Poet, linguist and typographer Robert Bringhurst writes in “The Solid Form of Language”, “A script is not a language- and the classification of scripts is as different from the classification of languages as the classification of clothes is from the classification of people. Writing, nevertheless, is many things, used by different people in many different ways. In itself, it is both less and more than language. More because it can develop into rich and varied forms of graphic art. Less because, much as we love it, it is not an inescapable part of the human experience or the perennial human condition. Bringhurst champions writing systems as the material and visible form of spoken language, a hierarchal relationship that favors language over writing as the center of intended thought and meaning. This sentiment is even more passionately expressed by the structural linguist Ferdinand de Saussure who argued, “the superficial bond of writing is easier to grasp than the only true bond, the bound of sound” (de Saussure, 1959, 25). In contrast to structuralism, deconstruction theory has attempted to understand writing systems as well as language as forms of displaced, constructed meaning, “characterized by the same failure to transparently reflect reality by the same internal emptiness (Lupton, 2000,12).” Jacques Derrida has claimed that “there is no linguistic sign before writing” (Derrida, 1976, 14),” rupturing the accepted idea of writing systems as subordinate to language. Instead, deconstruction has attempted to understand both language and writing as unstable and abstract constructions of meaning that have the capacity to change and affect how we express and experience our individual realities. These theoretical discussions of language reflect a complex relationship between writing and speech within language. In visually transcribing non-standard dialects, linguists have grappled with how to maintain an orthography that is both accurate and culturally sensitive. In literature, writers use nonstandard spellings to carefully craft the voice of characters with nonstandard dialects. Where nonstandard dialects are spoken, speech communities struggle to validate their identity through the creation of standard orthographies. This paper will discuss the ways in which nonstandard dialects are represented by nonstandard orthography in transcriptions, literature and the formation of cultural identity. In each of these instances, the politics of representation affect the way the reader perceives the dialects through these orthographies. Written language, far from being subordinate to verbal language, shapes the way we understand others, and ourselves, and has the capacity to simultaneously validate and oppress cultural and social identities. It is important to distinguish between standard and nonstandard orthographies. According to Alexandra Jaffe, the purpose of a standardized orthography is to “render invisible many features of casual and ‘non-standard’ speech (Jaffe, 2000, 498),” whereas nonstandard orthography “can graphically capture some of the immediacy, the ‘authenticity’ and ‘flavor’ of the spoken word (498).” The shift, from standard to nonstandard orthography, is based in an intention to visually describe a speech event that is somehow unique, either phonetically or contextually. For many linguists, anthropologists and folklorists, the transcription raises many culturally charged questions regarding the choice of representing nonstandard dialects through nonstandard orthographies. According to Robert K.S. Macaulay, “it is generally not written and spoken language that are being contrasted but rather language for which the writer is directly responsible and language which has been transcribed (usually) by someone other than the speaker (Macaulay, 1991, 280).” A linguistic transcription is ascribed with cultural and social biases, shaping the ways in which the informant is represented and therefore, understood. Much of the criticism surrounding non-standard orthographies in transcriptions results from the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of usage. While there may exist an intention to create a level of authenticity and accuracy through “non-standard orthographic sprinklings (Jaffe, 2000, 501)”, it has been argued that selectivity in orthographic choice inherently “interrupt[s] the reader’s habitual visual scanning and processing activity (510).” In addition to decreasing readability, transcriptions using non-standard orthography can suggest a condescending tone towards the informant, thus affecting the way the reader responds to the text. In a 1985 study at SUNY Fredonia, Dennis Preston focused specifically on “allegro speech forms” which “attempt to capture through the use of nonstandard spellings the fact that the speech is casual, not carefully monitored, relaxed-perhaps slangy (Preston, 1985, 328).” Respellings such as gonna, hafta or using an apostrophe to indicate the shortening of an ending (thinkin’), represent allegro speech forms, intended to visually represent the casual tone of the conversation. In this study, participants rated the social class of four speakers from the transcript of a recorded conversation. Participants assigned a rating from 1–5 for each speaker, with a rating of 1 for “Lower Class” to a rating of 5 for “Upper Class”. In this transcribed conversation, Speaker 1 uses no nonstandard grammar and is assigned no allegro forms; Speaker 2 uses no nonstandard forms but is assigned two allegro forms; Speaker 3 uses two nonstandard forms but no allegros; Speaker 