Is there a Standard English Grammar?

I propose firstly, to set out what I understand by the terms prescriptive, descriptive and pedagogical when applied to the various approaches to English usage. Then examine the assertion that there are hundreds of grammars around the world and present the case for a Standard English grammar and its implications for the teaching of English throughout the world.

Proponents of a prescriptive grammar aim to tell people how to speak a language rather than to describe how it is spoken. They presuppose the existence of a model of ‘correct’ or ‘proper’ English and may support a particular variety that they regard as superior to any others.

Huddleston and Pullum (2007) assert that there is

“…a long tradition of prescriptive works that are deeply flawed: they simply don’t represent things correctly or coherently, and some of their advice is bad advice.” (p4)

As an example, they present a fairly typical prescriptive rule that requires the speaker to use nominative forms I and they instead of the accusative me and them in common expressions such as it’s me or was it them? Such a rule cannot account for expressions that are commonly used and accepted by all speakers. Indeed, as Huddleston and Pullum point out, the “correct version” often meets with “gentle ridicule” (p5).

The prescriptive grammarian would be likely to favour the existence of a single standard grammar and regard any deviation from this as a deficient approximation. The reason for this, however, may not be purely linguistic. Freeborn, Langford and French (1986) point out that there is,

“…a lot of prejudice about forms of speech, which is related to social class distinctions as much as to regional variation’ (p10)

Bex (1999) quotes an old prescriptive grammarian, Gowers, who was even of the opinion that, “grammatical conventions equate to a code of good manners”

Penhallurick (2003 p130) also quotes a 12^th century Benedictine monk who explains that the uncouth language of Northumbrians and particularly of York is because of their proximity to barbarous peoples.

Some proponents of a single “correct” English grammar have publicly expressed the fear that its very survival may be endangered. The perceived threat of its erosion or extinction as a result of uncouth or barbarous influences has moved some to look to the “quality press” for support.

In a letter to the editor of The Independent in 1997, the writer distinguishes between those advantaged people who have been ”taught to speak grammatically” and those “unfortunate enough never to have been taught the rules” (Bex 1999 p90).

She goes on to lament what she views as a “bleak prospect” that,

“…If we are invited to see this usage as a ‘rich and fascinating phenomenon’ … and adopt it, then ignorance has the last word.”

JR Colville even invited the editor of The Times to,

“… lead the crusade, before it is too late, to stop what professor Henry Higgins calls ‘the cold blooded murder of the English tongue’”

(Freeborn, Langford and French, 1986, p3),

In contrast with the prescriptive grammarian, for whom a structure is either correct or incorrect, the descriptive grammarian takes a large selection of a language and describes it objectively, devising rules to explain the various forms but without making judgements on their correctness. Descriptive grammar acknowledges the inevitable fact that languages change both historically and geographically and that as a result, several different ways of saying things will evolve.

The prescriptive grammarians, who taught me many years ago, would have frowned upon a “split infinitive”. Whereas prescriptive grammar would insist only (a) below, is the ‘correct’ form,

(a) Boldly to go where no man has gone before

A descriptive rule, on the other hand, would permit the adverb boldly to be placed between to and go as in the following well-known example (b)

(b)…to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Not only is it attested in the everyday language of many speakers of English but it was also a mission objective of the Starship Enterprise in the TV science fiction series, Star Trek. (Martin 2007)

The descriptive grammarian, then, would probably agree with the assertion that there are hundreds of English grammars throughout the world and that none of them is incorrect. Indeed an entire journal, World Englishes, exists to promote the concept of multiple Englishes and recently celebrated its twentieth anniversary. (Editorial, 2007)

Prescriptive grammarians may concede that there are several varieties of English, each with its own grammar. However, they would probably challenge any claims to equal status. The notion, that there is no right or wrong grammar, would seem to be incompatible with the prescriptive grammarian’s insistence on correctness /incorrectness.

The descriptivist will maintain that no grammar is wrong and that we are at liberty to determine our own grammar. How then, will we make ourselves understood by other speakers with different grammars? Can we still claim to have the same language? In particular, if there is no right or wrong grammar, what do we teach our students?

There is of course a third approach. In Huddleston and Pullum’s view, (2007) the descriptive and prescriptive approaches are not necessarily incompatible, so long as both agree on the facts about how people speak the language. The rules laid down by the prescriptive grammarian should accord with the descriptive accounts and reflect the language as it is. Huddleston and Pullum concede that there are some very good usage books based on descriptive research. However, these would probably be described neither as prescriptive nor descriptive but as pedagogical grammars.

