newmanpgcedramaenglishmedia.files.wordpress.com · `debate' in the title to this chapter...

^J.If1'

~~~ ~

L ~~_

~

~~~ mil'

.f

' ,~ .

~~~%.

ii.}~,,i

.., ~y'.>'~~:

f'%~

;;~," ~:

~tii~;;~_•. -

' .'i ,,

~I~'i.;II .

~,i

.,:~... ~.

,

:~- '`~"_`,~.

1' 74

1 . ;.

Of the m

any different dialects o

f English both within Britain and beyond, the

dialect lmown as standazd English has special status. Standard English (whether

British English, American English, etc.) is the dialect of institutions such asgovernment and the law; it is the dialect of literacy and education; it is thedialect taught as

English' to foreign learners; and it is the dialect of the highersocial classes. It is therefore the prestige f

orm of English. H

owever, the w

ord

`debate' in the title to this chapter indicates that the idea of a standard English

is not a straightforward one, a

nd we will investigate ideas about standard

English, as .well as ways in which to define it. W

e

✓ill also look at some of

the problems involved in hying to get a clear linguistic definition of standard

English based on its gra*nm~*', and at s

ome social and ideological definitions

of standard English. Part of the ideology o

f standazd English is that it is the

`correct' form of the language and that other varieties are `incozrect'. S

ome

well -established English usages which don't happen to belong to the standard,such as multiple negation and the use o

f ain't' as in I

ain't got none, aretherefore stigmatised. T

he debate about standazd English centres o

n such differ-

ences in gzammar and the notion that that standard is linguistically superior

to others. We will also look at the central role that standard English holds in

the debate on English teaching within the school'.

~ .,

..

10.2.1 Beginning a

definition

It is important first of all to draw a distinction between the terms dialect and

accent, as discussions about standard and non-standard English technicallyrefer to the former and not the latter (see also Chapter 8). Linguistically, accent

relates to pronunciarion; dialect relates to words and grammar. In theory, andfor the purposes of discussion, it's possible to separate accent and dialect,

although in pracrice the two go together, at least in spoken English.. It's not

possible to tallc without both an accent (pronunciation) and a

dialect (wordsor texas, and gzammaz); and traditional studies of regional dialects usually

THE STANDARD ENGLISH DEBATE

incorporate accent wiChin their descriprions of a dialect azea_ In s

ome accents

of English, fot example, words such as bear and beer, or pier and p

ear are

homophones (meaning they sound the same), but in others they aze pronounced

differently. Different dialects, on the other hand, can use totally different words

for the same thing, such as autumn and fall, or w

ee and ZittZe; or different

b ammatical constructions, such as I

ain't got none as opposed to I haven't

got any or I don't have any. Although dialect and accent are technically sepa-

rate enrities, they aze often treated as the same thing because o

f their close

connecrion. However, in our discussion, the teams

standard English' and non-

standard English' will zefer to different dialects, not accents, of English.

The statement that standard English is a dialect is unfortunately the point

where the easy part of any linguistic definition stops; there is n

o comprehensive

linguistic descriprion of standard English. Although there are plenty of gram-

mar books which describe standard usage, standard English is, like

otherdialects, difficult to isolate and put Iinguistic boundaries around, and we'll c

ome

back to some reasons for this in due course. T

o make matters m

ore complicated,

there aze also different varieties of standard English worldwide. T4ie t

wo main

standard varieties, standard .American English and standard English English,while sharing m

any similariries, also have their differences. Unless otherwise

stated, the variety of standard English under discussion in the rest of this chap-

ter is standard English English, although the notions of prestige to be developedhere m

ay apply equally to other varieties in other countries.

As it isn't easy to define what standard English is, it might b

e benefi-

cial to start with hying to understand what it isn't. Let's take as an example

the usage of multiple negation. W

e mentioned in the introduction that the use

of more than one negarive in a

n expression is not standard English. If y

ou use

this form in

an utterance

such as I

didn't say nothing, you stand

to be

`corrected' by someone who thinks they are in a position

to judge your

language use. So why is this the case w

hen multiple negation is a

form whichsalnany people use? T

o begin to answer this, w

e need to turn to history and

the tiaxe when grammarians were working on the codification (we'll c

ome

back to this term in section 10.2.2) of standard English. Mikoy and Milroy

(1985)'point out that multiple negation was a normal feature of English up

until the seventeenth century. However, by the end of the eighteenth century,

grammarians had decided that thzs form was unacceptable. T

hey had decided

to suppress forms like I didn't say nothing and promote forms like I

didn'tsay anything o

n the grounds that multiple negation w

as illogical; an argument

that is still used today. Robert Lowth, the eighteenth -century grammarian w

ho

devised the rule, believed thae the mathemarical logic which states that two

negatives make a positive h

ad a wider, m

ore general application, including to

language use. Thus, I didn't say nothing would really m

ean I said something.

175

'I~~ii,:114I'"r';,,~ ~~~I~';;~,~illlilhii!i:!~

~,,.,,,:

i~~l~'~~II ~~ilid,'rl,.~I:it:~l

il ~,~'

I~'I; :~;~~i;i

,~F~Ip~.r. .

I~il''~ I3 ~ !:~ n;,

r, F.~~~",'~

:~. °~

LINDA THOMAS


However, given that this is one o

f the most widespread non-standard forms of

(i) the hinged part of the car that gives access to the engine

English in Britain today, it seems that the `logical' interpretation is not one

- — -

(j) the separate compartment with storage space at the back o

f the car

that speakers readily employ. Despite the mathematical evidence, speakers

understand I didn't say nothing and I

didn't say anything to mean the s

ame

Your answers to this exercise m

ay include the following:

thing (and we have yet to m

eet anyone w

ho interprets y

ou ain't seen nothing

(a) pavement

sidewalk

yet in the so-called logical way). Milroy and Milroy (1985) also point out that (b)

biscuit cookie

multiple negation remains an acceptable feature in the standard forms of many

(c) drawing pin

thumbtack

other languages, so it seems that the kind of logic which applies to math-

(d) braces

suspenders

erratical relations doesn't apply quite so readily to linguistic ones. (e)

jumper sweater

'is Although

the appeal to logic

doesn't quite

work, multiple negation

(~

rubbish garbage

- ., ~,,

remains a stigmatised form and this is also partly because it is, like many non-

(g) trousers

pants}

standard forms, a socially distributed form. This m

eans that speakers f

rom one

(h) petrol

gas

_j "'",~;G;,, social class aze Iris likely to use it than speakers from another social class.

(i) bonnet

hood

"~'~~'`~ ` The higher u

p the social scale y

ou go, the less likely y

ou are to use non-

(j) boot

trunk

'' ' ~'"' ~ •' standard forms such as multiple negation, and the m

ore likely y

ou aze to be

a standard English speaker. It is~ n

o coincidence that standard English is the

~e list o

n the left reflects Brirish English usage and that o

n the right American

dialect of the middle and upper classes and that its forms are socially presti-

English usage. Do your o

wn replies s

eem to be m

ore in line with. British or

`?'r`- gious. It is the dialect that attracts positive adjectives such as

good', correct',

_ ~~rican vocabulary? Y

ou may find your answers have words f

rom both lists

`pure' or proper' and sunilarly bestows u

pon its speakers terms such as

artic-(sweater for example is used in both varieties). If y

ou have words that don't

ulate', educated' and `intelligent'. Features o

f other dialects or varieties of

-

- appear here, do y

ou think they are words in local or general use? C

heck your

English, social, regional, and sometimes national, tend to be judged negatively list with your friends.

when compazed to it, as in the case of multiple negarion. These aspects of the

.,. definition o

f standazd English are social ones, and w

e will keep returning to

this social dimension in the rest of this chapter.

10.22 Standard English, history a

nd society ;

i. '

Thedevelopment o

f a standard form o

f a language is tied u

p with the devel-

n ACTIVITY 10.1

opment of a national and cultural identity, and a national standardised language

~, •,

i .'. becomes a s

ymbol of that identity. W

hen English began to rise to prominence

Different varieties of English use different words. "I'hinlc about your own variety

of English b

y deciding which w

ord you would use to describe the following:

~ ~ ~ England, replacing French

and' Latin as presrige languages, it

became

,,. ,necessary to choose one variety of that language to develop as a standard.

(a) the place where pedestrians walk alongside the road

_i There is not space here to detail the history o

f standard English, but writers

(b) a sweet, crumbly, baked snack

who have done s

how how the selection and development o

f the standard variety

"'

c

the im lement for attachin

a er to a noriceboard was often based o

n social a

nd

olitical, rather than linO

p

b P P

__F P

guistic, choices (see'!

(d) the elasticated straps w

orn over the shoulders and clipped o

n to the waist-

i Mikoy and M

ikoy 1985; Crowley 1989; Leith 1992). For instance, the variety

band of lower -body clothing

which' was chosen for promotion w

as one based o

n that of the south-east

(e) a woollen garment w

orn on a chilly s

ummer evening

Midlands area. This w

as a variety already achieving social prominence, not

(fl discazded waste or unwanted or useless items

on linguistic grounds but because of the region's role as the centre of learning,

- ""`:'

(g) the item o

£ clothing which is w

orn on the lower part o

f the body, encasing -- --

-

politics and commerce. If the political, social and commercial heart of England

the legs -

had been elsewhere, the current standard form of the language would look'~'

(h)

fuel for a car different, since it would have been based o

n a different Engiish variety.

i1"~: 176

177

i~.. _ _

k;—

T

'~

':;' Ts.~:,,~i;:~.I ~ :,:

;I. =

iilll

~t:riL y'I

~,~;, ..,...,

, ~~~s7

-~' yi

,~~~s .

'_jl''; ."~u.

~~,:.,, .ik

lii

,,

L il:

.i..::

~~a~;

~r.trq~~-~,

_..~',;w.

LINDA THOMAS

Once a variety is selected, the standardisation process continues with

codification. Codification means that scholars and academics analyse and write

down the vocabulary and grammarical patterns and structures of the selected

variety in dictionaries and grammar books. For English, m

uch of this codifi-

cation work took place in the eighteenth century. T'he patterns and structures

that are wzitten down then b

ecome grammatical

rules'.Standardisation

and codification

involve what

Milroy and

M]roy

(1985: 8) call 'the suppression o

f optional variability'. This m

eans that where

there aze two or m

ore forms in use, tv✓o or m

ore ways of saying the s

ame

thing, only one is selected as standard. We saw an example o

f this with multiple

negation. Another example they give is the choice of from, in the expression

different from, as opposed to d~erent to or different than. Milroy and Milroy

suggest that although there aze reasonable arguments to support the choiceof any o

f the three candidates, the decision to choose dfferent f

rom as the

standard form was entirely arbitraFy in linguistic terms. It rested instead on

`the observed usage of the "best people" at that time' (ibid. 1985: 17); in otherwords, it.was a

socially detennined decision. Incidentally, different than isthe standazd f

orm in the English of the United states, which just s

hows how

arbitrary a decision can be, and it is srill a feature of British English.

Once codification

takes place, the

dictionaries and

grammar books

become authorities' which people can consult to find out w

hat standard usage,

which readily becomes associated with

correct' or good' usage, is. T

hus one

form, the now standard form, b

ecomes dominant. T

he alternarive forms that

are not adopted as the standard do not disappeaz, but, as in the examples we

have looked at, remain in use. However, as standard forms b

ecome correct,

the forms designated non-standard become

incorrect and

are stigmatised.-Instead o

f being able to opt for one f

orm or anaYher, only one has recogni-

tion as proper English' and so takes precedence; while the other is~suppressed.

Grammaz books, instead of being descriptions of what speakers do with their

language, aze made to b

ecome prescriptions o

n what they should do, and non-

standard forms, despite

along history, and

continued use, are

seen as

sub -standard forms. It then becomes difficult to r

emember that the selecrion

of one dialect and its forms over others for promotion as the standard is only

a result of historical accident, not linguistic superiority.

However, the idea that there can be only one variety o

f English is an

idealised norion. As we saw in Chapters 6

and 9, cultural and social identityis complex, a

nd the language variety y

ou use is, as Cheshire and Milroy (1993:

18) explain, a linguistic. badge' of your identity, indicating w

ho you aze, where

you come from and w

hom-you shaze social and cultural links with. There asa-

many such linguistic `badges' or varieties of English. Standard English itself

is the badge of identity o

f particular social groups in the s

ame way that

1'78


non-standazd varieries are. So even though standazd English is considered to

- -

be the correct form of English, it is not an easy prospect simply to adopt it

as your own if you c

ome from a different social group. Changing your language

variety and conforming to the norms of another social group m

eans changing

the badge of your identity (as discussed in Chapter 9).

There is, however, a tension between standard and non-standard usage.Milroy and Milroy (1985) point out that, even if the universal adoption o

f the

standard has failed, promotion of the ideology of a

standard has been verysuccessful. There is a belief a

mong many people in Britain that there is a

correct way of using English even if they don't use it that w

ay themselves_

And it is still the language habits o

f the

best people' which are used, both inBritain and the United States, to pzovide the examples o

f proper' English and

`correctness' which constitute the standard. But, as Rosina Lippi-Green (1997)points out, whilst reasons m

ay be put forward for using prestige groups to

dictate usage, there is nothing objective about doing so. The choice of models

for standard English is not a neutral one, and standard English is not, there-

fore, aneutral vaziety. Because it belongs to a social group, it is defined b

ythat group and is still determined less b

y what it is than b

y who speaks it.

__

ACTIVITY 10.2

Think about your own speech. H

ave you ever been corrected b

y someone on

your language use? What kinds o

f things have they objected to? T

hey may

have objected to features of your pronunciation (such as saying bu'er not

butter, or gonna not going to) or they m

ay have objected to Features o

f your

grammar (such. as saying I

don't know nobody instead of I

don't know anybody,

or we was instead of w

e were). Check with the generation older and/or younger

than you. Were they or are they corrected b

y other people, and w

as it or is it

€br the same kinds of features that y

ou have been corrected for, or for different

ones?

10.3 The linguistic definition o

fstandard English

10.3.1 Linguistic variation

One of the reasons it is difficult to give an exact linguistic definition of stan-

dard English is that language varies in its use. 'Phis means that you choose

179

LINDA

- THOMAS

r ..

r

~~~

~~~~~: _';~r-..

'~`".,~

a~~~ ~<~ ~.~..~7zy.~~:~1;a~:

~i, ,


different kinds of words and put them together in different kinds o

f ways _. --- _

So which of each pair is correct? Quirk and Stein suggest that the assessment

according to the situation or context. Most people are aware that they use

- of correctness in English can depend o

n style and personal judgement', saying

different styles of spoken language during a typical day depending o

n the situ-

- that, although in each of these examples the second alternative is `preferable

arions they find themselves in. Social conteacts are infinitely vaned but can

in certain circumstances (such as formal wziting), all of these are used freely

include: where you are (at h

ome, in the office, in the pub or bar); w

hom you

by educated people

and must be regarded

as acceptable within

Standardare talking to, for instance in terms of status (your boss), age (your grand-

English. But we should be prepared foz honest disagreement in such matters'

mother) or intimacy (your best friend); what you aze talking about (the state

(1990: 117). So it seems that variation is acceptable within standazd English,

of the nation's economy, your opinion o

f a w

ork of art, Iast night's date).

- but only o

n the authority o

f educated speakers w

ho themselves m

ay not always

Written. language also vanes according to its purpose and audience, so a note

be in agreement.

to your friend looks nothing like a novel, a

newspaper editorial or an academic However, another, perhaps

more controversial, example c

omes from

textbook. To a lazge e~ctent the style of language y

ou use depends o

n the

'- Cheshire et al. (1993), w

ho investigated the use o

f sat in expressions such as

formality of the context and the a

mount of planning that is involved. For

she was sat there, where the standard E

n hsh o

f the

g

grammaz books would

example, a casual conversation between y

ou and a

close friend is an informal _

advocate she was sitting there. T

he usage w

as sat is n

ow widespread in English

event which won't be planned in advance. What you say, and h

ow you say

English, and Cheshire et al. report that it also appears in educated spoken andit, will occur spontaneously as,the conversation develops. O

n the other hand,

_ ~~en English. T

he fact that educated, speakers are using this construction

in a more formal situation, such as giving a speech or lecture, y

ou will plan

should make it standard English, but purists, w

hom Milro

and Micro 1985

what ou sa ,

and the w

a

ou sa

it, more cazefull .Written lan

e tends ;- ~

Y

y ~

~y

y

y Y

Y

y

~g

__.~ ~ call language

guardians',4 would remain reluctant to accept it as such, regazd-to occur in m

ore formal contexts than spoken language; so it usually requires

~ ~ ~ less o

f its `educated backin '. Such

g

guardians might even claim, along withmore planning. In m

ost cases, written English will be in standard English?

-- s ~.

John Honey, that

misuse of the language w

as so prevalent that even "educated"

There are many grammaz books, dictionaries and guides to English usage

~ ~ ~

people were unable to speak correctly' (The Observer, 3 A

t 1997 So it

which describe and give advice on the standard English that appeazs in writing._

- would s

eem that the authority of educated speakers is not total, in w

hi h case,

When you are writing y

ou can refer to t

hem to check your o

wn usage, although

you might be tempted to ask the unanswezable uestion

whose is?'.such reference books don't always agree with each other, and, as Mackinnon

- ~

'I'ge norion of educated speakers' is, in an 4

case, a roblematic one. T

he

(1996: 356) illustrates, somerimes their judgements are based o

n nothing more '

-

Y

P~ ,

people whp make up this group are different in different countries and produce

substantial than the prevailing attitude to a particular construction, rather than _ ___;_

_ ~erent norms. S

o standard Englishes in different parts o

f the world contain

on grammar.3 Disagreements aside, these books are widely used for guidance

,

on what constitutes standard English. H

owever; there is often also atendency - ._

features that make them different from one another. Trudgill and H

annah (1994:

hi h

b t written E

n lisp, to spoken English.

77) exemplify such differences with the following:

or higher soda c asses.

u

g y

educated is not without its difficulties. Speakers, even educated ones, use a: -^,~ ;,'~

~ ~

g~

The second sentence o

f each pair would be acceptable to speakers o

f standard

variety of different forms. Quirk and Stein 1990: 1

17

ve the followin ~ : ~

US En lish, but not to s

Bakers of standazd En hsh E

n hsh. While such differ-

examples of variation within spoken standazd English:

v. , g

P

g '

g~. ,

to apply these judgements, w c are a

ou

g

But the n

orms of spoken and written language are not the s

ame; people don t

talk like books even in the most formal o

f situations or contexts. If y

ou can t ~

~ I haven't bought one yet.

refer to a written norm to describe spoken language, then, as w

e have seen;

-~>1' : ~ didn't b

uy one yet.

you base your judgements o

n the speech of the

best people', the educated"

_ -

. Hwe you read it already?

1 1

B t basin

our Judgements on the usage of the

.~: Did you read it already?

=y~ ~: ences m

ay seem tnvial, and standazd Englishes m

ay have m

ore similarities

~. ,... -:~x~

than the have differences

it does 1ughlight the fact that there is no universal

"' Who/whom did they elect to speak for them?

- =°' :

Y

>

His sister is younger than him/heconsensus o

n which constructions aze `correct' and b

y extension, that such

The data is/are just not woilable

_ decisions are not linguistically but socially based, malting t

hem continuously

Neither of them were/was present

- open to controversy and debate.

180

181

~' ii:u,:

--~- ~

+, lil~,,:

_

LINDA THOMAS


It should also be pointed out that standard and non-standard varieties of

arguing instead that standard English is no more

correct or systematic thanEnglish are not separate linguisric systems either. There are large azeas o

f

_ -

any other dialect. It may be desirable to l

mow and be able to use standard

overlap between

standard and non-standard

grammars, although linguists

English when necessary (especially in writing), but this does not m

ake stan-

describing different varieties of English, and prescriptivists complaining about

dazd English better' or m

ore correct' than any other variety. S

o let's have a

_ _ -

usage, concentrate on the differences, which m

ay give t

hem a greater emphasis

closer look at the basis for these arguments.than they

deserve. Speakers typically use both standard and non-standard We saw in the example o

f multiple negation (see section 102.1) thax

features to a greater or lesser degree, but not exclusively. It is a question o

f

applying logic to English is not always successful, but this doesn't stop peoplechoice, although not necessarily a conscious choice. Speakers and listeners are

from trying. In an article in the Evening Standard on 1

7 November 1988, John

-. :...;

not typically aware of the variation that takes place in their spontaneous spoken

Raes criticised linguists and educarionists cvho argue that the form we was is

language, but will choose forms that aze appropziate to the contexts they aze a dialect form and therefore not incorrect:

i'~ '~' ~" ~

in. It is important to note that such variation is not random, but is subject to _

~,' ~

a varzery of different factors, s

ome related to linguisric contexts and s

ome to

You could have fooled

me. I thought it w

as correct to write '

we were'

~~~,

real -world contexts; it is a normal part of everyday language use. and incorrect to write '

we was'. I did not realise it w

as just a

question r';,

of dialect; I thought it was a question of g

rammar or, if you d

o not like

~~E~c~

~ ~~

that word, of logic. You cannot use the singular form of the verb with

Ili;;,~`

ACTIVI~ 10.3

a plural pronoun.

li q~'

Which of the following sentences would you consider to be

correct' English? _

I don't think many (or an

lin , ~~~

y) guists or educationists would support the use

~!j:y~

of we was in formal writing, and neither did the report which this article criti-

II,

Which would be

bad', and wh

~~vises (the C

ox Report). T

he point that the report w

as hying to m

ake was that,

"_ ThaYs the girl he gave the bracelet to

- although the standard English form w

e were is appropriate for writing, this

i•,I;Buf~y fhe Vampire Slayer is dead cool

doesn't make the corresponding non-standard w

e was incorrect, just not appro-

want you to quietly leave the room

priate. The same azgument would apply to spoken English: spoken standazd

~~~;r~;

My old m

an gave m

e a set of wheels for m

y birthday

English is more appropriate in s

ome contexts than non-standard English. B

ut

~,i„~~I :

The guy that works in the bar is really nice

~! ~;: (putting the reasons w

hy one is m

ore appropriate' than the other aside) can

;',I,Who did you see?

n Rae's claim for

correctness' and logic' be upheld? T

o answer this question

iE~jJ~

I don't like him doing thatII

,, . we need to look at the w

ay verbs in English work. In standazd English, the

Check your answers with the generation older or younger than y

ou — do your

~: -

past tense of verbs is typically formed by the addition of -ed, regardless of

~ ~~'~~i~;~.

intuitions tally? Now check your answers in a reference g

rammar such as

the subject: ~I,

;:~!;~

,. Fowler's M

odern English Usage. D

o you have a sense that notions o

f what.._

~_

-~ ~

~'~,~

~ is `correct' and what is not are in fact subject to change?

~ ,`

Singular Plural

is ~~I'i ~ ~ '~4

~yi'II ;_

I loved we loved

, i~~ ,~~i,~~;

'`: ~

- 'you-loved

you loved i~i,'~i~,.

'F .:

a s/he loved

they loved,;,.

__ ~

~ 10.3.2 Logic a

nd correctness

_ ;~~~I~~`'~li~

Verbs which follow this pattern aze called regular verbs. However, there are-r . -

As we have seen, one o

f the claims which is m

ade for standazd English is

also irregular verbs which behave differently:~. a~:

that it is `correct. Other

vazieties are

therefore by definition

`incorrect '

-!~ ,__,

Sometimes -the basis for the norion of correctness is that the standard vanety.

__ Singular

Plural ~i~

~i~~ ~

is `logical', or that it is systematic and rule -governed (i.e. it has grammatical _

I saw

we saw

~~~~;;i rules), whereas non-standard varieties are not. Linguists resist these notions,

you saw

you saw

~'i,f~'~

d:e. ;._~.. 1 8 2

7 8 3

i ~~~ ~Vail ,~f~

~ I TIN il`''

~ s

~yY F ~.:..J. ~

tr',;..5':

.:.~ .::~~;~^~

_~~,r ~.~.,.~,

~ ~~~I it

~~~i y;~~i~ .,

~ ~ ~I~~~.i~ l:l

-~ ~,.,..Iij.k'

4 r

LINDA THOMAS

s/he saw

they saw

went we went

you went you went

s/he went they went

In both sets of verbs, regular and irregular, y

ou can see that the form doesn't

change between singular and plural; in fact it doesn't change at all throughout

the paradigm. The verb be, however, behaves in a different fashion f

rom other

verbs:Singular Plural

was

we were

you were you were

s/he was

they were

If we look at the different patterns which standard English verbs have, it's

difficult to apply the notion of logic' to one which behaves in a

totally idio-

syncratic manner. The verb be is alone in its distinction between singular and

plural, and could be considered quite `illogical'. For many non-standard vari-

eties of English, however, this illogical distinction doesn't exist; they simply

have be with one past tense form, like all the other verbs:

~`r; ~ Singular

Plural`j~;~~ ~

I was

we was

~,~,'..:~i~I ~F''"

yOU WdS

yOU W4S

y;; s/he w

as

they was


-^-~ 10.3.3 So what is standard English?

We have s

hown that historically the standard dialect o

f English is based o

nlinguistic forms that were selected from a

mong many competing forms that

were in general use. It is bound up politically with notions o

f national iden-

tity and

it is connected

socially with

the middle

and upper classes

andconsequenfly with education, correctrzess and prestige. A

s a linguistic system,

the grammar of standard English has similarities with and'differences from the

grammars of other varieries o

f English.

[

ACTIVITY 10.4

The following appeared in a

column in a British newspaper.

They said it

_ 'I'm talking to you slightly differently than I would if I w

as buying

_ tomatoes' -

Two solecisms in o

ne sentence addressed to Melvyn Bragg

by Jean Aitchison, Rupert Murdoch Professor of Language a

nd

Communication at Oxford.

`~"'" `solecism -

la the non-standard use of a

.~, )

grammatical construction; lli) any

_ mistake, incongruity, absurdity. 2. a

violation of good manners' (Collins

Dictionary).

_ What is the nature o

f the journalist's objection? U

se a reference g

rammar to

-1 +' check, then try this exercise o

n your friends. Consider whethez y

ou think the

~~

objection is justified and why (not).

w+^ d

a'>+1 5'

!I°; ~

This is no less systemaric than the standard and i

n fact, could be seen to be

^m~:~'"tj~~' !

more logical.

~,

,_..,_ . -

~~ !,' Rae's point about using singular fozms of the verb with plural pronouns

;~,,, 10.4 Standard En lish a

nd education

doesn't even stand much scrutiny within the standard itself. Y

ou can see that

.rs',,, g

'''`~' there is n

o distinction in standard English between the form o

f be with singular

y -

F^„: 10.4.1

Standard English in the school

Y ,,;, you (you were) and plural y

ou (you were), although there is a

distincrion M ,

~, ti!:' between the forms used with the other singular and plural pronouns. This

~ ~:

The debate about standard English in England often centres o

n education and

`` doesn't s

eem logical' either.

_ educarion standards. This brings us to a

problem with terminology. The word

-

The use o

f we was is every bit as systematic and rule -governed as tha

: ~- -

`standard' has at least two meanings. It can m

ean a unified form' or

consist-fl; ,

standard, and there are many other examples o

f non-standard_forms for which

~~

ency' (as in standard' measures) and this is probably what the term is meant

.~....~ . ~

- the s

ame claim can be m

ade; it's just that the systems and rules are different

~y h 4 to convey in relation to

standazd' English. Bnt the term

standard' also refers''~

~ ~ (for examples see Trudgill and Chambers 1991; Milroy a

nd Milroy

1993; , ~.

to leuels of attainment, as in `standards o

f excellence' or

falling standazds' ,:4r ..”^G '

. ~.

and it is eas to confuse the t

wo meanie s. O

nce standard English is the

!,; ~~ Thomas 1996.

;,„'" ;

Y

g~~:~

~ ~ _

~~ .

~~_~~ .3~w._..

1 8 4

.eii~~~'"

_ "~

fir.., ~ ,R

r`;

785

'

GNDA THOMAS

`standard of excellence' rather than the

unified form', non-standard' is rein-

_ fozced as s

ynonymous with

sub -standard'.In the discussion about education w

e have, once again, to sepazate ideas

about written and spoken language. Teaching literacy,- and therefore written

standard English, is one of the m

ain functions o

f the school, but the state-

imposed narional curriculum in England a

nd Wales also m

ade it a

requirementthat children should b

e taught to speak in standard Englzsh w

hen appropriate.

`Appropriate' contexts tend to be both public and towards the formal end of

the spectrum; in

other words, prestigious

contexts, although. why standard

"u:; English is appropriate in these contexts is not examined. A

t the s

ame rime,

~~

the same orders try to support dialects other than. the standard, the dialects

~~ • that m

ost children c

oming into school speak, b

y talking o

f the

richness' and

:`;,,~;;;,, `integrity' o

f non-standard varieries. Teachers are encouraged to a

im for the

!~' ~ hi h

standazds of excellence' i

ns oken lan

a e that onl

standard En lish

~; r ;I~

g

P

~ g

Y

g+~;.i;l!I~i

is said to bring, without underm;n;ng the validity of the non-standard varieties

"' spoken by the children in their classes. Similaz sentiments are uttered in the

ili

- United States. In her discussion o

f English in the education system, Lippi-

- - Green (1997: 1

09) notes a

statement by the National Council o

f Teachers o

f-

English which claims to respect diversity in s

poken and written English' while

az~miing for the imposition of a standard f

orm. It is difficult to see h

ow teachers

might maintain the validity of non-standard varieties, or respect for diversity,

given the status and prestige o

f the standard, the constant confusion o

f non-

standard' with sub -standard' a

nd the explicit message that nothing else counts,

both inside and outside the school. A

s we saw above, w

e was is recognised

not as a form of English, with appropriate occasions for usage, but as a

nincorrect f

ozm, not to b

e used at all.

The morivation for m

aking children speak standard English in school is

explicitly given as the need to communicate effecrively; Apparently, h

ose who

don't speak the standard (and that constitutes the majority o

f the population o

fBritain) have communicarion problems. W

hile there are undoubtedly contexts

where standazd English is designated as appropriate, does this really m

ean that

non-standard Englishes don't work as f

orms of communication? S

ome people

in Britain and the United States think so. In 1995 the then British g

overnment

launched the Better English C

ampaign', whose aim was to improve standazds

of spoken English azound the country; in other words, to encourage spoken

standard English. The committee included prominent public figures a

nd its

mission was to `declaze w

ar on communicarion b

y grunt'. T

he Secretary o

fState for Education, Gillian Shephazd, in promoting the campaign, claimed that`grunts a

nd slack language w

ere impoverishing children'. B

y grunts a

nd slack

language' she meant non-standazd English_ C

ompare this with a

statement made

in the eazly part of the twentieth century:

~'I. _.

- 1'86

-~:~ .


it

Come into a

London elements school a

nd see w

hat it is th

l_.1 _

ry at the chil-

dren need most. You will notice, first of all, that in a

human sense, our

boys and girls dre almost inarticulate. T

hey can

make noises, but they

cannot speak.

(quoted in Crowley 1989: 242)

Crowley comments that these children lacked the ability to speak standard

English, not the ability to speak. Lippi-Green records a similar c

omment about

non-standard speakers from a teacher in the United States in the late twentieth

century:

These poor kids c

ome to school speaking a

hodge podge. T

hey are all

mixed up and don't lrnow a

ny language well. A

s a result, they can't even

think clearly. ThaYs why they don't learn It's our job to m

ake up for

their deficiency.

(1997: 111)

10.4.2 Standard English a

nd social equality

.- The debate about standazd English tends to centre not o

n written but o

n spoken

English; who should speak it, where a

nd when. Those who view standard

English as the only really `correct form of English argue that speaking it

brings increased personal power and social equality for everyone. John H

oney

(1997) for example, azgues that to encourage the maintenance o

f non-standard

_

varieries is to deny social equality to the speakers o

f those varieties. In this

argument, non-standard speakers are trapped by their language in the lower

social orders. Others agree. John Rae, for example, links standard English to

economic survival and success:_

~

nothing more effectively c

ondemns an individual to his class or ethnic

ghetto than an inability to communicate clearly a

nd logically in English.

It is not a question of teaching children to 'talk posh'. It is just a

ques-tion of giving them the essential tool for survival in our society.

(Evening Standard, 17 November 1988)

Nonce again the reference to `logic' a

nd the suggesrion that non-standard

English speakers cannot communicate clearly.-

Again; there is a comparison to b

e made with the situation in the United

States, where speakers o

f anon-standard vaziety o

f English k

nown as African

American Vernacular English (

RAVE) may suffer discriminarion at the hands

-;

~'~, i~.

f~Fi.;

1 87

,~.i~~~u;j~~~f ~'. {p

~._,:.~<

-~~, ~ .r

-Zk

- ~~

~~, ~

~~ ~1

____. .

~, n

_

~_-i,,br _.

~_

-

l

i ..'~"

~'

-

, ~+~~

- -

~: -,~;

.i. j ; y

f; a~~ ~i;

,.;jr.

~.

—

;• ir;

~ -

..

— js;

- j:;

~'_i fir','

~c- 4

~- }~:r n"

~~h;

'I 7;;~,,.

~` ~

~~I

~~' ~

F,~ t

,`

~i `,t~}

_ ~~

~` ..

p'. t

i ..

;li.

r , is~~~'~A~r~;;r

~r~ ~.

.. ~c

~..~.;:_ ar':5:

~~i

LINDA THOMAS

of teachers and employers. Although it is poliric in the United States to m

ake

statements to the effect that standaz'd and non-standazd variefies aze equally _

valid, AAVE is seen as sub -standard and the onus is fumly placed o

n its

speakers to change. The azgument for this is summarised as follows:

FACT: Language A

[standazd] and Language B [non-standard] aze equal

in linguistic and cultural terms.

bFACT: Language B

is rejected by teachers and employers.

aFACT: Rejecrion has a negarive effect on the speakers o

f Language B

.

bCONCLUSION: Language B

must be discazded in favour of Language A

.

The teachers writing this, essay never even discuss an alternate conclu-

sion: Teachers and employers must Zearn to accept Language B.(Lippi-Green 1997: 113)

Standard English is therefore seen as the appropriate dialect in the job mazket,

and indeed in Britain, Gillian Shephard went so faz as to suggest that

those

who have not mastered "our marvellous language" should not expect to be

able to get a jab' (Daily Mail, 1

4 October 1994). Again, there is a cleaz onus

on non-standard speakers to change if they wish to keep their rights as c~ri-

zens to take up employment

--Many employers set great store b

y their employees' ability to speak

standard English when appropriate in the w

ork environment, and they have

a reasonable expectation that their employees should be literate. in standard

English. It is misleading, however, to suggest that the only baz to full em

ployment is a lack of ability to speak the standazd. Equalify or inequality _

of opportunity may be

linked to

language, but language is

not the sole

contributor.The linking o

f standard English with employment and on employers'

e.~cpectations seldom focuses explicitly on why standard English is so import

ant. We have

already seen that standazd English

is related

to educatton

i

and, in an extension of that debate, standazd English is also equated vnth

society's rules. In Britain, there is a link between standard English, or what

is seen as correct grammaz, and the morality of awell-ordered world. This -

link tends to be made in the context. of educarion and English teaching, and

can be seen in the language of prominent public figures at both ends of the

' _~:.tv✓entieth century:

188


The great difficulty o

f teachers in Elementary schools in m

any districts

is that they have to fight against the pocverfiil inguences of evil habits

of speech contracted in h

ome and street. T

he teachers' struggle is thus

not with ignorance but wiffi a perverted power. (Newbolt Report 1921)

If you allow standards to slip to the stage where good English is no

better than bad English, where people turn up filthy at school ... allthese things tend to cause people to have no standazds at all, azzd onceyou lose standards then there's n

o imperative to stay out of crime.

(Norman Tebbitt, M

P, 1985)

Attention to the rules of grammaz and caze in the choice of wards encour-

ages puncfiliousness in other matters ... As nice points o

f gramxnaz were

mockingly dismissed as pedantic andurelevant, so was punctiliousness

in such matters as honesty, responsibility, property, graritude, apologyand so on. (John Rae, The Observer, 7

February 1982)(all quoted in C

ameron 1995: 94-6)

Thus we have a

perverted power' working against authozity and morality andcausing tfie social order to break d

own. Watts (2002) suggests that the link

between standard English and `posirive' social befiaviour (and, by default,

between non-standard forms and negative' social behaviour) really took shape

in eighteenth-century England, in the framework of an `ideology o

f po]ite-

ness'. Polite' behaviour w

as held to be that of the gentry, w

ho were the social

stratum that ambitious members of the middle class modelled themselves on.

Certain attributes, such as decorum, grace, beauty, symmetry and order' were

held up as innately characteristic of this `polite' class in all things —theirmanners, morality and of course their Ianwage, standard English. Thus, to usethe standard English o

f the gentry, was to demonstrate an affiliation to, and

LL~engagement with, a certain set of values which signalled sophisticarion and

genrility. The use of non-standard forms then, by default, c

ame to symbolise

a lack of integration into socially esteemed attitudes and behaviours. Thus,

standard English is equated with authority, discipline and a h-adirional socialand moral order and its speakers u

e consequently seen both as educated and

as having respect for society's standards or norms. Those who do not conform,

or who conform to a different set o

f rules, have attributed to them a kind of

`perverted power' which undermines the authority of those who seek to impose

their rules, the socially powerful people. Standard English on the other hand

supports that power and is promoted as being able to give access to it. Thisis because the contexts in

which it is used aze institurional ones such as

educarion, law, govertunent; public azenas where lazge-scale social decisions

189

E;.

LINDA THOMAS


aze taken. Its use in these prestige contexts means that its status is reinforced.

It also means that, to take part in the higher order functions, y

ou must use

_

~ ~Of'~5

standazd English. The link between standard English and p

ower is well recog-

1 The south-east Midlands is the azea in central. to south-east England which

Wised. Honey's book, for example, equates language with power in its title

includes the capital, London, and the cities of Oxford and Cambridge, the homes(Language Is P

ower: The Story o

f Standard English a

nd its Enemies) and

of England's two oldest and most prestigious universities.Trevor Macdonald, the chair o

f the Better English Campaign, also expressed

2

There aze occasions when written language is less formal, such as when youwrite a note to a friend. There aze also occasions when non-standard English is

his wish, I want every y

oung person in the country to understand that language

deliberately used in print, for example in magazines which aze aimed at youngeris a source o

f power' (quoted in The Sunday Times, 21 April 1996). In both

audiences and try for an air of informality and intimacy, or in novels. It isn'tcases

language' means standazd English. Speaking standazd English should

possible to define language vse by shict'categories as people aze very creative;4:

and varied in the way they use it. S

o ideas about contexts which relate to

Via, then in theory enable u

s all to b

ecome part o

f the socially powerful group. It

formality and'planning and their corresponding linguistic fornis aze referring to°~ ~;

is, however, doubtful to suppose that, if everyone really did speak standard tendencies rather than absolutes.

i .' 3

Mackinnon gives an example of a change in accepted use by comparing the

English, then we would all achieve the social equality which H

oney and R

ae

`~>:~ti~;. suggest is denied us supply because of a

dialect of English. In a

ny case, even

envy on due to in Fowler's 1926 Dictionary of Modern English Usage with thaxof the 1983 O.~ford Guide to English Usage. Fowler claimed that due to was

"~.3~'~;~'~'~" if w

e could all b

ecome members and adopt the n

orms of high status social

`impossible' in sentences like The old trade union movement is a dead horse,

ou S

it'S unlikel that w

e would all w

ant to.

Iazgely due to the incompetency of the leaders' while the Oxford'Guide puts theRather than impose standard English, there are those w

ho support the

same construction among its accepted usages.'J~,~

4

In Britain it is common for individual- people to take it upon themselves to

genuine acceptance of non-standazd dzalects o

f English and w

ho maintain that

commern on English usage by way of letters to newspapers or complaints

it is possible to have ttie best of both worlds. Access to the standard should to broadcasters, setting out to prescribe what everyone else should do with

not come at the expense o

f a home dialect, w

hich is neither illogical n

ot inCom-

their language. The people w

ho make such comments act as

guardians' of the

prehensible, but as an addirion to it. Accepting the usefulness o

f standard

language and aze part of what Milroy and Milroy (1985) call the `complaint

English, or society's general high regard for it, should not invalidate other ~~tton' serving an unofficial but none the less prescriptive funcfion.

5

john Rae is the former head of 4Jes~ninster School, one o

f England's leading

varieties, nor promote intolerance o

f them. There are m

any complex social

public schools. In England the term `public school' is used to refer to a small

reasons for the dominance of standard English a

nd its use in the important

number ofhigh-status private schools. Schools maintained from the public purse,

and wIuch the majority of children go to, aze referred to as state schools.

public and institutional arenas o

f social a

nd political life a

nd we should b

e

6

Examples taken from `Children's

use of spoken

standard English', S

CAR

aware of these, rather than simply accepting the notion that standazd English

Discussion Papers: No. 1, February 1995.

is inherently a linguistically superior f

orm.

7

This was a govemnaent report on the teaching o

f English.

Su

estions for further reading

''~ 1 A.~ S

uma~aa~r

99

'~'~~-~ Cameron, Deborah (1995) Verbal Hygiene, London: Roufledge. Chapter 3

presents au_

In this chapter w

e have considered the difficulties in defining standard English

~teresring discussion of the issues involved in the standazd English debate in

and have looked at its historical, social a

nd linguistic foundarions. W

e have

Britain.seen how notions o

f logic' a

nd correctness' cannot b

e applied linguistically

Leith, Dick.(1992) A Social History o

f English (2nd edition), London: Routledge. A

to standazd English, but how these ideas are connected with Social a

nd polit-

comprehensive and comprehensible account of the history of English, including

ical values, and with the maintenance of moral, social and insritutional order. coverage of standazdisation processes.

Mikoy, James

and Milroy, Lesley (1985) Authority

in Language: Investigating

We have discussed the fundamental role of standazd English in education as

Language Prescription and Standardisarion, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

gzving access to literacy and to wider communication, but we have argued that

- -

Examines notions of correctness' and issues of prescriptivism.

promotion of the standazd should not invalidate non-standazd varieties, and

Bex, T. and R

. Watts (eds) (1999) Standard English: The Widening Debate, London:

~~ that access to, a

nd acquisition of, the standard d

oes not h

ave to b

e at the

Routledge. An interesting collection o

f papers winch looks at the history and

ideology of the standard in Britain, as well as its current development in theexpense of a home dialect.

United States and continental Europe.

~'I

f.:I

790

191

~d _,',

1i1

I'I I~p!y;

~~

i~:IJ.~::r.1n..,Ili„~;,,T

~i ..~

~'iilii lidij°' I l .

'~ ~.

IIII II

I,'~;`~, ti':

~tii~' {

ii~V ~

C~

l Id' i~

~ i i i,

~~~ili~ii,

i~l~ . ~

li~l~~~d'~ ~

~r.i~u~~i lit l ;

u

~ ~

~°~~~rip~~o~ end :s~~.~dar~~s~~~~~

~a~ ~ ~~t~u~ge pres~ri~#i~az~ z~nc~ z~s c~~s~~~a~n~~~

~z~.iltis t~ar~k eve ~ttempi to 3ook dis~~assioz~ately at ~rescri~tio•z i~lazzgua~e :~ntt the ef~'ects o

f prescriptive attitudes o

n ttze ~iaiTy dives

o~ indzviduals. Prescription

depeT~cis on an id~a3o~;Y (or ~a~ Qf

beliefs} ~ozi~~rzling 3an~u~~:ge which z'eq~ires that in 1az~~uage use, asin ottzer matters, tF3IIlgS 5~c7II ~'!~ C

I011~ in ti~~ `rzgi~t' vvay. ode cant,

pzr~ia~s, 4~st u~derstaz~d tivhat zC zs by ~om~aciz~,~ lan~ua4e v~rith

otE~er aspects off' human ~e(~aviflur, site as dress o

: table m

anne~-~.

