A STANDARD LANGUAGE MODEL

The standard language is a variety of language whose norms are defined by dictionaries and grammars and whose rules and usages are taught in schools. It is a variety which is functionally differentiated, allowing it to operate across wide areas of social interaction, and which is accepted and used by a given community of speakers. This narrative definition incorporates the central elements that constitute a given language's historical standardisation process and its subsequent maintenance, as these are understood according to the subdiscipline of sociolinguistics known as modern standardology: it involves (1) the selection (among several varieties) of a norm that is elevated to the status of a standard; (2) the codification of the norm, its rules and usages; (3) the elaboration of the norm to make it able to fulfil a wide range of functions; and (4) the acceptance and active use by the community of the selected norm. The model I summarise here is that of Einar Haugen (1966), and we can note how its use of terminology reflects the presence of several actors in the establishment – and partly also maintenance – of a standard language: politicians, linguists, language users. It is not particularly explicit, however, about the roles of these various actors in standard language development. Haugen's focus, shared by many other models of the standard language, is on linguistic properties.

Meanwhile, the rise of standard languages is closely connected to the rise of the modern nation states, as demonstrated in the case of France by Pierre Bourdieu in his influential study Language and Symbolic Power (1991). Bourdieu shows how the formation of a standard language is the result of power struggles, or, put differently, how political struggles have a linguistic dimension, where political unification is shaped by, and shapes, linguistic unification. The essential insight of Bourdieu is the awareness of a network of correspondences between language, power and authority, endowing certain groups in society with the power and legitimacy of defining, regulating and controlling the use of certain varieties of language. Here the official language, or standard variety, sits at the top of the hierarchical system, linked to prestige, education and vital areas of official language usage.

We can note in both of these complementary approaches to standard language development that this variety is conceived of as something abstract, constructed, planned and cultivated.