Introduction – Italian is beautiful, German is Ugly

Slide 1 : Today, I am going to present you a collection of various (‘vɛəriəs) essays (ˈɛseɪz) by 21 of
the world's leading linguists, called Language Myths, published in 1998 and still re”garded today as
authoritative (ô’th). According to the book, linguists have not been good about in”forming the general public
about language, because of its highly “technical “nature. Thus, pro”fessional linguists are consensually
(‘senchually) in a”greement that linguistic myths, cultural wisdom /z/ exist /ɪgˈzɪst/ amongst society.
Through an argumentative (ˌɑːrgjʊˈmɛntətɪv ) tone, they aim at going beyond these myths and a”pproaching
the object of language ‘dis”passionately and ob”jectively’.

Slide 2 This is the case /ss/ for the excerpt /èkseert/ under “scrutiny, taken from the eleventh Myth,
untitled ‘Italian is Beautiful, German is Ugly’.

The excerpt /’èkseert/ is written by Howard (aweud) Giles (ai) and Nancy Niedzielski (djelski), both
known for their inter’disciplinary re’searches and interests in both psychology and lin’guistics. The title
re”flects the commonly held view : certain ‘languages are more beautiful than others. Thus, it combines
Sciences of language and sciences of aesthetics /iːsˈθɛtɪk/, for instance French sounds romantic, cultured, and
German and Arabic (ˈærəbɪk) tongues are harsh and dour /ˈdaʊə r.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slide 3 I am going to read the excerpt /èkseert/ under ‘scrutiny.

Yet, and as we have ‘argued elsewhere, we cannot tell people that their aesthetic /iːsˈθɛtɪk/ responses are
false; that would be unrealistic (ʌnrɪəˈlɪstɪk) and counter-productive (/prəˈdʌktɪv), as the Ebonics (ɪˈbɒnɪks)
issue in the United States clearly illustrates. (ˈɪləstreɪt) Rather, we should encourage (/ɪnˈkʌrɪdʒ ) teachers
and others not to a’bandon these ‘judgments entirely, but to recognize ˈrɛkəgnaɪz/ them for what they are :
the result of a complex of social, cultural, regional (/ˈriːdʒ ənəl), political (pəˈlɪtɪkəl) and “personal
associiations and prejudices. Most listeners know of linguistic varieties vəˈraɪəti that they do not like, but we
should appreciate that these feelings are highly sub’jective and have no basis /beiss/ in social scientific fact.
In particular, /pərˈtɪkjʊlər such feelings should not be allowed to influence teachers’, the ‘mi:dia’s and
pauli’ticians’ attitudes /ˈætɪtjuːd/ and ‘policies towards children’s and others’ language varaieties – the more
so since they are likely to breed linguistic insecurity /ˌɪnsɪˈkiouɪti/ and are, in any case /ss/, almost ˈɔːlməʊst
‘certainly not shared by all members of the wider culture.”

Slide 4 One may wonder - how does this “excerpt èkseert “dèmonstrate the two linguists’ general
thesis /ˈθiːsɪs/ that the feeling of beauty of a language is only con”tingent upon social
connotations /kɒnəˈteɪʃən/ and is not actually in”herent in the language itself ?

Slide 5 => Firstly, the ‘social conno”tations hypothesis’ over the ‘inherent value hypothesis’

The first main and obvious idea is that the notions of beauty and ugliness of languages are ‘highly
subjective’ and ‘have no basis in social scientific fact’. The “scientific fact” re’fers to the two competing
views developed /dɪˈvɛləpt in this essay, firstly, “the in”herent value hypothesis”, that sounds are
biologically /baɪəˈlɒdʒɪkli/ more beautiful to us and that no social or historical /hɪˈstɒrɪkəl factors are at
stake.
However, for these two linguists, this hypothesis / is a complete myth. Con’versely, according to the
authors, feelings of beauty or ugliness of a language are “the result of a complex of social, cultural,
regional, /ˈriːdʒənəl) po’litical and ‘personal associiations and prejudices”.
Indeed, this essay intends to show the importance of both social context and circumstances. ˈsɜːrkəmstæns
On the one hand, the notion of “context is really important : who is the speaker, who judges. The
essay gives the empirical ɪmˈpɪrɪkəl ‘argumant of Jews rating higher Hebrew /ˈhiːbruː/ than Arabic. / ‘arebic/
 On the other hand, the notion of circumstances ‘sɜːrkəmstæns is also /ˈɔːlsəʊ/ striking. The language
is described as a mirror of a specific spɪˈsɪfɪk culture, inextricably /ˌɪnɪkˈstrɪkəbli/ bound up with social and
‘national connotationsˌ/kɒnəˈteɪʃən/, a sort of network of constructed mantal images, a real collective
imaginary. /ɪˈmædʒɪnəri/.
The essay gives various im’pirical ‘argumants. Let’s suppose we are listening to a Nazi ˈnɑːtsi speech, then,
a Mozart /ts/ opera /ˈɒprə/ , the German language won’t probably be per’ceived the same way. “Similarly, if
one is enjoying gourmet /ˈgʊərmeɪ/ Tuscan /a/ food, then is reading a newspaper account of a supposed
Mafia /a/ â’trocity, Italian would be rather elegant ˈɛlɪgənt or violent.
→ More exactly, /ɪgˈzæktli/ the essay shows that beauty is con”tingent on the social “attributes /a/
of the speakers of it, hence the importance of sociolin”guistics.

