double standards

Double Standards’

RONALD MACAULAY Pitzer College

One o f the unsatisfactory characteristics of much recent work in socio-linguistics has been the indiscriminate use o f the labels “Standard” and “Nonstandard, ” particularly in dealing with varieties o f language such as Black English. The greatest danger in the situation has been the tendency to identify Standard English with an upper class accent instead o f treating the t w o notions as separate, though related, phenomena. The definition o f the term “Standard Language” is examined with reference to the status o f Schwyzertiitsch, Scottish English, and Black English.

IN 1816, in a letter Noah Webster complained that “the reviewers are per- petually writing about a standard of language-a thing, in its own nature, impossible” (Warfel 1953: 388). Webster would have been even more disturbed by the widespread use in contemporary socio-linguistics of the terms standard and, more ominously, nonstandard. Recent volumes (e.g., Baratz and Shuy 1969; Fasold and Shuy 1970; Labov, Cohen, Robins, and Lewis 1968; Shuy 1964; Stewart 1964; Williams 1970; Wolfram 1969) include frequent references to Standard English and nonstandard dialects, in the latter case usually the language of lower class Black Americans. On the surface, most of these studies have been enlightened, showing concern for the plight of the individual from a poor background, handi- capped by his inadequate language, perhaps because “being relatively happy and success- ful in the middle and upper reaches of the English-speaking world requires the ability to use standard English” (Brooks 1964:26); and since “in the United States a century-old tradition of abandonment among linguistic minorities has led to the basic attitude that language shift is a natural and wholesome step which is t o be expected from a psycho- logically mature minority population” (Kloss 1966:145), the pressure has been on

Accepted for publication June 1. 1972

the nonstandard speaker to change his language. However, there are at least two interpretations to the term standard language and the confusion resulting from a failure to distinguish these meanings clearly may have seriously weakened the impact of well-intentioned efforts by linguists to reduce the effects of linguistic prejudice.

The first sense in which the term standard language may be used is with reference to a multilingual society where there is a need for a language which can be used throughout the society, particularly for the purposes of official business. Such a situation (Sl) can be seen historically in the Roman Empire, in Germany, and in Italy, and at the present time in the Soviet Union, in Indonesia, and in the Philippines. In this sense of the term, a standard language (Sl) is a language such as Pilipino (Tagalog) in contrast to other languages such as Bikol, Cebuano, Hiligay- non, Ilocano, and Waray, which are also spoken in the Philippines but which are not standard languages.

The second sense in which the term standard language may be used is with reference to one variety2 of a language, as in Standard German or Standard English, “that is, the best and most refined type of English” (Wyld 1927:149). In this sense of the term, a standard language (S2) is not in contrast with other languages but with other varieties of the same language. The analogy

1324

Macaulay ] DOUBLE STANDARDS 1325

appears obvious: the role of an S2 in a monolingual situation is similar to that of an S 1 in a multilingual situation. However, the parallels are not exact, and a failure to distinguish clearly between an S 1 and an S2 may result in a misunderstanding of the advantages of being a speaker of an S2, or, more significantly, in a misconception of the disadvantages of being a speaker of some nonstandard variety in an S2 situation. For this reason, it may be worthwhile considering the kind of claims that have been made for a standard language.

For example, Garvin and Mathiot (1960), in their discussion of the role of Guarani in Paraguay, list two properties and four functions for a standard language. The first property, “flexible stability” (the term taken from Mathesius), refers to the codification of the standard language in formal grammars and dictionaries, in a generally accepted orthography, and the enforcement of this codified norm in the educational system. In the S1 situation, it will be obvious which language is being taught in the schools and also whether or not formal grammars and dictionaries exist. In the S2 situation, it may be far from clear which variety is being taught in the schools and even less clear that only the standard language is codified in dictionaries and grammars, as the fuss over Webster’s Third New International Dictionary indicated (Sledd and Ebbitt 1962). (The importance of dictionaries will be considered later.)

The second property of a standard language given by Garvin and Mathiot is “intellectualization” (the term taken from Havrinek), which they gloss as “a tendency towards increasingly more definite and accurate expression” (1960:785). In the S 1 situation, it is true that all languages are not equal (Hymes 1961, 1972; Ferguson 1962), and the speaker of a particular language may be unable to express himself clearly and accurately on certain topics because of the absence of the appropriate vocabulary. In such cases, it is presumably legitimate to claim that the limitation exists in the language and does not depend solely on the

extent of the speaker’s knowledge. However, in the S2 situation, there is at present no way in which one can verify whether a given lexical item is available to the speaker of a particular nonstandard variety or whether it is reserved for the exclusive use of speakers of the standard language. Without accurate information on this point it is impossible to distinguish between limitations that exist in the nonstandard variety itself and the ignorance of a particular speaker. I t will be suggested that this distinction constitutes the central problem in the definition of an s2.

The four functions which Garvin and Mathiot suggest for a standard language are: (1) the unifying function; (2) the separatist function; (3) the prestige function; and (4) the frame-of-reference function. In their account of these functions Garvin and Mathiot communicate a single message: standard is good, nonstandard is bad. Since this view is consistent with the attitude of most speakers of a standard language, whether S1 or S2, it is perhaps not surprising that there should be so little debate on the terminology in contemporary socio-linguistics. However, this view fails to explain the persistence of nonstandard languages and dialects in spite of the pressures of the educational system and the apparent advantages accompanying the use of the standard language. The easy explanation is that the educational system is inefficient: it needs better teachers, smaller classes, more equipment, finer textbooks, etc. If this explanation is correct then the problem is largely one of resources: we know what needs to be done and how to do it, but we need greater resources in order to achieve our goal. An alternative explanation is that the educational system has mistaken its goal because of a failure to distinguish clearly between the functions of an S 1 and the functions of an S2. This view will be examined below in relation to three quite different language situations: Schwy- zertutsch in Switzerland; the variety of English spoken in Glasgow, Scotland; and Black English in the United States.

