How do you, personally, define Standard English?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:43 am

What's your take on this, from the book Varieties of English?

"...Standard English is just as arbitrary in its choices of wods and structures as other dialects and languages - you can't argue for Standard English on grounds of its superior language and structure. There are other and different kinds of reason for accepting and using it."

Anuradha Chepur · Post by **Anuradha Chepur** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:54 am

I think the idea behind "standard" is to have some sort of a uniformity, and not a sense of superiority.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:55 am

Anuradha Chepur wrote:I think the idea behind "standard" is to have some sort of a uniformity, and not a sense of superipority.

One would hope so, Anuradha, but many still opt for the "superiority view".

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:04 pm

What percentage of AmE speakers have grown up in an English speaking family over the last 300 years? And of those who have, how many had two parents or four grandparents who were NS? And if so was it Irish or Scottish English, or heavily influenced by Gaelic and Urse?. How much American English is L2 influenced?

Speakers of different languages went to where English was spoken.

English went to where there were speakers of many different languages. IndE

What's the difference?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:07 pm

JuanTwoThree wrote: Speakers of different languages went to where English was spoken.

English went to where there were speakers of many different languages. IndE

What's the difference?

And, again, whose English is it anyway?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:31 pm

metal56 wrote:Does Garner follow this distinction? And does his use of "usage", in the title of the publication you mentioned, fit with the one defined and highlighted below?

Well, this is the first time I've heard the difference between style and usage. But taking those definitions, if they be legitimate, I think Garner does a little of both. I think I see where you're going with this, because linguists only care about what is actually used scientifically without making any judgements about it, which is where you are, and so you separate yourself as being concerned with usage but not caring a wit about style. Well, I'll accept the premise and explain how I see Garner.
On the "usage" side, Garner researches newspapers and articles and does Nexus searches (which is like Google, but upgraded for edited magazines, etc.) to see which word choice is much more common. Based on current usage, he may advise people to use certain phrasings, even though it may seem ungrammatical or unlogical, for example, the tag, "aren't I."
At other times, when usage isn't a concern (i.e., can't really establish any tendency one way or other), he may weigh in with his opinion, and give reason for it. And we always know which is which, i.e., usage or style. But he rarely (maybe never) gives advice that goes against common usage (in edited prose). One example I remember is with the difference between lectern and podium. Those are two words that mean very distinct things and really make communication effective if people used them discriminately. (You stand on a podium, but stand behind a lectern, traditionally). Unfortunately, people say podium when they mean a lectern really often. Garner admits that this is now standard English, even though the traditional difference renders communication more effective. Therefore, he says you can't really put down the usage, because it is so widespread, (even though style would advise otherwise). It would be impossible to resist, or in this case, fight. Examples like this abound, and that's why I say he is really common sense about this.
(Bryan Garner is the author of Garner's Modern American Usage.)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:45 pm

I think I see where you're going with this, because linguists only care about what is actually used scientifically without making any judgements about it, which is where you are, and so you separate yourself as being concerned with usage but not caring a wit about style.

Not at all. I'm very interested in style issues.

On the "usage" side, Garner researches newspapers and articles and does Nexus searches (which is like Google, but upgraded for edited magazines, etc.) to see which word choice is much more common. Based on current usage, he may advise people to use certain phrasings, even though it may seem ungrammatical or unlogical, for example, the tag, "aren't I."

I do the same. I also use corpuses.

But he rarely (maybe never) gives advice that goes against common usage (in edited prose).

I wonder why.

One example I remember is with the difference between lectern and podium.

Is the difference between those words a burning issue in contemporary circles?

even though the traditional difference renders communication more effective.

If it's not conventional and standard to mix the two words, how does it render communication more effective to separate the use again?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:54 am

I mischaracterized Garner's position a little bit, as I didn't have it nearby. (I keep Garner at work). Garner says that the usage of podium for lectern is widespread (addressing your "usage" aspect), but cautions careful writers to keep the distinction (which implies "style," but I'm still not convinced this is a style issue: I think I would bifurcate usage into common usage and maybe opinionated usage or something). So he doesn't necessarily call it wrong, and he address both usage and "style."
At any rate, I don't know that this is one of those burning issues, but I've had personal experience with it, being a musician. When I was teaching music one year, I remember asking the principal for a podium. She said that that would be no problem as she led me to a closet full of materials in which there was a lectern. I realized then that when I use podium, the image I have in mind and what other people have in mind may be altogether different. It was a momentary breakdown in communication. So in order for me to communicate clearly, instead of using a word, I'm reduced to explaining it in a phrase: "you know, the box you stand on where conductor-kind-a-people wave their arms." I can't think of any other word to replace podium that would be clear to people. Can you? I guess it is a particularly important distinction to conductors/musicians, or perhaps public speakers, or for stage-prop setup. The school didn't have a podium.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:15 am

It was a momentary breakdown in communication.

Happens every day, 24hrs-a-day.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 12:27 pm

What's your take on this, from the book Varieties of English?

"...Standard English is just as arbitrary in its choices of wods and structures as other dialects and languages - you can't argue for Standard English on grounds of its superior language and structure. There are other and different kinds of reason for accepting and using it."

As there is nobody on this forum who disagrees with that why are you wasting everybody's time tilting at windmills?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:15 pm

I never confuse podium with lectern. It's easy enough to see how the confusion arose however. In many cases the person behind the lectern will be standing on a podium.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:37 pm

I'm not aware that anyone here has said that any dialect is superior to another. If you want to find someone to argue the point with, try another forum.

mrandmrsjohnqsmith · Post by **mrandmrsjohnqsmith** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:55 am

Sigh...

OK, class, once again, repeat after me:

"There is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, ever, there is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, ever, there is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, ever, there is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, ever, there is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, ever, there is no standard English, there never was any standard English, there never will be any standard English, ever, ever, EVER EVER EVER!

(deep breath)

AAAAAAAAAA~MEEEEEENNNNN!!!!"

Repeat this exorcism as often as necessary, or whenever the spectre appears.

It was only a dream. The nasty colonists are gone. Go back to sleep, now, honey.

oooooOoOoOoOOoooo

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:30 am

"Stephen Jones" As there is nobody on this forum who disagrees with that why are you wasting everybody's time tilting at windmills?

Are you sure nobody disagrees with it?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:32 am

lolwhites wrote:I'm not aware that anyone here has said that any dialect is superior to another. If you want to find someone to argue the point with, try another forum.

New posters come here all the time. Some stay and some pop-in. So, how can you speak for everyone?

Teacher Discussion Forums

How do you, personally, define Standard English?

I believe in ghosts, but I don't believe in...