1. Critical Term Paper
By: Rachael Gale
Professor Adam Schwartz
Oregon State University

2. In public K-12 schools, children and teenagers are taught the “correct” way to write and
speak. Beginning in the early stages of grade school, five, six, and seven year-olds are taught the
basic sounds of letters and also how to pronounce new vocabulary. In this instruction, some
students excel, while others wrestle, struggle, and sometimes fail. In English with an accent;
language ideology, and discrimination in the United States, Rosina Lippi-Green wrote that this
instruction impacts a child’s development of their Sound House. Lippi-Green argues that
children are born with a set of language blueprints that give them a basic set of rules of the
language and a set of tools to navigate those blueprints. Then, as the child acquires the language
with the help of their parents, siblings, and others in their life, they build their Sound House, “the
‘home’ of the language, or what we have been calling accent – the phonology – of the child’s
native tongue” (1997, p. 46). The Sound House that is developed in the early stages of a child’s
life becomes the permanent building that they will reside in until they die. It is a marker for their
identity and it shapes the lens they view life from.
Within the United States (U.S.) there is a specific Sound House that is deemed to be the
most ‘ideal.’ This Sound House is Standard American English (SAE), and it is taught in the
public education in the U.S.. Lippi-Green in The Standard Language Myth captured the power
that is given to the speakers of a Sound House when it is standardized:
‘People in power are perceived as speaking normal, unaccented English. Any speech that
is different from that constructed norm is called accented.’ ...The term standard itself
does much to promote this idea: we speak of one standard in opposition, non-standard, or
substandard. This is the core of an ideology of standardization which empowers certain
individuals and institutions to make these decisions (1997, p. 59).

3. So, through this standardization of American English, power is given to those who speak it
which are, namely, Whites. Prior to the founding of the US, with the infrastructure of racism
which was then embedded through Farmer’s Constitution, American English has been promoted
as the ‘ideal’ language. Whether it be in its pronunciation, writing, or reading, SAE thrives in
many homes, institutions, and in the workplace to this day. Its promotion, as Lippi-Green pointed
out must have an opposition, or a ‘substandard.’ It is here, where the standardization of
American English becomes unnoticeably (to the White) racist. For as SAE is exalted, other
languages are either dismissed, deemed unimportant, disposed of, or all three. This devaluation
of other’s ways of speaking is an attack on their identity. Non-SAE speakers, like SAE speakers,
built Sound Houses when they were young and those Sound Houses are built on their identity. It
is built on their family, friends, those close to them, and their surroundings. It shapes their
outlook on life, how they interact with others, and how they perceive information given to them.
The standardization of American English entrenches racism in society as it promotes
White language ideologies, which further accelerates hegemonic Whiteness (Whites’ ability to
dominate over other racial groups), and results in forced language assimilation, and then, due to
our Whites racial frame, when we are called racist, we quickly and angrily deny it. Yet, the
moment we are in a secluded area away from the public we laugh about ‘chinks’ and their
inability to pronounce the word ‘trying’ and we tell our racists jokes that aren’t meant to harm
anyone. For instance, in my own field work at my job, INTO, where I tutor in writing and
pronunciation for international students, I discovered that my coworkers and I, blocked by our
White racial frame, took advantage of Whites’ supremacy in telling jokes and justifying our
thoughts. It is these consistent discourses and denial of being racists that gives Whiteness its

4. ability to be hegemonic, keep racism ever present in today’s society, and force everyone who is
not White to leave their identity behind.
Historical Beginnings
Language assimilation through the exaltation of SAE did not recently occur. Its
promotion is historically rooted in the founding of the U.S. at the close of the Revolution War in
the 16th century. Just shortly after the US gained independence from Great Britain and became a
nation in 1788, through the Federalist Papers, the Farmer’s Plan promoted English and the White
Englishmen who spoke it, which in turn, began the process of making SAE the dominant Sound
House. Juan Perea quotes John Jay in the Federalist Number 2, and in it, Jay openly wished the
U.S. was a homogeneous people who were White, spoke English, and shared the same values.
He wished for, “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language,
professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their
manners and customs…” (1995, p. 5). Jay’s vision, as well as the other prominent leaders who
created the Constitution, believed in this vision despite the fact that early America consisted of
variety of immigrants. By 1790 for instance, over one-third of Pennsylvania’s citizens were
German. To this Benjamin Franklin commented distastefully in 1753 in a letter where he
expressed, “they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not [in my
Opinion] be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious”
(Perea, 1995, p. 6). The influential minds in the young of the nation began the process of
embedding the promotion of Whites, and as a result, their language.
Throughout the entirety of our nation’s history, SAE has consistently been used to
advance its speakers. In the 1800s, Thomas Jefferson called for the nation to be made up of
people who spoke the same language, meaning SAE. Then again in 1935, the historian Walter