1326 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973

Schwyzertiitsch is the mother tongue of approximately seventy-five percent of the population of S~ i t ze r l and .~ This is the largest of Switzerland’s four linguistic groups. Thus, on numerical grounds, Schwyzertiitsch qualifies as the most important language of the four. However, there is an important sense in which Schwyzertiitsch is functionally inferior to French in Switzerland, because in the educational system, in written usage, in formal situations, and in technical matters Schwyzertiitsch is replaced by Standard German (Weinreich 1953:81, 88-89). Con- sequently, Swiss bilinguals whose mother tongue is French are more likely to know Standard German than Schwyzertiitsch, whereas the French spoken in Switzerland is Standard French so that the Schwy- zertiitsch-speaking Swiss is not faced with a choice between two varieties of French. Thus, in addition to the diglossic situation described by Ferguson (1959) in which Standard German is the “High” form of the language and Schwyzertiitsch the “Low” form, there is a subtle difference in the status of the mother tongue between the German-speaking and the French-speaking parts of Switzerland. Moreover, as Weinreich (1953:79) points out, in the German- speaking areas Standard German is “un- equivocally the dominant language as far as literary-cultural appreciation is concerned.” On the other hand, Weinreich concedes that Standard German “ranks lower in pro- ficiency, emotional involvement, and useful- ness than Schwyzertiitsch” (Idem).

Schwyzertutsch, therefore, presents a test case for the notion of a standard language. It is clear that it does not constitute an S1 as a lingua franca providing communication across linguistic frontiers in the sense that both French and Standard German do in Switzerland. I t is also obvious that it does not qualify as an S2, since it does not have a codified norm used for literary and technical purposes. On the other hand, there is something remarkable in the persistence of Schwyzertiitsch as the mother tongue of the greater proportion of the population of

Switzerland. Given the apparent advantages of Standard German, the weight of the educational system, and the impact of the mass media, it is surprising that the position of Schwyzertiitsch should be so assured. Yet Ferguson (1959:340) sees the diglossic situation in the German-speaking part of Switzer- land as stable. There are no signs that Standard German is likely to replace Schwyzertiitsch in the foreseeable future (Moulton 1962). But why should an apparently intelligent and well-educated population insist on speaking a nonstandard language? The choice of answers would appear t o rest between a belief in the perversity of human nature conceived in original sin and a suspicion that linguists and educators may have exaggerated the benefits of speaking a standard language, or at least have mistaken the nature of a standard language. If we look at Garvin and Mathiot’s four functions of a standard language, it is obvious that the “unifying” and “separatist” functions (which are really two aspects of a single function) are represented in the German-speaking part of Switzerland by Schwyzertutsch and not by Standard German. As for the “prestige” and “frame- of-reference” functions, it appears to be the case that both Schwyzertutsch and Standard German serve these functions, though in different areas of human interaction? But Schwyzertiitsch does not have a codified norm contained in formal grammars and dictionaries in a commonly accepted orthography. Consequently, it is an example of a language which serves the functions of a standard language without the criteria1 at- tribute of a standard language. Alternatively, it can be claimed that what Garvin and Mathiot have described are not the functions of a standard language but rather the functions of a language.

The second situation to be considered concerns the variety of English spoken in Glasgow, Scotland.’ Glasgow, with a population of just under a million inhabitants, is the largest city in Scotland. Once the “Second City” of the British Empire, Glas- gow has come down in the world since its


heyday a t the height of Victorian prosperity, Changes in heavy industry and mercantile practice have greatly reduced Glasgow’s importance as a manufacturing and commercial center and left it with a slightly delapidated air, which is not dispelled by the extensive redevelopment schemes which are transforming the central part of the city. Nevertheless, the citizens of Glasgow are conscious of the unique character of the city and generally well disposed toward it. Although many of them are aware that Glasgow speech enjoys a certain “negative prestige’’ (cf. the situation in New York as reported by Labov 1966, Ch. 8), Glas- wegians d o not see any reason t o modify their way of speaking and would certainly not want t o adopt a more “English” accent.6

The characteristics of Glasgow English that distinguish it from other varieties of English are mainly phonological. Only a few morphological peculiarities crop up, mostly in working class speech. Moreover, although the rural dialects of Scotland retain a large number of lexical items that are not found elsewhere, it appears to be the case that few such items are used in Glasgow.

On the phonological level probably the most distinctive characteristics are prosodic. Firstly, the intonation of Glasgow speech is noticeably different from that of other varieties of English. Partly, this may be the result of the massive migration t o the city from Ireland and from the Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland. The interaction of these two groups with the local lowland Scots may have produced the distinctive Glasgow intonation with a rise-fall o n stressed syl- lables. The second prosodic feature is vowel length. In common with most other Scottish varieties of English, Glasgow speech makes little distinction between long and short vowels. All vowels (and diphthongs) might best be considered half-long, although all vowels are frequently lengthened (sometimes considerably) when stressed. Moreover, there is generally little or no off-glide. Thus the vowels in gate and get are both mono- phthongal and equal in length. In the

examples given below all vowels are to be understood as being equal in length.

