Course materials © for/by Peter L. Patrick. May contain other copyrighted material used for educational purposes. Please respect copyright

Here are some notes drawn from the readings, including Mesthrie et al. 2000, Wardhaugh 2002 and Milroy & Milroy 1999. They're filtered through my own views, but most ideas are not original. Please consult & cite the original works, too.

Standard Language & Prescription

Notes for LG 232 by Peter L. Patrick

Consider the relation of the technical terms language, dialect, accent, variety:

Variety a neutral term: any linguistic system with cohesive distribution in social space

Accent: subordinate variety of a language differing principally in phonology (pronunciation)

Dialect: subordinate variety of a language.

• Dialects are historically related to a superordinate language,
• but may differ from it on 3 linguistic levels (phonology, syntax & lexicon);
• they are also regionally or socially bounded.
• A Dialect is a single norm of usage.

Special sense of sub-/superordinate: not social values, membership in linguistic family.

Scientifically speaking, all linguists agree that there is NOTHING INFERIOR about any dialect compared to any other member of its language family – judgements about superiority/inferiority on aesthetic, moral, expressive or social grounds are simply prejudices, with no scientific basis in truth. (Similarly, there is no basis for judgments which discriminate between different language families as somehow “worse” or “better”.)

Language: (a) a single linguistic norm, or

(b) a group of related linguistic norms.

(Definition by Einar Haugen. Haugen means norm in sense #1 below.)

Norms is used with several senses in sociolinguistics. The key meanings both stress the notion of agreement within a social group:

1. practice, or custom, a behavior pattern; how things are said in a certain community
2. values: the set of social values or beliefs used to justify, uphold or enforce that practice.

Two lesser senses of the term Norms are worth distinguishing from these.

1. Chambers & Trudgill refer to NORMs (Non-mobile Older Rural Males) as typical subjects of traditional dialectology.
2. Shopen & Wald use "norm" the way most sociolinguists use "variant", to refer to one of the possible choices in a linguistic variable (more later). I find this usage confusing and don't recommend following it.

Prescription: the imposition of norms of usage by authority.

We'll distinguish this from standardization.

We're also going to look at language discrimination, on the basis of standards and prescription.

• Linguistic differences are associated w/class, religious, gender, ethnic etc. differences.
• Discrimination on the latter grounds is no longer publicly acceptable, but
• Discrimination on the grounds of accent, dialect, etc. is tolerated.
• If attitudes to language stand for attitudes to speakers, then it follows that:
• Discrimination on the grounds of language use stands in as a proxy for discrimination on social grounds, and naturalizes and legitimizes it.
• I.e. one can openly discriminate against lower-class, foreign or ethnic students, job candidates, etc. by means of language discrimination, while avoiding direct (and possibly illegal) reference to class, ethnicity, or nationality.

Most linguists claim that linguistics is Descriptive and not Prescriptive, thus prescription is not a part of the discipline and need not be studied.

• This has led to neglect of sociolinguistic issues involved w/prescription. Also,
• This attitude has had no effect on the general public, teachers, etc., who continue to think in prescriptive terms and to believe that this is natural and logical.
• This goes hand in hand with the belief that preference for a standard language variety is natural and logical, and has no negative social consequences.
• Sociolinguists advocate recognizing that value judgments are normally attached to all language varieties by all speakers -- and that this attachment of values can be socially motivated (often in unfair ways, or due to social power & discrimination), or sometimes have no logic to it at all.
• What you don't find is a universal logic supporting the claim that standard languages are better than other languages. They are not.

Standardization: of a language involves

• the suppression of optional variability in language forms and rules.

This means choice of a particular form as acceptable -- a choice that is a social convention -- and the convention that other forms are not, or less, acceptable (e.g. ain’t). The kinds of values that we investigated in the language attitudes lecture are then attached to all the variants: positive ones for the standard, negative ones for non-standards.

One of the tasks of sociolinguistics is to explain why and how this attachment of values takes place. No-one claims it is a conscious conspiracy of the elite! It's rather mysterious, yet the evidence that it has occurred is very clear.

It's also true that most people show preferences for non-standard variants in certain circumstances -- that is, these values are not absolutely good/bad, but rather are relative to appropriate situations and social contexts. (Compare newsreaders to sports announcers on the same television channel -- broad or non-RP accents, and dialect or non-standard expressions and colloquialisms, are much more likely in the latter.)

That the assignment of social value is arbitrary can be shown by looking at the "same" variants in different communities:

post-vocalic (R) in NYC vs in Reading (Romaine 1994, p.70)

Thus, standard languages are not identical to non-standard ones in general linguistic terms: they show less natural variation. They are in fact unnatural, social creations. Like all such social conventions, they tend to favor one group, process or category over others.

Sociolinguists have never advocated that standard languages should not be taught. We usually support the teaching of literacy and speech in standard languages in schools.

However, we also support the use of non-standard varieties, including accents and dialects, in appropriate circumstances, and the right of speakers to choose which variety they will speak in without being penalized for it.

There are perfectly good reasons behind the development, use and teaching of standard languages. However they are social reasons.

• Standardization is a historical process which is always in progress.
• A standard is an ideology, abstract, not a particular set variety.
• Standards are abstract norms to which actual usage more/less conforms.
• Think of Standardization in weights & measures & money: lack of variation ensures reliability & confidence in exchange.
• Standardization occurs in spelling, pronunciation, word-meaning, word-forms (he does/do), sentence structure conventions.
• The ideology of standardization blinds us to fact that a 'standard language' is not really very well-defined.
• Stages: the need for uniformity is felt;
• A variety is selected;
• It is accepted by influential people/institutions;
• It is diffused geographically and socially (thru e.g. newspapers, education, a writing system, discrimination);
• Then it becomes established.
• Now it must be maintained against competitors,
• chiefly thru Elaboration of Function, the second characteristic of a Standard language.
• This gives it increased value and function: vocabulary is created or borrowed, technical terms are established and connected with prevalent ideas, works of literature are created and valued and taught, social identity is invested in it, history & religion are connected with it, etc.
• Also, it acquires social prestige thru use by the powerful and wealthy.
• A writing system and literacy are modelled on it exclusively, and ...
• Speech is confused with and modelled on writing, which is less variable, and...
• It is taken to be the most logical and valuable form of language because of the other connections with written products.
• Thus Public Consciousness of a standard is created and maintained.

Back to LG232 Sociolinguistics coursepage

Return to Peter L. Patrick's home page