~~, iz? a ~artzcutar cultv~-~ at ~

particular rim€, guests at a dinner are

requzred t~ u~sar ev~n,zia~ dress (~f a particular form) ar~d rewired

~o use t~~ir knives and £arks ire a

particular way, these requxxeme~~ts

are prescri,~tive, that is, they are unposed from above' b

y °society',

not by act Itv~ agr~e~r~ent ~~no~zgst the guests themselves. T

hey art

also arbi#rary: in Pdorth America, for example, the #'ark. is trans-~arrer~ to tips right h

and for eating, ~v~aereas in E~ritain, the fork

z'ezna~ns in the Ieft .hand and .efie knife in the right. Cane could

acttaaI~y think of a variety o

f perfectly et~iczent w

ays — ~e~ides these .

— in

whi~~ a gzaeal cou3d

be eaten; yep, in ti~~se cc~ttures, theslightest

deviatianr from the

prescribed norms is

immediatelyNoticed az~d considered to b

~ bad manners',

Languabe is a

rr~uch_inore com~ilex p~enomez~on than table man-

n~r~: it is also a much more central aspect o

f human experience.

Whereas table manners are codified in h

andbooks o~ etiquette,

`tvzrect' use of ianguage~ is codf~edzn ttandba~ks oA usa~w. ~L is

probable that ail speakers of English (

and probably m

ost speakers

of many other languages} have a

number of de~nit~ opinions as to

what.is cprrect' or_`incarrect' in the language they use, T

hey may

often Iaok to exgert' opinion, ratkter than to tk~eir o

wn knowledge

of the lazxguage, to decide. Particular English

usages, such as

2

.t~r

es~~

'ipP

io~c

~rnd st

anda

rdis

atio

n

d+~u

bl~

nega

tive

s, as

ia:.

t~~

r'~~var

,~ui

u' not Ft

Ftg, are

view -ea

as

unacceptable alt

houg

h they are ver

y ~v

idei

y us

ed; some vat

•z~t

ies of

a Iar~guage (a

.~. BBC spo

ken Eziglish) are pu

t~liely co

z~si

c~~x

~d to be

~b~t

te~'

than some othez~ va

ne±i

es ~e.~: Bir

man~

t~az

n ur

ban dialect.

Inde

c-~,

some Ian~ua~~s are thought to ~~

in some senses

bett

er-'

khan

ethers: it has ofsen ~e

e:~ ciaim~~l Far exa

r:~p

l~ t.hat Fre

nch

ismore icgzcai tha

n En

~~is

h.Language,

as we h

ave

sugb

cst~

d, i

s ~

m~:c

?~ mare c

~rtaplex

~,he

rzom

enon

titan ~u~

h tt,ivgs as

tab

u zr

tan.

ne.r

s, and i

t is

tli;

~'i~

ult

t~ separate file :~atuz-~ of ianaua~~ pre

s~ri

~;ti

on (i.

e. impasztic~~ cif

norms of us

age bX

aut

hari

ty~ from a number of related pt~ei~nm-

ena, su

ch as ~~

orma

Cisa

t~nn

and

sz'

anda

rdis

atin

~ of Ia~

~uag

e. In +h

isfi

rst chapter, ue shalt att

empt

to

ad~:

tres

s these

diff

icul

ties

; ir

e ~~r-

ticu

iar we sna

il relate prescripiave attitudes ver

y largely tc

sta

nd-

ardisation of Iaziguage, However, we trust f

irst

brieIly consider

same of t

he consequences of pr

escr

ipti

ve and

auth

o;if

aria

nattitudes to

lan

guag

e behaviour for the dotty Izves of ind

ivid

uals

.Th

ese consequences are

more wid

e -ra

nkin

g th

an has usu

ally

~ie~n

~cknrswledged, and it i

s part of our pu

rpos

e in

this book to indicate

hott

i~ d

eepl

y these

attitudes

affe

ct us an

d how ~

~~id

espr

e~d

their

cons

eque

nces

are

,Some of tine n~r

rawe

r consequences of la

ngua

ge prescraptian az

ere

ally

qui

te well known, although th

ey are

usually acc

epte

d uy the

public as qu

ite reasonably and

are

not

que

stio

ned,

r~ pe

rson

whcr

speaks English per

fect

ly eff

ecti

vely

, but who .h

as occas;oral usages

that

are solo to ~e

substandaz~d' (

e.g.

omitting in

itia

l jh

J in

wor

dsli

ke J

7apo

y, hai

r, or

usin

g double n

egat

i~~e

s) zx:ay w

eII

~irad th

athi

s/he

r so

cial

mob

ilit

y is blacked and may, fo

r ~x

ampl

e, be re

fuse

dac

cess

to certain types of employment ti

vith

aut any off

icia

l adm

issi

onth

at the refusals de

pend

partly or

who

lly ~n his

use

of Ia

ngua

ge.

This

point is

qui

te cle

arly

und

erst

ood by

the writer of the

fol

lowi

ng(a

Vic

tori

an English_.laz~guage sc

hola

r), who spo

ke of ~h]

dro

ppin

gas

a :r

evol

ting

hab

it',

and added;

Thos

e whom we r

aft `self-made men

'` are much giv

en t~

this

~lzideous ba

rbar

ism.

..:d

ew things wi

ll the

Eng

lish

you

th ns~d in

afte

r-li

fe more p

rofi

tabl

e, tha

n th

e ri

ght use of the

~fa

iesa

idle

tter

. (Ol

ipha

nt, 18

73:2

26)

. ~

These are st

rong

wards; ye

t many rea

ders

,ma

y be

tiev

e-th

at it is

quit

e right th

at p

eopl

e sh

ould

be re

fuse

d em

~lny

ment

on t

he,~

roun

cis of wrong' . ~ro

nuc~

c.~a

tiaz

~ .n

~'.,

~rau

amaz

al~n~, .

Poss

ibly

i'rescriptiara end siandardisntior:

i~stifyin~ thss

€~~inic~r. oy ~gui.lg t

i~~.

t i}

~es~

i`a

uli:

s air

si~;a~s ~f

'Farel~ssz~ess', w

hirl

s r4flect ~n t

k;V ~e~eral

char

~.ct

er of

tY~s

in-

divid~a~i. 'The

y xr~ay r

at, tia~v~verf tae

aware tha

t a rr

~ajorit~~ of their

fell

ow-c

z4zz

ezzs

ar

i acc~+stoAr:e~

acs

c:aznmit `faults' {s

uch

as

[h~-droppinL), and

-tha

t th

ey are, therefore, cond~mnin~ ~ very

Iarg

e ~ro~orti~n ~~ t?ae t~o

puta

tiaz

~. ~'

nrt~~~r~ziore, the

se ~vh

~ do use

so-c

al]e

cl `;

~rac

cept

able

' ~r

an~m

ar an

d ~ronunri<ztio~~

generally

belor.~ ~~

2he l

o~ve

x soc;al ~

rou~

s~ #

1~ex

efor

e, suc

h ~~

titu

des to

ia~a~iz~g~ car f~

~ ix~~~rpret~d

a.s a kind of so

cial

-class dis

c.ri

r~ai

nat.

ion,

~rsc~ it

xnay ~e that ~~

titi

c~t ~o

ivez

f~v

~uri

;~g

ce~~tair~ ~l

.itU

dro

ops is

exez

•cis

ed i~ pert thr

ough

ti;e>F si~iu6o;eths. A1

tIla

ugl?

public dis-

crim~nation on the

gra

ur~c

is of ra

ce, rekigion anc

~ social class is nat

now pub

l~eP

y ar

,~ep

tal~

le, i

t app

ears

tn~

t di

scri

n.in

~tio

n on tin~uzsfiic

grou

nds

rr pubticly ac

cept

able

, ev

en t~augh

tin~uistic c

~if£~~~ences

may tt.ems~lves be as

soci

ated

4ui

th ethnic, religious ar~d cl

ass di

f-

reranc~s (se

e fu

rtk~

er ~. R. Edt

ivar

c~s,

2979; Huc

isor

~, 1980j. ~'

hese

atti

tude

s t~

t}~

e use

of grammar and pronunciation are

, in an

y case,

hi~h

iy interesting in ~.

rxem

seiv

es a~a

~ ~v

ili be further di

scus

sed beI~w.

As a rzs

uit ~s

f the

d~Veiopment t~f saciotinguistic res

earc

h in

re-

cent

;ears, it

has b~Corr~e possible to ad

dres

s a number of p; actical

prob

te~s

in speial and edu

cati

onal

matters tha

t can be

azfected by

pr~5criptive ~ttitude> to language. Two of

Lhes

e are

particularly

discussed

in this ~aak. i he f

irst

arises from t

he fac

t th

at many

`adv

ance

d' c

c~un

tF~a

es, in

clud

ing

Brit

ain,

now hav

e much ~

arg~r

non-

indi

geno

us ~op

uiat

ians

tha

n th

ey had

iz~ the

fir

st hal

f of the

cent

ury.

Britain is raw amulti-cultural and

amulti-lingual society

(for same details and a discussio;~, s

ee Linguistic h4

tnor

itie

s Project

1485

), anu a Iarge number of

r~if

fere

nt matk~er-tgng~.~es are use

d

in Britain. The necessity ;or t

~:e r:

ajar

Tan,gua~e (En

blis

l3) to

be

acce

ssib

le to non-

indi

geno

us gro

ups

is not

the

only consequence,

ari~

in~.

5a~itstinguistic res

earc

h ha

s, amongst other thi

ngs,

tri

ed to iden-

tify

the

cultural an

d social dis

adva

ntag

es that-ar

e enconnkered b~

thes

e gr

oups

in ac

quir

ing an

d us

ing tie ma

jori

Cy language. But

there

'tza

ve aisQ been i

Ynportant

researches i

nto

kk~e

difn~uities

encountered by members of mi

nori

ty gro

ups in

public and

soci

al

tran

sact

ions

(which always in

volv

e th

e us

e of language). T'rtese di

f-

ftculties, it has become clear, ar

e not confined to ma

ster

ing

tfie

vaca

buIa

ry, grammar and

seg

ment

al phonology (pr

onun

ciat

ion of

voti

vets

and

consonants) of En

gti~

ki. They may, for Instance, af

~'eet

._...intonation of utt

eran

ces.

; if.it ha~p~ns th

at the i.t~.t.o~aiion ref ~o

3it~

Pr.4scripfion antfstrxndarrlisat`iorz

questions in the mother-tongue as similar to that o

f co~nnlands irA

EnaIis;~, tY~e no~z-naCive speaker may ~-ie thought t

o be behaving

rudely whin he uses that intonataon.:in ~

broader sense, it has beenshown that there are di~'ez- ent cultural n

orms of politeness a

nd dii

ferent expectations as to language use rn different speeck~ events ~n~

Crar~sactions, e.g. in ernp~o5rment intexvie~~- s (Furnboroug.l ~t al.,1982). S

ometimes, because o

f these different cultural expectations,

tote non-native int.ervie~vee may be thought to b

e over-zespectt'ui

and ingratiating;, a~ other fiimes ate m

ay appear to b

e Julien a

nd

a~r~lt~vard because the ~arn~s tai his o~viz c;u]ture require that h

eshould not appear over-confident a

nd pushy' zn such situations.

TYzis pan resir3t~in a poor opinion o

f the interviewee o

n tkZ~ part o

fthe in[ervi~w bt~arci, a

nd a sense o

f gr~evan~e (ieadzng to accusa-

P.ians of racial discrimination) o

n the part o

f the candi~~te. 'To the

e~tetxt that cuituraZ' norms (intermingled a.s Uhey are i~t these cases

~,~itn linguistic norms) are prescriptive, these matters caz~ b

e em-

braced in

a sociolinguistic

view of the

ideology of Ianguage

prescription {see Ck~apter S for further discussion).

A second extended aria iFz tivhich the prescriptive ideaIog~ is

important is language tesfing and assessment. Standardised t~,sts

tnaf are iiatended t~ ~,st.irr~ate chiidr~n's ling:iistic abilities zru usediz~ the edti<~ativnal systems o

~ rrtany ct~untrie~, incPuding Britain a

7d

the United Sta[~s. Sta~arlardised testi;~g pr~~~~ures arc also widelyused ~ to

assess degrees of language

handicap in

people (oftench ldren3 w

ho have ~peeci~ iinpaarzne~~fs, 'Phis is not a

n unimp~,rta.nt

rnaft~r: It ti~ac estimat~t~ by Quirk (1972) than abo~it 4

pe: cen.~ o

fa population is iakeiy to suf~'er f

rom language hazld•,.cap: t}zis m

eans

that tie number ~f speech-xmpa;red people in ~3ritain is ~,ro'~aa1y

a~:•er 2 zz~ilIi~~n:

Lan~ua~e testir~q a

nd ~ssessazaet~t, as ~,ve shall demaz~straie ia~

~'hapt<.r 7, are ot'ten

~a5~c~ on rather ~cimplistic

r~ot.io~s of the

nature oi' Ta~i~uag~~ and its use. ~'he tests FrLc~uez~tIy tip z?t~t fiaica

account c~: variatiui~ a~:cordi~i~ to clialeeC anti occasion o~ use. ~n

adc3itiort, theS~ often d~ rot allow fior t~~e ap~iicatic~n o

f c~zty°~,r~a-

tio~;al rules such a~ ellipsis. Thus; if ~

,~hi1~i is skio~vt~ ~ picture r~~a horse jiazxapinp~ ever a

fence ai~c3 asl~ed ~vl~at tk~e fi'o:se zs dui~g,}~e m

aybe penalised for replying: J"urnping over' u f

ence rather than

2'lze horse is jumping 'Duet a

fence, despite the fact he is app[3~inga normal conversafzan rule o

f ellipsis. H

e rriay then be givers a

Irawerscare; V,~hich might not greatly distinguish ~irn ;n this case froze a

.._ .-.- -,.~.

chitct at~r~ earlier stage-of~speech-~levelapmerit ~ulzc~ ansv;ers worse

Prescription and s~artdurdisatinrz

,S

jum,~ fence. In sztctr cases, it seems thae the test procedure is cnn-

fusin~ Iit.erary or written norms (~vlaicri ors resistant to elii~~sisJ ~vittr

spakei~ norms (see further, Chapters 3, 4

and 8. iietow};

We have argued thafi

prescziptive attitudes- have far-reachin4consequences zncludin~ the t

wo alzeady mentioned, a

nd these con-

sequences are explored 'zz~ same detail 'an toter chapters. But, in the

remaindez` of this chapter, w

e are concerned m

ore broadly ~4~itt~ the

nature of language prescription and its relation to the ~rc~c~ss c!f

language star~daz~clisatic~in. In Section ? we go an to discuss the

attitudes of professional language scholars to prescription

and

Compare these fin Section 3

) with put~iic a

nd popular attitudes, In

the fir~ai section we atterz~pt

a fu(Ier account of tI~e

nature of

language standardisation.

~.~ ~.xrzgtzistic5 ant# ~~rescription

Tie existence o

f prescriptive attitudes is well kt~awn Eo iznguistic

sent~aars, but zn `mainstream' linguistics of recent tunes scholars

h~v~ genexali5~ claimed tYzat prescription is not a

central part of

t}ieir disci~Jiz~e and even that it is irrelevaxlc to linguistics. It has nit

been Fully studied as an im~~rt~nt seciolin~uistic phenor~seno~. All~tandar~~ itltroductc~ry t~^xtbc~ok_s in tirguist.ics affirm that iin~ui.~ticsis a

descriptive discipline and not a

prescriptive one:

First, end most. important, Ianguzstics is descr~ipli,.~e, r..~t prescrip-

tive. Alinguist is in,tcz~ested in ~~hat is said, got what he tt~irzks

oragli~ to be said. H~: describes Iaz~gu~gc in all its aspects, but doesz~vt ~~resc~xt~~ rules. o

f coxrectness'. (~,itchisc~n, 1

97: I33

;iizi~ilarl}~, hazidboc~ks compile~i by linguistic scl~c~~~rs mace the

wine reservatie~ns. Daniel Jones has ttais to spy in the ~ntrod~zctinrz

tca Otis FriAli.r1T .f~ro,~ouricing (~ictiranczry (1~55,~: No attezi~~~~ is 7nadc

~[o de~:ide !~c,~ti~ pea~le aug~'~~ to ~rozlaunce; all th~X the c~i~.t:;nnaryai~t~s at dai~~ is to give a Faitxlfui rccoxd off' the m

anner iza ~a~l~?ch

` pertain people d

o pronounce.'

.~~.~tl~ou~;n it is necessary to insist can the priority ~F descGzptian,

s~ does zio~ foiIow froth this that pc~escriptian should

n;.v~z~ be

studied at any point. H

owever, the reservation a

bout prescripkioi~

t~.at is comznanly expzessed

has, in practice, led

to a general

tendency to study language us if pz'escia~xive p

henomena play rya

~.. _

~ .part xn language. M,~ny pz~fe5sonal Iangpa~e_ s~holars,appeax kc~.. . _.. „

... .

6

Frescri~Ytian ar

il sta

nd~z

rcii

svPi

n, n

feel tha

t, ~~h

erea

s it

is respectahle to

~~~

rite

F~: csaal gz ai

~~~a

zar~

, :~ is

not quite res~ectahle fo

stu

dy ~iz

~~sc

z~lp

tion

.The a

ttitudes of

ling

uist

s (professional

scholars of 3an~ua~e)

have little ar

no eff

ect an the gen

eral

public, who continue

iti l

ook

to ~li

ctro

nari

es, grammars and handbooks as au

thor

itie

s or °~or-

rect

' usage. I

f, for exa

mple

, Iexicbgraphers (dict9anary-sn~kers)

atte

mpt to

rer

noye

ail traces of value-judgment from t

he;r wcazk

and refuse to label pazticular usages (such as ain't j as

colloquial'

and others as slang', there

is lik

ely to be a public ou

tcry

. This was

noto

riou

sly

khe

case

when

ti'2

hste

r's

Tlai

rrl IVew Zlrternationa~

Dicl

ion~

ru appeared

in the

USt1 zn 1961 (s4

e th

e da

sci~

ssi~

~ ~y

S1edcl, 29

62}.

It"s failure

tc~ pr

ovid

e su

ch eva

ivat

ic~i

t5 of usage ~

~~as

c~cs

crib

ed by orie critic as

~. scandal and a disaster': b~

t- ~ii~ci such

atti

tude

s one can sense the

vie

w that sin

ce the

ian~uage is ~eli~ved

tc~ ~e alw

ays

c~a a d

o~i~nizill p

ath,

zi

is up t

o ex~srts

(sub}i a

sdictionary-zna~:ers) to

arz~

st and ze

vers

{w th

e dt

:c?I

ne.

It is nit

npcessa.ry ~c

~ dw

elt

~.t le

ngth

ca

n these

titriiiely shred at

tiit

~des

.~L

eade

~•s wi

lt ha~~e :>

e~z~ fetters tc~ the

newspa~~rs co

mpia

inir

~g ab~u~

part

icul

ar usa

ges,

az~

d ~~e sha%1 c~mzllerit lit

er oxl t

k~e

`c~,~r~piaii~t

tradition' in

~n~;

li.s

l~,

l~io

dern

tan~uis~ic 5

cho~ar:~,

I~c~s~eve~•, lave ai

~x~a

ys ha

c~ ,food

cea.

son to a

ssert

th~.

t tiaeir ~

~isciplin ~ is

it.n

d;~z

,~ex

~i:a

ily

c~esct~i~..ii~~

grid

not

~~r~

s~ar

i~~t

avr,

,, '~L

irin

~ this cef7,:l~ry, tl~

~ir a s.ser[ior~s

hati

~e. ~

.~~;<;

n~:

7Xot

il~a

t~+~

~y a desire to stu

~~r I~n~t3a~e

i~z ~Il ids

fc~.

~rra

s as ~ai

~}~s

;t-

zvely as

~~u

s~ib

l;,,

of ww y

~~~;

~i: to k

nc;~

~~ ~oz-~ abo

~~t l~n~uag~: a~ ~

},Ii

eza~

~zYl

enoi

~ ar

ic3

t~1p u

ni~~

e:sa

.l hta

nlan

capacity, t

c~ use it,

tti

erz ~~

ei~

~ast

try to base ouz disciplizlc on obs

Ghrv

ed fact has far as

~ossiblw)

and certainty not

air a set of prejuc~ti~es, Aft

er all ;so

tli

~ ar

g~~c

x~,,

r~t

zura

s), it wQuId be absurd fc~~ a phy

sica

l sc

ieJx

tisC

tU refuse to study

same m

c~Iecule because l

ie fel

t it

was ~~aare `slopp~~' ~r careless'

than

some oth

er zn~

Iecu

le or

fr~r a zoologist to

classify animals in

terms of the

ir ug

line

ss' or

fr

iend

l%r~

ess'

rat

her than the

ir mer

ztbe

r-ship ofg

ener

a, etc.; iC

is eq

uall

y absurd far the lin

guis

t to

rule out

study of

same particnia;• asp

ect of lan

guag

e use be

caus

e he has

some .negative attitude to

It. In

t3~i

s vz

ew~

cif linguistics, the

idea ~f

linguistics as

a sc

ienc

e' o'biously looms ver

y la

rge.

The vie

w th

at lin

guis

tics

is a science (bound up as it

is ~vit3~ a~ti-

pres~riptive and ant

i-ev

alua

tive

notions), his bee

n pr

omin

ent for a

~-nuc

h ior~ger

trrn

e th

an i

s ge

nera

lly acknowledged;

it was

sui

tecl

earl

y stated in th

e ni

nete

enth

cen

tury

, In

I~61, the

firs

t voluir~e of

Max N1u

ller

's Lectures on the

Sci

ence

ref Language app

eare

d. it the

,t~r

.~sc

ript

ion and ste

~~zd

cart

llsu

frar

~

first cl

zapi

er,

t~~liiller sta

ted that iirgui3tics t

iyas a p~+

ys'i

c~c~

l ~~

cie~

~G~.

Ira -th

is, he ti

vas affecCed by cur

rent

nin

etee

nth-

cent

ury na

tion

s of t€

ae

nat~

ire o~ ,eicnce: he rr

tean

t th

at IlI1Dl115L1C5

vas

ana~

a~au

s to

biola~y an

d geology and

differentiaked fro

m h~.~ma~lities' suc

h as

hist

ory,

fit

er~t

ure an

d taw (18b1:2?}. ivl

ufle

r went ors

G~ make the

usua

l as

sert

ion

ttaa

f all fo

rms of

lan

guag

e ax

e equal as faz

as the

`sci

enti

st'.

is con

cern

ed:

In the

science of Ia

z~gu

ag~s

....

t~ng

ua~e

its

elf becomes the sol

e

object o

ff' sc

i~:i~tif c Inquiry. Dialects which la

ve nev

er pr+~r~u~~c~

any ~:

tera

tur~

at aI

%...

. aze as z.

rnpo

rtas

lt, nay fir the sc?iution df

s~na

e of Gur

,5r

ob3e

nas,

more important, th

an f

ile po

etry

of

h~~xr~ex, ox t

tze pr

osy

+~f Cicero. (~~61:2~)

befo

re t

his time, Ri

char

d Chenevix Tre

nch

(Ifi

51} (why l

atex

b~carne an ~iL

chbi

sho~

} ;~

aci proclaimed [lo

ot lan

guag

e ti

ad its

~~v

n

`?ii

v', i~

~c~e

pcn.

dr:n

t of r.~an, anti hac

j attacked those ~vho attemptQ~i

tc~

con.

trc- ~

1 the

de~;

eio~

~rne

nt c

if lan

~ua~

e by% à

r~it

rar~

c3e

ct~e

es`

{'~ r

e.nc}i,

I58~

: u23

--~)

. '~ixG.se ni

tl~t

eent

h-c;

eTlt

ury

s<:I1~lars ~v~re

t11~;rnsEt~~es r~Gictin~ aga

izis

t th

e ~l

it~~

arit

~ria

n ii

~gui

stic

s ci

f the ~%gh-

fi.e

ntl;

ccr~tui'y>

~~r3aact~

~~ve

~'i~cuss

l~at

.e~ ~i

n ~~

is ~

rolurne. ~'or

niz~e-

t~~n

tk~-

c,~i

xtta

i~y ~ciic~?ars; iin~i~isti.c~ had

b~et~sne p

rir~

~~ri

.l~~

a his

~cri

-

cal

fly- ~~

vl~z

t=~~

~~ry

~ r3

s4ipiiz~e. I~ {gas cle

an}l

ne4-essar~r fir

the

m to

~it~

e :~t

`^r~

iit~

r~ ire c~~.?sctir~ z~z

xd ant

xc~t

a~ var

ieti

es of a a~

,otx

-st~

r~c~

~.r~

'

kin{

I i# t~x

ey ~

;,er~ t

c~ s

x~~i

a_in

i.~'

~e cr

~r~l

~?ii

c;a~

Ec~ ;~r~~c~~~c-s ~

#' ~li

an~~

tiz~

t fact „i~~r.n ~?s

~ ~~~

trtR

:~ie

r~i ~a,~bfaag.,es Iike ~rc

:nch

, ~:

n~~~

s~ and

t~eranan, ~n~i ~

~~zi~:li c

c,nt.izitze;d to

a(f'~et these fan

~~aa

,~es

.

_~!t

ht7L

~~AY

th

ese

Aespectabl~

Vic~

~~ri

ans

were

~j

read

~~ reacting

strt,n~ly ag

~izt

st t:

a~u ~~res~ri~Cive att~ludes of the ei~l7teentti c~n

t~ry

,

the ma

st exi

z~ei

xiE.

anti-pr~scri~~tiv~ stateznenCs, as far as

~~e

~:r

~c~«

~v,

a~-e those rnatie by same members ~f ~h~

r~.n

-~eri

can st

ruct

ural

ist'

scho

ol ci

f lin

guis

tics

. Bt

on~- n

fiel

d (19

33.2

2) fe

lt tha

t cl

isca

veri

ng a~~hy

ain't

is c

ai~s

ider

eci bad

ai d ayn

riot go

od i

s not a

~ùndat7~ental

ques

tion

in

lin

guis

tics

, and

hz t

houg

tlt

it s

tran

,s e t

hat

`~eap~e

~vikhout lin

guis

tic training' sh

ouXd

dev

ote:

a gr

eat deal of ef

fort

to

futi

le discussions of this topic'. k3t

ooin

fiel

d ti~

~as certainly implying

that the

study of p

resc

ript

ivis

m was of

litt

le or nQ i

nter

esi to

Linguistics; he was thezeby l

iniitic~g th

e Field of l

ingu

isti

cs to a

desc

ript

ive study of form ai d sys

tem in lan

guag

e r~

~hiG

h t.a.kas li

ttle

or no acc

ount

of la

ngua

ge as a social ~henamenon, 8lo

pznf

ield

's

infl

uenc

e has been i~n

metx

se, and some of hi

s fo

llow

ers ha~~~ at

tack

edù

nsci

enti

fic'

app

roac

hes t4

lan

guag

e with mis

sion

ar~,

~ zeal. C. C.

Prescrfptior~ and strriid~rdfsation

Fries (1957} seems Co have equatied fraditiona] school ~ramra~ar withprescziption (whzch ~~as b

y definition

;gad' end unscientific' i~ the

view of sCzuctu~al Iiz~guists o

f the tine), grad in his b

ook on English

syntax he 'went so far as to even reject ~raditi~r~al linguistic tMrmsSUCK ~ T10llY:',

`~'GI~~3' ~tlC~ `~~iJcCk,V~'. ~~ICS'S 1Y01"k ~V~S C~lI~Ci~i~

ta~~~ards t ae educational syst~~; tkiat ~t Robert ~,. c~~11, .s'r, w

as

directed at tx~e ordzz~r~,ry cansurnPr. r'~azxiatis to ass~ire alb his readersthat tite'sr use c~; tan~u~be vrac just- as g

aud as thai >

~` anyone else,

z:e proclaimed t~aaf. there is €~c Such thing as ~

aod Or bad, L~ir~°~;t

or inc~x~~f~~ct, ~ran~r~l~:iticai or un3i~am~a~afical, ?~i ia:;~iia~e' (;DSO).4~11c;~c:~u~h Izrr~ui~tA~ scx-~ala.cs •:~~uulu n

aw dispta~~~ I-~~llps si~~tem4rft

~~iyjt4.UI?IiS~' ~~1~,', x}:1;'i ~i.~~^.t;?4~

`~(':i.iilli1~if:1l;~~ Gi llZl~l'r,(ZlY?l~''.~.iC~."1z

~'f2~.3/}1Hv~. CQi1i:t7i1'~ (

~J1' ~~'„c. i.7';~SC

pdi'tj $4 ?SS~,t c7x

3SS;.I;i~~ t~3~1 ti"zeiP

!jt.SC.I~~111C 1~ la'Si:,i',L',Ci",%' ~1ilC~ ii1C•Ol~c~iGc1~ ~.Plt~ i}1~3.~: ~i~C'}' C~{; iti~i {

ZGuI 1~

j17'~',jC?'.~CP~I1.

~i'E 3~~.~~ETZ7_

~ìiI'G7,~71''. 1 ~"l~-

~~I72~?";C7 2T'iC7Rk

{:~uk~X~".{:iCr~~~l11F~U.IS3

~VJi3~tiI Si':i~

c'1iiil ii'2c~.~: 1~l

ipl;~~ ~~ rdil~'li~,s'~f: ~1If: lil

Y~i11F~e_iple e.it.t~~~, ~

s i~t,~.iso~' ~1 ~$0:1.~1~ iaas rvice.r3ily~ ~i~f zi.:

Lin~~.i:st:~ tiv~t~l~i ,.i~_asr~ r_~~at zf the~y~ were ;,ir7a~~15~ s1ao~~v~~ the ~rar~-mars o

f t,~~~o dit~';~cent ti~ari~ties, o

ne with h3~;h ai,d tYze ot;~ez a,,a~~t '.

icr~v ~rRsti,~e, th~i coaIcl nai ~:eIi wl;i~h ~,~ra,~ which, and rnar-e than

t~i~y could ~aredicC ih~. si~.i~, rolr~ur Qf tY~ese tiv~o speak the tvsovarieties, .

Alt~-~ot?gI~ some eviden~P

frc~~la t~~ork

by' social psychc~lr~gi~ts

~~ilLs et al., 1974, 1~7s) iei~ds so~ie si;~aport'io k-IucJson':s point, w~

co-not, in fact; k

now u-iietizei~ startc~'~rrd iangiia~es cai~ be c~~~-

clizsively sh~~u~n to have rzo purel}~ lin~t,istic chai'actc:istics that dif-ie~•entiate t~iezti f

rom non-standard f

orms cf ian~uage (the zaiu2ter

has zzot really been invcstigate:d}. 1t appears to be an artzcle o

f Faith

ac the mor~~nt tk~at jud~mc:s~ts evaluating daffe~ences betvreeq stan-dard

and lion-standard varieties are alvrays socia]ly conditioned

anal nevez panel}= Iiz~guistic. ?ip~~ev~r, 'we sl~ali liter slz~gest Chat theprocess a~f ~an~ua~e star~d~rdisatiozl invnlv~s the su~npressio~ p,~'opPianal variab~liiy ~n language a

nd that, as a

- consequence, ~c~n-standard varieties can be obse vec~ to peranit m

orE variabi?it3~ than

standard ones (e.g. irz pronunciations of ~+a;ticuiar w~rds)~. T

eas,

there rrzay be one sense at Ieast in which the linguistic cl~aracteristie,~ai non-s~anda;d vazi~iies di~'er f

rom those o

f s~a~dards'.

However this rziaq

be, = we shall seeizz Chapter 4

that rzo~-standard forms are n

ot simply debased vaxiai-~ts o

f standards ~z- ~d

thaC they can be s3iowza try b~ grammatical' iz~ Their owz2 t~rzns.

Prescription and stanclar~isatrun

9

His2oricalIy, standard

lan~va~es have

hen superiirp^sec.€

on

dialects. If a tiz~guistic sc~~4lar is to d

o his ~~c~rl< adequately (tt~ give

~ ciea~ desci~iptinn cif ~ language, to explain I~ow et~ildren ~cq~iire

i~ngiza~e, to explain hc~~;T ian,~ua~e~ eh~n~e ~n the course af-ti~x~e),h~.sv~uIcl be extz~~mely ~ao(ish tc~ ailovs~ his o

wn prejudices a

nd

notions t~f co; redness to het bet~vPen h:~xa e

nd his data. ~

u[ tt~$

professional linguist's

ittsist~nr.0 oz~ 'ob.jectivit:y' a

nd `scientific

int~uir~' ~~Pears to l-~ave been a~:;~e:z-aiiy r:iisunr~le~~stoòci. "s`his rr~ayarise

tartly fra~n sc1~+~larly n~gleefi ~;antil-recently'} cif' the socialf~~~actic~~s cry' i~ngua~e.. A~tt~au~h it is ur~derstaa~tct~~~1~ t.h~.f 1i~1~~~istsshould

have tc~ ~7aac~ c-Isar li:r~ikati<~~1s nr~ ~.fi~:ar

~~~I~ cif inquiry{es~;,~:i~ily

if' t.J~ti.y' are tp

s~ia4;e: ~.~radr~ss iii ~àrn~~xl Rin~r~ist~c;;,

r'~?i~~•,x;~izz~; ~'h~r~~.~h}~ f~~~fi~ air,. , ~,v~ T~r~ un~ike(y to rn:~~c great. pro-~T~'C5S J3a LlIIC{+'XSt:!Il(:f(.',~ [.~'1~ Z12C:Ifiw C~t~ ~%~C1~iIi:4~' 1.~ iV4*L'll.~i.i~l'j .i;?ZOi~~~~S

at:~Cir,71 2~[Id'JCi:Qs75

reS"aGj :::lc`lI'~i:~F,:l'IS~ICS.

