I was never the best at researching, let alone writing an essay that I was proud of. A lot has changed over the course of this semester, and I have no one else to commend and appreciate it for than Prof. Ashley Oros and her dedication to helping me and her class become capable writers. As someone who journals on a day-to-day basis, I reflect a lot. Every assignment, activity, and habit, I try my best to keep track of, and I did the same over the course of my English assignments this semester. Naturally, this reflection comes from a self of wanting to improve, and focusing fully on the project at hand; however, funnily, that was not as much the case with this course. My tendency to keep track of my projects comes from a habit of wanting to be perfect, not ideal, but it helps me feel productive. As enjoyable as phase 1 of this course was, I’d argue that phase 2 turned it up a notch. I say that my lack of tracking my assignments in this course was less applicable than to my life as a whole, because I looked forward to Tuesdays and Thursdays, as I had the opportunity to step into class and learn valuable, intriguing, and directed goals that aligned with my identity. The assignments were fun, the peer reviews helped me grow, and the in-class lessons were targeted, so I lost myself in growth. For once, I was confident that every time I stepped out of class, I had learned something new. I enjoyed it, and that is why I didn’t feel the urge to stress over every little assignment or reading. It was freeing.
I want to tie this back to phase 2 of this course in particular. The major assignment for phase 2 was the research essay, and when I skimmed over the course syllabus, upon seeing what phase 2 consisted of, I was naturally a little nervous. I thought, as “easy” phase 1 felt to me, phase 2 would be that much harder. That was definitely not the case. I want to break down the specific factors that helped me have a successful phase 2. Firstly, the pace of the classes, it felt natural; nothing was rushed, and the in-class discussions were genuinely intriguing, so I couldn’t help but participate. Then, the way in which the assignments were crafted. The fact that every assignment, particularly the research essay, was broken into multiple drafts, was a much bigger help than I had first thought. A while ago, one of my educators told me, “The first draft is always shitty.” And as simple as that sentence seems, it meant a lot to me. I had always tried to submit perfect assignments that I was pleased with, so when I discovered that first drafts are nothing more than “Shitty First Drafts.” This was game-changing. Instead of worrying about having to write well-crafted, structured, cited drafts, I could write raw and get everything on my mind out first, before following the rubric and transforming them into something closer to “perfect’. So, the fact that the research essay, the thought of something that had haunted me from the start of this class, was broken down into various drafts, I was able to use that to improve my writing with each draft, and be as expressive, raw, and vocal about it as I wanted. This not only helped me write better drafts every time, but it also made me want to write more. Being able to freely express my thoughts on a first draft, rather than having to worry about the rubric, was motivating. The draft system also helped because we had peer reviews, another game-changer when it came to this course. The peer reviews meant that I could get an outside perspective from a fellow writer and adapt my drafts accordingly. This also allowed me to think critically of others’ writing, which I was then able to apply to my drafts. In particular, the Prof urged us in peer review discussions to think critically about audience, credibility, citations, synthesis, structure, and so much more, and I knew that once I could tick off these things, then my drafts would naturally be better.
Going back to the fact that I “feared” research essays, it was because, in my own experiences, I sucked at doing my own research. Partially because it felt boring to me, but mostly because I deemed myself incapable of writing a research paper that was actually good. However, with the help of this course, a lot of that changed. Instead of giving us an essay to write on a certain topic, we had the ability to choose our own research. This opened up an entirely new world of research for me. The boring factor was cut out then and there. Then, I actually had to learn how to write a research essay, and just thinking that made me want to procrastinate. That too changed, as in our class discussions, we carefully discussed every single thing that applies to a well-crafted research paper. The discussions were involved, and we got to participate. Instead of just reading off a whiteboard, our Prof dedicated her time to teaching us the effective strategies for doing research and writing an essay. For instance, when I recall from class, the most prominent one of those discussions was the “Boolean Operators”. We were told how to look up specific sources for our research, and it made things that much easier. Additionally, I also learned the importance of citation, adhering to certain audiences, and the timeliness of sources as well.
