This article is also accessible as a Pdf Document: Culture and Standard English.

 

How can we maintain a Standard English language when the English language itself is constantly evolving because of the many different varieties of it and the vast cultural influences in our society; and who gets to decide anyway?

 

Cultural Influences

 

During the colonial period, people of all nationalities, each with a different language, came to America. However, in her piece, “Why No Official Tongue,” Shirley Brice Heath argues that no official language was declared in that time. Heath’s research suggests that in the early national period of our country, the diverse nationalities emerged as social alliances and played a critical “role in the political and social life of the nation” (Heath 180). The French and German specifically provided their own schools, libraries and newspapers. As a result, those immigrants felt socially accepted. In a “fluctuating, developing, plural society, unlike-minded men,” needed familiar social distinctions (188). Heath claims that the nation’s leaders recognized the variety of languages that existed and the positive influence each would have on the spread of new government ideas. According to Heath, the nation’s leaders allowed cultural language choice and use to be diversified with purposeful intent. She contends the nation’s leaders believed if they applied pressure to the varied groups to “abandon their native languages,” resistance to the English language would be provoked (182). Instead, by allowing diversity to exist among the different social groups, it was believed the English language would naturally emerge as the majority language. Today, we recognize different cultures that bring different languages and there are many that exist in the United States. We also acknowledge the existence of many different versions of the English language, such as African American Vernacular English or Black English, Carribean Creole English, Hawaiian Creole English, and Hispanic/Latino English to name a few. There are so many, I wonder if it’s even possible to choose one for standardization or identify only one that has naturally emerged as the majority language.

 

In the chapter, “Language Ideology and the Language Subordination Model,” Lippi-Green states, “language is among other things—a flexible and constantly flexing social tool for the emblematic marking of social allegiances” (63). In fact, I agree and believe social acceptance is an important factor in how language grows. In the same Lippi-Green chapter, we find the suggestion that strong social ties are formed through cultural language, allowing people to “situate themselves socially in the world” (63). I’m convinced the history of language is flavored with culture.

 

In another chapter, “The Standard Language Myth,” Lippi-Green contends Standard English is typically defined as the “language of the educated” (54). She argues that this implies social positioning in society dictates the use of Standard English. Peter Trudgill’s essay, “Standard English: What It Isn’t,” supports Lippi-Green’s argument by telling us that history reflects the unconscious selection of Standard English to be “the standard variety precisely because it was the variety associated with the social group with the highest degree of power, wealth and prestige” (6). However, his research has discovered that the many different language varieties have “stylistic differentiation” because people can manipulate their style of language, changing the “degree of formality,” by choice, depending on their social situation (2). According to Trudgill, every human society shares a difference (variety) within their own language as the people adjust their use to the social situation they’re in. Here I agree with Trudgill.

 

Written or Spoken

 

Trudgill surmises that “Standard English is a dialect…It is a sub-variety of English” (5). He continues by saying it is “a purely social dialect…” (6). However, MacNeil and Cran provide support that it is not simply dialect that we are trying to preserve in the English language by standardization. In their chapter, “Toward a Standard,” MacNeil and Cran discuss Dr. Ulle Lewes’ perspective in that the way we write, or the grapholect, (as opposed to dialect) is most important in standardizing the English language. This notion supports the research found in Lippi-Green’s essay suggesting some believe in the idea that the educated (which would have been society’s upper class throughout history), “are more exposed to the written language and literacy traditions; they may…write better than the less educated” (55). Therefore, this would indicate we could not use dialect alone for standardizing the English language. The poor and less educated have their own variety of the English dialect. The way they write, is different too.

 

According to Lippi-Green, a “perceived superiority of the written language” exists, and I can certainly agree (55). She makes the argument that written language is not the same as spoken language as assumed by dictionaries. Based on her research, Lippi-Green speculates “it is clear that in this country, power and authority in language are tied inextricably to education and literacy"(61). She submits that family values, culture, and social ties often “stand in contrast to the values of the core institutions which promote education and literacy,” but not always (61).

 

Lippi-Green defines mainstream to describe a bigger picture than that of the term standard (as defined by Heath), which does not necessarily consider both education and literacy. She argues that “Heath’s definition is problematic” because Heath “does not distinguish between spoken and written language” in her essay (60). I lean toward agreeing with Lippi-Green because I do believe both spoken and written language need to be considered when trying to find some kind of standard. Herein lies a bigger problem for me. If we are still trying to standardize, not only do we need to determine what variety of the spoken English language to use, but we must combine that task with standardizing the written word specific to that variety as well.