.~I7lOI7gS't 't171'.SC

c"1~'~r'

j?'f~~:J7C3tY't~flcl ,i7,1G~]

i:~ 1~'_i7fSllc ~P.

~~~77C~r'~CC~[S<'.~Yl?~1; ~~14'

7,'1tiA'~;i3S'~' _ t,7CIiterac~`, nc,tic~nS ~+~' p~e~tige i~ taneu~.~e ~.z~u' ~acapzi3ar ~Ltittl{:?.e5 isLfiS~i~~.,

, .

;in the f;~Ii~~°ict~,~e~tians, ~e ~~tali gc, azi to caz;.sic~e.r Mich m.~~.-

1:G~s.. ~3c;~ ftrs~. ~~ sh~~alel _1-ike ~a poirir, r~,at t'ha[~ tn~isundPrstan~i~~~, o

fyin fists' at~ac~.s_on ~r~scriptrc~r3 m

ay tsave had dice cv~~segt~~nces

i~ secxze ;~~aa~t~rs; Since thr i950s cherc lxas been a pectin:. in theteaching o

f ~ram~n?r' :~. schor~Is: ~c~m.e c~uc~fic~naJi.sts app~~tX- to

have interpz- ~:ted afitacks oz~ prescriptive ~r~mrnar as attacks ora tie~cachin~

of grammar ~n

~enera~! az~ci

as iinivcrsi#y

Iangtaa~eteachers, w

e 1~2,ve be~o;n~ ~~~are that sonic stucIezlts nov,~ enter

aniv~rszties to ~~ud~ ~n~la~i1 or rio~lern lan~,uages with a raihez

hazy.zdea of basic grammatical termi~~ol~gy (sir~h as subject, tran-

sitive, prepasitian}. Sor>-~A cr~~azr~entators have even claimed that~I- ~ere_has.been a decline in ~e~~eral l.iieracy as a result of this t~enc3.We see n

o reason eta accept this I~ttez point, as it zs a

relative c~caes-.flan

that cannot

be adec~uat~.ly

tested. ~T~~i°ever,

experts ~n

~iriguistics I;ati~e sonletirzles ~eAn bSart~~~ for floe decline i~: gr~~a~znarteaching (and the supposed decline izz literacy).

Recently ~-Ioney (1983) has

asserted that

English las~g2ta~e

teaming has been in declizte, and has $

one on to b

lame t~1e dzs-

ciptine of linguistics for this decline. Rio season is given foe the

connectiar~ t~►at F~oney makes between literacy standards ar~d Ghe

influence of general linguists (such as ~hornsky), arad t ae author

does not make tk~e necessary distinction betv~een I

~~uage system

arad langua~ze use (on tivhzch see Section 3).

Its

.Prescription and st~r~zr~~r~iscrt~~art

'the gt~tstaiions

fixc~;n lin~rists

t1~at

Hc~iae;T a

i.•~s {i~rg~~y-

t.~ rp~

effect that

ali languages are equal') re~er,t~ lang~za~~ sys.~~ri and

nit tv t~~~ ~~se of Ia

t~Uua~e in sncia] ~~ent.~xt..~;Tn fact, rn~~y i

:n~=~ki.stl~M

3chr~lars

havr•.~

t~eezl ai the fc}re`r~nt of those w°~o 3~~vc

~~ sl3eri

Ica

mairatai.a~i g

~~ci e

dt~c:~tioz~al stan~<lrcis l~tubbs end z

liiii~z•, 198 ;

Sinclaia•, 19~?j and iT~sy ~a.ave

~na'~ie ~rositzve recc~rnm~nc9at.io~s

bra;

im~~rov~ed 1~~~~.a~~c

~~s~.r~: i3a scha~nis,

3'ta~ authr~rs of ete~z~entar~y~ bc~c~~s can ]i~~~tzist cs, hc~iv~r~er, have

usuatty been anxious to c~lissociate tll~ir accoian~ of_ti~e subject frn:n

that of traditional 1~andbooks of correcir~ess. As ~~e have seen (cf

Aitci~is~n, above) khey usually dismiss prescriptio~7 routinely, and

assert t.ha# linguistics is descriptive. ~'Ziexr general point

-- thaf., i~'

one is

to s#udy the nat~ire of language objectively, one cannot make

~7riQr value-juci~ments — i

s frequently mist~nderstnod, and i

t has

sometimes tailed forth splenetic and misinfprmed denunciations of

linguistics as a whole. One example amongst ;~

lansr is Simon (1980):

In an

essa~r enfitled `The Corruption of ~nglzsh' (1980), Simon

blames structtaral

linguistics and literary. sfructuraiists for an

alleged

decline

in l

anguage. use and ftar permissive a

ttitudes to

language: `What this is,

m~.squeradin~

under

the

eupherra~sx~~

"descz

- r"ptit~e Iinguiskics",_..:. z

s a benighted and despicable catering

Co mass ignorance under. the supposed a

egis of democracy.' his

essay

is outspakei~ and ~uli of emotive language (`pseudoscientific

227UTri~10 JUri1b0', rock-l~ot.tom

illitCI'~C~',

ba2'~?~1'jaTlS', ~~~ndaIisrn',

etc.), and i

t betrays

ignaratice of what l

inguistics i

s about. ?'o

Simon, ;inguists a

re almost equated with _some menace t

han

isthr~at.ening Western (i.~. Am:zican) ci

vilisaiiorz from outsir~e. It is

unfortunate

that m

isunderst~indizags and znisa~plicatior~s of tie

Atrierican structiural linguists' teac~ling should have made it seems

reasonable f

r~r anyone to

~~rite in

this ignorant ivay.

,.~,s many people

sti11 izaterpret descriptiy~.Iinguistics as inimical

to standards cif usage, there has clearly been some fail~rre of vom-

.

rnunicat.ion bet~ve~n linguistic. schc+3ars

and.. the..~ene~

- al

public

(especially wti~n

wv~ cansidex t

l~~t s~.hoic~cs 1~ave

bet.n

insis~ira~ ~n

o~ijc:~tave clescripti~an fcr

sr~

It~z~~ —since. t}

3e time

Qf':Trel;ctx and

Ir~uller~. one reason for

this is that..`anainstre.arn'..,1~~~~uistics:

(es~~ciail~~ in the USA; hay c.ancen~rated; ~

-aore on t~~e abstract ~.nd

. ..

~ formal prop~rt.ies of language than on tan~~age in its socsa1 c~n-

text. Bloam,field (1433), as we saw at~ove,,..;ozasidered that ~rescxip_

-. ,lion was irrelevant to Ii~~guiszics.r as a sGier~ce'. Yet sr~rn~ linguists.

(relatiaely few).have been directly. nteres#.ed

xr~ prescriptao~3. Haas

..

.~res~:~ ~pt`r'c~rt ~~z~' stanch; di~a~ion

~

~~~~.7~~ IOf C ~ai7'.~7t;~

~1e1S

~3CL'I3

il~~f-'

f.Ci ST3tC' t~1~t

~'tS"h~,5t'I'Jj?i'i!~i'• `

3;5 X12

int^gral ~<~rt of the Iife of l~n~ua~~,'. By ref~~sir~g t~ be znleresi~~'z

]IP j?C~SCI'Ij)t1U11~

~"t~^ ett'~C1S: `kyil.~''l~lal~ L~ill~ ~'175tiC~'

t~l'c1t 4'Y~:P~

l:Il~~'.T~;r154'

s~~' 3in.~L3stic.p~an~ain.~

~~~it.

l r~~

~~o7~~in.~tc~

l~~

i~rxacaran'~ ~

;nrhta~,iast~

~3~;{.

~ =ncc~~Yzp~t~rtG ~?ed

,,~.rt~' ~~;~~<~s,

~'3~:r.;3).

`1'i~~ 7~

ed~~lo~7r~~.rnt o

#'svcic~!in~ui~zicz in r~.c~nt years ?~~s ~~a a~.4~~~~

a ~rca~t~.°r

ii~t:e~-~

s~ (tiza~z

i:secz ~o i~~

f~:sl~ianat~l~j

iz~ - t

'j~~-basrcl

li~~~t~istirs, star~dazclis~tiofY ~f i~n~ua~~

ai~~d

t11~ ~ed~eral nature o~

variation az~d eha~;e in lar~gu~~e, ~~~ten ~c vieu> iang~.~age as ~

't~rz-

cia.:aentail}~ ~ soc;al ph~nomen~n, v✓

e ca~tnot then ibnore presci i.~~

Eiar~ anti its cc~ns~giaerzces. '

I'l~e study of l~nguisti~ authoritarir~rais~n

is an iir~~~ortan4 part ~f ii~guistics, ~nG a

s linguists we ~

ee~ an

obligation Co attempt to close the gap betK~een specialist and ran-

specir~list views

ct~ the nature and use of language. Jne reasgr for

Lhi~ is that attitt;cle~ to language h~v~ prac.tieal cons~quet7c~s, for

example in

ed~zcatioz~, law, taus ness and speech therapy. Bat the

best reason for studying prescriptiarz ;s simply that

it is interesting

zn i

fsel#'.

1.:~

A.~t'stt.ad~s to ~azt~t~age

fps w~ save

i~~ tFae last section, the attitudes to

lat~g~tage Ps:presseci

by many peopi~a art ~res~riplil~e, w~~ereas sc~~olars usuali}~ fake the

vie~;~ that li;aguistics is a c'esrriptive sc;ezzee'. ~~

2iich has na place for

value-jurik;rsxents. In

t?~is sc'.ctian, ~~ae ex~~lox~ this daf~'erence a litii~

further, but, i~ a

ddition, w~ u

houlc~ l

ike t~ suggest that

public

attitudes as they are openly exz.~res~ed may not a

l~~~'ay's be identical

with the ~?icws that people hold privately. I3olin~er (

~~8a:]-1t~) has

laad much to say' abort what ~e calls Jrr;~uistic s~zarnanism: he has

noted that ~:eztain

~4Yriters set tkaen~sef~~es up as public ~ilar~~ia~s of

. usage, coznmentin~ an su~pose~~ za7is-use af.lan~uage a

tic~ on sup-

~osed

linguistic ~Ieclin~, These ~

~ateza~e~ats 'try guardians a~pe~r

frequently in ire pass; ~en~ral ~apular' aititud~s Zi,e, ~riva~ely

h~ic~ attitudes of ardizaaz}r pe~~Ye), ~~o~s~ver,

r~~ay~ not be quike so

C~Sily d

~:GC5SI~JIG

.~4).t .0 ;SgY1S 1

~JC

S~"t

c"~~

~ l'~I5Ci.15S. ~

Zl l~%~+3G ~U~~U4VS, LNG

st~ali first explore further the differences ~et«~een the,ap~~roacta ~f

Iinguistics ar~d the pirblzc ju~igm,.nts of noz7-Iiztguists, ai~a then piss

on to point gut certaza~ diffietilties in recorciting these pu~l~e views

~~ith the actual speeck~ behavzour of ~r{~inar•y: speaker:

Modern linguistics, f

olioiving cle ~aussur~ {1915), is

~as~.c3 on ii~e

Iz Prescription a

nd standardisation

doctrine oA the arbitcar#Hess of tha tingu.istic sign, and progress i.nthe subject wtiuld have laeen verb difficult without this dactrzr~e. A.sde 5aussure perceived, the linguistic forms that conventign~i3ystand for things in the real tivarld d

o not ultimately b~az~ a

necessaryand

inherent ~eIations~iip

to those

referents. Tkaus, the sound

sequence in the E~y~tish word dog bars no inherent relationship to

t~~e canine quadruped it refers to: it is mez°eIy conventional to usethis

item ire

English tea

re~er to

the animal, Even

echoic oronc~matok~neic_ words

differ zn dia"~`e~ent Ian~ua~es, e.g, cock-a-

cloc~clle-doo, kikiriki: It ivauld be foa!ish to argue that aia Ei~giTshusage such as d

og is s

omehow a

bettez~' ar ~~•o~sc' w

ay of referring

t~ the canine than equivalents iz~ other Ianguzgns, such ~s cTtien or~Ir~rt~l. ~imiJarly, i~ ~,vputd be foolish to argue that in general the~racnii~.?tical structure ~f one Ian~uage zs `stzperio~•' to treat p~'azic>th~c. '~'I3e ~rarc~-rx~.~e: of English (in. ~vhicli tZ~~ svbj~ct ~~r~ncet.I~sthe veri~j is nc~t s~.i~er~oz' to that az ~raelic ~ixi which the v~3~1~ caax;.esflrstj: it is m~r~ly dz~ez~~;ial, e

nd n~ithrr word order is dir~ctZy ~c~n-

ditic~l~e~ by reiationstli7 tc~ `the r~a~ ~~~c~rld'. Try short, if one vris}~est~ ~raduc~ aceurat~ descriptions, cane cani~r~~ zeasonabJy Start b

ymaking v~(ue-judgments abc~~~r the formal ~ramrnatical, te;;zcal and~h~r~c~logical str~actu;es of diffEre~n1= la.ngua~as ax cli~iects {e.~. b

yr~ject;a~„ ar ~~~?~ri>>~ so~ai~ futures t}:at are pre-jjzcfi~e3~ as ~zot`~cce~t~~hle' ~n sorn~ an~,Iyst or etk~~r}, Q

ne cotlsec,t~er~~e of tzze

~ortrar~^ ~af ar~~itr~.ri.ness ~s the li.,~.4uisfi°s ~~~or.~in~ assur~pta~n thatnu jaa~¢u~g~ ,ar ci.i~l~ct can be sl~o~v~~ to ~e 3~etfer c~z ~vvrs~ ih~r~<nc~tlle;z~ o

n linga~is~ic ~ro~.rnc~s ul~t?e.

C~rc?iraar~~ ~,eanly

(i.e. z~on-linguists),

h~~rc~,~er, have

3~~en;~ccustoil~ed frc~.m tizt~e i.m3r~e.~t~ci~i t~ 'raa.ke ~ Niue juc:,;:nat~t:~ a~c~utlan~;uacr., y~'~xc~s ha~~~ ~ ;~en ne~~~ c~ns~~e.rt.ci to na ve; rtA ~~zt.al ~a,~->~:~~Ci~s L r slac~~; ~e~.~a subr~~:.~.L to Ca~~u. +,'i;ri~:~i;~ rrt7r~s z~~.fst'~Fra~; fcr

L7id~3'~")IC'~ `l~J t.}1~,', ~'.t ~l~:~p 1~~.s ~`~; ~4;?~', i;~wi':C~'t~ fidlu~j` r~~ ~t~a.~]~t~G72~ '~lfl.~ 17Y

St~33'.` tit I

~,ir~;i it

P"i~~li~ :5 17C>~

£i~~'~'ivEC~ ~Cl.li:'.'::

195 ITIx~~'~.i#'1'_j~,?

d,Y'S

~I3i71L~. '~"~,i'?ei;.:% ZVQI'45 ~.5at~CliLIEC,~ ~Nli.}1. ~3iSCii1~ Yll:]C~1~,}i:,5

1`~ e'~,Va~1C'ie~~-3iZl

Ttl~;~~' +;tli;U.1Y5`l2i~CG5 clilt~

C~j~~~3C{',i.'~ Z)y' ~

UI~1l1~:I1]13lTIS

5?.YGP3 r'~s'',91,i~('_

}~'~t'. ~7'~ 111 iC~~'I1a$~ C1X!'1II715Ci1t1Cl.'a~ ~7`d tE%~%i1T1lCFl~ ~~i 1~~.~ S

UC~~ Q.:i,j~t[r?~'4?S;

~~r~~rr~a. T~~~ 3~istorie~ r~P ~~ngua~es ~r~ ~4tI1 ~f ra~~id ~r~cabui:~iy~,izar~ges rtintivated ~

y the avoidance a~ tabn, as tl;~ eupk~ca~~is~ns

thems~:lves take sin t'~~te `~snpleasant' associafixons of the ~vorcls tltsyreplace, t~I~ this ~~n~!y seem to be very ili~~ical, b~zt it is part of t~~;ife of xar,~ua~e. Tire ar~az~~ry user a#' l~n,~,aa~e ~3civs not, appar-CSlt:;j~

c^.; ,~I'f.'P b'iitt~'!~iwlcliR:~-~j}l.r~aa}S

C~~Tia~tn~3~"!-~~'.;15". Oi%S~'ii'~:~,'a?l:

t~~?^fit-, r1 C~t7.:

lt~~ ~:.,~i c'~ TS~~u' iy~_t3Cs.: Q,.7.-, ~.3~:a `;'St.iS#t~

':isc:~~ ~ .; YY=.stiff ~ 2di.J

..:. ._.

Prescription and standardisation

~3

Eye magi also feet that the words ~~ his ]angua~e have inherentassociations with the thin.~s they stand

for. t~.s the farm-handobserved while he wafiched the. pzgs tivallo~vin~ in th; zs~ire

Rightlybe they call~c[ pigs o

n account of their disgustzc~g habits'.

fl.part frorzi beliefs zn magic, tabu and the `j~raw~r of words',

there axe ach~r firmly }geld apiniors about language that do :apt

accept the linguist's dcctrira~ of arbitrariness. Mare of these I-~aue

to do with social strati~ca~iott arad cultuzal cond~ti~inaxxg. S

ome

d'taiects of a lan.~ua~;e are ccn~idered more beautiful' than Qthers;

sorr~e languages ire «~i~ety helc~~ to b~ more io~ical' than others.

We shall later ~c~asicier these attitudes Gad their coixs~qu~n;,es in

grea.t~r detail, ~'nr ~h~ moment, ~sfi us acc~~ t tkamt ~Ithotigh the

fuerr~at stn.ictures o. iaraguagcs grid dialects a're not aG,propria4e

~~enai~:cna for s~«Iue-,iac~~;~n.er;ts, s~cakers of la~~~;v~ges ~o attach

•ratu~~ t~ ~;art.icui~r ~~-arc?s, ~;ran~zx~a~i~al stri.ictizr~s ~n~ s~7e~c~i~sotrs;ds. T

hem i~ appacentiy a

~-•~~vning ~a~~ L~et~~een what Linguistspe~fess to thi~zk auc~ut I~n~ua~c~ and w

ha: or~~irtar}~ ~ec~ple ~ssum~

i~ ik~ei~- damp use aY~d obscrF~atioia +~f 1an~ua~e.ti~'e have ref+,r;t~~ above Co tie ;ic~rzr~al stnictur~s' o

£ i~ngua~~s,

irnp7yic~fi a distiractiai~. ~iet~~~esn ~:liis

`iot~rc~ai str~actxzz'e' an~1 ztia

~tctuai use of i~n~ua~e tin ~aartict;ia.r ~cca,ioi~s. ~ disti~~ctio~ of ttzzs

ki~~l ~~s been ?? sir_ i~t t3~e ~~~rxc of most gc.ner~t9 iia~~uist sine tip

~;a~ass~;z~~ p.;o~,ta,se~d a ~3islit~~.tion l~~t.•.=re~~ia lar~~zt~ (~~~:ra:~iin~atcly

`~~+l;~U'si~~ S'j5L([Zl'~

wI1G3

i?C7]"(?j~ t7j)~t"t?Rti.RF1~t?~}' °

t:lil~Uv^.~2 t2$C'~. !~

si~n~if~r ;~~stlntiio~~ ~S~~a ;ar~~pca~.;~ by ~'~Zc~.t~rsicy (I~~iS) as c`~~rrz~;e:~~~c~t~~~ aanderi5~ing ~~:I~;s c~~ 4an~lii~.~~ tna~ native ~pe~,kez;~ ~;n~~~~~) axedr~;~rfc+rrl~~rtc~ factual

use'). ii zs in.~~at•ta~~t t~ gras~.~ that la~tgi~?,t~c~;n~3c~encE ~r t~ct~;i~ z~e~ system' are relat:veiy ~bsGra~t: ita p~-<ctice,i~~an5~ of ri~~ na.~-~st ~~~~1uer~tial Ct~n3cc~ i;~ lii~~usstic5';a~,e::~:~r> cc~~-_~rz~e~ ~~it`~ tlrifi abst.ra~~

IL ~~ua~re ~ys~r:- r;'. l"f~ey~ ;a.z~,°~ tk~;;~AA mgr;;it~t;~.r::st~~ in tr,~~;n~ ~to ~x~~~7,i.~ G1~~e tze~z~•~~z~s~~1_ ~~ur~ia~:z a"citify tc? ~~:c uirutazl~ ii~re

~.nd :t:aster

its t'c~riple~iCic:s

?'ha~"x %n

~•~i~.te-j}zc~~atie~~~~~.a~ouk n~rtir•cii,:~a us:~c~~s: ~t i~ t~c~t suz~t~isin~ tt7at ~isa~i~tt:~ 11~c~.~t ain'tur~~ ~~~~ttii'eer~ t

au ~zr~d.~li.avE ~c~zt~e~ t~-zvial to tt~en~, ti~ l~~:t~ tA~u~ ~~ve;

~t~en ~~r~~ccupi~d vrith the z~~ct teat the. gener~i st~•~~ct~.~xe ~f aIi

.

~ad3~U1~L'~ H7]~ CZtd~~CtS

IS 54 <S~C?11xS1]iCl~~y

C'OI71~!~"C. 1 1d~~7C 5

$~ie-

ments ~~out i~.ngtza~,e, however, always r~Fer c~ir~ct,ly to Languagein trse: they almost never s

how ~xpZicit urzct~rstat~cii~.~; of t~i~ dzstine-

tioz~ between systerrz and use and seldozz~ acknv~vI~.clne aiaath~r

irr~pertant fact about language, vit., the? iL s ire a ~az~tiiiu~lis sCate

G.~ C~liaY?~~.

~C.L'c'~5TUI1~,.~1~9• ~I~"N~i'^Lg -,~1.i.

?=;.~ifi i'~'?

.'i:%F1wc'., 4ii~(~d1~. ~:?~:'iG`~

L~l~.

i4

Prescription and stn

ndar

disa

tian

actu

al usage that

nev~

rzl~

erle

ss c

ontairr

ir~~~~pIi~it ~Ia

i~~s

~tn

u~~

fife

s4~~

erio

rity

of onE l~ng~±age sys

tem

aver another. An a

;ticie by

~3oyd an

d Boyd (1980} nas s~z~gested that variet9es o#' Eng

lish

tf~at

dast

Sngu

istj

b~#

weer

sha

ll and iw

~ill

have an a~3vantage over those

that

have on

ly ~vi

l1 in

sc~ far as th

ey lav

e an additional re

sour

cti tl~~at

can

give ad

ded

subt

lety

an

d ~i:ecisaan._ In

tere

stin

g as

st

.~ch

~rgn

ment

s are, it

is ot

tx view fllat t1~ey ar

e rr

~isi

eac3

ir~~

. All 1a

r~gu

~~~s

aiad

di

alec

ts wi

ll, x~

hen compared lvith

others,

ap~aear #o

i~a

k•e

`gaps' in Ch

e system aC ~a

r~e paint. roc

example, English do

es got

have a r

efleXi~•a po

sses

sive

pra

nouz

~. ~~'

e do not

sa}

~:

. Sam x

s in h

irriself's flf

fic~

.

~f ~,

~~e use

an ana

phor

ic pz•

onou

n {one that re

fe~s

.'ha

ck to an

. ant~ce-

t~~i

:t),

~~le must s~y

~:

.

~~~n

i~ in nis az~ce,

'3'i

~is

is a

nx~'rguous t

i~rl~r

;~ ~+ut t

~f c

:ant

ext,

as

his

a,J,~.c~ ~culd '

a~`San's n#~ice'

ox soi~~e ot

her

male

pe

rson

's of

rice

. ~~

a r~t~iP~

I~nguages, tie s

yste.t7~ may 17a

ve ~n

additional resource an

d znay~

rec~

~~Yr

e a cho

ice at thi

s point

bet~~.een

refl

exii

re gra

d nr~ra-re#ie:;i~~~,

Thus,

a7~ Danish:

~,

Sam e: ~ sit ~c

+ni or

means — un

~mbi

guc~

us~}, --

Sam i

s in dam's o

f~"ice', «he

reas

Sam er

i ha

rts ko

~xto

r

,Wea

ns that Sam ?s in someone els

e's af~c~. ,t

. is po

intl

ess to arg

~ae

that

English ou

ght io ha

ve a p

osse

ssiv

e re~t~xive pr

orou

r~ l

ike

banish sin, s

it; i

t is, i~ fact', qui

te easy to t~se ot

her re

sour

ces of the

Iai~

gua~

;e system to disa~nbi~;uate tivhen necessary. We can say

eth

er~'a~ra is fn

hrs

o3vn

vfj~c~ or Sa

fe is in BiII's of

frce

, The gap

in th

esy

st~~

r, fi

heref~re, is

not

neressariiy a pro

bi~m

i~

#fie act~~a1 use

~~

the la

ngua

ge.

Indeed, th

e argument that

shall/r~~ill dialects of ~.za~lish ~

gen-

er~l

ly re~

arc~

ed ~s standard v

3r~etiesj ha

ve tl~e advantage ever ~

~~z~

ltlialecks

(gr;~erally

.ico

n-standard)

~~n

easily be n1

a~Lh

ed b~

ara,

~a~t

aent

s ~h~t non-sta~~iaru rlia3~;ets l~a~•e oth

er sim

ilar

~,d

~~az

aCa~

,es

over

t}~e st~ndarei. ~'o

r ~xar„~~Ie, td~p

I~rfz

:rr~

~y4 sy

stem

r,~ 4ta

:~~~

.r~~

'~i~

g?is

1~ has no grammatical r~saurcc for

di~t~~ret~tiatin~ 'u

e~~~

e~s;

~irigula~ and ~

;ura1 in the secan

t:!

~Ser~c~r: ~~rorv~tar~ (,~art1, 5.e~,xe

t~l.'l~e(;~S

D ~3S7b'r`P`:TCP~

~a~V~ ~ Ci

t~:4

~`^Y

If;^

ai

f.~,i-atll"e~r3~

Mtty~C~n. 3

'J~s

'

Pres

crip

tion

and sta

ndar

disa

tion

15

(sinautar} azl

d y~c~us (Au

ral}

, Zrz su

ch dial~cks (e

.g. Nori~~rn Iris~~,

a cnn~~lent like

1'11

see }°o

ar tom

c+rr

o~ w

ill be

un~

S~rs

tnoc

3 ~:

o be

dire

cted

to only one per

son in a giv

~r~ ~r

aup;

I'l!

see yaa~s ~'otrlorrow

will, ho

ti~~

~aer; be

pre

ferr

ed wtle~ two ar amore persons

i~a~tta~ cor

rk-

pan~ are addressed, Th

is appears to be

a use

ful reso~~rce

ira th

ese

nan-

stan

d~xd

dialects (even fi

hou$

1a th

e st

anda

rd s~

;cal

ier can

disamY~iguate ~~

h~n necessary by say

ing

aIl of

}so

u' c+r s

or~a

4thi

tig

af' the s~a

rt}.

but i~

i;~ ~to

ti~:

eabl

e that ~uar~~aY~s of the

l~i

ngua

ge c3o

~aoi

generally rec

nmrn

encl

the superior'

sy~sCec~~s c

if note- ta.ndar~t

di~cleets: the

y ~:otlfine their

clairsis abut superiorit~~

tc~ as

pect

s a;

s~'rzndrrrd ~n~lish

~z~a

z7lm

ar ~

stich as

the

slia(I.,~tivrtl r

.~is

tit3

ctio

n).

Tt

r,..~n

~+e sta

~~es

kec~

the

refo

re, tk~~t their re

al con

G~rn

.s ire nc~

t ~vho7ly

liri

~~~istic "

~txt

lar~ei}~ racial: th

ey are

in some way p

i~z:natri~~

Lt~e

interests

c,f th

e ~~~riet;~ rl

~asl

«~i

deiy

~~ilsicSerec~ t

t> h

a~,~

c: ~.r~sti~~.

~t tk~

e 1e

}~ei

of l~r~rguage sys

te,~

tx, ar

gume

nts

ti~;~t rar

ic I~r~~tza~ e or

diarect

is lin~uisticall~y s

u~,eric~~ tQ

. an

c~fh

er are gen

eral

ly very ~iF

ficu

lt to sus~.~in, i he n

r.zr

riY~

~r a.n

d ;:

on~~

lexi

ty~ of pra

nzzn

atic

a.t zules

ire a~~

r Ia

z~~u

a~c

~~ar ~

~i~lect c~anraat ~e easily shn

ti~n

tv 1~

e ci~t~ificantly

more or

less t

3~~:

? in sor

z7e,

othe

r ia~~~i.z.a~e or

cita

lt~t

, ~n

c~ ~re

al:e

r

nurn

t~er

a.

nc~l

campJ~~ity ~f. ri

iies

~voi.tld .ni

t in dn~~ car

e pr

ove

su~~

eri~

~r.i

ty~.

Gen

eral

Iir

.gui

sts,

trleref'ore, b~lie~~e that

it is ko

ir~'

klns

s

tc~ ar~t~e in these te~zns. Co

t~si

~e~~

tio~

as o#'

su~e

ri~r

;ty ~~- i

r~,,

~"c~

rinr

ity,

b~vt~ty' or

trgli~le.ss ~r.~ T

r~gic~~lity ar

ilXogicality

iz~ a

isa~~

~ar~ hel

d t~

be .i

~reIevant at t~~

e Ie

ve1 of la

ng~y

~r;;n

sys

t~rr

r; alt

Paau

g~! tk

~ey .

riay

be

rele

vant

~t the le

vel a~' us

e. .

if cla

ims abut tl

-~e su~

;;xi

arii

y of ~n~

; lan~ua;e t~ ano

ther

ire

not

a~~a

A,~:

:t~l

e. t

ip r

igor

ous proof, t~~

e~~

neittler c

azl we p

rc>v

e ti~a~: on.e

lang

uage

is eg

trat

to ~n

Qttz

er. Ina 5c.

'r~n

tifi

c acadert~i~, cunte;:t, #his

Iatt

er proposit3a~

is be

st v

iewe

d .as a sf

acen

tei~

t cif the

~~li

hy,~

~vthesis. But neither thi

s c1ai~~l r~

or tie

cCaiin ab

out si

~per

lari

ty

is in fact capable of satisfactory ver

il~c

~tio

n cr

falsification; t

he t~v

o

claims a

re s

ir~a

ply two s

ides og the

sagne co

in,

acid

~s

tk~e

, are

p~pu

Iarl

y co

ncei

ved

~,nd d~b

at~d

, tile;~~ a

re zde

olog

icat

, n~

at?~

e~ than

scientifZc, statemEntu.

Thasc whr~ ar

gue

abou

t li

n~ia

isti

c ~~

a~~e

ri~r

aty

z;~ap

~c~~a~evcr

~~i~

l~funes

p~iz

~t ~~u

t that sQn

~e 1.a

~~ua

~es ap

pear

. to ~pre~d a~ ~t

~e

expe

nse of eth

ers

~nc~

to

siir

e~iv

e as

ot3lers _di

e rout ~

~ri~lisi7 i~

~?ri

tain

, fc~r example

T lea

s spread at t~

aP e~~;e~ls~ of.

~e1+~.~ t~

ttl~

u~.$

~s,

and i

zz A.~

str°

~iia

, a'

~or~

~ina

i lan~ta~4~es ar

e threaCened Uy ~xi~lssh.

is LhiS nt

~i ~ s~g~a tha

t ~n

g'as

h is

a su~?rrip7~ l~

:~gu

?ge'

;' <~~

~iri

, thbr~

is no ~v~

~ of detno~st.rating t~

:~~:, m~ the I

.~,~~~

1 cif l~~t.~uar= sy~t~~,

16

~re~scr~iption aid stanclardzs~tio~z

English is ~n4~aet~ a ~uperiar tan$uag~. T

he grammatical systems o

fthese ~thez' languages are at least equally subtle ~nci complex. 7'haspread o

f :rn~listi is die, not to ifs. superiorit; as a systr:m o

flangu~$e, but to the greater e

conomic and polikicaZ success o

f its

speakers ita recent centuries. In

a similar rvay, Classi4al I,atir~

became t}ie official tan~uage o

f a ~rcat empire; yet, %ts great prestige

did zlot ensure ins ultimate survival ia~ the f~.ce t~#~ political a~~tiecanc~n~ic change.

I.,an~ua~e,~ua~~~i;~ns dQ ~o~ t~suatly r~aake explicit r~f~.rei7cc to tli~

distinction ~etti~~een Tar~,~r.~agc~ s}~.rt~m anc? Irrrrgucrpe rase. ~"~ae r cc;rn.-:zaer~is usu~il,• focus o

n certaia~ particta?az- points c7f usage ~e,g. t;z~

,shall,/will d+~tinction or the doutaIe ne~ativej. Thus t`rxe~; ak ~,~ar to

~~ commezxts abut 1~:~~uage use raCl~ez' th~.n system. ~eY th~:sv

cozlzt~lezit~ a~'t~zz l:.zv~ it~~p]ic tion~ fc~.r lan~yt~.age s}stem, as appealsfor prey"c,rririg one r.isage c~},~er another are afite~ based ~z~ ~ort~elimited aspect fl~ 1at1,~t.a~;c s}'stem (e.g. anala~y with ether ~z~ m

-n~atical cc~n~tructiozas in tti~ la.n~t.iage}, ~

o demo.~stt~at~: tt~~;'~ir~d of

urgtFr~az~~i~iti~zx tY~at i5 us~°d~

we shill tia;~cuss tae ~res~~~'ij7tiozi i~

f~t~~our cif cliff,:=rent,~rc~rn as a~airzst ca'ijjerent to — a prescription t~~t

sr~e,~~rs a:c> hati=e ori~~.~ats.ci ix~ th4, ei~;hte.eCllll CCi1ttU}~, bitt ti~~hict~ is ~~ilif~u~~ci zn. Ii~nclbocil~;s ~i~ ~~;~,:se~t~less (e.g. ~~ftitcalfe, '•975).

I:~ this cc?,lstruckican. ~~e clxoic;e af,~rr~tn or to is aT~bltra~y izl thes~.nse that the selection Q

f erne or floe vt~er m

akes z7o ~ii~'er~z~cr t~

the moaning s~f the cor~strucczon. Clear?y, ire ottz~:.r circumstances,the choice t~f frv~n or tv is not arbitrary, bttt ;zieaningfirl, ~s ?n .~ohnr~rn to the hrc~se as against J

oan rcxn f~onz the house. T

he c~ir~c-

t;onal p~.rticl~s z~ these sentences /lave cantrastive mea.nin~s. ~ndifferent fro~rz and different ~`p, hc., ~~ever, the particles f

rom and ~o

seem zn effect tc ha,~e Iost their usual meanings and to l~av~ become

ein~ty connectors: tk~p ~onstzuctinn has the same meaning zega.rd-

less of ~vl7ether.fr~~n or to is used (ice ~-Iurford and Heasley, 19 3:50for a

dasr.«ssion pf meaningless' and 'mFaningfut' prepositions).

Various ~xr~;t;n~~nts can be used to jtzst~fy the choice of one con-

~truc~zon as against, khe other. In favaur of different,f vnY, ~r~ can

argue on the a.z~alo~y ~.f t1~e vert7 di~f~~-, which rct~i~ires tk~~ ~~a.rti~l~

from and ~aot to: w

~ say chalk dXfj`~Eyrs,fron~ c~F~eese a

nd ~i~t ~c~ralk

differs to cheese. Can fii~~ oth,,r }nand, differs?rat tc~ zni~i~t be justifiedon the ~rr~unds thai it falls irt?a a

set :~f words with ~Qmparat v~mean.in~s such as .similar, equal, sztperic>r, etc.: t}iese r~c~~aire i•~, asiz~ similar ta, ~c~aral Po. k'urthermc~re, t}ae exglt[ee~xtl~ cenctzry cotzir~_will have argued for d

fferenP to by apgeQiing to ~.~.Lin gr~~,mrzzar {~s

Prescripli:~1~ ~,-rd stanrlardisuti~n 17

t~~ey corcimonlY did in other circumstances): izi La.ti~~ ~hc verk~ `tactiffez' takes the ~"atrve case after it, and

this is translatcci into~ztgliSh as t~ c~_r for, !~A th.ird variant, dfff~rerrl fhurr (which is par-ticulariy cocnnxon iz~ Scotland, Ireland ancI North ~,mehica}, canalso be justified ozz the analogy o

f certain compar~tiv~, uses in

English, such as other fhQrr; oz e~•en hotter thin, worse /flan. Thus,

there ~ re three ckioiecs, Ali o

f ~vhici~ cazi be justified ~

y sotnc arg~~-

ment; yet tl~e ~rescriplivc tradition. gexler~lty recQmzzZeracis th~tl an.Zy~rje of ti~ese is'corr~cC' a

nd st~oald be selected icz ~z•e'erettc~ to the

~~thecs.iz~ t~i,s d.isctissiar~ ti~~c k~a}~e not ~~e~a ~ttecrntin~ to suggest ttxat kh~

hr~rzd~onA. ~:~rescri~~~ior~c shorald c~~

c Y~ert}ar~~vi7

<~nd one oA ES~e

'dis~tti,,~,e~~° usa~;eS e1e~a.tec~. to a ~~>itiox~ of corz~cetness. ~Te should~nerelY iil<e to 4n~pllaszse: t :z~;~ il~in~s, Fzrst, langu~~.r~r g~.~ardian~~~su~-i,i5r ~~El a strGn~ ~:arn~ckisiori tt~ select an.e, axed ~nl;~ o~~~~, fronta ~~t cif egui~,alez~fi us~~Gs e

nd rec~o~ntt~er~d [l~at as the `~~~rect'

Zorm.. ~ecaiad, ~I~e;ir choice ~f a }referred fori~n is often arbitrary —

i~. Iin~ui.stic te~'tris: tl~e +,thei variatzis c2re yuit~ seTvzce~tatc. ~.rgu-me~t,s That are ar~vancet~ itl st.tp~sort of ti~~ preferred too r~ can ~.tstzalltirbe matc;I~ecI ~5~ ~gL~aIi3~ ~~c}cl ar~uzi~ents i~ stzppr~~~t o

f tine 3cjected

farms. Ff~it ill these az~~~aznents ai- e ~~st ~zoc ra.tionalisa~ia~~s, ar~t~ toonot in iherz~seIves ~.,rov~ anytlun~, It is like9y that eight~elztii-centuzypreference

or cliffere:tt,f;om rested, not on any real superiority in

ter;~s ttf' ica,~,ic, ~fT~~;.~iven~ss, elcgat~ice c~i al~ythii~g Ise, i~ut 4i~ fhe

observed ttst~ge ~f the

best ~~e~~~te' at that time. T~~e ~IZoice of Lhat

f,articulaz forrti ~s~as prr~l?a~ly spci~zlly ~~vtivated, and 2h~: ~cneralcoinpulsiar~ to sel.eCt ot~e fc~rn~ out of a set of equivalents eras a

con-scc~uerice of the trend towards siandardisatioca, a cl~aracterastic ~

fwhich is the surJpres~sion o

f aptio~~al variability (see 1.~+; ~iezt~w).

