Standard English is also a dialect.
What's your view?
Standard English is also a dialect
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
This is my opinion, and although I realize there might be many who disagree, I hope they understand that it's simply my opinion and thats all. I don't pretend to know more than others, or that my opinion is more important. So if I offend anybody in explaining my disbelief towards "standard dialects", please accept my apology.
I, personally, really don't believe in the idea of a "standard english" or "standard dialect" simply because it raises too many unanswerable question. The answers to these questions are unfounded and don't represent any objectivity in trying to find the "standard english" dialect. For example:
Who speaks it and where is coming from? What social class in what geographic region of the world uses it on a day to day basis to actually call it a dialect?
How many "standards" are there? There's standard Australian English, standard Indian English as well as many others. So are they all part of the same "standard" super- language? Would "standard English" include all of them or just one?
One of us might think "standard English" is the English spoken by the Queen of England while others might use a completely different example. (Some might even say that George Bush speak standard English, who knows?)
How do you say "dialect A is the standard and dialects B to Z aren't" without being completely subjective and without using words like "pretty" or "Nice-sounding". If so many English speakers can use many forms and dialects of English and still be understood, how do you decide which one is "standard"?
If we say that a certain dialect is the "standard" because it's the one most understood by all English speakers, how do we know another isn't? (ie. Queen's English and the English spoken in the mid-west of the North America)
If you can't asnwer these questions, you can't conclude that it is a dialect of English. English is simply too spread out to be able to call one dialect the "standard". People may believe in "standard languges" all they want (just like they used to belive the world was flat) but that doesn't make it a true. Standard dialects are usually imaginary forms of language that are used to keep certain higher classes of people among that class and those who speak "regional" or "local" dialects near the bottom of the ladder. For that reason and all the unanswerable questions that "standard English" brings, I don't believe it is in fact an actual dialect of English, but a tool used in society to distinguish certain groups from others.
I, personally, really don't believe in the idea of a "standard english" or "standard dialect" simply because it raises too many unanswerable question. The answers to these questions are unfounded and don't represent any objectivity in trying to find the "standard english" dialect. For example:
Who speaks it and where is coming from? What social class in what geographic region of the world uses it on a day to day basis to actually call it a dialect?
How many "standards" are there? There's standard Australian English, standard Indian English as well as many others. So are they all part of the same "standard" super- language? Would "standard English" include all of them or just one?
One of us might think "standard English" is the English spoken by the Queen of England while others might use a completely different example. (Some might even say that George Bush speak standard English, who knows?)
How do you say "dialect A is the standard and dialects B to Z aren't" without being completely subjective and without using words like "pretty" or "Nice-sounding". If so many English speakers can use many forms and dialects of English and still be understood, how do you decide which one is "standard"?
If we say that a certain dialect is the "standard" because it's the one most understood by all English speakers, how do we know another isn't? (ie. Queen's English and the English spoken in the mid-west of the North America)
If you can't asnwer these questions, you can't conclude that it is a dialect of English. English is simply too spread out to be able to call one dialect the "standard". People may believe in "standard languges" all they want (just like they used to belive the world was flat) but that doesn't make it a true. Standard dialects are usually imaginary forms of language that are used to keep certain higher classes of people among that class and those who speak "regional" or "local" dialects near the bottom of the ladder. For that reason and all the unanswerable questions that "standard English" brings, I don't believe it is in fact an actual dialect of English, but a tool used in society to distinguish certain groups from others.
I think 'standard' English is one of many dialects which has been chosen / forced upon the nay-sayers, so that we can communicate more easily. People started learning 'standard' English when the bible was first mass produced. It was simply the variety favoured by the then King (King James I of England, a.k.a. King James VI of Scotland, for my australian friend).
Standards are essential so that people can understand each other. I spent several years working on technical standards, written by europeans of every variety. Boy, was that dull and hard work at the same time: every different nationality, e.g. Swedes, Germans, Dutch, etc. had their own ideas about English. A right royal pain!
Iain
Standards are essential so that people can understand each other. I spent several years working on technical standards, written by europeans of every variety. Boy, was that dull and hard work at the same time: every different nationality, e.g. Swedes, Germans, Dutch, etc. had their own ideas about English. A right royal pain!
Iain
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
A standard is a standard because people accept it as such. In the UK it is what is called BBC English or RP, and in the States it is called Network English. Neither of these are geographcially based; it is posssible to speak Standard English with a strong Scottish accent (Lord Reith of the BBC was Scottish) and sub-standard English with a perfect South-Eastern accent.
Interesting term : "substandard english". Are you referring to native speakers or non-native speakers when you refer to this term? How does one determine what is substandard and not?
"A standard is a standard because people accept it as such." Which people are involved with this process? Is everybody's opinion valued when a "standard" is chosen? When chosing which dialect becomes the standard, and a written system is based on that dialect, how do they decide?
