The Debate Surrounding the Standard and the Non-Standard English Language - Case Study Example

The Debate Surrounding the Standard and the Non-Standard English Language The debate surrounding the English language has been going on for long now, based on its categorization as either standard or non-standard English. The major perception is that the Standard English language is superior to the non-standard English. However, the major problem emanates from the attempt to define Standard English language, since “it can be difficult to pinpoint its features exactly” (Curzan, 341). Thus, even though most speakers will perceive the use of Standard English language as superior, it is only important to understand that language is natural, and thus will keep growing and changing as time goes by. It is due to this reason that David Wallace holds the view that we “cant escape language: Language is everything and everywhere: its what lets us have anything to do with one another” (Wallace, 41). It would therefore be important if all English language variations were treated as important languages for social application, as opposed to holding them as inferior to the Standard English language. Nevertheless, there is a need to accept that the Standard English language is the basis for the other English variations that have developed, meaning that learning its usage and proper application is essential. This is simply because it is the language mostly used in different forms of formal communication. However, Curzan seems to hold a different opinion of Standard English language altogether, by holding that “Standard English and prescriptive grammar are about who has the social power to prescribe and who is silenced in the process” (Curzan, 877). This essay, then, aims to argue that Standard English language is not superior to non-standard English language. According to George Orwell, “Modern English, especially written English, is in bad shape (Orwell, 1). Therefore, Orwell observes that there is a need to take the necessary trouble to rectify the bad modern English language. However, despite the fact that Curzan does not object to this idea, she is of the opinion that it is not often good to emphasize more on the usage of the Standard English language and its prescriptive rules of grammar, just for the sake of preserving the Standard English language in its originality. The argument here is that it is rationally dishonest “to pretend that written Standard English is above question” (Curzan, 871). Her recommendation therefore, is that students should be given room for challenging the rule of Standard English language, without being perceived as if they are being over ambitious or as though they are breaking a sacred rule. This opinion has been supported by Dennis Freeborn in his article published in The Independent Newspaper, in which he argues that the superiority of the Standard English language is not intrinsic, but rather one that has been determined socially and historically (Freeborn, n.p.). In this respect, the superiority of the Standard English language is challenged based on the fact that it does not carry its dominance in being a language per se, but simply because the language has tended to appear superior to other English language variations in the course of history. This has been so because; “written Standard English is the variety generally used in education, bureaucratic publications…and other formal documents (Curzan, 873). On the other hand, Orwell is of the opinion that sticking to the rule of Standard English language is essential, owing to the fact that it is through learning and observing these rules, that it becomes possible to avoid the many mistakes modern writers are making in delivering their intended messages. Through sticking to the rules of Standard English, Orwell believes that people will be in a better position to express themselves more understandably. This is because; there are some instance s where a person can be in “doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails” (Orwell , 7). Therefore, Orwell supports sticking to the rules of Standard English language, by holding that it is the only way through which better communication, more especially in writing, can be achieved. However, Curzan holds an objection to this thought. She holds the view that learning and sticking to the rules of Standard English language does nothing better than make English teachers abandon their work. According to Curzan, it is unfair to ask students to write in a certain language, and not ask them to question the language in which they are expected to write. In this respect, “we must negotiate what it means if we want to argue that we must teach Standard English” (Curzan, 347). The perception among many Standard English language speakers is that any non-standard English language is Standard English that has a lot of slang and grammatical mistakes (Wheeler, 41). However, the only problem is that such Standard English speakers have not understood the fact that there is an incorrect utterance of one language, which is indeed a correct utterance in another language. Therefore, the understanding of one language should not be through a process of evaluating and comparing one language to the other, but the understanding of each language as a distinct one with its different rules of applicability. The only difference existing between Standard English Language and the other non-standard variations, for example the African English, is largely due to “structural differences between standard English and African-American English” (Mufwene, n.p.). This means that both languages are correct in their different utterances and should not be gauged in their correctness against each other. It is the misconception that the other variations of the Standard English language are simply Standard English language full of grammar and lexical mistakes, which has caused the need to reform these languages so that they can fit into the context of the Standard English language. This being the case, it follows that “the lexicographers challenge now is to be not just accurate and comprehensive but credible” (Wallace, 58). The development of the dictionaries that do not reflect the Standard English language is seen as a corruption of the language, forcing the lexicographers to not only seek to develop dictionaries that will reflect accurate Standard English and grammar, but also fit appropriately in the social conception of accuracy of the language. The attempt to align with the proclaimed prestige and superiority of the Standard English language has seen many students put more effort and time in studying the prescriptive rules of grammar for this language, to the point of neglecting any of their other languages. This is necessary due to the fact that the news on TV, radio and the newspapers are all written and read in the Standard and formal English language, while the political and other important social addresses also apply the same language (Mufwene, n.p.). However, focusing so much on the prescriptive rule of the language is not necessarily of benefit to the linguists and those who care for the natural growth of languages. The focus on African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and other English variations as languages of inadequacy, which are spoken by people with a low intellectual capacity for the Standard English language, is a big misconception (Wheeler, 42). The African American Vernacular English and other English dialects are solid languages with their own structure that differs from that of the Standard English language, but still representative of the grammatical and utterance correctness of those languages. Such structural differences do not make the other non-standard English languages inferior when assessed according to their intrinsic value. The only inferiority of these languages to the Standard English Language derives from the social and historical judgments, since these languages are not prescribed for formal engagements (Santipol, 427). In conclusion, political and social considerations have tended to influence when one language should be considered a dialect or version of another. Most especially, when one language is considered to be more prestigious than the other, a classic example being the Standard English language and the African American Vernacular English (AAVE), there is no doubt that the later will be considered a dialect of the former (Wheeler, 44). The fact that the non-standard English languages are not largely prescribed or codified for official and bureaucratic use does not mean that they are the other versions of the Standard English language. The “chief difference between standard and non-standard varieties is not in their ‘superior or ‘inferior linguistic structures, but in the different level of social acceptability” (Santipolo, 403). Therefore, although there is a need to teach the Standard English language because of its relevance both in the formal sector and also in most global platforms, it should not be treated as unquestionable in its superiority. This is because there is a need to remember that each version of the non-standard English language constitutes a language in its own merit. For that reason, the non-standard English languages deserve equal consideration, since “Standard English, despite the pedestal on which we put it, is one dialect among many-not the source of all the others (Curzan, 872). Works Cited Curzan, Anne. Teaching the Politics of Standard English. University of Michigan, 2011. 339-351. Print. Curzan, Anne. Says Who? “Teaching and Questioning the Rules of Grammar.” The Modern Language Association of America 124(3), 2009. 870-879. Freeborn, Dennis. “Letter: The superiority of Standard English.” The Independent, December 15, 1992. Web. February 11, 2015. < http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-the-superiority-of-standard-english-1563698.html> Mufwene, Salikoko S. Ebonics Or African-American English: Whats In A Name And Can School Systems Ignore It? University of Chicago; Department of Linguistics. Web. February 11, 2015. Orwell, George. "Politics and the English Language," 1946. 1-8. Print. Santipolo, Matteo. “On the opposite sides of the continuum: standard British English and cockney. A historical outline of the parallel developments of the two varieties,” 2005. 403-441. Print. Wallace, David F. “Tense Present: Democracy, English, and the Wars over Usage”. Harper Magazine, 2001. 37-58. Print. Wheeler, Rebecca. The Workings of Language. Westport CT: Praeger, 1999, 39-58. Print. Read More