I want to further touch up on what exactly I learned that I applied in my research essay. First off, I had to develop a consistent style of writing that was not too boring, but also intrigued my audience. My essay explored themes of psychological effects on humans as a result of linguistic discrimination. I chose this topic because it was relatable to me, and also because the psychology aspect made it super interesting. I was given the opportunity, through selective feedback and my own critical analysis, to determine who my audience actually was and how I could appeal to them. Whether to use a formal tone when addressing a collegiate level, or dial it down when speaking to a younger audience. These were things I was able to learn as a result of this essay and what the course taught me. I also had to do my own research, which I thought would have been boring, but came easily to me once I learned how to use Boolean operators, and I will definitely be applying this to my future research. Then, the topic was my favorite part of this entire semester. Language and literacy were not only a relatable theme to discuss with students who came from different backgrounds, but also an extremely interesting subject that made me rethink the importance of language in society. My biggest takeaway was that no two people speak the same language, and that the way we speak has a bigger impact on our social standing than we imagine. I taught myself the importance of using rhetorical situations, compiling evidence to support my argument, and using my writing to address issues in present-day society to raise awareness.
Overall, this phase of the course changed the way I view writing and research entirely. Instead of seeing research essays as intimidating or restrictive, I now view them as opportunities to explore topics that genuinely interest me while developing my own voice as a writer. More importantly, I learned that strong writing is not created in a single draft, but through reflection, revision, and growth over time.
Title: Conditioned Speech And The Collapse Of Identity
Billions. In the United States alone, roughly 70 million residents speak a language other than English at home. Globally, nearly 40% of the population, over 3 billion people, lack access to education in their native language, creating significant barriers to learning and inclusion. These disparities highlight a broader issue known as linguicism, or discrimination based on language, dialect, or accent. While linguicism is often examined through social, economic, and political lenses, its most profound impact occurs internally, shaping how individuals perceive themselves and navigate the world around them. Repeated exposure to linguistic bias conditions individuals to associate their natural speech with inferiority, forcing them to constantly adjust their language in pursuit of acceptance. Over time, this external pressure does not remain external; it becomes internalized. Drawing on psychological frameworks such as operant conditioning and the Freudian concept of the Ego, linguistic discrimination can be understood as a force that not only controls behavior but also fragments one’s identity. This essay argues that linguicism extends beyond social exclusion by conditioning language behavior and creating internal psychological conflict within the ego, ultimately reshaping an individual’s sense of self.
Scholars in sociolinguistics consistently argue that language functions as a system of power rather than a neutral tool of communication. In English with an Accent, Rosina Lippi-Green demonstrates how institutions such as schools, workplaces, and media reinforce the idea that “standard” English is inherently superior, despite the fact that non-standard “Englishes” are equally capable of communication (Lippi-Green). This ideological hierarchy shapes how speakers are judged and often determines access to opportunities.
This idea is reinforced in “Talking Black in America”, where linguists and educators challenge the assumption that Standard English is functionally superior. Keith Cross, a literacy and arts educator at Stanford University, argues that non-standard varieties of English accomplish the same communicative goals, suggesting that barriers faced by speakers of these dialects are not linguistic but social and political in nature. (Keith Cross 0:32 – 0:59). Similarly, linguist Tracy Weldon emphasizes that the stigma surrounding language is not rooted in linguistic structure, but in misconceptions about the people who speak it. (Tracey Weldon 0:12 – 0:30). Together, these perspectives suggest that linguistic discrimination is not based on communicative effectiveness, but on socially constructed hierarchies of value.
