85 MYTH 11 Italian is Beautiful,German is Ugly Howard Giles and Nancy Niedzielski The title of this essay reflects the commonly held view,at least among many English-speakers,that certain languages are more aesthetically pleasing than others.Italian-even for those who cannot speak the language-sounds elegant,sophisticated and lively.French is similarly viewed as romantic,cultured and sonorous.These languages conjure uppositive emotions in hearers-and perhaps,generally more pleasing moods in their speakers.In contrast,German,Arabic and some East-Asian tongues accomplish the opposite:they are considered harsh,dour and unpleasant-sounding. The English language is probably somewhere in the middle,evoking few accolades of aesthetic merit but few comments of utter disdain. It undoubtedly triggers feelings of linguistic and cultural pride when, for instance,evocative poetry in the language is being read or when national institutions(e.g.the language used on national TV news) are purportedly being threatened from outside by other language groups.Here,then,we have the first hints that judgments about a language variety's beauty are dependent on the nature of the context in which the views are being expressed and tied to the fabric of our national and social identities,which we take up later. If we dig further,we find that different varieties of English are accorded different degrees of pleasantness.The sounds of British English are coveted in certain North American communities,and speakers of it will be constantly greeted with exclamations to the effect,'My,your accent is so delightful...do speak more.'This is often followed by the caution:'Never lose that delightful way of talking,'and in essence,therefore,talk like‘us'.In Britain,studies we have performed have shown that various accents are considered quite 86 Language Myths vulgar(e.g.Birmingham,London Cockney).Indeed,the stronger the accent,the more contempt will abound.In one famous sociolinguistic survey,a Glaswegian commented:'It's the slovenly speech in the industrial areas that I don't care for-these industrialized cities-I don't like the accent they have. On the other hand,British accents from some rural areas are considered 'charming’,'lilting'and ‘quaint’,such as some of the South-Welsh dialects(of course there are many South Welsh accents too,such as Carmarthen,which recent studies have shown to be less folksy) Despite another myth to the contrary,rigidly held views of accent pleasantness-unpleasantness are hardly a 'British disease'!In Aus- tralia,a broad accent is considered vulgar’.In France,a Parisian brogue is considered more cultivated than a French Canadian accent or the nearer-to-home Breton accent.In the USA,Appalachian, Texan,certain Southern and New York accents are an affront to the ear (at least outside those areas)whereas a New England variety is considered consensually more standard and comely.Black Vernacular English(or the more recent,controversial notion of 'Ebonics')incurs the same fate as the former varieties for many of those who are not African-American (as well as a number who are).We could continue on to Spain and most other cultures and the story would mostly be the same with their varieties. In sum,most of us have our favorite-sounding languages and dialects.Even single sounds,such as the gutturals(e.g.the glottal stop,as in Cockney 'bottle’)and nasality are disparaged.As John Honey has commented in his 1989 guide to British pronunciation, 'most people who comment on differences between standard and non-standard accents believe that the basis of their judgments is aesthetics-a matter of taste such as distinguishes a good piece of music from a bad one,a good painting from a daub,a good poem from a piece of meretricious verse. Why then should we have such well-defined views of language beauty and ugliness?Two competing views exist.The first has been called the‘inherent value hypothesis'.As the term implies,advocates of this position claim that some languages(and accents of them)are 87 Italian is Beautiful,German is Ugly inherently more attractive than others.Simply put,it has nothing to do with historical preferences or social conditioning,rather,certain ways of being ‘nicely spoken'are biologically wired into us.It is for this reason alone that certain language forms assume prestige over others.These others could not possibly ever gain superiority or become 'the standard'since they are too harsh,vulgar and unpleasant.Lan- guage scholars and historians in the past have held strongly to this argument.As one of them put it,if one were to compare every vowel sound ...in standard British English ...with the corresponding sounds in non-standard accents,no unbiased observer would hesitate to prefer ...[the former]...as the most pleasing and sonorous form.' Strong words indeed,but why should we-as thinking people - care about this so-called ‘fact of life'or even nature?The answer is that it has woeful implications for society,three of which we shall highlight.First,too many speakers of certain languages and dialects are brought up believing,sometimes via ridicule and abuse,that their way of communicating-a fundamental aspect of their identity and who they are -is grossly inadequate.Unfortunately,then,some speakers are embarrassed about how they talk.As one informant having a Norwich(England)accent reported,I talk horrible.'This phenomenon has been called 'linguistic self-hatred’. No wonder then that certain educational institutions denigrate the way certain ethnic minorities and lower-working-class children talk. Such institutions,teachers,and even parents,attempt to obliterate this expression ofthemselves to accommodate a 'better'way of talking. This is not meant to indicate that this approach is not well intentioned -yet we regard its underlying values as misguided. Second,we have shown in past research that there is a strong link between the perceived pleasantness of a language variety and the apparent intelligibility of what is saidin it.It is important to understand here that a person's comprehensibility is not an incontestable 'linguis- tic fact'.Oftentimes,our views about a dialect(and its speakers)can color our beliefs about whether we can understand it and particularly our willingness to expend effort after interpreting it.Construing a par- ticular dialect