Sociolinguistics and Language Education.pdf

200 Part 3: Language and Variation
Of course, minority students found it very amusing to be called better
speakers of Dutch than their white classmates, and they also capitalised
on this by openly stigmatising these white classmates’ ‘broad’ dialect,
which has low value in the standard language-dominated symbolic hierarchy
(cf. Jaspers, 2005: 289–291). In other words, Standard Dutch and
Antwerp dialect, and their stereotypical speakers, served as points of negative
reference (or were considered spoken by those who were ‘higher’
and ‘lower’ on the symbolic ladder, respectively) that helped defi ne, and
thus style, ‘ordinary’ linguistic behaviour for these minority speakers (cf.
Rampton, 1995b: 499). Paradoxically, on other occasions Antwerp dialect
features could serve to construct a tough or assertive masculine identity
on the heterosexual market, while the same dialect features could also be
used to style speech in such a way that it suggested a born-and-bred
Antwerp identity in contrast with a possible identifi cation as ‘immigrant’.
Thus, rather than producing one variety on account of their belonging
to an ethnic minority group, these students can be described as trying to
come to grips with several confl icting linguistic market principles, where
they, through being held accountable by others and learning about their
own possibilities and limitations, learn how to style competently in
different ways.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have tried to explain that using linguistic features and
varieties, as well as wearing pieces of clothing or having specifi c haircuts,
are a form of social practice rather than mere variation. These social practices,
moreover, never stand on their own, but are always part of a hierarchical
web of meanings where using a linguistic feature or wearing a
specifi c sweater inevitably has social effects. These effects may range from
being barely noticed (when actions are designed not to stand out from the
ordinary) to being applauded or booed (when actions are thought to stand
out), and being ostracised or declared (learning) disabled (when actions
are thought inarticulate or dangerous). Given the social hierarchy they
come to learn their own position in, social actors may feel drawn to (the
promises and identities couched in) certain styles rather than others, up to
the point that for a fair number of people, learning the standard language
style, or a dominant language, may be a daunting social hurdle. Likewise,
teacher-centred instructional styles may become a stake in local social
struggle if they marginalise student voices in those classrooms where the
products of less successful action-and-social effect chains wash up.
If styling, and evaluating each other as styling, is what we all do in
multi dimensional ways everyday, more emphasis should probably go to
the principles of styling, their dynamic ‘contrasts and relationships’ (Irvine,
2001: 42), rather than on trying to determine the specifi c characteristics of a