A Short Note on Accent–Bias, Social Identity and Ethnocentrism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Advances in Language and Literary Studies ISSN: 2203-4714 www.alls.aiac.org.au A Short Note on Accent–bias, Social Identity and Ethnocentrism Rahul Chakraborty* Department of Communication Disorders, Texas State University, USA Corresponding Author: Rahul Chakraborty, E-mail: [email protected] ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history This paper discusses the interrelations among accent-based biases, social identity and Received: May 18, 2017 ethnocentrism. Construction of social identity creates a set of ethnocentric values within a person, Accepted: July 23, 2017 which indirectly or directly plays a pivotal role in generating accent related biases. Starting with Published: August 31, 2017 Tajfel’s (1959) social identity theory and then the discussion of ethnocentrism, accent related Volume: 8 Issue: 4 biases have a long documented origin, development and consequences. People construct their social identity based on numerous variables and then their in-group and out-group memberships Advance access: August 2017 are established. Ethnocentrism, as a variable, influences listeners’ accent perception and subsequent judgment regarding their perceived accent. The degree of ethnocentrism is related Conflicts of interest: None to speakers’ potential accent biases. As legal safeguard against accent related biases is absent, Funding: None active resistance and awareness-initiation are expected from speech language pathologists and the concerned community in general. Role of training institutions is discussed. Key words: Social Identity, Ethnocentrism, Accent, Biases, Discrimination INTRODUCTION cent based discrimination (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010; Giles, Speakers’ accents is usually considered an “honest signal” 1971; Neuliep & Speten-Hansen, 2013). Instead, accent-re- of group membership in human evolutionary history (Co- duction and accent-modification businesses have flourished extensively (Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010; Montgomery, 1999; hen, 2012). In the US, speakers with nonnative accent are Shah, 2012). Regardless of discipline-specific focus on con- experiencing fewer employment opportunities, differential tent areas in accent and its consequences, it is widely accept- employee compensation, lesser housing options, impover- ed that the primary reason behind biases is self-constructed ished health care service, lower credibility and discrimina- social identity and high ethnocentric attitude (Neuliep & tory responses in the courts (Ovalle and Chakraborty, 2013; Speten-Hansen, 2013; Giles, 1971). Deprez-Sims & Morris, 2013; Deprez-Sims & Morris, 2010; Socially, due to growing language contacts among speak- Gluszek & Dovidio, 2010). Between 1996 and 2000, com- ers of English from variable L1 backgrounds, nonnative plaints of accent based unfair hiring and firing practices accent is a global phenomenon and so is its consequence. submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com- A sensible appreciation of potential social, academic and mission has jumped from 77 to 400 (Newman, 2002) even economic consequences of speaking with a nonnative ac- though globalization is expected to improve multicultural cent, and how listeners construct stereotype and stigma, sensitivity. In contrast to racial, ethnic, or sex discrimination, might eventually help minimize adverse consequences of listeners have considerable latitude when discriminating nonnative accent. Hence, in the field of speech language pa- against people with nonnative accents (Lippi-Green, 1997). thology, it is critical to engage in formal discussion on ac- Even though social science has documented and crit- cent discrimination because when individuals are unaware icized the widely prevalent accent-based biases and its of their own biases, they are more likely to perpetuate their consequences as stereotype formation, prejudice and dis- negative (e.g., low intelligence level, lack of honesty) per- crimination, the field of Speech Language Pathology has ception towards speaker with nonnative accent (Perry, Mur- offered a cursory attention to the issue of accent related bi- phy, & Dovidio, 2015). The American Speech and Hearing ases. When numerous social science studies have reported Association (ASHA) overseeing the field of speech language unfavorable evaluations of nonnative accent, very few stud- pathology has been relentlessly trying to educate speech lan- ies clinically explored and focused on the prevention of ac- guage pathologist to promote multicultural sensitivity and Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.4p.57 58 ALLS 8(4):57-64 minimize potential biases towards nonnative speech and lan- intergroup and intragroup