This paper is concerned with the discourse on standard language and its consequences. As suggested by the title, particular attention will be given to the conflicting views of linguists and popular scientists, as well as their respective influences on public opinion. In the first section, fundamental definitions will be given to lay the foundations for further discussion. Part (II) will then deal with the discourse of prescriptivists and popular scientists. Correspondingly, I will focus on the scholarly discourse in part (III) and the public discourse in (V). The latter will be preceded by a short excursus (IV) in which I will look at ‘standard’ and ‘nonstandard English’ from different angles by means of (1) some examples of prescriptivism and (2) analysis of the ‘nonstandard’ variety AAVE.
Table of Contents
0. INTRODUCTION
I. THEORETICAL PART
I.1 LANGUAGE IDEOLOGY
I.2 PRESCRIPTIVISM, DESCRIPTIVISM
I.3 ACCENT, DIALECT & LANGUAGE
I.4 ‘STANDARD LANGUAGE’ AND THE STANDARD IDEOLOGY
II. DISCOURSE OF PRESCRIPTIVISTS AND POPULAR SCIENTISTS
II.1 INTRODUCTION
II.2 LINGUISTIC EQUALITY AND LANGUAGE ADAPTABILITY
II.3 ‘STANDARD ENGLISH’ AS EMPOWERMENT
II.4 LANGUAGE CHANGE & LANGUAGE DECAY
III. SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE
III.1 INTRODUCTION
III.2 THE LINGUISTIC FACTS OF LIFE
All spoken languages change
All spoken languages are equal in linguistic terms
Grammaticality does not equal communicative effectiveness
Written language and spoken language are historically, structurally, and functionally fundamentally different creatures
III.3 LANGUAGE VARIATION AND IDENTITY
From ideolect to identity
Ideolect, Identity … and the standard ideology
III.4 LANGUAGE-BASED DISCRIMINATION
III.5 LINGUISTS’ ‘STANDARD ENGLISH’
IV. FROM THEORY TO PRATICE
IV.1 WHAT ENGLISH SHOULD LOOK LIKE (ACCORDING TO PRESCRIPTIVISTS)
Phonology
Semantics
Syntax
Letter to the Editor of The Times by J.R.Colville, entitled “Correct English”
Sources of authority
IV. 2 WHAT ENGLISH DOES LOOK LIKE
Excerpts from Shuckin’ and Jivin’ – Folklore from contemporary Black Americans
Excerpt from Jonah’s Gourd Vine by Zora Neale Hurston
V. PUBLIC DISCOURSE
V.1 DOMINANCE OF PRESCRIPTIVE IDEOLOGIES
V.2 DISCOURSE IN THE US AND THE UK
VI. CONCLUSION
Objective & Topics
This academic paper examines the discourse surrounding the concept of "standard language" and its consequences for public perception. It explores the conflicting perspectives between academic linguists and popular scientists, specifically focusing on how prescriptive ideologies influence social attitudes and language-based discrimination in the United States and Great Britain.
- Analysis of the standard language ideology and its historical and social origins.
- Examination of the tension between descriptive linguistic principles and prescriptive views.
- Study of language-based discrimination and its impact on non-standard varieties, specifically African American Vernacular English (AAVE).
- Investigation of the role of institutions like education and media in reproducing standard language norms.
- Comparison of standard language discourse between the US and the UK.
Excerpt from the Book
Syntax
Syntax is concerned with the way “words combine to form sentences” (Huddleston et. al. 2002). As illustrated in III.2, there are underlying rules, generally referred to as grammar. But whereas linguists claim that “only grammatical sentences will be produced” (Yule 2008: 87), prescriptivists regard a set of formulated rules as necessary. Some of the most prominent and most frequently quoted examples are the following.
Do not split an infinitive (Yule 2008: 78): In the English language, the infinitive consists of two parts – to + the base form of the verb. In cases where a specification is needed, speakers use an adverb with the infinitive such as in the famous expression of Star Trek’s Captain Kirk: “to boldly go”. According to prescriptivists, this construction would be wrong because – in reference to Latin grammar – an infinitive cannot be split. In terms of Latin, that would certainly be true, since the infinitive only consists of one word and Captain Kirk would ire (to go) audacter (boldly). But if it is appropriate to apply this rule to the English language is questionable. In reality speakers of English produce forms such as to quickly eat, to solemnly swear or to never ever say goodbye.
