4.3 Article

MIND your language(s): Recognizing Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect variety usage in monolinguals

期刊

APPLIED PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 358-364

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0142716422000467

关键词

minority; indigenous; non-standard; dialect; monolingualism; bilingualism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psycholinguistics research often overlooks the experiences of speakers of Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect (MIND) varieties, leading to a limited understanding of language use. The paper highlights the importance of capturing the linguistic experiences of MIND speakers and moving away from binary distinctions of bilingualism and monolingualism.
While Psychology research in general has been criticized for oversampling from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations, Psycholinguistics has a problem with conducting a large amount of research on a relatively small number of languages. Yet even within WEIRD environments, the experiences of speakers of Minority, Indigenous, Non-standard(ized), and Dialect (MIND) varieties are not always captured alongside their use of a more prestigious standard language.This position piece will provide a case study of one such variety: Scots, a Germanic variety spoken in Scotland, which is often considered bad English. However, its speakers display cognitive characteristics of bilingualism despite often regarding themselves as monolingual due to sociolinguistic factors. Such factors include social prestige and language ideology, as well as linguistic distance. In doing so, this paper introduces a new acronym encouraging researchers to MIND their language - by developing more inclusive ways of capturing the linguistic experiences of MIND speakers, to move away from binary distinctions of bilingual and monolingual, and to recognize that not all varieties are afforded the status of language, nor do many multilinguals consider themselves as anything other than monolingual.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据