interaction. SIT also attempts to guage behaviors. In this note, we review the concepts of so- explain why we typically observe some negative perception cial identity and ethnocentrism, and present how these con- of speakers with nonnative accent (i.e., outgroups). Howev- structs are surfaced through accent related biases, prejudice er, why some individuals acquire and exhibit strong ingroup and discrimination. identification while others do not, has been answered in stud- ies that have looked into intrapersonal variables or individu- al differences. One such intrapersonal variable that promotes Social Identity high ingroup indentification and outgroup discrimination Social identity is an individual’s awareness of valuable is ethnocentrism (Perreault & Bourhis, 1999); ethnocentric membership in certain social groups (Tajfel, 1959, 1972, persons evaluated their ingroups favorably while simultane- 1974). A social group is constructed when more than two ously stigmatizing outgroups (Berry et al., 1977). people who identify, define, and evaluate themselves sim- ilarly (Hogg et al., 2004; Hogg, 2006). The social groups always compete against each other for stature and prestige Ethnocentrism (Tajfel, 1972, 1974). Members of the same social groups re- The term ethnocentrism and its fundamental concept was late to, compete with, and differentiate themselves from non- introduced in social science by Sumner (1906). It was de- members; that is, outgroups (Hogg et al., 2004; Hogg, 2006); fined as ‘‘the technical name for this view of things in which thus in-group versus outgroup comparison mediated tension, one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others conflict or discrimination is formed. Based on an individu- are scaled and rated with reference to it’’ (p. 13). Initially it al’s perceived commonality with other group members, one was interpreted as a psychological construct differentiating might have several group-membership. between two groups: in-groups (i.e., the group with which The theorization of social identity was introduced by an individual identifies) and out-groups (i.e., the group with Henri Tajfel (1959) and was exegesised further (Hogg et al., which an individual does not identify or anything other than 2004; Hogg, 2006; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Rubin & Hew- in-groups). Currently, ethnocentrism is a more holistic term stone, 1998; Tajfel, 1969, 1972, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, infusing individual, social and cultural nuances; incorporat- 1979). Now it is known as the Social Identity Theory (SIT). ing the social aspect of human psychological reality. Hence, The SIT has social categorization as its principal con- now it is considered to be a psycho-sociological concept. struct. According to Hogg (2004, 2006), social categorization Extension of Tajfel’s (1972) SIT’s concept of in-group is a cognitive process to represent groups in terms of proto- affinity and the past 50-60 years of social science research types and using prototypes people categorize others by evalu- have witnessed considerable discussion on the nature and ating them according to their group memberships rather than prevalence of ethnocentrism. Across the board, the consen- as individuals. Inherently, any prototypical concept is con- sus is - an ethnocentric person harbors resilient affinity and strued upon an imprecise sets of interrelated characteristics favoritism in their attitudes and behaviors toward in groups, mediated through human perceptions, attitudes, and behav- often at the expense of the outgroup (Hewstone & Ward, iors (Hogg, 2004, 2006). When prototypical group identities 1985; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Weber, 1994). Historically, are constructed, simultaneously and continuously in-group the highly ethnocentric nature of human species with their homophily and outgroup heterophily are evaluated and inter- resilient propensity to consider their own way as the only preted (Hogg et al., 2004; Hogg, 2006; Hogg and Abrams, reference point, has led to almost psychopathological forms 1988; Rubin and Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel, 1972; Tajfel and of ethnocentrism surfaced in discrimination, prejudice, and Turner, 1979). That is, using social categorization, members even ethnic cleansing (Hansen, Rakić, Steffens & Weise, of a social group not only identifies what features define their 2017). Deviations from that self-constructed or socially-con- current group membership and/or characteristics of their structed reference point (s) are usually viewed unfavorably group, but also help distinguish from other social groups; by ethnocentric people and will be reactively considered in- thus, social categorization maximizes in-group similarities ferior or aberration, which might also include people with and outgroup