don’t have an accent.” If all people around them sound more-or-less exactly like them, then it makes sense that they don’t hear their own accent (or the accent of anyone around them for that matter).

In other words, accents are merely our ears picking up on difference.

From language discrimination to accent discrimination

In the last newsletter, we saw how (im)migrants to the U.S. are often forced or coerced into learning English, as English is tied to material benefits, like jobs and universities.

While it’s true that English is tied to those benefits, it’s also true that there’s a booming accent-reduction market, a market designed to help bilinguals who speak English speak “accentless English” (an oxymoron since no language is ever accentless). To emphasize, these are bilingual speakers who speak English, but whose accent is viewed as problematic.

If we start to tally the ideologies, one ideology tells (im)migrants to learn English. And then when they do that, they’re oftentimes not rewarded with the promised benefits. Rather, they’re confronted with an ideology which tells them that in order to really get these benefits they need to speak “accentless” English.

Let’s peel back the ideologies to see what’s hiding beneath the surface. Since “accentless” English doesn’t exist, these programs are teaching a standardized pronunciation. But that doesn’t exist either; standardized pronunciation is just the language of the people of power which is associated with “correctness.” So, in actuality, these programs are designed to have speakers mimic the English of those in power. And once their English is “improved,” then they have access to the promised benefits…right?

From covert discrimination to overt discrimination

So, let’s say (im)migrants learn English, attend accent-reduction classes, and run the whole language gauntlet, then are they free from discrimination? Unfortunately, there are many instances when the answer is no.

Research has shown that extra-linguistic factors (things that have nothing to do with language), like a person’s race and nationality can affect how their language is perceived.

In the words of Lippi-Green, “the degree of accent is not necessarily relevant…where no accent exists, stereotype and discrimination can sometimes manufacture one in the mind of the listener,” (p. 251).

There’s always one more thing because these social pressures to speak a certain way have nothing to do with language.

This is important because when we pretend that these issues are about language, we focus on the speaker. We tell them to change their language.

When we realize that these issues have nothing to do with language and everything to do with biases and discrimination, we start to emphasize the role of the listener.

Like Toni Morrison said, racism and discrimination have nothing to do with inherent problems of the minoritized group, and everything to do with having the minoritized group do one more thing:

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”

It is no different with language: there will always be one more thing.

There will always be one more thing.

What can we do to stop accent discrimination?

Language is more than just language. If conversations were just a speaker transmitting a message and a listener receiving the message and transmitting a new one, then we wouldn’t have any of these pressures about the language itself.

As Lippi-Green says, “the social space between two speakers is rarely completely neutral,” (p. 71). What she means by this is that sometimes the speaker makes their speech more formal or more friendly or louder, etc. depending on whom they’re talking to.

The social space between speaker and listener is rarely neutral.

The trouble is that sometimes listeners can choose not to understand. And that choice might have nothing to do with language and everything to do with what they believe about the person they’re speaking to.

What you can do is you can remember that you are a listener. And you can notice what thoughts about language come to your mind when you have conversations. And you can notice what people around you are saying about language.

When you perk your ears, you realize how ideologies govern so many of our conversations about language. This is especially true in regards to accent:

Accent discrimination can be found everywhere in our daily lives. In fact, such behavior is so commonly accepted, so widely perceived as appropriate, that it must be seen as the last back door to discrimination. And the door stands wide open. (Lippi-Green, p. 74).

It’s time to question these ideologies and to begin to shut the door.

Discussion

Thank you for reading this newsletter! I’d love to keep discussing this topic. In the comments (or you can reply to this email), let me know your thoughts.

1. Why do you think accent-reduction classes are so popular?

2. Do you think all accents are treated equally?

Works Used

For information on standard language ideology and accent discrimination, I used the book English with an Accent by Lippi-Green.

For information on the French Revolution’s effect on standardized languages, I used the book Languages in the world: How history, culture, and politics shape language by Tetel-Andresen and Carter.

To learn more about how extralinguistic information affects how we perceive language, I recommend the book Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race by Rosa.