Language variation could also be called „. . .the most basic and fundamental of human socialisation tools.” You need language to express yourself, to learn things, to communicate and to get educated. Without language, an independent life is hardly to live. As long as people speak, there always have been dialects and individual ways of speaking in one language. British English for example, during the twelveth and thirteenth century, was spoken in four varieties, besides French and Latin. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth century, the more unified Great Britain needed some kind of “Standard”, to cope with official tasks and affairs. So, at some point, it seems necessary to compromise on one way of speaking for official matters. This paper will focus on “Standard American English” as a sociolinguistic tool: A brief history of American English will be given and definitions of “Standard American English” will be discussed. The central question of this paper will be: Why there is a need for the so-called “Standard”? Whom does it serve? Is it an “ideology” of the upper classes to distinguish them also linguistically from the lower classes? Or is the function of “Standard American English” solely to enable the American people to communicate on an even level, despite the various dialects? Further, the example of New York City speech will be given, to show that “Standard” seems to be necessary for “upward mobility”.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 A Brief History of American English
3.0 Standard American English
3.1 An Approach to a Definition of “Standard American English”
3.2 “Standard” – Socially Promoting, or Socially Distinguishing ?
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Bibliography
Research Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines "Standard American English" as a sociolinguistic tool, investigating the underlying ideological motives behind its definition and its practical function in American society. The central research question explores whether the "Standard" serves as a neutral medium for communication or as a tool for the upper classes to linguistically distinguish themselves and enforce social stratification.
- The sociolinguistic construction of "Standard American English"
- Historical context and evolution of American dialects
- Language as a mechanism for social control and status symbol
- The impact of "speech cosmetics" and linguistic assimilation in urban areas
- The role of schools and "agents of standardization" in shaping language perceptions
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 “Standard” – Socially Promoting, or Socially Distinguishing ?
Standard varieties of a language are usually “. . . associated with socially favored and dominant classes and . . . nonstandard dialects are associated with socially disfavored, low-status groups.19 So, there are socially prestigious variants, but also socially stigmatized items. Both, the positively and the negatively judged items changed over times. A very good example is the use of the postvocalic “r” in the New York City area: In the 1940s the r-pronouncing did hardly serve as social class stratification - in other terms – whether you used, or not used the postvocalic“r”, was a neutral factor of language, which did not distinguish socially. This has changed in the second half of the 20th century: Today, r-pronouncing is not a neutral linguistic factor anymore, but positively valued.20
Language change typically goes on from one social class, which then serves as the focal area of language. Mostly, the lower or middle classes initiate the change and the upper classes resist. The linguistic change has to be separated into two categories: The “change[s] from below”21 and the “change[s] from above”22. The first term refers to an unconscious change, often started by the middle or lower classes, influencing phonological and grammatical features of American English towards regularization. The conscious change from above is likely to be started by the upper classes, “. . . to reflect a movement away from socially stigmatized features or toward external prestige forms that become the model to emulate.”23 Wolfram and Schilling-Estes conclude that language change usually is initiated by the lower classes and the upper classes rather resist that change, or consciously develop new positively valued linguistic features.24
This means that the upper classes use their power as agents of standardization to socially distinguish themselves from the lower classes. The lower classes, on the other hand, unconsciously change language to make it easier.
Summary of Chapters
1.0 Introduction: This chapter defines the scope of the paper, identifying language as a fundamental socialization tool and introducing the central research question regarding the ideological function of "Standard American English."
2.0 A Brief History of American English: The author traces the development of American English from colonial roots through the Revolutionary War, highlighting the shift from imported British standards to the conscious coining of distinct American terminology and spelling.
3.0 Standard American English: This section deconstructs the definition of "Standard" by analyzing various scholarly perspectives, specifically focusing on how stigmatized versus prestigious linguistic items are used to create social boundaries.
3.1 An Approach to a Definition of “Standard American English”: The text explores theoretical frameworks provided by linguists like Lippi-Green and Wolfram, questioning the objectivity of definitions that favor the speech of the educated elite.
3.2 “Standard” – Socially Promoting, or Socially Distinguishing ?: This chapter analyzes how language changes are adopted or resisted by different social classes, illustrating the phenomenon of "change from above" versus "change from below."
4.0 Conclusion: The author synthesizes the arguments, concluding that "Standard American English" functions primarily as a status symbol used by the powerful to maintain class distinctions.
5.0 Bibliography: A comprehensive list of the academic sources and linguistic studies cited throughout the work.
Keywords
Standard American English, sociolinguistics, language variation, social stratification, linguistic ideology, language change, postvocalic r, stigmatization, agents of standardization, upward mobility, Brooklynese, dialect, speech cosmetics, language policy, social class
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines the sociolinguistic concept of "Standard American English," investigating whether it serves as a neutral communication tool or a social instrument for differentiation.
What are the core thematic fields covered?
The study covers the history of American English, the definition of linguistic standards, the mechanisms of language change, and the social implications of stigmatized versus prestigious varieties.
What is the main research question of the work?
The central question asks why there is a need for a "Standard," whom it serves, and whether it functions as an ideology used by upper classes to exclude others linguistically.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a literature-based analysis of sociolinguistic theories, comparing the viewpoints of scholars like Rosina Lippi-Green, Wolfram, and Meseck regarding language and social power.
What topics are discussed in the main section?
The main section explores the historical development of American English, the theoretical definition of "Standard," the social function of prestige markers, and the specific case of "speech cosmetics" in New York City.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include social stratification, language ideology, standard variety, linguistic insecurity, and agents of standardization.
How does the author define the term "agents of standardization"?
The author refers to authorities such as teachers and the media who promote specific linguistic norms and enforce what is considered "Standard" language.
What is the significance of the "postvocalic r" example?
The "postvocalic r" serves as a case study for how a neutral linguistic feature can transform into a socially prestigious status marker over time, specifically within the context of New York City social classes.
What does Birgit Meseck mean by "speech cosmetics"?
It refers to the trend of seeking professional help to erase regional accents, such as "Brooklynese," in order to avoid social discrimination and improve prospects for upward mobility.
- Quote paper
- Daniela Daus (Author), 2004, Standard American English: Socially Distinguishing?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/53331
