The myth that only one kind of writing is correct is the foundation for all the myths that follow. It starts with early spelling standardization and continues with early usage guides. Its consequences include making enemies of formal and informal writing, and making people think correct writing means one thing – and means a capable and good person. Closer to the truth? Terrible writers can be good people, good writers can be terrible people, and all shared writing includes some fundamental similarities, and some differences. Formal writing fancies nouns more than verbs, for instance, and it likes informational subjects. Informal writing has more equal affection for nouns, verbs, pronouns, and adverbs, and it favors interpersonal subjects.

This chapter examines whether the patterns observed for political regimes and Chinese infrastructure spending are also manifested by foreign aid and exports of Chinese digital technologies that promote the adoption of Chinese standards. Analysis of several different datasets consistently show electoral autocracies are the major recipients. The datasets include Chinese smart cities technologies exports, foreign aid in the information and communications technology sector, and foreign deals for Huawei’s cloud infrastructure and e-government services. These quantitative findings are supplemented by case studies of Malaysia (electoral autocracy) and Greece (liberal democracy).

To explain what drives the demand for Chinese infrastructure spending and the adoption of its digital standards among low- and middle-income countries, we must begin by considering how they effectively address market failures. A first set of market failures regards impediments to private investment for building infrastructure. Western multilateral development banks such as the World Bank commonly impose liberalizing conditionalities on recipient states. These can be politically problematic for rulers of autocratic countries that rely on state controls to retain their hold on power. China, by contrast, has an explicit policy of noninterference in the domestic politics of foreign nations. China’s own political motivations coupled with huge dollar reserves have enabled it to effectively address the market failures of autocracies in a politically palatable way. A second type of market failure regards transaction costs and coordination failures. These can be addressed via the adoption of digital technologies. China can leverage its preferential access to autocracies for infrastructure spending in order to promote the adoption of its digital and related technical standards.

This essay traces the relationship between colonization and academia over recent times, associating it with various intellectual moves to interrogate the hegemonic assumptions of Western culture. It argues that racial representations in literature are multifaceted and variegated, with literary studies offering opportunities to effectively demystify myths about the putative universality of American or European subject systems. This is tied to the historical specificity of particular colonial situations, with reference to the work of Nicholas Thomas, noting how one significant contribution of Australian cultural theory to literary studies has been to make debates around settler colonial paradigms more prominent. This leads into discussion of larger questions around regional autonomy, cultural appropriation and social class, with reference to the work of Walter Mignolo and Stuart Hall. It also touches upon political controversies involving with the highly problematic relationship between academic and civic authorities, a continuing power struggle that can be traced back to medieval times. The essay concludes that the etymological links between university and universality offer scope to resist local standardizations of all kinds, and in this sense a decentring of racial hierarchies runs in parallel to a decentring of geographical hierarchies.

For decades, standards were perceived to be gender-neutral. However, recent research by the Standards Council of Canada has challenged that assumption. The research found that standardization was associated with a reduction in unintentional fatalities for men, but not for women. The research aligns with sector-specific research and anecdotal evidence that standards are more effective at protecting men compared to women. This is significant because standards form the building blocks of how products, processes, and services are designed and made to be interoperable. Therefore, standards, and the products and services that are standardized according to them, are largely designed by men, for men. This chapter aims to explore the interconnected nature of gender, standards, and trade to argue that the lack of gender-responsiveness of standards has a negative impact on the safety and well-being of women. Furthermore, the link between standardization and trade will highlight the importance of improving the gender-responsiveness of standards given their role in the proliferation of goods, and the different initiatives that are currently underway.

This chapter reviews what we know about scribal practices of orthography (focusing on spelling), how their orthographies have been studied and interpreted, and where avenues of future research lie. It covers fundamental aspects of studying scribes, showing the multidisciplinary interest in scribes and providing a broad background for thinking about scribal variation in orthography. It discusses issues such as the term and concept of a scribe, the contexts in which scribes worked, and how the role of the scribe has changed over time. The chapter focuses on research concerning scribal orthographies within three broad contexts: studies focusing on phonology and phonetics but using scribal orthography as the source of information; research that concentrates on the intersection of phonology/phonetics and orthography; and studies that are interested in orthography as an exclusively or primarily written phenomenon. It also addresses the issue of orthographic standardization specifically, as scribes have been seen as central in this process, and touches on the various frameworks and approaches adopted for the study and interpretation of spelling regularization and standardization. Finally, the chapter points to some of the avenues open for new discoveries in the future.

