In 1798, Webster is quoted saying that literacy education focus on pronunciation and phonetics would “diffuse a uniformity and purity of language in America–to destroy the provincial prejudices that originate in the trifling differences of dialect and produce reciprocal ridicule.”

It is interesting to note the inherent desire to speak not even elequently, but simply decently. To pronounce one’s words with enough intellegence to seem competent is almost a gateway between collections of people. The idea of “trifling” prejudices between groups seems like it should be ancient; it’s 2015. We should have moved on from judgement over such a small issue, what with countless other social issues being addressed and conquered daily. However it has everything but disappeared. If anything, it has gotten worse. And it’s a psychological, subconcious judgement that we’re often unaware of, which makes it so dangerous. Dialect has become an issue of slang, and the way a person speaks is the second thing people notice in one another, after general appearance. Even if a person’s aesthetic passes your test, their intellegence or, moreover, their education is immediately on the fence of judgement. And it goes both ways.

If someone speaks with an unintelligible accent, whether the hearer means it or not, they’re seen as less educated because it is an immediately evident “fault.” On the other hand, if someone speaks with nearly no fault of language, they might give off an air of conceit.

Because oral reading during this time was so popular, phonetic work was highly emphasized, yet criticized for serving no legitimate cognitive purpose, only pointless memorization. Despite the criticism, I find it imperitive to memorize such things, even if they don’t fully click right away.

Webster’s claim stands true: if all individuals–in a perfect world–were educated to the same level of language and phonetics, the amount of discord originating from petty misunderstandings would vastly decrease.