McArthur (2005) defines pedagogical grammars as,

“a book or set of books designed to help learners of a foreign or second language, or for a way of presenting GRAMMAR that is intended to help students”. (p435)

Pedagogical grammars exist primarily for language learners and combine features of both descriptive and prescriptive grammars. They are not incompatible with the existence of other grammars. It is the job of the pedagogical grammarian and of the prescriptivist to break the language down for students in the way in which educators, themselves, understand it and in such a way that students can grasp it. Both the pedagogical grammarian and the prescriptivist require descriptions of a ‘standard’ English from which to formulate rules that are relevant to the students’ communicative needs and can be presented together with examples and practical exercises.

However, being derived from descriptive grammars, the pedagogic notion of a standard grammar differs fundamentally from that of the prescriptivist whose rules are based upon descriptions of their arbitrary model of a ‘proper’ English that Jenkins (2003) considers to be the language of a minority “… typically those occupying positions of power” (p29)

Not all linguists agree that a single standard grammar exists. There are those who would maintain that not one but multiple standards exist throughout the world.

Kachru (1985) would appear to doubt the existence of a single form of Standard English when he says that,

“… with the diffusion of and resultant innovations in English around the world, universally acceptable standards are absent” (p12)

He proposes three concentric circles describing the spread of English throughout the world. These circles, he says,

“… bring to English a unique cultural pluralism and a linguistic heterogeneity and diversity.” (p14)

First is the inner circle comprising all the regions where English is the primary language. These include the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Next, there is an outer or extended circle, which includes those regions colonised by users of the inner circle varieties of English. Characteristically, although English is only one of two or more languages, its importance is such that it may be the official language or at least a major language of government and/or education.

Third is the expanding circle which Kachru says,

“… encompasses vast populations of such countries as China, the USSR, and Indonesia” (p13)

It is the rapid expansion of this circle, according to Kachru, that has resulted in numerous varieties of English as a Foreign Language. According to Kachru, native speakers seem to have become a minority and have,

“… lost the exclusive prerogative to control its standardization”(p30)

He asserts that, users of the expanding circle strengthen the claims of English as an international language. English is fast gaining ground in non-western countries and

“the mechanism of its diffusion, by and large, is being initiated and controlled by the non-native users.” (p14)

Jenkins (2003) also defines three groups of users of English, which would seem at first to correspond well with Kachru’s concentric circles. She categorises English speakers as:

ENL, those for whom English is a native language. (inner circle)

ESL those who speak English as a second language (outer circle)

EFL those to whom English is a foreign language. (expanding circle)

However, as Jenkins points out, the similarity between her categories and Kachru’s circles is not quite so straightforward. Kachru’s circles were largely based on geography rather than being purely linguistic. Jenkins points out that, as a result of colonisation and/or migration, ENL speakers may be found in for example Hong Kong (the outer circle), and ESL or EFL speakers may have settled in an inner circle country such as the USA or United Kingdom where English is historically the first language to be spoken.

Jenkins points out that the process of standardisation is already in progress in other parts of the world especially in those countries that she labels “African-English-speaking” but expresses doubts whether these are likely to attract the same prestige as their Inner Circle counterparts. She uses the expression “New Englishes” to describe those varieties that are often regarded as “fossilised” meaning that they have stopped short of their Standard British or Standard American target. (p33). She recognises too, that even some native speaker varieties of English are lumped together with the New Englishes and labelled non-standard with the implication “…that all are substandard and hence incorrect”(p32). She attributes the lack of success in achieving acceptance of non-standard native Englishes with attitudes towards race in the United States and with social class in the UK.

Even among those linguists who do subscribe to the notion of a single standard English, there does not appear to be general agreement as to what constitutes the standard.

According to McArthur (2005), Standard English is

“A widely used term that resists easy definition but is used as if most educated people nonetheless know precisely what it refers to. (p576)

Crowley (1997) identifies three different senses in which the term standard has been used to describe language.

First is the sense of stability and uniformity. Although this would appear to be a rather rigid use of the term, and one that may not readily admit to changes and developments in the language, grammatical rules of a stable and uniform language would nevertheless promote consistency in the teaching of the language throughout the world.

The second way in which standard may be used is in the sense of excellence which may be the best, prestigious, superior, proper or correct version of a language to which prescriptive grammarians would have us aspire.

Jenkins (2003) views Standard English as the prestigious variety considered by prescriptive grammarians to be the norm and held up as “the optimum for educational purposes” (p29)

Freeborn Langford and French (1986) also view Standard English as the “educated variety” and would appear to sympathise with the prescriptive grammarian with their assertion that,

“… it is natural that people should come to look on the other dialects as imperfect versions of English” (p41)

A third sense of standard is described as common

“what we share linguistically, though in different and very many unequal ways.” (P21)

Crowley proposes that the meaning of Standard English might simply be,

“that which we commonly make up as we go along” (p21)

This would seem to imply that Standard English is the total of the grammars of all the users of the language. If we are to regard each and every one of all the hundreds of different grammars in the world as a subset of the standard, then clearly none of them can be considered incorrect.