5. Prescott Webb promoted the speakers of SAE, Whites, when he considered Mexicans to be
impure, volatile, and mercurial (Perea, 1995, p. 7-8). Even in the recent turn of events there has
been legislation passed that promotes SAE. In 1998, the majority of Californians voted yes on
Proposition 227 which forces all public schools in the state to teach in English only. Like in
California, twenty-five other states have English only laws (2008, p. 2). Another example that
occurred recently was the court case centered on the death of Trayvon Martin in 2013. The
plaintiff’s witness, Rachel Jeantel spoke in African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and
as John Rickford recorded, “people castigated her ‘slurred speech,’ bad grammar and Ebonics
usage, or complained that, ‘Nobody can understand what she’s saying.’” Rickford explains that
this young, African American teenager, whose best friend had just been murdered, was
“compared to ‘a junkie,’ an ‘animal,’ and ‘the missing link between monkeys and humans.’”
(2013, para. 4, 8). Clearly, this elevation of the SAE Sound House, not only exists with great
prevalence today, but as this paper will argue, also manipulates and stereotypes non-SAE
speakers which in turn mars and sometimes eradicates the identity of them.
Theoretical Underpinnings:
Language Ideologies-
A language ideology is the promotion of any language, which occurs through discourse
that either demotes the subdominant language(s) or exalts the dominant language. By promotion
of a language, I mean all aspects of the language. This includes manners speaking, word usage,
particular accents, as well as all other prosodic and segmental features of the speaker’s language.
An example of this in the U.S. can be seen in the exaltation and enforcement of SAE. As Rosina
Lippi-Green cited Matsuda’s notes, “When the parties are in a relationship of domination and
subordination we tend to say that the dominant is normal, and the subordinate is different from

6. normal…” (1997, p. 59). So, through the creation of a normal and abnormal, biases are formed,
judgments are made, and these result in certain usages of language being deemed correct or
incorrect, good or bad, and eventually people moral or immoral as can be seen in the comments
made about Rachel Jeantel.
If language ideologies result in destructive biases, why then do they persist? Jane Hill
defines linguistic ideologies as “sets of interested positions about language that represent
themselves as forms of common sense, that rationalize and justify the forms and functions of text
and talk” (2008, p. 34). It is for this they persist. They are justified and viewed by its endorsers
as common sense. They reassert dominant cultural ideas and the interest of the many. It is
viewed as common sense because whoever believes the dominate ideology is advanced by it. In
the same way one can see why language ideologies remain intact, one can see how
standardization of American English embeds with racism further into society. It’s merely a
matter of who is dominant and who is subordinate, which in the US today, is Whites.
Hegemony-
Who determines what Standard English is? The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary (tenth edition, 1993) highlights the typical definition of Standard English:
Standard English: the English that with respect to spelling, grammar pronunciation, and
vocabulary is substantially uniform though not devoid of regional differences, that is well
established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated and
that is widely recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken and understood
(1997, p. 53).
Key in on the word educated. A highly referenced dictionary states that Standard English is the
English spoken by the educated. It gives no room for the English spoken in the White, working

7. class home, much less the poverty stricken homes who have been denied access to academic
discourses, nor does it give room for minorities’ way of speaking, such as the African American
Vernacular English (AAVE), to be considered the standard way of speaking.
From uncountable calls for colored peoples’ rights, for women’s rights, for the Queer
community’s rights, it would seem as though the educated Whites’ hegemonic power over other
languages and races would disappear, especially as society advances and becomes more modern.
In fact, the culture today is constantly calling for equality for all, measures to prevent
discrimination, and diversification in the workplace. So, to many the idea of Whites still
remaining in power seems contrary to the world around them and consequently, the blame for the
racism present in society is tossed on a few unnamed individuals and groups. In The White
Racial Frame, Joe Feagin claims that this view developed because this view “does not examine
the deep structural foundation in which acts of discrimination are always imbedded” (2014, p. 5).
So, as Whites do not analyze the structural foundation of our nation, White’s hegemonic power
will continue to be denied and ignored, which will allow racism to continue to prevail and be
further embedded in society.
Rather than equality being sought, the opposite is occurring. Those who were in power at
the nation’s founding were the White Farmers who, as cited earlier, wanted one homogeneous,
White, monolingual people as citizens –Englishmen. Today, the elites consist of those who may
not admit it, but promote the same wish. For the “new views of society are regularly screened for
conformity to preferences of elite decision makers in academia and in society generally” (Feagin,
2014, p. 3). A prime example of the promotion of hegemonic Whiteness, is California’s
Proposition 227. The proposition, which was created and then voted on by the elite (which hold

