Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- 7 Standard Languages in the Context of Language Policy and Planning and Language Rights
- 8 State-Appointed Institutions
- 9 Grammars, Dictionaries and Other Metalinguistic Texts in the Context of Language Standardization
- 10 An Industry Perspective
- 11 The Role of Literature in Language Standardization
- 12 Standardization, New Speakers and the Acceptance of (New) Standards
- 13 Creoles and Variation
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
7 - Standard Languages in the Context of Language Policy and Planning and Language Rights
from Part II - Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- 7 Standard Languages in the Context of Language Policy and Planning and Language Rights
- 8 State-Appointed Institutions
- 9 Grammars, Dictionaries and Other Metalinguistic Texts in the Context of Language Standardization
- 10 An Industry Perspective
- 11 The Role of Literature in Language Standardization
- 12 Standardization, New Speakers and the Acceptance of (New) Standards
- 13 Creoles and Variation
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Standardization is the selection of one variant among others. It may concern any aspect of language use – pronunciation, orthography, morphology, syntax, the lexicon – and can occur within any social group, from the family to international organizations. Language policy is a conscious choice regarding a language or a linguistic feature. Such a choice, made by some social authority, is then implemented through language policy. State intervention may depend on calls for efficiency or calls for equality. Each policy and each plan for implementation is situated within a specific historical context. We trace two national histories often represented as being at opposite ends of the spectrum: the centralized power of the state in France and the decentralized power distributed to states and smaller governmental units in the USA. There are as many histories as there are languages and language varieties.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 201 - 233Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alcouffe, A. & Brummert, U. (1985). Les politiques linguistiques des États Généraux à Thermidor. Lengas, 17, 51–77.Google Scholar
Aprill, E. P. (1998). The law of the word: dictionary shopping in the Supreme Court. Arizona State Law Journal, 30, 275–336.Google Scholar
Baron, D. E. (1982). Grammar and Good Taste: Reforming the American Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Beaulieux, C. (1953). Projet de simplification de l’orthographe actuelle et de la langue, par le retour du ‘bel franc¸ais’ du 12e sie`cle: Lettre ouverte a` Monsieur le Ministre de l’éducation nationale. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bernard, D. (1912–13). La Révolution française & la langue bretonne. Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l’ouest, 28(3), 287–331.Google Scholar
Biedermann-Pasques, L. & Jejcic, F. (2006). Les Rectifications orthographiques de 1990: Analyses des pratiques réelles. Orléans: Presses universitaires d’Orléans.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1926). A set of postulates for the science of language. Language, 2, 153–64.Google Scholar
Bonfiglio, T. P. (2002). Race and the Rise of Standard American. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borde, D. (2016). Tirons la langue: Plaidoyer contre le sexisme dans la langue franc¸aise. Paris: Les Éditions Utopia.Google Scholar
Burns, T. R. & Dietz, T. (1992). Cultural evolution: social rule systems, selection and human agency. International Sociology, 7(3), 259–83.Google Scholar
Calhoun, J. (2014). Measuring the fortress: explaining trends in Supreme Court and Circuit Court dictionary use. Yale Law Journal, 124, 484–526.Google Scholar
Chervel, A. & Manesse, D. (1989). La Dictée: Les Franc¸ais et l’orthographe 1873–1987. Paris: Calmann-Lévy.Google Scholar
Commission Beslais (1965). Rapport général sur les modalités d’une simplification éventuelle de l’orthographe franc¸aise. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curzan, A. (2003). Gender Shifts in the History of English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dauzat, A. & Damourette, J. (1943). Un projet de réforme orthographique. Paris: Bibliothèque du Français Moderne.Google Scholar
Furetière, A. (1690). Dictionnaire universel, contenant generalement tous les mots franc¸ois, tant vieux que modernes, et les termes de toutes les sciences et des arts. La Haye: Leers.Google Scholar
Gallagher, C. J. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm. Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 83–99.Google Scholar
Gallardo, A. (1980). The Standardization of American English. Doctoral thesis. State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C. (2013). Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In Bayley, R., Cameron, R. & Lucas, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinberg, M., Geoffroy-Poisson, S. & Laclau, A. (2012). Rédaction des coutumes et territoires au XVIe siècle: Paris et Montfort-L’Amaury. Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, 59(2), 7–55.Google Scholar
Heath, S. B. (1976). A national language academy? Debate in a new nation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 11, 9–43.Google Scholar
Hewitt, S. (2014). Breton orthographies: an increasingly awkward fit. Retrieved 13 December 2018 from www.academia.edu/7537879/Breton_orthographies_An_increasingly_awkward_fitGoogle Scholar
Institut National de la Langue Française (1999). Femme j’écris ton nom: Guide d’aide a` la féminisation des noms de métiers, titres, grades et fonctions. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1925). Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo: H. Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Joseph, J. E. (1981). The Standard Language: Theory, Dogma, and Sociocultural Reality. Doctoral thesis. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Keller, M. (1999). La Réforme de l’orthographe: Un sie`cle de débats et de querelles. Paris: Conseil International de la Langue Française.Google Scholar
Kibbee, D. A. (2016). Language and the Law: Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krygier, M. (1998). The origin of Middle English she – an alternative hypothesis. Retrieved 19 December 2018 from https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/12636/1/The%20origin%20of%20Middle%20English%20she%20-%20An%20alternative%20hypothesis.pdfGoogle Scholar
