Yahia Fares University of Medea

Department of Foreign Languages

English Section

Course Title: Linguistics Teacher: Miss HADIBI. C Academic Year: 2023- 2024 Level: Third
Year L3

Lecture Five: Language Standardization

1. Introduction

Standard languages arise when a certain dialect begins to be used in written form, normally throughout a
broader area than that of the dialect itself. The ways in which this language is used—e.g., in
administrative matters, literature, and economic life—lead to the minimization of linguistic variation. The
social prestige attached to the speech of the richest, most powerful, and most highly educated members of
a society transforms their language into a model for others; it also contributes to the elimination of
deviating linguistic forms. Dictionaries and grammars help to stabilize linguistic norms, as do the activity
of scholarly institutions and, sometimes, governmental intervention. The base dialect for a country’s
standard language is very often the original dialect of the capital and its environs—in France, Paris; in
England, London; in Russia, Moscow. Or the base may be a strong economic and cultural centre—in Italy,
Florence. Or the language may be a combination of several regional dialects, as are German and Polish.

Even a standard language that was originally based on one local dialect changes, however, as
elements of other dialects infiltrate into it over the years. The actual development in any one linguistic area
depends on historical events. Sometimes even the distribution of standard languages may not correspond to
the dialectal situation. Dutch and Flemish dialects are a part of the Low German dialectal area, which
embraces all of northern Germany, as well as the Netherlands and part of Belgium. In one part of the
dialectal area, however, the standard language is based on High German, and in the other part the standard
language is Dutch or Flemish, depending on the nationality of the respective populations. In the United
States, where there is no clearly dominant political or cultural centre—such as London or Paris—and
where the territory is enormous, the so-called standard language shows perceptible regional variations in
pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. All standard languages are in any case spoken in a variety of
accents, though sometimes one particular accent (e.g., Received Pronunciation in Britain) may be most
closely associated with the standard because of its shared social or educational origins.

In most developed countries, the majority of the population has an active (speaking, writing) or at least
passive (understanding) command of the standard language. Very often the rural population, and not
uncommonly the lower social strata of the urban population as well, are in reality bidialectal. They speak
their maternal dialect at home and with friends and acquaintances in casual contacts, and they use the
standard language in more formal situations. Even the educated urban population in some regions uses the
 so-called colloquial language informally. In the German-, Czech-, and Slovene-speaking areas of middle
Europe, for example, a basically regional dialect from which the most striking local features have been
eliminated is spoken. The use of this type of language is supported by psychological factors, such as
feelings of solidarity with a certain region and pride in its traditions or the relaxed mood connected with
informal behaviour.

2. What is Standardization?

The term standardization is generally used within linguistics to refer to the process of bringing
about a standard language. This process brings to a language a uniformity and consistent norm and form of
writing and speaking, and the promotion of uniformity and consistency usually entails the reduction or
elimination of variation. On a social level, the standard language is usually identified as the variety with
highest prestige. Outside the linguistic community, the standard language—particularly the written
mode—is usually considered an ivntegral part of national (or supraregional) identity, being seen as the
most widely used variety of the language, the official variety of the language, the national language, or
even just as the language of that nation. The standard language is also seen as the most correct variety,
what is called the “standard-bearing” component of standardization, which is its example-function that
also paves the way to language purism. Linguists, however, usually see the standard variety of a particular
language as one among many dialects of that language, and often find it difficult to define what the
standard is, partly because it is generally held that “standard language” is an ideology rather than a
concrete reality.

It is obvious that most definitions of standardization concentrate on that the standardization process is an
effort at selecting a dialect or an amalgamation of various varieties as a norm to be promoted into a
standard, through the process of elaboration of function, codification of form and wide acceptance.

Boscoboinik stated (2008) that language, from an anthropological point of view, has been
traditionally considered as a central feature of ethnic identity, therefore, the identity and the integrity of a
nation is well-showed by a language. Moreover, a standardized language is a way to support a common
identity.

A national language should be standardized to get its formality. A standard language is actually
one of the tribal languages, a group of people of the same race, and with the same customs, language,
religion, etc., in a certain country, which has been standardized (e.g. Malay has become standardized
language of Indonesia).