The most marked characteristics of Glas- gow speech are t o be seen in the back vowels:

[mest] ‘most’, [mer] ‘more’, [ne] ‘no’; [de] ‘do’, [ te] ‘too’; [u t ] ‘out’, [hus] ‘house’, [dun] ‘down’,

[nu] ‘now’;

‘football’, [wId] ‘wood’; [ s k ~ l ] ‘school’, [ b ~ t s ] ‘boots’, [ f ~ t b u ]

[ w A ~ I ~ ] ‘woman’, [pA.ft] ‘pushed’; [rag] ‘wrong’, [af] ‘off’; rfeeerl ‘father’; iwan]-*one’, [jinz] ‘ones’.

I t is thus apparent that the Great Vowel Shift occurred somewhat differently in Glas- gow compared t o Southern England. The front vowels show less extreme variation from other varieties of English but the phonetic quality is often quite distinct (e.g., [ E ] is a tense vowel fairly close to CV3; [ I 1 is frequently centralized to [+] or even [ A ] ; and [ i~ ] is regularly [a ] ).

Among the consonants, the most notice- able characteristic of Glasgow speech is the glottal stop, which can be used not only for It/ but for all three voiceless stops:

[pu7jal1zr] ‘popular,’ [ k a % ] ‘couple

[ f a r ? ~ n ] ‘fighting’, [ r a ~ ? ] ‘write’,

[te31n] ‘taking’, [ tu?rn] ‘talking’,

of’, [ t e v r a k ~ r d a r ] ‘tape recorder’

[ b. n a f ~ 31 n ] ‘benefitting’;

[ srno711sl ‘smokeless’.

There is considerable vocalization of /1/ and there is some consonant cluster simplifica- tion.

The above examples are intended simply to illustrate the kind of speech that may be heard in Glasgow. Some forms are used only by lower class speakers, but there is a continuum ranging across the whole class structure since even most of the upper class speakers are easily identifiable as Glas- wegians by their speech. The question then arises: What is the relationship of Glasgow speech to Standard English? Is all Glasgow speech to be considered nonstandard because it deviates from Received Pronuncia- tion (RP)? Clearly, not, but if some Glasgow

1328 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 76,1973

speech can be characterized as Standard English, at what point is the line to be drawn?’ The answer to this question is rather more difficult than might appear because the primary identifying characteristic of a Scot is his speech. The majority of those interviewed in Glasgow claimed that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between Scots and English (in an identification of strangers) on any grounds other than those of speech. Yet, at the same time, almost all the informants felt that there was something to be gained from the distinction in speech, and it is clear that a Scots accent (even a Glasgow accent) has its own prestige. Thus, one of the criteria by which any Scottish accent is to be judged is its distance from the accents of England, including RP. On the other hand, even in Glasgow, those higher up the educational and social scales are likely to be closer to RP than those lower down. There is, therefore, a tension between the “prestige function’’ and the “unifying and separatist functions” for the Glasgow speaker. The effect of education and regular contact with RP speakers from England may lead to a weakening of the peculiarly Scottish characteristics; on the other hand, a concern with national pride and ethnic identity makes most Scots deplore any trend toward “Anglicization.”

Consequently, it is clear that the notion of a standard language (52) must be defined with reference to the local situation. It will not do to define Standard English in terms of the language spoken in Cambridge, England, or in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and consider all deviations from that norm to be nonstandard. However, it is necessary to remember that the distinctive characteristics of Glasgow speech are largely phonological. If the phonological side is ignored, the differences between Glasgow speech and other varieties of English would be greatly reduced. This is exactly the point that Abercrombie (1965) made when he suggested that Standard English should not be defined with reference to any form of pronunciation, no matter how great its prestige. Before taking up the implications

of this view, it is necessary to examine some recent accounts of nonstandard English.

It is obvious that the problems involved in discussing the speech of lower class Black Americans are not purely problems of linguistic analysis. Even the terminology varies: “Negro dialect” (Fasold and Wolfram 1970), “Nonstandard Negro English” (Labov et al. 1968), “Black English” (Wolfram and Fasold 1969; Legum, Pfaff, Tinnie, and Nicholas 1971). As late as 1964, Stewart used the label substandard, but linguists have tended to avoid using such a value-laden term in recent discussions. However, it is hard to resist the conclusion that for some linguists nonstandard is simply a euphemism for substandard. For example, Baratz (1970) claims that “it is necessary to teach standard English to non-standard speakers” because “it is necessary to know the language of the country if they are to become part of the mainstream of that society” (1970:26; my italics). This is discrimination with a vengeance if nonstandard dialects are not even included in the language of the country. Wolfram (1969) gives almost as sweeping a characterization:

Standard English is defined in this study as a socially acceptable variety of English established by a codified norm of ‘cor- rectness’. Nonstandard English is defined as any variety of English which differs from this established norm [1969:17].

Wolfram does not state where the codified norm of English is to be found, nor does he list in his bibliography any items that could be taken to represent it. In practice, Wol- fram does not need to make reference to the codified norm since all his distinctions are justified internally by reference to the stratified sample of informants. However, it might have been less misleading to state that Standard English was defined for the study as the speech of upper middle class White speakers in Detroit.

