{"id":275,"date":"2024-09-18T08:45:52","date_gmt":"2024-09-18T06:45:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/linguistica.info\/b\/lei\/?page_id=275"},"modified":"2025-06-27T11:17:21","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T09:17:21","slug":"1-3-thinking-about-standards-and-proper-grammar","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/linguistica.info\/b\/leiwp\/toc\/1-introduction\/1-3-thinking-about-standards-and-proper-grammar\/","title":{"rendered":"1.3 Thinking about standards and \u201cproper\u201d grammar"},"content":{"rendered":"

Studying a language scientifically means studying how people actually use it and trying to understand the implicit rules they follow in doing so. It also means refraining from value judgments \u2014 we do not judge the the plural formulae<\/em> to be better than the plural formulas <\/em>based on the fact that it it is the original Latin form, and we do not judge the plural formulas<\/em> to be better than the plural formulae<\/em> based on the fact that it conforms to the rule by which most plurals are formed in English. We simply observe that some speakers use one and some use the other (and some may use either one, depending on the situation). We then try to find out why this is the case.<\/p>\n

In the same way, we do not judge one language to be better than another \u2014 we do not make claims such as \u201cFrench is more beautiful than German\u201d or \u201cLatin is the most logical language\u201d. We simply describe and explain the rules of French, German, and Latin and look for commonalities (which might tell us something about human language in general) and differences (which might tell us something about the way languages change; given that all three languages share a common ancestor, Indo-European) or the limits within which languages can change (which might, again, tell us something about human language in general).<\/p>\n

We also don\u2019t judge different varieties of a language \u2014 we do not make claims such as \u201cBritish English is better than Indian English\u201d or \u201cAmericans cannot speak proper English\u201d. Instead, we treat all varieties as equally valid and, again, describe and explain their rules.<\/p>\n

At least, that is what we\u00a0aspire<\/em> to do. It is not always easy to put into practice,\u00a0because of course language is a deeply human behaviour, and therefore is deeply intertwined with human relationships and social categories. Relationships like teacher-student, doctor-patient, or customer-server, for example, all involve power relations that play a role in people\u2019s expectations about language. Likewise, the communities that we belong to, whether they\u2019re based on ethnicity, religion, profession, fandom, or any other social category, shape how we use language and how we expect others to use language. So when we\u2019re studying language scientifically, we can\u2019t separate the grammar from all the other social pieces.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re striving for this radical goal of considering all languages and dialects as equally valid<\/strong> from a linguistic point of view, but we also have to acknowledge that people have attitudes and expectations that arise from social power dynamics, and these attitudes \u2014 whether positive or negative \u2014 lead to linguistic bias<\/strong>. Everyone, including linguists, has linguistic biases. We can\u2019t help making judgments about people based on how they use language. But by learning to think about the relationship between language and power, we can gain\u00a0metalinguistic awareness<\/strong>\u00a0of our own linguistic biases, at the same time as we\u2019re developing metalinguistic awareness of our grammars.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s an example of a linguistic bias that\u2019s really prevalent in Canada and the US. North Americans tend to perceive all the varieties of British English as having\u00a0high prestige<\/strong>. They tend to assume that speakers of British English are better educated and more intelligent than speakers of North American varieties of English \u2014 even for varieties that have low prestige in the United Kingdom. Someone who speaks a variety that\u2019s stigmatized in the UK might arrive in Canada to find that everyone thinks their English is very fancy. Their English hasn\u2019t changed on the flight across the Atlantic, but people\u2019s attitudes towards it differ on the two sides.<\/p>\n

Language standards and \u201cstandard\u201d languages<\/h2>\n

Some ways of using language are associated with higher prestige. Because of colonialism, these are often the forms of language used by white people, by wealthier people, or by people who have received more formal education.<\/p>\n

When people talk about the standard<\/em> variety of a language, they usually mean the form that has been\u00a0standardized<\/strong>, that is, the form that most closely matches the language used in dictionaries, textbooks, and high-status media. This standardization happens via social mechanisms of power. In France, for example, there\u2019s an official government body, the\u00a0Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise<\/em>,\u00a0that decides what counts as correct, standard French. In 2017, when they noticed more and more French writers including feminine nouns and adjectives alongside the standard masculine forms, they published a declaration that this kind of inclusive writing was a mortal danger (\u201cun p\u00e9ril mortel\u201d<\/em>) for French! It\u2019s their literal job to tell people they\u2019re languaging wrong.<\/p>\n

Unlike French, English does not have an official language police to enforce prescriptive language rules, but that doesn\u2019t mean the standardized varieties of English are any less connected to power and privilege. Instead, standardized English is enforced through social norms, through dictionaries and style guides, textbooks and grammar-checking software. There\u2019s no official Boss of Canadian English warning about the dangers of gender-inclusive language, but it was still a big deal when the in-house style guide of the\u00a0Globe and Mail<\/em>, a national newspaper in Canada, decided in 2017 that it was okay to use specific singular\u00a0they<\/em>. And in the UK, the shorthand term for the highest-prestige variety is \u201cthe Queen\u2019s English\u201d \u2014 who has more power and privilege than a monarch?<\/p>\n

To be clear, the standard that these authorities enforce\u00a0isn\u2019t chosen out of nowhere, and is not somehow objectively determined to be the best or clearest variety. (Remember there\u2019s no linguistic way to determine \u201cbest\u201d when it comes to language.) The standard is usually just the variety that\u2019s associated with economic, social, or political power. For many languages, the standard is whatever variety is spoken in the capital city, or by a dominant political class.\u00a0For English and for other European languages, the variety that people categorize as \u201cstandard\u201d tends to be the variety that white people with a certain amount of formal education use.<\/p>\n

In North America, we can observe how assumptions about standard languages intersect with our ideas of race by considering the variety of English associated with Black speakers.\u00a0You\u2019ll see this variety called\u00a0African American Language (AAL)<\/strong>,\u00a0African American Vernacular English<\/strong>\u00a0(AAVE),\u00a0Black English<\/strong>, or\u00a0Ebonics<\/strong>, depending on who\u2019s talking about it and when. We\u2019ll use the term African American Vernacular English<\/em> here, as it is the most commonly used term, but note that not all Black speakers of this variety consider themselves part of the African-American community. In fact, not all speakers of this variety are Black and\/or part of the African diaspora at all, and of course, not all African Americans in the United States speak African American Vernacular English. Still, using this variety of English is a strong indicator of an African American identity. Even though AAVE is characteristically American, and has many speakers across many different regions of the USA, it\u2019s somehow never what anyone means when they refer to Standard American English. That reveals the common linguistic bias: when people say \u201cstandard language\u201d they usually think \u201cthe language that white people use\u201d.<\/p>\n

Isn\u2019t it good to have standards?<\/h2>\n

You\u00a0might think of having a standardized variety of a language as a good thing, or at least as a neutral thing. We\u2019re used to having a single variety of English appear in most written sources, for example. It\u2019s easy to view standardization as positive if the variety that you and your family used when you were growing up was relatively close to the standardized variety used in schools. But if we assume that the standardized form is the only correct or proper form, we end up discriminating against users of different varieties. Here are some examples:<\/p>\n