Legitimising dialect discrimination

<<"People who speak stigmatised dialects such as African American Vernacular English or Southern vernacular English continue to be rejected on the basis of their speech even when their dialects have nothing to do with their performance of job-related tasks and general competence.>>

Your example doesn't tell us who rejected these applicants, so it's hard for me to say whether it's true, but I'll give you some examples of what I've seen in my own experience.. I'm not sure if you live in the US, but go to any shop in the rural south and you will regularly hear employees using Southern vernacular English. If they were rejected from employment based on their dialect we wouldn't find them working there in the shop. The same thing applies to African American Vernacular English... shops and businesses in the innner cities across the US are staffed with people who speak AAVE. You hear it spoken in supermarkets and in the offices of city, state and federal government. Very frequently the owners of the businesses are African Americans who also speak AAVE. So the study you cite clearly doesn't apply to all employment. It doesn't apply to government workers, police officers, firefighters, etc. Unfortunately the cite you provided doesn't go into what professions rejected these AAVE and Southern vernacular speaking job applicants.

I can go outside my office and immediately find speakers of AAVE. I have people working for me who speak both Southern vernacular and AAVE and I work in the field of finance and banking.

<<So you mean "incorrect" according to the prescriptive rules of standard English, do you? >>

Yes

<<Do you feel you lost anything special, precious, or particular along the way?>>

That's a good question, but no, I actually feel I gained a lot. In the environment where we spoke a more rural version of English, our vocabulary was more limited. And since we can still use certain expressions (from the old days), even if it's just for fun, the fact that we also now have access to a larger vocabulary and standard English means we have more freedom of expression than before.

<<So, why are mono-dialectal standard English speakers allowed to "express" their identity in the workplace and speakers of mono-dialectal speakers of other dialects not allowed to do so or are discriminated against if they do? >>

It's probably worth noting that speakers of alternative dialects will only encounter problems with discrimination, ostracism, etc. if they are mono-dialectal speakers, and thus are only able to communicate using their own dialect, which may not be intelligible to those outside of their home communities. I doubt if a speaker of Scouse who speaks only Scouse would be understood by a Londoner working at a London investment banking firm. Also, it's unlikely the firm's clientele would understand the Scouse speaker. If the Scouse speaker is able to use standard English spoken by the other people in the firm, the communication problem is solved, even if the Souse speaker retains the accent of his or her home region. So speakers of an alternative dialect probably will not experience problems because of their use of an alternative dialect, rather they may experience certain limitations in employment if they are not also able to communcate in or understand the standard dialect spoken by the majority of the population.

+I'm not sure if you live in the US, but go to any shop in the rural south and you will regularly hear employees using Southern vernacular English. ´+

Is that "if" there really a good example of standard English usage?

<<I can go outside my office and immediately find speakers of AAVE. I have people working for me who speak both Southern vernacular and AAVE and I work in the field of finance and banking.>>

What kind of jobs do those people do for you?

<<And since we can still use certain expressions (from the old days), even if it's just for fun, the fact that we also now have access to a larger vocabulary and standard English means we have more freedom of expression than before. >>

Are you saying that dialect speakers cannot discuss complex issues in their dialect?

If your city-boy standard English speaker were to go work on a farm in your area, it's certain that he would have to expand his vocabulary. He would do so by picking up farming terms, local slang, etc. We could then say that he would have "have more freedom of expression than before".

<It's probably worth noting that speakers of alternative dialects will only encounter problems with discrimination, ostracism, etc. if they are mono-dialectal speakers, and thus are only able to communicate using their own dialect, which may not be intelligible to those outside of their home communities. >

Yes, that also goes for mono-dialectal speakers who can only use the standard form - and I've met many of them, believe me. They are often discriminated against.

<<Are you saying that dialect speakers cannot discuss complex issues in their dialect?>>

Yes! They must switch to standard to talk about some things.

<<Is that "if" there really a good example of standard English usage?>>

There are plenty of good examples. Yours is a good example of standard English.

<<What kind of jobs do those people do for you?>>

One of them is an attorney and two are regulatory business analysts. Their job is to look at the areas where we're doing business and respond to state and federal examiners when the examiner finds we need to modify our business practices.

<<Are you saying that dialect speakers cannot discuss complex issues in their dialect? >>

I can only address my own situation and the version of English spoken where I lived as a child. In our case, the dialect was limiting because it was spoken by people who had not explored far from their small town. However, there may be other dialects that have a richer vocabulary than standard English.

<<If your city-boy standard English speaker were to go work on a farm in your area, it's certain that he would have to expand his vocabulary. He would do so by picking up farming terms, local slang, etc. We could then say that he would have "have more freedom of expression than before". >>

Exactly. The city boy would have expanded his range of expression and of course would not be mono-dialectic. But if he had only the farmer's lexicon (at least the one where I'm from) he wouldn't be able to talk about linguistics or computers or any other area of study that does not exist in his rural world.

No computers in rural areas? What century are you living in?

Nowadays farms are run highly technological.

<<No computers in rural areas? What century are you living in?>>

You're making what is called a strawman argument and either you're being obtuse on purpose or you're so vested in arguing that it causes you to miss the point.

Of course there are computers in rural areas. Also running water and indoor bathrooms. But computer terminology does not originate in the regional dialect. It's exogenous and is an example of the need for dialect speakers to become familiar with mainstream language. As the poster above commented, dialect speakers will switch to standard when discussing certain subjects. In my experience, dialect speakers will use terminology that was in use 200 years ago but that has gone out of use and been replaced by another word in the mainstream language. Thus the dialect speaker's vocabulary often is not made up of foreign words, but very old words from the same language that are just not used anymore. In most cases I've encountered, the dialect speaker has also learned the mainstream words for the dialect words. He or she uses the dialect words inside the community where the dialect is spoken but understands the need to use the mainstream word outside of the community.

<You're making what is called a strawman argument and either you're being obtuse on purpose or you're so vested in arguing that it causes you to miss the point.>

I think it's more you who is giving us a folksy picture of rural communities hoping we'll swallow the bait.

<In my experience, dialect speakers will use terminology that was in use 200 years ago but that has gone out of use and been replaced by another word in the mainstream language. >

You get that with a lot of standard English dialect speakers. They just can't let go of words like "shall" and "whom". They also can't let go of "may" for permission, even though it has been shown that such use is on the decline. So, no difference between standard dialect speakers and other dialect speakers in that respect.