Labov et al. (1968) are much more careful in their characterization of nonstandard speech:

the basic object of our investigation is the adolescent vernacular characteristic of the


Negro speech community. It will be called NON-STANDARD NEGRO ENGLISH [NNE] [ 1968:4].

Labov et al. do not suggest a definition of Standard English.

Legum et al. (1971) use of the more neu- tral term Black English. However, they also introduce an interesting distinction:

In this report three dialects are distin- guished. Black English (BE) is used to refer to the speech of Negroes in the United States, Anglo English to the speech of Whites in the United States. Standard English (SE) refers to the English taught in the schools and which is regarded as the norm for cultivated speech. The first two of these are dialects of actual speech and have both geographical and social variants, while the third is a relatively constant implicit norm which is only approximated in speech [ 1971:1].

This tripartite division brings out the important point that both Anglo English and Black English can vary in their approxima- tions to Standard English. While references to nonstandard White dialects are frequent, it has not been common to admit the possibility of Black dialects that approxi- mate to Standard English, the implication being that a Black person either speaks Standard (White) English or Nonstandard (Black) English. However, an examination of the evidence presented by Labov et al. (1968), Wolfram (1969), and Legum et al. (1971) suggests that much of Black English should be considered standard rather than nonstandard.

All three reports deal approximately equally with phonological and grammatical variables. None of the phonological variables shows as great deviation from the speech of middle class educated Americans as do some of the examples of Glasgow speech given above from RP. Moreover, some of the phonological characteristics of Black English are found as features of ‘so-called prestige dialects. For example, preconsonantal and final /r/ is also missing in RP, and the collapse of distinctions such as those in pin/pen or sure/shore is paralleled in “ad- vanced” RP by homonyms such as tower/ tire/tar and slower/slLr (Gimson 1962: 134).

Such examples show that whatever the reasons for labelling certain phonological characteristics of Black English nonstandard, it is not because all the distinctions indicated in the orthography are essential for communication by educated middle class speakers. As in Glasgow, the problem with the pronunciation of Black English is to know where to draw the line between standard and nonstandard, but it is just as absurd to suggest that the only standard Black speakers are those who are indistinguishable from White speakers as it would be to claim that the only standard Glasgow speakers are those who are indistinguishable from Englishmen.

The situation with regard to the grammatical variables is much clearer. Among the characteristics of “Non-Standard Negro English” Labov et al. found the following: (1) omission of third person singular suffixal-Z; (2) deletion of the copula; (3) use of invariant be; (4) negative concord; (5) inversion in embedded questions (1968: 158-300). None of these features is to be found in normal printed English or in the speech of educated middle class speakers. Nor are such forms recommended in pedago- gical grammars (e.g., Francis 1958; Sledd 1959; Zandvoort 1961). It is, therefore, appropriate to label such features nonstandard since there is a norm, both implicit and codified, which such usages can be seen to violate. However, focusing on grammatical variables alone would reduce the number of nonstandard speakers considerably. As Labov et al. point out: “we find that working class adults do not preserve that uniform grammar which we have called NNE [Non-Standard Negro English] ” (1968:343). Evidence from Legum et al. (1971) and Pfaff (1971) suggests that the characteristics of nonstandard Black English do not appear in nearly such a pronounced form before adolescence. Labov et al. (1968) suggest some reasons for the development of a nonstandard form of speech among a section of the adolescent working class Black population. If these views are correct, nonstandard speech cannot be seen


simply as a debased form of language which has come about through a failure of the speakers to learn the standard language (S2); on the contrary, some nonstandard forms are apparently deliberately learned and cultivated. The time has come to tidy up the terminology.

The use of the terms standard and nonstandard with reference to social dialects is a direct carry-over from dialect geography. However, as Labov (1971) has pointed out, regional differences in language are often the result of “discontinuities of communication,” e.g., from natural barriers such as rivers, mountain ranges, etc. In contrast, social differences in language arise not because speakers of different “dialects” are isolated from each other geographically but precisely because they are (potentially, at least) in contact with each other, within a stratified social order. The function of social differences in language is apparently to maintain the social distance that is the equivalent of geographical separation for regional dialects. One indication of the difference between social dialects and regional dialects is that improvement in communications may lead to a “decline” of the latter (Leopold 1959), whereas the mass media appear to have little effect on the former. Another sign of the difference is that educational problems relating to language have generally been greater in urban centers where variation in language is the result of social distinctions than is the case in rural districts where the variation is regional (Halliday 1971).

Another way of putting it, which is rather more provocative, is to say that regional differences in language are largely accidental, whereas social differences are, in some sense, the result of choice. This does not preclude the possibility of regional differences also serving a social function, as, for example, in Scotland or the American South. What is important to remember is that choice of language is not made lightly by any speaker (Leach 1954:49), whether the choice is between different languages or between different varieties of a language. Moreover,

in considering social dialects it is essential to avoid taking educated middle class speech as an implicit point of reference and characterizing other varieties as deviations from this norm. Such a characterization is apt to imply that speakers of nonstandard varieties are aiming at the standard language and failing in their efforts, but it does not make sense to see Schwyzertiitsch as a deviation from Standard German; nor is it particularly helpful to examine the extent to which Glasgow speech fails to achieve the norm of RP. The use of Schwyzertutsch is normal in everyday conversation in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, but Schwyzertutsch does not qualify as a standard language in the terms of Garvin and Mathiot’s definition because of the lack of a codified norm. However, presumably there is a standard for Schwyzertiitsch to which speakers are expected to conform and which is valued by such speakers. At the same time, conforming to such a standard does not exclude an awareness of the value of Standard German in certain contexts where Schwyzertiitsch is known to be inappropriate. In other words, there are two “standards.”

