Abstract

The standardization of English in the workplace and government not only has socio-economic implications for those who learned English as a second language, but also has seeped into the academic space where Standard Language Ideology holds unique implications for the way in which new ideas are critiqued and produced. This essay, intended for humanities academics and students newly entering academia, explores the adverse effects Standard Language Ideology has on the development of new theories and the welcoming of multilingual academics. By evaluating several academic writings on the influence policed language has on the expression of new ideas and who enters the academic space, from narratives by Amy Tan to the theories of Susan Sontag, the essay collects theoretical ideas surrounding academia to gauge this influence. Through this essay, I’ve fostered an understanding of the importance of critiquing the ways which systems of education and learning uphold systems of oppression and profit-seeking. 

Standard Language Ideology and its adverse effects on the development of creative and critical thought in the academic space.

Christian GB.

For: FIQWS 10103 (Composition for the Politics of Language and Literacy)

Prof. Reema Rao

For the first third of an average American’s life, their cognitive and creative abilities, which for a long time were the basis for judging future quality of life and economic success, are dictated by their experience in the educational environment – from preschool all the way to graduate or doctorate studies for some. Yet, the skills in critical and/or creative thinking seem to become non-applicable for many when it comes to directing critique towards the same systems that gave them this power. Though institutions of higher education bill and pride themselves on building the cognitive skills of the country’s future, they silently dissuade the newly educated from directing their newfound knowledge to changing the academic setting towards becoming a more welcoming environment for aspiring academics. One of the many mechanisms used to meet this end is Standard Language Ideology, a theory of linguistics authored by Rosina Lippi-Green which is defined as “a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous spoken language which is imposed from above.”This essay argues that Standard Language Ideology is a vital mechanism in humanities-oriented (generally defined through the liberal arts like literature, philosophy, political science, etc.) academic spaces, adversely affecting the development of novel theories or ideas, and alienating possible academics of multilingual or multidialectic backgrounds. 

The current understanding and practice of humanities-based education anchors on the use of Standard Language Ideology as a means to justify its existence and utility in modern-day society through the constant policing of thought and the language used to express said thoughts. The notion of “correct” forms of literary analysis or interrogation have long predated the advent of the internet and social media platforms, which have only exacerbated the perpetuation of the homogenization of critical thought due to digital algorithms that push content so viewers engage with posts more actively. The only difference between then and now is that there were pioneering theorists and academics who intentionally fought back the power standardization academics had loomed over spaces where innovation was the ideal purpose. One of these aforementioned theorists would be Susan Sontag, who in her seminal essay Against Interpretation attempted to free artistic experience from the “task of defending [itself] (1).”For Sontag, the act of interpretation, which takes the original expression and dilutes the text into various meanings, themes, or archetypal narratives, “makes…art manageable, comfortable (2).” Sontag’s critique of the interpretive act is anchored by the implicit connection interpretation has with the homogenization and standardization of literary analysis. Instead of highlighting art’s unique capacity for fostering nuanced emotions and ideas, the interpretive act created a standard form for engaging with these expressions for the sole purpose of extracting meaning from the text. Standardizing the interpretive act had put the formal and sensual aspects of art on the backburner in favor of aspects of art that could be quantified and applicable to the workforce. This removes all the nuance that stems from the creation of art, which counterintuitively dulls the analytical side of the brain. This is because universities and academic circles aren’t generally fostering the skill to critique, they’re fostering a standardized set of patterns and formations that are ideally applicable to the work setting. This is a standard that many academic leaders in the humanities would like to uphold, especially in the advent of AI technologies that make it easier for students to bypass any critical thought when engaging with their work. When Micheal Clune proclaims in his article Colleges are Preparing to Self-Lobotomize that “the skills needed to thrive in an AI world might counterintuitively be…those that the liberal arts…cultivated (3)”, his true message is slightly obfuscated.  The offloading of cognitive capabilities will not be restored through a return to the olden days of textbooks and socratic seminars because students had already learned to offload their critical minds by relying on the standardized acts of the academy, like interpretation. Thus, the wave of AI and students ‘increased dependence on AI to get by their classes without having to think critically is only an extension of academia’s reliance on Standard Language Ideology. Professors and academics don’t want students weaned off of AI so they can develop their unique critical lenses and ideas, they want them weaned off so they could cultivate their skills to the set standard of decades of imposing how to express ideas onto their students. 

