RSSThe Standard
Writing is the transference of my introspection to the external rest. It allows others an opportunity to interact with a particular perspective of the world that we all inhabit.
Or,
I write to engage you in an universal dialog that we know. My words, though from the same dialog, enable you to comprehend me.
Or,
Writing, in my way, tells a story. My story lets you understand the way that I feel.
Given that there are countless ways to say the same thing in any one language, who’s to say one particular way is standard? Academia has defined standard. However, everyone is not an academic, yet everyone uses language. “You must write and speak this way,” Academics say. This is so-called “standard language.”
Language is the ability to convey. It is a tool that leads to understanding. In some settings, “standard language” does not always make understanding accessible. It is inadequate and a different standard must be used.
It is not necessarily “dumbing down” language nor is it putting an ignorant label on the audience. It is conveying a message effectively. What good is a language that cannot be understood? It does exactly the opposite of language’s purpose. Language brought the first men together and allowed them to communicate on a very basic level. The thought was, “We need to understand each other in order to perpetuate each other.” The evolution of language has done away with its initial purpose. Along the way, language has separated us and has been intentionally used to do just that. It’s ironic that in an attempt to make language more precise with the creation of more and more terms to say the same things, we have alienated people from one another. We have alienated our minds from one another.
We must take notice that “standard language” is not all inclusive and inefficient outside of certain situations. Otherwise, why would there be a need to create new ways for saying the same things if “standard language” was always applicable? People have discovered, out of necessity, new standards. It allowed clarity. And it represented the want to be felt. “I feel you,” some might say. “I understand you,” others might say. Yet, the latter is the “standard language.” Why, if they both convey the same thing?
Typically, “standard language” is referenced to Webster. But, even Webster is outdated and must expand to include words not formally found. Vocabulary books are always updated with new terms. Standard, in itself, is a vague term. It constantly moves away from what it was. I ask: How can Webster have a new edition naming a new standard? If that’s the case, there was never a standard in the first place. A standard language does not exist in the way it is apprehended.
I must admit that I fall into the faulty zone of separatism, presenting my thoughts in a language misunderstood by some. And I’m sorry. Precision is not equivalent to complexity. Precision is not equivalent to abstractness. Precision is equivalent to clarity. And if I cannot convey clarity with “standard language,” then I ought to do away with it–and form a new one.
12 Comments, Comment or Ping
TROUBLMan
Who set the standard? The people who win the war! The conquerers subject the conquered to their “standard.” It’s as simple as that. The standard becomes the standard over generations as the conquered lose the ability to pass their language to their children. Controlling someone’s ability to communicate, whether it be directly through censorship or indirectly through things like a standard curriculum is a weapon more powerful than any bomb. It’s a cold game when you think about it.
[Reply]
alwayswrite
I concur. Generally, winners in any situation set the standard or rules. Again, power definitely plays into the situation.
[Reply]
"A Mom"
I agree but even those who don’t go by standards or rules are they considered less valuable? And does their standard become the rule?
[Reply]
TROUBLMan
A MOM
They are considered less valuable. Why? Because the people who determine the standard control the organs that allow information and culture to spread. Still, many cultures find creative ways to spread their own standards. Hip-hop is a great example. The culture, which was the standard for young black kids in NY has spread as music, art, dance and fashion.
Hip-hip is not necessarily the standard but over time it has definitely influenced the existing standard. Bling bling is in the dictionary–crazy!
And remember, America wasn’t always the standard. We didn’t really become the standard until the first half of the twentieth century. How things are going now, it seems were losing the standard that we’ve set for the past half century.
[Reply]
Q.
ok, y’all have to know i wasn’t going to agree with this.. no way, no how.. with as much respect as i can possibly provide, this is one of the low points that TROUBL offers (in my opinion) to the general public..
every country, company, gang, whatever, has the right to make rules.. its own rules.. you cannot mess with the english language (or the standard).. this is the language of our country.. like it or not.. we know what we have.. we understand the language and the language understands us.. if you don’t like it, go move where you can create your own standard language..
you know you can go to the bodega and use your own language, but as soon as you take your behind to school or work, that “own” standard is no longer valid.. everyone in there knows the real standard, and so do you.. if you’re against, then you don’t need to be there.. if you are, there are rules to follow..
i don’t get this whole mixing of languages, books, cds, niggas, wiggers, and anything else.. i cringe every time another non-word is added to the dictionary.. words that we know aren’t words..
why can’t this language be understood?? i’m missing that point.. did something happen since i was in elementary school to our language that my nieces and nephew can no longer understand the same things that i learned? or is it just because we continue to drop out of school at a rate higher than 50% (higher than 80% here in NYC) on average? and let’s not say that we are dropping out because we don’t understand, because that’s far from the truth.. i refuse to believe that we can’t understand the standards that were set by people before we were even able to read and write without getting killed for it..
evolution doesn’t do it for me, because at the end of it all, so many things evolve but standards remain the same.. i’m just trying to understand why we can’t convey or get our points across with the standard that we already have set? or is this just wanting to be “disobedient”?