If we accept these three definitions of a standard language, it would seem, that a correlation exists between them and the three types of grammar outlined above.

The prescriptive grammarian can legitimately claim that their grammar meets the criteria for a standard because it is prestigious and according to them, the correct, superior version. Being stable and uniform lends even more support.

The descriptive grammarian can justify a claim to standard because, as the set of all grammars, it is common to all speakers of the language.

Finally, the pedagogue may acknowledge the various subsets of a common grammar and from these varieties, formulate a uniform set of rules that, with possibly a few exceptions, describes those features that are common to all.

Strevens (1981) and Trudgill (1999) have both attempted to establish the nature of Standard English by saying what it is not. Strevens begins with the assertion that the concept of a Standard English does exist and puts forward four negative assumptions that would appear to discount a prescriptive form of Standard English.

(i) Standard English cannot be defined or described in terms such as ‘the best English,’ or ‘literary English,’ or ‘Oxford English,’ or ‘BBC English.’

Although he assumes the universal acceptance of a standard English dialect, Strevens denies any claim to superior status for this standard. Indeed he even goes so far as to suggest that there are social circumstances where not only would a local dialect be preferred but the use of Standard English could even cause offence.

"People vary their language according to the social circumstances, and they expect others to adjust in similar ways. Non-conformity in language is often seen as a social solecism and may constitute unacceptable behaviour. “(p6)

Standard English

(ii) Standard English is not ‘upper class English’ and it is encountered across the whole social spectrum,

Standard English has no pairing with what might be perceived as an upper class accent (RP) and Strevens further points out that, very large numbers of English users regardless of social status switch between standard and non-standard versions

(iii) Standard English is not statistically the most frequently occurring form of English,

Strevens’ claim that Standard English is “not the most commonly heard” (p1 )gains some support from Trudgill (1999) who estimates that only 12 – 15 % of the population are speakers of Standard English. And Roberts (2002) who asserts that,

“the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be users of English can be identified by their non-standard variety”

(iv) Standard English evolved: it was not produced by conscious design.

This would seem to fly in the face of those who insist that a particular form of grammar is the correct one. Strevens concedes that individual speakers of Standard English may be the products of “a long process of education” (p1), but maintains that the Standard English dialect came about by a natural process and was not produced by linguistic planning. There is no “Academie Anglaise” and no official monitoring nor penalties for its mis-use.

Strevens does recognise the validity of other forms of English and that Standard English is only “one particular dialect among many hundreds”. (p3)

It is, he says,

"a particular dialect of English, being the only non-localised dialect, of global currency without significant variation, universally accepted as the appropriate educational target in teaching English; which may be spoken with an unrestricted choice of accent." (p2)

He asserts that other dialects and accents occur in pairs, which do not cross over. The dialect of one region is never spoken with the accent of another. Regardless of the number of dialects throughout the world only one exists that is not “associated with any particular locality” and “has no inherent pairing relationship with any single accent” (p4).

The acid test for this standard dialect then can be demonstrated as follows. Consider the following sentence (c)

Whether the accent is that of a cockney flower girl, an RP speaking academic, a Texan or a Glaswegian, the dialect is identical for both speakers. However, imagine any one of these speakers making the following utterance using their own particular accents.

(d) Where wa’ ta bahn when I saw thee on Ilkley Moor bar t’ ‘at.

I would suggest that every one of them would sound decidedly strange and definitely not have the ring of an authentic speaker of the language.

In Trudgill’s opinion (Trudgill 1999), there is a consensus that a language can be labelled as standard when one of its varieties has acquired a fixed and stable form that is “publicly recognized” (p1) However, as he further points out, even linguists themselves are confused about what constitutes Standard English. He offers what he calls a description rather than a definition (p1) and similarly to Strevens, asserts that,

“… a clearer idea of what Standard English is can be obtained by saying what it is not as well as by saying what it is.”(p1)

Standard English, according to Trudgill, is:

not a language

Even among the confusion surrounding its precise nature, it is clear that Standard English is less than a language since it is only one of many varieties of the language.

not an accent

Standard English does not have an associated accent. Although RP speakers tend to use the standard version of English, a large proportion of users of Standard English speak with regional accents including those from outside the UK.

not a style

Standard English is independent of style. It can accommodate a variety of styles and can be used along an entire spectrum of formality/informality. Trudgill illustrates this with the following examples. (p3)

(e) Father was exceedingly fatigued subsequent to his extensive peregrination.

(f) Dad was very tired after his lengthy journey.

(g) The old man was bloody knackered after his long trip.

