You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The idea that there is — or ought to be — a single "correct" form of English is so deeply embedded in modern culture that it can feel natural and inevitable, as though the standard had always existed and merely needed to be obeyed. In fact, the concept of a standard language is a comparatively recent human invention, the product of specific historical, political, and technological developments stretching from the late Middle Ages to the nineteenth century. There was no Standard English in the time of Beowulf, no Standard English in the time of Chaucer; what we now call the standard is the descendant of one regional dialect that happened to be spoken where power, money, and printing were concentrated. Understanding how and why that dialect rose to dominance — and what was lost in the process — is essential for AQA A-Level English Language, because standardisation underpins almost every other debate in the topic: arguments about "correct" usage, about linguistic inequality, about prescriptivism and descriptivism, and about how people react to change.
Two distinctions must be held firmly throughout this lesson, because confusing them is the commonest weakness in exam answers. The first is the distinction between standardisation (the broad social process by which one variety becomes the agreed norm) and codification (the narrower act of recording that norm in dictionaries, grammars, and spelling guides). Codification is part of standardisation, not a synonym for it. The second is the distinction between a standard being socially dominant and a standard being linguistically superior. A standard variety is not a better or more logical form of the language; it is simply the variety that acquired prestige for reasons of power. Keeping these two distinctions explicit signals exactly the conceptual control that examiners reward.
Standardisation is the process by which one variety of a language is selected and promoted as the norm for public and formal use, while other varieties are correspondingly marginalised.
It is crucial to understand that a standard language is not linguistically superior to non-standard varieties. All dialects are fully functional linguistic systems with their own consistent, rule-governed grammars; a speaker of a regional dialect is not speaking "broken" Standard English but a complete and coherent variety in its own right. Standardisation is therefore a social and political process, not a linguistic one — it elevates one variety for reasons of power and prestige, while the marginalised varieties remain every bit as systematic as the one that was chosen.
A helpful way to keep this in view is to separate two questions that are constantly conflated in public debate: which variety is the standard? (a question of social and historical fact) and which variety is correct? (a question that, from a linguistic point of view, has no answer, because correctness within each variety is defined by its own internal rules). The standard is the variety that won the competition for prestige; it did not win because it was right, and the varieties that lost did not lose because they were wrong.
The Norwegian-American linguist Einar Haugen (1906–1994) proposed a widely used model identifying four stages of standardisation. His framework, first outlined in 1966, remains the standard analytical tool for understanding how standard languages emerge:
One variety is selected as the basis for the standard, typically because of the political, economic, or cultural power of its speakers.
| Factor | How It Applied to English |
|---|---|
| Political power | The East Midland dialect was spoken in London, the capital and centre of political power |
| Economic importance | London was the hub of trade and commerce; the wool-producing East Midlands were economically vital |
| Cultural prestige | Oxford and Cambridge universities were in the East Midland area |
| Literary tradition | Chaucer wrote in the London/East Midland dialect, giving it literary prestige |
The selection of the East Midland/London dialect was not the result of any official decree, vote, or act of parliament. It was a gradual, almost accidental process driven by the concentration of power, wealth, and culture in the south-east of England, and especially in the triangle formed by London, Oxford, and Cambridge. A particularly important strand was the development of so-called Chancery Standard in the fifteenth century: the clerks of the royal Chancery, who produced the crown's official documents, gradually settled on relatively consistent spellings and forms based on the London dialect, and because their documents went out across the whole kingdom carrying the authority of government, their conventions spread.
The decisive critical point — and the one that turns description into evaluation — is that the variety selected was not chosen because it was linguistically better. Other dialects were every bit as expressive and rule-governed: the West Midland dialect of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight produced some of the finest poetry of the age, and northern dialects had their own rich literary and grammatical resources. They failed to become the standard not through any deficiency but through a lack of institutional support — they were not spoken at the centre of government, trade, and the universities. To say "the East Midland dialect won because it was clearer" is therefore wrong; it won because its speakers held power. This is the single most important idea in the whole topic, and it generalises: a standard is the dialect of the powerful, dressed up as the dialect of correctness.
Codification is the process of recording the standard in dictionaries, grammars, and spelling guides, thereby giving it an explicit, authoritative form.
| Tool of Codification | Key Examples | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Spelling guides | Mulcaster's Elementarie | 1582 |
| Dictionaries | Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall | 1604 |
| Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language | 1755 | |
| Webster's American Dictionary | 1828 | |
| Murray's Oxford English Dictionary (first fascicle) | 1884 | |
| Grammars | Bullokar's Pamphlet for Grammar | 1586 |
| Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar | 1762 | |
| Murray's English Grammar | 1795 | |
| Style guides | Fowler's Modern English Usage | 1926 |
Each of these works contributed to the fixation of English — the creation of a written record that could serve as a reference point for "correct" usage. Two of them deserve detailed attention because they recur in almost every standardisation question.
Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) was a monumental achievement, compiled largely single-handedly over some nine years and illustrating its definitions with around 114,000 quotations drawn from respected authors. It is important to characterise Johnson's project accurately, because it is easy to overstate. It was not the first English dictionary — Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall preceded it by 150 years — but it was incomparably the most comprehensive and authoritative to date, and it became the reference standard for over a century until the OED. Johnson's attitude is fascinatingly mixed: he set out, in his own words, partly to "fix" the language, yet by the time he wrote his Preface he had concluded that to imagine one could "embalm" a living language and stop it changing was a vanity, "the dream of a poet doomed at last to wake a lexicographer". His career thus dramatises in miniature the movement from a prescriptive ambition to a descriptive realism — a point you can use to show that even the great codifiers recognised the futility of trying to freeze English.
Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) is the most influential of the prescriptive grammars and the source of several "rules" still repeated today: the prohibitions on the double negative, on ending a sentence with a preposition, and (in the tradition he helped establish) on the split infinitive. The standard linguistic criticism of Lowth is that he derived his rules not from how English actually worked but from Latin models and from a notion of logic, and that in doing so he recast features of register or dialect as matters of right and wrong. When Lowth condemned the double negative on the mathematical analogy that "two negatives make a positive", he was legislating against a construction that had been standard in Chaucer and remains healthy in many dialects. Codification, in short, always involves choices and judgements: when Johnson defined words he chose which senses to admit; when Lowth wrote rules he imposed an external standard on a Germanic language. Codification records a norm, but it also shapes and polices it, and the norms it enforces carry the social prejudices of the codifiers.
Elaboration is the process by which the standard variety is developed to serve all the functions required of a national language — government, law, science, literature, education, and so on.
Before the ME period, English had been elaborated to serve these functions under Alfred the Great. After the Norman Conquest, it lost these roles to French and Latin. The re-elaboration of English occurred gradually between the 14th and 17th centuries:
| Domain | Replaced | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Parliament | French | 1362 (Statute of Pleading) |
| Law courts | French | 1362 (official), but gradual in practice |
| Literature | French | 14th century (Chaucer, Gower, Langland) |
| Science | Latin | 17th century (Royal Society, est. 1660, promoted English for scientific writing) |
| The Church | Latin | 16th century (Reformation; Bible translations by Tyndale, Coverdale; Book of Common Prayer, 1549) |
Elaboration is easy to overlook but conceptually important: a variety cannot serve as a national standard until it has the resources to do every job the nation needs done. When English re-emerged after the Norman Conquest, it had to be re-equipped to handle law, science, philosophy, and theology — domains that French and Latin had monopolised. This is part of why the Renaissance saw such a flood of Latin and Greek borrowing (the "inkhorn" vocabulary): writers were consciously building the technical lexicon that an elaborated standard requires. Seen this way, the much-mocked inkhorn terms were not mere showing-off but a necessary side-effect of elaboration — English was growing the vocabulary it needed to take over the high registers. Linking elaboration to lexical borrowing in this way shows how the stages of standardisation interlock with the other processes of change studied elsewhere in the course.
Implementation is the process by which the standard variety is adopted by the population, typically through education, the media, and institutional use.
| Mechanism | Role in Implementation |
|---|---|
| Education | Schools teach Standard English as the norm; non-standard forms are corrected |
| Printing | Printed texts use standardised spelling and grammar, reinforcing the norm |
| Broadcasting | The BBC adopted RP as its standard accent from the 1920s; "BBC English" became a prestige norm |
| Government | Official documents use Standard English |
| Social pressure | Non-standard usage is stigmatised in many contexts; standard usage is associated with education and social status |
Implementation is the stage at which standardisation reaches into ordinary lives, and two nineteenth- and twentieth-century institutions accelerated it dramatically. The 1870 Education Act and the subsequent move towards universal, compulsory schooling meant that, for the first time, the whole population was systematically exposed to Standard English in the classroom and taught to regard non-standard forms as errors to be corrected. Then, from the 1920s, BBC radio broadcast a single prestige accent — RP, "BBC English" — into millions of homes, giving the spoken standard an unprecedented reach. Together these institutions did more to spread the standard than centuries of dictionaries had done, because they touched speakers directly rather than only through the printed page.
It is vital, though, to register how incomplete implementation has been, especially for the spoken language. Standardisation has overwhelmingly affected writing; speech has remained gloriously various. The vast majority of British people have never spoken RP and never will, and regional accents and dialect grammar persist and even flourish — indeed, in recent decades regional speech has gained ground in broadcasting and public life as the prestige of RP has waned. A frequent and serious error is to assume standardisation produced a single uniform way of speaking; it did not. The standard is a written norm and a minority prestige accent, coexisting permanently with a rich diversity of spoken varieties. Making this point explicitly guards against overstatement and shows a realistic grasp of how partial the whole process has been.
The printing press, introduced to England by William Caxton in 1476, is often described as the single most important technological factor in the standardisation of English. Its effects were multiple and reinforcing:
Fixation of spelling: Printers needed consistent spelling. Over time, conventions stabilised, and variant spellings were eliminated. However, this process was slow and inconsistent — Caxton himself used different spellings for the same word.
Spread of the London dialect: Because the major printing houses were in London, they used the London/East Midland dialect, spreading it nationally and reinforcing its prestige.
Preservation of archaic forms: Some spellings were fixed before pronunciation changes were complete, creating the mismatches we still have (e.g., knight, night, through).
Democratisation of literacy: Cheaper books meant more people could read, creating a larger literate public invested in the written standard.
Creation of a reading public: Printed books created a national community of readers who shared a common written language, reinforcing the standard.
A caution is in order, however: the printing press did not standardise English overnight. The popular shorthand "Caxton standardised English spelling in 1476" is false and should be avoided. Caxton himself used inconsistent spellings, sometimes spelling the same word two ways on the same page, and he famously agonised in the prologue to his Eneydos (1490) over whether to print "egges" or "eyren" for "eggs" — a story that shows how unstandardised English still was on the eve of the Early Modern period. Fixation through print was a slow, cumulative process spread across the following two centuries, not a single decisive act. Saying so protects you from a common factual overstatement and demonstrates a properly gradualist understanding of how standardisation actually worked.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.