 

Who decides?

 

In Heath’s research we learn France, Italy, and Spain all adopted special academies to preserve a standardized language in their country. These academies “prepared an official dictionary, grammars, and regulated literacy works which served as authorities for other institutions and national elites” (183). These institutions did not consider spoken varieties in the language; rather they tied the use of language with forms of literacy. Their purpose is to preserve the “standard by which elites could measure themselves… or set their goals” (183). MacNeil and Cran in their chapter, “The Language Wars,” would call those officials who oversee the academies prescriptivists.

 

The prescriptivists believe language should follow strict guidelines whereas the descriptivists allow language to be guided by use. MacNeil and Cran reason, “However informal and tolerant our society becomes, people know that the way they use language still matters” (10). These authors provide strong perspectives on both the descriptivist and prescriptivist positions. For example, MacNeil and Cran provide the perspective of John Simon, who is clearly a prescriptivist. His work supports the idea that language belongs to a higher social class of people. He argues that language guidelines (or standardization) need to be dictated by those with a higher education. Noting “the permissive revolution of the sixties” as the onset, Simon suggests education started “on a downhill course”. He submits education took “four great body blows” (11). The first of those “blows” was when students became empowered with choice in subject matter and even grammar. The second dealt with “the notion that in a democratic society language must accommodate itself to the whims, idiosyncrasies, dialects and sheer ignorance of underprivileged minorities…” (12). The third “blow” was “the introduction by more and more incompetent English teachers…” (12). The final “blow,” according to Simon, was television, and the effects it has on language.

 

Contrary to Simon’s prescriptivist outlook, MacNeil and Cran offer a quote by Mark Twain: “A nation’s language is a very large matter. It is not simply a manner of speech obtaining among the educated handful; the manner obtaining among the vast, uneducated multitude must be considered also” (14). Supporting Twain’s descriptivist attitude, Geoffrey Numberg asserts that conversation has become the mainstream in the world of entertainment and public information. He contends that “we have become a society of over hearers,” suggesting there is a wide variety of American English in today’s society; some of it conforms to the traditional English language taught in school, but a lot of it does not. Like Twain, Jesse Sheidlower is also a descriptivist. MacNeil and Cran provide his argument that “you take people from all sorts of different places and … backgrounds and throw them together, and you have a tremendous blending of language that had a very big effect on how people speak” (23).

 

Conclusion

 

We can conclude that all language is influenced by culture. We can even agree that language is constantly changing. The prescriptivists suggest there is no place in language standardization for social influence, whereas the descriptivists embrace the changes in language as they evolve.

 

I think we are all a little of both. Contrary to the prescriptivist perspective, I don’t believe cultural influence is a bad thing. I lean toward being a descriptivist myself. I want recognizable order as I think most people do. But is it because we’ve been taught there is a certain standard, or order to the English language? At some point in our nation’s history, someone decided there needed to be order to the English language, so it could be identifiable. But who gets to decide what the order is? I believe language is constantly changing due to cultural influence. Our history is built upon the American dream that immigrants of many cultures came to capture. Adding to the cultural mix, we brought slaves to America, who brought many different languages with them. This is a nation where the language belongs to everybody, in all walks of life, in all cultures. Today, more than ever, we have the freedom to express ourselves. How could America be any other way? After all, this is the land of the free!

 

 

Work Cited

 

Heath, Shirley Brice. “Why No Official Tongue?” Reading Culture: Contexts for Reading and Writing. Ed. Diana 

     George and John Trimbur. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2001. 178-189.

 

Lippi-Green, Rosina. “The Standard Language Myth.” English with an Accent. Language, Ideology, and

     Discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge, 1997. 53-62.

 

---“Language Ideology and the Language Subordination Model.” 63.

 

MacNeil, Robert and William Cran . “The Language Wars." Do You Speak American? Westminster: Doubleday,

     2004. 9-29.

 

---“Toward a Standard: Putting the “R” in ‘American.’” 49-66.

 

Trudgill, Peter. “Standard English: What It Isn’t.” Standard English: The Widening Debate. Ed. Tony Bex and 

     Richard J. Watts. London: Rutledge, 1999. 117-128. Print.