What Is ’Standard
English’?
Peter Strevens
The Bell Educational Trust
Cambridge, England
Introduction : Some
Assumptions
The title to this paper begs two prior questions: first, the question of
whether a Standard English exists, and second, the question whether the
very concept of a Standard English is valid or useful. Several different answers
might be given to these questions, depending on the observer’s standpoint,
attitudes or experience. This paper is written within the universe of discourse
of applied linguistics and the teaching of English as a foreign language.1
It assumes and asserts that the concept of a Standard English is indeed
valuable for such purposes, that certain features and aspects of present-day
English are best accounted for by invoking this concept, that a Standard
English - definable in a particular way - can be held to exist, and that
this form of English occupies an important place within the diversity of
the language.
What Standard
English is NOT
The foregoing positive assumptions about the existence and definability of a Standard English are balanced by certain negative assumptions,
about what Standard English is not:
(i) It is not an arbitrary, a priori description of English, or of a
form of English, devised by reference to standards of moral value, or
literary merit, or supposed linguistic purity, or any other metaphysical
yard-stick - in short, ’Standard English’ cannot be defined or described
in terms such as ’the best English,’ or ’literary English,’ or ’Oxford
English,’ or ’BBC English.’
(ii) It is not defined by reference to the usage of any particular
group of English-users, and especially not by reference to a social
class - ’Standard English’ is not ’upper class English’ and it is encountered across the whole social spectrum, though not necessarily
in equivalent use by all members of all classes.
(iii)
It is not
English,
so
statistically
the most
frequently occurring
that ’standard’ here does not
mean
form of
’most often heard.’2
(iv) It is not imposed upon those who use it. True, its use by an
individual may be largely the result of a long process of education;
but Standard English is neither the product of linguistic planning
1
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
exists for French in the deliberapolicies devised in similar terms
for Hebrew, Irish, Welsh, Bahasa Malaysia, etc); nor is it a closelydefmed norm whose use and maintenance is monitored by some quasiofficial body, with penalties imposed for non-use or mis-use. Standard
English evolved: it was not produced by conscious design.
or
philosophy (for example such
Academie Fransaise,
tions of the
A
as
or
Working Definition of Standard English
Within the assumptions outlined above, this paper sets out to define
Standard English as:
particular dialect of English, being the only non-localised dialect, of
global currency without significant variation, universally accepted
as the appropriate educational target in teaching English; which may
be spoken with an unrestricted choice of accent.
a
This
highly-simplified and reductionist working definition requires
explication. The main body of this paper concentrates on
the following elements in the working definition:
comment and
dialect; accent; non-localised; global
currency;
significant variation;
universal acceptance; educational target; choice of accent.
Thus it will be obvious that the question of Standard English, as here
addressed, is concerned with: the existence of a large number of varieties
of English; different functions and uses for different varieties; the variable
distribution, both geographically and socially, of different varieties, and
differing
guage
restrictions upon the
co-occurrence
of
some
elements within lan-
variation; social and professional attitudes towards particular varieties.
Dialect; Accent; Localisation
Virtually all languages, and especially those spoken by large numbers
of people with a big geographical dispersion, exhibit variation - that is, not
all users of a language speak and write it identically. Leaving aside personal
and individual idiosyncrasies (i.e. the minutiae of idiolect), the variations of a
language are typically distributed according to geographically coherent
patterns of dialect and accent.
The distinction between dialect and accent is simply stated, yet the
distribution and occurrence of dialects and accents obscures this distinction,
which is nevertheless crucial for understanding the concept of Standard
English. Different dialects have differences of grammar and vocabulary;
different accents have differences of pronunciation. Notice that the distinction is not between the written and spoken modes of a given variety
2
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
of the language. Any dialect of English is spoken, and many are written:
written or spoken, a given dialect exhibits particular grammatical and lexical
usage (examples are given below), and when spoken, it displays a particular
set of pronunciation features.