4 uses two nonstandard forms and two allegros. The study focuses on the comparison between Speaker 1 and Speaker 2, and the comparison between Speaker 3 and Speaker 4, as these are two relationships where allegro misspellings are the only variable. Participants assigned speakers with allegro misspellings comparatively lower class ratings than the speakers without allegros. Therefore, Speaker 2 was rated lower than Speaker 1, and Speaker 4 was rated lower than Speaker 3, “which confirms the hypothesis that whatever is being measured by the social class scale is being significantly influenced (lowered) by the introduction of respellings into an otherwise standard performance (331).” From written responses by participants explaining how they chose their answers, “no respondents were apparently troubled by the fact that speech was being evaluated from writing (335).” All of the participants felt that they were provided with an accurate representation of the speakers. While nonstandard orthographies have the capacity to inaccurately assign social stigma to transcription informants, they also have the capacity to challenge the seemingly “neutral” ideologies surrounding orthography. Although post-structuralism broke verbal and written language into a series of semiotic signifiers, grammar and spelling rules are largely accepted (and taught) as a set of static, unobjectionable truths. “Nonstandard orthography invites the reader to imagine the varied voices “hiding behind” standard orthographies and in this respect, challenges the ‘standard language myth’ by reminding people of the socially-constructed nature of linguistics norms (Jaffe, 2000, 505).” In one study of a Mississippi community, informants requested that the transcription not be written in Standard English to represent their regional dialect (504). As (most likely) an outsider presenting the language behaviors of a specific community, the linguist maintains the responsibility of a transcription that observes, rather than interprets. By utilizing nonstandard orthography in linguistic transcriptions, the linguist attempts to visually express phonetic variety in nonstandard dialect, but may also be creating an environment for social stigmas and reinstating cultural stereotypes. While the majority of linguistic transcriptions are intended for use by other academics who supposedly “do not share in the general public’s status-lowering response to such respellings” (Preston, 329), the use of nonstandard orthographies increases in its complexity when the intended audience is the general public. Whereas literary dialects attempt to visually represent morphological or phonological aspects of speech (ex. gonna), eye dialects utilize misspellings without any phonetic change (ex. sez). (see Notes, 1) However successfully literary dialects produce more accurate representations, eye dialects, in both transcription and literature, function to enhance the speaker’s otherness; “to indicate ignorance and locality (Walpole, 193)”, that is, to visually reference social or cultural stigma. From Charles Dickens to Toni Morrison, authors and creative writers have used nonstandard orthography to visually represent character speech in dialogue as a way to either validate an underrepresented culture or draw attention to difference in social class. Eye dialects and nonstandard orthographies are not specific to English literature. In works of Hispanic fiction, for example, nonstandard dialects are commonly expressed through nonstandard orthography, characterizing “the lower socio-economic stratum of society (thieves, prostitutes, pimps, beggars, etc.) a particular minority group (blacks, native Americans, gypsies, etc.), other identifiable divisions (foreigners, peasants, etc.) and gender (male, female) (Nuessel, 1982, 346).” In one of the most well researched examples, Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn incorporates several nonstandard orthographies in passages of dialogue. The use of nonstandard orthography is intentional, “pains-takingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech”, as stated in the preface (Carkeet, 315). Several dialects are identified, including Huck’s (“the backwoods South-Western dialect”) and Jim’s (“the Missouri negro dialect”) whose dialects are distinctly represented through non-standard orthography. However, it is important to mention that Jim’s dialogue shows more eye dialect, such as uv for of and wuz for was (317), than Huck’s. Additionally, other white characters are assigned certain qualities of Jim’s dialect (such as -r dropping) that Huck is not, as “signals of low status and – for whites only- physical signals of ‘substandard’ morals (332).” A valid attempt is made to accurately maintain character dialects throughout the book, using nonstandard orthography to visually express the social inequalities of the time. Does the author’s valid intention affect the reader’s interpretation? Herein lies the opportunity for misinterpretation of eye dialects. If used intentionally in both fiction and academic transcription, both literary and eye dialects have the possibility to serve a social function but there is no way to guarantee the reader is aware of its purpose. Certainly, in the study mentioned previously at SUNY Fredonia, participants correlated nonstandard orthography with the lower class and did not seem to feel there was anything inaccurate about deciphering speech from written transcriptions. It is clear from this example that the nonlinguist, interpreting academic transcripts or works of fiction, will accept