Language, Identity and Power

Misconceptions about the language vs dialect debate and the role of standardization

The following is the last essay I wrote for my second academic year at university. This essay seeks to better understand what we mean when we use words like dialect and language. In doing so, we will understand some of the standardization processes that English undertook throughout it’s history. Additionally, the essay examines the theoretical framework in fields like Social Dialectology to better grasp the nuance of such debates on language, and to a wider extent, the relationship between language, society and identity.

Introduction

We often hear the words dialect and language used interchangeably, but what exactly do the two terms mean? Can a person speak a dialect, but not a language? Or do we only speak in dialects? Where does a dialect end, and a language begin? What is the link between a nation and its language(s)? These questions are important for understanding the relationships we have to the words we hear all around us. The sociolinguist Einar Haugen addressed these very questions when he argued that a dialect is “a language that no one has taken the trouble to develop into a standard language” (Haugen, 1966). This provocative statement suggests that the distinction between language and dialect is not based on linguistic features, but rather on social and political processes of standardisation. To understand Haugen's claim, we must first clarify what is meant by these terms. Both language and dialect entered English from French, having "displaced such native words as 'tongue' and 'speech' already in Middle English" (Haugen, 1966). Haugen notes that "language always the superordinate and dialect the subordinate" - a hierarchy that reveals the power dynamics inherent in these classifications (Haugen, 1966). While language can be used independently, dialect can only be understood in reference to the language to which it belongs.

A standard language is a variety of a language that has been codified and institutionalised through deliberate processes of standardisation, usually involving dictionaries, grammars, educational systems, and official recognition. Haugen states that "every self-respecting nation has to have a language. Not just a medium of communication, a vernacular, or a dialect, but a fully developed language" (Haugen, 1966). English is an ideal case study for examining these processes, given its rich history of standardisation and its multitude of dialects both domestically and internationally. Haugen's insight that "all the great languages of today were once underdeveloped" reminds us that standardisation is a historical process, not a natural linguistic development (Haugen, 1966). Through the historical development of English, we can better understand the relationship between identity and language, and why and how standardisation occurs. This essay will examine the extent to which Haugen's statement holds true by analysing the historical processes of English and to a larger extent, European standardisation, drawing on projects in social dialectology that reveal how social factors determine which varieties gain prestige, and considering recent research that illuminates contemporary language attitudes. Through this analysis, I will argue that while Haugen captures an important truth about the socio-political nature of language standardisation, his statement somewhat oversimplifies the complex factors that determine which varieties achieve language status.

The Story of English Standardisation

The global lingua franca of today, English, was born on the British Isles through a multitude of languages. In comparison to other widely spoken languages like ‘Chinese’ and ‘Hindi’ which have been spoken for thousands of years, English’s history only really starts to emerge around a thousand years ago, after the Norman French conquest of a culturally and ethnically diverse island. By the time William the Conqueror arrived on the island in 1066 AD, Celtic, Germanic, and Scandinavian peoples had long settled the island; coupled with a distant influence from the Romans - who had left when the western half of its empire had collapsed in the fifth century AD. It was from this rich tapestry of linguistic norms that Old English emerges, spoken until 1150 AD when Middle English is thought to have begun (Durkin, 2024). Even at this point, ‘English’ was far from standardised, with the only written form of Old English found in religious texts (Durkin, 2024). It was during the period of Middle English that French loaned much of its vocabulary, which is why over half of Modern English’s vocabulary comes from French and Latin.

During much of England’s early history, it was a land of diglossia, in that the language spoken by the elites and rulers were different from the languages spoken by the peoples, which, over time, is how foreign linguistic influence comes into a language - through close contact. English would have been a spoken vernacular, with many variants. It is not long after Middle English (1140-1470) developed into Early Middle English. The same time of the Print Revolution on the continent, an Englishmen named William Caxton (1422-1491) translated literature and learnt the art of printing books. Caxton was the first English Printer and was therefore pivotal in the codification of the early English language. He was a very literate man for his time, and “he knew the works of people like Lydgate and Chaucer well” (Blake, 1991). A crucial development in the standardisation of English was the emergence of the Chancery Standard in the 15th century; this written form, based on the dialects of London and the East Midlands, became the preferred variety for official documents and administration, laying the groundwork for a more uniform written English. It was once Caxton returned to London that he set up his own printing press, where “he imported many books, printed and manuscript, into England” (Blake, 1991). Most of the books Caxton’s print company published were “almost all without exception translations” (BLAKE, 1965). Highlighting some of the ways social environment and the perceived linguistic biases we hold can lead to a change in the form and manner of our own speech. It was due to those early pioneering English printers and their micro choices from the fourteenth century that an early English began to be codified, and therefore easier to learn, understand and transmit. Within administrative and institutional tasks, documentation and discourse must occur in at least one language, and one that is easier to write, whose rules of grammar can quickly be learnt and passed down as reference, like those found in dictionaries. It was in the 1600’s that the first dictionaries emerge, further codifying the language.

