"Kissine offers a new theory of speech acts which is philosophically sophisticated and builds on work in cognitive science, formal semantics, and linguistic typology. This highly readable, brilliant essay is a major contribution to the field."
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:09:44 +0000 From: Don Walicek <email@example.com> Subject: Race and the Rise of Standard American
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul (2002) Race and the Rise of Standard American, Mouton de Gruyter, Language, Power and Social Process 7.
Don E. Walicek, Department of English, the University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras.
PURPOSE / CONTENT: This book investigates the process of language standardization in the United States, focusing specifically but not solely on the assent of the 'midwestern accent' as a standard of pronunciation during the first half of the twentieth century. The views of prominent statesmen, writers, actors, broadcasters, historians, linguists, and other influential figures serve as points of discussion throughout the text. They characterize what Bonfiglio sees as a linguistic ideology unique to the United States, one based on notions of purity, prescriptivism, and racial superiority. The book consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, and an afterword.
OVERVIEW: Bonfiglio positions the book as a response to his observation that American Standard's rise to prominence has not been described in a satisfactory way. In offering his explanation, Bonfiglio argues that the process of language standardization in the United States was quite distinct from that of other countries. He holds that xenophobia and anti-Semitism led to the unconscious adoption of western and midwestern speech patterns as the norm for a 'general American accent.' Moreover, he challenges Labov's suggestion that the shift in the pronunciation of postvocalic /r/ relates to the role of the United States in WWII; he does so by linking the factors responsible for this and other changes to an altogether different and earlier set of social phenomena.
The first chapter, The Legitimation of Accent, has three purposes. Most significantly, it develops a social theoretical framework for analyzing the legitimation of accent. It also reviews relevant work in language standardization. Finally, it develops what the Bonfiglio describes as a working concept of standard American English. The chapter begins with a discussion of Karl Marx's formulations of the relationship between economic power and structures of thought. Bonfiglio points out that some social historians investigating language as social capital have been influenced by Marx's work. One such scholar is Pierre Bourdieu. Bonfiglio explains that work such as Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (1991) is useful for linguists precisely because it places language outside the realm of the economic market while still recognizing critical links between economic and linguistic capital. Accordingly, he considers Bourdieu's concept of linguistic capital, defined as "the capacity to tailor specific locutions to the demands of specific markets," (12) to be of crucial importance for this study. The theory Bourdieu puts forth allows us to see some linguistic exchanges between individuals as episodes of symbolic violence and social coercion. These are often founded on class-conscious notions of acceptability and unacceptability. Notions of appropriate speech are not limited to conversation-level interactions between individuals in which the balance of power between speakers is skewed; instead, dialect regions and cultural areas can be understood as possessing or lacking linguistic capital. However, linguistic capital is in no way to be linked to what some may consider superior language features. Bonfiglio turns to the work of John E. Joseph (1987) and James Milroy (1999) to strengthen his explanation of why this is so. These scholars, like Bonfiglio, show that it is not the elements of particular languages that determine their value or worth. They link such assessments instead to a dominant group's ability to marginalize or suppress another language. Bonfiglio states: "There is nothing in the particular language itself that determines its worth: it is the connection of the language in question to the phenomena of power that determines the value of that language and that contributes to the standardization process." (23) As made clear in the following chapters, the forces of social coercion are evident in widely shared language attitudes and supralinguistic beliefs, ones that exist across classes and regions.
