Language and the Politics of Proper English

Student Name Professor Name Course Date Language and the Politics of Proper English Introduction A system of language communication functions beyond its basic utility because it displays identity markers, cultural values, and hierarchical relationships. Standard Edited English (SEE) maintains its dominance in professional and academic contexts, thus marginalizing Black Vernacular English (BVE), other linguistic varieties, and many languages. Professional establishments should permit all language types in their operational environments, including other English dialects and foreign languages. The enforcement of Standard Edited English (SEE) as the only acceptable form of communication in professional and educational settings is a form of linguistic oppression that marginalizes Black Vernacular English (BVE) and other dialects, reinforcing racial hierarchies and limiting authentic self-expression. Instead of code-switching, institutions should embrace linguistic pluralism, recognizing the legitimacy of all dialects and their role in identity formation. Support for linguistic diversity The use of languages is beyond basic communication and creates important cultural roots that mold every specific expression of identity. Anzaldua established a forceful manifesto that fights for linguistic freedom. Anzaldua contends, “So, if you want to really hurt me, talk badly about my language” (33). The communication tool that language represents to Anzaldua extends beyond its functional uses because it functions as an essential element of human identification. Depriving individuals from speaking their dialects acts as a dehumanizing practice by taking away their cultural identity. Her Chicana background shows how many language-bridging children must adapt their communication between SEE and Spanish to exist in spaces favoring Standard Edited English. Forcing people to speak in specific ways causes institutions to strengthen social hierarchy systems that exclude native English speakers who do not use Standard English. Anzaldua fights this wisdom by showing how society should accept language differences as an active way against cultural loss. Education for all necessitates the acceptance of multiple language expressions instead of prescribing strict language standards. Hooks emphasizes the importance of inclusive educational spaces where all voices are acknowledged and respected. Hooks argues that education should be “the practice of freedom,” encouraging students to think critically and challenge dominant narratives (12). For Hooks, language is not neutral but a site of power and resistance. Hooks states, “Confronting one another across differences means that we must change ideas about how we learn; rather than fearing conflict, we have to find ways to use it as a catalyst for new thinking, for growth” (113). When schools and workplaces insist on SEE as the only acceptable form of communication, they impose a linguistic hierarchy that suppresses diverse cultural expressions. Institutions can foster richer dialogue and deeper understanding across cultural divides by allowing multiple forms of English and other languages into professional and educational settings. Linguistic discrimina...