Speak Proper English! - What a wonderful language is English!

There is no doubt that language and language usage is a highly emotive subject which gives rise to many forms of debate. This is especially true when discussing the effect of language policy on the education of our children and whether or not schools should teach Standard English.

Standard English has been defined as the “variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught in schools and to non-native speakers of the language. It is also the variety spoken by educated people and used in news broadcasts and other similar situations.” (Trudgill 2000:5) Standard English is only one of the many varieties of English found in Britain, and as the above quote suggests, it is the variety which has gained the prestige as being the “best” form of the language.

Although the concepts of “good” and “bad” English are questionable from a linguist’s point of view, for some sections of society they are seen as important markers of “good” and “bad” education and cannot be ignored. Many business leaders, employers and academics openly complain about the falling standards of written and spoken English, and the apparent inability of students, graduates and potential employees to use their own language “properly”. So while a linguist might accept that all forms of language are linguistically equal, that same linguist would not write an academic thesis in anything other than Standard English. Some sections of society are not interested in the linguistic value of such variety within the English language(s) but do want to see an adherence to Standard English.

Professor John Honey argues very passionately that Standard English should be taught by virtue of being the standard against which other varieties can be measured. He disagrees with what he calls the myth of “linguistic equality” (Honey 1997:6, 7) which would place Standard English on an equal footing with other varieties of English and states that students expect to be taught Standard English as the “correct” form of the language. (Honey 1997:199-201) If we accept that educational standards are to be maintained then there must be a means of measuring such standards and Honey’s arguments would seem logical.

Having acquired the status of being the acceptable form of the language within educational and higher social circles, schools should encourage the use of Standard English as a means of helping students achieve their future goals and aspirations by equipping them for greater academic and social mobility. To do any less would be to place an unnecessary obstacle in front of students that might endanger their chances in the future to compete either in the world of academia or employment. As Honey comments Standard English is not so much the possession of the privileged but rather the key to obtaining privilege. (Honey 1997:53) It could be argued that by focusing on the teaching of Standard English as the “best” form of English, we are in fact reinforcing negative stereotypes that promote those who use Standard English as being “educated” and of a better “class” within society. 

The linguist Peter Trudgill claims that 88 percent of students do not use Standard English and by encouraging them to do so we are causing some form of psychological and social distress because we are trying to influence their inherent identity as individuals within a social group. (Trudgill 2000:200,201) In sociolinguistic terms, it is clear that there is a link between social class and language variation; the further up the “social ladder” a person goes the more standard their language, and conversely the further down the “social ladder” the more non-standard their language becomes.(Holmes 2001:133)

If a person is born, educated, lives and works in a geographical area where one of the non-standard varieties of English are used, why (or indeed when) does he or she need to use standard English when the vast majority of his peers, social circle or workmates use the same non-standard variety as he or she does? That person can function normally without having learnt Standard English. Following Trudgill’s previously mentioned argument, that person would be happy with their form of language since it forms part of his or her social and psychological identity.

Thus rather than imposing a standard form of language on the vast majority of the population who have no need for it, would it not be more productive to encourage non-standard forms of English? This would lead to a greater variety of language use, a richer linguistic culture and may even lead to some very exciting literary developments which would add depth to our linguistic and cultural heritage.

However, in the case of schooling can we really apply the same argument? Should education elevate the individual to greater things or bring them down to the lowest common denominator? Firstly, students increasingly desire social and economic mobility rather than feeling bound by social class or geographical location. They require an education that prepares them for that and at the moment that means leaning Standard English. That is what business leaders and employers want. Secondly, the more students learn the standard form the less it becomes associated with a particular social class and the related social stigmas associated with standard and non-standard forms would also change. Thirdly, at the level of school education students need a solid academic base from which they can develop. Only by teaching them a standard form of English can we really equip them for future study, which in some cases could include non-standard forms of English.

In conclusion, whether or not Standard English should be taught in schools depends on whether we examine the issue from an educational or a linguistic viewpoint. Honey, from the viewpoint of an educationalist is correct to expect that Standard English be taught in schools since it allows students to acquire the basic skills required for future success. We cannot escape the widely held perception that Standard English is “correct English”. However, his attacks on ideas such as linguistic equality are harsh and unnecessary. Linguists like Peter Trudgill have, from a linguistic point of view, correctly highlighted many sociolinguistic features of language which have opened up valuable fields of investigation.

Every craftsman begins by learning how to use the tools of their trade before moving on to bigger and better things and language is no different. Schools should teach Standard English as a variety of English suitable for formal situations, academic and economic progress. In doing so students would be equipped to face the realities of the economic and social demands of modern life. They would also have a solid foundation from which they could further explore the linguistic diversities of non-standard varieties.

Bibliography

Honey, J. (1997) Language is Power, The Story of Language and its Enemies. First edition. London, Faber.

Trudgill, P. (2000) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Fourth edition. Harmondsworth, Penguin

Holmes, J. (2001) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second edition. London, Longman.

Fortis and lenis

Some consonants are perceived as being produced with more force than others. A fortis consonant (p, t, k) is thought to be articulated more strongly than the lenis consonants (b, d, g).