1.

The definition of standard English

The variety of English used as a standard through out the English-speaking world; in
Britain often called ‘BBC English’ or ‘Oxford English’, though these terms relate more to
the use of Received Pronunciation than to the use of grammar and vocabulary. Since the
1960s, particular attention has been paid to the emergence of differing national
standards in areas where large numbers of people speak English as a first or second
language: there are important regional differences between the UK, the USA, Canada,
Australia, South Africa, the West Indies, India, West Africa, and several other parts of the
English-speaking world. It remains to be seen how it will be possible to resolve the
tension between the demand for mutual intelligibility among these nations and the
demand for linguistic distinctiveness as a maker of national identity.(Crystal,1992:366)

2. Meaning and use of standard

A prestige variety of language used within a speech community, providing an
institutionalized norm for such purposes as the media and language teaching. Linguistic
forms or dialects that do not conform to this norm are often called substandard or
(more usually, within linguistics) nonstandard. Standardization is the natural
development of a standard language in a speech community, or an attempt by a
community to impose one dialect as a standard(ibid:366).

3. Varieties of language
If one thinks of ‘language’ as a phenomenon including all the languages of the world, the
term VARIETY OF LANGUAGE can be used to refer to different manifestations of it, in just
the same way as one might take ‘music’ as a general phenomenon and then distinguish
different `varieties of music’. What makes one variety of language different from
another is the linguistic items that it includes, so we may define a variety of language as
a set of linguistic items with similar social distribution. This definition allows us to call
any of the following `varieties of language’: English, French, London English, the English
of football commentaries, the languages used by the members of a particular long-
house in the north-west Amazon, the language or languages used by a particular person.
It will be seen from this list that the very general notion `variety’ includes examples of
what would normally be called languages, dialects and register (a term meaning roughly
`style'). This conclusion may seem rather radical, but the definition of `variety` given
above, and the examples given in the list, suggest even greater departures from the
linguistic tradition(Hudson, 24-25).
It will be noticed that it is consistent with the definition to treat all the languages of
some multilingual speaker, or community, as a single variety, since all the linguistic items
concerned have a similar social distribution-they are used by the same speaker or
community. That is, a variety may be much larger than a lay `language`, including a
number of different languages. Conversely, according to the definition a variety may
contain just a handful of items, or even in the extreme case a single item, if it is defined
in terms of the range of speakers or circumstances with whom it is associated. For
instance, one might define a variety consisting of those items used solely by some
particular family or village. Thus a variety can be much smaller than a `language`, or
even than a `dialect`. The flexibility of the term `variety` allows us to ask what basis
there is for postulating the kinds of `package` of linguistic items to which we
conventionally give labels like `language`, `dialect` or `register`. The bundles into which
linguistic items can be grouped are quite loosely tied, and it is easy for items to move
between them, to the extent that bundles may in fact be muddled up. In conclusion,
discussions of language in relation to society will consist of statements which refer, on
the `language` side, to either individual linguistic items or varieties, which are sets of
such items. There are no restrictions on the relation among varieties-they may overlap
and one variety may include another. The defining characteristic of each variety is the
relevant relation to society-in other words, by whom and when the items concerned are
used (ibid:24-25).

