David Foster Wallace Tense Present Democracy English And

David Foster Wallace Tense Present Democracy English And The Wars

David Foster Wallace's essay "Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage" explores the complex relationship between language, social identity, and societal power structures. The essay delves into how discourse communities influence language use, the social implications of language standards, and the conflicts surrounding language prescriptivism and descriptivism. It also examines the role of Standardized Written English (SWE) and its impact on social equity within academic and broader societal contexts.

Wallace introduces the concept of a "discourse community" as a group that shares common language practices, norms, and expectations. He emphasizes that language dialects are often shaped by the community one belongs to and that individuals may fluently navigate multiple dialects depending on their social environment. This fluidity underscores the social function of language as a marker of identity and belonging. Wallace's discussion aligns with debates over the Usage Wars, which concern the prescriptive versus descriptive attitudes toward language rules. He suggests that dialect choice and linguistic conformity are not merely about correct grammar but are deeply intertwined with social and cultural positioning.

The essay also addresses the phenomenon where children with "perfect" grammar are often singled out or teased, highlighting social dynamics that valorize linguistic conformity and intelligence while marginalizing those who do not conform. Wallace argues that this social pressure on language can be both a product of and a reinforcement of societal hierarchies. He questions whether this emphasis on grammatical perfection is beneficial or whether it perpetuates inequalities and social exclusion.

Central to Wallace's argument is the concept of SWE—Standardized Written English—as the linguistic standard dominant in educational and professional settings. He posits that gaining fluency in SWE is crucial for students seeking social mobility and success within mainstream society. Wallace contends that the discourse community that primarily communicates in SWE often functions to uphold existing social inequalities, privileging those who have been socialized into its standards. His critique extends to a "spiel" he offers to students of color, cautioning them about the dominance of SWE and encouraging awareness of how language shapes societal power dynamics.

Paper For Above instruction

In "Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage," David Foster Wallace critically examines the social and cultural implications of language standards, particularly focusing on the role of discourse communities and the impact of Standardized Written English (SWE). His analysis underscores how language functions as a marker of identity, belonging, and societal power, and he advocates for a nuanced understanding of linguistic diversity beyond prescriptive norms.

A core concept in Wallace’s essay is the idea of a discourse community—groups that share common language practices, norms, and expectations. These communities influence individual language choices and perceptions of correctness. Wallace notes that fluency in multiple dialects can serve as social tools, allowing individuals to navigate diverse social contexts effectively. However, the social hierarchy tied to language standards can result in marginalization of those who deviate from accepted norms. For instance, children with "perfect" grammar often face teasing, reflecting the societal valorization of conformity and linguistic authority. Wallace questions whether valuing this perfection is inherently beneficial or whether it perpetuates social inequalities and exclusion.

Wallace's discussion of dialects and language standards intersects with the ongoing "Usage Wars," which debate whether language rules should be prescriptive or descriptive. Prescriptive approaches enforce strict correctness based on traditional standards, while descriptive approaches acknowledge language as a living, evolving tool used differently across contexts. Wallace suggests that the dominance of prescriptive norms, particularly in educational settings, often serves social interests that maintain existing power structures. Fluency in SWE becomes a salient social asset, providing access to opportunities but also reinforcing social inequities. It creates a linguistic gatekeeping mechanism that privileges certain groups, often those already advantaged economically or socially.

Of particular concern in Wallace’s critique is the impact of SWE on marginalized groups, especially students of color. His "spiel" to students of color serves as a caution about how linguistic standards can act as barriers, and he emphasizes the importance of linguistic awareness. Wallace advocates for recognizing the diversity of language practices and resisting the assumption that one form of English—SWE—should be the sole measure of intelligence or worth. He suggests that the social enforcement of SWE often perpetuates inequalities, as it favors students from privileged backgrounds who have been socialized into its norms.

Wallace also introduces the concept of prescriptive PCE—Prescriptive Correctness in English—which refers to rules that dictate how language should be used to be considered "correct." He criticizes the dominance of prescriptive PCE, arguing that it primarily benefits those in power who control language standards. This prescriptive approach tends to serve the interests of the dominant societal groups by maintaining linguistic hierarchies. Wallace encourages a critical awareness of how language standards function as social currency, often at the expense of marginalized groups.

In conclusion, Wallace’s essay highlights the complex relationship between language, power, and social equity. He advocates for a broader understanding and acceptance of linguistic diversity and challenges readers to reconsider the role of prescriptive standards like SWE and PCE. By doing so, society can move toward a more inclusive perspective that values different linguistic backgrounds and reduces social stratification based on language proficiency.

References

• Bartholomae, D. (1986). Inventing the university. In J. Pearson (Ed.), Writing across the curriculum (pp. 134-150). Heinemann.
• Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
• Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325-340.
• Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.
• Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
• McWhorter, J. (2003). The power of Babel: A natural history of language. Henry Holt and Company.
• Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American Vernacular English: Features, Evolution, Educational Implications. Black Scholar, 29(4), 25-29.
• Street, B. V. (1994). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge University Press.
• Wheaton, L. (2011). The language of inequality: The social implications of language standards. Oxford University Press.
• Wallace, D. Foster. (2012). Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage. Harper's Magazine.