Apart #'rani analogical acguzyents and arguments u

sed on Latin

gran~niar (e.~;. never use a pre~osati~n at the end o

f a senC~ncc'),

language guardians h~vt also used argume~~ts t!ased on d~agic or

r7zathe~1ratics acid on etymology. T

hus

> a mathenn~tical ar;uznezit(`t~vo negatives rr~aae a positive'} ~~as used in the eighteent}1 c,~Tr~turyta. coxldeza~.n the double negative (as kn .~ never said n~~tlazrtg), ~

~d

etyzr~vIa~icaZ ar~u~~ez~fis acv still ~Tcr~ co~nmanly uset~ 9.n. tx~attex~ oafvoc~bul~.ry. ~'or ex~mple, zt is Meld Co be w

rong tv use cr,~,~rczuQting

zn the sense az~z~oyizxg' as its Z..~tin e

tymon means n~akin~ heavier'

(or more serious').

:(n C~~apter 2 tive ~

o on to relate these pu~rlicly held vie;vs o

f cor-

~ectness to Yh~ tradztion o~ Iia~~;~.:zsti~ cornpiaint in ~:ngiis'h azz~ the

18

Presca.xption and sfanciar~isazìan

Mace of the cprrapiaint tradition in the rise of Standard

~nglasl~, '

yVe

I1GW ,CEt11TXl_ tQ .~~I~

rii#~'i~a~Tt ~~~nc+:^__ of

i~~~;r•~•~',:Fl:?'..n

3~„t-r'.,

b

q

cvi(1

~tzbliciy expressed and privately Held attitudes

tc~ s

ocial variutio;~ iz~

i~~ngua~e.

There is cleari~T a difxicuIty in relating

pu~,iicl~,~ e

~~.~ressed attiiuc~fl§

to the vi~v~-s that oz•c~inary people t7ave of their own usage. ~'ir3t, sa-

ca.11ed

unacceptable usage end io~v-status

v~rieti~s of t

an~ua~;e

certainly

pez'sisC despite b

eing p

ublic;y stigmaiiseci (~y~n, 1379).

~'resuinal~ly they c

oczld not

~,ersist i

f the

relevant speakers

felt

stror7~ty ~npugh that they aught' tp

learza and use ~'arii3s cif l

~iy?1er

prestige {ear this see ~1~~~pter 3.l}. Secand, 3+

s ezns to be

~~irtually

impc~ssi~?e to rely an ~

a~+e;~ker:~' r~~rr2s of tk~eir

c~v.~~. usa~;

s~.~~

c~~'

.heir

attitucle~ to

~~eag~,

scs

;:teat w~ ~ann~L

easily gnu g

irt

is~~at

people actually

tl;izzk. Ling~iists and spczal ps~rcholo~is[s whc~ haJ~

investigatpc~ ~~optiIar

attituc9es have fourtd that pea~i~'S ~t~e,~

c4aims about language ire

izy7crurace azi~ after contradict

their

o«~t1 actual usage..A~ Labov ~I972a:214) po

ints out, speakers c~

~'t.e~

1err in tl;e direction

rat s

tand~.r~ usages rvherX they respc~r~d to fipld-

~~rark~rs' ;-~uestio~~zc about

their awri usa~~: they ~

;o r

iot r~~i~blg

re~~rt air ~s~hai they use t1~c:msclv~s. ~.at~ov ~I966) a~~c~

t'~,uncl that

spea~~cr~

~~iCl1 the `

hT.'oadest' p.roaauncia#inns s

hoti~~c~~i k

11e greaiest

tend~n~y to duwngradc ethers fof• the sane prot~rinciatac~ns. Soci~-

Singuistic research

leas ~

d~~itic~nally Shawn that speakers certasz~Iy

ha+~~e knnwl~rlgc~

c+f

cirffererst

variants (C=lasgt~~v

s~~e~lt~rs,

far

example, knoir that the rr~edi~i cor~s+~riant

ofi' tl

~e r~rord

b4;tter ~3t~r-

nates

bet~~~evtx .jt~. and the gl~~ttal sto~~): fi~rtzierrxiore, ttaey do n~~

necessarily use the same ~~arza=,it 1~0

p:,z' r

,~~+ ~f tn~ tir~~.'T''nta,, if

a speaker is t~~~seryed t~ use c~r~rr~ fflr ~1~~ (as

iii I

rlcrne >i~, it is qui~~

lil~~ly t~l~t die al~c~

~:~ses the did fo

rrr~ sUme of the t;

.:~~~. 'I

'l1e fact ghat

speakers lave ~nowie~ge of ~~<~riants and a

lso

kplotiv~~c~;~e oa

t~-~~

sr~c7al ~=aloes att~zcf:ec] to tt3em r

z~eans tk:at sp~a~:er

rG~c~r#s, te~~ t~

indicate social stereoty~~es r2tt~~r

~h~aya ~eraorl~l

~r cr~z~~:,~utzzty

~~aiues. T~3ey tend ~d t

•e~~ort

tl~e form iheq consider t

t~ bd

scrcia~t~~

accepted r

ather than ~

D~e form tlae~ ~ts~ ti7e~z~selves.

Some soc~oian'~uists ~~,aho~~, 1966; Trudgi~l, 197A~ ~,a~~ ~;ade use

t~f `5pe~(:er~Re~czz•[ Tests'

ita

c~r~~~r ~~ e

s~itnate #

Iae

r~:~~a~iilSty ~f

s~~.akers' claims

~i~,:~L~t t:hbir ~,~vn 7~s~,;~, Sc~ir~r~~.s}7e:a~:=ors ~x~a~e

tiV~'n~t

~~~pe~4~ t+

~ be di

st~ca~lc:~t r~;~i~rt.s by

c.~~;rx~in~ t~~ ease ~t-az~;a~,~ ~~

~~_i

- ~;~_nls

t1~at i

~e~~ ~ev~g ac,tu~tly <ase. p

si r~

~.;, st

u~~~(C!'~a~c.~ 1~~J , 3,

l~~~ir;.3~

>~9~3i3, a z~ctznl~er

t~f ~>~~arkit,.~-class s~?e.ak~rs in

i~c1f~ ;

. vrer~

~?v;,r~

ZhsM~ di~'erc~.~t pron;.lnriati~7ls aS' ~~ch of a s~rie~ r~i c

~~~7~~cii

w~~a~~~is

PrescrrpPian rrnd str~ndardisrrtion

19

?ike Tianei, bag, str~~. '!

'}~e first pr~~~iutrciation

ir1 each case was R.P

(`~eCC1VE~ ~'i't~Til:IilCl.'?f1C]11' ~ °

~Y~ `~:;~v«l' Jl' ùi~~„' ~;tuiS:T'lff~

~~1~

sec~nc~

tivas

`~Zei~erat Belfast' az~d t

he t

izird 'beau ~elxast'. They

were asked t

c~ say ~

z~ixicta one t}~~y used

tli~r~is~lues. ~ever~l .f

~r~lal;.

respoc~cients -- a1l of them

stron~;l~ Lion-standard s~e~kers -

•- ctairned

that they used t

he RP variant ~

1~11~n i

t was

g~laiz~

t12<~t they

riev~r

did. It a~pe~r~ that these s~cakers

it~tei~pr~ted the task as a test oA

their

knt~~le:d~;e of t

tie

`correct'

pronfzzaciafian end resr~c~nde.~i

accot•c`+.in~ly: t

h~y~ d

ici z~at t

i~rant to

lie thought

igtzo.r<nt.

ThesF

i:nst.arz::e~ raise: ratter dearly the ~ener~l ~rablern

t~f i

der~t-

,:i'~rlra~ ~~r~ui;« ~ititudes. It seems that ~~ea~~te ~~re ~villir~~ tc~ ~S~,y i

ip_

servi~.e. ;cs

t.~,rt'ws.ctie>s t

a~ad p

re.ki~e

~arit~raL5, bu,t ~t

~t~e s

~tt~~: tir~aA

t~c:;~ ~ ~n

tiz~Z,:~ ic

y s~~eak the v~

riet;✓ curi'ezzi in their o~vct s~eec.ti ~;.om-

n~unit,i~s.

~rx fact,

statistical counts of

Tiariants

actizaI~y~ ~

:s~d a

reprc~b~bi5~ t

t~e best w

s~~,~ of ~ss~.ssin~ att;tudes. Despite the vzews of

the guar~iat7s,

r1~~~rs~ peo~ie ~o nit p

eat into efFect

at~sc~lut~ views

t1~~t

pa.z~ticizlar usages are right' or

wrong'. The w~ark a

~' ;_ab~v

{i9C6). and

~tt~ers

lzas, repe~tec91}r, de~,lonstrated t

11at ~~eopla f~ei

soin4

variants (~.~;. [h~_less v

~ri~tXts) to i

~~ ~

~pzo~~rirtt

in ~

~~zrze

`:tyie~' ~n~ u

t't~er variants

e.g. ~h~-fui ores) a~~pro~ri~t~ zn ether

st~~ies ;nc? cc~ttt~;;tual situations (i'or furt~ter discussion

flf

t-his, see

~..i1c~.J1~~1' ~~.

~. r~

3~,}rar

T.as!: of sacioIin~u~sti~s is to

~xpfaii7 ~~r}iy ii~~t~istic did=

ferences that

~.re e

:ssentiatly

a~I~itz-aTy a

re assigned

social v

a~~ies.

.~nc~ther associated task

zs ~t

c~ e:tplaii. «°ley ~~ec~nle c~nt~nue to use

non-stan~arcl

varreti.cs wl3ei~

~I~c,~ claiix~ ~autalicly to agree th~i ~n~y

~?1e `

sfiandarc~'

is `

co;r•ec,t'.

4t'I~at

is t

he f

unctican c

if }~;~scxipt3ve

attitu~tx~s ~nc~ ~

4-~~at c

:z`Cccts t3o t

h~:y have?

This r

~~istt~~tcIz b

et~~~c~en

~4tiiat usage and

vri.~~~t ~

7ea~~>t~ ~~~blicly

e~aim

~c~ thin?, c:anstitutes one c

if t

hc~ many ~

~az~aci~>x~s ~

zt s

s~cio-

Iir~~~iisiic.s, exit i

t is c

e~~tais.Iy c9ear ~

.i~aC in t

hy;

~vi~ler

c~nlr~~~xnity

tlaer~ is

s+~tT~c. a~r~c~ment

ti~at certaiia t

isanes (p~oz~olagic~al, ~ram-

i.~.atic~l <4ns~ lexical; ;

~~e

~ti~.Gz~~.~eiceri, ~srhereas ath~rs care}~ ,presti~~.

'~'f1~ ~

l~ist~ori~s Lf laz~i~ua~e~ tit~pear to t

ic~rztain

rnai~t}~~ z

nsiances of

c~y;~Y;ac~?irtf~xy anti ct~angizag attitudes t~

t~~e sz~me ~il~itra~:y ii~xguistic

~~~~^t~.an~ei;tan. ~~

~is r~~co.i.a7yie t

er ask ~,vh~r a c~iar~.~~era:>rit, ~

i~ce f

'ki~_

.~?ro~~~~rs~~

~l<Ls

ia~~ ~

~~~ay~ t

iee.:~ a~ip~~iat.is~;ci i

n ~~1

~a~a~~~,~;;s ~

a~ci

~~ia.lec;.z

r~'lxet~ i; ;~ so

5traax~~<, sfia~niatised i

.z1 ~

z~~:~t~nt~c~~~ ~zi~zsh

~Il~Py~~S~"i~~11{j. ~I~i~ii5.

~"t1

lil+:' ~C7IIt~i2CP. ~t1I161~1A~1'.fa

9 ~~:~I' ~,;~2iII1~~F,'~

~~~ -r.~rr~~~iz~~; ca

nztot ~cssi~+lyr i~

~;~,re

1i;:ei~ sti~Yin~1:i>rt~ ~S~' ~t

1 ~~3~â.k~a~s

in aIi cc,r:lr•~ti~~aitizs ~t X11 tiz~~~: if it

~a~u, fh

;:sc la

iiau~A~~.s ~~

;~~.xi

~~ Piave

20

1'rescriJatiorr cirzd standardisation

t'~~~I~~t~ ~.1~IA

i~D.~, ~JU1: ki"ley' ~1%AVC i.iiAlvi:Ab~Jy' tv~

iC. ~'i'~U4iG{I"a1~j", 1'a.would be fooiisi~ tc ~.ccus: a

Fz~nch speaker of careless speechbecause cue fans to pronounce the h

in hornme when it is there in

the selling', The loss o

f [k~] in R

omance languages is a Gomplet~d

linguistic change which must at. certain times hive been favpuredby in~uezitial social grains and sa ~x~usf have carr;~d high prestige.Sven in English, zt ~s unlikely that [hJ -dropping was a

ratter ~f

pubic stigma znuci~ before 1800 {W~Id, 1927.2II—~~, 21~), and

there are some sins that it m

ay even have been socially ~'avaured

in ~arliaz centuries. There are many tk~irteenth.- and forirteenti~-

c,;ntury te;~ts that shcw considerable evidence of jh]-lass, a

nd

Elizabethan puns often depend

on [h) -loss (e.g, puns o

n uir/

hai, Ihei~~ in NSarla~ve, ~?ido and Aeneas and Shakespeare, C

omedy

of Errors'). Public stigma could hardly have been szgni~can~ azz

hose centuries if [h~-dropprng co~.3.td

appear iz~. literas~ i~xts.There is, t3zere.f'ore, a

strong possibility that public attitudes to(h;-dropping haae been reversed. It seems that a

usage favouredat one tune car., b

ecame stig►naGised ar, another (on the history of

(i~z]-droppzng, set J. Kilroy, 1583},A very clear case ot" reversal in social evaIuatia~ xs the ease of the

post-vocalic ~r~ i~ ;'dew York t~ity. Be~'ore tine Second ~Va~~.ld ~Yar,

nc~n-rhotic Britisi7 accenCs and those of the ~mericai~ East Coasthad high status, and Ic~ss of post~vc~calic [r] i~z words like car, card,1~utter seems to h<~v~ extended

thro~agx~oizt zk~xe saciat class ~on-tinuuzn i~a ~Fe.w ~arlc~L:ity. Labov's,vor3c rlezno~~strates tl.~at ~y I~56ii~e lass of host-vocalic jr} hack, ~r~ the contra~~y, tae~orz~i~ a

m~r:cer+af casu~t ~ta~le anc~ lowez- sc~cia. st~t.ils, ~~zth for:rial styles and Iai,~t~.exsi~tus f~vc~~aring rlloric ~or:~as. 'I".t~us ie a.ppears zk~at is~ thA US.l~prestige f~r.rns are rhntic, whereas iz~t .~ngl~rid t}ie3~ ~~~P rc~;~-rliotic,Clea.xly,

~t~~ese varyi~.~

attitudes are soczal: ~a~ ~ins~iiistic terms,

~hJ-ful and

(3~J-ful accents are i~aither better zaar

worse than[h]-Ie~s' end

(~ ] -less

a~-~es. The matter

is arbitrary from

the1x~aguistiG point of view.These phonological examples concern public evaluations of ~if-

~'erent resources of language systezrzs, In Englatad, daaiects that lacya sysCematic contrast i~etween wands tivith i~iti31 ~h/ and words ~uiti~initial vowels (e.g. hair v. air) are ac~arded lotiv status, whezeasdialects that lack a

contrast between words witi~ a

nd wiehout pgst-

vocalic ~r/ (e.g. court v, caught) have high status. to grammatical

usage also zt can be pointed o

ut that the

acceptability' or crt#~er-lvise o

f particu]ar variants is sociaity motivated a

nd lin~uistacally

Preseriptian artrl standardisation 21

~Z~lti'al'y, ~'O USC FV~2(!f s~5 a

i'~~1ttVC JJ20P1C)tIt1, 2S l[1 t`,t 2

E r'?OLtSQ }LiYiii~

I sa~~, is iaeith~r m

ore nog- less ei~icierat in terms o

f laza~uage sy-stern

than to use ~E the ~tause that .I srxi~~ or the h

ouse whi~,dt ~

s~~u (seediscussion in 3.4, 3.S). It is sialply that s

ome di~l;cts use the

item what as dart off' their relative pranc~un system, white others

{including SE} do noC. I

n the

next section and in

subsegt~~ntchapters; eve shall approach ti7e questzon cif arbitrary choices ref thiskind in terms o

f the zdeflIagy o

f standardisation.

Same readez-s m

ay still feel that s

ome types o

f usage c

an truly b

eshotivn to be better or vrorse than aCk~ers —

snore logical, precise a

nd

eaf'ective perhaps, or less a~ribiguous or less vague. As ~~ve shall see,

t1~:s is often correct at khe tevei of arsage. T

v evaluate usage as

against system, ~ioiv~ver, depends on making a ttumber off' careful

dist~czctions, of ~?~ich

the main one is th.: distinGti~n

hettiveenspeech anti writing. ~'rescriptive judgrrze~its a

nd stign~atisatioz~ a

~particular forrr~s have ztot n~~rit~.ally m

ade t"lie necessary distiz~ctians

17et«reez~ system an,d cts~, ac bel~~~een speech and writing. C

ur major

task here i~as ~ieen to point out that ~ubizc statements condeznnin~as7ects o

f dit~'erin~ Ian~uage systems d

o not m

ake these distinctions

dearly. ~urthezznare, trey c3o no[ appear to have as z~iuch effect on

Q~-d;n.a:y speakers of non-standard English as o

ne might ex~~ct, I

~th.e course o

f history, usa.~e~s that i~~re once pizb(icl}~ far~our~t~ h

aVc

become sti~r~~aCised a

nd usages that tivere sti ;matised hive b~cc~me

favoured. Zndec~, it often ~~p~ens tl~Raf a ~~art.iciala~ usage is ns~t.

atcackeci as non.-4t~nc~a,d utlt.il

i~ has b

ecome vez-y

general and

ti~,iciespread, ivgarg~r~t Thatcher Vti~3s r~cGntly (k982; attack~c~ faru;',sn~ t~,~ t~~~ard ,~rLvcr; icrxte in the sense

sta11, play fc~r tit~~' ~v~er~.ix s}could `~rcap~rly' m

ean felt lies'. ~n Sc~ doing, shy ixsecl t ie r~rrrd

in t:h~ sut~s4 ih<a~ znnst people nativ use it; the Z_.~~ti~l etymoio~y~ I~asbeQi~z virtually lost tas it has ~~een 3Fi that~s~nds o

f othez• ~rords}, a

nd

the ~uarciians in this Cass (as in many others) aza ~ockin~ tlie- ~t~ble

~loar after tine horse has bolted, Linguistic change has azrertaicen

tlze~n.it is appropriate, therefore, f:n ask w

hat is the f~nctzon o

f the

pubtic $uardiac~s ~f asage if, zn znac'zy cases o

f prescription o

f g~~am-

tnar, pYaazlolo~y and word-chore, their detailed recammendatio~~sgo largely unheeded. Ire wi~at follows, w

e sha1I m

ake some distinc-

tions that wi11 g~ some way towaz~ls answering the question. ~'u~z-

damentalIy, their role is related to the ideology of standardisation,

in that they attempt to keep tk~e notion of a standard tang~aa~e aiiv~

in the public nni~zd. They are also, in m

any cases, genuinely ~

cd

~2

Pr~s

cril

atio

n and sfarldarrlisutin. ~c

properly con

cern

ed w

ith

clar

ity

an.~

3 ef

f~ct

iver

aess

in communic~-

tion

, bu

t th

eir pr

escr

ipti

c~z7

s focus much more an ~uL

~Iie

ar~~i written

styles tk~an an speech. The

ir recam~nendations may oft

en 1~e

sen

-sit~le in terms of written usage and well in

tend

ed;

bia#

we sh~

11 see

;th

at a gen

eral

fai

lure

~a conszdei~ spo

ken

lrrngucrg~ as a~~iilst. r

vrit

t.en

iang~iage can

ha~~~ un

fart

t~na

te ron

segl

ienc

es.

Itx se

ctio

n i.

4 ~,

~u bass c

an t

ca a

dis~

ussi

~z~ of the n

ature

cif

+ang

~iag

~ st

anda

rdis

atio

n (t

hy: c

t~ns

equF

nces

cif w

hich

~'e

flec

t strongly

do t

l3e

pi~~~(ic and ~op

ui~r

~itzttides gh

at ~

~~P ha

.ve discussLd). in

Chapter ? we pi•

ac~e

d tc

~ ou

t3in

e t3~e his

tory

ref stan~arais~~t~a~

c~~

~n~I

iFh end

disr~zss some ci

f t;7

e prt~cesses throu~h,whic;~s t:he nat?~~

c~#'

.a sta

ndar

d lart~~.~age is maintained.

~.~

~aa~~~~~~e ~

Yry~

~~l<

sr~l

~s~t

3€aa

i

r~r a

;~x~

r~~j

~~r

~,f

r~as

~:~i

~s i

t is

~ii:

~'ic;t

~l~ t

o ~~

ini

t~ a f

ared ~.r~u

Ii1V

~~.i

9??1

C 7 n:

iIl~ f

:+a

,i?t~~zfii?

l'hr

l~ C

c'.f

l j?

T'C°

~~P3

'~?J

~?~ C

?.~i

C(~

~~lt

5l'

~3~i

{it~

l'C'

far7~i.~<~~;e, un;

ess

r~~~ cs>~isi~er c~nl~ ~h~

~vri

f~nr

r Fo.-n

~ t~

W:: r~~

~:va

ri.

~t is

G~~t

~~ in th?

s~~ell%n,~ s

S~sCeza•~ t~3~c

~'tcil

stunclax<iisat~~z~

~•e.~i

~,~ ~aa

~~lz

.~.rj

achi

~vec

3, 3s

ci~v

:iat

ions

frc~zYz the nrrt~i

~I~c3~

~e~T~:

,i~ iug

;ca~

p ~r~

nest

tul~:rat~d

ll:~

r~e,

Vy'hen, how;e~,~~.t~, ,v

e re

Fe;r

~o

st~nciard' s~c

~kpr

~z n~li

s3a,

we nave t~

~.c

3n~i

t tlaaf a gr+cct de~.l ~S

var

iety

zs co

l r~tec~

in ~ractir.,e, ~ncl sc

hc+t

ars ha

ve, oiter~ hack tv

loosen

the~~~ t~i~}finiti~~

~f ~ stanciarc~' i

n cl~aling ~~~

ith s

~~ech. '~

'tius i

t be

come

s ~,

assi

nie ~~

rth

em to

sa~r

tha

t a standard farm of F~~gl~stl, whi

ch they beliLv~ ~o

b~ Iargely ~~raiform i

re its

gratxlrnar• and ~

- oca

buIa

ry, is nev

art~

hele

sssp

oken

iz~ a variety of di

ffer

ent crctQnts (quirk, ~95E), or

td sr~ea~

of varieties of

Standa~

- d.E

ngli

sh' (

Trud

gill

and H~i

~nah

, 19

82; cf.

also

Wyld's id

ea (1936) of a Modred Sta

ndar

d'),

str

ictl

y sp

eak-

ing,

l7otivever, standarclisakion does not

tol

erat

e variability, Thus at

is best, in ou

r vi

ew, to loo

k Es

t the question of

Stan

dard

English'

in a dif~'erent li

ght,

and to speak of standaz~dis~tinn a5 a his

tori

cal

proc

ess wh

ich•

— to a greater ar le

sser

degree — is al

ti~~

ays i

n progress

zn thane languages tha

t ux

~der

~a it. Stazadardisation is mot

ivat

ed in

the fi

rst place by

var

ious

social, political ai d co

t~me

r~;i

al needs and

is p

romo

ted

in v

arious ways, irtcludin~

the

use o~

t?~~.° w

riti

ngsyscezn, which is re

lati

vely

easily standarr~isecl;

brit at~svlate sia

n.-

dard

isat

ion of a spolten lan

guag

e is never ach

ieve

(th

e only f~~lly

standardised l

angu

age

is a d

ead

la~gua~e), Therefore i

t ~e

en~s

appr

opri

ate to

speak more a

bstr

actl

y of sta

ndar

dis~

tian

as an

I'ress~crip=rc~n and sfa

n~rr

rdis

atif

ln ,

23

idenlogY, and a

statidrlrci Iangtia~e as an id

ea in thb mi

~~l ra

ther

than areality — a set of ab

stra

ct norms tc~

which act

tcal

usa

ge may

co'rl~orra~a to a

~zeat~r or

lesser extent,

If we consider stan~~rdisation

izi natters

~T.~tsicle Ir~

n~~~

a~e,

the

rxotion applies ra

sher

abv

ious

Zy to ot

ter,

med

ia of

~::~ct3atlge, such

a5 money, ar

~vei

~ht~

and r

ri~a

sure

s, 'i

't~~

is the

coi

~~.~

ge i

s strictly

~k~~

ldt~

r~7i

sccz

so te

at #hers rar

. ire

ng variation ~~ fa

ze val;.cct as

5ign

eci

to i:h

e c~

aiac

7ter

s zn the sy~

ster

n, ay~d the

aina

of this standardi~s~tion

is to

cras

~ue

reli

~~bi

iity

and

hen

ce con~iclence,

~,an~~kz~;~

is als

o a

~ner

~lux

r3 c

t2 ~:~

cha.

f,~t

i, aloezt a ve

ry m

7,ic

l~ mire ~:~

inpl

4x irs

~di.

umi;

~~r~

coi

~ia~

;^, an

d tl~n ~i

.i:~a of i~

:~gu

a~~ stai7d~t~dis~tivn :s the

sa~7ae.

T}~a

s tit

ian t:.i~a; t~

il~~; ~

ight.ec.iatlt-~:e.r~tury a3~

i~it

exs t

in .~,c~~~rtaini~ler~t':

Swift (17

12) ;

~~as

par

tly c:

c~nc

erii

eci

tivitl

l irr

t~.7

rca~

-ir~

~ the 1~

~7~*,.rage, b

uth~

~,rcierz~~d e

:cl~.t

t~~

e i~ti~-~;.tag~ ~

~v;.z~ if

t ~z~

s~s x~l~erf'ect) s

~aauld be

st~n

clal

•di~

ecl in ~ ~~r

mar7

ent fo

zrn

ratk~er t11an

i~. si~

~uic

~ be a~l

t~~~

e~to

~,ha_~1~e c

c>>~t.iryut~tlsly~.

I'i~t~s

~;iu

rtii

3~r;

I.i~

~tit

iii nir7is tca et~~~ax~

fi~flti

,,'~~.luec~

?°~?

?' tht' ~~t~ut~ie; ~ i

rz ~ s

y&t~

'r~7

, ~n i~ildu~a~~, ~~"~iS

~`~3

C1S7

s ~3

r~'-

v~z~

tzxi

~; v~r

iabi

3ity

art sp~31r~~~

a.Z~.d

pr~

,,7~

na.n

~.ia

tir,

~tr b~

sel

~^~T

zn.~

~x7e~~t

G(3:I~C:.i1~.SOCkS L.ri;.~jl;4~y` _C~Lt~I'C~F,i:~

t'~i `t

i.Ql

'l.'

k'~:

t~~~

,'~t

'i4i

7~.t

~~ll

,)l1

~ sC

~l`9C5'sC~

n

i"I1~;txilitl~~ Q~'.~~%.~ 75 ~

Lr'7~rt:{1'fs'i?; ~CZ 1.3~i~'Yl1}alt'

s TI~~~I15 — <

~CCL?i`cjiJl~ ~U

$~7~

~i~llt:~c`1C~:~

1C~f

:t'~

IC~j

~,~i

--'

~113~}~:G

I3iC

aC~.

SC

C1Oi

;.4'

a ~C~~ `t

~7ld

it~)

F'; ~~~

SCi.

QIiC

] `C~I,~GC~i.i7~~31' .I

14"b

1T1I

t7~

3$ L~,5c3~.~t71~'£C~~~

~1111CiUf~~+ i2

CV^E

~;~P

.'~}

i~4

s~or

~-fo

~~s~

as {h4 ~oFa is

acc~~at~~i~, bu

4 ~r~

~ elr~ i

5 ~~t) ac

id fixt~ ~on

-v~

ntiv

r~s of

se;~tunce structttr~. A he

tiv

haie

zAc~

ti~7

.~ flF

sf:~

an.u

az~~

~i;;

ati~

r~is bound u~

~~~it

~ the ~i~n c

~Y functional

erficienc;~ of

t13

e lar3g~r~~e,

~Tlt

irr~

~tel

y, the

~esiderattzz~~ is

that evr,ryone

st~o

uIt~

use and

understaXa~i tie

.lara~ua~e

ire t;~e same way with

t~~~ r

nini

z- z~uir~ of

rnis

unde

rstr

~x~d

irrg

acid the rnaxirt3um of

e#~'iciency.

'~'h

zs aim

is wh

olly

understatzdable, alxd t

nazi

y wu~~ld arg

ue ttl

ati~ t

i~~

forr

~~s

t~f a ta

n.gu

age wa

re i~4t validated and

aegit~mised in

soin

e tij~ay by same aut

hori

Cy ar

aut~

vrit

ies,

ila

e lazl~;~r~ae would

break

u~7 ro

ta dzalects th

at ~c~ould sooner ar

lat

er become n~u

tual

iyzncr~nlpretxeYisihle. This i

s ~~l~at happez~ecl to

Iate Latin

aftsr th

eco

il~p

se of th

e Roman emp

ire.

As the cei~trai aut7iarity van

ishe

d,sa the dan

giaa

ge fra

gmen

ted into dialects

tivttict~ de

vLlc

~pet

l into the

vari

ous Rnma~ce lan

guag

es (F

retzch, It

alia

n, 5panisll, ~'ortuguese,

~tor

nani

an, i atal

an, ~'riuiian, Rai~ansh an

d ot

hers

). "I

'he id~olo~y

of standardisation requires hat ont~~ th

at t1~

e En~lisk~ in th

e Britis~~

Isle

s sh

ould

be as uniform as possible, bu

t also tha

t ii sho

uld be

unif

orm

in other places throughout the

wor

ld rvher~; Eiaglish has

been

imp

lant

ed. Thus thi

s ideology affects not

only No

rth Am

eric

a .

24

Prescription and standardisation

and Australasia, but also the English of, #nor example, Singapore

(which has, zn Fact, divezged coz~sidezabIy from British Engiish)

`and the

Caribbean (for a discussion o

f Singapore

English see

Chapter Sj.Inthe stiict sense in which tiye have so far used the term standard-

iSQPT0l1y na spoken language can eves be fully standardised. if vre

return to 5ausstire's Famous anatogy o£' the g

ame of chess a

nd use

the analogy iz~ a different ~vay, yve can c

ompare language use to a

gaszie of chess in which diff`ereT~t people ~t~ay occasionally ~Iay the

~;arne ~y different rules_ 3z~ chess, it would clearly be incativenietlt

'and a`rritating if one player m

oved his ~a~Fns diaganaliy instead o

f

vertically, and even z~ore ii~zconvenient if; in the course o

f t"sme; or e

player unilatea- aily and silently changed his o

wn rules o

f play zn

Bonne particular ways. This is what does happen zn language use.

Different peoptc and different communities play to s

ome extent b

y

dzfi'erent rules and the rules change (silently) in the course o

f tir~i.e.

As a result of this, zniscc~mmunications can occur.

Cross -dialectal miscomprehension and miscommunication have

not been investigated to any extent, a

nd text-booY.s are often con-

tent to state that Standard English is t}~e variety most accessihie to

the majority of people a

nd heave it at ttzat. Whi3e it is cleat that

actzve use of spoken English varies considerably, our own researches

(J. Milroy, 1978 and X981; L

. Milroy, 1984), also lead us to believe

that passive comprehension of Standard English is b

y no means as

uniform ox

absolute as it might appear: Con.versety, as L

abov

(1972c) has demonstrated, the accessibility of non-standard forms

to Standard English speakers is even less cezta~n. Speakers o~ one

variety whether it is called the standard o

z not) d

o not n~eessarily

have intuitions about a113spects of the g

rammar of other vazieties,

and sa

There are

constructions that #trey

do not. irnrnediatcly

understand.Sara~te examples o

f cross -dialectal ri~iscomprehension in synta~c

have already been discussed an print (3. Milroy, l97&; L. Milroy,

I98~; J. Harris, X982). They can easily b

~ added to, a

nd we shall

enumerate some relevant non-standard usages in Chapter 4

. ~'or fihe

moment, we again notice as a

n example the categorical distinction

between the singular and pIuzaI 2

~d person p

ronoun (see above

p. 14), tivhich is found mainty zn Scottish a

nd - Irish varieties o

f

English. -

T~e ~'Qllovriz~g quotation is Train tape -recordings m

ade during

fieldwork zn ~eifast:

Prescription, and standardrsatron

25

So T said to ouz~ Trzsh a

nd our Sandra:

Yous wash the dishes'.

'~ ~I might as ~veJl have

-said: You wash the dishes', for our Trish

just gok up and put tzer coat o

n and went out.

'

Not only dies tk~is speaker demonstrate that she has in her pra-

_ noun system. a

categorical distinction here between you end yozrs,

.. ~ she. also

assumes (wrongly) that the fielclworker

has it~e Barrie

. distinction: Tl~e~e were m

any cases both in the &e[ct~vork anc~ i.n

dazly life where .miscon~iprehension was evident. O~'ter~, w

hen a

group oi' people was addressed as_ y

ou (S~ ~luraJ), in~[i~~idua(s

would Look ro~inct ~o see which s3zag[e rr~emb:,r of the group w

as

• ;

being addzesseci.

Instances sue}i

as this

i~ay seem ~malI

in:.,; themselves, but ttie problem is that w

e cannot k

now how often Bach

miscomprehensions go ttnrepaired.

Your dialect users

might be

:, ,~ ~ rather offended by a person w

ho Leaves a coazvez•sational gro~~p with

the comment f'll sne y

ou tomorrow, each o

f them believing that he

:.has addressed

a certain member of the g

roup and deliberately

snubbed the others.T~ez~e is also a (possibl~r apo~ryphai) story about a

Yorkshize car-,

driver who was run over by a

train because he interpreted the word

while to mean untiY (~s it' does in Xorkshire) at a

level crossingwhere

the sign

said `Wait

while the

red ligf~t

dashes'. Such

disastrous consequences are no doubt rare; yet miscomprehez~:sions

that arise fco~n cross-~ialeetal differences can ceriainiy Lead

tobafflement and even resenttnezzt. It is important to recognise Et~at

. they occur, azzd also necessary to recognise that those m

ost likely

to suffer as a z'esult are non-standard speakers. People ire a

ssumed

.. -to

have. full passive competence in the standard, but standard

speakers do not normally learn the differi~~g rules o

f non-standard

varieties. Iv~oreover, such difficulties occur i~ot anIy in ordinaryconversa~ional contact, but also in formal cocztexts such as ciass-rfloms, where amiddle-class teacher's unfaznitiarity with the vern-acuIar usage o

f a pupil could also Iead to misundexstandizzg a

nd

unnecessary dif#'iculty (see TrudgiJ1,~19~5:43 for an exai~nple),

One reason w

hy possible cross-dialectal miscompreh~z~siot~s have

not been much investigated zs that non-stalidard n

orms of usage

have usually been ignored, ar considered careless and ignorant

deviations from.. grammar' when they have been noticed. L

anguage

guardians always consider non-stanctaxd

usage (and sometimes

standard caiIaquiatiszns) to arise front the pervers3t~ of speakers ar

froz~zz cognitive deficiency (an inability to Jearn w

hit is

correct'}. In

26

Prescription and slanda~disatl~n

addition; ~

at Ieast ~o

rie i

nflu

enti

al bra

nch of

ling

uist

ics ha

s te

nded

to

dise

o~tr

age sy

stem

atic

ohs

ecva

tiot

t of ~cttaal usage. In

the 1~60s,

Chomsky azg

ued

agai

nst

~ `corpus

-.ba

sed':

_lin

guis

tics

. As a r

esul

t,much ~af

the gra

mmat

ical

the

oris

ing of the 1

960s

and

3970s va

s`b

ased

on the

midd

le-c

lass

St

anda

rd .En

glis

h of, the

scho

lars

themselves (fo

r a

crit

ique

of

this see Labov, I972b:Z92).

It eva

s.

furt

her assumed

that

differences between d

iale

cts were ~ro

babI

y

only superficial {we 's

haI~

see

iii

Cha

pter

4 that there ar

e at

least

some dia

lect

al differences tha

t ar

e very dee

p-ra

nted

). It s

eems to us

that

those who proposed and

accepted these the

orie

s may them-

. se

lves

have been i

nflu

ence

d by

the

ide

olog

y of standardisaiian,

which

iizc

line

s us

a1i to view a language as a relatively fi

xed,

in-

variant and unchanging entity. Far from adv

ocat

ing th

e teaching of

non-

stan

dard

di

alec

ts . in

seliools (as ~ Honey, 1983;

apparently

believes), the

Chomsl~yan tr

adit

ion

has

been implicitly pro-

stan

dard

and possibly even pre

scri

ptiv

e iri some of its

eff

ects

.

• Although we have referred loo

sely

to St

anda

rd Eng

lish

', the

re

is —its th

e ve

ry str

ict sense in

whi

ch we have so

far

use

d the term

`sta

ndar

disa

tion

' — no suc

h entity as a standard spoken language;

. ev

en so-called St

anda

rd English' can be pe

rcei

ved to incorporate

.var

iabi

lity

.and

cha

nge;

On the phonological le

vel,

for

ins

tanc

e, the

`Rec

eive

d Pronunciation' of Sta

ndar

d En

glis

h appears tc permit

some var

iati

on, e.g. bet

ween

long' and short' /u/ and Ju/

(as in

Rl? food and foo

t) in

forms like room and too

thbr

ush.

Exa

mple

sfrom a

ll levels of lan

guag

e ca

n easily be

mult

ipli

ed: Standardis-

ation, as Swift perceived, pre

vent

s or inhibits change anri va

riat

ion,

and the ic

ieo~

o~y of st

andardisation

is inimical to

change and .vari-

ation. Therefore; a

label li

ke"`

Stan

dard

~Engish' is

a rat

her lo

ose

and pre

-sci

enti

fic label What Sta

ndar

d English ac

tual

ly is th

Uugh

tto

be dep

ends

on acceptance (

mainly by the

most in#

luen

iial

peaple)

• of a common core of li

ngui

stic

convemions, and a good dea

l~of

fu~~

ziness rem

ains

ground the

edg

e's.