The second chapter, Pronunciations of Race, takes a predominately diachronic look at the relationship between pronunciation and ideology. It discusses this juncture in eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth-century contexts. The chapter pays special attention to figures that shaped opinions about language by conflating notions of ethnicity, morality, and race. Examples Bonfiglio discusses in detail include Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, and Henry James. The bulk of the chapter is devoted to an overview of influential texts that deal directly with language. It examines pronunciation manuals from the antebellum period and the last decades of the nineteenth century. Bonfiglio finds that the former group characterizes 'correct' pronunciation in terms of social class and morality. Among these manuals are some that were published in Britain. Such texts, though written primarily with British readers in mind, served as key points of reference for subsequent manuals written in the United States. Examining continuities between these and similar North American texts from the late nineteenth century, Bonfiglio demonstrates that toward the end of the twentieth century racial discourse becomes central to the ideology of pronunciation. He does so by commenting on passages from a number of unsettling yet interesting texts. These include: Theodore Mead's Our Mother Tongue (1890) and Eugene Babbitt's The English Pronunciation of the Lower Classes in New York and the Vicinity (1896). Race-centered ideas about language also figure prominently in the publications of individuals that Bonfiglio highlights in this chapter. Due to limitations of space, only two will be mentioned here. First is the work of James F. Bender, an NBC employee who trained announcers and had a profound influence on the development of Standard American and its use in the media. A number of Bender's writings invoke dialectics of morality and ethnicity in their call for standard pronunciation: The Personality Structure of Stuttering (1939), NBC Handbook of Pronunciation (1943), Salesman's Errors of Grammar (1946), and How to Talk Well (1949). Second is the linguist Louis Mencken, author of the multi-volume The American Language and founder of the journal American Speech. Bonfiglio characterizes Mencken as "the Paul Revere of language, the alarmist with one monotonous reveille whose anti-British message was to set the tone for subsequent accounts of the etiology of standard American pronunciation." Here the author asks why Mencken, given the predominance of xenophobia in his thinking, has been designated "the patriarch of the American language." (142) While a precise answer to this question is held in abeyance, Bonfiglio does review the writings of social theorists who center language purity in their analyses of race and society. Among these are: Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race (1918), Stephen Graham's With Poor Immigrants to America (1914), Alexander Melville Bell's Elocutionary Manual (1878) and his The Sounds of R (1896) and Margaret Dewitt's Our Oral Word As Social and Economic Factor (1928). This survey situates Mencken^Òs work in sociohistorical context and provides an oblique outline as to how Bonfiglio's question can be answered.
Chapter three considers immigration to the northeastern United States and migration to the western regions in light of the phonemic shift away from the eastern seaboard toward western and midwestern varieties of speech. The chapter discusses a variety of icons of American popular culture. The author begins with comments on the 1997 movie "Good Will Hunting." Here Bonfiglio notes that the production's depiction of Harvard students' speech is marked by the continuant postvocalic /r/ while working class characters drop /r/ postvocalically. This and other examples are included to show that prestigious forms of pronunciation are inextricably associated with upward mobility, higher education, and proximity to network standard. Such tendencies are also characteristic of the second half of the twentieth century. In contrast, as mentioned above, the evidence Bonfiglio presents demonstrates that linguistic prescriptivism is more overtly tied to racial fears in early periods, most notably the late nineteenth century and the first few decades of the twentieth century. Another significant theme of this chapter is its analysis of racism and discrimination against immigrants and other disenfranchised groups. An episode of xenophobia Bonfiglio emphasizes is the rampant anti-Semitism existing in the Ivy-league schools of the northeast in the early part of the twentieth century. The author notes that in 1922 Harvard formed a faculty committee to address the 'problem' of increasing Jewish enrollment. Bonfiglio explains that in reacting to an increase in Jewish enrollment, the school many consider the nation's premiere university looked away from itself and Boston to construct the ideal student, a prototype with specific racial, cultural, and ethnic characteristics. Other institutions, he suggests, followed suit. Bonfiglio describes their model student as "the Nordic Christian (mid)western country boy" (186) and argues that this ideal profoundly influenced linguistic norms and goals in the nations most prestigious universities. According to Bonfiglio, this midwestern identity served as a model in standardizing American English and later influenced recommendations for the archetypal broadcast voice. The author sums up this process nicely in the section Occident, Orient, and Alien; he writes: "..an ideology of ; 'accentlessness' or standard speech was based upon generalization and extrapolation from a geographical area that was then instantiated as the network standard." (206) He shows that this ideology was shaped by a paranoid reaction to eastern immigration and a celebration of the American frontier that in terms of linguistic capital ultimately devalued the local varieties of English spoken in places like New York and Boston. He suggests that in more recent times these and related phenomena distinguish both the voices of actor heroes (such as Will Rogers and John Wayne) and trusted newscasters (such as Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather) as both quintessentially American and correct.