It is also essential to notice that this analysis does not make a contrast
distinction between ’dialect’ and ’standard’: on the contrary, in this
analysis every user of English uses one dialect or another, and one accent or
another. Standard English is one particular dialect among many hundreds.
or
These variations typically occur in dialect + accent pairs, geographically
distributed with rather little overlap. Taking as the paradigm example their
distribution in areas where English is predominantly the mother tongue,
every locality has a unique dialect + accent pair, there is little overlap (except
in urban areas) and no cross-over between pairs. Thus, in Dorset, Dorset
dialect and Dorset accent are used; in W. Kentucky, W. Kentucky dialect
and W. Kentucky accent; in Yorkshire, Yorkshire dialect and Yorkshire
accent; and so forth. Individual migrants apart, Dorset dialect or accent is
never encountered in Kentucky, Yorkshire dialect or accent is never encountered in Dorset, Kentucky never in Yorkshire, and so forth. That is
what is meant by ’geographically coherent’ patterns of distribution.
dialect + accent pairs do not cross over. Yorkshire dialect
spoken with Kentucky accent; Kentucky dialect is never spoken
with Dorset accent; Dorset dialect is never spoken with Yorkshire accent;
and similarly throughout all the hundreds of localised dialect + accent pairs
Equally,
is
never
that
can
be identified
across
the
English-speaking world.
Though I have taken as the paradigm example the case where English
is the native language, precisely similar geographically-localised links occur
in areas where English is a foreign or second language. Even if no identifiable
local dialect may have emerged, there will usually be an identifiable local
accent among habitual users of English, and this will be restricted in occurrence solely to that locality or region. Singapore English dialect + accent is
never heard in Nigeria; Nigerian English dialect + accent is never encountered
in Singapore; Singapore English dialect is never spoken with a Nigerian
English accent; Nigerian English dialect is never spoken with a Singapore
English accent; and so forth.
Since dialect + accent pairs co-exist in this way, it is not surprising
that most non-specialists, and even many teachers of English, habitually
confuse the terms dialect and accent, and observe no distinction between
them: when both features exist together, naming either pre-supposes the
other. But in fact the only cases where this strict pairing does not operate
are precisely in relation to Standard English: hence the need to keep the
terms
separate.
3
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Before
+ accent
some
dealing
with the crucial
it may be
pairing,
helpful
exceptions to the normal rule of dialect
give some examples of ways in which
to
dialects differ from the dialect of Standard
Standard
Dialects
Where shall
round
we
go: round mine
English:
or
yours?
.
English Equivalent
Where shall we go? to my
house or yours?
(Cambridgeshire)
Is this you away to the steamie?
I suppose you
I seed it
(Virginia)
I
saw
it
I
(Pennsylvania)
I
saw
it
him
I did
seen
I is
it
seen
are
going to
the laundry?
(Edinburgh)
(Black English)
If ever tha does owt fer nowt,
allus do it fer thisen.
(Yorkshire)
see
him
anything for
nothing (i.e. free), always
do it for yourself.
If you
ever
do
One dialect of English, and only one, is not associated with any particular locality, and therefore occurs in any and every locality with very
little variation: it is non-localised in both a positive and a negative sense.
That dialect is the one usually known as Standard English.
Further, one dialect of English, and only one, has no inherent pairing
relationship with any single accent, but may form a non-exclusive pair with
virtually every accent of English - i.e. this dialect is spoken by speakers
of virtually every accent. The dialect concerned is Standard English.
z
Global Currency; Little Variation
It is easy to maintain that the dialect ’Standard English’ is not
associated with any particular locality: the assertion that it occurs in any and
every locality with very little variation requires some supporting argument
and explanation. Some of that exegesis will be supplied in the next section,
in which we shall consider the role of Standard English as the educational
target. But first it is necessary to expand the notions of global currency,
and of little variation.
To affirm
that those who
or as a
foreign or
global
currency for Standard English is simply to state
Standard English - whether as their mother tongue
second language - (a) are not confmed to any single locality
use
4
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
geographical area, and (b) may be found in any inhabited region of the
world. Not that they are found everywhere, but that they may be found
anywhere. This I hold to be an attested fact; it is not true of any other
dialect of English.
or
To affirm that this global currency is accompanied by little variation
some variation does indeed exist, but to minimise its extent
and importance. It is to assert that Standard English is ’the same’ rather than
’different’ in the usage of what may be loosely called British English,
American English, Australian English ,etc. But if that is so then how should
one regard the undoubted ability of
English-speakers to identify and distinguish from one another ’American,’ ’Scottish,’ ’New Zealand’ - let alone
’Singaporean,’ ’Ghanaian,’ ’South African’ English, and so forth? The
answer rests on the fact that the popular ability to make such identifications
depends on the discrimination of similarities and differences more subtle
than our ways of describing them have been, until recently. Our judgements
of provenance are holistic: to understand them we need to become aware of
the delicacy of the perceptions which inform such judgements.
is to
accept that
it is essential to recall that we are referring to a dialect and not
In discussing Standard English the only data is that which
would be found in either written text or written transcripts of spoken text
in that dialect. Differences between e.g. ’British Standard English’ dialect
and ’American Standard English’ dialect certainly exist, but they are statistically few and relatively unimportant, at least in the sense of whether they
impede comprehension and communication. We shall return to this point
First,
to an accent.
later.