Moreover, the reliance on certain modes and expressions of thought are counterintuitive to the academic space as the influence of Standard Language Ideology adversely affects the capacity for academics to be arbiters for societal change as Standard Language Ideology is deeply connected to the upholding of the current economic, social, and political status-quo. In her seminal work on Standard Language Ideology, Rosina Lippi-Green connects the social practice of SLI through its presence in the education system, among other institutions and power structures like news corporations and the government itself, to people in power who are defended through reliance on this ideology. When citing linguist Norman Fairclough, Lippi-Green’s expansion on the ideological power language holds through the labeling of certain linguistic practices as “universal and common sense (4)” allows for those who create and group practices into these labels as unquestionable and automatically “correct.” The power dynamic between educator and student or educator and general public is upheld through the appeals to authority that are created when linguistic practices, and the origins of the authority they hold in academic spaces, aren’t called into question. The automatic appeal to authority and power in most academic circles have glaring and problematic connections to many fascist and authoritarian governments and the actions they would take to elicit support from those who would never dare question their authority. Connecting another seminal text, in this case a seminal text in the study of fascist governments in Europe, Ur-Fascism to the interrogation of language in academic settings, the dependence on appeals to authority when communicating ideas could be exemplary of the traditionalism that runs the cult of fascist societies. When the “critical spirit makes distinctions (5)”, possibly distinctions between the linguistic practices that adequately express an author’s ideas or emotions and the practices that have been engrained in the author’s mind as the “correct” forms of expression, elitists interest in said critical spirit will dwindle. The nuance the digital era brings to this conservation is apparent in the new sectors of the academic space in America and other Western countries as the class divide that has long dictated educational and financial outcomes is brought to the forefront. In Mary Harrington’s Thinking is Becoming a Luxury Good, her warning that the digital age will become one which “favors oligarchs with good social media game…not…those with little money, [or] little political power (6)” are hard to ignore in the face of an educational system that has already determined the few who integrate into its ideology as successful. 

Lastly, the damage Standard Language Ideology has inflicted on the academic space and prospective academics takes on more direct impacts in its alienation of students from multilingual and multi-dialectic backgrounds who’d wish to engage in academia through their unique perspectives/linguistic practices. Though several of the humanities-oriented fields rely on the analysis and critique of works rooted in narratives of migration and cultural alienation (some of literature’s biggest writers like Joseph Conrad, Vladimir Nabokov, Sandra Cisneros, and more), academic circles abiding by the mindset of a “proper” and “formal” English limits those who actually come from migrant communities from engaging in critique or most forms of written expression. This even goes for some of contemporary literature’s most well-known and critically acclaimed writers. Amy Tan, the author of the Joy Luck Club, wrote in her essay Mother Tongue of an experience where she felt alienated at a press conference on her new book because she engaged with her book through purely academic language. The “carefully wrought grammatical phrases (7)” that critics admired her for had actually “burdened (8)” her and strayed her away from the actual meaning of her book: attempting to build a cultural bridge between herself and her mother. Though Amy Tan focuses on the ways in which Standard Language Ideology, more specifically the notion of broken English which manifests from Standard Language Ideology, affected her childhood, the same notions of broken language persist in academic spaces. Take, for another example, the case of writer and teacher June Jordan. In Nobody Mean More to Me Than You and the Future Life of Willie Jordan, June Jordan showed the possibility to study works of literature originating from those of a multilingual background through the same lens. If another writer is called clever for “manipulat[ing] language so that the syntax…will tell you the identity of speakers (9)”, then why couldn’t academics use that same exact language manipulation, that deviation from the standard, as a basis for literary critique. When anchoring the practice of critique on a base set of idealized grammatical and syntactic rules with certain practices of thought being favored over others, academia intentionally neglects and leaves behind the hundreds of students who engage in critical thought through their own native tongue. These languages have their own vast lists of grammatical rules that must be strictly followed to create thoughts that are intelligible and meaningful, but the ideological framework of the academy will automatically disregard this fact. There will never be a diversity in opinion or in thought if the very framework for how those thoughts go about being expressed is policed, restricting those from multilingual, migrant, and multidialectic backgrounds.

In the final part of Sontag’s Against Interpretation, she states “Transparence is the highest, most liberating value in art-and in criticism-today (10).” Despite penning these words in the 1960s, her words still ring true today. Now, more than ever, has the importance of transparency from those who hold academic power and prestige become the arbiter for liberating expression, and the critique or discussion of expression, from the shackles of the elitist and aristocratic notions that plague its current state. And though the development of critical thought amongst students is a crucial task that teachers, politicians, education administrators, and the common public must all be responsible for, it’s important to backtrack and reassess the methods used. Further alienating potential academics by constantly policing the language and rhetoric used in the academic setting will only dilute the importance humanities-oriented education has in general society. Students, educators, and even working people who believe their work is far removed from the setting of academia must be cautious and aware of the ways in which we unknowingly uphold systems of power that will only cause us further harm. 

Works Cited 

1- Sontag, Susan, 1933-2004. Against Interpretation, and Other Essays. New York :Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1966.

2- Ibid.

3- Clune, Michael. “Colleges Are Preparing to Self-Lobotomize.” The Atlantic, 29 November 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/colleges-ai-education-students/685039/.

4- Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203348802

5- Eco, U. (1995). “Ur-Fascism”. In The New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995. New York City: Rea S. Hederman. Retrieved December 11, 2017 from http://www.nybooks.com

6- Harrington, Mary. “Opinion | How Smartphones Are Breeding a New Kind of Inequality.” The New York Times, 28 July 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/opinion/smartphones-literacy-inequality-democracy.html.

 7- Tan, Amy. “Mother Tongue.” The Threepenny Review, no. 43, 1990, pp. 7–8. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4383908. Accessed 11 Dec. 2025.

8- Ibid.

9- Jordan, June B.. “Nobody Mean More to Me Than You And the Future Life of Willie Jordan.” Harvard Educational Review 58 (1988): 363-375.

10- Ibid.