next up previous
Next: Status planning and corpus Up: Standardization or Restandardization: the Previous: The role of literacy

Definitions of Standardization.

When the question arises as to whether whether SST is standardized, we must have an idea of what constitutes a general definition of standard language, or failing that, what constitutes standardization in a particular language. We have evidence in many languages of both conscious, planned standardization (via language academies, dictionary- writers, printers and proofreaders) and of the somewhat haphazard choice of a particular dialect of some city or ruler (Madrid, Paris) and standardization via use in official texts (the Bible, the Koran etc.) followed perhaps by royal fiat (e.g., the Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêt, promulgated by the French king François I in 1539, which established that only the French language should be used for record-keeping throughout France.)

Since the crux of the question is whether iron-clad definitions of standardization exist, and whether SST meets those conditions, i.e. is standardized or perhaps on the way to being standardized (some writers refer to emergent standards) we need to review some working definitions of what standardization might entail. The best recent review of this issue is probably Joseph 1987, though his treatments focus either on well-known western languages (English, French) or on non-literary languages such as Inupiaq/Inuit. The kinds of problems that face non-western but long-standardized languages such as those of India or other parts of Asia have not been the focus of Joseph's work, nor in fact of most work on the subject. Acutely diglossic languages such as Tamil and Arabic constitute perhaps a completely different kind of case, one in which restandardization (Joseph 1987:174) seems to be what is happening, i.e. a newer version of the language, with its own spoken form, is emerging to challenge and attempt to capture some of the domains of an older, highly prestigious literary language that has ceased to be a vehicle of oral communication. As Joseph points out, however, restandardization will never totally replace the older standard language (LT); it (the older norm) will simply be elevated to a `classical' status that it will continue to inhabit, but no-one will try to emulate it except for a few archaizing die-hard purists, or, in the case of liturgical languages, priests and pundits.[*]

Some useful early work on the issue of standardization emerged from the Prague School of linguistics, and has been summarized by Garvin (1964); his key concepts are urbanization, flexible stability, and intellectualization. Many definitions of standardization (codification, etc.) involve official choices being made about the corpus of a language, but as we have mentioned and will see in detail below, we are talking about the development of a spoken standard, which may involve other kinds of decision-making.[*] Arabic, also acutely diglossic, is faced with a need to develop a koiné dialect that would be usable throughout the Arab world but would be closer to spoken dialects than classical Arabic. The result so far is the emergence of so-called MSA (Modern Standard Arabic), the features of which can be readily described (it is even what is taught to foreigners) but is still in the process of evolution (Mitchell 1985, 1986, Walters 1996). Another study puts it like this:

A new system of Arabic language varieties is developing which includes the emergence of a new international koiné which is rapidly overtaking classical language prescriptivism and which is compatible with emerging national or subregional dialects of what will remain one Arabic. Within each nationally controlled educational system, the massive growth in educational participation by people from all walks of life, and the penetration of mass media of multiple linguistic origins into all homes, together draw on an inevitable medley of vernacular and grammatical sources, from the highly deliberate to the necessarily unconscious, to bring about stylistic differentiation of Arabic to suit today's communicative needs. A strong force in this restructuring of the Arabic language system is cross-communal, fed by intense exchange of people, goods, messages, and ideas--and simply intent--between all Arabic language communities, toward a higher degree of mutual accommodation (Jernudd and Ibrahim, 1986:6).

The main problem with the comparisons with MSA, and indeed the whole dynamic of its evolution, is that it is not used as a spoken language by native speakers of Arabic, though they do write it and use some variety of it in, e.g. schools. Foreigners who learn it (e.g. in university settings) subsequently have to learn a local spoken variety such as Cairene or Lebanese colloquial.



 
next up previous
Next: Status planning and corpus Up: Standardization or Restandardization: the Previous: The role of literacy
Harold Schiffman
5/1/2001