English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States

Rating:
Summary: Good book, bad book
Review: Lippi-Green has gathered together a large amount of linguistic material on accents as social markers and prestige symbols. That is the good part of the book. She is somewhat correct in her analysis of why some accents are high status and some are low status. Mostly, it has something to do with wealth and power. The accents of the wealthy and the powerful are seen as "more correct" than those of the poor and underpriviledged. This is true to a degree but does not tell the whole story. Accent prestige also comes about when the most educated and highly skilled (M.D.s, etc.) and not always wealthy or powerful (teachers, writers) speak in certain patterns. In some cases, accent prestige is simply a result of celebrities speaking in certain ways (this can be seen in the adoption by white middle class teenagers of the black dialect of rap stars who are often from backgrounds that can hardly be considered wealthy or powerful. In the last century, the actor David Garrick was also seen as a model of a "good" accent and set pronunciation standards for many people). Lippi-Green is a fan of social deconstructionist philosopher Michel Foucault and her analysis adheres to one cliche after another. Her dated victimology lessens the value of what would have been an excellent book. Dividing the world into victims and victimizers is simplistic. She labels every categorization that people make based on accents to be discrimination when sometimes it is nothing more than a convenient categorization with no social consequences. This process is universal and occurs even in those groups that Lippi-Green believes are being discriminated against because of their accents (ex: African-Americans are known to percieve the use of "double negatives" ("I don't need no food") by other African-Americans as a sign of being less educated and proper). I also know from my own inner city students how even the underpriviledged categorize each other according to how "ghetto" their speech is. Lippi-Green's use of the very tired and cliched language of oppression made my eyes glaze over in several spots.
It is my opinion that most categorization based on accents is neither malevolent nor well-thought out but a result of the brain's natural tendency to seek out patterns in order to comprehend the environment and incoming stimuli. Lippi-Green, by using social deconstructionist models, is almost forced to see intentional oppression and evil intentions where none may exist. People do not always make assumptions about others based on their accents because they are wicked, nasty language nazis intent on keeping people locked into lifetimes of poverty and oppression. Sometimes they make assumptions simply because they are engaged in the natural process of induction based on the available data. I refuse to see a master with a whip in every individual who asks if I am from New York because I drop the occasional "r" when I speak.
Lippi-Green also takes umbrage at anyone who would dare to suggest that individuals can modify their accents (which they can and do) and that it might be to some individual's advantage to do so (for greater social and economic opportunities). It is. Lippi-Green avoids discussion of the fact that the courts have ruled, time and time again, that discrimination based on accents does NOT violate civil rights laws when the accent is a material obstacle to an individual performing the duties of a job (for example - a receptionist who cannot be understood by callers because of a strong accent, etc.). In such a case, the only way to get ahead would be for the individual to modify their accent. A speech pathologist (I happen to be one) is not a SS storm trooper defending a fascist system, but a trained specialist trying to help an individual learn the verbal skills necessary for employment in a competitive, service oriented economy. Facts are facts, and no matter how much Lippi-Green reconstructs and deconstructs reality into political fodder, speaking with high intelligibilty is a necessity for much advancement in the economy. This is not some empty promise. It is a fact. To mislead individuals to believe otherwise is performing a grave disservice and derailing them from learning employability skills into the dead end of political resentment.

Rating:
Summary: Perfect for the linguist and non-linguist alike.
Review: This book explores the many issues surrounding language ideology and discrimination in the United States through providing a thorough discussion and empirical examination of the subjective issues which so often permeate such a loaded topic. It is an excellent read for anyone who is seriously interested in either language or subordination or both. I highly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in Pluralistic perspectives in America. Well-written and comprehensive.

Rating:
Summary: Wordy, Difficult to Understand
Review: This book has an important message, but it is hidden in the extremely opaque, scientific and distractingly uninteresting writing style. In fact, I can honestly say I would not have had the patience to read past the first chapter without having been forced to finish it.

I wish Lippi-Green would have used a less academic writing style--it would have conveyed her message far more effectively. For a more entertaining and equally educating read try Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct, or Donna-Jo Napoli's Language Matters.



Rating:
Summary: Should be required reading
Review: This book is an excellent treatment of the complex issue of how discrimination is enacted and perpetuated by linguistic means. Lippi-Green examines in detail specific cases from a number of sources to show that bias is often disguised even from those who show it.

Though the book is at times on the technical side, Lippi-Green makes very good use of analogies likely to make this important topic clear and accessible to a wide audience.

Rating:
Summary: required reading
Review: This is an eye-opening book of great importance. The author provides a lot of data and then careful analysis, based on current linguistic theory, that explores how we use language as a social tool of great power. I read this book for a course on cultural anthropology last year, and it's still with me. One of those books that changes the way you look and the world and requires that you question basic assumptions and authorities. Also, this is a very readable book, very well put together. I highly recommend this very complex look at some of the ways language functions on a subconscious level.

One thing about the reviewer here who is a speech pathologist and who believes in accent reduction and rants against this book: methinks the lady doth protest too much.