Similarly, in Glasgow, speakers do not expect to find their own variety of English used widely in the mass media but this does not indicate a rejection of their own speech. For example, one Glasgow working class man observed: “on T.V.-ye hear Scots folk-sounds terrible, ye know-but, uh, I don’t think I’d like to speak any o t h e r t h a n the way we do speak.’’ Such ambivalent feelings toward their own speech are common among Glasgow speakers, but there are few signs that Glaswegians would like their characteristic speech changed, either for themselves or for the whole community. The regular presentation of RP on radio and television apparently does not provide a prestige model for Glasgow speakers.

The importance of the Swiss and Glasgow situations is that they are examples of “nonstandard” varieties not wholly the result of poverty and educational failure. If a knowledge of the standard language (S2) is as important as has been suggested (see, for


example, the quotations from Brooks and Baratz above), then it is necessary to make it quite clear what is meant by the standard language so that the goals of first-language teaching in the schools can be made specific and realistic. However, this is exactly the task that linguists have avoided, perhaps because of their distaste for prescriptivism. As a result, the “standard” adopted in the school system is likely to combine the local prejudices about pronunciation with vague aspirations toward a literary standard which is inappropriate for everyday communication. Because there is no explicit description of the standard language, the schools are free to adopt an elitist position, with the consequent rejection of those who fail to make the grade. (An obvious example is the existence of required courses in “composi- tion” at junior colleges, with careful attention to such vital matters as spelling, punctuation, paragraphing, etc.; whatever useful ptirpose these courses serve they probably do not meet the most urgent needs of those who have difficulty in understanding what they read.)

The basic problem in attempting to define a standard language (S2) is that the evidence lies at the intersection of two distinct areas of investigation. The first is the description of the language including all its varieties. The second is the study of the use of each variety in a speech community to discover the norms of speech for that community, including the significance of the use of a particular variety in a specific situation.

The first of these t.asks is the definition and exemplification of de Saussure’s une langue une. This is a task that has been consistently ignored in linguistics (with rare exceptions, e.g., Bailey 1970, 1972). How- ever, with the refinement of the tools of linguistic analysis in the past ten years it has become increasingly obvious that Chomsky’s notion of “an ideal speaker-listener, in a comple t e ly homogeneous speech- community” (1965:3) has become more of a hindrance than a help, and recent discussions in theoretical linguistics have frequently

been marred by ad hoc appeals to “dialect differences.” In order to prevent such tactics destroying the possibility of rational dis- course among linguists it is necessary to draw dialect and language boundaries with a precision that goes far beyond what has been attempted by dialect geographers until now. However, neither the dialect geographer’s questionnaire nor Labov’s interview techniques will go far toward solving the problem of disputed data in recent articles on syntax and semantics. More refined techniques for eliciting judgments along the lines suggested by Elliot, Legum and Thompson (1969), Quirk and Svartvik (1966), and Greenbaum and Quirk (1970) are needed.

In phonology, on the other hand, it may be possible to make some progress toward dialect differentiation if it is true that the abstract underlying phonological representations of lexical items are common to all dialects of a language (Chomsky and Halle 1968:49, 54). This would mean that if two putative dialects D’ and D2 can be shown to require different phonological representations for a large number of lexical items they are not dialects of the same language L. However, this would be an empty claim unless there are constraints on the kind of rules which can apply, since it would otherwise be possible to write rules of the following kind:

+ COMMON [lvall I [+FREN 1 =$ [ pfert] /-- [+GER]

[ farasi ] /-- [ +SWA] [uma] /--[+JAP]

etc. . . . . . . . . . . .

What is needed in addition to common underlying phonological representations is a diachronic equivalent to Postal’s (1968) Naturalness Condition which would specify the constraints which apply to the rules by which dialects may vary. For example, it is not clear whether the differences in the vowel shift rule between Scottish English


and most other dialects of English constitute grounds for considering a separate language. The differences can be accounted for by assuming that in all dialects the Great Vowel Shift affected only the tense front vowels at first and later was generalized to the tense back vowels. In Scotland, it seems likely that the tense back vowels were not raised because the tense low and mid back vowels had previously been fronted. The unresolved issue is whether such divergences are permissible within a single language. Such cases will be crucial in determining the relationship of observed varieties to the more abstract concept of a language. At the same time, it is necessary to acccount for all the phonetic variants in each variety of the language (Pellowe, Nixon, Strang, and McNeany 1971) and provide the low-level rules which will relate them to the underlying forms. Only when this has been done for all the varieties used in a speech community will it be possible to attempt a characterization of the standards of pronunciation for that community.