nonstandard dialects as accurate translations of speech and possibly, representations of social prestige. Sociolinguists and folklorists do not hold literature and creative writing to the same expectations and accountability in representing nonstandard dialects. Even academics that avoid nonstandard in transcriptions believe that nonstandard orthography can be “productively manipulated by creative writers (Preston, 335).” While only a small community of academics may be reading a linguistic transcript, literature and creative writing is accessible to a much larger audience whose conceptions about verbal and written language may be less sensitized to these issues. While I am not suggesting responsibility from the academic community or authors for writing “explanatory prefaces” to every creative work that uses nonstandard orthography, I am suggesting that the same linguistic biases found in academic transcriptions (nonstandard spelling = lower class), may also be located in fiction and is available to much wider audience. While sociolinguists accept the author’s use of nonstandard orthography as acceptable artistic license, cultural validation, or authentic representation, a social hierarchy in which nonstandard dialects signify low prestige and status complexly mediates the reader’s interpretation of a work of fiction. All interpretations of nonstandard orthography are arbitrated by language ideology, addressing “the relevance of power relations to the nature of cultural forms and ask[s] how essential meanings about language are socially produced as effective and powerful (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, 58)”. From dictionaries to software spell checks, spelling bees to grammar classes, written language institutionalizes and codifies language, wielded by those in power to stay in power. The fields of sociolinguistics, anthropology and folklore studies have opened up verbal language as a dynamic reflection of society’s constantly shifting social and cultural values whereas written language, for the most part, is perceived as the static standardization of language. “Language ideology is the mediated link between social structures and forms of talk, standing in dialectical relation with, and thus significantly influencing, social, discursive, and linguistic practices (Woolard & Schieffelin, 2002, 286).” It is not the “nature” of writing that dictates this ideology; it is the rather, the historical and social contexts within which we learn and experience written language. Both eye dialects and literary dialects are skeptically understood by academics based on these very basic ideologies regarding written language and its subordinant relationship to verbal language. Although there is more widespread acceptance of these forms in literature, they still attempt to inform the viewer of specific biases and social stigmas. However, when respellings are utilized by a marginalized culture to validate their dialect or language, perceptions of orthography become significant to representing an otherwise marginalized voice. In the case of Haitian kréyol, orthographic choices generate debates about how the language should be visually represented based on its historical and social context. Although kréyol was spoken by master and slave populations during France’s colonial rule, the first evidence of written kréyol during the late eighteenth century were created and read to nonliterate populations for official and literary purposes but did not occur again until the twentieth century, when kréyol was applied to Haitian folklore and poems for the sake of “entertaining specific audiences: children or a condescending elite (293),” rather than more serious official or educational purposes. The traditional orthography of Haitian kréyol was almost entirely based on French spelling rules, however, the development of an orthographic system has undergone a variety of shifts since the 1920s, with three general approaches: a pro-phonetic, anti-phonetic, and intermediary phonetic orthography combined with French orthography (294-295). Each of these approaches represents different ideologies regarding the perception of kréyol within Haiti’s national identity and its post-colonial relationship to France, as well as the United States. One of the major debates occurring in establishing the “look” of kréyol is the inclusion of certain “non-Latin” letters, k, w, and y, thus subordinating its French roots (303). Although it has been suggested that utilizing these “Anglo-Saxon” letters represents “the dangers of U.S. imperialism,” others suggest that the letters should be included, “to avoid the errors and aberrations of the French orthography (303).” While this suggestion uses “the neutrality of ‘science’ to justify their arguments, it is obvious that none of these positions can ever be considered neutral (305). In the case of creoles and minority languages, “orthographic differentiation from standard and/or ‘dominant’ codes serve to combat the common perceptions of these codes as deficient variants of standard languages (Jaffe, 503)” Kréyol, spoken by both the educated elite and the masses, acts as an enduring symbol of Haitian identity. Issues surrounding its standardization and orthography politicize its complex ideological, cultural and social significance. Whereas the orthography of Haitian kréyol attempts to unite a national identity, the language of Rastafari uses orthography and phonetic meaning to visually disseminate its philosophical beliefs against oppressive language systems. As a resistance towards