Trudgill argues that, though these three sentences differ in lexis, they are all Standard English. They merely adopt different degrees of formality to impart the same referential meaning.

Trudgill contrasts these with the following sentence,

(h) Father were very tired after his lengthy journey.

Though a non-standard variety of northern British English the style of this sentence is nevertheless, rather formal.

not a register

Trudgill uses the term register to mean,

“… a variety determined by topic, subject matter or activity”

He points out that registers, regardless of their sphere of specialism, tend to differ almost exclusively in lexis alone. Standard English does not depend upon technical terms associated with any specialism. Furthermore, as the non-standard sentence (i) would suggest,

(i) There was two eskers what we saw in them U-shaped valleys.

Standard English is not associated exclusively with any particular register . Both standard and non-standard English can equally support the use of technical registers.

Trudgill and Strevens both point out that Standard English is a special dialect for a variety of reasons. Mainly that it is not associated with any particular accent and does not attach to any particular geographical region. Importantly, it is also the dialect of education. It is,

“… the variety associated with the education system in all the English-speaking countries of the world, and is therefore the variety spoken by those who are often referred to as "educated people";

(Trudgill p1)

and is

“universally accepted as the appropriate educational target in teaching English” (Strevens p2)

Trudgill and Strevens seem to differ however in their opinions on its evolution and social status. Strevens insists that it has simply evolved whereas Trudgill argues that it was selected. Trudgill agrees with Strevens, that this was no overt or conscious decision. However, he argues that,

“… it was the variety associated with the social group with the highest degree of power, wealth and prestige” (p6),

and supports this view with the observation that, especially in earlier centuries, it has been the dialect of education to which pupils from higher social classes have had greater access and this has helped to reinforce its “social character”.

It would appear then, to be an inescapable fact that, throughout the world there exist a vast number of varieties of English. This would seem to be acknowledged by all grammarians whether prescriptive, descriptive or pedagogical.

To claim that none of these varieties is either correct or incorrect is however, rather more contentious. Scholars of previous centuries see Bex (1999) and Penhallurick (2003) would undoubtedly have rejected this claim out of hand and, judging by letters to the press (Freeborn, Langford and French, 1986), (Bex 1999), it would be particularly unacceptable to present-day, self-appointed guardians of linguistic morality.

This claim is of course perfectly acceptable to the descriptive grammarian, being concerned merely with the demonstrable facts of a grammar, and not whether any particular form is correct or incorrect.

We have seen that over the years there has been a change in attitudes towards grammar. Prescriptive grammars with hard and fast rules, though they have been used for centuries, have largely lost their popularity. Modern linguists would favour a grammar that presents a language as it is rather than as we are told it should be.

Although a descriptive analysis of a language is invaluable for scholastic or academic purposes, its appropriateness as a teaching tool is limited. Although it can and does account for every feature of every dialect, it is not practicable to attempt to teach the full range of English variants.

Pedagogical grammars are a compromise that enables educators to use rules derived from descriptive grammars. They are also less rigid than the prescriptive rules and lend themselves to modification over time to reflect changes in the language or to accommodate the advancing knowledge of the student.

For the purpose of Education, both the prescriptive and the pedagogical grammarian seek to break down the language in a way that they themselves can understand it and present it in such a way that their students can grasp it. For this purpose, a stable uniform variety is required.

The Standard English described by Trudgill and Strevens would seem to meet the requirements of the pedagogical grammarian since its supporters acknowledge that it is one of many dialects. Standard English lays no claim to superior status. It is not associated with any particular accent social group or geographical region and it is the dialect that is widely used throughout the world especially in business, science and technology. More importantly, it is already,

“… the variety that is associated with the education system in all the English-speaking countries of the world.” (Trudgill 1999 p 1)

Finally, here is a little food for thought.

Trudgill (1999) Strevens (1981) and Roberts (2002) have all indicated that Standard English does not have genuine native speakers in large numbers.

“… most native speakers of English in the world are native speakers of some nonstandard variety of the language”, (Trudgill 1999 p1)

“…the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be users of English can be identified by their non-standard variety”. (Roberts 2002)

Moreover, according to Roberts, it has even been maintained that Standard English is,

“… entirely learned within a scholastic or academic environment.”

Even Kachru concedes, if not the existence then at least the emergence of an educated variety (or educated varieties) of English, which is (are) intelligible across the many other varieties. (p23)

Could this mean then that we are producing increasing numbers of people who are actually bi-lingual in English? Those whose native language is a non-standard dialect of English and who are being introduced to Standard English at school?

If this is indeed true then, it may well be the case that, the acquisition of Standard English by almost all of the world’s learners, natives and non-natives alike, is taking place not as a first but as a second or foreign language.