The second task involved in the definition of a standard language is to describe the norms of speech for the community, and for this it is necessary to study language behavior. Two quite different lines of approach have been explored by Labov and by Harvey Sacks. Labov’s “subjective reaction test,” “self-evaluation test,” and “index of linguistic insecurity” (1966, Ch. 11-12) are examples of methods by which the norms of speech can be investigated. However, such measures can at best give only a crude reflection of the actual norms of speech. The consistency of the responses that Labov obtained is impressive but it is unlikely that the complex values which govern language behavior can be assessed by such forced choice situations. There is no reason why investigation of the subtle and complicated relationships of social judgments about language should be limited to the information that can be obtained by such methods in the course of a single interview. Labov’s Lower East Side study was a pioneering work because he showed, among other things, how

much evidence could be collected in a short space of time with limited resources. How- ever, it is not obligatory to collect evidence of language use and socio-linguistic judgments at the same time, or even from the same informants. In fact, there is a danger of distortion in attempting to collect both kinds of evidence at the same time. Labov took this into account by the order in which he conducted the interview, but there is still a risk that the informant will feel that he may condemn himself in making judgments on others. It should be possible to collect evidence of socio-linguistic judgments by more open discussion with informants, as has been done with judgments of status (Silverman 1966; Littlejohn 1963).* Attitudes toward language are too important to be sampled by any kind of “test” alone, although such techniques are useful as a check on expressed judgments. Whatever methods are used, attitudes toward language must be studied in depth, and not simply as an adjunct t o other studies, if we are to gain any genuine insight into the norms of speech.

Sacks (1972, n.d.) is in the process of developing a technique for analyzing language behavior in terms of what is actually happening in a conversation. By con- centrating on the meaning of what is said and even more on what is implied by what is said or not said, Sacks reveals the extensive knowledge of the social structure underlying what might appear to be a trivial conversa- tional exchange. Sacks’ work differs from most socio-linguistic studies by dealing with the use of language in actual situations rather than with the language elicited in the atypical circumstances of an interview. How- ever, the serious study of meaning in language behavior requires the examination of the use of language in real life situations. This condition poses great problems in data collecting but they are not insurmountable, and it would be most unfortunate if socio- linguistic descriptions were to be based solely on data collected in interviews.

Sacks analyzes conversations in terms of what the participants need to know in order


to take part in an ordinary conversation: when it is permissible to speak, when it is possible to be silent, what is a possible topic, how to select the next speaker, how to show that you have been listening and understood, how to indicate an intention to speak, how to signal that you are about to stop speaking, how to recognize that an expression is not meant literally, and so on. Sacks thus treats as problematic what most investigators take for granted. However, it is what educated speakers take for granted that must be made explicit in a characterization of the standard language (S2), since what speakers do with the language is more important than the superficial markers of class identification that they display. (See Ward 1971 for an example of parent-child interaction that differs greatly from that found in the typical white middle class family in the United States.)

Sacks’ emphasis on what the participants are doing when they use language focuses attention on what is the central problem in the characterization of a standard language (S2), namely, the question of meaning. Social prejudices aside, variations in pronunciation or syntax are as trivial as variations in spelling except insofar as they interfere with a speaker’s ability to make himself understood or to understand what is said to him. This is the true significance of the distinction Bernstein sought to draw between a restricted code, in which there is limited choice of syntax and lexicon, and an elaborated code, in which the probability of predicting choice is greatly reduced (Bern- stein 1965). Labov (1969) has shown that Bernstein’s categories are too crude, con- centrating on superficial stylistic characteristics and ignoring the crucial question of whether the speaker is actually expressing himself clearly and precisely. Bernstein (1972) admits that the original accounts of distinction emphasized syntax at the ex- pense of semantics and he now makes it clear that the heart of the problem is “the s t ruc tu r ing of relevant meanings” (1972: 158). In spite of its terminological and methodological shortcomings, Bern-

stein’s work is valuable because it points to a social fact of vital importance, namely, that education affects language development. This is so because a large part of higher education is, literally, the learning of more language. Each subject that a student studies inevitably brings with it an extension of his linguistic knowledge, sometimes in the form of new lexical items, at other times by more precisely specifying the features on items he already knows. The standard language (S2), in fact, can be equated with the language used by educated speakers, but this does not help unless there is some non-circular way of characterizing an educated speaker. More- over, there is a problem with technical vocabulary, since all educated speakers will know some technical terms but presumably no speaker, however well educated, is familiar with the jargon of every subject. The primary task for socio-linguistics should therefore be the specification of the minimal set of meaningful expressions that a speaker must be able to use correctly and to understand in order t o qualify as a speaker of the standard language (S2). When this is done, it will make sense to say that teaching the standard language (S2) is a worthwhile goal for the educational system, since it will be clear what those who fail have failed to learn. Then, when they are satisfied that their pupils have mastered the necessary meaningful expressions, teachers may, if they wish, concern themselves with the aesthetics of pronunciation.

The aim of the preceding sections has been to challenge the use of the terms standard and nonstandard in contemporary socio-linguistic work and to suggest that by failing to distinguish clearly enough between S1 and S2 situations linguists may have taken an excessively unfavorable view of nonstandard varieties in the S2 situation, particularly with respect to phonological variables. Although Labov (1966) and Giles (1970, 1971) have effectively documented the prejudice about pronunciation that can exist in a speech community, and Seligman, Tucker and Lambert (1972) have shown that teachers are not immune to such prejudice,

1334 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [ 75,1973

it is important for linguists not to fall into the trap of considering any variety of pronunciation as a barrier to cognitive development. Labov’s writings on sound change (1963, 1965, 1972) have greatly increased our understanding of the processes by which language changes and of the role of social forces in linguistic change, but it would be unfortunate if a fascination with what is after all a deplorable phenomenon in a democratic society should lead to the conclusion that snobbery about accent is an inevitable part of the social structure. Inso- far as linguists are concerned about social inequality, they should encourage more attention to meaning in the educational system so that all members of the community may have access, through language, to the knowledge that the society has accumulated.

