Why Not Use Standard English All the Time Essay Example

identifiable variety of English; every individual possesses an idiolect that defines them. Their idiolect could consist of non-standard features such as a teenager’s use ‘teen-speak’, not only for the convenience of expression, but also as a way to create a persona for oneself, through aspects such as text-speak and slang. However, Standard English requires the omission of these aspects, as it requires the use of standard lexical and grammatical features.

K Burridge claims that “Standard English is perceived to be intrinsically superior to other varieties”, though she points that “examples are easy to find where nonstandard dialects appear to do things better”. Her view supports the notion that there is no need for constant use of Standard English; dialects are just as effective at conveying messages as Standard English is. Nevertheless, adopting a prescriptive variety of English therefore masks identity, as it requires the expression of language to be in a specific way.

Careful examination of one’s sociolinguistic variables can reveal that some variations of English may be inappropriate. Concisely, we cannot use an informal tone when in a formal situation and vice versa. Standard English, being the embodiment of language formality, is thus used in professional discourse including the use of sophisticated lexis and jargon relating to the specific semantic field. Jargon demonstrates the participant’s knowledge in their chosen field and allows smoother information flow between interlocutors, preventing misunderstandings and possible breaches in ethics to arise.

Similarly, this includes omission of dialects, also allowing for fluent information flow. This view of a ‘correct English’ for professionalism is shared by many others, so much so that there are advertisements for voice coaching

classes that claim, “if you want the world to listen, you have to speak properly”. Effectively, if all English speakers spoke one common version of English, that being Standard English, disregarding their dialects, there would be a greater effective communication. Yet, the term ‘Standard English’ suggests that it is definitive.

Does one then assume that Standard English will not allow for field-related jargon, or any type of feature that is outside what is defined as ‘Standard English’? The challenge here is also to define the term ‘Standard English’, yet language changes as society changes, inferring that the ‘standard’ would have to change in response to time. Seen in the evolution from Old English to Middle English to Modern English, there is a tendency for language to constantly change; lexical, semantic, syntactic patterns may change. As language never stays the same, there is no accurate way to define a ‘standard’.

Exclusion boundaries are drawn between items of common usage and marginal use, in terms of vocabulary, by lexicographers is what determines whether a word enters the standard. For the Oxford English Dictionary, a neologism requires five years of consistent evidence of use for admission. Through observation of recent years, technology has influenced lexicon and semantics by the addition of neologisms and some commonisations and conversions of already existing words. Thus, the ‘standard’ for this generation will differ greatly to the standard in a hundred years from now.

Standard English, although favourable in situations where professionalism and prestige are concerned, the need to “use Standard English all the time” is unnecessary. It is assumed that Standard English allows for a more fluent means of

communication which holds true, though dialects are as effective as Standard English in conveying messages to one another. Different variations of English can be used to construct a unique identity and add personality and flavour to one’s conversations, which will be a loss if Standard English were the only accepted variety of language.