Multiple Standard Englishes.

Question

Apparently, "at about" was standard English enough for H.L. Mencken to use it in a letter to James Joyce. Yet, it wasn't standard for Shaw (1970. See below.). Again we seem to be looking at multiple Standard Englishes - dialects of a dialect/sociolect, so to speak.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA871&dq=%22standard,%22+webster&as_brr=1&ei=GmxUSsL3KofkygS_i6GrBw&hl=es

Forbes · Accepted Answer

If we are to take this to its logical conclusion then every writer's own ideas about what is correct (and it seems that in any case we are often talking about style rather than grammar) must be a separate Standard English. Standard English if it is anything has to be a sort of average and also subject to constant change.

People are always too keen to home in on difference when comparing different forms of English. A few differences between writers does no mean they have different standards.

Anonymous · Answer

< A few differences between writers does no mean they have different standards.>

And it doesn't mean they do not.

MrPedantic · Answer

I'm not sure you can reasonably say that you need "only one example" to make the point that something is "quite common", as your text does.

MrP

Anonymous · Answer

I've given other examples in the past.

MrPedantic · Answer

AnonymousI've given other examples in the past.

That's fine; but your text says that only one example is enough to show that something is "quite common". (Which would make for a startling new interpretation of googlewhacking.)

MrP

Anonymous · Answer

< but your text says that only one example is enough to show that something is "quite common ". >

<<Again we seem to be looking at multiple Standard Englishes - dialects of a dialect/sociolect, so to speak. >>

Forbes · Answer

AnonymousAgain we seem to be looking at multiple Standard Englishes - dialects of a dialect/sociolect, so to speak.

It is the classic problem of how far you go in classification. If one is comparing the styles of two different writers, or perhaps 'schools' of writers, it is perfectly legitimate to point out the differences. A newspaper may for example have a 'house style' that differs from that of another newspaper. I do not think that justifies us in saying that there are two different dialects or even sociolects.

'Standard English' involves some continuity, but is nevertheless constantly changingly and within it at any given moment there are always possibilities. There is no hard and fast rule as to what Standard English is and to an extent it is what people say it is. Anyone who contributes to this forum by writing in Standard English, but says he does not know what it is, is really indulging in a bit of a game. Such a game helps us to concentrate our minds on what Standard English is and it is no bad thing to think carefully about any words and phrases we bandy about. The game can be fun, but it is getting a bit tiresome.

I cannot help feeling that behind many of the quotes thrown at us by Anon (whether he be one or many) there is an agenda that somehow wants to see English fragmented. Now of course all languages tend to fragment, though I think the process is slower for languages which enjoy widespread literacy. Some seem to want to accelerate this natural tendency to give whatever community they are interested in a unique voice - its own "English of many Englishes" - and perhaps thereby weaken over all the strength of English with a very captial "E". This is all very well, but forgets that language is above all about communication and is only after that an aspect of culture.

Let us embrace and rejoice in the many varieties of English, but at the same time not forget that all native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty.

Anonymous · Answer

<Let us embrace and rejoice in the many varieties of English, but at the same time not forget that all native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty.>

I'll celebrate with you, but let's not talk to the un-educated, i.e. nonstandard English speakers, at the party, shall we? ;-) Well, we wouldn't really understand them if we did, would we? Who would?

Anonymous · Answer

< all native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty.>

So there's this nonstandard English speaker and he comes along and meets this Standard English speaker who says:

SEspeaker: My car needs washing.

NSE speaker: You can take it to the carwash.

SEspeaker: OK, thanks for that information.

Then there's this Standard English speaker and he comes along and meets this nonstandard English speaker who says:

NSEspeaker: My car needs washed.

SE speaker: What? I do not understand you.

NSEspeaker: OK, thanks for that information.

The tale on most language forums: "I'm a Standard English speaker, or at least I want all to believe that. If you don't speak to me in Standard English I'll pretend I don't understand you and I'll frighten all language students into thinking they too would not be understood by most native speakers if they spoke as you".

C'mon, Forbes, tell it as it is.

Forbes · Answer

AnonymousC'mon, Forbes, tell it as it is.

Right. I will.

I said: "All native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty." What I meant was that most native speakers of English are to a great or less extent bidialectal, or at least bivarietal. It is be hoped that all native speakers of English receive some education and that education will involve them in learning some variety of Standard English. None of the varieties of Standard English differ from each other by very much at all. This means that, on the whole, native speakers of English can understand each other so long as, if they come from different parts of the world, each of them does not insist on speaking his "home" dialect.

But you seem to worry about students of English who are learning English as a second language. What are we going to teach them if we do not teach them Standard English? It seems to me entirely reasonable that if students of English from Tierra del Fuego meet students of English from Japan that when they meet each group will expect the other group to speak the same language.

In case there is any misunderstanding here, I believe that all varieties of Englsih are equally valid. That does not mean, talking purely in terms of numbers, that they are all equally useful as a means of communication. If at school I had been taught, say, Aragonese, instead of Standard Spanish, on the grounds that it was as equally valid, I would have been highly annoyed when I got to Spain on my first visit and found that not only could they not understand me in Madrid, but that neither could the majority of the inhabitants of Aragon.

All we get is a constant stream of statements culled from here and there as to what EFL teachers should not be doing, coupled with assertions that they are pedalling some sort of artificial language. Nowhere is there any suggestion as to what EFL teachers ought to be doing or how they are supposed to come to decisions about what they should be doing. All the comments that contributors make are responded to with further questions and we get involved in endless Socratic debates that go nowhere.

Now, I can perfectly understand that there are many in the world who feel threatened by the onward advance of English. It seems as part of this that they feel the need to encourage the fragmentation of English. By all means let local varieties develop, but keeping learners away from Standard English as a matter of policy is nothing short of illiberal. I get very frustrated when language gets too caught up in culture, nationalism, religion or race. Language is above all a means of communication. It is good that as many people of the world as possible should be able to communicate with each other freely. It just happens that at this moment in the world's history English is one of the languages many want to learn. Let's make sure when they do that they can all speak to each other.

Multiple Standard Englishes.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions