Prompt: In school we are taught to speak and write “properly”—but what does this mean?

Does the idea of a “proper language” play a role, as some have suggested, in maintaining
class distinctions and oppressing marginalized groups? If so, should we abandon the idea of
linguistic “propriety”, or somehow reconceptualize it?

Introduction

Language is a structured, self-governed system that could convey information and communicate

with others. For many of us, speaking a language is as natural as drinking a cup of water every

morning, and many of us have never thought about what language actually means, and how it

could be used to wield power and stratify others. Language is viewed as a collective system of

arbitrary symbols and sounds, which is used by members of social group to engage in mutual

relations (Desky et al.). When language is used on the social level, divisions are mostly linked to

social prestige and power, entailing that different social classes make different uses of language.

For instance, bankers and plumbers signal their status by grammar and lexical choices, just as how

they differentiate in external factors, like clothing and car. From a broader perspective, we could

derive implications of language aims in third-world countries, where colonialism had taken place

and had created inherent social status issues. Colonists centralized power in the hands of European

elites, who spoke in a language different to indigenous people. This language still permeates

through local society, as it is adopted by indigenous elites (Guy et al.) even when the nation gains

independence. This enunciates that class division is in essence based on status and power in the

society, which quintessentially interweaves with the social product of language. Plus, for analysis

of language in social pursuits, issue of social groups and their history will loom large. Therefore,

the ability of language to transmit ideas and reflect societal dynamics lends further complexity to

an extensive research body.

Overview of proper language and its formation

"Proper language" refers to linguistic conventions deemed socially recognized within specific

contexts. It provides possibility of speaking of a “native tongue” or “national language”, while

inevitably deeming the copious varieties of language as “improper”. We might derive social

implications from the ascendancy of a “proper language” over others, because the accents people
hold are not merely determined by their positions in social hierarchy, but could be rectified by

getting along with people in different status.

“Received Pronunciation” refers to English accents generally associated with upper class people,

while being a recent arrival in the scene of British accents. In 17-century-England, a regional

accent didn’t enshroud superiority, as happened in 1603 when James VI of Scotland inherited

throne of England, while having strong Scottish accents. In the 19th Century, however, the term of

“received pronunciation” was first brought about, which was of certain remove from linguistic

diversity in Britain, as any deviations from the idealized, “correct” pronunciation were deemed to

be improper. A watchword in the fashion of received pronunciation was its politeness, which was a

key determinant of a gentleman, and which set a clear linguistic guideline to make use of English

widely intelligible and acceptable. The conviction that non-localizable, standard English accent

was superior, could also be associated with Charles Darwin’s findings: as he proposed that human

beings arose by evolution, language was regarded as a frontier achievement that set men apart

from animals, according to Sherman in A Handbook of Pronunciation. Therefore, the “proper

language” of Received Pronunciation was first thought to be indicative of one’s culture and social

associations, formalizing a construct of language behavior.

While received pronunciation largely accounted for decency, divergence in social class in 18 th to

19th-Century England, characterized by more efficient travelling and development of urban social

order, intertwined with language issues. The nouveau riche, for instance, strived to affirm their

social position attained, and were particularly sensitive to linguistic shibboleths (Chambers, 2002).

More could be revealed by the responsibility of speaking “proper language” English women were

endowed with. As pronunciation reflected people’s status back in 19 th Century, wives, representing

their husbands’ status, were recommended to speak in “proper” accent. The underlying guideline

of language purity was therefore rooted in social roles of women.

Advantages and issues with received pronunciation

The emphasis on "proper language" offers advantages such as facilitating cohesion of language

acquisition within diverse ethnic communities. Although there are regional accents that portray a

more inclusive picture of English language, English learners’ desire for orthoepic guidance and
pronunciation accuracy requires a standardized accent. As Received Pronunciation is readily

available in broadcasting channels (Monpean et al.), global English learners with access to BBC

are able to suit their pronunciation of British English into a standardized linguistic account. This

unionizes the linguistic template of English for English acquisition, easing the learners’ approach

so that they would form a systematic procedure of learning phonetics of English—they would

have less difficulty comprehending regional dialects of broadcasters. Additionally, the neutral

nature of Received Pronunciation gives no clue of where the speaker is from, which could further

its accessibility to foreigners, as the accent is disseminated across England, increasing the

likeliness of smooth communication for a foreigner learning RP.

Starting from the 19th Century’s course, the idea of RP being a sociolect is stressed, depicting an

interplay with the significance of high-standard public education. This included secondary schools

such as Eton and Winchester, followed by top-tier university education in Oxford and Cambridge.

Such schools withdrew students from their local associations, leading to a large extent of

uniformity in received pronunciation. Such uniformity led to more close-knit groups speaking RP

at school as RP became a powerful symbol of prestige, intelligence and education, and students

with regional dialects were shamed out. This could be viewed as marginalization of social

members detached from linguistic uniformity.

Evaluation of whether language propriety should be reconceptualized

Justification of language propriety is on the grounds of diversity: Although a standard language

could reduce costs of adaptations to a novel dialectal environment, such as time used for implicit

learning, it could lead to linguicism that deem substandard linguistic features as implications of

inferiority. When considering both intelligibility in interpersonal interactions and marginalizations

of social groups, the decision of whether to abandon or reconceptualize “language propriety”

introduces a complex dilemma of language usage.

