When Foreignness is Accentuated

One of the challenging aspects of abolishing foreignness is the sheer scope of the concept of “foreignness.” Foreignness can be all-pervading. It can manifest itself in our thoughts and our laws, in our attitudes and our interactions, in our beliefs and our behaviours. Articles on Abolish Foreignness explore a range of approaches to abolishing foreignness, and the range of these discussions suggests the complexity of the topic at hand. I’d like to discuss here another social mechanism that can contribute, depending on how we employ it, either to the reinforcement of or the abolition of foreignness: language.

The diversity of languages on our planet is a valuable part of our fecund global heritage of cultural diversity. When language is so intricately tied to thought and culture, upholding the diversity of language in our world is integral to safeguarding our diversity and heritages. At the same time, language can also separate us. When we have the technological and infrastructural mechanisms in place to allow international communication, the absence of a common linguistic mode of communication acts as a particularly marked contributor to perpetuating foreignness.

But this is a complex issue, one worthy of a lengthier, more comprehensive discussion in a future blog post. For now, I think it’s worthwhile to consider the important (but someone simpler) concept of what I’d like to call “intralingual foreignness.” While there is considerable linguistic diversity in our world, we all know that single languages also contain within themselves marked diversity—and while that diversity should be celebrated, it can often become the source of notions or attitudes of foreignness. We tend to think of people who speak a different language as “foreigners,” but what about people who speak the same language? We can “foreignize” them, too, albeit subconsciously.

Let us consider the English language as a case in point. We all know that English is far from a homogeneous monolith. It is in a state of constant flux, and as it internationalizes, it takes on different forms and it evolves. To narrow the scope of this discussion even further, let us consider the question of accents. Few would maintain in contemporary society that there is a “correct” accent in English; while some may take pride in their version of English, who is to say that a British accent is any more or less valid than and American or an Australian one? Yet English is also widely spoken in other former British colonies that have other native languages, such as India, Singapore, and South Africa. Indian, Singaporean, and South African accents of English are just as “correct” as any other version of spoken English. We eventually arrive at a situation in which no single country can logically claim authority over the English language. As more and more people across the world study English, English begins to be spoken in different accents—Chinese, Russian, Arabic. As more and more individuals and societies appropriate English as their own language, the notion of a “correct” accent in English erodes.

We should celebrate this, yet unfortunately, sometimes we do not. English-as-a-second-language education often focuses on eliminating “accents” of non-native speakers, and often we refer to someone as speaking English with an “accent.” These points, though, are laden with biased assumptions that one version of spoken English is more “correct” than another simply because, perhaps, English has a longer history in the nation of that version’s origin. But when we analyze vigorously this line of thinking, we realize that it is logically untenable. After all, there really is no such thing as an “American” accent, for example. “American” spoken English varies significantly based on geography and socioeconomic status; “American” English only becomes such when vis-à-vis other versions of English. Thus, we cannot say that, for example, “American” English is somehow more “correct” than, say, English with a Chinese accent when there really is no such thing as a single “American” accent and when there is no universal standard for a “correct” accent. (Full disclosure: I speak English with an “American” accent, whatever that means.)

This is not to say that there is no right or wrong in language. That cannot be the case. There is grammar and there is spelling and there is pronunciation (as distinct from intonation or enunciation); all these have right and wrong (although that varies, too, based on culture). My only point is that we must come to terms with the idea that there is no “foreign accent” in English in the 21^st century. No one way of speaking English is any more valid than another.

I don’t think this is an inconsequential point. I think the stakes are actually quite high. Accents can easily—and often subconsciously—trigger a sense of intralingual foreignness. That is, we often listen to others speaking English and judge them purely on the basis of their accent—something they often cannot change, something that is often tied intricately to their identity. Some of that judgment may be socioeconomic, and some of it may be racial or ethnic. We make assumptions based on accents about people’s education or intelligence or even perhaps moral character. We may not do it maliciously, but often we do it. We may consider a genteel British accent, for example, somehow more “valid” than, say, a Chinese accent or a Brooklyn accent. And that in itself can create barriers of foreignness and prejudice even at the very start of a conversation.

Let us work toward a common understanding that language is the equal property of all and that no one person has a greater claim to it than another. That, I think, is an important step to abolishing foreignness.