[Reply]
alwayswrite
I never said anythiing about the inability to learn the standard. Nor did I say anything about the standard not being applicable in work and school, because it is. But, you must admit that the standard is not applicable in all settings. That’s what I said. Yes, there is standard English, but even when people work within the rules, use creativity, not necessarily the examples you cited. Some of those are clearly examples of ignorance. I’m not promoting ignorance. But, there have been countless times in my writing within the standard arena, where there was a mark, “You can’t say it like this.” Usually, the fact was based off of a stale convention. So, not using standard language does not equal absolute ignorance. You ran a slippery slope on my entire piece. I didn’t make those two equivalent. Bodega talk and mixing languages has its place within the bodega and “mixing places,” not standard language. I mean you could, but I don’t think it would be the most appropriate to do so. And someone just might not understand you.
And standards don’t remain the same. It was standard for women to stay home. It was standard for black people to work in cotton fields. It was standard for black people to sit in the back of a bus. There are more, but I really don’t feel like citing. If standards remain the same, how can there be different manifestations or versions of the standard–whatever it may be? That’s problematic for me.
[Reply]
Q.
touche..
in terms of sociological things, definitely, standards change.. in terms of language?? how does one change that entirely.. i intentionally painted your entire piece as a slippery slope to demonstrate how difficult (if not impossible) that is when it comes to communication.. this isn’t adapting things such as the internet, etc, but language.. maybe i need a better explanation, because i’m still not following what exactly you are trying to get across..
we can always think of ways to get our points across simpler and easier within certain segments, but it’s certain segments.. not every segment.. someone telling me that i’m supposed to say “you all” instead of “y’all” is right, but at the same time “y’all” may be more appropriate.. but again, i have to side with the setting that i’m in to use it..
again, maybe i’m just not following what this post is about.. i’m eager to find out, though..
[Reply]
TROUBLMan
Q,
The point of the article is to address the arbitrary nature of language.
An anthropology Ph.D. broke it down to me like this:
When someone insults your language they’re not actually insulting your language. They’re using a socially acceptable way to insult your race, class, ethnitcy, etc. She explained to me that language is correct if it’s affective in communicating to the people or person that you’re are trying to talk to…So at that level their are no standards.
Linguist refer to the ability to change standards as having multiple registers. It’s a positive attribute and a measure of social intelligence.
[Reply]
TROUBLMan
Standard English is spoken in England not in America. They call American English a bastard language. Just like people in Spain call the Spanish that Mexicans and that other Latin people speak a bastard language. When I hear this I’m like, “WOW… People really disregard whole cultures and communities just because their ancestors once conquered these people’s land.” We never asked for your language, it was forced upon us…
And speaking of standards, what gives a company, a for profit business the right to determine if my kids are smart enough to go to college or not. That’s exactly what the SAT is– a test created by a for profit company, who overtime won the right to be the accepted standard.
[Reply]
alwayswrite
Q.,
My fault, never meant to be touche. I was just confused on how you missed the entire point of the piece. See Troublman’s reply to you. His explanation is the point.
Standard language is arbitrary. The ultimate goal of language is effective and clear communication, right? That’s what “standard language” supposedly does. We’ll use English. England’s English is the standard. However, standard English does not always commnunicate effectively and clearly. As Troublman points out, English spoken in England is the standard, yet the English spoken in America is not. Why? Effective and clear English in America is not the English spoken in England. The English definitely use different words than Americans, and even when the words are the same, in different contexts, they mean different things. So, to communicate clearly and effectively in England, one should probably use England’s English. To communicate clearly and effectively in America, one should probably use America’s English.
The standard changes in context, because one is more effective and therefore closer to the purpose of language. How can this be when the standard (England’s English in this case) communicates the most effectively and clearly? Are there two standards then? How can there be two standards? Why are there two standards?
The same line of reasoning can be ran for different dialects of a language, or standard English to “bodega or mixing” talk. Why is standard English the “standard” over the others? And if it is agreed upon that there are different standards in different contexts, then the concept of “standard” is arbitrary–point.
[Reply]
Q.
i’m not there with y’all at this point, but i hear all of the reasoning and the points behind this post..
[Reply]
alwayswrite
Never meant for you to agree. If you agree, you agree. If you don’t, then you don’t. As long as you see the logic, then I’m okay.
[Reply]
Reply to “The Standard”
SEE ALSO
♦ TROUBLMan - Mo’ Child Left Behind
February 20, 2008
♦ SB - Sex For the Recently Single
March 3, 2008
♦ Alex Merricks - Right to Ignorance
April 24, 2008
♦ Cypher - America in the Mirror
February 7, 2008
♦ Rob Mania - Wired
May 7, 2008