Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 1
Chapter One
Standard and Non- Standard English
It is important to consider the non- native speakers and learners of English in
the world today. Since there are now more non-native speakers of the language,
these surely have a right to be heard. What is the role of a teacher if she/he cannot
speak for those who cannot speak for themselves?
In fact, the real issues of standard /non standard English –which rely heavily on
the
assumptions
related
to
the
general
debate
about
formal
properties,
educatedness, associated values, and social functions in respect to native speakers,
have to be viewed in a special perspective when the context is EFL (English foreign
learners) . This chapter provides debates and detailed analysis on the status and
functions of standard / non standard, English as viewed and varied from country to
country, from writer to writer and from variety to variety.
However, for the writers who have been chosen here to speak for themselves and to
characterize the definitions or ideas of standardization, Standard English will remain an
issue and a debate restricted within national and native speaker areas. So the following
established debate among writers supporting or opposing the notion of standard, may
seem irrelevant for EFL, since it does not account for the people who are using it and
therefore arguments for the most part self-contained in that they are mainly meant to
be addressing people who already possess the language.
Rather than working on different agendas, we thought, it better to represent the
different views and recent approaches which are current among linguists and
sociolinguists .This would allow us to follow our assumptions in a manner of trying to
allocate EFL in the heart of the debate in terms of standard and non –standard English
which has been a marginalized area in this field in so far.
Indeed, it will be apparent that the real focus is drawn on the majority of writers who
deal with various issues concerning Standard English in Britain. Nevertheless, it would
Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 2
have been short sighted to have ignored other important debates, which have taken
place, elsewhere in this field such as those which have emerged in the USA. .
Although, it is worth noting here, that it would be misleading to suggest that these
quotations and different argument suggested by different experts writing on Standard
English represent the last words or consensus on the issues they address. For one
reason we believe if there is no disagreement , there will be no available agenda for
meaningful debate and that their resources might perhaps act as useful pointers to the
notion of standard English which might rise from this center to another center of
other kinds of debate.
The first defining characteristic of standard English, as defined is its ‘generality ‘and
‘uniformity’, the widespread nature of its use all over the world, though there are small
differences, between the two main forms of English that are learned internationally;
British English and American English. Other forms of English derive from one of these,
Canadian and Philippine English, Australian Englishes and the world Englishness of
different parts of Africa. All of these varieties have their own regional features in terms
of vocabulary and grammar,. The forces which help to maintain the relative uniformity
of the growth of English as international language is standardization, and it is quite
clear that the power of standard, which can hold the language together, can also drive
English world local speakers apart. The development of local varieties of English has
been a way of marking out social identities. American English for example has
developed considerably over the last two centuries but never enough to overcome other
English dialects and achieve independent status. One way of understanding this
development is to follow useful classification of different Englishes, see Kachru’s (1985 :
123 )cited in Bex et al ( 1999:4). He distinguishes varieties according to ‘speech
fellowship’. His classification correspond to the geographical location of different
Englishes and the ways in which
their speaker construct notions of correctness’. Kachru describes these ‘fellowships’ as
belonging to three concentric circles. The inner circle contains those speakers of English
who are native speakers, such as British, American, and Australian. The outer circle
Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 3
contains those who learn it as a second language, such as Africa and India, and finally
the expanding circle as those who learn it as a foreign language example, European
and Far East and Middle East countries.
Kachru brings into sharp focus the problems of standard English in terms of regional
and national varieties that have developed worldwide. He, therefore, rejects a mono
model of English even for pedagogic purposes arguing that : Kachru ( 1985: 123) in Bex
et al ( 1999 : 4) ‘ in addition , there are several types of Englishes, for example in South
Asia or parts of Africa , which are not meant necessarily for the consumption of a native
speaker of English . They have their national or regional functions. On the cline of
Englishness these may be low, but functionally they serve the purpose of
communication as does another human language.’
A leading Black African academic, Professor Ndebele claimed that the concept of
international language is ‘an invention of western imperialism. See Honey ( 1997:256).
Standard English is now a battlefield. Despite its fifteenth -century origins, there has
been a crucial element in an educations system. There are today people who still
question the appropriateness of teaching Standard English in schools. Their reasons is
that to promote one form that is , the standard English in schools means a
disparagement of non-standard forms , and for this reason discussions about standard
and non standard English became somehow an emotional issue.
And so the standard English debate rumbles on .Trudgill ( 1974 d) defines Standard
English saying It is that variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is
normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers learning the language . It is also
the variety which is normally spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts
and other similar situations. The difference between standard and non-standard , it
should be noted , has nothing in principle to do with differences between formal and
Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 4
colloquial language or with concepts such as ‘bad
language’. Standard English has
colloquial as well as formal variety and standard English speakers swear as much as
others.’