Unlike the French and Spanish who established Academies whose sole purpose was to protect and promote the official state language, there was no such establishment for English. Instead, English standardisation was decentralized, relying on consensus among influential publishers, educators, and institutions such as universities. Once the age of exploration had begun, English, alongside other dominant European languages were transported to all corners of the world through conquest and colonialisation. These languages, once established far from home, started their own development into distinct varieties; thus, we have Australian, American and Canadian Englishes. Additionally, through colonization, we have seen the emergence of budding languages known as Creoles. Each of the big European languages that travelled far from home and interacted with diverse peoples have their own Creole. In her new book, Wanderers, Kings, Merchants, Peggy Mohan speaks about the birth of such varieties of communication in the Caribbean. During the Atlantic Slave Trade, European powers kidnapped millions of people from West Africa, a place with a rich linguistic tapestry. These slaves would not have spoken the same language, instead, they spoke a multitude of languages spanning different linguistic histories, yet "the first slave languages to appear were pidgins - stripped down, unstable codes made up on the spot" (Mohan, 2021). A mix of different African peoples, of whose languages varied, began using words heard from the white people who had enslaved them. It was the second-generation toddlers of these enslaved peoples who strung pidgin words together and "made them into creoles that could do everything natural language did" (Mohan, 2021). These developments were not inevitable or purely linguistic; they were driven by social elites, technological innovation, and the needs of administration and education. The English language from the British Isles became a mere dialect of itself as new standards and varieties emerged across the globe.

Standard Language vs Language in Use

After detailing the history of English, it is apparent that standardization is mostly due to socialised behaviour. The field of Linguistics known as Dialectology has several branches within it, namely Geographical and Social Dialectology; both fields examine the connection between language variation and geography / social factors, respectively. Einar Haugen's remark that a dialect is "a language that no one has taken the trouble to develop into a standard language" presents a seemingly straightforward but deeply problematic characterization of the relationship between dialects and standard languages. This definition implies that standardization is merely a matter of institutional effort rather than complex socio-political processes, and it overlooks the intrinsic linguistic value of dialectal varieties. While Haugen's statement captures certain truths about the role of deliberate intervention in language standardization, it oversimplifies the nature of dialect-standard relationships and fails to account for the social, political, and ideological dimensions that shape these processes.

To better understand how the field of Social Dialectology relates to Haugen’s remark, we should analyse its key concepts. Firstly, it’s main focus is to examine the linguistic variation within a specific community through the use of vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar in relation to the ‘standard’ form, then, by applying these variations to concepts like social class, age, gender, ethnicity and education level, we can begin to consider the implications on language use. Consider pronunciation for example, the standard form of British English today is largely based on a variety known as Received Pronunciation, which was itself modelled from the dialects of London and Southern England, the centres of power. While Received Pronunciation speakers are judged as more competent and ambitious than their regionally accented counterparts, they are simultaneously perceived as less authentic and socially appealing, with regional speakers being viewed as more genuine, approachable, and humorous (Montgomery, 1993). The concept that the working-class have a loyalty to non-prestige forms identified by Labov's celebrated research of New York Department Stores provides compelling evidence against Haugen's statement. Among certain groups, particularly those on society's margins, there exists a paradox: while they appear to conform to mainstream speech norms, they simultaneously maintain strong loyalty to their local linguistic patterns as markers of identity and community belonging (Montgomery, 1993). This loyalty suggests that speakers actively choose to maintain non-standard features not because their varieties are underdeveloped, but because these features serve important identity functions and express solidarity with their communities.

Hypercorrection reveals another dimension of how social positioning influences language use and further complicates Haugen's characterization of dialect development. Montgomery observes that "whilst sections of the working class may have a strong sense of loyalty to the speech patterns of their own locality, other strata of the population display in certain settings and exaggerated preference for the prestige forms" (Montgomery, 1993). This exaggerated preference represents a form of linguistic overcompensation that appears when speakers attempt to align themselves with higher-status varieties. Such behaviour is "sometimes seen as indicative of a more widespread linguistic insecurity amongst this social group, the members of which are poised uneasily halfway up the social hierarchy and identify with the patterns of the group they aspire to join" (Montgomery, 1993). The previously mentioned research undertaken by William Labov of New York Department Stores in the 1960s highlights the micro actions of people’s speech. According to Labov, speakers from higher social classes were more likely to pronounce rhotic /r/ sounds (University of Sheffield, 2022). The existence of hypercorrection demonstrates that the perceived superiority of standard forms are socially constructed rather than linguistically inherent, as speakers must actively work to suppress their natural linguistic competence in favour of forms they associate with higher social status. This linguistic insecurity reveals the artificial nature of the standard-dialect hierarchy and further highlights the failure of certain varieties to achieve standard status reflects social anxiety and aspiration rather than any inherent linguistic inadequacy.

