public attitudes towards language variation, including prescriptivism, linguistic prejudice and the social consequences for speakers

What this dot point is asking

VCAA wants you to analyse attitudes to language as a social phenomenon, from a descriptivist standpoint, and to recognise that judgements about language are usually judgements about the people who use it.

Prescriptivism versus descriptivism

Prescriptivism is the belief that there is a correct way to use language and that departures from Standard English are errors. Prescriptivists police "wrong" grammar, "lazy" pronunciation and "slang", and often frame language change as decline or decay. Descriptivism, the linguist's and VCE's stance, describes how language is actually used across contexts without ranking varieties. Importantly, you can describe and analyse prescriptivist attitudes without sharing them.

Standard language ideology

Standard language ideology is the widespread belief that the standard variety is the only legitimate or correct form and that other varieties are inferior. It is an ideology because it presents a social and historical preference as a natural fact. This ideology props up the overt prestige of Standard English and underwrites prescriptivist complaints.

Linguistic prejudice and its consequences

Linguistic prejudice is discrimination based on the way someone speaks: their accent, dialect or variety. Because varieties index identity (region, class, ethnicity, age), judging a variety usually means judging a social group. Accent and dialect can trigger assumptions about intelligence, competence, trustworthiness or social class.

The consequences are real. A speaker of a stigmatised variety may face disadvantage in job interviews, education or the courtroom, while a speaker of a prestige variety may gain unearned credibility. Some speakers respond by code-switching into the standard in high-stakes settings, which is both a survival strategy and a sign of the pressure the ideology exerts.

Positive and changing attitudes

Attitudes are not uniform or fixed. Many varieties carry covert prestige, valued within their communities as markers of authenticity and solidarity even when stigmatised by outsiders. Public attitudes also shift: there is growing recognition of Aboriginal English and multicultural varieties as legitimate, and media diversity is slowly broadening which accents are heard with authority.

Worked example

Analysing an attitude in the wild

Take this original comment posted under a news video: "Honestly the way young people talk now is butchering the language, no one can speak properly anymore."

• "butchering the language" and "properly" reveal prescriptivism and a decline narrative.
• the target ("young people") shows the attitude is really about a social group, not just words, so this is linguistic prejudice tied to age.
• the assumption that there is one "proper" way reflects standard language ideology.

A descriptivist analysis names each of these, then notes the social consequence: such attitudes can stigmatise young speakers' legitimate, innovative variety and the identity it expresses.

A strong answer identifies attitudes as prescriptivist or descriptivist, names the standard language ideology and any linguistic prejudice at work, and explains the real social consequences for the speakers and communities involved.