At the same time, if the notion of a standard language (S2) is to be taken seriously, linguists cannot afford to leave its codification in the hands of commercial publishers, no matter how enlightened they may be. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles was the work of a team of scholars using the linguistic methodology of the time and took seventy years to complete. Is there no foundation willing to sponsor long range work on a New English Dictionary on Descriptive (and Prescriptive?) Principles? Such a work would look very different from any existing dictionary. It would give in precise phonetic detail all the information available about pronunciation in every variety of the language that has been studied. It would provide syntactic cate- gorization embodying the insights gained through the extensive work on English over the past ten years (see the Sample Lexicon in Stockwell, Schachter, and Partee 1968 for a fairly primitive example of such entries). For each item there would also be an indication of its collocational range (Firth 1957; McIntosh 1961; Fillmore 1969, 1970). Instead of the impressionistic labels “colloquial,” “slang,” “archaic,” etc., which are to be found in existing dictionaries, there would be systematic stylistic classification

based on socio-linguistic data. Admittedly most of the information needed to compile such a dictionary is not available at present, but it never will be available unless some concentrated effort is made. Because such a dictionary would literally never be complete, it would not be practical for it to be published in large leather-bound volumes. Instead, the information should be stored on a computer in a form that would allow easy emendation of entries as new information became available, with printouts distributed to interested parties.

A work of this kind would serve a number of functions: it would provide a focus for the research on the English language at present being carried out by individual linguists in different parts of the world; it would supply a more scientific basis for instruction and testing in the language; and, not least, it would make more explicit the norm that has been too casually taken for granted as characterizing Standard English.

NOTES

‘ I am indebted to Laura Bohannan, William Bright, George Landon, and Stanley Legum for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

‘The term “variety” is taken from Ferguson and Gumpen (1960:3).

In 1960, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the proportion of speakers for the four mother tongues, counting Swiss citizens only, was: German 74.4%, French 20.2%, Italian 4.1%, and Romansh 1.0%.

See the discussion following Moulton’s paper (1962).

The fieldwork and recording of Glasgow speech on which the following account is based were done in the summers of 1970 and 1971 on a grant from the Research and Development Committee of Pitzer College.

6The two exceptions among the informants were women who wished to move to the south of England.

7This is one of the questions that will be investigated in a study of language, education, and employment in Glasgow in 1973.

‘An informal example of such attitude sampling is given in Mitchell-Kernan (1971).


REFERENCES CITED

Abercrombie, David 1965 Studies in Phonetics and Linguis-

tics. London: Oxford University Press.

1970 A New Intonation Theory to Account for Pan-English and Idiom- Particular Patterns. Papers in Lin- guistics 2 :522-604.

1972 The Integration of Linguistic Theory: Internal Reconstruction and the Comparative Method in Descrip- tive Analysis. I n Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Robert P. Stock- well and Ronald K. s. Macaulay, Eds. B1 oomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 22-31.

Bailey, Charles-James N.

Baratz, Joan 1970 Educational Considerations for

Teaching Standard English to Negro Children. In Teaching Standard English in the Inner City. Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, Eds. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 20-40.

1969 Teaching Black Children to Read. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Baratz, Joan, and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.)

Bernstein, Basil 1965 A Socio-Linguistic Approach to

Social Learning. In Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences. Julius Gould, Ed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.

1972 Social Class, Language and Social- ization. In Language and Social Con- text. Pier Paolo Giglioli, Ed. Har- mondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. pp.

pp. 144-168.

157-178. Brooks, Charlotte K.

1964 Some Approaches to Teaching English as a Second Language. In NonStandard Speech and the Teach- ing of English. William A. Stewart, Ed. Washington, D.C. : Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 24-32.

Chomsky, Noam

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle 1968 The Sound Pattern of English.

New York: Harper and Row. Elliot, Dale, Stanley Legum, and Sandra A. Thompson

1969 Syntactic Variation as Linguistic Data. In Papers from the Fifth Region- al Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. R. I. Binnick et al., Eds.

1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.

Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago. pp. 52-59.

Fasold, Ralph W., and Roger W. Shuy (Eds.) 1970 Teaching Standard English in the

Inner City. Washington, D.C. : Center for Applied Linguistics.

Fasold, Ralph W., and Walt Wolfram 1970 Some Linguistic Features of Negro

Dialect. I n Teaching Standard English in the Inner City. Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, Eds. Washington, D.C. : Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 40-86.

Ferguson, Charles A. 1959 Diglossia. Word 15:324-340. 1962 The Language Factor in National

Development. In Study of the Role of Second Languages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Frank A. Rice, Ed. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 8-14.

Ferguson, Charles A., and John J. Gumpen (Eds.)

1960 Linguistic Diversity in South Asia. International Journal of American Lin- guistics 26(3, pt. 3).

Fillmore, Charles J. 1969 Types of Lexical Information.

Working Papers in Linguistics 2. Columbus: Ohio State University. pp.

1970 The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum, Eds. Waltham, Mass.: Ginri. pp.

65-103.

120-133. Firth, John R.

1957 PaDers in Linguistics. 1934-1951. Londin: Oxford Lfniversity Press.

Francis, W. Nelson 1958 The Structure of American

English. New York: Ronald Press. Garvin, Paul L., and Madeline Mathiot

1960 The Urbanization of the Guarani Language-A Problem in Language and Culture. In Men and Cultures. Anthony F. C. Wallace, Ed. Philadel- phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 783-790.

Giles, Howard 1970 Evaluative Reactions to Accents.

