Experiencias catalíticas

Monolingualism is also reinforced in a nation-state through a widespread language ideology, known as standard language. According to the Milroys (1999), the goal of standard language ideology is to promote uniformity in the structure of language use.

In the literature, discussions on Standard English are prominent, emphasizing its sociopolitical basis and its impact on language use in society (e.g. Cameron 1995; Holborrow 1999; Kachru 1997; Lippi-Green 1997; Milroy and Milroy 1999; Quirk 1990; Widdowson 1994). The following definition of standard language ideology is provided by L. Milroy

[A] particular set of beliefs about language ... . [which] are typically held by populations of economically developed nations where processes of standardization have operated over a considerable time to produce an abstract set of norms – lexical, grammatical and ... phonological – popularly described as constituting a standard language.

(1999: 173) This definition draws on the historical dimension of standardizing a language, which signals norming as having an important role. This role is prevalent in the conformity discourse related to immigrants in the United States. For example, in the U.S., immigrants

are expected to acculturate to American norms, which means replacing foreign traits with characteristics that appear to be more ‘American‘, including characteristics related to spoken and written English (Dicker 1996). This view is indicative of the official-English movement, based on the ideology that immigrants must conform to American language and culture in order to be accepted as part of their new country. This example illustrates the dominant ideology of monolingualism in the United States, where, “it is not ‘normal‘ to speak a language other than English, nor is it ‘normal‘ that, if you do, you would want to continue to speak it after having learned English“ (Shannon 1999: 183). It also illustrates how the official-English movement represents a question about political identity in terms of who is American. This question of who is and who is not American can also be linked to another language ideology related to the images of ‘self’ or ‘other‘, or ideologies of us versus them. While the ideology of monolingualism dominates in the United States, it is not uncontested.

In the previous example, the ideologies of norming toward a single standard variety shows how closely connected language is to social and political values as well as attitudes that determine how different dialects and accents are perceived and used to create indexical social categories. It is these motivations that gives impetus to a standard variety as having more status and prestige than other varieties (Trudgill 1974: 19). This position is also illustrated in the following comment where Vestergaard points out “This [widely accepted] variant is known as the standard variant, and this is also the variant that native speakers find the most suitable for foreigners, whether they themselves use it or not” (1996: 114). Vestergaard’s point illustrates the position of Standard English as the English language, where other varieties are marked as less desirable. In this way, the standard variety is utilized to persuade NSs and others that they cannot speak English (Trudgill 1974: 20). Simultaneously, it supports the official or standard variety in being a symbol of domination, which corresponds to the Gramscian (1971) notion of hegemony.

Several studies have shown that a standard variety can be misunderstood as representing greater moral or intellectual worth as opposed to contesting other varieties (Heller 1999; Jaffe 1999; Schieffelin and Doucet 1998; Watts 1999). As a result, speakers of official varieties may be viewed as having superior moral and intellectual value than those who speak unofficial varieties. This language ideology subjects speakers of unofficial varieties to symbolic domination and power that may be misrecognized as legitimate power (Bourdieu 1991: 170). In an orientation towards a standard variety that is masked as equal opportunity in a democratic society, individuals strive for homogeneity. In the process, they undervalue or overlook linguistic diversity and then pay the consequences of marginalization or penalization for non-conformity (Blackledge 2000: 28).

In defining standard language, the Milroys also describe it as entailing the belief in “one and only one correct spoken form of the language, modeled on a single correct written form“ (Milroy and Milroy 1999: 174). This belief regulates language use, ensuring correct usage. They further point out that not adhering to standard language ideology carries a serious social consequence where “language change equates to language decay, and variation with ‘bad‘ or ‘inadequate‘ language“ (ibid: 175). In this way, it ascribes a prestige value to the standard language ideology while simultaneously devaluing non-

standard varieties, where non-prestigious forms may be regarded as “‘wrong‘, ‘ugly‘, ‘corrupt‘ or ‘lazy‘“ (Trudgill 1974: 20). These social values are based on prescriptive views of language use that entail judgments about ‘correct‘ and ‘incorrect‘ use of language, which are imposed by authority (Milroy and Milroy 1999). However, as the Milroys argue, such rules are just as arbitrary as dinner table etiquette. For instance, in Europe the fork is in the left hand while the knife is in the right hand (at all times), and in the USA the fork in the right hand except when the knife is needed, and any deviation from the rule is ‘bad manners‘ (1999: 1). Thus, prescriptivism can include pronouncements of what a particular group considers to be ‘good taste’.

