To begin with, the region of England where Cockney English originated was from the East End of London. This dialect is mostly spoken is by the working class. It was supposedly created by them so they could “…outsmart fancy upper classes, as well as outsiders in general” (kqed.org). Basically, the working class created Cockney English so that they could have their own language that was different from the standard and so that they could I guess make fun of the upper class. Some features of Cockney English include: A raise in vowels which means that the word “trap” would sound more like “trep”, and certain vowel sounds are moved around so the word “day” would be pronounced similarly to the American style of “die”. Cockney English is also perceived as “…devious and aggressive” (Morrish).

Now, what do people who don’t speak Cockney English think about this dialect? Well, since Cockney English is used mostly by the lower working class, the people and the language are generally looked down upon by the upper class. “..many working-class dialects, like those of the Cockney of East London, have vocabularies unto themselves. “The old bill was after a nicked motor’” may not be immediately apparent to an outsider as, ”The policeman chased a stolen car’” (Rattner). From this sentence example, you can see how the way the statement, “The policeman chased a stolen car” was said with words that had no relation to the statement. Or so we, as non Cockney English speakers would think. Obviously, someone who spoke Cockney English would understand “The old bill was after a nicked motor” meant. But, just as we wouldn’t be able to understand it, I think someone in England, or even London, who didn’t speak the dialect would also not understand it. This raises the question of how do Cockey English speakers actually speak Cockney English? Well,` “The principles of cockney rhyming slang are simple: instead of saying the word you want to convey, you say something that rhymes with it instead” (kqed.org). For example, instead of “facts”, you would say “brass tacks”.

As far as attitudes go about how this dialect is perceived by the upper class is again, the speakers of this dialect are not that high in status. The upper class also associate the speakers with working low wage jobs. The upper class perceives Cockney speakers this way because since their speech style involved rhyming words, it makes the language seem childish and that the people who speak it are not that educated, when that isn’t necessarily the case. In fact, many rich business owners in England speak Cockney English or have a Cockney accent. So, from what I learned from my research, Cockney English was once looked down upon by the upper class in England but now, not so much. Mainly because it isn’t spoken as much today but people have become used to the dialect that they don’t think as negatively about it or its speakers. Still, there will be some people who think that they are superior to those that speak Cockney English all because they don’t speak a “childish” language.

To find out how Cockney English speakers are perceived by the upper class, I did a lot of research and went on several websites from the U.K. and I learned a lot about the varying accents and dialects present. I learned that Cockney English is not the only dialect/accent that is looked down upon by the upper class and even sometimes the middle class. By doing research, I learned that there are many prejudices as to a certain accent and/or dialect which I don’t necessarily understand. I mean, yes, we’re all human and every now and then, we’re bound to think negatively about the way someone speaks or the language they’re speaking but why do we do this? Why do we judge someone solely on the way they talk? This is a very stereotypical situation but someone from the South would be perceived as “uneducated” by someone living in say New York or California. How do we know if they’re uneducated? They could probably be more educated than us but they speak that way because they grew up speaking that way. It’s hard to change your speaking style especially if that is how you grew up speaking. In fact, in my first reflective essay, I talked about how my parents are able to switch their speaking styles depending on how they’re talking to whereas I have trouble doing so. A lot of people make fun of me for that, but why? It’s not my fault I didn’t grow up in the same environment as you and was never around relatives that required me to change my speech style. Overall, by doing this assignment and by just being in Introduction to Language, I learned that you shouldn’t just a person by the way they speak and begin to assume things about them. Especially if you are just hearing their voice and have no idea what they look like.

Questions:

1. Does anything seem repetitive in my paper?
2. Is there anything else that I can include?

Works Cited

Alexandra, Rae. “How to Make Sense of English Cockneys, One Pop Culture Clip at a Time.” KQED. KQED ARTS, 27 Mar. 2018, www.kqed.org/pop/98046/how-to-make-sense-of-english-cockneys-one-pop-culture-clip-at-a-time.

Morrish, John. “Focus: The Accent that Dare not Speak its Name.” The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 23 Oct. 2011, www.independent.co.uk/life-style/focus-the-accent-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-1082144.html.

Steven Rattner. “To the British Ear, Accents are All-Revealing.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Aug. 1982, www.nytimes.com/1982/08/22/world/to-the-british-ear-accents-are-all-revealing.html.

For the past few days, we have been discussing linguistic landscapes and we were given the assignment to go out and take a few pictures of what we thought was to be a linguistic landscape. I went to Jackson Heights (74th Street) and took a picture of near a currency exchange place. Near that currency exchange place, there were two big and separate signs. Both were white and used relatively the same colors but the top sign was in English while the bottom sign was in Bangla. The top sign, in big, blue and all capital letters read “SUMAN” which I assumed to be apart of the currency exchange place’s name. There was also a circular symbol next to it and it looked like a stamping. Underneath “SUMAN”, in big and slight smaller letters, “Global Express Corp.” Then, underneath that, it had something in Bangla in a bit bigger than the “Global Express Corp” but smaller than “SUMAN.” Oh, and whatever was written in Bangla was in black letters. There was also a thin blue strip which had some writing in it which I couldn’t really see but I did see that it had white letters and that there was a lot of small writing in that thin blue strip. Under that, was a big box rectangle with the words “CURRENCY EXCHANGE” in all red. There was also a red arrow with some writing in it pointing towards the door. The bottom sign had something in Bangla and was big and blue. It had something in a thin red rectangle underneath with some small white writing which was again hard to see. There was some more writing in Bangla in the color blue and in big, bold and black letters, a phone number for what I assumed to be to be the currency exchange place’s.