However, language is in itself far beyond that, revealing cultural practices. The Jewish value

Yedidut, or friendship, by equating the meaning of “study partner” to friend; the etymology of tea

mirrors tea drinking culture that transcend national borders. For the latter example, from eastern
steppe of Europe to central Eurasian regions, local words of “tea” are pronounced as “chai”,

derived from the Mandarin pronunciation.

This shows that language is rooted in different cultural constructs, and in a broader sense, it entails

different aims for different groups of people. Therefore, we need to reconceptualize the concept of

“proper language” as “language suiting the aim of each social group”.

As is observed, RP is to be linked to middle class as well as the most polished upper class. This is

because RP seems to be a social product of high degree of upward social mobility amongst the

educated (Milroy 2001). middle-class individuals benefited from a high quality of public

education and immersed in an RP-fulfilled education environment. Since posh people are

presumed to speak accurately and properly, there is an intrinsic tendency for middle-class people

to adhere to the cultured class and conduct social refinement, speaking in RP.

In contrast, for the real upper-class members, they might pay little attention to pronunciation

shibboleths, which could make them sound “uncultured”. This is because of security of high status

in social hierarchy, and because of this security, linguistic propriety posed less of a threat of being

recognized as working-class people. Specifically, this led to them pronouncing words ending in -

ing with the voiced alveolar nasal [v], rather than the velar consonant [n], making them sound

more colloquial and casual.

Therefore, the actual “proper language” for them is the casual phonetics that best echoed with

their use of communicative language, while for the middle-class people, the “proper language”

was more decent to suit with their desire of appearing to be “cultured”. In conclusion, the

definition of “proper language” should be widened to include colloquial phonetics that differ from

pure RP, and as long as what is spoken is logically linked with aim of language, propriety of

language is attained.

We should also consider reconceptualizing “proper language” by defining it as “use of language

that is mutually comprehensible”. With mutual engagement, communication is key in use of

language, and in the sense of cognitive psychology, communication reflects the procedure in

which interaction is made possible and maintained (Radford, 1993). For communication in

practice, people share inner values with outer expressions, and to reach maximum intelligibility,
two people from the same region could talk in their familiar accent. If RP is strictly adhered to, the

intelligibility failures could constitute problems and frustrate the speakers.

For instance, in an experiment where Nigerians were to report what they heard in RP utterances,

comprehension failures occurred in the back-rounded ⟨ɔ⟩, because in phonology of Nigerian

English, there is absence of such vowels (Adedeji). Therefore, for Nigerian English speakers, they

are encouraged to maintain their Nigerian accent of English, instead of talking in RP, which could

cloud the pragmatic interaction. As divergence in language is emphasized, this could impinge on

whether communication is fully intelligible, which comprises of vowel and consonant

identification and prosodic changes. Those variations could all be linked to unique linguistic forms

and utterances in accents, which illustrates a potential redefinition of language propriety:

intelligibility of language from perspectives of non-“proper language” speakers should be

examined.

Conclusion

The notion of "proper language" encompasses a complex interplay of social and cultural factors,

while requiring a systematic reconceptualization. In the modern globalized world, a proper

language is one that embraces linguistic diversity and notices purpose of language use. By doing

so, we can strive towards a more equitable linguistic norm, where all voices and accents out of

various linguistic purposes are valued.

Works Cited

1. Desky, Ahmed Fernanda, et al. “Language as a Status Symbol of Power in Social

Interactions at a Multicultural School in the City of Medan”, Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan
 Ilmu Politik, Volume 20, Issue 3, March 2017 (264-277),

https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/137276-language-as-a-status-symbol-of-

power-in-06c39c0f.pdf

2. Guy, Gregory R, et al. “Language and Social Class”,

https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/guyClass.pdf

3. Spowart, Nan. “New book tackles Anglocentric view of James VI and I”, The National,

26th November 2023, https://www.thenational.scot/culture/23948176.new-book-tackles-

anglocentric-view-james-vi/

4. Jezek, Miroslav. “Sociophonology of Received Pronunciation: Native and Non-

Native Environments”, 2017, https://is.muni.cz/th/fjgk5/Sociophonology_of_RP.pdf

5. Chambers, J.K. Sociolinguistic Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

6. Monpean, Jose. A. “Advantages and Disadvantages of RP as an EFL Model of

Pronunciation”, La Lingüística Aplicada a Finales del Siglo XX. Ensayos y Propuestas.

Vol. 2 (pp.707-713), January 2001,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289211460_Advantages_and_Disadvantages_o

f_RP_as_an_EFL_Model_of_Pronunciation

7. Milroy, James. "Received Pronunciation: who 'receives' it and how long will it be

'received'?" Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies,

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE

%7CA92803243&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00816272&p=

AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eb3189100&aty=open-web-entry

8. Radford, G.P. “The Psychology of Communication or a Communicative Theory of

Psychology? Reclaiming "Communication" as the Central Mode of Explanation for

Communication Studies”, April 1993, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED361750.pdf

9. Adedeji, Kofoworola. “Exploring Phonetic and Phonological Variation: RP and the

Nigerian English Accent”,

https://api-ir.unilag.edu.ng/server/api/core/bitstreams/ba4c7bcd-3c89-4833-994d-

f1b1c1cd3729/content