Second, the popular ability to identify a person’s geographical origins
(when separated from non-linguistic cues and clues such as colour, dress,
behaviour, etc, and from reference to local places, names, customs and so
on) depends primarily on accent and only secondarily on localised vocabulary
and colloquial expressions; clues from grammar or discourse features tend
to be less informative than those of the two preceding categories, either
because they are less well-known as indicators, or more likely because they
occur less frequently. Listening to a person speaking, pronunciation features
provide evidence for geographical identification from the very first syllable
and are pervasive throughout. Localised features of grammar, vocabulary,
and so forth, occur much more as separate items, interspersed rather infrequently through the piece of language.
or of localised usages
is
the
dialect
references,
particular
being employed defmed principally
by its grammar; within Standard English there is little variation, no matter
where it is encountered.
In the
absence, then, of pronunciation features
or
5
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
Viewed from this perspective, the universally-perceived distinction
between British and American English becomes easier to grasp. Within Great
Britain there are many dialects and accents; similarly within North America,
and no British dialect + accent
is identical with any American dialect
+ accent pairing. Standard English dialect is encountered in both Britain and
America: when spoken, any British or American accent may be used.
Differences between Standard English dialect in Britain and in America, i.e.
other than pronunciation features and excluding localised references or
vocabulary usages, are few and trivial. That a major distinction is perceived as
between American and British English is of course true. This distinction is
however carried principally by features other than those belonging to
Standard English dialect.33
pairing
Universal Acceptance; Education Target; Choice of Accent
The assertion that Standard English dialect is universally accepted as
the appropriate model for educational use is a verifiable fact. Conversely,
no other dialect is acceptable, unless one allows the special and controversial
case of New Guinea pidgin. Throughout the world, learners do not learn in
schools, nor do teachers teach, such grammatical usages, common in other
dialects, as:
I knowed it
was
him
he done it last week
will get there afore him
there ain’t nothing there
us
can us
bring us own?
Two reminders are essential: first, although Standard English dialect is
universally accepted as the educational target, no single accent fills an equivalent position;4 second, the tacit acceptance of Standard English dialect for
educational purposes does not mean that it is ’best’ in some universal sense.
On the contrary, there are many circumstances of actual, practical language
use where a local dialect - or at least some features of it
is preferable and
where the use of Standard English would be regarded as offensive. People
vary their language according to the social circumstances, and they expect
others to adjust in similar ways. Non-conformity in language is often seen as
a social solecism and may constitute unacceptable behaviour.
-
Standard
English and Social Class
It is not necessary to invoke the concept of class in order to de fine
and describe Standard English. It is not true that Standard English is ’a class
dialect’: there is no possibility of defining class by reference to the use or
non-use of Standard English. For one thing, very large numbers of English6
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
users
switch between Standard
single categorisation of ’class’
675 million users of English.
no
English
and
some
other dialect. Further,
population of some
covers the whole vast
-
That does not mean that the main social classes within Britain (which
generally what is meant in discussions of ’class dialects’) do not exhibit
patterns of linguistic usage and preference. But these patterns relate to more
than just dialect. In particular, they generally involve a dialect + accent
pairing in which Standard English dialect is regularly accompanied by RP
accent, especially in a rather strongly-marked form. It is probably accurate
to say that the higher the social class, the greater the probability that a given
individual will use this pairing. But it is not true either that all members of
the upper classes employ only Standard English dialect + RP accent; nor that
this pairing is only met in the upper classes. It is even further from the truth
to assert that Standard English dialect irrespective of accent is the prerogative of the upper classes; while it is totally false to assert that Standard
English dialect is not encountered in members of the working class. The
sociolinguistic facts are far more complex than could be accommodated
within such a simple categorisation.
is
Nevertheless one must recognise that the pairing of Standard English
dialect with RP accent has been associated for almost a century with a
social and educational elite. This is partly because the great and definitive
work of phonetic description associated with the name of Daniel Jones
concentrated exclusively on RP - which, as we have seen, is used solely
with Standard English dialect. Jones’ defmition of RP in the 1948 edition
of An English Pronouncing Dictionary was
that which I believe to be
most usually heard in everyday speech in the families of Southern English
people who have been educated at the public schools ... also ... by those
who do not come from the South of England, but who have been educated
at these schools.’ Also to some extent ’
from natives of the South of
a
England who have not been educated at these schools.’ Probably ’
majority of Londoners who have had a university education ...’ use a pronunciation of this kind; and Jones specifically mentioned broadcasting
as a cause of the wider familiarity with RP.