The ide

olog

y of sta

ndar

disa

tion

,

wliatevcc me

rits

the

re may be in

it, tends to blin~t us io th

e same-

what ill-defined nat

ure ~f a standard la

ngua

ge;'

and`

may have some

unde

sira

ble co

nseq

uAnc

es in that it leads to a;~

er-s

impl

ifie

d vi

ews of

tlie~nat:rre of Ia

rgua

e,

e~~i

dent

ly f

ield

eve

n by h

ighl

y ed

ucat

ed

spea'ceis. ~

. ' .

'TI;. term ~sf

arir

larc

l~s~

tion

,'wi

li^h

fire have defined s

tric

tly,

i:aa

LF~en us

ed by certain scholkrs (e.g: H~u

gen,

~14~2j ire a seme~vt~at

Loos

er sen

se. It

s chief cha~cacterisfic :`

acco

rdin

g is

our accc~ut~t, is

intolerance of cpfi~nal

varzabilits

iii ia

n~ua

g:i:

1n

the

vii}

~r~ of

.,

athei-s;

thi

s pe

rcep

tion

is at

ti~d

to a number of other stages of 's

tan-

dart

iisa

tion

' t~

Yil~

c9

~517

CAt

Cfl }{?,Va ~"+PP?t_ jnv~Tt.orj in fi~a }+icfnriaa of

Lang

uage

s (on wh

ich

see 2.I fo

r an

acc

ount

of the de

veio

prne

nt~;

of Stazidard E

ngli

sh).

According t

o these

scholars; a

standazd

language is one which ha

s minimal variation of far

m and maximal

variakion of

fun

ctio

n (Leith,

19$3

:32}

. Su

ch ~ d

efinition

is a

suit

ably

rel

ativ

e on

e, but

it is cle

ar tha

t the va

riou

s- st

ages

tha

t ar

eus

uall

y involved in the de

velo

pmen

t of

a standard la

ngua

ge n ay be

desc

ribe

d as tkt

e co

nseq

uenc

e of

a need fo

r un

ifor

mity

tha

t is felt

by inf

luen

tial

portions of

soc

ieky

at a given tam

e. A variety is th

ense

lect

ed as a

standard (co

mpet

ing

vari

etie

s might no dou

bt be

sele

cted

by different parts of the community, yet.only one of them

migh

t become the standard in the long.run); this: v

ariety i

s now

accepted by

infl

uent

ial pe

ople; an

d th

en d

iffused geographically

and

soci

ally

by

varzous me

ans

(aff

icia

t pa

pers

, the

educ

atio

nal

system, th

e wr

itin

g system., discrimination of various kin

ds, bo

thdirect and i

ndir

ect,

against nan-skandard

spea

kers

). Thus some

schotar~s (

Gile

s et

al, 197

4, 197

5; Le~

t}t,

1983) sp

eak of

the

sta

ndar

das an imposed, or superposed,

vari

ety.

Once i

t is

well established

'~ and has

defeated

its ct~mpetitors, th

e standard language must the

zcbe mar

ntai

neci

.` Mai

nten

ance

comes about through carious means.

As a result of ela

bara

tipr

z o,~function, the

sta

ndaz

d is

per

ceiv

ed by

those who a

re s

ocia

lly mobile to be of more v

alue

than

othe

rvarieties fa

r purely uti

lita

rian

end

s. It also acquires pr

esti

ge, as it

is noticed tha

t th

e most successful.peopie use it in wri

ting

and, to

a gre

at e;~tent, in speech, It is als

o z~~aintained thr

ough

the

inculca-

tinn

of literac}~, as the writing sys

tem

is the

n he

ld up as th

e model

o~ correctness' (se

e below). Thus, the

wri

ting

system se

rves

as one

`'of

the

sou

rces

of pre

scri

ptiv

e no•~ms, and pre

scri

ptio

n becomes

more intense aft

er the

language un

derg

oes ca

difi

cati

ort (as in eigh-

teen

th .century England), because speakers th

en have a

cces

s to

dict

iai~

arie

s and g~'atnrtiar-bogks, wh

ich they regard as

authozSties.

Thev tend ko

bel

ieve

that th

e language' is

ens

hrin

ed in £here books

(hot

ivev

er many m

ista

kes

- and om

issi

ons

t~3~re may b~ in them)

-rat

her than in the Iinguzstic'and ca~

i.nl

unic

ativ

e [~mpetence of

the

mitl~azi4 whc~ use the

lan

guag

e ev

ery day.

'I"h

e ac

Couu

: e~

~e have gi

ven of it

~ese stages in

the standardisati~7~t

process

is not

precisely the

same r

y,s that given by

others, and t

}t~:

reader sl7ouid bate tf~at t

hese hypothetical ~t

ag~s

do got

~tecessarily

~'ol

lo~v

.one

ano

ther

in te

mpor

al suc

cess

ion.

Some stages may ove

r-Iap with ethers, and the stage we

-hav

e de

scri

bed .as ~~

iai~

,leM

anc~

28

.~'rescri~,tro~z and standrrr~lxsation

starts quite early iza tae process a

nd theca continues thraug~c~ut. '4~~e

prefer to ~~ans3dez- these st,ag~s as stages o~ irr7~lemerrlczlion o

f tc~e

standard z~ather tiza~ as aspects of standardisation iCseZf. 'Z'h~ f

ro,

cess of st~nd~~r~~iisation (strict~Y d~fi~ed} zs based on the idea c~~'

aiming, by azty ;Weans po~sible, at uniformity. '~'hese additiora~J

stages a~'~ status fi,~~i hive baWxi

Qbserve~I ifl f~t~ow frorrx

theidealog~ off' s~andardisation, vrhieh in

thv ease o~ ~nrlish

vvase;~~ix.cit(y ~s~;ouse~ ley C

aron as Jana a

go as 14911, I.~o~S~ever ~~~s

m<~y b~, the i~t~c~I~~y +~i ~~~ standard ds ~ti1~ ~~ith us, end ~s~P bass

~n in tie next ~I;a~wez~ ~~a c~~ cus~~ c

ome o~ ih~ w

ays in. ~~~aacix 4~:e pro-

c~ss t~~' m~,intaizairi~ ~h~ .~~l~a ~f a st~nci~rd is i~z,~l~rrzente~l at ~h4

~res~z~t r~iay, .

~

LANGUAGE AND POWER

_ ~

of dis

cour

se by soc

ial structures, and the

eff

ects

of di

scou

rse u on

}society through i

ts rep

rodu

ctio

n of

soc

ial structures. Both p

THREE

A

he

edetermination of

discourse and its

effects inv

olve

not

jus

t elements

in the soc

ial situations of discourse, but orders of

dis

cour

se which

` a

are the disco~rsal aspects of so

cial

orders at the

soc

ieta

l and S

- DISCOUYSe aYld pOZUeY

~

octal

institutional le

vels

. Pe

ople

are not generally aware of determi-

~ a

nations and effects at these le

vels

, and CLS is th

eref

ore a ma

tter

of

helping pe

ople

to become conscious of opaque causes and con-

sequ

ence

s of

their own discourse.

~ ~'

This

cha

pter

has lai

d fo

unda

tion

s which

subsequent cha

pter

s. A consequence of se

eing

dis

our et asp

ust

ja

~e purpose of th

is cha

pter

is to explore var

ious

dimensions of

particular form of so

cial

practice is

perhaps tha

t Ia

ngua

ge research

the

relations o~ power and language. I foc

us upon two maj

orought to be more closely in

ti.ine wit

h the rh

aspects of the power/language rel

atio

nshi

p, power in di

scou

rse,

than it has tended to be

. In Chapters 7 and 8 I explore lin

uistic

ythms of social research

and power behind di

scou

rse.

Thi

s picks up a dis

tinc

tion

which was

dime

nsio

ns of soaal changes wi

th a vie

w to dete

g

made in th

e opening pages of Chapter 1.

disc

ours

e has in th

e inception, development and~sol elation of

The sec

tion

on power in di

scou

rse is con

cern

ed wit

h di

scou

rse

social cha

nge.

But more iznrnediately, I need to put more fle

sh u on

as a p

lace where relations of power are

act

uall

y ex

erci

sed and

the relationship between dis

cour

se, power and ide

olo

p

enacted;

I

disc

uss

power in `face-to-face' spoken di

scou

rse,

have sug

gest

ed, is

at the centre of th

e so

cial

ractice o di cou set

Power in

~ {fi

n C~1 oua

in s Coand heeThiddenCl po~,ve

bel of

g he

This is my obj

ecti

ve in Chapters 3 and 4 wh ch focus respective)

~erent e th

e mass media.

on power and on ide

olog

y in

their relationships to di

scou

rse.

y

~scourse of

The sec

tion

- on power behind dis

cour

se shifts the focus to how

REFERENCES

orders of discourse, as dimensions of th

e so

cial

orders of soc

ial

inst

itut

ions

or

soci

etie

s, are themselves shaped and con

stit

uted

For some vie

ws of 'd

iscourse', and how it di

ffer

s from 'te

xt',

see

: by relations of .power, a pro

cess

already ref

erre

d to in Chapter

Stubbs M 1983; Widdowson H 1979: 89-149; and Brown G, Yul

e G

2• The section discusses, as eff

ects

of power: the

dif

fere

ntia

tion

1983. On the

concepts of 'p

ract

ice'

, 're

prod

ucti

on'

of d

iale

cts into `

stan

dard

' and 'no

nsta

ndar

d'; th

e conventions

Alth

usse

r L 197

1. Henriques J et al. 1984 is a us

eful

mo ee

rec

ent

~ as

soci

ated

wi

th a pa

rtic

ular

di

scou

rse

type, th

e di

scou

rse

ofco

mpil

atio

n on the sub

ject

. The lon

gue -pa

role

dis

tinc

tion

is drawn

gyna

ecol

ogic

al examinations;

and constraints

on access to

in de Sau

ssur

e F 196

6, and Culler J 1976 is a lucid commentary on

~scourses within an ord

er of discourse.

Saus

sure

. On the

distinction between '

description',

'ira

te

ret-

The fin

al sec

tion

of th

e ch

apte

r adds a vitally unp

orta

nt proviso

atio

n' and 'explanation'_ se

e Fa

ircl

ough

N 198

5 and CandlinC N

to what precedes it: power, whether it be 'in' or

'be

hind

'1986. Ba

rthe

s R 1972 and 1977 con

tain

interesting ins

ight

s about

discourse, is ne

ver

definitively held by anyone per

son,

or so

cial

visu

al ima

ges:

My int

erpr

etat

ion of

cla

ss and power in contem or

- ~'ouping, be

caus

e power can be won and exe

rcis

ed

min and

ary

Britain draws upon a v

ariety of so

urce

s in

clud

in

p

thro

ugh so

cial

str

uggl

es in which it ma _ also

. be .lost.

nist

Party of Great Bri

tain

197

8; the

months

g' CO~

u-

-~

ATo

day;

Habermas J 198

4; and the

writings of

Marx Eng

elsM

Leni

n,Gramsci and o

thers -see for instance: Marx K, Eng

els F 196

8;Gramsci A 197

1. Foucault uses the

ter

m 'order of discourse' in

POWER IN DISCOURSE

Foucault M 1971, and the Bou

rdie

u qu

otat

ion is

from Bourdieu P

Let us be

gin

the

disc

ussi

on of

power in di

scou

rse

with an

1977

.ex

ampl

e of th

e ex

erci

se of power in a ty

pe of

'face-to-face'

~

LANGUAGE AND POWER

DISCOURSE f~ND POWER

45

disc

ours

e where par

tici

pant

s are une u

al —

an une

qual

encounter Th ojio

wing

is an extr ~t om a vsh t a

prem

atur

e baby u

nit by a d

octor

D and a

stud

ents

(s)

, as

pa

rt o

f the

stud

ents

' ir

aini

n~ou

p of

medical

spaced dot ind

icat

es a short pau

se, a das

h a o ger pau ee ex-

tend

ed squ

are brackets overlap, and par

enth

eses

tal

k which was

not di

stin

guis

habl

e enough to tr

ansc

ribe

.

(1) n: and Iet

's gather round .the fi

rst of the inf

ants

—

jI want you to do is to make a bas

ic . ne

o-natal e am n lion

ust as

Dr Mathews has to do as soon as a baby arrives in

the ward .all ri

ght so you are act

uall

y go

ing to get your

hands on the inf

ant .and loo

k at

the key poi

nts and

demo

nstr

ate them to the group as yo

u're

doi

ng it

wil

l you

do tha

t fo

r me ple

ase .off you go

(2) s:

wel

l fi

rst of

all I'm going to

(3) n:

firs

t .be

fore

you do

that

is do you wash you

r hands isn't it

I .cos you

've ju

stbeen examining another baby (Iong sil

ence

) are

you still in

a are

you in a position to start examining yet

(4) s:

jus

t going to remove this .

~(5) n:

ver

y good .it

's put

ting

it bac

k th

at's

the problem isn't it

eh

(6) s: come back Mum —

(~ n: thaYs right. OK now just.get a

little more room by shi

ftin

gbaby . er up the . th

ing a bit

more that's ve

ry good .we

llnow .off you go and des

crib

e what's going on

fig)

s: we

ll her

e's a young baby boy .who we've decided is .

t~r~' •.thirty sev

en weeks old

now .was bor

n .two weeks

ago . um is fairly act

ive .h

is er ey

es are open .he

's got

hair

on .hi

s head( his

eye

s ar

e open

(9) n:

told

me tha

t __.

Yes

yes you've

a ~ ;-

~'.

,(10) s: um he's

c in

or m

' -`

rY g

akin

g ~ ~

~ ,, ~

, .,y

~ 52 ~.

(11) n:

yeah we we we we've hea

rdth

at now what oth

er examination are you going to make I

mean —

(12)

s: erm we'll see if he'll re

spon

d to

(13)

n: lo

ok at a baby wit

h a head problem yet rd ~d We not

(14) s: ri

ght

(15) n: and might you not make one examination of the head

almost at sq

uare

one .be

fore

you begin .

(16) s: feel for the ( )

(17) D: now what .the nex

t most imp

orta

nt thi

ng .

(18) s:

er

gross mo-

gross motor function

(19) D:

well now you come down to the

mouth

don'

t we.

(20) s: yes

(21) n: now what abo

ut the mouth

Text 3.1 Sou

rce:

'The Boys from Horseferry Ro

ad',

Granada '~ele-

visi

on 198

0 _

One immediately

stri

king

feature, marked by th

e sq

uare

brac

kets

, is the

n, tuber of ti

mes the doctor int

erru

pts th

e st

uden

t

— in (3

)~,~

9~~_

..(1

1).~

13)~

and~

1~. (T

here

are no square brackets in

(13)

, because there

is no act

ual ov

erla

p.) M~ imp

ress

ion

is tha

t

the doctor does not

interrupt sim

ply because he w

ants to do all

the ta

lkin

g, as people somei~mes do. I thi

nk he int

erru

pts in ord

er__._._

to con

trol

the contributions of th

e student — to stop him beginning

the ex

amin

atio

n be

fore

washing his

hands, to

stop him repeating

info

rmat

ion

or gi

ving

ob

viou

s and ir

rele

vant

information,

to

ensure the

student giv

es the key inf

orma

tion

exp

ecte

d.

In what other ways does the

doc

tor exercise con

trol

over th

e students

cont

ribu

tion

s?

Firs

tly,

in th

e opening tut

u, where the

nature of what is

going to go on

in the

interaction is announced to th

e students —including th

e nature

of their own contributions. Se

cond

ly, in

the

way in which the

student

is exp

lici

tly told when to st

art talking and examining, at the

end of

turn (1) (off

you go)

and again in (7

). Thi

rdly

, in

the

equally exp

lici

t

instructions to th

e st

uden

t as

to how he should se

quen

ce his

act

ions

,

in (3

). Fou

rthl

y, in th

e way in which the

stu

dent

's contributions are

evaluated in

(5) (very good) and (7) (that's ri

ght)

; positive and

encouraging as

they ar

e, the

se are

still tec

hniq

ues of control which

would be regarded as

presumptious or arrogant if

they were add

ress

ed

to an equ

al or someone more pow

erfu

l.

`*

The fifth and fin

al point is th

at the .s

tude

nt is 'pu

t on the

spot' in

.

the se

ries

of questions of tur

ns (13

), (1

5)~ (1~ and'(19).-The que

s#ia

ris

..

_

cons

titu

te a strategically ordered sequence which leads the

stu

dent

thro

ugh th

e routine he has failed to ri as

ter.

Als

o, the student's

46

LANGUAGE AND POWER

obligation to answer is

und

ersc

ored

in each case by

a pause (marked

by a spaced dot) —b

rief si

lenc

es in which

all e

yes ar

e on him, an

dwhich it is

def

init

ely hi

s responsibility to end!

Noti

ce too the

grammatical for

ms in which th

ese qu

esti

ons are pu

t.(1

3) and

(15

) are

neg

ativ

e que

stio

ns —did we

not

, mi

ght we

not

. Us

ing

negative questions is

som

etim

es (d

epen

ding

on intonation an

d ot

her

fact

ors)

like saying 'I

assume th

at X is

the

case, but

you

seem to

be

sugg

esti

ng it

isn't; surely it is

?'. In th

is case, the

stu

dent

ought to

know tha

t X is

the

case, so as

king

him questions of th

is elaborate sort

is a way of making him took si

lly.

The power relationship is

more

baldly exp

ress

ed in (17), where th

e reduced qu

esti

on for

ms (r

educ

ed,

that

is, fro

m no

w what do we do? what is the nex

t most imp

orta

nt thi

ng?)

soun

d to

me abr

upt and curt. Finally, in

(19

) the

doc

tor us

es a

decl

arat

ive s

ente

nce rather tha

n an int

erro

gati

ve sen

tenc

e, with a qu

esti

ontag; do

n't we

. The ef

fect

is rat

her Ii

ke tha

t of the

negative qu

esti

ons.

On the bas

is of examples of this sor

t, we can say tha

t power

1 ~l!~'

in d

isco

urse

is to do w

ith

owerfuI

cons

trai

nin

the contributions o

non-

ower ~I

ar

ta~ tan

ts~ I

t is

u~~

' ~

to dis

ting

uish

bro

adly

between' th

ree

~1

;~

constraints on:

—__.

..__

~'1~

es of such con

stra

ints

-

~``

•contents, on what is said

or done;

• re

lat~ io

ns,_

the so

cial

relations people en

ter into in di

scou

rse;

~ •sub"ects, or th

e 'subject pos

itio

ns' people can occupy.

Rela

tion

s' and 'subjects' are very closely connected, and all three

over

lap and co-

occu

r in

pra

ctic

e, but it is

hel

pful

to be abl

e to

disfanguish them. Our example illustrates

all

three

i~,p

e S o~

cons

trai

nt. In terms of

co

nten

ts,

the

student

is required to

conduct an examination according to a le

arne

d ro

ufin

e, opexating

(rel

atio

ns) in

a p

rofe

ssio

nal relationship t

o hi

s au

dien

ce and a

subordinate relationship to th

e doctor, and occupying (su

bjec

ts)

the su

bjec

t positions of

(aspirant) doc

tor as well as student. These

cons

trai

nts imply particular li

ngui

stic

for

ms,

But some of these constraints on the

stu

dent

do not appear to

involve any dir

ect co

ntro

l being ex

erci

sed by the

doc

tor.

Not

ice

for instance tha

t ail the

directive speech acts (o

rder

s and questions)

[~ r

in the

example come from the

doc

tor:

it appears tha

t th

e do

ctor

~ has t

he ri

ght

to wive_orders and as

k ue

srio

ns whereas t

hej students have only the

._ob

li

rion o com

b--~

1 ~---

~-_

~ -_-

---_

___ ~y and answer n

~ ac

cord

ance

wit

h the su

bord

inat

e relation o_,

s ,u enf to doctor. Yet

__..

'~ the doctor is ,

not directly con

trol

I~ng

the

stu

dent

in

this

res

pect

.

DISCOURSE AND POWER

47

Rath

er,

the

constraints

derive from th

e co

nven

tion

s of th

e

disc

ours

e ty

pe which is

beingdrawn upon. _However, i

n_ an

indi

rect

sense,

the doctor

is in control, for

it is

the

prerogative of

powe

-----rfu~-participants to de

term

ine which. disc

ours

e types) may

be legitimately

drawn upon.

Thus in ad

diti

on to directly

constrainingcontributions, ~owerful_parti~ants_ can i

ncli

rect

l

constrain

them_,

sele

ctin

th

e di

scou

rse ty

ke. Notice tha

t th

e

latter

type

of co

nstraint is al

so a form of

self-constra

int: onc e ~

discourse~e has been set

tled

unpon, its

_con

yent

ions

apply to

all

parh'cipants, includin_g the.powerful_ones. However, tha

t is

some-

thing of

a sim

plif

icat

ion,

bec

ause

more powerful participants may

be abl

e to tre

at conventions in a more cavalier way, as we

ll as to

allo

w or

disallow

varying degrees of

lat

itud

e to l

ess powerful

participants.

Ther

e are obvious similarities between the

text in the

example above

and th

e po

lice

interview text di

scus

sed in Chapter 2 (p. 18) in ter

ms of

the unequal po

wer re

lati

onsh

ips be

twee

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts. Compare the

two text

s, and see wha

t co

nclu

sion

s you can come up wi

th on

simi

lari

ties

and

dif

fere

nces

in th

e ways in

which pol

ice in

terv

iewe

rs

'han

dle'

witn

esse

s and do

ctor

s 'ha

ndle

' me

dica

l st

uden

ts.

--- --

V`Power in cross-cultural encourite~s

In the example we have been loo

king

at, I thu

ilc it is safe to assume

that

the stu

dent

s are ab

le to operate within the

constraints on

legi

timate dis

cour

se typ

e imposed by the doctor. But what about

unequal enc

ount

ers where the

non-powe

rful

peo

ple have cultura

l ~

and lin

guis

tic backgrounds airrerent nom tnv

se u~ u~C_ u~ W ~~l

u.

peop

le? Th

is is common for ins

tanc

e in 'gatekeeping encounters'

- encounters such as a job

int

ervi

ew in which a 'ga

teke

eper

' who

gene

rall

y be

long

s to the

soc

ieta

lly dominant cul

tura

l grouping

controls an enc

ount

er which det

ermi

nes whether someone gets a

job, or gets access to

some other val

ued objective. In contempor-

ary Britain, fo

r example, it

is mai

nly white mi

ddle

-cla

ss peo

ple who

act as gat

ekee

pers

in ga

teke

epin

g encounters wit

h members of th

e

vari

ous et

hnic

(and c

ultu

ral)

, mi

nori

ties

of As

ian,

West Ind

ian,

Afri

can,

etc., ori

gin.

Disc

ours

e ty

pes and orders of discourse vary ac

ross

cultures. But

in-.suc

h ga

teke

epin

g en

coun

ters

, white middle-class gat

ekee

pers

are

likely to constrain th

e discourse types which can

be drawn upon to

those of the

dominant cultural gr

oupi

ng. Se

nsit

ivit

y to c

ultu

ral

48

LANGUAGE AND POTNER

DISCOURSE AND POWER

49

differ

ence

s is

growing in some cas

es, bu

f sl

owly

. Interviewers tend

~ outcome of in

divi

dual

interviews where people are de

nied

jobs or

to assume, for ihl

stan

ce, th

at int

ervi

ewee

s are familiar wit

h dorm-

other 'goods' partly on the bas

is of cu

ltur

al differences. But such

nant ways of co

nduc

ting

int

ervi

ews.

And int

ervi

ewee

s' con

tri-

~

outcomes axe

more reg

ular

and more systematic than tha

t would

buttons are conespondinglyinterpreted on the ass

umpt

ion that the

y imply, and they would appear to be based upon not only cu

ltur

alare

capable of

working aut what is re

quir

ed, and ca

pabl

e of

diff

eren

ces in discourse but also upon more ove

rt differences in sk

in

~ro

vidi

ng i

t, in terms of th

ese dominant conventions: So i

f an

colo

ur and l

ifestyle. Power in

disc

ours

e between members o

f

terviewee gi

ves what is felt to be a poor or weak ar irrelevant

diff

eren

t cu

ltur

al groings is in this pe~ective an ele

ment

in th

e

answer to a quesfion, thi

s is likely to be put down to her la

ck of the

domination of~

~art

icul

arly

, bl

ack_

and As

ian.

.min

orit

ies by_the_white

requ

isit

e knowledge or ex

peri

ence

, he

r uncooperativeness, and so

majori

and of institufionalized racism.

fort

h; the possibility of miscommunication because of dif

fere

nces

r

in dis

cour

sal conventions rarely sug

gest

s itself. Pe

ople

may thu

s be

Hidden power

deni

ed job

s and other valuable social goods' thr

ough

msconcep-

tion

s based upon cultural insensit

ivity and doininance~

The examples so far have been of face-to-face dis

cour

se, but a not

The pos

sibi

liti

es for miscommunication ar

e am

ple.

.For

ins

tanc

e,

~~ inconsiderable p

ropo

rtio

n of dis

cour

se in contemporary society

the fo

llow

ing sn

ippe

t is

from a sim

ulat

ed job int

ervi

ew for

a post

actually inv

olve

s participants who are

separated in pl

ace and tim

e.in

a library wit

h a member of an American cul

tura

l mi

nori

ty (C2):

This

is true of written language gen

eral

ly, but the

growth are

a for

this sort of dis

cour

se has been the

mass media —television, ra

dio,

Inte

rvie

wer:

What about the library interests you most?

film as we

ll as newspapers. Mass-media dis

cour

se is interesting

C2:

What about the library in terms of

the

boo

ks? or

the

because th

e nature of the mower relations enacted u1 it is

often not

g

__._

_ _..

_~

__whole bui

ldin

?

~, clear, and the

re are

reasons for

see

ing it as in

volv

utg hidden relations

_._.__

.._ . _

. _

_ _ __

._ ..~

,v..

_-- .

._ _ ._

-~--

Inte

rvie

wer:

Any point tha

t yo

u'd like to ...

~ of_power.

C2:

Oh, th

e children's books, because I have a chi

ld, and

T'he

most obv

ious

difference between face-to-face di

scou

rse and

the ch

ildr

en ...you know the

re's

so many you

media dis

cour

se is th

e 'one-sidedness' of

the

lat

ter.

In face-to-face

know books for

them to re

ad you know;

and little

~; in

tera

ction, participants alternate between bei

ng the pro

duce

rs and

thin

gs tha

t would ixt

tere

st them would int

eres

t me

ri th

e interpreters of te

xt, but in media dis

cour

se, as wel

l as gen

er-

toa

~ ally in

writ

ing,

the

re _is

a sham divide between producers and

~ interpreters — or, sin

ce the

media pr

oduc

t' tak

es on some of the

Text

3.2

Sou

rce:

Aki

nass

o F N, Aj

irotutu C S 19$2:124

nature of a commodity, between producers and 'co

nsum

ers'

.

~ I

There is an

othe

r im

port

ant difference. In face-to-face di

scou

rse,

Noti

ce tha

t C2's English in terms of grammar and vocabulary is

~

producers de

sign

their con

trib

utio

ns for the

par

ticu

lar people they

r native

-lik

e, which in it

self

is l

ikel

y to

-lead th

e interaiewer to dis

miss

i

are interacting wi

th —they adapt the

language they us

e, and keep

any thoughts of

cul

tura

lly based miscommunication even if those

` adapting throughout an enc

ount

er in the light of

var

ious

sor

ts of

thoughts occurred. But tha

t is

a pos

sibi

li€y

. C2 has failed to inter-

~ 'feedback' they ge

t from co-

participants. But media dis

cour

se is

pret

the int

ervi

ewer

's question in th

e obvious way' — as an inv

i-

desi

gned

for mass audiences, and the

re is no wav tha

t pr

oduc

ers_

tation to C2 to

show what she could do in he

r professional work in

can even know who is in the

aud

ienc

e, le

t al

one ad

apt to its div

erse

j th

e li

brar

y if appointed to th

e post. But th

e obvious way' is

the

way

sect

ions

..An

d si

nce

all discourse pr

oduc

ers mu p duce wit

h so

me`'

within a spe

cifi

c cu

ltur

e of the interview', and the

re is no inh

eren

t in

t p rs

in mind, what media producers do is ad

dres

s an ideal

reas

on why peo

ple should not

show how their work int

eres

ts rel

ate

~ su

bjec

t, be it vi

ewer

, or

listener, or reader. Media discourse has built

to the

ir family and oth

er int

eres

ts in response to a que

stio

n of this

into it a sub

ject

pos

itio

n fo

r an ide

al subject, and actual vi

ewer

s or

sort

. listeners or

readers have to ne

goti

ate a relationship wi

th the

ideal

It may be j

ustifiable to

inte

rpre

t as 'mi

scom

muni

cati

on' th

e subject.

'~.

.-

50 a

LANGUAGE AND'POWER

Sut what is the na

ture

of the power relations in media dis

cour

se?

We can say tha

t producers exercise power ave

r consumers in that

they have sol

e producing rig

hts and can the

refo

re det

ermi

ne what

is included and excluded, how eve

nts ar

e re

pres

ente

d, and (as we

have seen) even fhe sub

ject

pos

itio

ns of th

eir audiences. But who

precisely ar

e these 'p

rodu

cers

`? Let

us tak

e a speaf c example to tr

yto

answer this. Text 33 is

an art

icle

from my loc

al newspaper.

Quar

ryload=

shed

ding

prob~esn

UN3HEETED lorries

from Middlebarrow ~-

Quarry were stl11 can

s-1ng. problems by shed-

ding stones on th

eir

journey through Warton

vill

age,

members of the

pac~

(sh councfl`heard.ai

their September

meeting.

The cou

acll

's obe

erva

-ttona have been sent to

the quarry management

and members are hop-

i n g t o s e e a n

Sruprovement.

Text

3.3

Sou

rce.

Lan

cast

er Guardian, 12 September 1986

Who is ac

tual

ly exercising power in this little ar

ticl

e? Perhaps it

is the

journalist who wrote the

pie

ce. But it is

weII-known tha

tjournalists work under edi

tori

al control..So perhaps it is

the editor,

or rat

her more neb

ulou

sly th

e newspaper its

elf,

as a sor

t of

insti-

tutional collective. But is th

e representation of th

e pa

rish

cou

ncil

meeting only th

e newspaper s, or

is not the

newspaper perhaps

transmitting someone els

e's re

pres

enta

tion

? And if so

, does that not

give

a cer

tain

amount of power to th

at 'someone els

e'? ,

Let us gen

eral

ize from this example, but keep the

rep

orti

ng of

news par

ticu

larl

y in

mind. It is rat

her obvious tha

t th

e people and

organizations th

at the media use as sources in

news reporting do not

represent eq

uall

y all so

cial

groupings in th

e po

pula

tion

: Govern-

ment min

iste

rs figure

far more than unemployed people, and

industrial managers or trade union officials figure far more than

shop

floo

r workers. While the unequal influence of social group-

DISCOURSE AND POWER

51

ings

may be r

elatively

clear in terms of who get

s to be int

er-

viewed, for

example, i

t is less clear but ne

vert

hele

ss hi

ghly

significant in

teems of whose perspective is adopted in re

port

s. If,

for

inst

ance

, in

dust

rial

dis

pute

s ar

e systematically ref

erre

d to as

trou

ble

or di

srup

tion

, th

at is

systematically bu

ildi

ng th

e em

ploy

er's

perspectiv

e in

to industrial news coverage.

In the British media, the bal

ance

of so

urce

s and perspectives and

ideol~

. is ~o

verw

helm

in~l

~y in favour of existin~gapo~ve~ hold

ers.

_Where this is

the

case —and it sometimes is not the

cas

e — we can

see media power rel

atio

ns as re

lati

ons of

a mediated (NB media-ted!)

sort

between power -holders and the mass of the population. These

mediated relations of power inc

lude

the most fundamental relation,

the

class re

lati

on; on bal

ance

aga

in, though with all sor

ts of pro-

visos and limitations, the

media operate

as a means for

the

expr

essi

on and reproduction of

the power of the dominant cla

ss and

bloc. And the

mediated power of existin.~: po, ~. h ~~osis~lso a

F~

`.~

of the

media

rath

er than bei

ng e~t.~

Let u~-

s mal

ts tT~e case more concretely, though, in re

spec

t of

the

example above. What I want to focus upon is

causality: who is

represented as causing what to happen, who is re

pres

ente

d as

doing what to whom. The grammatical form in which the

head-

line is

cast i

s th

at of

nominalization (se

e p. 1

24): a pr

oces

s is

expressed as

a noun, as

if i

t were an entity. One effect of

thi

sgr

amma

tica

l form i

s th

at crucial aspects of th

e process ar

eTe~

f'we don't know w~io or what is

ding loads or causing loads to be shed —ca

usal

ity is

uns

p~ ec ~'3`

The first paragraph of th

e re

port

makes things clearer, but not

much. C~usali _ is atfiributed to unsheeted lorries from Mid

dleb

arro

wQu

arry

. Th

is its

elf contains uns

peci

fied

causality aga

in, fo

r unsheeted

implies th

e fa

ilur

e of

a pro

cess

to happen —someone did

not put

shee

ts over the

loads, when (one assumes) they ought to have

done. It is

dif

ficu

lt to ta

ke literally the not

ion that the lor

ries

are

the

camas? o f fb.~problemh and _ it. is evi

dent

that. in a dif

fere

nt ~ep

re~

sentation

it cou

ld be 'this 'someone' —presumably the

qu

arry

management or people under their control. Yet the

qua

rry manage-

ment fig

ure only in th

e second paragraph in this representation as

in rec

eipt

of th

e council's observations, a tezm which aga

in avoids

attributing any res

pons

ibil

ity (i

t might have been complaints).

The report (and maybe the meeting it reports, though one cannot

be sur

e) seems gea

red to.representing what mig

ht have come across,

C ,~

C ~/

'~ ;~

52

LANGUAGE AND P~JWER

from a quite dif

fere

nt per

spec

tive

, as

the

ant

isoc

ial consequences

of unscrupulous- cor

ner-cu

ttin

g on the part of

the

qua

rry owners,

in a way that pr

esen

ts the con

sequ

ence

s without th

e causes, or

the

resp

onsi

bili

ties

. The

-power bei

ng exercised here

is the power to

disg

uise

power, i.e

. to

disguise the power of qu

arry

owners and

their ilk to

behave ant

isoc

iall

y with impunity. It is

a form of th

e

power to co

nstr

ain content: to favour certain int

erpr

etat

ions

and

'wordings' of events, while ex

clud

ing _o

ther

s (such as th

e alterna-

five

wording I have jus

t given)..It is

a forte of hidden power, fo

r the

favoured int

erpr

etat

ions

and wordings axe

tho

se of th

e power-

holders in

our soc

iety

, though tT~ey appear to be jus

t those of the

newspaper.

Let us tak

e another and rat

her clifferent'example. The extract in

Text 3.4

is taken from the

beginning af'

a front-page newspaper

arti

cle during the

Falklands war.

How is Jenny Kee

ble represented here? What pic

ture

of army officers'

wive

s do you get from this ex

trac

t? What impression of Major Kee

ble

do you get from the

pho

togr

aph?

Do you find yourself having to

negotiate wi

th an ideal subject position built i

nto th

e text by

its

producer? What is th

at pos

itio

n?

What is

at is

sue in

the

rep

rese

ntat

ion of jenny Kee

ble is

ano

ther

form

of constraint on contents: such re

rese

ntat

ions

cumulatively

ster

eoty

pe 'army wives' and more generally the

wiv

es o fav

oure

dpublic figures, and so con

stra

in the

meanings people attach to them.

The process is pr

ofou

ndly

sex

ist:

it works by attaching to Jenny Kee

ble

attributes which are

alr

eady

con

vent

iona

lly de

fine

rs of '

a good wif

e'.

Noti

ce that at

no poi

nt her

e (or in

the

rest of the

arti~

lc. e)

is envy

Keeb

le explicitly said to be 'a good wif

e', or

an adm

irab

le per

son;

the

process depends entirely on an id

eal reader's' ca

paci

ty to in

fer th

at

from the

lis

t of attributes —she exp

ress

es con

fidE

nce in

her husband's

professional abilities, she is concerned for hi

s safety, she 'p

rays

' he has

'done enough', she tri

es to

main

tain

an air

of normality for th

echildren's sak

e'. But this indicates that what is

bei

ng con

stra

ined

is not

only con

tent

s but als

o subjects. th

e pxocess presupposes an ideal

reader who wil

l indeed make the

'right' in

ference from the lis

t, i.

e.

have the

ri

ght'

ide

as about what a 'good wife' is

. Te

xts such as this

thus

reproduce sexists, pr

ovid

ed that readers genexally fall int

o the

subject position of th

e ideal reader, ra

ther

tha

n opposing it

.Not all photographs are

equal: any photograph giv

es one image of a

scene or a person from among the

many pos

sibl

e im

ages

. The choice is

very

imp

orta

nt, because different images convey different meanings.

DISCOURSE AND POWER

53

Ii

I!

1 1

~ '

'B'HE wife of the new CO of the 2nd

Parachute Battalion spoke Iast night

of her tears for her husband's safety.

As she played

in the aunahine with

her four ch

ildr

en, Jenny Keebie sa

idshe hoped her husband would not have

to go into

batt

le again.

She sai

d: "1

pray he and hi

a men

have done enough. But i

f they do go

on d

know that he is a man who will do

his job to the be

at of

hia

abil

ity and t

am ce

rtai

n he and the 2nd Parachute

Battalion

will

succeed.

Major Christopher Keeble, a 40-year-

oid devout Roman Cat

holi

c, is to succeed

Colonel Herbert Jones who died le

adin

ghis mert against an Argentine machine-

~un po

et in the battle for Goose Green.

Yesterday Jenny Kee

ble'

s family and

friends gathered around in the garden

of her old

vicarage home—a rambling

Tudor bui

ldin

g at Maddington on Sal

ie-

bury Plain—for a pi

cnic

afternoon as

she tried to maintain an air of nor

mili

tyfor the children's sake•

M¢~er Seeble .. ,will Lead

the pars into battle

Text

3.4

Sou

rce:

Dai

ly Mai

l, 1 June 1982

In this ex

ampl

e, fo

r in

stan

ce, I

fin

d my attention drawn par

ticu

larl

y by

the Major's ey

es; he is looking st

raig

ht ahead, looking th

e re

ader

in th

efa

ce, so to speak, ra

ther

app

rais

ingl

y, with a serious exp

ress

ion

miti

gate

d by a hin

t of a smi

le at th

e corners of

his mouth (p

ossi

bly a

cyni

cal one). Notice the

ambiguous function of the

caption: do

es it

register for us what the

picture 'says', or do

es it

lead us to '

read

' the

pict

ure in tha

t way? Be that as

it may, th

e ph

otog

raph

in it

s ve

rbal

matrix shows me tha

t Major Keeble is all I

would expect a lea

der of an

elit

e mi

lita

ry uni

t to be.