You must not end a sentence with a preposition (various sources): Guidance books to the English language such as Fowler’s Modern English Usage claim that “it is desirable to avoid placing a preposition at the end of a clause or sentence where it has the appearance of being stranded.” (Burchfield ed. 1996: 619). The notion dates back to John Dryden, a poet of the 17th century who was supposedly influenced by Latin grammar (Faulk 1999: 25). Although many sources such as the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition claim that “[i]n fact, English syntax allows and sometimes requires the final placement of the preposition“ (quoted in Walston n.d.) the rule continues to be seen as important for correct English. An often-cited (and frequently misquoted) utterance on this rule goes back to Winston Churchill who is alleged to have commented on a clumsily replaced preposition that “[t]his is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put” (quoted in Faulk 1999: 25).
Summary of Chapters
0. INTRODUCTION: This chapter defines the scope of the paper, outlining the study of standard language ideology and the author’s focus on the conflicting views of linguists and popular scientists.
I. THEORETICAL PART: This section provides foundational definitions of key linguistic concepts such as language ideology, prescriptivism, descriptivism, accent, and dialect.
II. DISCOURSE OF PRESCRIPTIVISTS AND POPULAR SCIENTISTS: This chapter analyzes how non-linguists and popular scientists approach language, focusing on their defense of standards and their opposition to linguistic equality.
III. SCHOLARLY DISCOURSE: This section details the academic linguistic perspective, utilizing the "linguistic facts of life" to explain why linguists oppose prescriptive ideas.
IV. FROM THEORY TO PRATICE: This chapter bridges theory and practice by providing concrete examples of prescriptive rules in phonology, semantics, and syntax, and analyzing AAVE as a case study of a non-standard variety.
V. PUBLIC DISCOURSE: This section investigates how prescriptive ideologies dominate the public sphere through institutions like education and media, and differentiates between US and UK contexts.
VI. CONCLUSION: The final chapter summarizes the core findings, emphasizing that prestige in language is socially constructed and not based on objective linguistic values.
Keywords
Standard language, language ideology, prescriptivism, descriptivism, linguistic equality, language change, accent, dialect, language variety, grammaticality, AAVE, language-based discrimination, linguistic prejudice, language policy, sociolinguistics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core argument of this work?
The work argues that the concept of "standard language" is not an objective linguistic reality but an ideological construct used to assign prestige and power to specific social groups, often to the detriment of speakers of other language varieties.
What are the primary thematic fields covered in the text?
The text focuses on language ideology, the divide between academic linguists and prescriptive "popular scientists," the social and functional nature of language, and the institutional reinforcement of standard language norms.
What is the primary goal of the author?
The goal is to analyze the discourse on standard language, expose the lack of linguistic rationale behind prescriptive rules, and clarify how these rules serve as tools for social stratification and discrimination.
Which scientific methodology does the paper employ?
The paper employs a sociolinguistic approach, analyzing existing literature and public discourse through the lens of linguistic theory to challenge widely held but scientifically unfounded ideas about language correctness.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines the differences between descriptive and prescriptive approaches, provides specific examples of how prescriptivists "guard" the language (phonology, syntax, semantics), and analyzes institutional influences on public language attitudes.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
Key terms include standard language ideology, prescriptivism, linguistic equality, AAVE (African American Vernacular English), language-based discrimination, and social construction of language.
How does the author define the distinction between spoken and written language in the context of ideology?
The author argues that prescriptivists wrongly attempt to impose the characteristics of planned, decontextualized written language onto spontaneous, innate spoken language, which is a major driver of standard language ideology.
Why does the author use African American Vernacular English (AAVE) as a specific case study?
AAVE serves as an example of a systematic and consistent language variety that is often unfairly stigmatized as "substandard" by those who do not understand its complex, rule-governed linguistic structure.
What role do "bloc institutions" play according to the text?
Institutions like the educational system, the media, and corporate entities act as "bloc institutions" that validate the language of the privileged class while devaluing the speech features of non-privileged groups, thus reproducing the ideology.
What is the significance of the "linguistic facts of life" mentioned in the paper?
These principles, such as "all spoken languages change" and "all spoken languages are equal in linguistic terms," form the foundation of academic linguistics and serve as the main evidence for refuting the claims of language prescriptivists.
- Citar trabajo
- Ben Schmi (Autor), 2012, The Impact of Notions of Standard Language in Popular Scientific and Scholarly Discourse on Language Attitudes of the Public, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/207360