Christian Ilbury’s (2024) study The Recontextualisation of Multicultural London English: Stylising the ‘Roadman’ examines a new English dialect known as Multicultural London English (MLE). This multiethnolect is used by working-class London youth and has now moved beyond its humble origins to be stylized and popularized on the social media platform TikTok (Ilbury, 2023). This research looks at how Multicultural London English (MLE) is performed and stereotyped on social media through an analysis of TikTok videos tagged with the hastag ‘roadman’. The study investigates a collection of these videos to understand how specific linguistic features of MLE, including the pronominal use of man, styll and distinctive fronted vowel sounds. All are employed in performances of the ‘roadman’ persona. The findings reveal that these linguistic elements consistently appear alongside cultural markers such as grime music, streetwear fashion, and displays of overt heterosexuality; collectively constructing a highly recognizable identity that is simultaneously gendered, classed, and racialized. However, these performances often perpetuate and circulate harmful stereotypes, particularly reinforcing anti-Black and anti-poor representations of MLE speakers. The study thus demonstrates how digital media platforms can both showcase linguistic diversity and simultaneously contribute to the stigmatization of non-standard varieties and their speakers.

Conclusion

Through examining the historical standardisation of English and contemporary research in social dialectology, it becomes clear that Haugen's characterisation of dialect as ‘a language that no one has taken the trouble to develop into a standard language’ captures only a slight truth about the complex relationship between dialects and languages. While his statement correctly identifies the role of deliberate institutional domination in language standardisation, evidenced by the pivotal contributions of Caxton's printing press, the emergence of the Chancery Standard, and the eventual codification through dictionaries - it oversimplifies the processes that determine which varieties achieve language status.

The historical development of English reveals that standardisation is not only a matter of institutional effort, but rather the result of complex socio-political forces including technological innovation, administrative needs, and the consolidation of power around particular geographical centres. As McArthur (1987) notes, standardization is fundamentally linked to "a linguistic community's ability to how independent their publishing, media, and broadcasting styles are from an external groups influence" (McArthur, 1987). This independence, rather than institutional centrism, is most important for language development. It is also important to understand that "all English speaking territories appear to have a continuum of usage from their 'broad' vernacular(s) through the local standard to the international standard" (McArthur, 1987). Contemporary research in social dialectology showcases how speakers actively maintain non-standard features not because their varieties are underdeveloped, but because these features are important for identity construction. When speakers of the same language use different varieties, these differences inevitably become grounds for social judgment, revealing the deep connection between language and social structures (Montgomery, 1993). Working-class loyalty to non-prestige forms, alongside linguistic insecurity revealed through hypercorrection, demonstrates that the perceived superiority of standard forms is socially constructed rather than linguistically inherent. Ilbury's (2024) study of MLE on TikTok highlights how digital media can simultaneously showcase linguistic diversity while perpetuating harmful stereotypes. While Haugen's statement illuminates the important role of institutional effort in language standardisation, it fails to account for the complex interplay of social, political, and ideological factors that truly determine which varieties achieve language status.

Bibliography

BLAKE, N.F. (1965). WILLIAM CAXTON: HIS CHOICE OF TEXTS. Anglia - Zeitschrift für englische Philologie, 1965(83). doi:https://doi.org/10.1515/angl.1965.1965.83.289.

Blake, N.F. (1991). William Caxton and English Literary Culture. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tO3UAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=english+standardization+history+caxton&ots=X19fGEMlcq&sig=WwD_WEbfn9hJkN469_HV9GzkKjE#v=onepage&q=english%20standardization%20history%20caxton&f=false [Accessed 3 Jul. 2025].

Durkin, P. (2023). Middle English – an Overview. [online] Oed.com. Available at: https://www.oed.com/discover/middle-english-an-overview/?tl=true.

Durkin, P. (2024). Old English – an overview. [online] www.oed.com. Available at: https://www.oed.com/discover/old-english-an-overview/?tl=true.

Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, Language, Nation. American Anthropologist, [online] 68(4), pp.922–935. doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040.

Ilbury, C. (2023). The recontextualisation of Multicultural London English: Stylising the ‘roadman’. Language in Society, 53(3), pp.1–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404523000143.

Joseph, J.E., Rutten, G. and Vosters, R. (2020). Dialect, language, nation: 50 years on. Language Policy, 19(2), pp.161–182. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-020-09549-x.

McArthur, T. (1987). The English languages? English Today, 3(3), pp.9–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266078400013511.

Mohan, P. (2021). Wanderers, kings, merchants : the story of India through its languages. New Delhi: Penguin Random House.

Montgomery, M. (1993). An introduction to language and society : Introduction to language and society. London: Routledge.

Preston, D.R. (1999). Handbook of perceptual dialectology. : Volume 1. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. (Accessed through Birkbeck Library).

Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. London ; New York: Penguin.

University of Sheffield (2022). Research in Sociolinguistics. [online] www.sheffield.ac.uk. Available at: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/linguistics/home/all-about-linguistics/about-website/branches-linguistics/sociolinguistics/research-sociolinguistics.