Since this picture was taken in Jackson Heights, a lot can be learned about this linguistic landscape. First of all, there’s a lot of Bangla in both signs because Jackson Heights, 74th Street not 82nd, is mostly filled with South Asians. Since there are a lot of South Asians in Jackson Heights, there are not only signs in Bangla but in other languages as well such as Hindi, Punjabi, and Urdu. This shows that the sign is mainly meant for those that are Bengali and may need to get their currency exchanged. You may be wondering if there are mostly South Asians in Jackson Heights, why isn’t the sign entirely in Bangla or why does the top sign have Bangla in black and blue in the bottom one? Well, I think the reason for the sign not being completely in Bangla is because there could be people that may speak Bangla but do not know how to read or write it. So, if the sign were to be completely in Bangla, those people wouldn’t be able to understand the sign and the service the place provides. Also, I think the reason the top sign has Bangla written in black because maybe black would stand out better against the white background and would be easily noticed by Bengalis. But what about the bottom sign? I think they chose to use blue to outline possibly the name of the place because it is easier to see since it was a bigger font than the top sign. Also, probably because a majority of the sign is hard to see from a distance. The big blue characters and the bolded telephone number would probably be the first things a person who could read Bangla would notice.

The linguistic landscape that I chose to take a picture of shows is an example of how signs vary in different locations. For example, while in Jackson Heights, you’ll find signs in English and either Hindi, Punjabi, Bangla or even Urdu, you won’t find these signs so much in Flushing. In Flushing, you’re more likely to find signs in Chinese or Korean. In these two locations mentioned, you’ll find the signs in different languages but there are locations that only have English. I guess this goes back to the point of how signs will vary in the presentation based on the area they are in.

Questions:

1. Is there anything I should add or remove because I think I answered the given questions but not completely.
2. Did I explain the linguistic landscape good? Is it easy to understand what I’m trying to say?

A) Where was the picture taken?

The picture was taken in Jackson Heights (74th Street).

B) What language(s) are used?

In the picture, you can see that the signs are in English and it’s not as noticeable but by the door, there’s a sign in Bengali as well.

C) What do the signs say?

The most noticeable sign in the picture is that of the jewelry store which reads “Abid Jewelers.” I don’t understand the sign in Bengali but I assume it’s the company name of the place of which the arrow underneath is pointing towards.

Now that I’ve given a brief explanation as to my speech in languages other than English, this arises the question of how would the general public describe my language? Would it be the prestige form or the stigmatized form? To be honest, I don’t think it would be either. I think this because my Hindi/Punjabi isn’t like those of the higher status but it’s not like those of the lower status either. Although, if I really had to pick one, I think it would lean more towards the prestige form. Sure, there are few moments where I may talk like those in the stigmatized form but for the most part, I think my Hindi/Punjabi is decent enough to kind of be considered as the prestige form. However, this is just what I think. How would someone who didn’t know me think? Maybe they’d say it’s in the middle but leaning towards the stigmatized form. Why? Well, probably because they would start comparing the way I talk to the way they talk and think, “Oh, I talk way better than her, she’s probably from a lower class,” which may not be true. Here’s an example, the way I pronounce something is different from the way my cousin may pronounce it and sure, he’ll make fun of me for it but, in all honesty? There wasn’t a much of a difference. It’s all about the way you were brought up and how you grew up speaking a certain way.

By doing this assignment, I’ve thought more deeply about how people tend to perceive us on the basis of the way we talk. For example, someone in India, may think English could be good enough for them to get by in a setting where they would have to use English. Then, I come along and that person doesn’t know that I’m from the U.S., may think that either I received an expensive education or that I studied abroad. This example shows how a person would perceive me, on the basis of how our English was and how mine sounded much different from theirs. Along with that perceiving people on their speech, I’ve thought a lot more about how these very attitudes are another way in which varying forms of discrimination occur. A person who didn’t receive much of an education or grew up in a neighborhood that wasn’t that great, is going to talk in mostly slang as compared to someone who received a good education and grew up in a good neighborhood. That person that received a good education may start to think less of the other person which is basically discrimination. The way I see, the “better” your speech is, the more likely you are to discriminate or criticize someone who with a “lesser” speech, whether it be implicit or explicit discrimination/criticism.

Questions:

1. After rereading my work, I think my introduction could use some work, I’m just not sure what I can do to improve it.
2. I think the essay I answered the given questions about language but the body is only one paragraph. Are there parts that I can take out of the either introduction or conclusion so that I can create another body paragraph or is it fine the way it is?
3. Does this essay seem to make sense because after rereading it, it feels like it doesn’t and that I’m just rambling.

I believe this myth is not always true mainly because of the environment a person grew up in. To give a better understanding of what I mean, here’s an example: If you meet a person in the United States, chances are, by the way, they talk, you can probably guess which area that person is from. For example, a person from the south will probably have a southern accent so someone from New York can tell, “Oh, that person’s not from around here.” In cases where this may not be true are of a person who immigrates to the United States and speaks English perfectly, you either wouldn’t be able to tell that English was their second language or that they haven’t been living in the U.S. for very long. This example, I’m presenting on the basis of personal experience. I’ve met so many people that said that English was their second language or that they had recently come to the U.S. and can speak it well as anyone that’s been living in the U.S. for a pretty long time. Overall, this language myth is not always necessarily true.