Stand English Ideology

Chapter 5 in International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts was about the issues of standards in reference to World Englishes, the Standard English ideology, and intelligibility. The challenge that World Englishes present to the Standard ideology is that there should be different standards for different contexts of use. Standard English should be determined locally, as opposed to outside its context of use. Kachru believed that letting a variety of linguistic norms exist would lead to an educated variety of English that would be intelligible across many varieties. I agree with Kachru in that a variety of norms would bring about positive results. I feel that it is an optimistic way of looking at different varieties of English. Plus, it is more realistic. The global spread of English will only give rise to many more varieties, each with its own norms. There will always be unifying norms because they are all a variety of English, but each variety is and will continue to be unique. It is degrading to say that speakers of different varieties don’t speak the proper form because they are all forms of the same language. Therefore, I disagree with the monolithic model that argues that if localized standards are allowed to develop, English speakers will no longer be able to understand each other. Also, it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen. The point is often missed that “it is people, not language codes, that understand one another, and people use the varieties they speak for specific functions (Bamgbose 11).” Who is the judge for determining intelligibility in various varieties of English? It is not our place to say that certain ways are right. There is a diverse number of varieties of English, just as there are diverse varieties of languages overall.

Lippi-Green refers to standard language and non-accent as myths and abstractions. I had never thought of it in this way, but she makes a valid point. An abstraction is the idea of something which has no independent existence. This is true of standard language because it serves as an idea, not a fact. Myths are used to justify social order; this is not a way to prove anything because myths are not factual. Lippi-Green states that every native speaker of English has some regional variety. This makes it difficult to define a standard English because all native speakers have some kind of accent depending on their region. Every native speaker of US English has an L1 accent. People appear to have accents when their speech differs from the speech of the person who is listening. It is all about perspective. The lines between where dialects start and end geographically are not clear. Code switching is when a speaker of one language switched to another in the same conversation. Code shifting occurs when a speaker switches between dialects. They are both thought to be a skilled and complicated process, however to me, code shifting would be more difficult because the two languages involved are very similar. A speaker would have to be aware of how to pronounce certain sounds; otherwise they would not be code shifting if the sounds are too similar between dialects. Even though myths are not tangible, they are real enough to cost people jobs, when it comes to L2 accents. Not only that, but laws do not truly protect people in these situations, such as Mr. Kahakua when he was not given a promotion because of his accent, but the judge dropped the case because he did not speak standard English. This is just as bad as discriminating against other languages as we have talked about earlier this semester. Now people are learning English and we still discriminate against them. When will America and its people accept people for who they are and the unique differences that they bring to the table?