4. Standard languages
Standard languages are interesting in as much as they have a rather special relation to
society-one which is quite abnormal when seen against the context of the tens of
thousands of years during which language has been used. Standard languages are the
result of a direct and deliberate intervention by society. This intervention called
`Standardisation` producers a standard language where before there were just `dialects`
(i.e. non-standard varieties). The notion `standard language` is somewhat imprecise, but
a typical standard language will have passed through the following processes:
1. Selection – somehow or other a particular variety must have been selected as the
one to be developed into a standard language. It may be an existing variety, such as
the one used in an important political or commercial centre, but it could be an
amalgam of various varieties. The variety necessarily gains prestige and so the
people who already speak it share in this prestige. However, in some cases the
chosen variety has been one with no native speakers at all – for instance, Classical
Hebrew in Israel and Bahasa Indonesia(Hudson,32-34).
2. Codification – some agency such as an academy must have been written dictionaries
and grammar books to fix the variety, so that everyone agrees on what is correct.
Once codification has taken place, it becomes necessary for any ambitious citizen to
learn the correct forms and not to use in writing any `incorrect` forms he may have
in his native variety, which may take literally years of a child's school career.
3. Elaboration of function – it is possible to use the selected variety in all the functions
associated with central government and with writing, for example in parliament and
law courts, in bureaucratic, educational and scientific documents of all kinds, and of
 course in various forms of literature. This may require extra linguistic items to be
added to the variety, especially technical words, but it is also necessary to develop
new conventions for using existing forms – how to formulate examination questions,
how to write formal letters, and so on.
4. Acceptance - the variety has to be accepted by the relevant population as the
variety of the community – usually, in fact, as the national language. Once this has
happened, the standard language serves as a strong unifying force for the state, as a
symbol of its dependence of other states (assuming that it’s standard is unique and
not shared with others) and as a maker of its difference from other states. It is
precisely this symbolic function that makes states go to some lengths to develop
one. This analysis of the factors typically involved in standardisation has been widely
accepted by sociolinguists. However, there is ample scope for debate and
disagreement about the desirability of certain aspects of standardisation. For
instance, it is not essential either that standardisation should involve matters of
pronunciation as well as of writing or that the standard language should be
presented as the only `correct` variety. Moreover, a policy suitable for one
community may not fit another, so great care, sensitivity, wisdom and knowledge
are needed for success in any standardisation programme (ibid: 33-34).

5. Language and dialect

Now we turn our attention to the most widely recognised types of language variety:
`language`, `variety` and `register`. These three types are extremely problematic,
both from the point of view of finding a general definition for each one which will
distinguish it from the others and also from the point of view of finding criteria for
delimiting varieties. We first need to consider the concept `language`. We may or
may not wish to take `language` as a technical term, and say how it is used in
sociolinguistics. We shall want to do so if we find that popular usage reflects some
kind of reality to which we should like to refer in sociolinguistics, but if we come to
the conclusion that popular usage reflects no such reality, then where will be no
point in defining `language` more explicitly in order to use it as a technical term
(Hudson,30-32). We should
also mention the importance of studying popular usage of the term `language`
simply as part of English vocabulary along with `well-spoken`, `chat` and other
vocabulary which reflects the parts of the culture which are related to language and
speech. We can make two separate destinations to use the terms `language` and
`dialect` and we may draw conclusions from this fact about the culturally inherited
view of language. We may see the distinction between language and dialect as due
to the influence of Greek culture, for example, there was no distinction made until
the term dialect was borrowed as a learned word from Greek in the renaissance.
Since the distinction was developed in Greek because of the existence of a number
of clearly distinct written varieties in use in classical Greece, each associated with a
different area and used for a different kind of literature. Thus the meanings of the
Greek terms which were translated as language and dialect were in fact quite
different from the meanings these words have in English now. Their equivalents in
 French are perhaps more similar, since the French word dialecte refers only to
regional varieties which are written and have a literature, in contrast with regional
varieties which are not written.
There are two separate ways of distinguishing between language and dialect. There
is a difference of size because language is larger than a dialect. That is a variety called
a language contains more items than one called a dialect. This is the sense in which
we may refer to English as a language, containing the sum total of all the terms in all
its dialects with standard English as one dialect among many others (Yorkshire
English, Indian English, etc.), hence the greater size of the language English. The
other contrast between language and dialect is a question of prestige, a language
having prestige which a dialect lacks. If we apply the terms in this sense, Standard
English is not a dialect at all , but a language, whereas the varieties which are not
used in formal writing are dialects. Whether some variety is called a language or a
dialect depends on how much prestige one thinks it has, and for most people this is a
clear-cut matter, which depends on whether it is used in formal writing. Accordingly,
people in Britain habitually refer to languages which are unwritten (or which they
think are unwritten) as dialects, or mere dialects, irrespective of whether there is a
(proper) language to which they are related. The fact that we put so much weight on
whether or not it is written in distinguishing between language and dialect is one of
the interesting things that the terms show us about British culture (ibid:30-32).