Trudgill ( 1974d: 5-6)
Honey (1997: 148) also shows the same opinion in that standard English is both a
written and a spoken variety . Honey ( 1997: 3) starts his definition about standard
language by saying it is a written language , ‘ By Standard English I mean the language
in which this book is written’ , he then defines its characteristic as its ‘ uniformity’ ,
generality and its ‘correctness’ which for the most part , ‘codified , embodied in
dictionaries and in set of rules taught in schools , both to children whose native
language is English, and to those learning English as a foreign language.’ ( 1997 : 3).As
far as speaking is concerned , Honey did not make a clear clarification when saying
‘Standard English can be spoken in any accent’ Honey ( 1997: notes ( 1999:271) ‘
argues ‘ It is an established fact that no language or dialect is superior to another’ .
The Milroys interest in differentiating between (spoken and written English) make their
work significant in that they pointed out some differences between spoken and written
English, such as situational factors, tone of voice, ellipses and so on in respect to
standard English . Their brief account that speech is usually spontaneous, whereas
writing typically need s preparations and planning leads them to regard the ideology of
standardization as ‘disease’ Honey (1997: 131) in that the prescriptive rules derived
from written English should be applied to the way spoken English is used . James Milroy
argues in (1999: 17) that ‘all languages are variable and not uniform and that the idea
that languages can be believed to exist in static invariant forms may well be to a great
extent a consequence of the standardization’. In other words the ‘uniform’ state of
idealizations is not empirically verifiable. That is to say, if we examine the way people
speak Standard English, it will never conform to idealization. James Milroy in (1999:
16)
Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 9
. The crux of the debate remains crucial in terms of non-native speakers . Why could
not the standard English give the non- native speaker this optional tendency ,even
though ‘standard English’ may guarantee to give him the features of ‘educatedness’
‘correctness’, and high position. Is there something lacking in the standard English
which filters everything he has been learning and reduces him to unintelligibility once
faced with the greatest challenge , the native speaker .Trudgil says (1999: 123
)
‘standard English is not a language , is not a style , is not a register , is not an accent .
The fact is as he argues that although standard English is so widely used in education,
and in the media , the most people in Britain continue to speak non-standard dialects
Trudgill ( 1994: 9 ).
This final arguments about standard and non- standard is not where we end but
where we should start. As far as EFL is concerned, the influence of English is obviously
a function of rapidly growing internationalization, but it is important to realize that the
process of internalization is no longer the privilege of an educational elite. In fact, the
promotion of English for the purpose of international communication English from
‘above’ now has its popular counterpart English from ‘below’ often representing the use
of spoken dialects. The suggested theory is on how to make decisions as to how to
reconcile these two distinct varieties. Our next chapter will be about native and
non-native speakers under the heading ‘language and society’
It goes without saying that non –native English teachers should (in the first place)
know at least one variety of non- standard pronunciation and intonation in a certain
dialect for teaching. Unfortunately, teachers ‘ positions here are not superior to their
non-native learners. Now that the Position of EFL in foreign countries like (the middle
east for example) has tremendously changed. English is no more considered to be a ‘
foreign language .It is known and spoken by almost everybody below the age of forty.
English is seen in every shop, in every street, on buses and in local and international
areas. Children are exposed to English before they enter schools. Pop music and
American films have played an important role in promoting the language. Moreover the
Internet is used by children at a very young age(6-7). Code switching has become
Hejazi Hana / Standard & Non-Standard English/ page 12
normal rather than exceptional. For these reasons and even more, too much emphasis
on teaching grammar and rules is becoming ridiculed especially when students are
destined to receive what they already know or what they can acquire in a short time. So
why then, are we freezing this category in the frame of standard and repeating
grammar rules and formal meaning and restricted vocabulary in all the child’s school
life?
What was ideal in the past is obviously irrelevant in the future and the signs of
triviality are clearly present today. It is time to think of new material for teaching a new
generation to give them more options in life and motivation to want to learn more
about the true language. The task of teaching English to the world is , nowadays firmly
in the hands of non-native teachers, and the greatest number of English speakers is
emerging from the expanding circle- . Thus it has become our notion to equate
teaching the local model as opposed to international of English.
This is why we have allowed experts to dispute about the nature and definition of
standard and non –standard English. It is time to allow ourselves to speak on behalf of
EFL and recommend that they enter such debates . For this to happen, the debate
should include and involve all non-native teachers , and learners whose English has
already achieved a norm and are ready for further advance .