However, these hierarchies are not only enforced externally but also internalized by individuals. Research on stereotype threat, an article by Claude Steele, a reformed social psychologist, shows that individuals who are aware of negative stereotypes about their identity may experience anxiety and reduced performance when those stereotypes are activated (Steele). In simpler terms, this suggests that when certain negative connotations are imposed on an individual, the individual’s realization of those negative connotations can have a huge impact on that person internally. When applied to language, this suggests that speakers of “inferior” dialects may begin to self-monitor and even alter their speech in response to anticipated judgment. Over time, this process contributes to linguistic insecurity, where individuals begin to perceive their natural speech as incorrect or inferior. All in all, these sources reveal that linguistic discrimination operates on multiple levels. Lippi-Green and Talking Black in America demonstrate how institutions and cultural attitudes construct language hierarchies, while the stereotype threat research explains how these external pressures can become internalized. This combination suggests that linguistic discrimination is not only a social phenomenon but also a psychological one, shaping both behavior and self-perception.
Operant conditioning, a concept developed by B.F Skinner, suggests that behavior is shaped by its consequences, and that is the very core of linguistic discrimination. (“Operant Conditioning”). Linguistic discrimination functions through mechanisms that resemble themes of conditioning explored by Skinner. The infamous dog experiment is a perfect demonstration of current language standards. Positive reinforcement: giving a dog a treat (reward) immediately after they sit (desired behavior), making them more likely to sit again. Similarly, negative reinforcement: applying upward leash pressure (discomfort), until the dog sits (desired behavior). (“Operant Conditioning”). In modern-day society, a simple tool for communication can be used to either socially reward or punish language behaviors over time. Speakers who conform to standardized forms of English are often perceived as more intelligent, professional, and capable, while speakers of stigmatized dialects may experience exclusion, ridicule, or be made to feel embarrassed. In educational environments, especially, students are frequently taught that certain ways of speaking are “proper” while others are incorrect. This reinforces the idea that social acceptance depends on linguistic conformity. Over time, as these actions repeat, individuals may begin to self-monitor their speech in anticipation of judgment, even in spaces where communication is fully effective. This process aligns with stereotype threat research, which demonstrates that awareness of negative social perceptions can alter behavior and increase anxiety. (Teresa Pratt & Brandon Rayhaun 1-2). So, linguistic conformity ends up becoming more than just a means of altering or adapting one’s speech for effective communication; instead, it becomes a conditioned response that is tied to social acceptance, professionalism, and even personal worth. Rather than simply influencing communication, linguicism conditions individuals to control parts of their identity in order to avoid social punishment.
Once linguistic conformity becomes conditioned behavior, the conflict between authentic speech and socially accepted speech begins to affect an individual psychologically. In Freudian theory, a universally recognized Austrian neurologist, otherwise known as the Father of Modern Psychology, demonstrated his understanding of the ego. According to Freud, the ego is a mediator between internal identity and external social expectations. In the context of linguicism, this mediation becomes strained as individuals learn that their natural way of speaking may result in judgment or social disadvantage. As a result, many speakers of stigmatized language dialects begin to code-switch to suppress elements of their speech in academic, professional, and public environments solely as a means to avoid negative public perception. Although code-switching is often viewed in a positive connotation as a skillful way to adapt, repeated self-monitoring can result in linguistic insecurity and, most importantly, psychological fatigue. (The Costs of Code-Switching). Individuals may begin associating their natural speech with embarrassment, inferiority, or unprofessionalism, even when communication remains entirely effective. Over time, this divide between one’s authentic voice and their speech that is socially acceptable begins to break down the individual’s self-perception. It forces speakers to continuously negotiate between authenticity and acceptance. Linguicism, therefore, extends beyond just communication. It influences how individuals understand their identity, value, and place within a society. As Rosina Lippi-Green argues in English with an Accent, institutions such as schools, workplaces, and media continuously reinforce standardized language norms, pressuring individuals to conform linguistically in order to gain acceptance and opportunity (Lippi-Green 71). This “pressure” is also evident in Taling Black in America, where educators and linguists emphasize that stigma surrounding non-standard dialects is rooted not in communication itself, but in social attitudes toward the people who speak them (“Talking Black in America” 0:10 – 1:00). These demonstrations that explore the public’s negative perception of certain forms of speaking, when combined with an individual’s struggle to find their own voice whilst also remaining socially acceptable, are a direct attack on the ego, damaging not only the speaker’s individual perception and self-thought, but also suppressing their voice to the extent that even conforming to acceptable norms becomes difficult.
