Language attitude researchers have called for a real-world application within the discipline of language attitudes (Edwards, 1982; Garrett, 2010). Many researchers have implemented the advice for a real-world context through the use of a listener population of employers or potential employers and a job interview passage read by speakers of different varieties (De la Zerda & Hopper, 1979; Hopper, 1977; Hopper & Williams, 1973; Seggie, Smith, & Hodgins, 1986; Shuy, 1973). This type of context provides the raters with a familiar situation in which they are to evaluate the speakers for their hireability, or likelihood of being hired. In a typical job interview setting, the employer is required to make a judgment based on what they see and hear. Often, these judgments are based on first impressions, which are inevitably influenced and altered by the
language use of the interviewee (Kalin, 1982). Thus, a setting such as a job interview gives a real-life context for listeners to evaluate speakers and for researchers to understand the impact of language attitudes on employment.
This section focuses on the correlation between language and economic status, as well as the significant variables that language attitude studies conducted in a workplace context have found. Most studies examine the rater’s decision to hire the speaker as well
as the appropriate job position for the speaker. They have found two main results: (a) standard language speakers are more likely to be hired in general, and (b) standard language speakers are more likely to be hired for higher paid positions, while non- standard language speakers are more likely to be hired for lower paid positions.
Language and Economic Status
In their study in Canada, language attitude researchers Sankoff and Laberge (1978) empirically identified a direct correlation between how an individual speaks— that is to say their preferred language variety—and their economic status. Gal (1989) supported this finding with her review of Bourdieu’s theory of “symbolic domination” and explained that, while certain language varieties are not inherently better than others, “the value of a linguistic variety and its standing in a ‘linguistic market’ depends on its ability to give access to desired positions within the labor market,” thus supporting the notion that an individual’s preferred dialect could be correlated to their socio-economic position within any given society (pp. 353, 355). Milroy and Gordon (2003) echoed these findings and explained that language could, essentially, be monetized and converted into economic capital, or in other words, a person’s spoken language can affect their employability and/or job position. Specifically, Eckert (2000) and Milroy and Gordon (2003) both explained that an individual’s “participation in the standard
language market” (meaning whether or not they use the standardized language variety), directly affects the “socioeconomic life of the speaker” (Sankoff & Laberge, 1978). Bourdieu and Thompson (1999) discussed the linguistic market further by stating that communication, especially between members of different social classes, “represents a
critical situation for the language that is used” because there is a risk that every word and expression will be understood differently by the speaker and the listener (p. 40). In the “Editor’s Introduction,” Bourdieu and Thompson explained that if a speaker holds linguistic capital, he or she is able to somewhat control how the listener perceives him or her. Thus, accent can directly impede, or enhance, the speaker’s economic growth possibilities.
Decision to Hire
Studies examining hireability have shown that those who speak nonstandard varieties of English are less likely to be hired than those who speak standard varieties. In a study among potential and actual employers in Virginia and their attitudes towards standard and non-standard English and hireability, Anderson (1981) found that the standard speakers were more likely to be hired. To explain this, he stated, “Registers of language are incorrectly associated with levels of intelligence, efficiency, and the skills necessary to perform a job” (p. 812). Atkins (1993) examined the attitudes of
employment recruiters towards speakers of AAVE and Appalachian English and their hireability. She found that while both speakers were at a similar disadvantage, the recruiters “seem to be discriminating on the basis of nonstandard dialect,” rather than on race, religion, age, or gender (p. 117). In a matched guise study among university
students in a management course in the southeastern United States, Segrest Purkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, and Ferris (2006) had their participants watch video tapes to evaluate the hireability of a male applicant who spoke Standard American English and English with a Spanish accent. In their study, there were four different video
manipulations: A SAE speaker with a non-Hispanic name, a SAE speaker with a Hispanic name, an English speaker with a Spanish accent and a Hispanic name, and an English speaker with a Spanish accent and a non-Hispanic name. Each rater viewed only one of the videos. They found that the participants were less likely to hire the speakers of English with a Spanish accent than the Standard English speaker. However, they stated that the effects of accent discrimination might vary depending on the location of the study (e.g., an area with a large concentration of Hispanics may be more accepting of Spanish-accented English). Their suggestion about the relevance of location was
supported by Carlson and McHenry’s (2006) study in Texas that examined the language attitudes of human resource managers and their effects on the hireability of speakers of Asian-influenced English, Spanish-influenced English, and African American
Vernacular English (AAVE). They found that among these three non-standard varieties, the Spanish influenced English speaker was the most likely to be hired and the AAVE speaker was the least likely. This shows that depending on the location of the study, the raters may feel differently regarding the hireability of the speakers of non-standard accents.
Job Position
Some studies include a question regarding which position best fits the speakers. Often, the standard speakers are more likely to be hired for the higher paid positions and the non-standard speakers are more likely to be hired for the lower paid or manual labor positions.
In several studies, the results have shown that the speakers of non-standard varieties were often chosen for the lower positions. For example, in their study regarding the language attitudes of employment interviewers in Texas, De la Zerda and Hopper (1979) found that the Standard English speakers were most often chosen for the
supervisor position, while the speakers of Spanish-accented English were chosen for the skilled technician and semi-skilled worker positions. In their study among university students in California, Bradac and Wisegarver (1984) also found that the highest job positions were given to the Standard American English speakers and the lowest positions were given to the Spanish-accented English speakers.
Conclusion
The aforementioned studies show that the language variety that an individual speaks may affect their likelihood of being hired, as well as the position they may be hired for. In their discussion of linguistic capital, Bourdieu and Thompson (1999) stated that the differences that exist in regional dialect variation “are both classified and
classifying ranked and ranking, [and] mark those who appropriate them” (p. 54). In other words, the non-standard variation in regional dialects may have economic and social effects on the speakers of those dialects, as has been shown by several studies
(Anderson, 1981; Atkins, 1993; Bradac & Wisegarver, 1984; Carlson & McHenry, 2006; De la Zerda & Hopper, 1979; and Segrest Purkiss et al., 2006).