as,say,'‘vulgar'and feeling discomfortand dissatisfaction 88 Language Myths when talking to speakers of it can unwittingly bias our perceptions of its intelligibility-hence,ultimately,its worth as a viable form of communication. Third and relatedly,how ‘well'we speak can have great social currency.In the initial survey mentioned,one informant claimed that 'if you were an employer and somebody came in to see you with a broad Glaswegian accent and then another man came in with an English accent,you'd be more inclined to give the English man the job because he had a nicer way of speaking.'Likewise,research has shown,across cultures,that speaking in a way that is consensually agreed upon to be unpleasant would lead to some unfavorable social consequences.These might include when one is being diagnosed in a clinic,when giving evidence in court,seeking housing and when seeking statusful employment. We,and most language scholars,do not embrace the inherent value hypothesis-we believe it to be a flagrant,yet understandable,social myth.Rather,we are advocates of a totally different position that, together with Peter Trudgill,we have previously labeled the ‘social connotationshypothesis'.Asthis term implies,we favor a view propos- ing that the pleasantness or unpleasantness of a language variety is a time-honored social convention.The pleasantness,or otherwise,of a language variety(and hence the emotive qualities associated with it) are contingent on the social attributes of the speakers of it.Thus,if a social group(such as an ethnic elite or social class)assumes power in a society,it will take measures to have its form of communication privileged through the media,education,and so forth.Historically, this comes about in a variety of ways.First,it can be established overtly through public policy and language laws,as in the case of legislation across many American states making English the official language.Next,it can be established through strategic attempts to obliterate the non-prestige varieties -as happened with ‘Spanish' languages other than Castilian in the Franco era. Other times,it happens(arguably far less intentionally and more covertly over long time-periods)when communities begin to connote status and aesthetics with speaking in a societally valued manner. Indeed,the social origins of our views about dialects are deeply Italian is Beautiful,German is Ugly 89 rooted.Ourown developmental studies have shown that the emotional grounding for this can belaid down as early as three or fouryears ofage! Interestingly also,we have found that while(non-standard-sounding) children of six would laugh and disparage the accents of prestige speakers,by nine years of age they had been socialized into accepting unhesitatingly just such prestige forms to emulate.Findings from Italy also echo the inclination for children to like non-standard speech until they spend time in the school system. In terms of the social connotationshypothesis then,standard British English and French are not inherently superior and elegant forms of communication but,rather,are so largely due to the fact that the Court and other spheres of social,commercial and political influence flourished in particular geographical centers(viz.London and Paris respectively).Had they been established in other areas,these very same so-called standard varieties would have been relatively trivi- alized,perhaps suffering the same fate as other urban dialects like Glaswegian. We find,then,that if you were to survey British people and ask them to rate how pleasant it would be to live in various cities and regions and then ask them to rate the pleasantness of the accents of these locales,there would be a very high correlation indeed between these two assessments.Studies have even shown that speakers of prestige language forms are judged more handsome and physically attractive! In sum,it is the social connotations of the speakers of a language variety-whether they are associated with poverty,crime and being uneducated on the one hand,or cultured,wealthy and having political muscle on the other-that dictates our aesthetic(and other)judgments about the language variety.This is not an uncomplicated equation, of course,and language ‘facts'can sometimes swiftly change -a process that supports this argument.To illustrate,we offer the 'Black is beautiful'or 'Welsh is beautiful'(among many other)movements. When subordinate groups in society come to question the legitimacy of their inferior roles in society and attribute these to oppressive and discriminatory measures of an ‘elite’group,they can redefine the beauty and importance of their language,accordingly,and sometimes 90 LanguageMyths vociferously.Whether the dominant group will readily accede to such demands and allied actions and thereby allow their own language varieties to necessarily lose some of their aesthetic sway,is another interesting phenomenon that falls somewhat under the purview of the social psychology ofintergroup relations.This is part of the process of how languages and dialects change,die and are even resurrected. This is not to say that although there is a strong correspondence between the perceived status of a variety and its aesthetic value,it is a one-to-one relationship.In one study in the 197os we found that while the German accent in British English was rated as having higher status than any regional accents of Britain studied therein,its rated pleasantness was much lower.Here again,however,the social conno- tations hypothesis holds its own.Britons had mixed feelings in this case.On the one hand,the accent was associated by many with certain members of that nation's desires for world domination and the atrocities and hardships that attended that move.On the other it was conceded that this group now(ironically also for some)had achieved immense prosperity and economicinfluence.Arguably,aestheticjudg- ments prevailed with the former image while statusjudgments inclined after the latter.In addition,work in the context of the‘gender-linked language effect'has shown over a host of studies that while the speech and writing of males is upgraded in terms of competence and dynamism,it is downgraded in terms of aesthetics. What other insights,as well as research,inform our belief that the title of this essay constitutes a myth?We and others have found