well if you think of all forms of expression as being equal but for their regard by society then yeah, but that's not how anyone seems to live. It's not that simple people think they are sophisticated simply because they are in power, they instead believe there is no such thing as sophistication. you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" and not a variance in brow position across groups. I mean, if you're going to apply this foucauldian logic at least do some legwork to say something new.

I didn't realise my belief had to be novel in order to be valid. Or is it only when you associate my belief with the boogeyman of Foucault?

> you also assume there is one form of expression per "group"

I didn't assume that or imply it in any way. I understand that there various linguistic strata and they each have their own substrata. I still stand by the assertions I made above, as while there are inter-group power dynamics at play in the defining of "brow level" there are of course also intra-group power dynamics.

Note the scare quotes. I used an imperfect word to suggest a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject, or human aspirations beyond biology and prestige, or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought.

That not this equals power is an interesting meme. Powerful people are usually crude (police, army, politicians, business magnates, aristocracy and the like isn't known for being very subtle either). Of course with humanities you can creatively construct almost any reading to the culture and society if you want to "prove" what you want. If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not, there is already some gross simplification going on.

I saw the scare quotes and was going to mention that in my comment as I was aware you weren't necessarily using the word in a derogatory way. I chose not to as I thought it would be clear enough. Apologies for not being more explicit on my reading of your words.

> a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject

I didn't read this from it though. That seems somewhat orthogonal to the content of the article?

> or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought.

This I do actually take issue with though. This is an example of what I meant above. I grew up speaking a "non-standard" English and I can say that I've never felt that using it was reflective of a lack for respect for myself or the people around me. Saying that someone should speak in a more "standard" or "high brow" way that comes unnaturally to them in order to show respect is an example of the power dynamic I'm talking about.

I come from Northern Ireland and my speech is heavily inflected. If I go to England and speak with people who have more linguistic dominance then I notice a change in how in received. There is an assumption that I'm less intelligent when I use my Hiberno-English, like saying "they learned me how to write" rather than "they taught me how to write." If the English of my home was dominant then we would see this effect in reverse.

Same for wanting to "maintain a connection to long term culture or thought." Those cultures and thoughts win out on the long term because of the power plays. How many languages have died out in the course of colonialism? Do think the speakers of those languages didn't want a connection to the history of thought, or did we just ignore them and forget them because they lacked the power to assert themselves?

> Of course with humanities you can creatively construct

What does this mean? Are you saying that your assertions are more rooted in hard science than mine? Or that neither of have any recourse to demonstrate a factual basis for our beliefs about social structures or their effects on the perception of register?

> If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not,

I didn't.

> Powerful people are usually crude

Is this an oversimplification? Are non powerful people usually not crude? This is the point: the sophistication is not an inherent trait of the language; it's socially constructed and perpetuated through social power dynamics.

It's very possible but we are meaning different things by the same words. My background isn't English in language, I try not to be formed by Anglosphere in my thinking (as far as it's even possible nowadays) and find the "foobrow" terminology rather silly. Even then, in my mind it connects more with social class, if that, than with a country or region (which is a different topic).

So the thing that rubs me the wrong way, in connection with the OP, is people using intentionally sloppy language in a way that is mainstream cool, more than specific to any group that may be oppressed. I don't claim my thinking on this to be science based (I don't see how it could be), but I think there are hogwash rationalizations of the trend I'm talking about that pose as "science-based" (while being only interpretative) and/or connected to disadvantaged groups. I think it is different from being respected when using my maternal dialect (I hope you won't get offended by using this word, I don't mean to) and this is not what OP was about.

I do think there are connections to the history of thought that are universally available despite attempts of a bunch of North-Western European countries (plus the US) trying to paint themselves as possessing "the" intellectual history. That being said, I do think that how fruitful and useful an intellectual contribution is, is largely unrelated to the power status of the contributor. I also think we are getting into some deep digressions at this point, so I will probably leave you to make you counterpoints as you want.