Interestingly, The Routledge Dictionary of Linguistic Terms states that the word "standard language" usually is associated with "high variety", which is of course pejoritive and not based on any linguistic facts. These judgments of "high variety" and "standard" are mostly based on economic facts instead. This is what "standard english" really is : the english spoken by the highest class within a society (whether it be a community, a country, and geographic area consisting of speakers of a similar language).
"A standard is a standard because people accept it as such." Which people are involved with this process? Is everybody's opinion valued when a "standard" is chosen? When chosing which dialect becomes the standard, and a written system is based on that dialect, how do they decide?
Interestingly, The Routledge Dictionary of Linguistic Terms states that the word "standard language" usually is associated with "high variety", which is of course pejoritive and not based on any linguistic facts. These judgments of "high variety" and "standard" are mostly based on economic facts instead. This is what "standard english" really is : the english spoken by the highest class within a society (whether it be a community, a country, and geographic area consisting of speakers of a similar language).
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Standard English
Just came across this thread. Interesting, but I wonder where it’s going. 
Perhaps the term ‘standard English’ has different meanings depending on who uses it and in what contexts. (Now, there’s a novel idea!) I suppose the only people who use it might be teachers, language students, linguists and textbook writers. Maybe also network executives. A network exec might mean something about pronunciation when he uses it in connection with his work, whereas we teachers might mean something else if we’re talking to students or colleagues.
It seems unremarkable that there should be some kind of standard if English is to be English, as dduck suggested. On the other hand, it seems also clear to me that the use of the term can be over applied or misused to suggest that a certain variety of English is superior to others. Linguists are usually at pains to point out that their uses of the term are not meant to have a pejorative effect. Nevertheless, wjserson's comment that 'standard language' is usually associated with 'high variety' appears to be true. Certainly the English that is called 'standard English' is not the variety normally spoken by dock workers.
And while I've heard the term 'substandard English' used in coctail conversation before, I don't recall ever hearing a linguist use it.
Larry Latham
Perhaps the term ‘standard English’ has different meanings depending on who uses it and in what contexts. (Now, there’s a novel idea!) I suppose the only people who use it might be teachers, language students, linguists and textbook writers. Maybe also network executives. A network exec might mean something about pronunciation when he uses it in connection with his work, whereas we teachers might mean something else if we’re talking to students or colleagues.
It seems unremarkable that there should be some kind of standard if English is to be English, as dduck suggested. On the other hand, it seems also clear to me that the use of the term can be over applied or misused to suggest that a certain variety of English is superior to others. Linguists are usually at pains to point out that their uses of the term are not meant to have a pejorative effect. Nevertheless, wjserson's comment that 'standard language' is usually associated with 'high variety' appears to be true. Certainly the English that is called 'standard English' is not the variety normally spoken by dock workers.
And while I've heard the term 'substandard English' used in coctail conversation before, I don't recall ever hearing a linguist use it.
Larry Latham
Hiya
I have a strong mancunian accent
thanks dad!!!!!!!!
Siân
I have a strong mancunian accent
thanks dad!!!!!!!!
Siân
Last edited by sita on Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
an idiolect refers to the whole linguistic gamut of an individual's speech of which accent is only a small part.
To qoute Quirk and Greenbaum in "A University Grammar of English"(1975, p.3):
"In contrast with Standard English, forms that are especially associated with uneducated (rather than dialectical use) are often called 'substandard'.
Note that substandard is different from colloquial or informal. "Hang on a tick" is informal or colloquial English, but still standard English. "I ain't done nothing", on the other hand is substandard English.
Also you can have locutions that are sub-standard in one variety of English and standard in another. Most authorities of American English would accept "ain't" as a correct form, but in British English it would be considered sub-standard. "I got" in the sense of "I have" is often accepted as standard American English where the colloquial, but correct British use would be "I've got", which is considered a sign of ignorance by many American authorities.
To qoute Quirk and Greenbaum in "A University Grammar of English"(1975, p.3):
"In contrast with Standard English, forms that are especially associated with uneducated (rather than dialectical use) are often called 'substandard'.
Note that substandard is different from colloquial or informal. "Hang on a tick" is informal or colloquial English, but still standard English. "I ain't done nothing", on the other hand is substandard English.
Also you can have locutions that are sub-standard in one variety of English and standard in another. Most authorities of American English would accept "ain't" as a correct form, but in British English it would be considered sub-standard. "I got" in the sense of "I have" is often accepted as standard American English where the colloquial, but correct British use would be "I've got", which is considered a sign of ignorance by many American authorities.
page 265 of Introduction to Language by Fromkin, Rodman, Hultin ang Logan:
"The Standard - whether it be British English, American English or Canadian English - is an idealization. Nobody speaks this fialect; and if somebody did, we would not know it, because these dialects are not defined precisely."
It used to be that we associated the language of news broadcasters and politicians as 'standard' but today everybody from presidents and other leaders to journalists speak a regional variety (and "violate" rules associated with purists). Not one person can specify exactly what "deviations" from the standard make the distinction between it and the "substandard".