54

LANGUAGE AND POV~ER

Look at some further examples of the way in which images and vuo

rds

interact in the press, on tel

evis

ion;

on hoardings,. and so for

th. Can you

spot particulartechr~iques for giv

ing pa

rtic

ular

imp

ress

ions

of people?

The hidden power of media discourse. and

: theca

paci

ty of th

ecapitalist class a

nd..

. oE

her power-ho

lder

s to e

xercise

this

power

depend on sys

tema

tic tendencies in news rep

orti

ng and o

ther

media act

ivit

ies.

A single text on its own is qu

ite insignificant: the

effe

cts of

media power are cumula#ve working through th

erepetition of

particular ways of ha

ndli

ng cau

sali

ty and age

ncy,

particular ways o

f po

siti

onin

g th

e re

ader

, and so f

orth. Thus

through .

the way it po

siti

ons

readers, for

instance,

media

disc

ours

e is

abl

e to .ex

erci

se a per

vasi

ve and powerful in

flue

nce

in .social reproduction be

caus

e of

the

ver

y scale of

the

modern

mass media and the extreme

ly high level of

exp

osur

e of

whole

populations to a rel

ativ

ely homogeneous out

put.

But cau

tion

is

necessary: peo

ple do neg

otia

te their relationship to ideal sub

ject

s,and this can mean keeping them at ar

m's le

ngth

or even engaging

in out

righ

t struggle against them. The power of th

e media does

not mechanically fo

llow

from their mere existence.

Is the hidden power of the media manipulative? It is difficult to

give a categorical answer to this question: sometimes and in some

ways it is

, sometimes and in some ways it isn't. We can perhaps

approach the problem by asking fr

om whom exa

ctly

the

power of

media dis

cour

se is hidden: is

it just audiences, or

is

it not also

at least to some degree media wor

kers

? There are

of co

urse

cases

where media output is co

nsci

ousl

y manipulated in

the

interests

of the capitalist cl

ass — a case which is of

ten re

ferr

ed to is

tha

t of

BBC Radio during the

Britis

h Ge

nera

l Strike in 19

26, when the

BBC openly sup

port

ed the Government in a context where the

clas

s is

sues

were cle

ar to its Di

rect

or-G

ener

al, Lord Reith. But for

many media workers, the

prac

tice

s of

pro

duct

ion which can be

inte

rpre

ted as fac

ilit

atin

g the exercise of media power by_~ower-

holders, are pe

rcei

ved as p

rofessional

practices with th

eir own

internal sta

ndar

ds of excellence and the

ir own rat

iona

liza

tion

s in

terms of the constraint of th

e te

chni

cal media themselves, what

the

publ

ic want, and other

factors. Indeed, the

pr

ofes

sion

albe

liefs and assumptions of media wo

rker

s are

impo

rtan

t in

keep

ing the power of media dis

cour

se hidden from the

mass of

the po

pula

tion

.Power is also sometimes hidden in face-to-face dis

cour

se. For

DISCOURSE AND POWER

55~~

instance, th

ere

is obv

ious

ly a clo

se con

nect

ion between requests

and power, in th

at the

right to request someone to do something

ofte

n de

rive

s from having power. But the

re are many grammati-

cally

different forms av

aila

ble

for making requests. Some a

redi

rect

and mazk the power relationship explicitly, wh

ile others are

indirect and l

eave

it more o

r less i

mplicit. D

irect requests a

retypically ex

pres

sed

grammatically in imp

erat

ive sentences: type

this let

ter f

or me by 5 o'c

lock

, for in

stan

ce. In

dire

ct requests can be

more or less ind

irec

t, and they are typically ex

pres

sed grammati-

cally in questions of various degrees of

elaborateness and corre-

sponding ind

irec

tnes

s: can you

type this let

ter f

or me by 5 o'clock, do

you th

ink yo

u co

uld type thi

s le

tter

for

me by 5 o'clock, co

uld I possibly

ask yo

u to

typ

e th

is l

ette

r fo

r me by 5 o'c

lock

. ,There ar

e al

so other

ways of indirectly requesting —through hin

ts, fo

r instance: I wou

ldlike to have the let

ter in the 5 o'c

lock

pos

t.Why would a bus

ines

s ex

ecut

ive (l

et us say) choose an indirect

form to re

ques

t he

r se

cret

ary to typ

e a letter? It could be

, particu-

larly if a hin

t or

one of th

e more elaborate que

stio

ns is used, for

mani

pula

tive

reasons: i

f the

boss

has been pr

essu

rizi

ng th

ese

cret

ary hard a

ll day, such a form of re

ques

t might head o

ffresentment or even ref

usal

. But less elaborate forms of in

dire

ctre

ques

t (c

an y

ou/will you/could yo

u type

_ ..) are

con

vent

iona

lly

used in th

e so

rt of si

tuat

ion I have described, so the

que

stio

nbecomes why business executives and other

power -ho

lder

ssystematically avoid too much overt marking of th

eir power. Thi

sle

ads us to the re

lati

onsh

ip of hidden power and soc

ial struggle,

whic` his dis

cuss

ed in th

e final -

section of

thi

s ch

apte

r.The examples I have given in this section~are

fof hidden power.

being

exer

cise

d wi

thin

di

scou

rse.

But what I have called th

e'power behind di

scou

rse'

is al

so a hidden power, in

that

the

shaping of

orders of

di

scou

rse by relations

of power is

not

generally apparent to people. Th

is is an appropriate poi

nt, then,

to move behind dis

cour

se.

POWER BEHIND DISCOURSE

The idea

of 'power behind d

iscourse' is t

hat th

e whole s

ocia

l_order of discours~ut together and hel

d together as a hidden

effe

ct of power. In this section I begin wit

h ju

st one dimension of

this

-standardization, the

pro

cess

which I have already ref

erre

d to

56

LANGUAGE AND POWER

in Chapter 2, whereby a particular so

cail

dialect comes to be ele-

vated in

to what is often called a sta

ndar

d or

even 'na

tion

al' lan-

guage. Iwill foc

us upon sta

ndar

d British English.

Standard language

I suggested in

Chapter 2 tha

t we ought to se

e standardization as

a par

t of

a much wider pro

cess

of ec

onom

ic,~

oh"t

ical

and cul

tura

lun

ific

atio

n, which was tie

d in with th

e emergence of capitalism

out of fe

udal

society in Britain. There is an economic basis for

this

conn

ecti

on between c

apit

alis

m and unification: the

need for a

unified home market if

commodity pro

duct

ion is

to be ful

ly estab-

lished. Th

is in

turn r

equi

res

political and cultural u

nification.

Standardization

is of

dire

ct economic imp

orta

nce in

improving

communication: most people in

volv

ed in economic activity come

to u

nderstand

the

standard, even i

f they d

on't alw

ays us

e it

productively. It is also of great

political and cul

tura

l im

port

ance

in the

est

abli

shme

nt of na

tion

hood

, and the

nation-state

is the

favo

ured

form of capitalism.

The soc

ial di

alec

t which dev

elop

ed into standard Eng

lish

was

the

East

Midland di

alec

t as

soci

ated

wi

th th

e merchant. cl

ass

in London at the end of the me

diev

al period. Thi

s underlines the

link to

capitalism, for these fe

udal

merchants became the

fir

stca

pita

list

s, and the

rise

of

sta

ndar

d En

glis

h is

linked

to th

egrowing power of the

merchants. The beg

inni

ngs of

sta

ndar

dEnglish were very modest in comparison wit

h its pr

e-em

inen

cenow: the emergent sta

ndar

d form was used in ve

ry few p

laces

for

very few purposes by ve

ry few pe

ople

. Standardization

init

iall

y affected wr

itte

n la

ngua

ge, and has only gradually

extended to various as

pect

s of

spe

ech —grammar, vocabulary and

even pro

nunc

iati

on.

We can think of its growth as a long pro

cess

of colonization,

whereby it gradually 't

ook ov

er' ma

jor so

cial

institutions, pushing

out Latin and Fre

nch,

vastly extending th

e purposes it was used

for and its for

mal resources as a res

ult,

and coming to be accepted

(if not always wid

ely used) by more and more peo

ple.

By coming

to be associated wi

th the most salient and pow

erfu

l in

stit

utio

ns— li

tera

ture

, Government and ad

mini

stra

tion

, law, re

ligi

on,

educ

atio

n, et

c. —standard En

glis

h bean to emerge as th

ela

n ua ~e of political and cul

tur

dower, and as th

e language of

the

poli

tica

lly and cul

tura

lly powerful. It

s su

cces

sful

colonization

DISCOURSE AND POWER

57

of these ins

titu

tion

s cannot be sep

arat

ed from the

ir mod

erni

zati

onin the

period of

transition from feu

dali

sm to ca

pita

lism

, or

from

the growing power wit

hin them of th

e emergent 'middle c

lass'

(bourgeoisie).

Standard English devel~ed not only at the

expense of Latin

and Frenc

h, but als

o at the ex

ense of other 'n

on-s

tand

ard'

soc

ial

dial

ects

(and th

e expense of

the

other la

ngua

ges o~x

Brit

a n ~—

Welsh and Gaelic, and especia

lly since th

e Second World War

many others, includin~a number of As

ian la

n ales). Standard

Engl

ish was reg

arde

d as correct English, and oth

er soc

ial dialects

were s

tigm

atiz

ed not onl~in terms of

correctness but als

o in

_terms which ind

irec

tly re

flec

ted on the

lifestyles, mor

alit

y and so

fort

h of

the

irs

Bake

rs, th

e emergent working cla

ss of

capi

tali

stsociety: they were v

ulgar, slo

venl

y, low, ba

rbar

ous,

and so for

th.

The establishment of th

e dominance of st

anda

rd Eng

lish

and the

subo

rdin

atio

n of

oth

er soc

ial di

alec

ts was part and parcel of the

esta

blis

hmen

t of

the

dominance of th

e capitalist c

lass

and t

hesu

bord

inat

ion of

the

working las

s.The codification of

the

st

anda

rd was a cr

ucia

l part of

th

isprocess, which went hand -

in-hand wi

th p

resc

ript

ion,

__th

e desig-

._na

tion

of th

e forms of th

e st

anda

rd as th

e only . 'correct' , one

s.Co

difi

cati

on is

aimed at attaining

minimal va

ria tio

n in form_

—.

_ _ _._

thro

u gh setting down the

prescribed language code in a wr

itte

nform — in grammars, dictionaries,

pronouncing dictionaries,

spel

ling

books. The hig

hpoi

nt of co

difi

cati

on was the

second hal

fof

the

eig

htee

nth ce

ntur

y, and much of th

e re

ader

ship

for the

vast

numbers of grammar books and

dictionaries which were

produced at th

e be

ginn

ing of the

industrial revolution came from

the in

dustrialists and the

ir fam

ilie

s.There is an ele

menf

i of

schizophrenia about sta

ndar

d English,

in the

sense tha

t it asp

ires

to b e (and is,

certainly_,portrayed as)

a n

ational language belonging_to

all,

classes and s

ections of

the

soci

e ,and

et remains in man M

res

Bets a class

dialect The

power of its claims as a nat

iona

l language even over th

ose whose

use of

it is limited is apparent in th

e wi

desp

read

sel

f -depreciation

of working-class people who say they do not speak English, or

do not speak 'proper' En

glis

h. On the

other hand, it is a cla

ssdialect not only in the

sense tha

t its dominance is associated, with

capi

tali

st c

lass i

nter

ests

in

the way I

have outlined,

~Zut_also

because

it is th

e dominant blo

c tha,~.,~~es ~ag

osk.

~ase

~f_i

t~ and.

_gains_most_from

it as an ass

et — as a form of 'c

ultu

ral ca

pita

l' ana

l-

j58

LANGUAGE AND POWER

ogous to capital in

the economic sense, as

. Pie

rre Bourdieu has but

it.Standard English is an asset because its use is a passport to

''~od~obs and positions of influence and power in national and

loca

l communities_ This a

ppiie's'naturaIly enough to s

tandard

English as a written form, but als

o to standard spoken English

including the use of forms of Received Pronunciation (RI') —the type

~of pronunciation

which most politicians, t

elevision and radio

're

port

ers,

university teachers, senior industrial managers, senior

civi

l servants use, which is pr

ecis

ely my poi

nt!

As I have suggested

at one or two points above, p

eople

generally may acknowledge the

dominance of

th

e standard

lang

uage

, but tha

t does not mean tha

t they alw

ays use i

t, or

indeed acc

ept it in the full sense of th

e term. Ln fact

it. meets sti

ffresistance from speakers of other soc

ial dialects, as well as from

speakers of other languages in modern multilingual Britain. (See

the

last section of this chapter

.) Thi

s in itself indicates th

at the

schizophrenia I have ref

erre

d to i

s sensed by people —people

know i

t is someone e

lse'

s language and not the

irs,

despite the

claims to the contrary. However, it

does not mean tha

t people are

aware of the power basis of st

anda

rdiz

atio

n: they may know the

standard in a sense belongs to the dominant bloc, but the r

e-spon

sibi

lity

of the dominant bloc fo

r articulating and defining

the relationship and pecking order between languages and soc

ial

dialects is generally hidden.

We quite often hear nonstandard social dia

lect

s on radio and TV the

seda

ys, but my impression is

that certain key broadcasting roles are still

restricted to standard spoken forms. Listen out for accents other tha

nReceived Pronunciation (RP for sho

rtl.

In wh

at'c

apac

itie

s' (e.g.

newsreader, in

terviewer, announcer, int

ervi

ewee

, entertainer) do non-

RP-s

peak

ers mainly appear? Do they tend to

appear in particular sorts

of programme (su

ch as news, comedy shows, qu

izzes, documentaries)?

Are there certain capacities and types of programrne which don't

feature non-RP-speakers? What about N advertisements? Are there

part

icul

ar roles within them which are open to non-RP-sp

eake

rs?

Power behind discourse: a discourse type

I want now to

shif

t focus, still wit

h re

fere

nce to 'power behind

discou

rse'

, ar~d loo

k at a particular discourse type as 'an effect of

power' — as having conventions which embody par

ticu

lar power

DISCOURSE AND POWER

59

relations. The example I have chosen is the discourse of medical

examinations, and more spe

cifi

call

y gy

naec

olog

ical

examinations. I

focus especially on how ,medical staff and patients are positioned

in relation to each other in the conventions of the discourse type,

and how this positioning can be seen as an effect of the

power of

those who dominate medical institutions over conventions, and so

over staff as well as patients.

According

to one account

of gynaecological examinations,

participants are subject to contradictory pressures: sta

ff feel obliged

to tre

at patients in a nonchalant and disengaged way, as technical

objects, in order to establish that th

eir interest in

thei

r bodies is

medical and not sex

ual;

yet they also fee

l obliged to tre

at the patient

sensitively as a per

son to cancel out the indignity o£ treating her as

a technical object, and to try to overcome her lik

ely em

barr

ass-

ment given the

overwhelming taboo on exposing

one's sexual

organs to non-

intimates. These contradictory pressures are evident

in the

conventions

- for the

discourse type.

For instance, the

constraints on the settings of gynaecological

examinations are of major sig

nifi

canc

e in guaranteeing that the

encounter is indeed a medical one and not, for instance, a sexual

one. Such examinations can

legi

tima

tely

be undertaken only in

'medical space' — a hospital or a consulting room —which implies

the presence of a whole range of medical paraphernalia which help

to legit

imize the encounter. There are also co

nstr

aint

s on the sub

ject

swho can tak

e part: there

is a restricted se

t of leg

itim

ate subject

posi

tion

s, those of the doctor, the nu

rse,

and the patient, and strict

limitations on who can occupy them. There are requirements fo

rmodes of dr

ess which reinforce properties of the set

ting

in defining

the encounter as medical, and (as we shall see

) fo

r 'demeanour'.

There are constraints on t

opic —questions from medical staff on

bodily functions and sexual experience must rel

ate

strictly to th

eme

dica

l problem at iss

ue, di

saII

owin

g for instance the sort of topical

development we find elsewhere which would allow a transition to

a gen

eral discussion of one

's sex life.

The sequence of activities which constitutes the examination is

highly rou

tini

zed,

following a standard procedure, and thi

s routine

property

extends als

o to the verbal and non-verbal aspects of the

ways in which medical staff rel

ate to patients. Medical staff show

thei

r disengagement in the qu

alit

y of the

ir gaze, the professionally

appraisive (rather than

aesthetically ev

alua

tive

) way in which they

look at the

patient's body. It emerges also in the

bri

sk, ef

fici

ent

60

LANGUAGE AND POWER

hand

ling

of the

patient's body by the

doctor, and, too, in que

s-ti

ons and requests to the pat

ient

which, for example, dep

erso

n-al

ize th

e patients sex

ual or

gans

by referring to,

say

, th

e va

gina

rather

than your va

gina

.But e

ffor

ts of

med

ical

staff t

o ba

lanc

e disengagement w

ith

sens

itiv

ity,

in ac

cord

ance

wit

h the pr

essu

res referred to above, are

also evident in th

eir discourse. They oft

en avo

id using terms which

might embarrass patients, by euphemizing (Did yo

u wash between

your legs?) or

by relying upon dei

ctic

expressions (When did you

firs

tnotice di fficulty down below. And doc

tors

use

a so

ft,. so

othi

ng voice

to enc

oura

ge the pat

ient

to re

lax (when they say th

ings

lik

e now

rela

x as

much as you ca

n, 1'

ll be as

gentle as

1 can), which contributes to

'per

sona

lizi

ng' the examinatio

n. It is

imp

orta

nt to emphasize- tha

tde

spit

e th

e im

pres

sion

some pat

ient

s may have tha

t they are

really

being gi

ven in

divi

dual

treatment, these are just as much routine

devi

ces as tho

se mentioned in th

e previous par

agra

ph.

So far

I have ref

erre

d ma

inly

to ways in which medical staff are

posi

tion

ed, but the same i

s true for p

atie

nts,

as th

e following

resume o

f how me

dica

l staff think

patients sho

uld

behave i

ngy

naecological examinations will ind

icat

e.

The pat

ient

's voice should be

controlled, mildly pl

easa

nt, se

lf-

conf

iden

t and imp

erso

nal.

Her fa

cial

exp

ress

ion should be attentive

r an

d neutral, leaning towards the

mildly pleasant and

friendly side, a

sif

she were ta

lkin

g to

the

doctor in his office, fu

lly dr

esse

d an

d se

ated

in a cha

ir. The patient is

to ha

ve an attentive gl

ance

upw

ard,

at the

ceil

ing or

at ot

her pe

rson

s in the

room, eyes op

en, not

drea

my' or

away, bu

t re

ady at a sec

ond'

s notice to revert to th

e do

ctor

's face for a

specific ver

bal ex

chan

ge. Ex

cept

for su

ch a ver

bal exchange, ho

weve

r,th

e patient is

sup

pose

d to

avo

id looking int

o th

e do

ctor

's eyes during

the ac

tual

exa

mina

tion

because dir

ect ey

e co

ntac

t be

twee

n th

e two at

this

time is

provocative. Her role ca

lls f

or pas

sivi

ty and sel

f-ef

face

ment

. The patient should show wil

ling

ness

to relinquish con

trol

to the

doctor. She should re

frai

n fr

om spe

akin

g at length and fr

omma

king

inquiries whi

ch would require the

doctor to

rep

ly at length. So

as not

to po

int up her

und

igni

fied

pos

itio

n, she should not project her

personality pr

ofus

ely.

T'he se

lf must be ec

lips

ed in or

der to

sus

tain

the

defi

niti

on tha

t th

e do

ctor

is working on a technical obj

ect and not a

person.

Have you eve

r been in a po

siti

on whe

re you wer

e ex

pect

ed to behave

at al

l similarly? How were tliose exp

ecta

tion

s co

mmun

icat

ed to you?

~,Have mal

e readers ev

er fe

lt themselves required to 'eclipse the

self' in

~

DISCOURSE AND POWER

E1

anyt

hing

lik

e thi

s way? Are

these exp

ecta

tion

s motivated entirely by th

ena

ture

of th

e oc

casi

on, o

r are th

ey to do wit

h th

e sex of

the

pat

ient

?

Let us now bring power into th

e pi

ctur

e. The. me

dica

l staff and

particularly the doctor ex

erci

se power over th

e pa

tien

t (and over

othe

r me

dica

l st

aff,

in th

e ca

se of th

e do

ctor

) within encounters

base

d upon thi

s di

scou

rse type, in acc

orda

nce wi

th i

ts conven-

tion

s, which attribute rig

hts to con

trol

encounters to med

ical

staff

and especially do

ctor

s. And as part of th

eir power, the

med

ical

staff are li

kely

to impose the

dis

cour

se typ

e upon patients, in th

esense of

putting pre

ssur

e on them in various ways to occupy the

subj

ect po

siti

on it l

ays down for patients, and so behave in ce

rtai

nconstrained ways. These are aspects of power in discourse, but

what I am interested in here is power behind discourse: the

power

effe

ct whereby thi

s di

scou

rse type wit

h these

prop

erti

es comes

to be imposed upon a

ll of th

ose in

volv

ed, me

dica

l staff as well

as pat

ient

s, apparently by the

med

ical

institution or sy

stem

its

elf.

But the

power behind th

e conventions

of a di

scou

rse ty

pebelongs not to th

e institution

itse

lf (whatever tha

t would mean)

but to the power-ho

lder

s in the

ins

titu

tion

. One indication of this

is the

policing of conventions, th

e way they are enforced, bo

th in

the negative sense of what san

ctio

ns are

tak

en against tho

se who

infringe them and in the po

siti

ve sense of what affirmations th

ere

are fo

r th

ose who abide by them. The policing of con

vent

ions

is

in th

e hands o

f institutional power-

hold

ers,

at va

riou

s le

vels

.Thus in the case of me

dica

l ex

amin

atio

ns, it is mainly the

med

ical

staff who come into co

ntac

t with patients, and are

power-holders

in re

lati

on to them, who enforce

pati

ents

' compliance with

conventions, whi

le the

compliance of med

ical

staff themselves is

enfo

rced

by tho

se hig

her in the institutional hierarchy —through

procedur

es for dis

cipl

inin

g people and dealing with professional

malpractice, through 'promotions, and so for

th.

Cons

ider

atio

n of

the ways in which conventions are shaped by

thos

e who have the power behind dis

cour

se tak

es us on to th

econcerns of Chapter 4, be

caus

e such shaping is ac

hiev

ed through

ideo

logy

. In our example, the

conventions which pos

itio

n me

dica

lstaff and p

atients in r

elation to each

other can be reg

arde

d as

embodying the

dominant ideologies of

medicine as a soc

ial insti-

tuti

on,

i.e. the

ideo

logi

es of th

ose who co

ntro

l me

dici

ne.

Evidently,

what a doctor

is, what a .nurse

is, what a pat

ient

is,

what constitutes 'pr

ofes

sion

al' behaviour towards patients, and

62

LANGUAGE AND POWER

so forth, are all matters which are open to argument. The conven-

tions for

positioruing s

taff and p

atients in gynaecological exam-

inations are

premised upon the way i

n which the dominant

ideology answers these questions. I come to how this is done in

Chapter 4.

But the sense in which these

conventions

are an effect o

fpower behind discourse does not end there. The same conven-

tions can be regarded, from the perspective of the societal (rather

than the institutional) order of discourse, as a particular case of

a general tendency in the way in which '

professionals' and

'clients' are positioned in

relation to each other, in a v

ariety of

institutional settings and discourse types where people who have

some of

fici

al status in institutions ('professionals') come into

contact with 'the

public' ('

client

s').

The contradictory pressures

upon medical staff to treat patients on the one hand nonchalantly

as '

technical

objects', and on the

other hand sensitively

aspersons, are not I think (as the account of gynaecological exam-

inations I referred to suggested) a peculiarity of the circumstances

of gynaecological or even more generally medical examinations

— though those peculiar circumstances would seem to give these

pressures a special colouring. One finds techniques for efficiently

and n

onchalantly 'handling' people wherever one looks in the

public institutions of the modern world. Equally, one finds what

I shall refer to as a synthetic personalization, acompensatory tend-

ency to give the

impression of treating each of the

people

'handled' en masse as an individual. Examples would be air travel

(have a nice day!), restaurants (welcome

to Wimpy!), and the simu-

lated conversation (e.g. chat shows) and bonhomie which litter the

media. These general tendencies in the order of discourse of modem

society accord with the nature of its power relations and modern

techniques for exercising power, as I shall show in some detail in

Chapter 8.

Power and access to discourse

The third and final aspect of 'power behind discourse' that I want

to look at is not to do with the constitution of orders of discourse

and t

heir component discourse types, but with

access to them.

The question

is, who has access to which discourses, and who

has the power to impose and enforce constraints on access?

DISCOURSE AND POWER

63

-i` !

The myth of free speech, th

at anyone is 'free' to

sa~w~iat they

e

is an ama~in____~lv~owerful one, liven the

actu~lit~

of a

t, plethora of constraints on access to va~ou~.,sorts ~f ~~eech, and

"~writin .These are part and parcel of more general constraints on ~`

r social practice — on access to the more exclusive social institutions,

their practices, and especially the most powerful subject positions

', constituted

in their. practices. And in terms of discourse

inparticular, on access to the

discourse

types, and discoursal

positions of power. In a sense, these 'cultural goods' are a

nal-._

ogous to other socially valued 'goods' of a more tangible nature

j'!.

—accumulated wealth, good j

obs, good housing, and so

forth.

j` Both sorts of goods are unequally distributed, so that members

of what I referred to in Chapter 2 as~the dominant blo

c (the capi-

talist class, the 'middle

clas

s', the professions) have substantially

more of them #han members of the working class —they are richer

in cultural capital (

see p. 5~.

Religious rituals such as church services will serve to illustrate

constraints on access. You can only

officiate at a church

service

if you are a priest, which is itself a constraint on access. Further-

more, you can only get to be a priest through a rather rigorous

process of selection, during the course of which you must show

yourself to meet a range of 'entry conditions' — being a believer,

having a vocation, having some academic ability, conforming to

certain standards of honesty, sincerity, sexual

morality, and so

on. These are further constraints on access.

Religion is not really that much different in this respect from

medicine, or education, or law. Medical examinations, or lessons,

or litigation, may not be as ritualized as a religious service, but

nevertheless there are strict constraints on who can do them, and

strict constraints on who can acquire the qualifications required

to do them. In principle (as well as in law and in the rules of the

professions), anyone is free to obtain such qualifications. But in

practice, the people who do obtain them come rriainly from the

j:, dominant bloc. For most people, the

only involvement with

~'" medicine, education

or the Iaw i

s in the c

apacity of

client' —

patient, pupil or student, legal client —and 'clients' are not ready

'insiders' in an institution.

Another less institutionally

specific example of unequally ,

distributed

cultural capital is access to the various reading and ~

_~_ —

writing

abilities that can be s

u` mined_ up with the word l

iteracy.

- --

- --

~~ Literacy i

s highly valued in our s

ociety, and a great deal of

64

LANGUAGE AND POWER

sociall, y impo

rts„_,

__nt ~

g~

o~.~._practice t

akesµpl

aceMin

'the

~~

writ

ten wo

rd'.

Access_„to_ a4hi~

h le

vel of

lit

erac

~is a precondition

__

_,_

Y ~_

.

_'g_

.. ',

' ...

_ On

g most rew

ardi

ngfor a vanet_y of_

soc~

all,

va

lued

oods ~ncludi

_ ~ ~

»_and we

ll paid

jobs

. Yet i

t is e

vide

nt tha

t ac

cess

,_ to

lite

racy

is

unequally

distributed - in.

.dee

d,..

an estimated-one-

lion adults

in_. Br

itai

n_.l

ack 'b

asic

literacy sk

ills

', as de

fine

d by UNESCO, and

the overwhelming maj

orit

y of

these are wor

king

-cla

ss peo

ple.

Among the more obvious and vis

ible

eff

ects

of constraints on

access is the way in .which havin

g access to pr

esti

giou

s sorts of

disc

ours

e and powerful su

bjec

t po

siti

ons

enhances publicly

acknowledged sta

tus and authority..One re

ason

for

this is tha

tbecoming a doctor or

a teacher or a law

yer is

generally reg

arde

das a purely in

divi

dual

achievement which mer

its th

e 'r

ewar

ds' of

stat

us and authority, with soc

ial.

cons

trai

nts on who can

achieve

these

posi

tion

s being co

rres

pond

ingl

y glossed over. As support

for th

is view, people of

ten re

fer to the

fact th

at training in these

prof

essi

ons involves spending years acquiring spe

cial

knowledge

and ski

lls.

Thus pro

fess

iona

l knowledge and skills ac

t as emblems

of per

sona

l ac

hiev

emen

t, mystifying so

cial

constraints on access

- as

well

as

being membership ca

rds

for

those who achieve

access, and a means of excluding

outs

ider

s. The d

isco

urse

s of

these

professions, inc

ludi

ng specialist vo

cabu

lari

es or

jargons,

serv

e all these functions.

Conv

erse

ly,

excl

usio

n of

people from pa

rtic

ular

types

ofdi

scou

rse and s

ubje

ct p

osit

ions

low

ers

their

publicly ack

nowl

-edged sta

tus,

but als

o as I suggested above the

ir job

and other

social 'p

rosp

ects

'. Let

us go ba

ck to th

e po

siti

on of

cul

tura

lmi

nority groupings in interviews

, which I was dis

cuss

ing in

the

section Power in cr

oss cu

ltur

al encounters.

I probably gave th

eim

pres

sion

tha

t th

ere

is a great dea

l more homogeneity wit

hin

cultural groupings

than th

ere

real

ly is. In fact, many white

working-class Br

itis

h, people from the

dominant cultural grouping

are

as unfamiliar wilth

the

conventions

of in

terv

iewi

ng as

members of bl

ack or

Asi

an com

muni

ties

. But it

is in

crea

sing

ly the

case

, as a r

esult of

the spread of

interviewing

practices across

soci

al institutions and the more u

itensive us

e of

them wi

thin

many ins

titu

tion

s, tha

t everybody is expected to be abl

e to dea

lwith int

ervi

ews -from the interviewee end, of co

urse

! Those who

cannot, ei

ther

bec

ause

of their cu

ltur

al exp

erie

nce or

because they

belo

ng to ge

nera

tion

s for

which access to in

terv

iewi

ng was

constrained, are lik

ely to be socially di

sabl

ed..

DISCOURSE AND POWER

65

The educational system has the

maj

or immediate res

pons

ibil

ity

for di

ffer

enti

als in access. In th

e words of Mi

chel

Foucault, 'any

syst

em of education is

a political way of ma

inta

inin

g or

mod

ifyi

ngth

e appropriation of

dis

cour

ses,

alo

ng with th

e knowledges and

powers which they

carry'. And what is striking is th

e ex

tent

to

which, despite the

claims of education to differentiate only on"the

grounds of

merit, d

iffe

rent

iati

on follows s

ocia

l cl

ass

lines: the

high

er one goes in th

e ed

ucat

iona

l sy

stem

, th

e greater

the

predominance of people from ca

pita

list

, 'm

iddl

e-cl

ass'

, and

prof

essi

onal

ba

ckgr

ound

s. The ed

ucat

iona

l system reproduces

without dramatic change the

existing

soci

al d

ivis

ion of

labour,

and the exi

stin

g system of class relations. However, it

will no

t do

to blame the

education system for

constraints on access, or

toat

trib

ute to it alone power over access. Th

is power is di

vers

ifie

dthrough the

various soc

ial in

stit

utio

ns, not just ed

ucat

ion,

and its

orig

ins

are, as

I have been i

nnpl

ying

, in th

e system of

class

relations at the

soc

ieta

l le

vel.

Constraints on acc

ess:

formality'

'For

mali

ty' is one per

vasi

ve and familiar as

pect

of co

nstr

aint

s on

~ ; access t

o discourse. Formality i

s a common p

roperty in many

soci

etie

s of pra

ctic

es and d

isco

urse

s of

high

soci

al pre

stig

e and

rest

rict

ed access.

It i

s a contributory f

actor in ke

epin

g access

,; re

stri

cted

, fo

r it makes demands on pa

rtic

ipan

ts above and

beyond tho

se of most discourse, and the

abi

lity

to meet tho

se',

demands is it

self

unevenly distributed. It

can

also

se

rve

togenerate awe among tho

se who are exc

lude

d by it and daunted

by it.

Formality

is b

est re

gard

ed as a property of

soc

ial si

tuat

ions

which has pec

ulia

r ef

fect

s upon language for

ms. As a property

of soc

ial si

tuat

ions

, it manifests in an accentuated form the three

types of con

stra

int upon practice which I have ass

ocia

ted with the

exer

cise

of power: constraints on contents, sub

ject

s, and rel

atio

ns.

In terms of contents, di

scou

rse in a for

mal si

tuat

ion is

sub

ject

to

exce

ptio

nal constraints on topic on rel

evan

ce, and in terms of

more or le

ss fixed interactive routines. In terms of subjects,_ the

soci

al ide

ntit

ies of

tho

se qua

lifi

ed to occupy sub

ject

pos

itio

ns in

the discourses of fo

rmal

sit

uati

ons are defined more rigorously

than is usual, and in terms of public pos

itio

ns or st

atus

es, as in

the

constraints

refe

rred

to above on who may of

fici

ate

at a

~66

LANGUAGE AND POWER

degrees or social distance, and so Yorth, and oriented to repro-

uang em wi ou

ange.

The peculiar effects of formality on language forms follow from

these accentuated

constraints. We find

levels of structuring of

language above and beyond what i

s required in non-

formal

discourse. This extra structuring can affect any level of language.

For example, the allocation of turns at talking to participants may

be regulated by a formula (e.g. participants must speak in order

of rank), whereas in conversation people work it out as they go

along. Or encounters may have to proceed according to a s

trict

routine which lays down stages in a fixed sequence. There may

be requirements to do with the rhythm or tempo or loudness of

talk —people may have to talk at a particular speed, for instance;

or to do with the grammar of sentences —highly complex struc-

tures maybe favoured. There is likely to be a general requirement

for

consistency of language forms, which w

ill mean for instance

that the

vocabulary must be selected from a restricted set

throughout. There is also a heightened self-consciousness which

results in c

are about using 'correct' grammar and vocabulary,

including a whole set of vocabulary which is reserved for more

formal occasions, and is often

itself referred to as 'formal'.

The following text is an extract from a transcript of part of the

United States Senate investigation into the Watergate

affair, and

is part of the testimony of one of President Nixon's most senior

aides, John Ehrlichman:

DISCOURSE AND POWER

67

informed Mr. Young or Mr. Krogh to see that this thing

should not happen again but you did not take any action

.such as ordering the firing these people because of the

general sensitive issues that were involved. Do you recall

that?

(6) a. Well, that is not on the ground of illegality, Mr. -Dash_ I do

not think you asked me at that time whether -what my

legal opinion was, fo

r whatever it was worth. What you

were asking me was what I did, and that is what I did.

(~ Q. Well, if it

was legal you would ordinarily have approved it

would you not?

(8) a: Well, no, the thing that troubled me about it

was that it

was totally unanticipated. Unauthorized by me.

(9) Q: Who was it

authorized by?

(10) a: Well, I am under the impression that it

was authorized by

Mr. Krogh, but it

is not based on any personal knowledge.

(11) Q: Well, now, as a matter of fa

ct, Mr. EhrIichman, did you

not personally approve in advance a covert entry into the

Ellsberg psychiatrist office for the purpose of gaining

access to the psychoanalyst's reports?

(12) A: I approved a covert investigation. Now, if

a covert entry

means a breaking and entering the answer to your

question is, no.

(1) Q: Mr. Ehrlichman, prior to the luncheon recess you stated

that in your opinion, the entry into the EIlsberg

psychiatrist's office was legal because of national security

reasons. I think that was your testimony.

(2) a: Yes.

(3) Q: Have you always maintained that position?

(4) a: Well, I dori tknow -

(5) Q: Well, do you recall when we had our fi

rst i

nterview in my

office, and we discussed this issue you expressed shock

that such a thing had occurred, and indicated that you had

Text 3.5 Source: New York Times, 1973:512

The questioner is

challenging Ehrlichman, ye

t in a manner which

isperhaps constrained by the formality of t

he situation. How is it

constrained? What aspects of t

he language are indicative of f

ormality?

The taking of toms is

constrained within aquestion-plus-answer

pattern, with Dash asking and Ehrlichman answering. Any challenges

or accusations and attempts to refute them must be fitted into this

format. Turn (7) is

a challenge, f

or instance, but it

is forced to be an

implicit and indirect c

hallenge because Dash has to put it in question

form. Consequently it

comes across as restrained. This is a case of

formality limiting the nature of re

lations between participants. Perhaps

the other linguistic feature which is most st

rikingly indicative of

formality is the vocabulary —the consistent selection of 'formal' words.

The opening turn, fo

r example, may in a less formal scenario have

started: Jo

hn, y

ou were making out be

fore lunch that ....Notice also the

polite ti

tle +surname modes of address that are used (Mr Ehrlichman).

religious

service. In terms of r

ela '

formal situations are

chazacterized by an e

xceptional o

rientation t

o and marking o

fposition, status, and 'face'; power and social distance are overt,

68

LANGUAGE AND POWER

Formal situations could

be re

gard

ed as adding an extra

constraint to

the

thre

e I have a

ssoc

iate

d wi

th t

he e

xercise

ofpower — a con

stra

int on lan

guag

e fo

rm — as well as heightening th

ethree. Thi

s means tha

t di

scou

rse,

and practice generall~,_in_formal

situ

atio

ns are c

Yiffcult and demanding; ~Tiey~nd on~p~cial

knowledge ari

d:"s

~kil

l_wh

ich has to be learnt. Many people do not

acquire _e

ven the ne

cess

ary knowledge and skill to oc

cupy

_ ,p

en~h

-eral positions in fo

rmal

situations, and consequently find formal

situations pe

r se

da

unti

ng and fr

ight

enin

g — or

ridiculous! A

form

idab

le axis is

set

u~ between soc

ial po

siti

on-and knowledge;

--._

since th

ose in

prestigious

soci

al p

osit

ions

do lea

rn t

o Qperate

form

ally, an easy co

nclu

sion

for

thos

e who don't

is '

I can t

beca

use I'

m not clever enoug rather-than _'I can

't because I'm

__.~.

working class'. Thus for

mali

ty both

restricts access and gen

erat

esawe. However, I sha

ll discuss in th

e final section a con

trar

y tr

end

in contemporary society against overt marking of power and thus

against fo

rmal

ity.