Slide 6=> Thus, social dôminant groups may alter ˈɔːltər people’s vision of the beauty of a language

→ (transition) Since it is not inherent, the essay explains that the vision of beauty can be altered /ˈɔːltər / by
social dôminant groups, making their form of communication /kəˌmjuːnɪˈkeɪʃən ‘priviliged. This “should
not be allowed to ‘influence teachers’, the “midia’s and poli”ticians’ “attitudes and “policies. Indeed,
the essay gives im”pirical argumants such as po”litical and conscious language laws /ô/, for instance, many
American states made English the official language, or the obliteration /əˈblɪtəreɪt/ of ‘Spanish’ languages
other than Cas”tilian in the Franco era. /ˈɪrə

→ At several ˈsɛvrəl points, “teachers”, and “paulicies towards children’s” are mentioned. Indeed,
according to the essay, the educative ˈɛdʒʊkətɪv “system less in”tentionally plays a role. The school “system
a”ssociates the status /ˈsteɪtəs/ and iis’thetics of a “language, with speaking in a societally /so”ssaïteli/
valued manner.
Thus, the essay “demenstrates that stândard French or British are not actually elegant ˈɛlɪgənt, but they rather
are con”sidered so, largely due to the fact that the Court kɔːt and spheres /i/ of social, i”kanomic and
po”litical influence flourished /ˈflʌrɪʃ/ in big French and English cities, like Paris and London. It questions
the legitimate /lɪˈdʒɪtəmət/ distinction between standard ˈstândə rd languages and vernacular “dialects. vər
ˈnækjʊlər

→ transition: whether in”tentionally ôr not, in contrast,ˈ/kɒntræst/, a model of “bad language” and “popular
language” is being spread by ‘paulicies, teachers.

Slide 7=> Consequently ˈkonsɪkwɛntli , those “judgements have social repercussions ˌriːpər””kʌʃən

→ Studying the social repercussions /riːpər””kʌʃəns/ is the ‘carrent role of language scholars ˈskɒlər, since it
raises a very important issue : the one of discrimi”nation of the ‘elite’ /ɪˈliːt/ group.
So much im”pirical “argumants are /di”vèleuped/ in this essay, such as the discrimination of London
Cockney /i/, the French Canadian /kəˈneɪdiən/ and Breton /ˈbrɛtən/ accents, or in the ‘United States’,
Spanish Veur”nacular English and, mentioned here, the controversial /ˌkɒntrəˈvɜː rʃəl/ notion of
“Ebonics”, /ɪˈbɒnɪks/ Black Veur”nacular English, hence the importance of the scientific field of “language
‘attitudes, which ri”flects two sequential “cognitive processes: social categorization /kætɪgəraɪˈzeɪʃən/ and
stereotyping. /ˈstɛriətaɪping/

→ Thereby, it appears I’ssential to “recognize /ˈrɛkəgnaɪz / them for what they are”, to pra”gmatically
teach sub”jectivism.

→ Indeed, the essay gives readers “sevral main impacts : social impacts within the world of work, but ôlso,
“breed lin”guistic insecurity” ˌɪnsɪˈkjourɪti , re”ferred as ‘lin”guistic self-hatred’ in the essay. This is due to
the fact that speakers of certain languages are brought up bi’living, that their way of queummyunicating / is
grossly inadequate. /inˈædɪkwət/
Slide 8=> Social psychology, another field of study at stake

=> As a consiquence, it questions the legitimacy /lɪˈdʒɪtɪmɪsi of those nôrms. Necessary changes seem not to
be possible since “we cannot tell people that there is’thetic responses are false”. It would be “unrealistic
“ (ʌnrɪəˈlɪstɪk) and counter-productive” (/prəˈdʌktɪv) as the largely roo:ted ‘Ebonics (ɪˈbɒnɪks) issue’
illustrates (ˈɪləstreɪts). Teachers should “not to a’baandon these judgments”, revealing that people can not
very go beyond the latter /a/ and perhaps do not want to. Indeed, the authors of the “excerpt explain that
another field of study is implicitly here at stake : the field of social psychology of intergroups. It goes beyond
the u’ni:que question of linguistics.

Slide 9→ TO GO FURTHER,

The manifesto /ˌmænɪˈfɛstəʊ called /ô/ ‘De’fence & Illu’stration of the French Language, written by the
French Pléiade poet /y/ Joachim du Bellay can be studied. It reveals another reason why a language may be
considered as a ‘beautiful’ one, the reason and notion of ethnocentrism ˌ/ɛθnəʊˈsɛnˌtrɪzəm/. Indeed, Du
Bellay’s glorification of beauty of the French language is inextricablyˌ/ɪnɪkˈstrɪkəbli/ bound up with the idea
that French was superior souːˈpɪrɪə to any others, as it came from Latin.