that judgments of linguistic beauty are determined in large part by the larger context in which they are embedded.That is,linguistic aesthetics do not come in a social vacuum and few,if any,inherent values exist.This can be illustrated in a number of ways.First,who is speaking the language variety(e.g.an attractive member of the opposite sex or a member of one's own ingroup)and who is doing the judging can be critical to outcomes.It may come as little surprise to know that when asking Israelis whether Arabic or Hebrew is more pleasing,musical or rich,for instance,Jews rate the latter,while Arabs rate the former as higher,both rating their own ingroup tongue preferentially. Italian is Beautiful,German is Ugly 91 In addition,imagine rating the pleasantness of the same(neutral) Italian message under three very different circumstances:(a)enjoying gourmet Tuscan food and wine whilst being serenaded by a delightful Verdi aria;(b)doing this ‘cold'under survey conditions;and (c) reading a newspaper account of a supposed Mafia atrocity.Pleasant- ness ratings under(a)conditions would be elevated over those in(b) and might even veer towards unpleasantness in the social climate of (c).Correspondingly,the‘ugliness'of German might dissipate rapidly when listening to an engaging Mozart opera whilst partaking of delicious Swiss-German Emmental cheese or delicate Austrian tortes washed down with either a first-rate Beerenausler wine or a remarkable Bavarian beer. Research thus shows that sounds are in the ear of the beholder,to be variably interpreted and socially constructed,rather than‘out there' as some fact to be objectively measured.As a final example,if an American associates Spanish or Asian languages with a 'cultural invasion’,a threat to jobs,national or linguistic integrity,he or she is much more likely to consider them ugly languages than if the languages are associated with long-standing civilizations,art or fashion.More personally and anecdotally,we have known people who have had rigid views about the ugliness ofIrish and Australian accents, undoubtedly due to the profoundly negative stereotypes(e.g.brash, uncultured)associated with speakers of these varieties.However,when visiting these countries and finding the people unexpectedly and extremely hospitable,generous,fun and quick-witted,not only did their views shift dramatically in favor of the delight of the accents, but they were even accommodated in our friends'speech! Finally,together with Richard Bourhis,Peter Trudgill and col- leagues,we have in a series of studies investigated the merit of the social connotations hypothesis.As a backdrop,French Canadians have traditionally favored the Parisian dialect over local forms of French in terms of elegance and pleasantness,just as the Greeks have favored the standard Athenian accent over the Cretan variety.The inherent value hypothesis would propose that English-speakers totally unfamliar with either French or Greek would share these natural preferences.Not so.Our English judges(having,of course,no social Language Myths 92 connotations associated with these sounds)rated the corresponding standard and non-standard varieties equally favorably. In another study,we asked American and Canadian listeners to rate a variety of British regionally accented speakers whose ratings varied considerably in terms of pleasantness for local British judges. While they were obviously familiar with the language per se(unlike the previous studies),once again they did not discriminate the varieties in terms of pleasantness.For us,this was due to the fact that they had no knowledge whatsoever attending what it was socially,and stereotypically,to be a speaker of these accents;Cockney,one of the most denigrated British varieties,sounded as fine to the Americans as any other variety. To conclude,we believe views about the beauty and ugliness of languages and dialects are built on cultural norms,pressures and social connotations.We could have spread our net,of course,far wider,to make similar arguments about other stigmatized aesthetic forms,such as the language of the elderly,homosexuals,Creoles,and so forth.Yet,and as we have argued elsewhere,we cannot tellpeople that their aesthetic responses are false;that would be unrealistic and counter-productive,as the Ebonics issue in the United States clearly illustrates.Rather,we should encourage teachers and others not to abandon these judgments entirely but to recognize them for what they are:the result of a complex of social,cultural,regional,political and personal associations and prejudices.Most listeners know of linguistic varieties that they do not like,but we should appreciate that these feelings are highly subjective and have no basis in social scientific fact.In particular,such feelings should not be allowed to influence teachers’,the media's and politicians'attitudes and policies towards children's and others'language varieties-the more so since they are likely to breedlinguisticinsecurity and are,in any case,almost certainly not shared by all members of the wider culture.In the classroom, there is a huge and important difference between the'German is ugly, statement of apparent fact,and 'I personally find German speech unattractive,'which,even if better left unsaid,is nevertheless a recog- nition of the subjectivity of responses due to social connotations. The case for us language scholars is not cut and dried.We,for our 93 Italian is Beautiful,German is Ugly part,would wish to continue with more programmatic research to determine precisely the changing,multidimensional aspects of aes- thetic preference for various modes of communication(e.g.written, and new communication technology)that are laid down when,how, where and why and with what social repercussions over time. Sources and further reading For more details on how people socially evaluate language varieties, see chapter 2 of Howard Giles and Nikolaus Coupland,Language: Contexts and Consequences(Pacific Grove,CA:Brooks/Cole,1992); for the inherent value versus the social connotations hypotheses, including more details of the experiments outlined above,see the chapter by Peter Trudgill and Howard Giles,'Sociolinguistics and linguistic value judgements',in Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Functionality of Language(Ghent:Studia Scientia,1976).