SOCIAL STRUGGLE IN DISCOURSE

In thi

s section I add a vitally important proviso to what has .g

one

befo

re. Power, 'in' di

scou

rse

or 'behind'

discourse, i

s not a

permanent and undisputed

attrib

ute of

any one person or

soc

ial

grou

ping

. On the con

trar

y, tho

se who hold power at a par

ticu

lar

moment have to constantly reassert their power, and tho

se who

do not hold power are always liable to make a bid

for power. Thi

sis

true whether one is talking at the

lev

el of th

e pa

rtic

ular

sit

u-atio

n, or in

terms of a soc

ial in

stit

utio

n; or in terms of a whole

soci

ety:

power at all these levels is won, exercised, sustained, and

lost i

n the course of so

cial

str

uggl

e (s

ee Ch. 2, p. 34)

.Le

t us begin wit

h a text where str

uggl

e is

ove

rt — an int

ervi

ewbetween a youth (r) suspected of involvement in a cri

me, and his

headmaster (x)

.

(1) x: Why didn't you go straight down Queen Street?

(2) Y: I'

m not walking down the

re wit

h a load of

coons from St

Hilda's coming out of school.

(3) x: Why's that?

(4) Y: Well tha

t's ob

viou

s, is

n't it? I don't want to ge

t belted.

(5) x: Well the

re isn

't usually any bot

her in

Queen Str

eet,

isth

ere?

DISCOURSE AND POWER

69

{6) r: No. None of us white kid

s usually go down there, do we?

What about tha

t bu

st-u

p in the

Odeon carpark at

Christmas?

(~ x:

That was nearly a year ag

o, and I'm not convinced you lot

were as innocent as you made out. So when you got

to the

square, why did you wait around for qua

rter

of an hour

inst

ead of

going str

aigh

t home?

(8) r: I thought my mate might come down tha

t way aft

er work.

Anyway, we always go down the

square after sc

hool

.

Compare thi

s with the premature baby unit te

xt in the se

ctio

n Power in

disc

ours

e at

the beginning of this cha

pter

, in terms of the degree of

cont

rol exercised by the headmaster over the you

th's

con

trib

utio

ns, and

the extent to which the

y bo

th stick to the discoursal

rights' and

'obl

igat

ions

' you would exp

ect in such an int

ervi

ew— for instance,

don't th

ink you would exp

ect the youth to ask

questions and the

headmaster to answer them.

There are various ways in which r exe

rcis

es more control over the

4 di

scou

rse than one might exp

ect,

exceeds his discoursal 'r

ight

s' and

does not fu

lfil

his 'ob

liga

tion

s'. Firstly, he challenges H'

s questions on

fwo occ

asio

ns (turns 2 and 4) ra

ther than answering them directly,

though an answer is implied in 2 and off

ered

after the

challenge in 4.

Secondly, in Earn 6 r asks a question which x answers: as I sa

id above,

you would expect ne

ithe

r r to ask nor x to answer questions. Thirdly,

the answers which r does giv

e to x's

questions go beyond what is

direcfly relevant in turns 6 and 8; re

call

tha

t in

the med

ical

text, a

requirement of re

leva

nce is

strictly enforced by the doctor. Fourthly, Y

'

shows no sig

n of adapting his style of ta

llc to the relatively formal

setting; he appears to treat the interview to an extent as if i

t were a

conversation, and to treat the policeman as a pee

r. This is most

evident in

~s voc

abul

ary (b

elte

d, kid

s, bus

t-up

) and esp

ecia

lly in his

use

of the rac

ist word coo

ns. I th

ink we would expect people who would

use thi

s so

rt of vocabulary with the

ir friends to be influenced by the

sett

ing,

occasion, and the power and distance separating them from

the po

lice

to avoid

it.

x does maintain qu

ite a lot of co

ntro

l nevextheless. Most of th

e

ques

tions are as

ked by him, and some at least are answered fairly

compliantly, indicating a lev

el of ad

here

nce to conventional ri

ghts

and obligations. It

is always possible in cases of this sort th

at the

pers

on w

ith

inst

itut

iona

l power — x in

this

cas

e — i

s tactically

yiel

ding some ground in order to be abl

e to pursue alo

nger

-ter

m

strategy. Perhaps this is

how we should

inte

rpre

t x'

s failure to

70

LANGUAGE AND POWER

immediately challenge or

dissociate himself from the

racist co

ons:

by let

ting

it pa

ss, he app

ears

to be acc

epti

ng it.

But are we to regard such a cas

e as just a st

rugg

le between an

indi

vidu

al youth showing how unimpressed he i

s with school

auth

orit

y by flouting conventional constraints, and a headmaster

adop

ting

tactics to deal with that? Re

call

the

dis

tinc

tion

on p. 25

of cha

pter

2 between three

leve

ls of

soc

ial

organisation:

sifu

-at

iona

l, ins

titu

tion

al, and s

ocietal. Thi

s seems a fai

r description

of what is go

ing on at the situational level. But it

mis

ses th

e so

cial

patt

ern to which t

his individual example seems to be

long

: th

eyouth seems typical of many young people, and the

tac

tics

which

the headmaster uses are perhaps fairly standard for

dea

ling

wit

hthis s

ort of

situation. In o

ther words, the

extract can a

lso be

interpreted in

terms of st

rugg

le at th

e institutional level. More-

over

," we could sur

ely find other pieces of

discourse from qui

tedifferent institutional se

ttin

gs —the Iaw and the

family might be

examples —showing ana

logo

us struggles between young people

and 'authority'; co

rres

pond

ingly, one can see

the

text. bot

h as an

example o

f so

cial

str

uggl

e at the

ins

titu

tion

al lev

el wit

hin th

eschool as a so

cial

institution, and as an example of a more gen

eral

stru

ggle

at the so

ciet

al lev

el between (certain gr

oupi

ngs o~ young

peop

le and power -holders of

var

ious

sorts.

Of course one cannot get

far in

investigating

soci

al str

uggl

ebetween young people and the s

chools, or

young people and

public authorities more gen

eral

ly, on the basis of a single piece

of dis

cour

se! What I am sug

gest

ing,

however, is th

at an

~ven

piece of

dis

cour

se may sim

ulta

neou

sly be a~art_of_a

situ

atio

nal

struggle, an institutional str

uggl

e, and a societal st

rugg

le (includ-

ing class st

rugg

le).

Thi

s has con

sequences in terms of our distinc-

tion

between 'power in discourse' and 'power beh

ind di

scou

rse'

.While str

uggl

e at the sit

uati

onal

lev

el is over ower in discour e,

stru

gg e at the other levels may also be over power behind dis-

cour

se.

I re

ferr

ed ear

lier

in the ch

apte

r to a tendency against the

ove

rtmarking of power relationships in di

scou

rse — a ten

denc

y which

is of considerable int

eres

t from the perspective of so

cial

struggle.

Let me illustrate it wit

h a well~known grammatical example, the

so-called 'T

' and V'

pronoun forms which are found in many

lang

uage

s —French, German, It

alia

n, Spa

nish

, Ru

ssia

n among the

European languages —but not (modern) sta

ndar

d En

glis

h. These

DISCOURSE AND POWER

71

lang

uage

s have two forms for the second -pe

rson

pronoun where

stan

dard

Eng

lish

has jus

t tl~e one, you

, and although these forms

are in

ori

gin ju

st sin

gula

r (T) and plu

ral (V), bot

h have come to

be used for sin

gula

r reference. Let

us tak

e French as an example.

Its T-form (t

u) and its V-form (vous~ are now both used to ad

dres

sa single person. At one sta

ge, th

e difference between them was

one of

power: t

o was used to ad

dres

s su

bord

inat

es,

vous to

addr

ess

superiors, and either (depending on th

e class of

the

speakers) could be used rec

ipro

call

y between soc

ial eq

uals

.More recently, however, the

re has been a

shif

t towards a

system ba

sed upon s

olid

arit

y ra

ther

than power: to i

s used t

oad

dres

s people one is cl

ose to in some wa~(friends, relations, co-

workers, etc.), and vous

is used when the

re is soc

ial

distance'.

There

is ten

sion

between the

power-based and s

olidarity-based

systems: what happens, for

instance, if you want to ad

dres

s a

soci

al 'superior' who you are

close to (your parents, say), or

a~ /

subordinate who is socially distant (e.g. a soldier, if

you happen\/

to be an off

icer

)? The answer used to be tha

t you would use vous

and to re

spec

tive

ly on grounds of power, but now it is

tha

t you

would pr

obab

ly us

e to and vous re

spec

tive

ly on grounds of

soli

dari

ty.

The par

ticu

lar development of T/V away from the

power-based

system towards the

solidarity-based system seems to be in line

with

long-term developments across whole ranges of

institutions

which have been documented in va

riou

s la

ngua

ges:

a movement

away from th

e explicit marking of

power re

lati

onsh

ips_

For

instance, this is true in

Brit

ain fo

r hi

gher

edu

cati

on, for a range

of types of di

scou

rse in soc

ial se

rvic

es, and now for

ind

ustr

y —

where Japanese management tec

hniq

ues which eliminate surface

ineq

uali

ties

between managers and workers ar

e increasingly

infl

uent

ial.

It is of course easy enough to find unreformed practice

in any

, of

these cas

es, but the

tre

nd over three decades or

more

is cle

ar enough.

Does this tr

end mean tha

t unequal power relationships are

on

the decline? That would seem to fo

llow

if we assumed a mechan-

ical

co

nnec

tion

between relationships

and

thei

r: di

scou

rsal

expression. But such a c

oncl

usio

n would be h

ighl

y su

spec

t ir

nview of the evidence from elsewhere tha

t power inequalities have

not

subs

tant

iall

y changed —evidence about the

distribution of

wealth, th

e increase in po

vert

y in the

198

0s, inequalities in access

72

LANGUAGE AND POWER

to h

ealt

h facilities, ed

ucat

ion,

housing, inequalities in employ-

ment prospects, and so for

th. Nor is it credible th

at tho

se with

power would give

it up for

no obvious rea

son.

One dimension of power in di

scou

rse is

arg

uabl

y th

e capacity

to det

ermi

ne to what ext

ent that

power will be overtly exp

ress

ed.

It; is th

eref

ore quite possible for the

exp

ress

ion of~ower relation-

ships

to be pl

ayed

down as a t

acti

c within a s

trat

e~v for th

eco

ntin

ued possession and exe

rcis

e of

ower; That would seem to

be a r

easo

nabl

e interpretation o

f th

e co

nsci

ous and de

libe

rate

adop

tion

of Japanese management sty

les re

ferr

ed to above. This

is a c

ase

of hiding power for m

anip

ulat

ive reasons —see the

sect

ion on Hid

den power ab

ove.

But can it ac

coun

t for th

e lo

nger-

term trend across diverse instit

utio

ns and indeed across national

and lin

guis

tic frontiers? It is

hardly cr

edib

le to in

terp

ret

it as an

international co

nspi

racy

!What both the optimistic exp

lana

tion

tha

t in

equa

lity

is on the

way out and the

conspiratorial ex

plan

atio

n fail to ta

ke into

acco

unt is

the rel

atio

nshi

p between power and soc

ial struggle. I

would sug

gest

tha

t the

decline in the

overt markin~of power

rela

tion

ship

s_ should be interpr

eted

as a concession on the

par

t~r power-noiaers

wtucn trite have been forced to make b~ the

increase in the re

lati

ve power_of workin~~claseo~le and other

_rou

ings

of fo

rmer

ly powerless

and disre~aarded people —

women,youth, bla

ckpe

opleJ gay„~e~le~ etc. (That shi

ft in power

relations has been checked and partly re

vers

ed in places during

the

crises of the

late

1970s and 198

0s.)

However, this does not

mean_ tha

t the

power -holders

have su

rren

dere

d power. h,

~tme

rely

tna

t tney nave been forced into les

s di

rect

ways of ex

er-

cisu

lg and rep

rodu

cing

their power. Nor is it a merely cosmetic

tactic: be

caus

e of

the c

onstraints under which they have been

forced to operate, the

re a

re s

ever

e problems of le

~iti

mac~

for

power -holders.

~'

Disc

ours

e is

pa

rt and parcel of

th

is complex si

tuat

ion

ofst

rugg

le, and we can deepen our understanding of di

scou

rse by

keeping th

is ma

trix

in

mind, and our understanding

of t

hestruggle by att

endi

ng to. di

scours

e. I shall explore for ins

tanc

e in

Chapter 8 the way i

n which ce

rtai

n di

scou

rse types

acquire

cultural salience, and 'co

loxu

ze' new ins

titu

tion

s and domains, a

perspective which I briefly aired in Ch

apte

r 2. Shi

ftin

g patterns

of sal

ienc

e ar

e a barometer of the development of so

cial

str

uggl

e

DISCOURSE AND POWER

73

and a part of

tha

t pr

oces

s. For example, cou

nsel

ling

is a

salient

disc

ours

e ty

pe which has colonized wor

kpla

ces,

schools, and so

forth. Thi

s is superficially indicative of

an unwonted sen

siti

vity

to ind

ivid

ual needs and pro

blem

s. But it seems in some cases at

least to have been tur

ned

into a means to

greater in

stit

utio

nal

cont

rol of peo

ple through exposing as

pect

s of the

ir 'private' lives

to unp

rece

dent

ed ins

titu

tion

al pro

bing

. The apparent se

nsit

ivit

y

to ind

ivid

uals

is a con

cess

ion by power-holders to the

str

engt

h

of the

(re

lati

vely

) unpowerful; th

e co

ntai

nmen

t of cou

nsel

ling

is

thei

r counter-offensive. See Chapter 8 for examples and further

disc

ussi

on.

Access to prestigious

disc

ours

e types and th

eir

powe

rful

subj

ect po

siti

ons is another are

na of social struggle. One thi

nks

for in

stan

ce of th

e struggles of

the

working c

lass

through the

trade unions and the

Labour Party around the turn of

the

cen

tury

for access to

political ar

enas

inc

ludi

ng Parliament, and by imp

li-

cati

on to the discourses of

politics in th

e 'p

ubli

c' domain. Or of

the struggles of

women and bla

ck peo

ple as wel

l as working-class

people to br

eak into the professions, and more rec

entl

y th

e hi

gher

echelons of th

e professions.

Struggles over access merge with

struggles around sta

ndar

d-

izat

ion.

Isuggested earlier tha

t anvnportant part of standardiz-

atio

n is

the

est

abli

shme

nt of the standard language as the

form

used i

n a range o

f 'p

ubli

c' institutions. In

the

context of the

incr

easi

ng rel

ativ

e power of th

e working class in Br

itai

n af

ter th

e

Second World War, certain con

cess

ions

have had to be made to

nonstandard

dial

ects

in some institutions — in broadcasting and

some of the professions, for example, certain fornns of

relatively

prestigious nonstandard sp

eech

ar

e tolerated. Again, c

ultural

mino

riti

es have demanded ri

ghts

for

th

eir own l

anguages i

n

vari

ous institutional sp

here

s, inc

ludi

ng edu

cati

on, and these have

agai

n re

sult

ed in certain li

mite

d co

nces

sion

s.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In t

his ch

apte

r I have argued on the

one hand t

hat power is

exer

cise

d and ena

cted

in discourse, and on the

other hand tha

t

there are relations of

power behind discourse. I have als

o argued

_.:~ 0

tJn~r~~~~it~

Birmingham

SC

L

EIJCTI

PRIMARY &SECONDARY SCHOOL EXPERIENCE DATES 2015/2016

Semester 1 2015

Semester

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SO

it

12

13

14

15

16

Total Weeks in

External

Week

School

Examination

Weel(Be innill

t 14 Set

27,.

$e t

28 58 t

5 Dct

12':Oct

Y9 Oct

26 Oct

2 Now

9 Nov

16 Nov

23 Nov

30'.Nov

7 Dec

14 ~e~

UG Year2 Primary

iNCLU51oN

INCWSION

Pl3cemertt

iweek, lday

N/A

PREP VIS

IT TO

N/EE

K IN

Con~Tmiation

(6 days)

SCHOCL

SINOOL

UG Yea

r 3 Primary

CFEF

l fNITY

Ca EA lIVI

TY IN

Plac

emen

t 1 week, 1 day

N/A

IN AC~tON

nCTION

Confirmation

(6 days)

PREP VIS

iT

LVEE

K

UG Yea

r 4 Primary

SCHOOLS'

Plac

emen

tHALF

ConfrmaLon

TERM

SE669P (SEl)

S.

~ 1J-iF Crt

19 ~2 Oct

N/e.ek 1

Vlee

k 2

1Vee

k 3

Week 4

Week S

6 weeks, 4 days

N/A

PGCE Pri

mary

Pla

- [

NV~

PV

PT h1PR VL

SIT

PT EPF VIS

IT

(34 days)

Cone

~ ~❑

23 0~t PA

SE6015 & SE602S

12-1

6 Oc

t Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Nlee

k 6

Week 7

~ 9 weeks

N/A

PGCE Secondary

SCHOOL

PV

PT MPR Vi5

1T

P'T EPR V15r

(45 days)

Semester 2 2016

Semester

19

20

21

22

23

24

ZS

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Total Weeks in

External

Week

School

Examination

'-Week'Be innin

4Jan

11 lan

18 Jan

25']an

1 Feb

8 Feb

15 Feb

27 Feb

29. Pe6

7 Mar

14 Mar

21 Mar

28 Mar

4 A r

SEI401

Placzment

UG Yea

r 1 Primary

Cunfrma~ion

SEI501

1145 Jan

18-217an

Week 1

Week 2

Weak 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 5

7 wee

ks, 4 days

Week 27

UG Yea

r 2 Primary

PV

P~~

PT MPR VIS

7~

PT EPR VIS

IT

(39 days)

1 and

2 Mar

ch22 Jan PA

SE611

18-2

2 Jan

25-t

R tan

Week 1

alec

k 2

Week 3

L^le

ek 4

l"leek 5

Week 6

7 weeks, 4 days

Week 26

UG Yea

r 3 Ezi

t PV

NV

PT ~•1

FR VIS

IT

~T EPR VI511

(39 days)

8 and

9 Mar

ch297an PA

SCHOOLS'

SCHOOLS'

SE611

I&22 Tan

25-2E Jan

Week 1

bVee

k 2

NA~F

Week 3

Week 9

SNeek 5

Week 6

7 wee

ks, 4 days

Week 28

UG Yeaf 4 EXi

t PV

PV

TERM

pT MFF VIS

IT

PT EPF VIS

iT

CLOSES

(39 ddy5)

8 and

9 Maf

ch29 Tan PV

SE600 & SE612

FOR EASTER

10 weeks

N/A

U6 Yee

r 3 (4 yea

rs)

ALTERNATIVE AND IMLRivATIONAL PIAGcMENT

ALTERNATNE AND FNT

ERNA

TFOf

~At.

PLACEMEM

(50 days)

SE665P (SE2)

5F.~

PGCE Primary

PGCE Pri

mary

7-

5 Fe

b e-

11 Feb PV

Nleek 1

Week 2

NJeek 3

Week 9

V.

8 wee

ks, 4 days

N/A

PGCE Primary

Placement

Phoni6

Focu

s PV

?? Feh PA

PT 1.1PR V;S

ii

PT EPR VIS

ii

(qq days)

ConCirmatlon

Week

Week

SE603S

9-I'

t Feb

6Veek 1

Weak 2,

Week 3

bVee

k 4

Week 5

6 weela

N/A

PGCE Sxondary

PV

PT OBS VIS

1?

(30 days)

Semester 2 2016

Semester

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Total Weeks in

Euternal

Week

School

F~camination

:Week:Be inn

in

11 A r

18 A

r 25 A r

2 Ma

9 Ma

16 Ma

23 Ma

30 Ma

6 ]uric

~:3 June

20 Tune

27 June

4 Jul

IS Juf

-.

SEI401

i1d5 for

1R-Z

l Apr FV

bVee

k 1

bVee

k 2

Wez~ 3

Nfeek h

Week S

6 wee

ks, 3 days

N/A

UG Yea

r 1 Primary

PV

22 Apr Pn

~ ~T VIS

LT

PT EPR V.STI~

(33 day

s)J ^lay ~N

SE666P (SE3)

16-2

t Ap

r 75

-28 Apr vV

Week 1

WceR 2

Week 3

Wzek a

SCHOOLS'

V1ee

k 5

N(ee

k E

COURSe

8 wee

ks, 3 days

Week 42

PGCE Pfimery

PV

G9 A, r PA

2'

•1ay

f?H

PT MPR VIS

IT

HALF

pT ~

Sif

COMP

LEf1

0N

(43 day

s)

14 and

15 June

TERM

AT NEN/MAN

SE603S

lWeek6

Week?

WzeKB

Week9

\Neck 10

WeeH 11

UNNERSITY

SEF045

SE6~745.

SE6945

COURSE

9Weeks

PGCE Secondary

PT MPR

PT EFR VI5

1 f

BASED

Week f

Week7_

Week 3

COMP

l,El

7oN

(45 day

s)VI

SIT

AT NEWMAN

Placem

ent Co

nfir

mati

on

Email to trainees co

nfir

ming

pla

ceme

nt distribution procedures

PT VIS

IT

Part

ners

hip Tu

tor

visit co sch

ool fo

r ob

serv

atio

nPV

Preparation Visits in school

PT MPR

Partnership Tu

tor

visit t

o school for joint obs

erva

tion

wit

h CT/S8T and mid

-poi

nt review

PA

Planning Approval wi

th Par

tner

ship

Tut

or at Newman University

PT EPR

Partnership Tu

tor visit t

o school for obs

erva

tion

and end

-point review

BH

Bank Holida

En l

and and Wa

les

Pdge 1 School of

Education SE Dates 15/

16 (Fi

nal Version MB 8 May 2015)

Chapter

~-

SC2~°~- C~

~ • r

~,

•

Historically, the teaching of writing has been much less of

a focus than the

teaching of reading., How

ever

, just as we illustrated for rea

ding

, in order to

teach writing ef

fect

ivel

y it is necessary to be aware of

how children learn. We

return to

the evidence £xom c

ase-studies of

children

(~► Chapter 3, The

development of reading') in order to loo

k at writing developnnent. This pic-

ture of development is followed by a large seceion on the teaching

of. writing

and the di

fferent views that have been ex~ressedui relation to clie importance

of cr

eativity, e

xpre

ssio

n and choice.

2~~~

It i

s important to understand the typical stages of dcvelopmcnt that children

pass through in thei

r writing. This knowledge helps you to pitch yow• planning

and interaction at an appropriate level for

the children you ar

c te

achi

~l~;

. People

who have already ex

peri

ence

d such development as teachers and parents arc in

an advantageous

position. However, teachers who arc inexperienced need t

vgrasp the fundamental aspects of

such development. One of the; reasons for thi

sis that

it heightens you

r awareness of what to look f

or when yo

u have the

oppo

rtun

ity to

interact with young wri

ters

.As we showed in Chapter• 3, there are a number of in-depth case studies of

individual children that can

help in acyuiring knowledge about children's devel-

opment. Studies of individual children do not act as a hlueprint fo

r al

l children:

one of the important th

ings

that such case studies show u

s is that children's

experiences va

ry g

reatly. However, if we focus on c

erta

in 1

<ey concepts and

significant milestones, these can be applied to larger groups of children. These

milestones are

likely to happen at roughly the same age for many children bur

there

will he

significant numbers of children whose development i

s different.

Once ag

ain

the

stages of development a

re based on our a

nalysis of case

studies of children's wr

itin

g development which more frcyuently feature young

children's development than older ch

ildr

en.

Tables 11.1 to 17.3 illustrate t]ie development of children's writing through

the primary school.

12 Teaching English, language and literacy

Table

I I.I

Expectations for a child's writing at age 4

What you can expect

What you can do to help

Understands distinction

Talk about the differences between pictures and

print.

between print and pict

ures

Show what you do when you write and tell children that

you are writing.

Plays at writing

Provide a range of accessible resources. Encourage the

use of writing as part of role play.

Assigns meaning to own

Ask children about their writing and discuss'iu meaning

mark-making

with them. Se

t them challenges to write things for you

like little notes.

Often chooses to write names

Help children to write their name properly. Encourage

and lisu

them to sign their name on greetings cards.

Uses invented spelling

Encourage children to have a go at writing and spelling

in their own way.Once they have this confidence help

them move towards conventional spellings.

Has knowledge of letter shapes

Teach children how to form the letters properly. Te

ach

particularly those in child's

them how to write their name.

name

Recognises some punctuation

Help them to recognise the difference between letters

marks

and punctuations marks.

Knows about direction and

Talk to children about le

ft and rig

ht, top and bottom.

orientation of print

Use your finger to point as you read from time to time.

Ask questions to encourage children to show you their

knowledge about orientation of print.

'T'he teaching of wroting

In Chapter 3 on the development of reading we described how the pedagogy

(ter) of reading teaching had been dominated by the

reading wars'. As far as

writing is concerned, it is much mare difficult to identify a central theme to the

discussions about teaching. In part, this reflects the fact that writing continues

to a

ttract less attention than r

eading: less research

is devoted to writing and

there arc fewer

publications on the subject. Writing also seems to

attract less

attention in t

ine media although standards of spelling and grammar recurrently

hit the news. However, overall the disagreements in relation to the teaching of

writing have tended to centre on the amount of creativity ztnd self-expression

that is desirable and how these should he balanced with acquiring the necessary

writing skills. As we work through a number of key moments in the history of

writing pedac;ogy you

will see that this central point about creativity and skills

will recur.

The first national curriculum for primary schools was the elementary code of

1 SG2 (Table

l 1.4). Children were tested by i

nspectors, and t

his had a d

irect

impact on the pay that teachers would r

ec:eivc. It was a system

called payment

The development of writing

113

Table 11.2 E

xpectations for a child's writing at age 7

What you can expect

What you can do to help

Occasional interest i

n Encourage this provided

it does not become the main

copying known texts

form of writing over time. Use the opportunity to help

with letter f

ormation and whole word memory.

Range of genres of chosen

Encourage children to explore the things that they are

writing more limited

interested in and to write aboutthose topics.

reflecting specific interests

and motivation

Able to write longer texts

Children's stamina for writing improves as the conventions

such as stories

like handwriting and spelling get a

little easier. They will still

need help with structuring their texts as they try to

control these longer forms.

Understands the need to

Help children to see how red

raft

ing writing can help them

make changes to writing

to get better outcomes.

Understands that writing is

Explain that a sentence

is something that males complete

constructed

in sentences

sense on its own.

Word segmentation secure

Help children by engaging them with the visual aspects of

and

all phonemes

words. Word games, word chunks, etc. sh

ould be the focus

represented

in invented

to help them understand

English sp

elli

ng.

spellings

Use of punctuation for

Help children to organise their writing in sentences and to

meaning. Fu

ll stops used

remember to check for capital letters and

full stops.

conventionally

Handwritten

print of lower

Keep an eye on letter f

ormation and remind children from

and upper case letter shapes

time to time if they are not forming letters conventionally.

secure

ley

reszTlts. You can see that writing reaching at that time began with c

op~~in~;,

in the early years, and progressed to writing; from dictation.

Shaver points out that:

`Imitation' was not simply an isolated classroom exercise, but a whole way

of thinking that was taken for granted by a great many teachers, if

not by

tllc

vast majorit}', c

ertainly until 1920 and even beyond. Briefl}~, the pupil (cicm-

entary or secondary) is

always expected to imit~itc, c

opy, or reproduce.

(~y7~: 10)

He goes on t

o give some examples from Nelson's P

ictea~e

Essa~~s, (9U%, of

typical activities of the time:

`Describe a cow; general appearzlnce. Horns ...teeth ... ]roofs ... tail.

Food. Breeds. Uses.'

14 Teaching English, language and lit

erac

y

Table

1 1.

3 Ex

pect

atio

ns for

a chi

ld's

wri

ting

at ag

e

What you can

exp

ect

What you can

do to

hel

p

Usin

g information so

urce

s an

d Support the

ski

lls of

note-

taking and

/or ta

bula

ting

writ

ing to lea

rn

info

rmat

ion,

etc.

Will

red

raft

com

posi

tion

as

Help

chi

ldre

n to see the

value of re

draf

ting

to improve

well

as tr

ansc

ript

ion elemenu

the fi

nal pr

oduc

t. Support their pro

of-r

eadi

ng skills.

Able

to successfully control a

Enco

urag

e ex

peri

ment

atio

n to find ty

pes of wri

ting

that

rang

e of text forms and

have

they enj

oy.

deve

lope

d expertise in

favo

urit

es

Leng

th of wr

itin

g increasing

Help children to control the

lar

ger structural ele

ment

ssuch as headings and paragraphs.

Growing und

erst

andi

ng of

Disc

uss di

ffer

ence

s between things like emails to fri

ends

levels of fo

rmal

ity in

wri

ting

and family as opposed to formal letters.

Standard spe

llin

g most of th

e Help chi

ldre

n to enjoy the

wea

lth of inf

orma

tion

time

. Ef

fici

ent use of

cont

aine

d in

dic

tion

arie

s. Show them how to use

dict

iona

ries

and

spe

ll

standard adult dic

tion

arie

s.ch

ecki

ng

Basic punctuation secure.

Enco

urag

e us

e of fu

ll ran

ge of punctuation. En

joy sp

otti

ngAware of a ran

ge of other

thin

gs like t

he gr

ocer

's apo

stro

phe'

, e.g

. apple's and

pea

rsmarks

Presentation and

flu

ency

of

Support han

dwri

ting

with good qua

lity

pen

s an

d ot

her

hand

writ

ing di

ffer

enti

ated

for

im

plem

ents

. Encourage pr

oper

typ

ing when using

purp

ose

computer key

boar

d.

`Write on "Our Town" as fol

lows

: 1. C~s

trod

zsctio~a —Name; Meaning;

Situation; Popu]ation. 2. Appec~ntnce —General appearance, chi

ef streets,

buildings, par

ks, etc. 3. Ge

nera

l Remarks —Pr

inci

pal tr

ades

and ind

ustr

ies.

Any historical facts, etc.'

(197

2: 10)

Tl~e

Sto

ry o f a Shilling

Hint

s Where and when was it born?

What did it l

ook like?

Who wns its

fir

st owner?

What did

he do wit

h it?

Invent some adv

entu

res Eo

r it, and tel

l what became of it in th

e end.

(J. H. Fow

ler,

A First Course in

Essay-Wri

ting

, 1902)

In the

des

crib

e a cow activity we see a sim

ple three-part str

uctu

re offered. For

the st

ory of a s

hill

ing th

e st

imul

us i

s of

fere

d th

roug

h a

seri

es of qu

esti

ons.

Although thi

s ea

rly history of writing is fa

scin

atin

g, our mai

n historical interest

in thi

s chapter he~ins wit

h th

e 1960s.

N Q d v 0 U v u .n v a~i d H V ~L i s F- d'

-O F°

a 0 V 0 H v c D in

'D O 0 G 0 ~n

s>.

~ p

T

v

v;

'~ .c ~ v

O L n. S O U "y

ca m

(y

(tl

L0 L~ O

N n. a. ~ N Q N d~

~~a~E>

iL3E»~

~O

~ no °' L i

e u c c L ~ +

~-' 3

EN L ~ L L

O ~

ftl ~ L ~

UJ ~ ~

a~ ~ ~o

~ L ~;" 3 E Q o

Q a c o c

Q o ~ o c v .

~°' i,

~ o

'` ~

c~H

3~ roYa~

;,~ .

o~o~

~°~'m~~

~~~a

v o o~ o

u o ti

v°

v 3~

c "' ~ L 0

~~~ O N

~+

~ c c ~n

~ b0 4- L

u~ O L 7~—

~ N

~

~d

+-+ N

~n ~ ~ ~ O s. O

7 ~ E

V

~/1 L

N

Q ~O

Q d i C V

Q TJ .~ 'u 1'~ (~ N Q

~V u t

d

~ ~

T ft

i ~ E ~

A

C ~

T

R1 O 41

yN ~ L

`L° i v y

O~ <a

-~ O n.

L

oO L _O

Cl C N

~'' C L

'~

-E ~ N

~ av E~

a~yo

~ c

L

cy V ~—

Lam+

U/ 0 O~ (LE

Q N

~E>o

°o

°c' "3°'oa

~Eo

L

N

Q O

ltl .L

1 N

Q '0 ~

.~-.

~~ ~ N

Q ~

i

C

v

a~ v

~L

a~

L~~

~

3 -o

po

E s y

VI N

ro N 0~

d O~~

C c~U V

C UO N

N~ td C~

C" L'

~~ C d

C y b0 ~~fQ~

E N ,0

N 0~ L

N~ L~ V ~

y d -I

A

Q ~rL. L .0

Q N d L ~O ~

Q L~

.~c

m ° c°

o-•~

~ ai

y

'L O

~.x =~ L

N N

~

'D

a~ ~a L v

~ L

" O O

>.~— ~ d

v

cO N L y C 7_ C N

C V V

i. ~ ~ ~ Y ~ T ~ ~

E .0 i n.

~ ~u ~ O

ai ~ r O

rd ~

N 'O ~ ~

OZ`oEa~~°yV~a

Q~y~

~ c v v

y-

°uQ`

" ~

oN

V

~~+ E

V =~ N~~ N "O

o ~ a

o

~ y

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ C

~n 'n O

Ul

ftl

i ~

~ ~ .

'S c

E ~ "

~y ~ i ' t

i O

.OL~

~~ V

td

V 0 CO C d L t

Z ~

LPL ..O

'O V ~

IL ~ ~ ~ 4=. tV 7 O u

V.~

co

,u

~~

5

Ev

~,~

sL

L~

Q

Rio

ieacning ~ngnsn,ianguage ana

nteracy

Creative wri

ting

As a reaction against ra

ther

formal approaches,

creative wri

ting

' flourished in

the 19

60s.

One of th

e most famous texts from thi

s ti

me is Alex Cle

gg's

book

The Exc

item

ent o f Writing. Clegg re

cogn

ised

the extensive use —and poten-

tial

ly damaging effect — of pu

blis

hed

English sc

heme

s. As an a

lternative he

showed examples of children's wr

itin

g

taken from schools which are

del

iber

atel

y en

cour

agin

g ea

ch chi

ld to draw

sensitively on his own store of words and to de

ligh

t in

set

ting

down his own

idea

s in a way whi

ch i

s personal to him and stimulating to those who read

what he has written.

(196

4: 4)

Protherough (1973) provided a very usefiil summary of the

impact of creative

writ

ing and his paper also si

gnal

led some of the cr

itic

isms

tha

t were emerging.

Overall he fel

t th

at the

cre

ativ

e writing movement was an imp

orta

nt one and

that

the emphasis on personal, ima

gina

tive

wri

ting

[ne

eded

] to

be maintained

and ext

ende

d' (7975: 18

). But he

felt

the

model had some wea

knes

ses.

One of

these weaknesses was the

restriction on the

forms of wr

itin

g th

at were us

ed.

The teacher provided a st

imul

us (such as a pi

ece of music or visual art

) wh

ich

was followed by

an immediate res

pons

e, and thi

s implied

brie

f personal Forms

of wri

ting

such as a short c{e

scri

ptiv

e sk

etch

or a br

ief poem. The model did not

encourage th

e writing of

oth

er Forms suc

h as

arg

umen

t, pla

ys, or even short

stories. Protherc>e recommended tha

t

the st

imul

ated

wri

ting

is to

be seen ~zot as

the end -

product, but as a stage in

a pro

cess

. Pu

pils

need to be helped to de

velo

p th

eir work, and to learn-fr

omeach oth

er as we

ll as fi

~om die te

ache

r.

(ibi

d.: 13

)

As you

will see la

ter,

the

pro

cess

approach ro

ok these ide

as forward.

By t

he end of the

L970s, con

cern

s were growing about the

emp

hasi

s on

`fee

ling

' in writing te

achi

ng and dle

fact tha

t much of

the c

reat

ive

stim

uli

required an immediate response which did no

t al

low fo

r su

itab

le rew

orki

ng or

redr

afti

ng. Al

len (1

)50)

poi

nted

out tha

t too much foc

us on expressive wr

itin

gcould lead to a lack of em

phas

is on more abstract mod

es'.

At thi

s ti

me it was

suggested

that

the

teaching of v✓riting

required t

ight

er structures th

at were

deemed to be mis

sing

from the

cre

ativ

e wr

itin

g id

eas.

One of th

e influential th

inke

rs of the pe

riod

, James Britton, proposed cha

twr

itin

g co

uld he categorised int

o several Ic

ey forms (Figure 11.1). Britton of

fers

a sc

ient

ific

report as one example of tr

ansa

ctio

nal wr

itin

g (~). He arg

ued th

atth

is kind of w

riting `may elicit t

he sca

reme

nt of

other

view

s, of co

unce

r-arguments or corroborations or modifications, and i

s thus part of a chain of

he dev

elop

ment

of writing

117

Tran

sact

iona

l/ ~

/Exp

ress

ive/--;/Poetic/

7 2

3

4

5

Figu

re I

I.l

Br

itto

n's categorisation of for

ms of writing.

,I:,,.

aSource: R

epro

duce

d fr

om Lan

guag

e an

d Le

arni

ng. Har

mond

swor

th: A

llen Lan

e The Pen

guin

Pres

s, 1970, seco

nd edition 1972. Co

pyri

ght OO

f ames Britton, 1970, 1972.

inte

ract

ions

between peo

ple'

(19

70: 17

5). He contrasts thi

s with poe

tic wr

itin

gwh

ere

the reader i

s invited to sha

re a p

arti

cula

r verbal construct (~). The

shar

ing of the

wri

ter'

s th

ough

ts in poetic writing doe

s not

elic

it int

erac

tion

' in

the same way tha

t transactional wr

itin

g do

es.

Britton suggested th

at most of children's wri

ting

pro

duce

d in the

pri

mary

school i

s ex

pres

sive

wr

itin

g. But i

t develops, through

Brit

ton'

s transitio~ial

cate

gori

es (2 and 4

), towards t

ransactional and poetic forms a

s th

ey gain

grea

ter ex

peri

ence

and con

trol

over th

eir wr

itin

g. Britton arg

ued th

at children's

expressive wri

ting

needs to ad

apt to the more public writing of transactional

and poetic fo

rms,

Tr

ansa

ctio

nal

writ

ing

needs

to be more ex

plic

it,

for

the unknown re

ader

. Po

etic

wri

ting

on t

he oth

er hand em

phas

ises

implicit

mean

ings

in or

der

to c

reat

e `sounds, words, images, ideas, events, fee

ling

s'(1979: 177

). At thi

s ti

me there was a fee

ling

tha

t expressive; wr

itin

g could and

should be a foundation fo

r ot

her more abstract fo

rms.

However, overall, Al

len

main

tain

s th

at the mid- to lat

e 19i'Os were characterised by

uncertainty and lack

of consensus on approaches to the teaching of writi~ig.