Sure, language purists associate the uneducated with "substandard" English the same way they'd associate anybody who wasn't white or a native English speaker as a "savage" a century or two ago. Does this make it right? Or is it just prejudicial? Your quote proves what I said before : it's a tool used in society to distinguish certain groups from others.
"The Standard - whether it be British English, American English or Canadian English - is an idealization. Nobody speaks this fialect; and if somebody did, we would not know it, because these dialects are not defined precisely."
It used to be that we associated the language of news broadcasters and politicians as 'standard' but today everybody from presidents and other leaders to journalists speak a regional variety (and "violate" rules associated with purists). Not one person can specify exactly what "deviations" from the standard make the distinction between it and the "substandard".
Sure, language purists associate the uneducated with "substandard" English the same way they'd associate anybody who wasn't white or a native English speaker as a "savage" a century or two ago. Does this make it right? Or is it just prejudicial? Your quote proves what I said before : it's a tool used in society to distinguish certain groups from others.
I'm reading Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct", in which he talks about this purist attitude. Pinker points out that working class speakers, do indeed, have their own particular dialect - equal in complexity and richness to that of the more educated classes. He goes on to explain that working class speakers actually make less mistakes than the other more educated groups. The worst offenders being the most highly educated.wjserson wrote:Sure, language purists associate the uneducated with "substandard" English the same way they'd associate anybody who wasn't white or a native English speaker as a "savage" a century or two ago. Does this make it right? Or is it just prejudicial? Your quote proves what I said before : it's a tool used in society to distinguish certain groups from others.
Iain
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
Norm,
Be aware I was referring to Steven (not Stephen, as I previously misposted) Pinker's words and not my own. Pinker is a well respected Linguist, who works at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.
I largely agree with what I've read so far. Pinker discusses things like Ebonics, which I've seen make supposedly intelligent people jump into a rage. Linguists study languages without prejudice. Some people (incorrectly) believe that Ebonics is a shocking crime against English and we should be castigating speakers of it instead of studying this language.
The crux of your question, which I haven't answered, surrounds the good old Descriptive versus Prescriptive battleground. I declared myself a descriptionist sometime ago, and so, I largely disrespect prescriptionist errors. For example, I be tired is an example of Ebonics.
In conclusion, Pinker, like most linguists, define descriptionistic errors as breaking the rules of ones own language, whether it be Ebonics, Devonish, or Southern Middle Class English.
Iain
Be aware I was referring to Steven (not Stephen, as I previously misposted) Pinker's words and not my own. Pinker is a well respected Linguist, who works at the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.
I largely agree with what I've read so far. Pinker discusses things like Ebonics, which I've seen make supposedly intelligent people jump into a rage. Linguists study languages without prejudice. Some people (incorrectly) believe that Ebonics is a shocking crime against English and we should be castigating speakers of it instead of studying this language.
The crux of your question, which I haven't answered, surrounds the good old Descriptive versus Prescriptive battleground. I declared myself a descriptionist sometime ago, and so, I largely disrespect prescriptionist errors. For example, I be tired is an example of Ebonics.
In conclusion, Pinker, like most linguists, define descriptionistic errors as breaking the rules of ones own language, whether it be Ebonics, Devonish, or Southern Middle Class English.
Iain
I read a few of Pinker's books during my B.A. and M.A. and, although I already believed in what he states in his literature prior to reading it, I still believe in this way of thinking.
Linguistics prejudices were a hot topic while I was in university (and believe me, more people supported them than stood against them). I've heard some of the most cruel, disgusting, and sometimes racist comments regarding certain "inferior" languages and dialects. Creole languages are especially attacked for being "basterdized versions of English or French" because "they lack grammar". None of this is true nor is any of it based on fact. Ir's too different from "standard English" for anybody to believe it can have it's own grammar.
The underlying problem with 'standards' is that they also are not based on fact or any scientific or economic justifications. They're also the reason why languages such as creoles and regional dialects of English get such bad reputations among what we perceive as the educated: those who hypercorrect others while they continue to misuse the rules they perceive as being correct (such as overusing 'whom'). Pinker's LI is quite good and I enjoyed reading it wuite a bit. Hope you're having as much fun as I was Iain.
Linguistics prejudices were a hot topic while I was in university (and believe me, more people supported them than stood against them). I've heard some of the most cruel, disgusting, and sometimes racist comments regarding certain "inferior" languages and dialects. Creole languages are especially attacked for being "basterdized versions of English or French" because "they lack grammar". None of this is true nor is any of it based on fact. Ir's too different from "standard English" for anybody to believe it can have it's own grammar.
The underlying problem with 'standards' is that they also are not based on fact or any scientific or economic justifications. They're also the reason why languages such as creoles and regional dialects of English get such bad reputations among what we perceive as the educated: those who hypercorrect others while they continue to misuse the rules they perceive as being correct (such as overusing 'whom'). Pinker's LI is quite good and I enjoyed reading it wuite a bit. Hope you're having as much fun as I was Iain.