3. The Process of Language Standardization

Standardization is a necessary and vital process in any language. It is the process through which a
dialect becomes a standard language. Deumert (2004) states that linguistically- oriented approach to
language standardization have often concentrated on the identification of the regional and/or social
dialects, which form the phonological, morphological, and syntactic basis of standard language.

Standardization is based on turning linguistic varieties into standard languages in two senses:

⮚ First, the selected and accepted variety will be used as a norm above all other vernacular,
dialectal, and colloquial varieties in certain domains like literatures, science, education,
media, administration, the public sectors, etc.

⮚ Second, it is a regular and codified normative system of reference supported by a standard

orthography (written form), grammar, and dictionaries.

Therefore, a standard variety will enjoy recognition by the whole speech community and reflect
linguistic (possibly national or even ethnic) identity. It will also serve as a high variety used for written
communication in official domains on a regional, national, or an international level.

According to Holmes (2001), Standardizing a language needs some interrelated steps; selection:
choosing the variety or coded to be developed; codification: standardizing its structural or linguistic
features; elaboration: extended its functions for use in new domains; and securing its acceptance:
enhancing its prestige, for instance, and encourage people to develop pride in the language or loyalty
towards it.

3.1. Selection

Variability is a fact of life for almost all languages. There are different regional dialects, class
dialects, and situational varieties. Standardization represents an attempt to curtail, minimize if not
eliminate this high degree of variability (Stadler: 1983). The easiest solution seems to be to pick
(although not arbitrarily/randomly) one of these varieties to be elevated to the status of the standard.

One of the existing dialects is chosen for standardization purposes. The chosen dialect is likely to
be one spoken by the more powerful and better educated groups living in or near the capital.

3.2. Codification

The norms and rules of grammar, use, etc. which govern the variety selected have to be formulated,
and set down definitively in grammars, dictionaries, spellers, manuals of style, texts, etc. The selected
dialect is provided with a written grammar and a dictionary, so that it can be used in official
documents, taught in schools and learnt by foreigners (Holmes: 2001).

3.3. Elaboration

For the variety selected to represent the desired norms, it must be able to discharge a whole range
of functions that it may be called upon to discharge, including abstract, intellectual functions (Holmes:
2001). Where it lacks resources to do so, these are developed. Thus a standard language is often
characterized as possessing ‘maximal variation in function, minimal variation in form’. Where
necessary, ways of talking and writing about technology and other development need for modern
education and commerce will be develop by an academy or language bureau in the first instance it may
be necessary to borrow or invent vocabulary lists.

3.4. Acceptance

The ‘acceptance’ by the community of the norms of the variety selected over those of rival
varieties, through the promotion, spread, establishment and enforcement of the norms. This is done
through institutions, agencies, authorities such as schools, ministries, the media, cultural
establishments, etc. (Holmes: 2001). In fact, the standard language comes to be regarded not just as the
best form of the language, but as the language itself (e.g. consider the claim that Mandarin is Chinese
in Singapore). The other varieties are then dialects, which tend implicitly to get stigmatized as lesser
forms, associated with the not too highly regarded people, who are seen as less educated, slovenly,
uncouth, etc.

In other words, for a country to standardize a dialect among the many existing ones, selection is the
first step to undertake. The government should be very careful about the choice, because if this is not
successful, it may lead to internal conflicts and even division. In other words, selection is often based
on social, economic, political, and cultural parameters so that acceptance of the community will be
guaranteed. So, people’s attitudes play an important role in this process. After the variety is chosen and
accepted, it will be codified for usage.

In fact, there were steady developments in the definitions of the concept in question. The first
definitions were based mainly on the codified form of the variety which is selected, accepted, and used
as a model by the members of the speech community. Recent definitions, however, started to shed light
on the functions employed by this variety and its cultural dimensions. In other words, once the chosen
variety is codified, it will be distributed to several social and cultural domains to fulfil the
different communicative needs of its speech community “that has either achieved modernization or
has the desire of achieving it” (Mejdell, 2006, p. 06). Subsequent definitions emphasize on another
important angle that is incorporated in the selection of a variety to be codified for general social and
cultural functions, as it is often the prestigious linguistic form used by a social or an educated elite.

