Debate Surrounding the Standard and the Non-Standard English Language - Article Example

Fabiola Chayele Hoskins College Writing 16 February The Debate Surrounding the Standard and the Non-Standard English Language The debate surrounding the English language has been going on since the 17th century from the British and passed onto the citizens of the United States shaped around the white man that has run this country through the categorization of either Standard or Nonstandard English (Mufwene, 1999). The major perception is that Standard English language is superior to the Non-standard English. However, the major problem arises from an effort to define what Standard English is, since “it can be difficult to pinpoint its features exactly” (Curzan, 341). Moreover, even though most speakers perceive the Standard English language as superior. Nonetheless, it is essential to understand that this language is neutral by nature, and through the use of it over time will change according to different groups of people and their speaking ability when using it throughout the world. Due to this, David Wallace holds the view that we “cant escape language: Language is everything and everywhere; it is what lets us have anything to do with one another” (41). It would, therefore, be important if altogether. Nevertheless, there is a need to accept the Standard English language as the basis for other English variations that have developed. The English language requires learned usage; it is the proper application pragmatic, and the meaning of words happen as essential elements to communicating in English successfully. Principally because it is the language most widely used in different forms of formal communication, irrespective of what part of the world one resides. However, Curzan seems to hold a different opinion of the use of Standard English altogether. She holds “Standard English and prescriptive grammar are about who has the social power to prescribe and who silences in the process” (Curzan, 877). The essay therefore, argues that Standard English is not superior to Non-standard English and the reasons for why this is the case. According to George Orwell, “Modern English, especially written English, is of bad (Orwell, 1). Therefore, Orwell observes that there is a need to take the necessary trouble to rectify the bad modern English language. Despite this fact, Curzan does not object to Orwell’s idea. Instead, she expresses the opinion that it is not good to emphasize more on the usage of the Standard English language and its prescriptive rules of grammar. She is more interested in 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 have adequate opportunity to challenge the rule of Standard English without concern as if they are over ambitious or as though they are breaking a sacred rule. Dennis Freeborn supported Curzan’s opinion in his article published in The Independent Newspaper, in which he argues that the superiority 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 Standard English undergoes a challenge based on it not carrying its dominance in being a language per se, but merely because it tends to appear superior over other English language variations throughout the course of history. This has been the case because; “written Standard English applies in education, bureaucratic publications. Moreover, other formal documents (Curzan, 873). On the other hand, Orwell is of the opinion that sticking to the rule of Standard English is essential. He owes the sentiments 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 them with more understanding. The main reason is because there are some instances where a person can be in “doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules to rely on when instinct fails” (Orwell, 7). Therefore, Orwell supports sticking to the rules of Standard English by holding it as the only way better communication happens, especially in writing. However, Curzan holds an objection to this thought. She believes that learning and adhering to the rules of Standard English does nothing other than make English teachers abandon their craft. 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 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 Non-standard English is Standard English that has become relaxed to include a bevy 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 form of the English language. The utterances indeed have a correct statement in another type of the language. Therefore, the understanding of one form of English should not be through a process of evaluating and comparing it with another form but understood that each form of English is distinct in its uniqueness and form with its different application rules. The only alteration between Standard English and the Non-standard English variations is largely in the structural differences. A Perfect example of the case evidences how Standard English and African-American English are viewed by the general public” (Mufwene, n.p.). Thus, it means that both forms of English are correct in their different utterances, and not gauged in which one is more correct. It is the misconception that the other variations of the Standard English are simply Standard English full of grammar and lexical mistakes. The ommissions faciliates the need to reform these English forms to allow them to fit into the context of what is considered acceptable within the Standard English language. It, therefore, presents “the lexicographers challenge to be not just accurate and comprehensive, but credible” (Wallace, 58). The development of dictionaries that do not reflect the Standard English language is perceived as a corruption of the language. Hence, 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 the accuracy of the language. With regards to Wallace, the term “SNOOTs", in his “Tense Present” essay is a, “really extreme usage fanatic, the sort of person whose idea of Sunday fun is to look for mistakes in Safire’s column’s prose itself”(41). According to “Corpus of Contemporary American English” (COCA), the term “SNOOTitude” is undefined. Wallace makes liberal usage of uncommon words, abbreviations, and acronyms as well as the unusual capitalization of the noun “SNOOT”. 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 involved in English. Many of them neglect any other variations. The concept is necessary primarily because most areas where communication happens affecting the news on TV, radio and the newspapers are all written and read in the Standard English. Similar thinking is extended to the political arena and other important social addresses where Standard English applies (Mufwene, n.p.). However, focusing so much on the prescriptive rule of the language is not necessarily beneficial 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 word forms of inadequacy is a big misconception. The thinking is people speak these forms of English with a low intellectual capacity for proper Standard English speaking (Wheeler, 42). The African-American Vernacular English and other English dialects are stable variations of the English language with their structure that differs from Standard English. It is, however a representative the English language using its own grammatical and utterance of correctness. Such structural differences do not make the other Non-standard English forms inferior when assessed according to their intrinsic value. The only inferiority between the two forms is that the Standard English language derives from social and historical judgments, since Non-standard English does not prescribe for formal engagements (Santipol, 427). In conclusion, political and social considerations have tended to influence when one form of English qualifies to be a dialect or version of another. The consideration takes place especially in the case when one form is more prestigious than another form based on other people’s contemplations. A classic example is of Standard English and the African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) format, there is no doubt that the later is a dialect of the former (Wheeler, 44). The “chief difference between Standard and Non-standard English variations is not in either way ‘superior or ‘inferior as linguistic structures. The variance occur in the different level of social acceptability” (Santipolo, 403). Therefore, although there is a need to teach Standard English because of its relevance, both in the formal sector and in most global platforms, hence none is unquestionably superior. Differences occur because there is a need to remember that each version of the Non-standard English language constitutes a language in its merit. For that reason, Non-standard English deserves equal consideration. The principal ideas is because “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. Davies, Mark. (2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Web. 12 Feb. 2015. Freeborn, Dennis. “Letter: The superiority of Standard English.” The Independent, December 15, 1992. Web. February 11, 2015. 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. Mufwene, Salikoko. "EBONICS AND STANDARD ENGLISH IN THE CLASSROOM: SOME ISSUES." Salikoko Mufwene: Ebonics and Standard English in the Classroom: Some Issues. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1 Jan. 1999. Web. 11 Feb. 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