EVALUATION: This book is appropriate for beginning students as well those who have already developed specific interests in the field of sociolinguistics. The fact that it is written in a clear style and contains no jargon makes it accessible for all. For readers new to linguistics, the author's discussion of popular movies, actors, and other famous figures gives it an appeal and relevance that other studies lack. The book will be of special value to more advanced readers who have interests in the following areas: perceptual dialectology, language standardization, historical sociolinguistics, and the history of linguistics. One of the strong points of the book is that it is easy to locate information in it. Moreover, it includes a useful and detailed index and a complete bibliography, thus making it a valuable resource for those who may wish to do research related to one of the many fascinating texts Bonfiglio mentions. There are some minor discrepancies between publication dates cited in the text and those included in the bibliography (see entries for Alexander James Bell and James Bender). My strongest recommendation is that if another edition of this book is published then the second chapter, the longest of the three, should be reorganized and perhaps divided into two chapters. One section could be organized chronologically and the other made to deal with specific topics. Each of the existing sections is interesting and filled with insights; however, the second chapter covers a wide variety of themes and at times the connections among these are unclear. Additionally, the inclusion of immigration statistics to the United States would strengthen the author's already engaging arguments concerning the rise of xenophobia and stigmas associated with varieties of English native to the northeast. This information could be included in either the first or second chapter. While reading I sometimes found myself confused about what to remember and how the many examples that the author includes related to one another and to the book's main arguments. The author's general arguments are clarified somewhat in the many instances in which he states the purpose of the study. However, this statement changes significantly throughout the text. If some of these were reworded to indicate the purpose of including specific theoretical concepts, individual sections, and chapters then the connection among these and the text as a whole would be more apparent. The minor frustration I occasionally felt was compounded by the fact that there is so much discussion in which language and linguistic discrimination figures only briefly. While I was always aware that there was a connection between topics such as xenophobia and language attitudes, it seemed that the link was being dealt with only superficially. Moreover, I felt that the excellent collection of data that the author brings together itself called for the more sophisticated and in-depth treatment of the intersections of race, language, and ideology. A related issue is that little attention is paid to linguistic processes at the micro level and how these differ from macro-level processes, even when Bonfiglio's focus is on individuals and specific historical events. One possible remedy for this problem is a greater emphasis on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. In the current text the author offers a captivating discussion of Bourdieu in the first chapter, but never explains nor uses a concept central to Bourdieu's writings -- his theory of habitus. What seems absent in the text is the acknowledgement that speakers create a series of different linguistic registers according to social values and norms of prestige. Narrowing this gap, thereby offering a more nuanced, language-centered theory of power, could tighten the book's already strong arguments. Few scholars have accepted the challenge of bringing together the topics of race, language, and history together in one text. The author does so effectively and systematically, making this volume a must for linguists, historians, anthropologists, and others with interests in understanding how speakers articulate and make sense of decisions related to language and identity.
Babbitt, Eugene. 1896. The English Pronunciation of the Lower Classes in New York and the Vicinity. Norwood: American Dialect Society
Bell, Alexander Melville. 1887 (?). Elocutionary Manual. Washington: John C. Parker.
-----. 1896. The Sounds of R. Washington: Volta Bureau.
Bender, James. 1939. The Personality Structure of Stuttering. New York: Pitman.
-----. 1943. NBC Handbook of Pronunciation. New York: Thomas Crowell.
-----. 1949. How to Talk Well. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dewitt, Margaret. 1928. Our Oral Word As Social and Economic Factor. London and Toronto: J.M. Dent.
Graham, Stephen. 1914. With Poor Immigrants to America. New York: MacMillan.
Grant, Madision. 1918. The Passing of the Great Race, or, The Racial Basis of European History. New York: C. Scribner's Sons.
Joseph, John E. 1987. Eloquence and Power. London: Frances Pinter.
Mead, Theodore. 1890. Our Mother Tongue. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company.
Milroy, James. 1999. The Consequences of Standardisation in Descriptive Linguistics. In Bex, Tony and Richard J. Watts (eds.), Standard English: the Widening Debate. London and New York: Routledge, 16-39.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Don Walicek is a doctoral student in the Department of English at the
University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras where specializes in the study of
Caribbean Creole languages. His general area of concentration within
linguistics is sociolinguistics. He has related interests in the study
of race, critical theory, and postcolonial studies. He completed his B.A.
in Social Anthropology and his M.A. in Social Anthropology and History,
both at the University of Texas at Austin.