The 'discussion' (ok, argument) was about language. The other family member (a very intelligent, articulate professional) and I were discussing language and my research. We got to the idea that is fundamental to linguistics, that basically all varieties of language (dialects) are systematic and rule governed, and that native speakers don't make errors. (We weren't talking about ums and uhs or false starts, we were talking about structures that are non-mainstream). For example, double negatives. This is where an utterance has more than one negative word, such as 'I don't got none'. Now, before your heads explode, let me explain why this isn't an 'error'. Some of you will say, 'Two negatives make a positive', which is true in mathematics. But, that axiom is not true for language. In fact, that logic of two negatives making a positive isn't true for tons of languages, because they require double (or more) negatives for a sentence to be grammatical. A classic example is French 'je ne parle pas anglais', which is literally 'I no speak no English', or better 'I don't speak no English'. And there are hundreds of other languages that require the double negation. So, if 'logic' is your answer, then you'll have to say that other languages (and most varieties of English...) are completely illogical. Or, you could realize that rule is fake, hasn't ever really been part of language, doesn't reflect the actual usage of language, and was a bugaboo of some pedants from several hundred years ago.
You might argue, as my family member did, that we are talking about English, not French (or Russian, or Spanish, or the hundreds of other languages). That's a valid statement, but not supported by language. Here's why: no native speaker would misinterpret 'I ain't got none' as the person having some. In fact, most non-natives wouldn't either. That statement means in any natural variety of English that the speaker doesn't possess any of whatever the topic of conversation is. I could further add that we don't use mathematical logic of negatives anywhere in language. For example, (I may have used this before, but it is still good...), if a toddler were about to put a penny in a light socket, and you said, 'Nonononononono', the child wouldn't add up the no's and then divide by 2 to check whether or not he/she should proceed with the electricity experiment. Additionally, multiple negation is present in Englishes spoken all over the world, from Great Britain to the US to South Africa to Australia and beyond. On a more technical note, 'I don't got none' has a subject (a Noun Phrase), and a predicate (a VP composed of do support with a negative marker, a verb, and an object [a pronoun that happens to have negative polarity]). No structure of English was absent. So, no 'rule' was broken. English simple sentences need a subject and a verb, with optional objects. This sentence meets those requirements, and has the optional object. My family member understood this, and was not arguing that English grammatical structures are inherently logical, but was adamant that certain constructions were inappropriate for certain contexts. Their point was about the fact that people react to language, and sometimes there are long-standing usages (in certain fields) that can be considered 'wrong'. Ah, I understood the miscommunication (see below for the denouement...).
This familial argument came right on the heels of Weird Al Yankovic's 'Word Crimes' parody going viral (if you haven't seen it, link). Full disclosure: I like Weird Al, and I think for the most part he's witty. I thought the song was funny (and much better than the original), but also terribly misinformed and in all actuality, quite mean. I won't belabor the point about why all the stuff Weird Al mentions aren't errors (much less crimes...), many others have done so much more eloquently than I could, see here and here. But, the fact remains that a song saying that native speakers can commit crimes with their language has millions of views and was shared all over my social media feeds. Why would something so pedantic be so popular?
Right after this, I heard about Oak Ridge National Laboratory's proposal for 'Southern accent reduction' classes for employees (link). Yes, the lab that has been in East Tennessee for over 7 decades now has some type of problem with Southern accents. Thankfully, they called this off (only after backlash and bad publicity). This is related to errors and Word Crimes because a perception that certain language usage (in this case, the way one sounds) is wrong. The main thrust of this is that Southern accents don't sound right in a very technical setting, so speakers would be worried about 'how they sound' rather than what they say. In sum, the Southern accent heard in a technical presentation at a lab would be a type of error or word crime. Not going to lie, this really really made me angry, for many reasons. The lab tried to say that it was merely acting out of regard for an employee's request. Fair enough, I respect that. But, the problem is deeper. Why would an employee want accent reduction if they are a native speaker of English?
The heart of these issues is not really related to language itself. Most people don't like to hear this, but these notions are historically rooted in class and status. To say that a native speaker sounds wrong, does incorrect things, or commits word crimes isn't about the language itself. I showed earlier that the logic argument falls flat, so does the idea that it's an English thing, and native speakers don't commit fundamental errors. What these ideas are rooted in is that we put our feelings toward the people speaking onto their language, and we have immersed our culture in this negative feelings. We do this because we want to create and maintain social grouping and social status. 'Could care less' is wrong? No, but if I can deride someone else's usage, that somehow elevates me. Employees with Southern accents not appropriate for technical jargon? Only if you want to project your feelings about the South onto speakers, regardless of their personal capability. Now, not everyone who adheres to some of these notions are classists. My family member is certainly not a classist, but the notion was there. It's because of these long standing ideas that permeate our culture. That's why a song about stylistic things can be so popular. That's why a lab that has been in the south for generations can think offering Southern accent reduction is a good idea. Our society has been formed around the idea that there are some language features, accents, and varieties that are good; others are bad or wrong. At the core, however, it really isn't about language. It's about social grouping.
Now, I want to end this post with some caveats. There are social repercussions for language choices, trust me. I am a native son of Appalachia, proud of my homeland and my language. I know all about these repercussions for using non-mainstream forms. There are established mores for usage in all walks of society. If you are a journalist, your articles need to adhere to the style guides for whatever publication you write for. If you are on TV, you should adhere to the general customs of news broadcasters to be taken seriously. If you are at ComicCon, you better know your memes, pop culture references, and quotes to be accepted. If you are texting friends, you should probably throw in some emoji, textspeak, and maybe even, gasp, use numbers for words or you will sound weird. This isn't an argument for anything goes. As a linguist, I love the structure and rules of language. That is what lead me to my career path. To see how our minds create, manipulate, and bring grammar to life is what gets my academic blood pumping. However, I also know that these rules are completely arbitrary. They have arisen for lots of historical, social, and random reasons. They have changed, are changing, and will continue to change. That's part of what is so fascinating! So I know that language has rules, but native speakers don't break them. In fact, native speakers are the ones who make the rules! But, we are social animals, and we don't live in vacuums. We interact and form groups. For some groups, the need to demonstrate who is and, more importantly, who isn't a member is crucial. We want to show our membership, and one easy way is language. Some groups have animus toward other groups, so they disparage their culture, dress, and language. But, it isn't really the dress or language, it is the people who make up that group. Some groups elevate other groups, and want to emulate them. So they copy their culture, dress, language, etc. But it really isn't the dress or language, it is the status of the people in the group.
So, finally, if you look down on a person or a group's language, think about why. Look at yourself and ponder what it really is that you think is so wrong. Is it really double negation, 'could care less', or whatever feature? Or the fact that feature is associated with people not in your group or a group you want to associate with?
Oh, yeah, and by the way, we ended the family argument learning from one another. My family member was referring to the appropriate usages based on long-standing distinctions (like those I mentioned earlier), and the possible bad reactions for using the inappropriate one. I showed that it really wasn't the language, and that there are social repercussions (the real root of our argument, my family member thought I was saying there weren't social repercussions). We both spoke our piece, and we both learned. And I think I won, they think they did, but more importantly, we still love one another deeply...that's how we Reeds roll.
