Evaluate the idea that language variation is decreasing
The idea that language variation is decreasing is a central sociolinguistic debate that remains
contentious. Whilst prescriptivists might view variational decrease as loss of linguistic
integrity, descriptivists would argue that language constantly adapts and diversifies, meaning
that simple linguistic ‘decrease’ is more a process of evolution. Rather, language has simply
changed form to accommodate to its 21st Century users.
In terms of linguistics, language variation refers to the different regional, social or contextual
differences in how language is used, leading to coexisting ways of expressing the same
meaning- examples of this include referring to a bun as a ‘stottie’ in the North East, and a
‘bread roll’ in the South East, meaning speakers may need to be reliant on a previous
schematic knowledge of dialectical terms.
Standardisation is one of the most crucial arguments to support the idea that language
variation is decreasing. Through Haugen’s 1966 standardisation model, the selection of a
distinct variety such as the 15th Century East Midlands dialect (the dialect associated then
with the nobility) helped consolidate an emerging standard after the development of the
printing press in 1476. The later codification of spelling and grammar through emergence of
prescriptivist grammarians in the early 18th Century such as Johnson and Lowth led to a
reduction of internal variability, emphasising distinct proscriptions and dismissing the use of
multiple negation, split infinitives and sentence-final prepositions. It is important to note
however, that both Caxton and Johnson recognise the futility of preventing language change,
reflecting the inevitability of dialectical variation. In this context, SE enabled people who
may not have had access to an elite education to ‘learn the rules’ and gain over prestige, thus
increasing their social standing. Implementation through education systems, such as the
National Curriculum, forces users to abandon their vernacular features, in favour of greater
social mobility. In this respect, standardisation can serve as a norm-enforcing mechanism.
It's also important to note that Standard English itself is not immutable: very few users today
would use the subjunctive mood or adhere to never splitting infinitives, (as encouraged by
Robert Lowth). Either way, it seems apparent that variation within more rigid forms of
language is possible, reflecting the informatisation of Standard English today.
Dialect Levelling works alongside standardisation, whereby increased geographical mobility
causes local, distinctive features of language to disappear in favour of mainstream dialects.
Leslie Milroy links this to a reduction of rural employment as well as the efficiency of travel,
leading to a disruption of ‘close knit, localised networks’. One of the most notable examples
of this is the rise of ‘Estuary English’ throughout the southeast, replacing sharper local
accents. Coined by David Rosewarne and later described by Paul Coggle as a bridge between
cockney and RP, the dialect utilises glottal stops and yod coalescence, as well as th-fronting
(‘think’ as ‘fink'), often associated more with informal dialects. This homogenisation of
distinct varieties of English reflects the fact that people’s vernaculars perhaps take a ‘back
seat’ in the development of a person’s idiolect, reflecting a convergence towards more
universal variations.
The idea that language variation is decreasing is a central sociolinguistic debate that remains
contentious. Whilst prescriptivists might view variational decrease as loss of linguistic
integrity, descriptivists would argue that language constantly adapts and diversifies, meaning
that simple linguistic ‘decrease’ is more a process of evolution. Rather, language has simply
changed form to accommodate to its 21st Century users.
In terms of linguistics, language variation refers to the different regional, social or contextual
differences in how language is used, leading to coexisting ways of expressing the same
meaning- examples of this include referring to a bun as a ‘stottie’ in the North East, and a
‘bread roll’ in the South East, meaning speakers may need to be reliant on a previous
schematic knowledge of dialectical terms.
Standardisation is one of the most crucial arguments to support the idea that language
variation is decreasing. Through Haugen’s 1966 standardisation model, the selection of a
distinct variety such as the 15th Century East Midlands dialect (the dialect associated then
with the nobility) helped consolidate an emerging standard after the development of the
printing press in 1476. The later codification of spelling and grammar through emergence of
prescriptivist grammarians in the early 18th Century such as Johnson and Lowth led to a
reduction of internal variability, emphasising distinct proscriptions and dismissing the use of
multiple negation, split infinitives and sentence-final prepositions. It is important to note
however, that both Caxton and Johnson recognise the futility of preventing language change,
reflecting the inevitability of dialectical variation. In this context, SE enabled people who
may not have had access to an elite education to ‘learn the rules’ and gain over prestige, thus
increasing their social standing. Implementation through education systems, such as the
National Curriculum, forces users to abandon their vernacular features, in favour of greater
social mobility. In this respect, standardisation can serve as a norm-enforcing mechanism.
It's also important to note that Standard English itself is not immutable: very few users today
would use the subjunctive mood or adhere to never splitting infinitives, (as encouraged by
Robert Lowth). Either way, it seems apparent that variation within more rigid forms of
language is possible, reflecting the informatisation of Standard English today.
Dialect Levelling works alongside standardisation, whereby increased geographical mobility
causes local, distinctive features of language to disappear in favour of mainstream dialects.
Leslie Milroy links this to a reduction of rural employment as well as the efficiency of travel,
leading to a disruption of ‘close knit, localised networks’. One of the most notable examples
of this is the rise of ‘Estuary English’ throughout the southeast, replacing sharper local
accents. Coined by David Rosewarne and later described by Paul Coggle as a bridge between
cockney and RP, the dialect utilises glottal stops and yod coalescence, as well as th-fronting
(‘think’ as ‘fink'), often associated more with informal dialects. This homogenisation of
distinct varieties of English reflects the fact that people’s vernaculars perhaps take a ‘back
seat’ in the development of a person’s idiolect, reflecting a convergence towards more
universal variations.
