Ashley Gore
APLING 623
Week #5 Critique - 9/25/12
Making Languages
Ralph W. Fasold
In Making Languages, Ralph Fasold discusses the creation of language from a sociolinguistic
perspective, by debating the idea of language versus dialect. Fasold argues that the distinction between
a language and a dialect cannot be made on linguistic criteria alone, but it also involves social and
political factors (697). Despite the fact that society and politics play a large in role in determining
language versus dialect, Fasold states that the decision regarding “what is a language and what is a
dialect cannot be made without the expertise of linguistics” (697). His position is interesting though,
because he realizes that linguistics cannot, or have not, determined criteria by which languages can be
distinguished from dialects. As I was reading this it was hard for me to tell if Fasold was sad or
frustrated by this? Or if he realizes that linguists do not actually have all power, but instead it is
important to look at the uses of languages and dialects within the larger society?
To ease the upset between the influence of society and the field of sociolinguistics, Fasold cites
Heinz Kloss and two of his major concepts. Kloss discusses Ausbau and Abstand languages in efforts
to credit sociolinguistics as well as the influence of society and politics. An Abstand language is a
language, “…that is so different from other related grammars that a linguistic would have to call [it] a
language…” (697). He categorizes languages using the Abstand concept, because this shows the
influence of linguistics, by providing some criteria in which to determine a language. On the other
hand, an Ausbau language is known as “a language by expansion” and is primarily sociopolitical, thus
giving credit to the influence of society and politics in distinguishing the difference between a
language and a dialect (697).
In helping the reader to understand more deeply, Fasold uses Ebonics as an example regarding
the debate between languages and dialects. First, Fasold analyzes the social construction of Ebonics as
1
a kind of English. Ebonics has been socially constructed in many ways, but is most commonly seen as
a “broken” standard of English spoken by African Americans (698). Socially, this language was used
by African Americans to protect their identity and to stand up to the idea of the “melting pot” in the
United States. Due to historic implications, society largely recognizes Ebonics as “broken English,”
“Mumbo Jumbo,” and the idea that Ebonics was so bad that it could be spoken by anyone (699).
Fasold is trying to demonstrate that society regards Ebonics as a dialect of English, not its own
language. The idea of Ebonics as a distinct dialect of English further shows an example of Kloss’ term
Ausbau language.
Looking at Ebonics from the other side, the Abstand language ideology, the reader learns that
Ebonics could also be “…a language, or perhaps family of languages, that unifies the people in the
African Diaspora, and is separate from the European languages…” (699). Scholars and linguistics, not
the larger society, have largely developed the idea that Ebonics is a language. In addition, linguists
argue that Ebonics is a separate language because of the differences of the underlying grammatical
structure from English and other European languages (699). Fasold reminds the reader that despite
what society and linguists may or may not agree on, it is reasonable to state that closely related
language systems could be constructed as either dialects or languages (701).
In addition, Fasold summarizes that there is really no generally agreed-on procedure for
meanings language distance, and no real criteria that a language system must meet in order to qualify
as a language versus a dialect (701). Once again, I feel that Fasold is presenting both sides, but
reminding the reader to pick a position that most closely aligns with their individual ideology. In
helping to see the linguistics and social construction of Ebonics, Fasold includes a chart that
chronically examines social groups and their own constructions of Ebonics. This chart allows the
reader to see how different social groups and their ideologies influence the idea of Ebonics as a
language or as a dialect.
2
Not only did this article help me in understanding the role of linguists, society and politics in
determining whether Ebonics should be considered a language or a dialect, but it also prompted my
thinking about how this article can be applied to education. As I was reading the different arguments
for dialect versus language, I began to think about how this argument plays into student identities.
Even if students are not aware of concepts like Ausbau and Abstand, they are still very much aware of
how society treats them and a lot of that treatment has to do with the language they speak. In schools,
students gain a sense of political and societal influences, but are usually unable to do much about it. As
a teacher I think it is important to validate any student language (or dialect) and encourage that student
to develop an identity from it.
Works Cited:
Fasold, W.R. (2005). “Making Languages” in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Bilingualism.
3