Be that as it may, critics of linguistic diversity often argue that standardized forms of language are necessary for maintaining clarity, professionalism, and effective communication in academic and workplace environments. From this perspective, teaching and enforcing Standard English is not an act of discrimination, but a requirement for participation in broader social and economic systems. Standardization, they argue, ensures mutual understanding across diverse linguistic backgrounds and helps individuals succeed in institutional settings. However, this view overlooks the distinction between language standardization and linguistic hierarchy. As Rosin Lippi-Green argues in English with an Accent, the issue is not the existence of a standard language itself, but the social and cultural stigma surrounding non-standard dialects (Lippi-Green 67). Similarly, Talking Black in America highlights how non-standard English variations are often judged not on communicative effectiveness, but on perceptions tied to the speakers themselves (“Talking Black in America”). When standardization becomes tied to assumptions of intelligence, professionalism, or worth, it shifts beyond functional communication and becomes a mechanism of social exclusion. In this sense, linguistic discrimination is not about maintaining clarity, but about enforcing hierarchy. So, despite the necessary application of standardized forms of language that keep the world running, there is a fine line between “proper” language and the socially perceived effectiveness of communication that makes assumptions about the speaker themselves.
Linguistic discrimination is often treated as a surface-level issue of communication or language preference, but its effects extend far deeper into identity formation and psychological experience. As this essay has shown, linguicism operates not only through institutional reinforcement and social judgment but also through internal psychological mechanisms that shape how individuals perceive themselves and, as a result, are perceived by the wider majority. Through repeated exposure to linguistic bias, speakers of stigmatized dialects learn to monitor, suppress, or alter their speech, transforming language into a tool of psychological negotiation rather than simple expression. This phenomenon is evident in real-world contexts across education and employment. Students from linguistically diverse backgrounds are often encouraged to abandon their natural speech patterns in favor of standardized English in order to be perceived as competent or “professional.” In workplace environments, accents and dialects can influence hiring decisions, evaluations, and perceptions of authority, even when communication skills remain unchanged. These pressures reinforce the idea that linguistic conformity is tied not only to opportunity, but to legitimacy itself. This dynamic is not limited to individual or institutional settings either, but also has historical roots in broader systems of power. The 1996 Ebonics controversy, in which the Oakland School Board’s recognition of African American Vernacular English as a legitimate linguistic system was met with national political backlash, illustrates how language policy can become a means of racial and cultural control. Debates surrounding the issue revealed that the opposition was often less about communication and more about maintaining linguistic hierarchies tied to race and social authority. So, linguicism and its psychological effects are historically imposed on society, allowing those in power to remain in power. Ultimately, linguistic discrimination reveals how deeply social systems can shape internal identity. What begins as external correction becomes internalized self-regulation, where individuals continuously negotiate between authenticity and acceptance. By conditioning speech through reward, punishment, and social expectation, linguicism extends beyond communication and enters the realm of psychology, influencing how individuals understand their worth, voice, and place within society. Recognizing this connection is essential to understanding that language discrimination is not simply about how people speak; it is about how they are made to see themselves.
– Muhammad Hamza Shehzad
Works Cited
Lippi-Green, Rosina. “The Standard Language Myth.” English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States, Routledge, 2012, pp. 67–90.
“Operant Conditioning.” APA Dictionary of Psychology, American Psychological Association, https://dictionary.apa.org/operant-conditioning. Accessed 24 May 2026.
Pratt, Teresa, and Brandon Rayhaun. “Stereotype Threat and African American Student Achievement.” Stanford University, https://ctl.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj17446/files/media/file/stereotype_threat_handout.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2026.
“The Costs of Codeswitching.” Harvard Business Review, 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching. Accessed 24 May 2026.
Talking Black in America – Education. YouTube, uploaded by Language & Life Project, 26 Sept. 2015, https://youtu.be/iMJINd2vQR4. Accessed 24 May 2026.