6. Types of dialect

6.1. Regional dialects

The existence of different regional dialects is widely recognised and often the source
of some humour for those living in different regions. Some regional dialects clearly
have stereotyped Pronunciations associated with them. Going beyond stereotypes,
those involved in the serious investigation of regional dialects have devoted a lot of
survey research to the identification of consistent features of speech found in one
geographical area compared to another. These dialects surveys often involve
painstaking attention to detail and tend to operate with the very specific criteria in
identifying acceptable informants.
Consequently, the informants in the major dialect surveys of the twentieth century
tended to be NORMS or “non-mobile, older, rural, male speakers.”
Such speakers were selected because it was believed that they were less likely to
have influences from outside the region in their speech. One unfortunate
consequence of using such criteria is that the resulting dialect description tends to
 be more accurate of a period well before the time of investigation. (Yule, 1985:224-
242).

6.2. Social dialects

Whereas the traditional study of regional dialects tended to concentrate on the

speech of people in rural areas, the study of social dialects has been mainly
concerned with speakers in towns and cities. In the social study of dialect, it is social
class that is mainly used to define groups of speakers as having something in
common. The two main groups are generally identified as “middle class”, those who
have more years of education and perform non-manual work, and “working class,”
those who have fewer years of education and perform manual work of some kind.
So, when we refer to “working class speech,” we are talking about social dialect. The
terms “upper" and “lower” are used to further subdivide the groups, mainly on an
economic basis, making “upper-middle-class speech” another type of social dialect
or sociolect. As in all dialect studies, only certain features of language use are
treated as relevant in the analysis of social dialects. These features are
pronunciations, words or structures that are regularly used in one form by working-
class speakers and in another form by middle-class speakers. In Edinburgh, Scotland,
for example, the word home is regularly pronounced as [heim], as if rhyming with
name, among lower-working-class speakers, and as [hom], as if rhyming with foam,
among middle-class speakers. It's a small difference in pronunciation, but it's an
indicator of social status (Yule,1985:254-255). A more familiar example might be the
verb ain't , as in I ain't finished yet, which is generally used more often in working-
class speech than in middle-class speech. When we look for other examples of
language use that might be characteristic of a social dialect, we treat class as the
social variable and the Pronunciation or word as the linguistic variable. We can then
try to investigate the extent to which there is systematic variation involving of the
linguistic variable. This isn't usually an all-or-nothing situation, so studies of social
dialects typically report how often speakers in a particular group use a certain form
rather than find that only one group or the other uses the form (ibid:254-255).

7. Native and second language

English is spoken as a native language by more than 300 million people, most of
them living in North America, the British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean
and South Africa. In several of these countries, English is not the sole language: the
Quebec province of Canada is French-speaking, most South Africans speak Afrikaans
or Bantu language, and many Irish and Welsh people speak Celtic languages. But
those whose native language is not English will have English as their second
language for certain governmental, commercial, social or educational activities
within their own country.
English is also a second language in many countries where only a small proportion of
the people have English as their native language. In about twenty five countries
 English has been legally designated as an official language: in about ten (such as
Nigeria) it is the sole official language, and in some fifteen others (such as India) it
shares that status with one or more other languages. Most of these countries are
former British territories. Despite the association of the English language with the
former colonial rulers, it has been retained for pragmatic reasons: where no native
language is generally acceptable, English is a neutral language that is politically
acceptable, at least at the national level, for administrative and legal functions; and
as an international language for science and technology it is desirable for higher
education. English is an official language in countries of such divergent background
as India, Nigeria and Liberia, while in numerous other countries (Burma, Thailand,
South Korea and some Middle Eastern countries) it is used in some higher education.
In Sri Lanka, English at one time lost its official status, while retaining its social,
cultural and economic importance, but it has been reestablished as an official
language; indeed, as a result of the increase in secondary education more people
today learn English there than at any time during the colonial period. It has been
estimated that English is a second language for well over 300 million people: the
number of second language speakers may soon exceed the number of native
speakers (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik,1985:4-5).