This chapter introduces readers to the concept of spelling standardization, offering an overview of the ways in which spelling standardization occurred, the agents behind the modern-like developments in historical spelling, and the chronology of the process of development in historical English. The chapter departs from the idea that historical spelling represents one of the most complex facets of linguistic standardization, and one where disagreements exist about its overall process of development. The contribution moves on to discuss the idea that standardization in English spelling was, for some scholars, an intralinguistic, spontaneous process of self-organization, and for others a multiparty affair that involved authors, readers, the printing press and linguistic commentators of the time. The final section summarizes findings from recent work that focuses on large-scale developments over the sixteenth and the seventeenth century, and overviews the role and relevance of theoreticians, schoolmasters, authors and readers in Early Modern English spelling.

We don’t always have a single response variable, and disciplines like community ecology or the new “omics” bring rich datasets. Chapters 14–16 introduce the treatment of these multivariate data, with multiple variables recorded for each unit or “object.” We start with how we measure association between variables and use eigenanalysis to reduce the original variables to a smaller number of summary components or functions while retaining most of the variation. Then we look at the broad range of measures of dissimilarity or distance between objects based on the variables. Both approaches allow examination of relationships among objects and can be used in linear modeling when response and predictor variables are identified. We also highlight the important role of transformations and standardizations when interpreting multivariate analyses.

Since the nineties, international lawyers have increasingly questioned the traditional assumptions regarding the processes of law-making in the international sphere. A state consent-centered approach to the study of global governance, we are often told, has lost its edge due to the increased role of private actors and “soft” norms. Neoliberalism, in this narrative, finally opened the “black box” of the state. While this account contains important truths, it also obscures the long roots of global private transnational regulation. Indeed, states, willingly or unwillingly, have always tolerated the normative activities of private actors in the global sphere, even before the end of the cold war. As an example, I trace the processes through which private and public actors from the North Atlantic competed within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to set the global standards for containerized shipping. In this “Keynesian” epoch, the lines between the private and the public were as blurry as in our days. Instead of assuming the novelty of private lawmaking, I argue that we much to learn from the long histories of “pre-neoliberal” non-state transnational regulation.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, short-story writing in the US was well established as a form of efficient literary production along the lines that Edgar Allan Poe had established sixty years earlier. One way of understanding the American modernist short story is as an attempt to reinvent the form by restoring the balance that Poe had once advocated: not to forget technique but to make it work again in the service of art understood as both an expressive and an elite activity. This chapter considers some of the ways in which American short-story writers can usefully be said to have developed, modified, or put into question the modern principle of efficiency.

“Print” analyzes the transition from manuscript to print culture and the formal conventions of modern Persianate writing. I trace the emergence and standardization of standard typography, orthography, and punctuation. Questioning the assumption that these aspects of print culture arose organically from the material conditions of modernization, I argue that they were fetishized as a kind of modernizing technology in and of themselves, and understood as productive of -- rather than products of -- modernization. In other words, Iranian and Indian literary scholars sought to modernize their prose by abandoning certain formal conventions of the Persianate manuscript tradition and adopting the conventions of European print: type rather than calligraphy, standardized spelling, and a new set of punctuation marks. The transition from manuscripts to a standardized print culture is typically presented as pragmatic, but it was shaped by various networks of affective attachments.

Monolingualism, bilingualism, and multilingualism represent concepts of individual upbringing and social organization of extreme impact and scope. All in all, the book attempted to guide the reader from a multilingualism-as-problem to a multilingualism-as-resource perspective. However, it also argued that multilingualism cannot work wonders and should not be considered a goal in itself. Running a multilingual society can produce many beneficial effects, but maintaining several languages at the same time also incurs costs that a society must be prepared to burden and share. It is crucial to know which boundary conditions tip the balance from burden to benefit, or vice versa. The book further argues for a continuum from monolingualism to multilingualism based on the dimensions of homogeneity and heterogeneity. It further introduces a novel typology of English in multilingual contexts, distinguishing between English in heritage contexts, English in bilingual heritage contexts, English in contexts of balanced bilingualism, English in indigenous multilingual contexts, English in postcolonial multilingual contexts, and English as a lingua franca in modern multilingual immigrant contexts.

Chapter 5 describes efforts by UNRRA and the WHO to rebuild a health statistics reporting system from 1943, when UNRRA took over the LNHO’s international epidemiological intelligence efforts. The WHO also developed an all-encompassing statistical system to gather statistics collected through research, administration, and policy-making. Just like the LNHO, the WHO established a tiered network for spreading its statistical practices, but sought broader geographic coverage. By including statisticians from different regions in the standard-making process, the WHO took local variation into account when making standards. A case study on the Republic of China – which still ruled the mainland in 1943 but was exiled to Taiwan in 1949 – shows that UNRRA and the WHO’s statistical reporting was often undermined by geopolitics and administrative constraints.