Developmental wri

ting

The cre

ativ

e writing movement can be seen as linked with

philosophies suc

has

those of Ro

usse

au who advocated tha

t children's free ex

pres

sion

was vital.

But there was a lack of res

earc

h evidence to support claims 1hOLlt children's

`natural' de

velo

pmen

t. One of the re

ason

s th

at in-

dept

h case stu

dies

of in

di-

vidual children became imp

orta

nt was tha

t th

ey documented children's na

tura

ldevelopment

as language

users. Thi

s kind of data was a

lso

coll

ecte

d from

larger gro

ups of children. Harsce et al. (1984) were abl

e to ext

end our know-

ledg

e of children's writing by looking at 3-

and 4-y

ear -olds. Their conclusions

sign

alle

d co

ncer

n about the lack of ~m

inte

rrup

ted'

wri

ting

in most early yea

rssettings. One of th

e striking features of the

ir work was the

res

earc

hers

' ab

ilit

y ~°

to foc

us on the

positive fe

atur

es of early wr

itin

g ra

ther

tha

n th

e deficits: an

r

extract from Lessons from Lattice' — a cha

pter

from the

ir book — is shown in

Figu

re 112.

The r

esearchers i

niti

ally

con

fess

ed t

o being more u

nsure about L

atti

ce's

writ

ing th

an any of the ot

her children the

y studied: she was dev

elop

ment

ally

the le

ast ex

peri

ence

d child th

at the

y en

coun

tere

d. The researchers asked Lar

rice

to wri

te her

name and any

thin

g else tha

t she co

uld

writ

e; she was then asked

to draw a picture of he

rsel

f. By pos

itiv

ely and actively searching for evidence of


Figure 1

1.2 Samples of Lattice's writing.

Source: Reproduced from Harste et ol

. (I 984) L

anguage Stories a

nd Li

terary Le

ssons, Oxford: Heinemann.

Used with permission.

Lattice's achievements they were able to understand her writing in great depth.

The following i

s a l

ist of some of the knowledge t

hat Lattice had already

acquired:

Lattice was aware of how to use writing implements and paper.

She understood and demonstrated the

difference between writing and

pictures.

m She switched between w

riting and drawing as a strategy to maintain the

flow of her writing.

Each new mark represented a new or different concept.


I 19

She had developed some knowledge of the importance of space in relation

to text.

m She was aware of t

he permanence of meaning in relation to writtcil

language.

Another important point that Harsce et

al. made i

s that J

UC~gCI1lCI1TS about

children's writing Uased on the final product do not give us enough information

about their writing achievements. It is only by analysing the process of writing,

in addition to the product, that valid information can he gathered.

The research evidence on children's natural literacy development led to new

theories on writing pedagogy. It was argued that as children seemed to develop

to a large extent by using their own natural curiosity and ability, perhaps formal

teaching should take account of this reality. The theories of emergent literacy'

developed alongside approadles such as developmental writing'. The use of the

term emergent literacy' in education was popu]arised by Hall (1987) in

his

book The Eme~•gence of Literacy. The basis of the philosophy

is the notion of

the child as an active and motivated learner who experiments with a wide range

of written forms out of a sense of curiosity and a desire to learn. Hall described

emergent literacy as follows:

It implies that development takes place from w

ithin the child ... cmer-

gence' i

s a

gradual

process. For something t

o emerge t

here has

to he

something there in the

first place. Where emergent literacy

is concerned

this means the fundamental abilities children have, and use, to malcc sense

of the world ... things

usually only emerge i

f the conditions are r

ight.

Where emergent literacy

is concerned that means in contexts which sup-

port, facilitate enquiry, respect performance and provide opportunities for

engagement in real literacy acts.

(7957: 9)

The theory of emergent literacy was very

closely linked with the

practice of

developmental writing. The following list identifies soiree of the key features of

developmental writing and was influenced by Browne's (]996: 21) points chat

characterise such writing:

1 Builds on children's literacy experience prior to coming to school.

2

Encourages independent writing from day one of the nursery.

3

Modelling is provided by physical resources and the actions of the teacher.

4

Transcription errors are dealt with after the meaning has been established.

A smaller number of errors are corrected but each one in more detail.

5

Learning to write developmentally can be slow but the benefits in futum

motivation for writing are the result.

6

Writing tasks emphasise purpose and real reasons.

20 Te

achi

ng English, l

anguage an

d literacy

7

Chil

dren

have tu

ne to develop pi

eces

of writing in

dep

th.

3

The con

fide

nce to

tak

e ri

sks is enc

oura

ged.

Deve

lopm

enta

l writing differs from the cre

ativ

e wr

itin

g of the 196

0s and 197

0s

in two main ways. Both approaches sh

are th

e re

cogn

itio

n th

at children must be

given op

port

unit

ies to carry out

uni

nter

rupt

ed writing which uses th

eir pr

evi-

ous knowledge and experience. However, ~v

irh developmental wr

itin

g there is a

stro

nger

exp

ecta

tion

tha

t th

e teacher will interact, par

ticu

larl

y with ind

ivid

ual

children, in ord

er to take learning forward. The second

difference rel

ates

to

the

firs

t in

tha

t th

e tcadier's in

tera

ctio

n du

ring

develo}~mental wr

itin

g is bas

ed

on a high

level of

knowledge abo

ut common d

evelopmental pat

tern

s in

the

children's wri

ting

and t

his in

form

s th

e fo

cus of

the

ir interaction. With these

clea

rer pi

ctur

es of de

velo

pmen

t came dif

fere

nt and more rea

list

ic expectations

of children's learning.

The Freedom of developmental wr

itin

g was replaced in the

early 19S

Os by a

cont

inui

ng rec

ogni

tion

of th

e importance of children's sel

f-ex

pres

sion

, bu

t with

the re

alis

atio

n th

at routines to

support the pro

cess

of wr

itin

g were helpful.

The process approach to wri

ting

The u

~acertainty of the

197

0s w

~ls

fina

lly tr

ansf

orme

d by

the process t

~trriting

of the

198

0x. The work of the New Zea

land

er Donald G

raves became v

ery

infl

ucnt

ial~

CU~

illl

llfl

t111

f; in in

tern

atio

nal

recognition

for

his work and gr

eat

demand for

him as a lccynotc speaker. Cz

erni

e~vs

l:a (1

99?:

35)

described Gra

ves

as `on

e of

the

most sed

ucti

ve writers

in th

e history of

wri

ting

ped

agog

y'.

Grav

el's

approach

rep writing became (Mown as the

proc

ess approach' and had

a significant in

flue

nce on the teaching of ~a~

riti

ng in th

e UK. 7t

is dif

ficu

h to

assess exactly how many schools and teachers to

ok up the approach in the UK

but,

for example, the Na

tion

al Wr

itin

g Project and the Language in

the

Nati

onal

Curriculum

Project both inv

olve

d many schools in th

e UK, and it is

dear from the

ir rep

orts

of practice tha

t th

e pr

oces

s approach was influential.

Frank Smith

vas also very po

pula

r at

the tim

e and alt

houg

h his theories on

reading ha

ve attracted some severe cr

itic

ism,

his the

orie

s on writing, pa

rtic

u-

larly the se

para

tion

he

t~ve

cn c

ompo

siti

on and cr1111SC1'l1JT1017~ have remained

better intact.

It has

been

argu

ed th

at w

riti

ng i

s le

arne

d by

writing, by

read

ing,

and

by per

ceiv

ing oneself as

a writer. The practice of

writing dev

elop

s interest

and w

ith th

e he

lp of a more abl

e co

llab

orat

or provides op

port

unit

y fo

r

disc

over

ing conven

tion

s re

leva

nt to what is being written ...None of th

is

can

be taught. But a

lso. none of

this

imp

lies

tha

t there

is no r

ole fo

r a

teacher. Teachers must play a central pa

rr if c

hildren ar

e to

become writers,

ensu

ring

iliac the

y ar

e exposed to

inf

orma

tive

and sti

mula

ting

demonstra-

tion

s and helping and enc

oura

ging

them to re

ad and to write. Teachers ar

e

The dev

elop

ment

of wr

itin

g 121

influential, as models as well as guides, as

children ex

plor

e and discover th

eworlds of wr

itin

g — or decide tha

t writing

is something the

y wi

l] clever

volu

ntar

ily do ins

ide school or ou

t.

(Smith, 1982: 201)

Smit

h ex

pres

ses some of th

e ke

y id

eas of the process app

roac

h and particularly

the no

tion

of children being regarded as

writers from the

sta

rt. However, dle

idea

of th

e teacher

as p

rima

rily

a d

emon

stra

tor,

as

role model, and as

an

`enc

oura

ger'

has

rec

eive

d re

peat

ed criticism bec

ause

of th

e pe

rcep

tion

tha

t th

isdo

es not inv

olve

direct in

stru

ctio

n. Gra

vel'

s wo

rl: (which f

itted

~vit

ll Smith's

idea

s) developed cla

ssroom routines wh

ich tu

rned

such theories int

o a pr

acti

cal

reality for many teachers.

One of the fu

ndam

enta

l principles of Gravel's pro

cess

app

roac

h was dow

~n-

played in the UIC He was qui

te clear tha

t children nee

ded to be offered choices

in the

ir wri

ting

.

Children who are

fed top

ics,

sto

ry starters, lea

d se

nten

ces,

even opening

para

grap

hs as a st

eady

diet fo

r three or fou

r years, rightful]y pa

nic when

topics have to come from them ... Wri

ters

who do not learn to ch

oose

topi

cs wisely Io

se out on the

su•

ong li

nk between voice and subject ...The

data show tha

t writers who learn t

o choose top

ics

well

male the

most

significant gr

owth

in both inf

orma

tion

and shills at

the point of hest top

ic.

With bes

t to

pic the child ex

erci

ses strongest control, est

abli

shes

ownership,

and with ownership, pride in th

e pi

ece_

(Gra

ves,

1953: 21)

This

choice was not

the restricted kind off

ered

~~~

hen a teacher ha

s de

cide

d th

eform of writing. Graves advocated th

at children should select the topic and farm

of the

wri

ting

. Gravel's most popular ~.v

orl:

Wri

ting

: Teachers czn

d Cl

~ild

re~r

at

Work is fr

eque

ntly

cited as an

account of the process ap

proa

ch. But as CJ

vsc

(1998) showed in Pr

imar

y W~•iting,

teachers in

England

used th

e process

appr

oach

in qu

ite different ways to th

ose ch

arac

teri

sed by

Gra

ves.

The genre the

oris

ts

In the

lat

e 19

80s the po

pula

rity

and opt

imis

m of the process approach be

gan to

be attacked by

a gro

up of Au

stra

lian

aca

demi

cs cal

led the

genr

e theorists'. Thr

tide beg

an to tu

rn away from the importance

c>f l

elf-expression ro~

~~ar

ds gre

ater

emph

asis

on skills and direct instruction. The tl~

rce authors who per

haps

have

been

referred to

most in

mlat

ion

to g

e~u-

e theory a

rc J. R. Martin, Fra

nces

Christie and Joan Rothery. One of the

Icey

texts from 1957 was The P

lctce- n f

Genre in Learning whe

re these three authors put

for

ward

some of the

ir ide

asas

a response to oth

er authors in the hook. They also of

fere

d some criticisms of

the process approach.

122

Teaching Eng

lish

, language and li

tera

cy

In a sec

tion

of Ma

rtin

et al

.'s chapter ch

ey examine the not

ion of

fr

eedo

m'

duri

ng the process approach. They ask

a ser

ies of imp

orta

nt que

stio

ns:

What is freedom? Is a pro

gres

sive

pro

cess

wri

ting

cla

ssro

om r

eally free?

Does all

owin

g children to ch

oose

the

ir own top

ics,

bit

ing one's tongue in

conf

eren

ces and encouraging ownership, zi

ctua

lly encourage the develop-

ment of children's wri

ting

abilities?

(Mar

tin et al.

, 19

87: 77)

To ans

wer th

ese qu

esti

ons th

e authors re

port

nn a school

in the

Aus

tral

ian

Northern Te

rrit

ory

with

a

large

popu

lati

on of

Ab

orig

inal

children. They

clai

med th

at over th

e co

urse

of the year the

children had onl

y wr

itte

n about one

of fou

r to

pics

: (a) visiting friends and r

elat

ives

; (b) going hunting for bu

sh

tuck

er; (c

) sp

orti

ng events; (d) movies or TV shows the

y have see

n' (i

Uid.

: 77).

This

example is us

ed to ca

st doubts on the

effectiveness of th

e pr

oces

s approach

clai

ming

tha

t th

e range of forms tha

t children cho

ose

is lim

ited

. However, as

Wyse (19

98) showed, the process approach can ha

ve the

opposite

effe

ct. The

foll

owin

g is a snapshot of

children's writing carried out during a wr

itin

g work-

shop

. It

also

give

s a

contextual background pointing t

o th

e or

igin

of the

idea

and i

ndic

atio

n of the nan

ire of teacher support giv

en during a

writ

ing

conf

eren

ce:

Computer Gan

ses

c~~zd Hvzu to Cheat.

The two pupils came up with the id

ea. The teacher suggested a survey of

othe

r children i

n the school who might he

able

to

offer ways of getting

through th

e le

vels

on computer games. The teacher also suggested a format

whic

h would serve as a framework for

the

wri

ting

about eac

h game.

A 600h. o f Pc

itterns

Self-g

ener

ated

ide

a wi

th the

teacher off

erin

g guidance on the amount of

text

tha

t would Ue required and the

nat

ure of tha

t text.

Tool

s Mania

A Clair fo

r pr

acti

cal

desi

gn te

chno

logy

pr

ojec

ts r

esulted

in ale of

the

pair

of

pupils choosing

this

topic w

hich

inv

olve

d writing a manual for

the

use of

tools. Both pupils Eou

nd th

e necessary

expository wr

itin

g a

challenge.

The Nez

u Gi

rl

The girl herself was new to the sc11oo1 and thi

s title may have provided her

with a means of exploring some of he

r own fee

ling

when she fir

st arr

ived

.

Manchester United

F~7tzzinc

This

was a p

arti

cula

rly welcome p

roje

ct as

it inv

olve

d three

girl

s work-

The dev

elop

ment

of writing

123

ing on an i

nterest th

ey had i

n football.

It was an

oppo

rtun

ity to c

hal-

leng

e the

ster

eoty

pes co

nnec

ted

with

foo

tbal

l. The teacher s

et a strict

dead

line

as the pr

ojec

t seemed to be growing too big

and also suggested

the

girl

s se

nd the

fin

ishe

d magazine to th

e football club to see what the

yth

ough

t.

Football Sto

ryThe pupil worked una

ided

onl

y re

ques

ting

the tea

cher

's support to check

tran

scri

ptio

n.

A Book o f Ch

ildren's Games

Using a book from home the pupil cho

se her

fav

ouri

te games and t

ran-

scribed them in her own words.

Secret Messages

Vari

ous se

cret

mes

sage

s were inc

lude

d in the book whi

ch the

reader had to

work out. Th

is was aimed at th

e younger. ch

ildren and involved a ser

ies of

desc

ript

ions

of unknown objects whi

ch the

rea

der had to fi

nd around the

school.

Kitten for Nic

ole

This

was an adv

ance

d pi

ece of narrative; th

e teacher made minor sugges-

tion

s for improving th

e en

ding

. Un

fort

unat

ely th

e child de

cide

d she di

dn't

like

the

tex

t and sta

rted

on a new one without publishing th

is.

Book for Young Chi

ldre

nThe two boys used pop-

art style cartoons for

the

ill

ustr

atio

ns as a means of

appe

alin

g to

the

younger children. The teacher gav

e some input on the

kind

s of mat

eria

l th

at were likely to appeal to the younger children. One of

the

pair

tended

to l

et the

oth

er do most of th

e work and th

e teacher

enco

urag

ed the

sharing out

of tasks.

Football Magazine

There had been an

epidemic of football magazines and the rea

cher

made a

decision tha

t th

is was to be

the

las

t one for

a tim

e in ord

er to ensure a

balance of forms. The two boys us

ed i

deas

from various

professional

magazines combining photographs with th

eir own text.

Iii for

mati

on about Trains

Great

interest in one of th

e sc

hool

's information books which i

ncluded

impressive pul

l-ou

t sections was the

stimulus for th

is text. At the tim

e the

work in pr

ogre

ss consisted of a large dra

wing

of a tra

in. The teacher had

concerns tha

t co

ncen

trat

ion on the

dra

wing

cou

ld become a sCrategy fo

rav

oidi

ng writing.


Tl~e Magic Copt

An expertly presented dual language story which had been

written with

help from the child's mother for the Urdu script. The home computer had

also been used to create borders and titles. The t

eacher's role simply

involved taking an interest in the progress.

Catch phrase

Pupil's doodling had given

the

reacher an idea for an activity which

involved d

evising catchphrases based on the television programme. This

pupil decided to compile a book of her own catchphrases.

Chintung

Originally two pupils had been encouraged to

devise and s

ell a school

magazine. This included market research around the school, design, word

processing, editing other children's contributions, selling, accounting, etc.

This was alarge-scale project and the original editors felt they would like

to delegate the responsibility for the second issue to someone else, so two

new editors took over.

Netuspaper

The idea came from the two pupils but coincided fortuitously with a com-

petition organised by the local paper encouraging students to design their

own paper. The children asked various people around the school to offer

stories. Layout became an important issue. The children brought in

their

own camera and took pictures to

illustrate t

heir t

ext. BBC and Acorn

computers were both used, necessitating understanding of two d

ifferent

word processors.

Modern Fairy Tale

The two pupils were struggling f

or an idea so the

teacher

suggested

they contact another school to find out the kinds of hooks they liked with

a view to writing one for them. The school was in a deprived area and had

many more t

rilingual children than t

he two pupils were used xo. They

realised that their

initial

questionnaire

would need modification if i

t

was to be used again. The children at the other school expressed a prefer-

ence for traditional stories so the two pupils decided to write a modern

fairy

tale. They were encouraged by t

he teacher to ask

the opinion of

bilingual peers on suitable subject m

atter and some information about

India.

Joke Book

The two pupils surveyed the children in the school for good jokes. This was

a popular

title and had been done before in the course of the year.


125

Knightrider

A hook based on the favourite television programme of the pupil.

It can be seen from this

list that the children were involved in a large range of

ideas and formats. Many of the ideas are firmly rooted in the children's interests

and culture. A significant proportion of the texts involved children collaborat-

ing

in twos or

threes as

well as those

children who wrote individually. The

flexibility of the workshop allowed for a range of groupings that were influ-

enced by the piece of writing concerned and the children's social needs. This

organisation also reflected the

nature of language and literacy as a

social

phenomenon.

Writing workshop offers the potential

for

a much greater range of texts

which are

created

using

the

children's i

ntrinsic motivation. Another major

benefit

is the opportunity for study in depth

over a long period of time. Set

written tasks often have a deadline, too often this can be to start and finish on

the same day. With writing workshop the session is timetabled and the children

decide on the task. This means that the children are thinking about their writing

prior to the day itself. Often they will be working on texts at home (an import-

ant test of their interest in school

activities) which they bring

iil to continue.

Having the time to continue with a text for as long as it takes

is an important

principle. The r

esult can be t

exts whid~ a

re longer and written

with more

thought

Martin et al.'s answer to the perceived problems of the process approach was

didactic teaching on the structure and range of various genres that are available.

For example, if

a teacher were reading Little Red Riding Hood, th

ey might refer

to the stages of a genre. In the narrative genre it is suggested that these stages

are

Orientation, Complication and Resolution'. Later in the cha}~ter Martin et

al. suggest that these could be added to: Abstract/Orientation/Complication/

Evaluation/Resolution/Coda' (~ Chapter 5, Working with texts').

Their strong views on direct instruction are illustrated by a specific criticism

of G

raves's (1983) work. They examine air

extract from Graves's seminal

book:

Mr Sitka:

What is this paper about, Anton?

Anton:

Well, I'm not sure. At first I thought it was going to be about when

we won the game in overtime with the penalty kick. But then

I got

going on how our team had won b

ecause we were in such good

shape for overtime. You see, the orlier team hardly move at the end..

Took me way back to our earlier practices when I hated the coach

so much. Gosh, I don't know what it's about.

Mr Sitka:

Where are you now in the draft?

Anto~z:

Oh, I'

ve just got the part down about when we won in overtime.

Mr Sitka:

So, you've just got started then. Well, it

's probably too early to

tell

what it's about. What did you figure to do with the next draft then?

126

Teaching Eng

lish

, lan

guag

e an

d literacy

Antor::

1 don't I:

now

1 don't want to ju

st wri

te and wander around. I'v

e

writ

ten ab

out when we'

ve won but it ju

st sor

t of has me stuck at

that

point.

M~~ Si

thcr

: Te

ll me aUout tha

t co

ach of yours.

Anton:

God, hc>

w I ha

ted him! I almost qu

it three or fo

ur times maybe. I

d1ou~;ht he co

uldn

't sta

nd me. He'd yel

l, cat

ch every lit

tle th

ing I did

wrong. We'd run and run u

ntil

we cou

ldn'

t stand up

. Have some

pass

ing

dril

ls. Then he'd run us some more. He'd jus

t st

and there

Yellin' and puf

fin'

on his cig

ar. Course he was right. When we won

the championship, l th

ink

it went rig

ht back to those early pra

ctic

es.

Mr Sit

ka:

The way you tel

l it sounds as though you

hav

e qu

ite a Liv

e be

ginn

ing

to yo~

u~ story. Try wr

itin

g about early pra

ctic

es, then see what you

r

}~tl

'CC 1S E

l ~IOUT.

(Gra

ves,

] 983:

114

)

Martin et al

. cite thi

s exn•act as

an example of

unfo

cuse

d confemncing'. They

criticise th

e teacher fo

r no

t di

rect

ly helping the

young writer to shape th

e struc-

ture

of his narrative'. They go on to suggest th

at thi

s kind of indirect gui

danc

e

will onl

y benefit bright middle-class children who am su

re to re

ad bet

ween

the

lines and learn to write, app

aren

tly ef

fort

less

ly, without being ta

ught

'.

In addition ro these cru

de vie

ws about class and abi

lity

, th

eir cr

itic

isms

reflect

a di

stor

ted vi

ew of ef

fect

ive teaching and learning. In th

e extract th

e pupil do

es

the bu

lk of th

e ta

lkin

g. It steins thelt the

reacilcr ha

s de

velo

ped a good wor

king

rela

tion

ship

as

rl~c

pupil is confident to exp

ress

a range of id

eas and issues. The

teacher

is clearly cncc>tu•aging the

pupil to th

ink independently and res

ists

tel

l-

ing him what to do. In

stea

d he encourages the pupil to ref

lect

on, and beg

in to

solve, some of his <~wn pro

blem

s. The cha

rge th

at the teacher doe

s no

thin

g to

directly h

elp th

e writer shape the

nar

rati

ve i

s plainly mistaken. Each of the

ceac

he~'

s questions

dir~

c:ts

the

writers attention to im

port

ant aspects of the

written structure su

ch as:

the

theme of th

e wr

itin

g; the

direction of the piece;

whom the

pupil is in the

pro

cess

; a

pote

ntia

lly in

tere

stin

g addition to the plot;

how the

piece might beg

in. The tea

cher

's fin

al pie

ce of di

alog

ue doe

s ju

st what

Mart

in et al

. say the te

ache

r do

es not

da, i.

e. dir

ectl

y he

lp the writer wi

th the

structure: The way you

tel

l it sounds as though you

hav

e qu

ite a liv

e be

ginn

ing

to you

r story. Try

wri

ting

abo

ut early p

ract

ices

, then see what you

r pi

ece

is

abou

t.' The teacher off

ers some foc

used

positive feedback designed to sup

port

the

pupi

l's

self

-est

eem and to s

igna

l a

potentially

eFfe

ctiv

e op

enin

g to t

he

narrative. The teacher is qu

ite clear in the

sug

gest

ion th

at Anton should us

e th

e

`ear

ly p

ractices' as the

beg

inni

ng of the story. Fol

lowi

ng thi

s suggestion, th

e

teacher presumably feels tha

t Anton is capable of

tak

ing th

at ope

ning

fur

ther

so

he doe

s no

t offer ot

her sp

ecif

ic rec

omme

ndat

ions

. However, the

teacher would,

of course, be aw

are th

at lat

er on he might return i

f Anton sCruggles with th

e

subsequent sec

tion

, but he has

at le

ast gi

ven him the opp

ortu

nity

to solve the

next

problem himself.

The dev

elop

ment

of writing

127

The Primary I~fational Strategy Framework

In spi

te of a number of serious criticisms (Ba

tts,

1991; Cairncy, l9

9?),

the virws

of the

gen

re the

oris

ts pro

ved to be influential. Con

scyu

cnly

, ge

nre theories wer

ea dominant feature of th

e Na

tion

al Literary Strategy Framcworlc fo

r Teaching

(DEEE, 199

5). There was an equal em

phas

is on fiction and non

-fic

tion

tha

t had

been

inf

orme

d by

the

vie

w th

at there was tov much sto

ry writing hap

peni

ng in

primary sc

hool

s. The goals for

written composition no lon

ger em

phas

ised

per

-

sona

l ch

oice

, writing to interest and cxc

:ite

rea

ders

, finding a vehicle fo

r ex

pres

-

sion

, wr

itin

g to exp

lore

cro

ss-curricular th

emes

, writing as

art, but were much

more abo

ut the analysis of

gen

re structures. The importance of wri

ting

for

rea

l

purposes and masons in or

der to communicate meaning was rcplarcd

by an

emph

asis

on textual analysis as

the main stimulus fo

r composition.

Building on ~e~

u•e theo

ries

, the

w~oric of Wray and Levis (1997) had a sig

nifi

-

cant

infl

uenc

e on the wri

ting

ped

agog

y of the NLS. They ide

ntif

ied afour-scagc

model: Demo

nstr

atio

n — Tltc teacher

thin

l.s al

oud'

as th

ey dcmonstr,itc the wr

it-

ingprocess. Th

is includes ~nencal processes th

at ~o thr

ough

the hea

d wl

lilc

writing

as we

ll a

s in

form

atio

n and shills. Examples a

rc shown

rc~

tllc

children.

2

Join

t ac

tivi

ty — Teacher and cli

ild(

ren)

cns

~age

in shared w

riting. Ch

ildr

e1l

are encouraged to concrihute as much as

pe~s

sihl

e to

the ~vritint; und

er the

guid

ance

of the te

ache

r.

Supported

acrivicy —The teacher sets

,i ta

sk but

continues to tiupport ~l,il-

dren as th

ey nee

d help.

4

Indi

vidu

al a

rriv

iry — Chilcircn w

ri~c

indcpcndcntly with

llllilllllal su~~}~c>rt

when required.

However, Wray and Lewis pointed our

that:

It is,

arguably, equ

ally

as damaging to hold h

acl: learners by

ins

isti

ng, t

hey

'1 go through the same programme of su

ppor

t and p

ractice as

everyc~nc else

as it is to ru

sh lea

rners th

roug

h su

ch a pro

gran

nne when the

y need a more

extensive programme of support.

(ihi

d.: Z3)

This

message was not

hee

ded wdl cno

~igh

, resulting in

an approach to wr

itin

g

that

at times became a mantra. The s

tand:u-ds of w

riti

ng o

ver

the

period

showed onl

}' 11

70CIC5T gains, le

ss tha

n dlose fo

r reading wh

ich were also nu~dest,

so i

t seems tha

t more work needs

to b

e done to

better und

erst

and

~n•iting

pedagogy.

Thy PNS Framework retains many of the

features of the NLS app

roac

h,

particularly the

emp

hasis on analysis of tex

t q~

pes,

but with some additions.

The dominant model con

sist

s of four ph

ases

:

x.28

Teaching Eng

lish

, lan

guag

e an

d literacy

The development of wr

itin

g 12

9

7 Read and analyse Features of the

teat ty

pe.

in i

mpro

ved

writing was about the

importance of author

aitn

, wh

ich

was

2

Expl

ore th

e te

xt typ

e th

roug

h a range of act

ivit

ies including or

al one

s.

explained as a kee

n sense of the

aud

ienc

e fo

r th

e writing li

nked

wit

h personal

3

The tea

cher

dem

onst

rate

s writing.

intentions and mot

ives

:

4

Chil

dren

write the

fea

ture

d text typ

e and

evaluate the

ir writing based on

the teacher's cr

iter

ia.

t~lu

rhor

aim r

eintroduces in

divi

dual

ity to

the

writing landscape, a

poin

twi

th whi

ch certain Systemic Functional linguists [th

e theoretical tr

adit

ion

One of th

e da

nger

s of any wel

l-sp

ecif

ied approach is that it

can

become a rather

to whi

ch the

gen

re the

oris

ts were li

nked

] were not

par

ticu

larl

y co

mfor

tabl

e

infl

exib

le model The

re is al

so the

imp

orta

nt que

stio

n of what evidence there is

... we are

not

distressed by

the

ide

a of ins

truc

ting

chi

ldre

n in

for

m. We are

,

to support suc

h an

app

roac

h.

howe

ver,

concerned t

hat individuals, aut

hors

, and

thei

r aims r

eceive so

One of th

e ch

arac

teri

stic

s of the

more recent re

sear

ch on writing pedagogy

litt

le foc

us in considerations of st

ruct

ure-ba

sed in

stru

ctio

n.

is tha

t much has

bee

n done by lo

okin

g at

non-fiction genres but

less on the

(ibid.: 462)

writing of fiction and v

ery

little on for

ms of writing su

ch as po

etry

. Andrews

et al.

's (2006) systematic review lo

oked

at th

e writing of argumentative non

- There

is very

litt

le evidence in

the

PNS tha

t author aim

is a central concern no

r

fiction

writing. Their mai

n findings w

ith

rega

rd r

o th

e context for

writing

are ch

ildr

en to be reg

ular

ly encouraged to

exe

rcis

e individual cho

ices

. The ~lu

es-

teac

hing

were th

at the

following were important:

tion

as to

whe

ther

opportunities to make cho

ices

is im

port

ant can, as we have

shown, be ad

dres

sed by

research. How

ever

, t11is ma

tter

is al

so a question of

A writing pro

cess

model in wh

ich students are encouraged to

plan, dra

ft,

valu

es. You may feel that

offering ge

nuin

e choices periodically during a ch

ild'

s

-edi

t and rev

ise th

eir writing.

early years and pri

mary

schooling i

s et

hica

lly necessary and

that

thi

s co

uld

a Self-motivation (personal

targ

et-s

etti

ng as pa

rt of

self-r

egul

ated

str

ateg

y result in ch

ildr

en bei

ng more mot

ivat

ed to wr

ite.

development).

m Some degree of cognitive r

easoning t

raining

in a

ddit

ion to the

nat

ural

cognitive development th

at tak

es place wit

h maturation.

Prac~iee ~Soints

0 Peer col

labo

rati

on, t

lws mo

dell

ing a di

alog

ue that (i

t is hoped) wil

l become

, ~ •

Impr

ove your obs

erva

tion

and int

erac

tion

ski

lls by

increasing yo

ttr,

know

-in

tern

al and constitute

thought'.

ledg

e of wr

itin

g development.

(Andrews et al

., ?006: 32)

o

Ivla

ke dec

isio

ns on how a'n

d when yot

~ will off

er cho

ices

.Use your ob

serv

atio

ns to ad

just

your pl

amzi

ng for

wri

ting

so that child-

They als

o suggested some spe

cifi

c interventions that were su

cces

sful

, in

clud

ing

ten'

s actual needs are

mat

_

supp

ort to

usG the

structures and d

evic

es that aid th

e co

mpos

itio

n of arg

u-

ment

ativ

e writing; the

use

of oral argument to

inform th

e wr

itte

n ar

gume

nt;

~ Gl

ossa

fy-

identification of ex

plic

it goals including the

aud

ienc

e fo

r th

e writing; teacher

mode

llin

g; and the

tea

cher

coaching writing during the

process. Th

ese

list

s of

Cons

truc

t— in this context the

word is a noun — as op

pose

d to

a verb —and

aspe

cts wh

ich ar

e part of ef

fect

ive pe

dago

gy do in some ways re

late

to th

e PNS

~ means a spe

cifi

c vvaq of thinl~xng about something.

model but the

res

earc

h shows this is

a much more com

plex

and subtle picture.

Pedagogy—agproachesta teaching

:.Tr

ausa

ctio

ma~ wr

itim

g —c

once

rned

with getting cl

iing

s done, e

.g. i

nforniatxozi,

Andrews et al

. al

so poi

nt out

that th

e re

comm

enda

tion

s were not

universally

vr~stitkctions, p

ersu

asio

n; et

c.shared by

the

studies that th

ey loo

ked

at. One of th

e limitations of these

outc

omes

is that the

rec

omme

ndat

ions

for

practice cannot be

related to

the

writing of fiction or po

etry

. At the

heart of these and other for

ms is th

e us

e of

References

imagination, acid th

e ex

tent

of th

e or

igin

alit

y and qua

lity

of id

eas ar

e pa

ra-

Alie

n, D. (1

980] English Teacl~zng Sin

ce 196

5: How Much Gt•owth? London:

mount con

cern

s. But these are onl

y me

asur

eabl

e if

chi

ldre

n ar

e actually giv

en

Heinemann;EdttcationalBoQks.

choices over t

he t

opic and form

of the

ir writing. The l

inks between g

enre

~ Andrews, R, Torgerson, C. J.,

Low, G.,

McGuinn, N, and Rob

inso

n, A.

theo

ries, structured t

each

ing and i

ndiv

idua

lity

were e

xplicit]y ad

dres

sed by

(Z

ti06

) Te

achi

ng argumenCative non

-fir

rion

wri

tuzg

to 7-14 year ol

ds: a

Donovan and Smo

ll<i

n (?

002)

. Their st

udy examined the

use of sc

affo

ldin

g in

a

syst

emat

ic review of the

,evi

de~i

ce'o

f successful pra

ctic

e', Te

cltn

ic~l

report.

range of wri

ting

tasks including story writing and non

-fic

tion

writing. One of

Research Evidence in

Education Library. Re

trie

ved 29'Jaxzuary, 2007, fzom

thei

r key findings based on evidence that writers' personal interests cou

ld res

ult

http

://e

ppi.

ioe.

ac.u

k/em

s/

30 Teaching tnglish, l

anguage and lit

erac

y

Sams, M. (1991) Genre theory: wha

t's it

all abo

ut?'

Lct

rzgu

age Nt

cttt

ers,

199

1/

92(1): 9-16.

Britton, J.

(1970) La

zngu

ctge

and Learning. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Browne, A. (1996) Developing Lcr

ng~t

age and L

iter

acy 3-8. London: Paul

Chapman.

Carney, T. (199?) Mountain or mole h

ill: t

l~e genre de

Uate

viewed from

"Dow~a Under" '.

Reading, 26

(1):

23-29.

Clegg, A. B. (1964) The Bxc

item

e~zt

o f Wri

ting

. London: Chatto and Windus.

Czerniewska, P.

(1992) Learning about Writing. Oxford: Bla

ckwe

ll.

Department for

Edu

cati

on and Employment (DEEE) (1

998) N~ttionad Lit

erac

y

Strategy Fra

nzea

uork

for Tec

~c%i

ng. Loudon: DfEE.

Donouan, C. and Smo

llci

n, L.•(~002) Children's genre knowledge: an exam-

inat

ion of K-5 stu

dent

s' performance on mul

tipl

e ta

sks pr

ovid

ing di

ffer

ing

leve

rs of sca

ffol

ding

', Re~zcling Res

earc

h O:

aart

erly

, 37(4): 428-465.

Grav

es, D. H. (1983) Wr

itin

g: Tea

cher

s and Children at

Work. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann Educational Books.

Hall, N. (19S7) The Emergence o f Lite

racy

. Se

veno

alcs

: Hodder &Stoughton.

Harste, J.

C.,

Woodward, V. A. and Burke, C. L. (1984) Language SCo

ries

and

Literacy Lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Boolcs.

Martin, J. F., Christie, F. and Rothery, J.

(1987)

Soci

al pro

cess

es in educa-

tion: areply to Sawyer and Watson (and others)', in I.

Rei

d (e

d.) The Pla

ce

of Genre i~z

1 earnang. Victoria: Deakin Uni

vers

ity.

Pxotlieroe, R. (1973)

When in doubt, write a poem', Englis/~

ita Education,

12(1

): 9-21.

Shay

er, D. (197?) The T

e~zc

hi~a

g of Eng

lzsh

in Sc

hool

s 1900-1970. London:

Rout

ledg

e and Kegan Pau

l.

Smith, F. (1982) Writing and the

Writer. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Edu-

cational Books.

Wray, D. and Lewis, M. (1997) Extendirzg Lit

erar

y: Children Reading and

Writing No

n-fi

ctio

n. London: Routledge.

Wyse, D. (1993) PrimaYy Wrz

ting

. Buckingham: Open Unl

vers

iCy Pr

ess.

Annotated bibliography

Andrews, R., Torgerson, C. J., Low, G.,

McGuilln, N. and Robinson, A.

(2006) Teaching argumentative non

-fic

tion

writing to 7-14 yea

r olds: a

systematic rev

iew of the evi

denc

e of suc

cess

ful practice', Technical report.

Rese

aach

Evi

desz

ce in Ed

ttic

ntio

n Library. Ret

riev

ed 29 Jau

uaiy

, 2007, from

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cros/

Offe

rs conclusions on ef

fect

ive pedagogy for

the

teac

hing

of wr

itte

n

argument.

L3 ,~,

.,.

Bissex, G.L. (1980) GI~YS At WRK: A Child Learns to

Writ

e and Read.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni

vers

ity Press.

A~~ extremely thorough and ins

ight

ful account of one chi

ld's

dev

elop

ment

.F

~ iic ucvcwNu~.,u.. v. ..~

....

..6

,...

A..r

ich gi

ctnz

e is

cox

rabi

ned with lui

owle

dgea

ble academic l

iialysis:

aa~

impo

rtan

t'bo

ok.

L2 •

'~

Czerniewska, P.

(1992) Learning abo

ict Writing. O~tford: Blackwell.

Summarises many of dte

eac

geri

ence

s of the

National lW

ritiiig Pr

o}ec

t which

was so inf

luen

tial

during €he 1980s.

L2 :F

IDonovan, C. and SmoIkin, L. (2002)

Children's gen

re knowledge: ati exam-

inar

ion of K=5 stu

dent

s' pe

rfar

ma~,

ice an mul

tipl

e ta

sks providing differing

leve

ls o~scaFfolding', Reading Res

earc

h Ou

a~~t

erly

, 37(

4):-428-465.

L3 :;

;;.~r

newmanpgcedramaenglishmedia.files.wordpress.com · `debate' in the title to this chapter...

Documents