8. National standards of English

8.1. British and American English

What we are calling national standards should be seen as distinct from the standard
English which we have been discussing and which we should think of as being
supernatural, embracing what is common to all. Again, as with orthography, there
are two national standards that are overwhelming predominant both in the number
of distinctive usages and in the degree to which these distinctions are
institutionalised: American English <AmE> and British English <BrE>. Grammatical
differences are few and the most conspicuous are known to many users of both
national standards: the fact that AmE has two past participles for get and BrE only
one, for example, and that in BrE either a singular or a plural verb may be used with
a singular collective noun:

1) The government {is/are} in favour of economic sanctions.

Whereas in AmE a singular verb is required here. Some are less familiar, but are
unlikely to hamper communication. For example, AmE may use the simple past in
informal style in contexts where BrE normally requires the present perfective, as in:

2) Sue just/ Sue's just} finished her homework.

And BrE tends to use the construction with should where AmE generally uses the
present subjunctive:

3) I insisted that he {should take/take} the documents with him.

Lexical examples are far more numerous, but many of these are familiar to users of
both standards: for example, railway <BrE>, railroad <AmE>; tin <BrE>, can <AmE>;
petrol <BrE>, gas(oline) <AmE>. Some items may confuse most speakers of the other
standard because they are unfamiliar, at least in the relevant meaning: boot <BrE>,
trunk <AmE>; rubber <BrE>, eraser <AmE>; drawing pin <BrE>, thumbtack <AmE>.
Public school in AmE is a school maintained by public funds, but in BrE it applies to
certain fee paying schools. Cider (unless further specified, as in hard cider) is usually
non alcoholic in AmE, but (unless further specified, as in sweet cider) it is alcoholic in
BrE (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik,1985:19-20).
School in I'm going to school includes colleges and universities in AmE, but excludes
them in BrE. Floors are numbered form ground level in AmE, so that first floor is
generally levelled with the ground, but in BrE it above the ground floor. In some
instances an item that is normal in one standard is used in the other in restricted
contexts: BrE shop (AmE store) is used in AmE for a small and specialized store, eg:
barber shop, shoe-repair shop, and sometimes for a high-class establishment or one
that has pretensions to be considered, eg: clothing shop/store, jewellery shop/store;
BrE chips (esp AmE French fries) now occurs in AmE, as a recent borrowing from BrE,
in the combination fish and chips. More recent innovations in either area tend to
spread rapidly to the other. Thus while radio sets have had valves in BrE but tubes in
AmE, television sets have tubes in both, and transistors and computer software are
likewise use in both standards. Mass communication neutralizes differences; the pop
music culture, in particular, uses a `mid-Atlantic` dialect that levels differences even
in pronunciation.
The United States and Britain have been separate political entities for two centuries;
for generations, thousands of books have appeared annually; there is a long tradition
of publishing descriptions of both AmE and BrE.
These are important factors in establishing and institutionalising the two national
standards, and in relative absence of such conditions other national standards are
both less distinct (being more open to the influence of either AmE and BrE) and less
institutionalised.
One attitudinal phenomenon in the United States is of sociolinguistic interest. In
affirming the students’ right to their own varieties of language, many American
educationalists have declared that standard American English is a myth, some
asserting the independent status (for example) of Black English. At the same time
they have acknowledged the existence of a written standard dialect, sometimes
termed ‘Edited American English` (ibid:19-20).