8. the majority), declared that English was to be the only language taught in school. As, this law is
held in twenty-five other states, SAE is elevated.
The majority of those who speak the SAE are White, and as Matsuda put it, they are the
ones who are dominant in political and social settings (Lippi-Green, 1997, p. 59). In other words,
their dominance promotes hegemonic Whiteness (in this case through SAE). For whiteness to be
hegemonic means that Whites hold power through their ideologies to dominate all other racial
groups.
Language Assimilation-
Why do people, particularly those other than Whites, deal with this crap? Or in other
words, how do “people come to invest in their own unhappiness?” (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 68).
Marginalized groups assimilate due to a simple two-step process that is shoved in their face
through the educational system, which is the heart of the standardization process and loss of
identity. Firstly, they’re language, and all of the cultural, political, and social values tied to it, are
devalued. They are not only devalued once, but repeatedly. Secondly, the dominant linguistic
and social values are validated repeatedly (Lippi-Green, 2012, p. 68). Lippi-Green puts this into
context as she wrote,
The things they say about her language and her social allegiances make her
uncomfortable and unhappy. The things they promise her if she were to change this
behavior may be very seductive: more money, success, recognition. She may think about
trying the change the way she talks, and pay some attention to pronunciation points
which have been brought to her attention (2012, p. 69).
This, of course, is practically impossible. For, as our language, or Sound House, reflects
who we are, we may renovate our permanent dwelling place, but it can never be fully torn down

9. and replaced. A second or third Sound House may be built, but in the end, a person may only be
able to fool a couple people. So, it is in this way that non-SAE speakers are compelled to go
through an unchangeable change continuously.
White Racial Frame-
How could I blame someone for forcing those who do not speak Standard American
English to speak it and give up their own identity? Initially, I absolutely rejected the idea that I
could be enforcing this standardization process. I didn’t just object idea, I abhorred it! Yet with
great deal of examination of my everyday thoughts and activities, I began to see my own racism
with clarity.
As I will discuss later, I currently work for an international company called INTO at
Oregon State University. INTO is an international company that began in the United Kingdom
and works with universities there as well as in the US and China. In the U.S. the INTO
immersion and collegiate schooling program is partnered with Oregon State University, the
University of South Florida, Marshal University, Colorado State University, George Mason
University, and New York’s Drew University (INTO, 2015). At INTO I work in the Learning
Center as a WRAP, a Writing and Pronunciation Tutor for English Language Learners from
around the world. I specifically aide in student’s learning of Standard American English that I
struggled to learn throughout my childhood. Prior to my research, I always correct the
international students, but gave no explanation for why one change was made when what was
written was technically grammatically correct. I merely told them, this is the better, more
effective, and precise way to write the sentence. Actively, I was promoting SAE without thought
and with no explanation to the students. I never explained that the other version of English was
perfectly fine, but promoted SAE.

10. Upon this realization, of how I actively engaged in degrading other forms of English, and
thus promoting hegemonic Whiteness, I began to change the way I tutored. I began to explain to
them that what they had written was beautiful, but if they wanted to write in the standard, or
academic way, they would need to change it. There are many reasons why I did not realize my
racism, such as my ignorance. The largest reason why I failed to see it is my racial frame.
A racial frame is a term used to describe how the majority of people in a society view a
racialized society. So, to have a White racial frame means that the majority of people, in this case
White Americans, have the dominant norms and views of a racialized society, and these views
often lead to ignorant and misinformed perspectives on the present racialized society (Feagin,
2013, p. 3). My White racial frame was able to persist and allow me to be willfully ignorant
because it of how Whiteness is hegemonic through the promotion of SAE.
My Own Field Work
As I learned more about the standardization of English, I began to observe not only my
actions but also my coworker’s actions in the Learning Center of INTO. Due to how the work
environment is set up, I was unable to directly observe my coworker’s methods of correcting
student’s papers, but I was able to observe general interactions they had between each other and
the students. Throughout a month of observation, three primary observations stuck out. From a
White’s perspective, some of these comment would seem harmless, if anything hilarious or even
common sense, but that view comes from the White racial frame. These racist remarks do not
reflect my coworkers’ character in any way, for these responses seem natural to them and are
foundational to their styles of language. I argue, therefore, that their comments reflect our
society's mindset –they reflect a color-blind, or unconscious racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2003, p. 54).
The three discourses include a joke and “common sense” justifications:

