Definition:
A standard language (or standard variety) is a codified form of a language that has been:
- Selected (one dialect or amalgam of dialects chosen as the base)
- Codified (documented in dictionaries, grammars, and style guides)
- Elaborated (vocabulary expanded for all domains of formal use)
- Accepted (institutionally promoted and adopted in education, government, and media)
Standard languages are social constructs — the product of historical, political, and cultural decisions. They carry prestige not because they are linguistically superior, but because they have been institutionally elevated. All dialects and non-standard varieties are linguistically equal in structure and expressive capacity.
How Standard Languages Form
Standard languages typically emerge when:
- A dominant dialect achieves political/economic power (often the dialect of the capital or the educated elite)
- Printing technology spreads that dialect’s written form widely (the printing press played a key role in standardizing European languages)
- Codification occurs: scholars write grammars and dictionaries formalizing the norms of that dialect
- Formal education teaches the standard to all children, regardless of their home dialect
In virtually every case, someone’s native dialect is elevated and everyone else’s is implicitly stigmatized. The standard is never adopted by divine or logical necessity — it is the historical accident of which community had power at a critical moment.
Examples of Standard Languages
| Standard Variety | Historical Basis |
|---|---|
| Standard British English (RP) | East Midlands dialect of Chancery scribes, elevated further by London publishing |
| Standard French | The dialect of Paris/Île-de-France, via Académie française codification |
| Standard German | High German of Martin Luther’s Bible translation (1522) + Chancery German |
| Modern Standard Arabic | Classical Quranic Arabic, modernized through 19th–20th-century planning |
| Standard Japanese (共通語 kyōtsūgo) | Tokyo dialect (specifically Yamanote, the educated class dialect) |
Standard Language Ideology
Standard language ideology (Milroy, 1999) refers to the widely held but linguistically unfounded belief that:
- The standard variety is the “real,” “correct,” or “pure” form of the language
- Non-standard forms are “errors,” “lazy speech,” or “corrupted language”
- Native speakers who use non-standard forms are less educated or less capable
This ideology is socially powerful but linguistically indefensible. It is the belief structure that fuel prescriptivism, dialect discrimination, and linguistic prejudice.
Standardization and Schooling
Schools are the primary institution for transmitting the standard:
- Children who already speak a dialect close to the standard have an educational advantage
- Children from non-standard dialect backgrounds are implicitly taught that their home language is “wrong”
- This dynamic — which Bourdieu called linguistic capital — means language varieties play a direct role in social reproduction and class mobility
The Standard vs. the Colloquial
In diglossic communities (see: Diglossia), the H (High) form often corresponds closely to the written/standard variety. In non-diglossic communities, the standard exists as a register or style rather than a fully separate code — speakers shift toward greater standard alignment in formal contexts and away from it in casual ones.
SLA Connection
For language learners:
- Most language courses teach the standard variety because it is the most widely usable, the most documented, and the most transferable across regions
- But learners embedded in specific communities may need to acquire non-standard features to be socially accepted
- “Native-like speech” is often conflated with “standard speech” — but truly native-like speech means acquiring the relevant dialect, not a standardized written form
History
Standard languages are the product of deliberate social processes — standardization — that codify and promote a particular variety for use in education, government, media, and formal communication. Haugen’s (1966) classic model described standardization as involving four stages: selection (choosing which variety to standardize), codification (writing grammars, dictionaries, and style guides), elaboration (developing vocabulary and styles for all functions), and acceptance (achieving recognition as the legitimate variety). Modern standard languages typically have their origins in the dialect of a politically or economically dominant region: Standard English emerged from the London/East Midlands variety, Standard French from Parisian French, and Standard Japanese (hyoujungo/kyoutsuugo) from the Tokyo dialect. The process of language standardization intensified with nation-building movements of the 18th-20th centuries and the spread of mass education and print media.
Common Misconceptions
“Standard languages are natural and neutral.”
Standard languages are deliberate social constructions — one dialect elevated above others through political, educational, and institutional processes. The selection of which dialect becomes “standard” is determined by power, not by linguistic quality.
“Standard language is the ‘real’ or ‘correct’ form.”
All language varieties are linguistically complete and rule-governed. Standard language ideology — the belief that the standard form is inherently correct and superior — is a social attitude, not a linguistic fact.
“Everyone speaks the standard language.”
In most speech communities, few people speak the standard variety natively. Most speakers use regional or social varieties in everyday life and may approximate the standard in formal contexts. “Standard” is primarily a written and institutional norm.
“Languages without an official standard are inferior.”
Many languages function perfectly well without a single codified standard. Creole languages, many indigenous languages, and some widely spoken languages operate with multiple regional norms without the need for a single imposed standard.
Criticisms
The standard language concept has been heavily critiqued by critical sociolinguists. Milroy and Milroy (1999) argued that standard language ideology naturalizes the dominance of one variety over others, creating discrimination against speakers of non-standard varieties — “linguicism” parallel to racism or sexism. The standard is not linguistically superior; it is socially privileged.
For language education, the emphasis on standard language norms has been criticized for disadvantaging students who speak non-standard native varieties (forced to learn an additional variety to succeed academically) and for giving learners an unrealistic target (most native speakers don’t consistently speak the standard). Additionally, the concept of “standard” is increasingly challenged in multilingual societies where multiple standards coexist and English operates as a global lingua franca with multiple legitimate varieties (World Englishes).
Social Media Sentiment
Standard language debates are common in language learning communities. Questions about “which version of the language should I learn?” (Latin American vs. Castilian Spanish, Tokyo vs. Kansai Japanese, British vs. American English) reflect standard language politics. Most community advice recommends starting with a standard variety for pedagogical access and later expanding to regional varieties as needed.
On r/LearnJapanese, learners occasionally discover that the “standard Japanese” of their textbooks differs from the speech they encounter in media from different regions, prompting discussions about Tokyo-centric language instruction and the status of dialects like Kansai-ben.
Practical Application
- Start with the standard variety — For most learning purposes, the standard variety provides the widest communicative access, the most learning resources, and the broadest comprehensibility. Standard Japanese (hyoujungo) is the practical default for Japanese learners.
- Recognize that standard ≠ natural speech — Native speakers rarely speak “textbook standard.” Expect differences between what you learn and what you hear in casual conversation.
- Develop both standard and informal registers — Social competence requires being able to produce standard-adjacent language in formal situations and more casual language in informal situations.
- Respect non-standard varieties — Understanding that dialects are linguistically legitimate prevents social missteps like “correcting” a native speaker’s dialectal usage.
Related Terms
See Also
Research
Haugen (1966) established the classic model of language standardization. Milroy and Milroy (1999) provided the influential critique of standard language ideology and its social consequences.
For L2 education, Jenkins (2007) argued for recognizing multiple legitimate Englishes rather than enforcing a single standard variety target — proposing a “Lingua Franca Core” of features needed for mutual intelligibility without full native-speaker standard conformity. Lippi-Green (2012) examined how standard language ideology in education and media creates discrimination against L2 speakers and speakers of non-standard varieties, with implications for testing fairness and social integration. For Japanese specifically, Carroll (2001) analyzed how standard Japanese ideology operates in education and media, documenting the complex relationship between hyoujungo (standard language) and kyoutsuugo (common language) as related but distinct concepts.