Thus, the role of prescriptivism relates to language standardization, where rules govern how language is used. Such rules are based on written language grammar and acceptability rules. These rules can cover standards for spelling and grammar as well as what rules for what are socially correct. Because a language standard is primarily maintained through the writing system, the written word becomes the model of correctness. Thus, the writing system serves as the source of prescriptive norms. It is motivated by political, social, and commercial needs, and imposed on the norms of language usage through language policy and authorities who codify the language in dictionaries and other similar references, as well as through public channels such as the education system. The ideology of standardization views language as a relatively fixed and invariant entity. For instance, spelling is the most uniform element of language use, and it contrasts with the variability in spoken language.

A central problem with prescriptivism is that it is based on a rather narrow definition of grammar, which aims to develop norms for clear, unambiguous written prose (in Standard English) and many of which are inappropriate for spoken language (Milroy and Milroy 1999). Whereas the Milroys discuss prescriptivism from the viewpoint of society more widely, that is, from the view of ordinary people, Linell targets linguistics and presents a similar view:

Our conception of language is deeply influenced by a long tradition of analyzing only written language, and ... modern linguistic theory, including psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics, approaches the structures and mechanisms of spoken language with a conceptual apparatus, which … turns out to be more apt for written language in surprisingly many and fundamental aspects. I ... refer to this situation as the written language bias in linguistics.

(Linell 2005: 1) What these arguments signify is the dominance of the prescriptive, written word as the basis of correctness for spoken and written language. Thus, utterances in speech claimed as ungrammatical or inappropriate are most likely based on prescriptive arguments. This results in the norms of written prose being misapplied to spoken language. When spoken language is grammatically judged in terms of standard written norms, it results in reducing variability in speech, limiting conversational styles and appropriateness in varying situational contexts (ibid). Furthermore, in some spoken contexts literary grammar may be inappropriate and non-functional.

Moreover, mode is one of the most obvious differences between spoken and written language. Speaking, for example, occurs in a situational context (i.e. context-tied), whereas written language is context-freer. Because spoken language is context-tied, it is characterized by inexplicitness (Sinclair quoted in Warren 2006), situational ellipsis and deictic expressions that become unspecific when context-free, as well as vagueness in vocabulary (Mauranen 2007b lecture series on spoken language and ELF) whereas written language requires being more explicit, using language that carefully specifies the objects, persons, events, and actions (Milroy and Milroy 1999). Even though the nature of spoken language is very different from written language, prescriptivism makes no allowance for variation in the spoken mode. A standard ideology promotes uniformity at the expense of variety, and the prescriptive tradition has always aimed at uniformity in writing as well as in speech. Although attempts have been made to prescribe uniformity in speech, it has not been very successful. As Trudgill points out “[t]here is no universally acknowledged standard accent for English, and it is in theory, possible to speak Standard English with any regional or social accent“ (1974: 19). He further states that the only exception to this point is British English: accents in Britain are tied to Standard English (ibid). The lack of success in standardizing spoken English is partly attributed to the failure to consider the extent to which variability in spoken language results from social factors and speech functions (Milroy and Milroy 1999).

As a regulator of language use, prescriptivism began at a time when the means for studying spoken language in very much detail were limited. More recently, modern technology has produced many recording devices, such as tape recorders, iPods, and mp3 players, all of which provide a way to study specimens of spoken language, and it has become clear that there are great differences between spoken and written language. Thus, it is conceivable that the role of prescriptivism in spoken language may recede, particularly in contexts not dominated by NSs of English, as modern techniques for studying spoken language and describing it are now thriving. Shifting from prescriptivism to native speakerism, the next section discusses L2 learner-related language ideologies.