Harold Shiffman made a good point with regard to my earlier posting (the
>Do you want us "foreigners" to respond to this, too?
So long as those responding to the survey have been exposed to ethnic
English while spending some time in Britain there'll be no problem using the
data. If the respondents have heard ethnic English speech while somewhere
else, like in the US or Australia, I'd appreciate a little note to that
effect. The ethnic group of which any non-native respondent is a member is
taken into account at the end of the form.
In the survey form, the term 'foreign' is used to describe ethnic
'otherness' for the following reason.
Anglo-saxon members of society (in England) still tend give to undue
prominence any type of ethnic difference, regardless of whether in an
emotionally-neutral or -charged setting. It appears to be far less frequent
the other way around. That is, anglo-saxons are not given the same level of
prominence by ethnic members of the same society. Ethnic members, however,
still seem 'compelled' to disclose the identity as being such.
a long ps:
This may seem like a big anecdotal claim, but one only need examine evidence
from items such as job application, census, medical, and other forms. They
typically require non-anglo saxon (or visibly non-white) people to detail
precisely from where they come, while the former group only need state that
they are 'white'.
The phonemena appears to contradict any claim for fairness or balance, on a
scale ranging from humble 'lonley hearts' newspaper adverts to official
Does anyone know of any scholars looking at this and the effects it may have
on self-acceptance/language attitudes of ethnic communities? I ask since
stigma, etc may well motivate the social contexts in, and the extent to
which CS-ing takes place.