‘
...
...
...
.
The nexus of relationships is in one sense obvious: in another, misleading. Observing and describing RP accent produces an inventory of social
groupings, predominantly upper class (at least until recent times) which
employ RP. Because of a personal insistence on the part of the main creator
of the BBC, Lord Reith, that official newsreaders and spokesmen should
RP (though Reith himself, while using Standard English dialect, spoke
not with RP but with a marked Scottish accent) the BBC became associated
with the Standard English + RP pairing. Hence the popular label ’BBC
English’ - which today is even less accurate than it was in Reith’s time.
It thus seems obvious that there is a close connection between RP, the public
use
7
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
schools,
therefore the upper
classes, the BBC, and Standard English dialect.
of the obvious misses the fact that Standard
RP
is
not
an
inherent
and unbreakable pairing such as people
English
are aware of in, say, Yorkshire dialect + Yorkshire accent, Somerset dialect
and Somerset accent. Standard English is independent of RP. RP accent
is not independent of Standard English dialect: it is spoken only with
Standard English dialect. But Standard English dialect is vastly more widespread than RP, and is in fact spoken with virtually any and every accent.
But this
superficial analysis
+
Thus it is an error to ascribe the social class connotations and
strictions associated with RP accent to Standard English dialect.5
re-
Conclusion
The term ’Standard English’ is valuable for three reasons: (i) it provides
way of accounting for a range of observable distinctions and attitudes;
(ii) it offers a label for the grammatical and lexical components, at least,
of the teaching core undertaken by the profession of teaching English,
whether as the mother tongue or as a foreign or second language; (iii) it
constitutes the unifying element within the enormous diversity of the English
a
language.
Notes
1.
This paper is thus not
a contribution to theoretical linguistics, or
dialectology, or variability theory in sociolinguistics,
or interlanguage studies in psycholinguistics - all of which would
require different criteria, and any of which would certainly define
the term differently from the way in which it is conventionally used
in applied linguistics and TEFL.
transformational
2.
The research has not been done that would establish the relative frequency of occurrence today of ’Standard English’ as defined in this
paper. However, one might guess that in speech Standard English
would be heavily in the minority, but that in writing it would be
somewhat in the majority.
3.
Distinctions between British and American English have here been
restricted to Great Britain and North America, but they also extend
over the whole English-using world. The diversity of English has developed historically through two main branches, a British English branch
and an American English branch. All forms of English have greater
affinities, in linguistic terms, with one or the other. Thus, the British
English branch includes English as used in most Commonwealth
countries; the American English branch includes English in the
Philippines, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. Popular perception of
8
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
this distinction can be observed in Hawaii, where an Englishman will
often be identified as Australian. His language is English; it is not
American (and therefore not Canadian) English; the most frequent
visitors to Hawaii who use English of the British branch are Australians;
therefore he is identified as Australian.
4.
The
use of RP (’Received Pronunciation’ or ’Educated Southern
British’) is not directly comparable. RP is a non-localised accent of
British English, which is spoken only with Standard English dialect
and never with any other dialect. In most countries where English is
taught as a ’foreign’ language (i.e. where it has no special status or
historical dominance) either RP or ’General American’ - an equivalent
non-localised accent of America - is normally taught. But where
English is a ’second’ language (principally in Commonwealth countries)
an accent identifiable as belonging
generally taught and accepted.
5.
to that
country is nowadays
When a trade union leader moves a resolution he almost certainly does
so in Standard English dialect, usually with an identifiable local or
regional accent. Class equates far more closely with accent than with
dialect - though even then the identity is not complete.
Reference
Jones, Daniel. 1917. An English pronouncing dictionary, 9th ed., 1948.
London: Dent.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, D. 1956. Problems and principles.
London:
Longman.
Quirk, R., and others. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. (See
especially Chapter 1.) London: Longman.
Smith, L. (ed.) 1981. English for cross-cultural
communication. London:
Macmillan.
Strevens, Peter. 1972. British and American English. London: Cassell.
.
1977. New orientations in the
teaching of Englisli. Oxford:
University Press.
.
Pergamon
1980.
Press.
Teaching English
as an
international language. Oxford:
1981. Forms of English: an analysis of the variables. English
for cross-cultural communication, ed. by L. Smith. London: Macmillan.
.
9
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016