[The] socially favored variety of a language, often based on the speech of the
educated population in and around the cultural and/or political center of the
language community. Such standard dialects are imitated and used as auxiliary
 language by speakers of other regional and social dialects for the purpose of formal
discourse and writing as well as for teaching the language to foreigners. (The
linguistic dictionary of Hartmann and Stork, 1976 [1772])
That is to say, the choice of a variety for the process of Standardization is often associated with
prestige as it is mostly used by the elites, an important social group in the country. This prestigious
variety will be imitated by other groups who do not speak it as a mother tongue, for many utilitarian
functions, mainly formal discourse.

Thus, a standard language is a particular dialect which has gained its special position as a result of
social, economic, and political circumstances. A standard language has no linguistic merits, whether in
vocabulary, grammar, or pronunciation. It is simply the dialect of those who are politically powerful
and socially prestigious. Besides, criteria of choice defer from one community to another. What makes
a variety prestigious in a country is not necessarily the same in another. This can be because of religion
like the case of Arabic and Hebrew, social class like in most western nations, etc.

4. Standard vs. Official Language

It is important to draw a distinction between standard and official language (a language which may
be used for governmental business, its function is primarily utilitarian used in official domains). In this
sense, an official language must be standard, while the standard language is not necessarily official. For
example, Standard Arabic is an official language in Algeria whereas English is not, though English is
standard and used in education, business, international treaties, the oil and gas sectors, etc.

The official language (‫( الرسمية اللغة‬is also contrasted to a national language (‫(الوطنية اللغة‬. The latter
refers to the language of a political, cultural, and social unit. It is generally developed and used as a
symbol of national unity (unlike the official language which has only utilitarian functions and does not
symbolise unity and national identity). Its functions are to identify the nation and unite its people.

5. Standard vs. Non-Standard Languages

A distinction is also drawn between standard and non-standard languages/dialects (referred to as

vernaculars). The term vernacular is used in a number of ways. It generally refers to a language which
has not been standardized and which does not have official status. It is also the variety which is usually
acquired by people as a first language at home. This term has been used since the Middle Ages, first to
describe local European languages (which have had low prestige) in contrast to Latin (high prestige),
then to characterize any non-standard and spoken version of a language used by lower-status groups.
Thus, the vernacular speech of a particular community is the ordinary speech used by the people (like
Algerian Arabic).
6. CONCLUSION
 Language is much more than a system of communication, it is a symbolical marker that
distinguishes who belongs to a group and who is outside. Naturally different ethnics of course have a
different race, tribe, and language as stated by Boscoboinik (2008) that language, from an
anthropological point of view, has been traditionally considered as a central feature of ethnic identity.
It is also in linked to the perspective that In some countries in the world such as Indonesia, Singapore,
Malaysia, Philippine, etc. coding a language to be national and official language is very crucial and has
to follow the steps of it: selection: choosing the variety or coded to be developed; codification:
standardizing its structural or linguistic features; elaboration: extended its functions for use in new
domains; and securing its acceptance: enhancing its prestige, for instance, and encourage people to
develop pride in the language or loyalty towards it. The steps mention previously is very interrelated to
each other; therefore, the politicians, linguists, and another social factor should equally take a role to
achieve it and recognize it as an individual and mutual responsibility. A country will meet her language
change and probably language shift, if one of the things mentioned is not taken into account.
Standardization is much more concerned with the written language (e.g. lexical, morphological, and
syntactical) rather than the spoken language, for instance phonological language features.

References
∙ Deumert, A. (2004). Language Standardization and Language Change: The Dynamics of Cape
Dutch. (1st ed.) John Benjamins Publishing Company.
∙ Hartman, R.R.K. and Stork, F.C. (1972) Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Applied Science
Publishers, Essex.
∙ Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). London: Longman. ∙ Zahali, F.
(2022-2023). Third Year Linguistics Lectures (Semester 5)[ University of Blida 2]. Blida 2 university.
https://publications.univ-blida2.dz/documents/pdf261.pdf