Educational Review 22 :211-227. 1971 Patterns of Evaluation to R.P.,

South Welsh and Somerset Accented Speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10 :280-28 1.

Gimson, A. C. 1962 An Introduction to the Pronuncia-

tion of English. London: Arnold.


Greenbaum, Sidney, and Randolph Quirk 1970 Elicitation Experiments in English.

Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1971 The Semantics of Education.

Paper read to Claremont Linguistics Circle, November.

Hymes, Dell 1961 Functions of Speech: An Evolu-

tionary Approach. I n Anthropology and Education. F. Gruber, Ed. Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 55-83.

1972 Review of Noam Chomsky, by John Lyons. Language 48: 416-427. - -

Kloss, Heinz 1966 Tvoes of Multilineual Com-

munit&: A Discussion i f the Vari- ables. Sociological Inquiry 36:135- 145.

Labov, William 1963 The Social Motivation of a Sound

Change. Word 19:273-309. 1965 On the Mechanism of Linguistic

Change. Georgetown Monograph on Languages and Linguistics 18. Wash- ington, D.C. : Georgetown University Press. pp. 91-114.

1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washing- ton, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguis- tics.

1969 The Logic of Non-Standard English. Georgetown Monograph on Languages and Linguistics 22. Wash- ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 1-22.

1971 Variation in Language. I n The Learning of Language. Carroll E. Reed, Ed. New York : Appleton-Century- Crofts. pp. 187-221.

1972 The Internal Evolution of Linguis- tic Rules. In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Robert P. Stock- well and Ronald K. s. Macaulay, Eds. €31 oomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 101-171.

Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robins, and John Lewis

1968 A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Coopera- tive Research Report 3288. New York: Columbia University.

Leach, Edmund 1954 Political Svstems of Highland

Burma. Cambridge, Mass.: Hirvard University Press.

Legum, Stanley E., Carol Pfaff, Gene Tinnie, and Michael Nicholas

1971 The Speech of Young Black Chil- dren in Los Angeles. Technical Report 33. Inglewood, Calif.: Southwest Regional Laboratory.

Word 15 :130-153.

Leopold, Werner F.

Littlejohn, James

McIntosh, Angus

1959 The Decline of German Dialects.

1963 Westrigg: The Sociology of a Cheviot Parish. London: Routledge.

1961 Patterns and Ranges. Language 37:325-337.

Mitchell-Kernan, Claudia 1971 Language Behavior in a Black

Urban Community. Language-Behavior Research Monograph 2. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California.

Moulton, William G. 1962 What Standard for Diglossia? The

Case of German Switzerland. George- town Monograph on Languages and Linguistics 15. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp.

Pellowe, John, Graham Nixon, Barbara Strang, and Vincent McNeany

A Dynamic Modelling of Linguis- tic Variation: The Tyneside Linguistic Survey. Mimeo, University of New- castle upon Tyne.

133-1 44.

1971

Pfaff, Carol 1971 Historical and Structural Aspects

of Sociolinguistic Variation: The Copula in Black English. Technical Report 37. Inglewood, Calif.: South- west Regional Laboratory.

Postal, Paul M. 1968 Aspects of Phonological Theory.

New York: Harper and Row. Quirk, Randolph, and Jan Svartvik

ability. The Hague: Mouton. 1966 Investigating Linguistic Accept-

Sacks, Harvey 1972 On the Analyzability of Stories by

Children. In Directions in Sociolinguis- tics: The Ethnography of Communica- tion. John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, Eds. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston. pp. 325-345.

n.d. Social Aspects of Language: The Organization of Sequencing in Con- versation. Ms.

Seligman, C. R., G. R. Tucker, and W. E. Lambert

1972 The Effects of Speech Style and Other Attributes on Teachers' Atti- tudes Toward Pupils. Language in Society 1:131-142.

Shuy, Roger W. (Ed.)

Macaulay J DOUBLE STANDARDS 1337

1964 Social Dialects and Language Learning. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Silverman, Sydel F. 1966 An Ethnographic Approach to

Social Stratification: Prestige in a Central Italian Community. American Anthropologist 68 2399-921.

1959 A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.

Sledd, James H., and Wilma R. Ebbitt 1962 Dictionaries and That Dictionary.

Chicago: Scott, Foresman.

1964 Non-Standard Speech and the Teaching of English. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schachter, and Barbara H. Partee

1968 Integration of Transformational Theories on English Syntax. Los Angeles: University of California.

1971 Them Children: A Study in Lan- guage Learning. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston.

Sledd, James H.

Stewart, William A.

Ward, Martha C.

Warfel, Harry R. (Ed.)

Weinreich, Uriel

Williams, Frederick (Ed.)

Wolfram, Walter A.

1953 The Letters of Noah Webster. New York: Library Publishers.

1953 Languages in Contact. New York: Linguistic Circle of New York.

1970 Language and Poverty. Chicago: Markham.

1969 A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

1969 Toward Reading Materials for Speakers of Black English: Three Lin- guistically Appropriate Passages. In Teaching Black Children to Read. Joan C. Baratz and Roger W. Shuy, Eds. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. pp. 138-155.

edition. London: Murray.

London: Longmans, Green.

Wolfram, Walter A., and Ralph W. Fasold

Wyld, Henry C.

Zandvoort, R. W.

1927 A Short History of English. Third

1961 A Handbook of English Grammar.

double standards

Documents

term standard language

standard language sl

standard of lan

standard languages

labels standard

standard english brooks

terms standard

standard german