Laponce, J. (2006). La Loi de Babel et autres régularités des rapports entre langue et politique. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Leonard, S. A. (1929). The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700–1800. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, S. A. (1932). Current English Usage. Chicago, IL: The Inland Press (for the National Council of Teachers of English).Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and discrimination in the courts. Language and Society, 23(2), 163–98.Google Scholar
Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States, 2nd edn. London/New York: Routledge (1st edn 1997).Google Scholar
Liu, A. H. (2015). Standardizing Diversity: The Political Economy of Language Regimes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (2004). A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowth, R. (1762). A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: Printed by J. Hughes for A. Millar.Google Scholar
Lüsebrink, C. (1986). Un défi à la politique de la langue nationale: la lutte autour de la langue allemande en Alsace sous la Révolution française. Linx, 15, 146–68.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. (1922). English Grammar in American Schools before 1850. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Libraries.Google Scholar
Machan, T. W. (2009). Language Anxiety: Conflict and Change in the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malvin-Cazal, J. (1846). Prononciation de la langue franc¸aise au XIXe sie`cle, tant dans le langage soutenu que dans la conversation, d’apre`s les re`gles de la prosodie, celles du dictionnaire de l’Académie, les lois grammaticales, et celles de l’usage et du gouˆt. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 4th edn. London/New York: Routledge (1st edn 1985).Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. (2016 [2000]). Language planning and language ecology. In Ricento, T., ed., Language Policy and Planning, Vol. I. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 422–91.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. (1996). Where the worst English is spoken. In Schneider, E. W., ed., Focus on the USA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 297–360.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K (2004). Ideology, grammar and linguistic theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Modern Language Association, December 2004. Retrieved 13 December 2018 from www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/MLA2004.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ravitch, D. (2003). The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Read, A. W. R. (1936). American projects for an academy to regulate speech. PMLA, 51(4), 1141–79.Google Scholar
Richelet, P. (1680). Dictionnaire franc¸ois contenant les mots et les choses …. Geneva: Widerhold.Google Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, B. (1996). Idéologie, révolution et uniformité de la langue. Brussels: Éditions Mardaga.Google Scholar
Schweiger, B. B. (2010). A social history of English grammar in the early United States. Journal of the Early Republic, 30(4), 533–55.Google Scholar
Sibille, J. (2002). Écrire l’occitan: essai de présentation et de synthèse. In Caubet, D., Chaker, S. & Sibille, J., eds., Codification des langues de France. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
Simpson, D. (1986). The Politics of American English, 1776–1850. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, D. (2012). The Story of Ain’t: America, Its Language, and the Most Controversial Dictionary Ever Published. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Solum, L. B. (2011). What is originalism? The evolution of contemporary originalist theory. In Huscroft, G. & Miller, B. W., eds., The Challenge of Originalism: Theories of Constitutional Interpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2018). Language policy: from planning to management. In Kheng, C. C. S., ed., Un(intended) Language Planning in a Globalising World: Multiple Levels of Players at Work. Warsaw/Berlin: Sciendo Migration, pp. 301–9.Google Scholar
Stern, R. C. & DiFonzo, J. H. (2016). Dogging Darwin: America’s revolt against the teaching of evolution. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 36, 33–82.Google Scholar
Swift, J. (1712). A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue. London: Benjamin Tooke.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. (2004). Did Clinton lie? Defining ‘sexual relations’. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79(3), 927–58.Google Scholar
Toussaint, D. (2002). Un examen pour les instituteurs: le brevet de capacité de l’instruction primaire dans le département de la Somme (1833–1880). Histoire de l’éducation, 94, 75–101.Google Scholar
Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, C. F. (1647). Remarques sur la langue franc¸aise, utiles a` tous ceux qui veulent bien parler et bien escrire. Paris: Veuve Camusat.Google Scholar
Webster, N. (1783). A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin.Google Scholar
Webster, N. (1787). The American Spelling Book: Containing, an Easy Standard of Pronunciation. Being the First Part of a Grammatical Institute of the English Language. Windsor, VT: Mower.Google Scholar
Webster, N. (1789). Dissertations on the English Language, with Notes, Historical and Critical, to which is Added by Way of Appendix, an Essay on a Reformed Mode of Spelling with Dr. Franklin’s Arguments on that Subject. Boston, MA: Isaiah Thomas & Co.Google Scholar
Webster, N. (1806). Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. Hartford: Increase Cooke & Co./New Haven: For Hudson and Goodwin.Google Scholar
Webster, N. (1828). An American Dictionary of the English Language. New York: S. Converse.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2015). What is language? A response to Philippe Van Parijs. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2), 113–30.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J. (2010). Simplified spelling and the cult of efficiency in the ‘progressive’ era. Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 10(3), 365–94.Google Scholar