11. 1. "Do what Asians do best." This comment was said by a Pathway tutor. They said this to one
of the Vietnamese staff. The Vietnamese was showing a neat sound that her fingers made when
lightly hitting the back of someone. The Pathway tutor’s statement reference the stereotype of all
Asians being good at Kung Fu.
2. "I know this sounds bad, but I try to pick teachers with English sounding names because I
can’t understand what they say in lecture if they aren't native English speakers." This statement
came from a fellow WRAP and a Pathway tutor in responded: "Oh, it’s so true. Not only does it
impact your grade, but your general understanding of the material also." In this last discourse,
the Pathway tutor seemed to imply that if the teacher isn't a native English speaker he'll be
discriminated against because their accent will affect his ability to learn the information. In
effect, he is blaming the school for discriminating against him by putting him at a disadvantage
in his schooling. Although this comment seems justifiable and common sense, language must be
seen as a two way street. The teacher may be trying their best to communicate, but unless the
student asks questions and puts effort in to communicate back, their understanding will be
impacted.
3. “I think that Asians have a different way of showing authority. They think they must
forcefully enforce their authority. I think it’s ridiculous! A happy working atmosphere is when
the boss has authority, but doesn’t babysit or rule over their employees.” I myself stated this
comment to one of my coworkers when attempting to explain my frustration with the new boss.
Not only did I clump my Indian boss into a general “Asian” category, I also used that stereotype
to explain myself. As time has gone by I have grown to love my boss as a person and see why
and how she expresses herself, but at the time, I used my Whiteness to elevate myself instead of
taking the time to get to know my boss first before I said racialized statements.

12. My own internal thoughts / Concluding thoughts on my results
Overall, I found colorblind racism occur frequently in two ways at my work. The first
one is using racial slurs or stereotypes as legitimate terms in private through jokes. The second
projection of racism is in placing the blame on the discriminated and calling them racist (Bonilla-
Silva, 2003, p. 56, 63-62). Along with this, I've noticed a racial bias in myself. Primarily in how I
anticipate my responses to my coworkers. For instance, if I'm a few minutes over a WRAP
appointment and my Chinese (Asian) coworker tells me my next appointment is here I become
more inwardly frustrated that they think I needed to be reminded of the time. Yet, if a White
coworker tells me it’s time for the next appointment I am thankful for their helpfulness. I have
realized that if my coworker is not White I anticipate being upset even if they're just being
friendly. Or if something that normally wouldn't bug me is being said by a White person, it does
irritate me coming from another race. There is not a massive difference in my responses, but as I
have analyzed my inward thoughts, I have noticed the difference.
Overall, I want to challenge my coworkers to actively be aware of their White racial
frame and how they prevent the promotion of SAE in their daily lives. This can be done in four
ways. Firstly, I will challenge them to critically analyze their everyday actions and comments.
Secondly, I will encourage them to explain the edits they make when what is written on the
student’s paper is technically correct. Then, tied with this, I will encourage them to pass on the
new habits to new employees when they are training them. Finally, I will challenge them to keep
each other accountable and call each other out when a racist comment goes unnoticed by its
speaker.
Effects / Change

13. Change will not be easy nor quick. Rather, it will involve peering deeper into and
analyzing our everyday moments and thoughts. Our choice to make a difference will be in how
we decide to picture and mirror back that picture to minorities. Lippi-Green wrote, “Our identity
is partly shaped by recognition of its absence, often by the misrecognition of others, and so a
person or group of people can suffer real damage, real distortion, if the people or society around
them mirror back to them a confining or demeaning or contemptible picture of themselves”
(2012, p. 67). By doing this, it will cause a renovation to happen in our own Sound Houses. It
will not call for a change, for after all, that is impossible. However, it will take the hegemonic
power out of our hands. It will “un-normalize” SAE and balance the scale of power.
Resisting this change will only lead to the continuing of the standardization of American
English, the cycle of language assimilation, and as a result, racism. It will keep Whites with
hegemony and it will persist in the devaluation and manipulation of other languages and
identities. As Ana Zentella advised,
If we try to resist by not apologizing for – or not trying to change – our accents, or refuse
to restrict our use of Spanish, or eliminate the other ways of speaking that the dominant
society judges as disorderly, we end up entrenching damaging evaluations of us as
dangerous and in need of control (Schwartz, 2011, p. 660).
If we will not do this for others, why not for ourselves? No matter the motivator, change needs to
begin, for there is a way out of the cycle of racism. The exit may not occur in our lifetime, but
we have the power to start on the path that leads to the exit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, racism is prevalent throughout the US. It is not something that will simply
disappear as we ignore race and pretend it doesn’t exist. Rather, racism will continue to grow

14. rapidly unless we (us Whites) begin to educate ourselves on our racism and try understand the
groups of people who have been marginalized and assimilated linguistically, apologize for our
demeaning actions, and do our best to break down White’s hegemony and racial frame. Racism,
especially through the reproduction of the standardization of English, is deeply and structurally
embedded. So it is not only the job of my coworkers, but also everyone else who is either White,
plays a key role in the development of Sound Houses, or teaches different Sound Houses. It is
time to begin to shake those foundations and start asking what Samy Alim and Geneva
Smitherman asked,
“If muthafucka is not an obscene word for me but is for you, whose norm should prevail?”
(2012, p. 124)