the speech of the Jamaican lower class, Rastafari expresses the ideology of Rastafarian philosophy, “a way of life which emerged in Jamaica in response to a social reality which placed the poor Black man at the bottom of society (Pollard, 60).” In the Rastafari language, sound is directly correlated to meaning. For example, the sound “/ai/” has an important and direct relationship to the I, the self, and eye, “that window to the soul, represents the most important senses: sight (62)”. Rastafarians place an importance on sight and therefore, integrate the /ai/ orthography into words that are related to positive meaning. The word vital, “which describes food that is good for the body (63)” is respelled as “ital”. As a growing global movement, the language of Rastafari continues to spread beyond its Jamaican roots by visually representing the Rasta philosophies through the use of nonstandard orthography. Rastafari is a significant example that shifts written language from a largely “symbolic” sign towards an “indexical” sign, in which the signified is conceptually connected to the signified. Language is no longer simply a set of random symbols to which we assign meaning, but are constructed signs with meanings that are both visually and contextually representative of the expressed idea. Ultimately, in both cases of the Haitian kréyol and the Rastafari language, eye dialects are utilized as a way of establishing identity. The “k” in kréyol and the “I” in Rastafari do not indicate a phonetic shift; instead. both examples represent a pronunciation of an ideological shift related to how Haitians and Rastafarians chose to be orthographically represented. Eye dialects, when used to establish identity of marginalized or emerging languages can play an important and significant role in visually representing, and therefore validating a language or dialect’s presence in the world. Writing systems play a significant role in the creation of cultural identity within the context of marginalized dialects. In addition to the examples of Haitian kréyol and Rastafari, new forms of online communication including online chat rooms and text messaging are breaking down the barriers between written and spoken language, demonstrating the necessity for more research into how nonstandard orthography affects perceptions of nonstandard dialects. At a time when the boundaries between written and verbal language are blurring, it is important to investigate how orthographic expression reflects, influences and validates perceptions of nonstandard dialects. Through examples in academic transcription, literary works of fiction, and the respellings to validate national and cultural identities, orthography proves to be a crucial factor in perceptions and interpretations of language.
Notes 1. The definition of eye dialect varies by source. In an article by Frank Nuessel, “Eye Dialect in Spanish: Some Pedagogical Applications”, eye dialects are defined as “a visual contrivance in which conventional orthography is modified to indicate dialectical deviations from the phonological systems of the standard language (Nuessel, 346).” According to Dennis Preston in “The L’il Abner Syndrome: Written Representations of Speech,” eye dialects are defined as “forms which reflect no phonological difference (Preston, 328).” This is reiterated by Elizabeth Fine as “a type of respelling that conveys no phonological changes in pronunciation (Fine, 328).”
Bringhurst, Robert. The Solid Form of Language. Nova Scotia, Canada: Gasperau Press, 2004. Carkeet, David. "The Dialects in Huckleberry Finn." (1979, Nov.) American Literature, Vol. 51, No. 3, 315-332. Chandler, Daniel, Semiotics for Beginners. www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. Doucet, Rachelle & Bambi Schieffelin. "The 'Real' Haitian Creole: Ideology, Metalinguistics, and Orthographic Choice". Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Doucet, R., Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., & Kroskrity, P. (Eds). New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Fine, Elizabeth. "In Defense of Literary Dialect: A Response to Dennis R. Preston." (1983, Jul.-Sep.) The Journal of American Folklore. Vol. 96, No. 381, 323-330. Jaffe, Alexandra. "Introduction: Non-standard orthography and non-standard speech." (2000). Journal of Sociolinguistics. Vol. 4, No. 4, 497-513. Lupton, Ellen and Abbott Miller. Design Writing Research. London: Phaidon, 2000. Macaulay, Ronald K. S. "Coz It Izny Spelt When Then Say It: Displaying Dialect in Writing." (1991, Autumn). American Speech. Vol. 66, No. 3, 280-291. Nuessel, Jr, Frank H. "Eye Dialect in Spanish: Some Pedagogical Applications." (1982, Sept.) Hispania. Vol. 65, No. 3, 346-341. Pollard, Velma. “Sound and power: the language of the Rastafari.” Makoni, S., Smitherman, G., Ball, A. & Spears, A. (Eds.) Black Linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas (pp. 60-79). London: Routledge, 2002. Preston, Dennis R. "The Li'l Abner Syndrome: Written Representations of Speech." (1985, Winter) American Speech. Vol. 60, No.4, 328-336. Preston, Dennis R. " 'Ritin' Fowklower Daun 'Rong: Folklorists' Failures in Phonology." Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 95, No. 377, 1982: 304-326. Raymond Walpole, Jane. "Eye Dialect in Fictional Dialogue." College Composition and Communication. Vol. 25, No. 2 May, 1974: 191-196. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. Woolard, Kathryn A, and Bambi B Schieffelin. "Language Ideology." (1994) Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 23, 58-82.
|