LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION

Author(s): A. M. Ghatage
Source: Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute , 1966-67,
Vol. 27, No. 1/2 (1966-67), pp. 51-56
Published by: Vice Chancellor, Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute
(Deemed University), Pune

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42930753

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Deccan
College Post-Graduate and Research Institute

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION

By
A. M. Ghatage

In his recent book called 'Language Standardization', Dr. Punya S

Ray has put forth a three-fold criterion for this purpose; it should be che
to acquire and maintain, more dependable in performance and in each
men more like any other. Most of the discussion, which follows, perta
scripts or writing systems for languages, to which criteria of the nature
cated above cain be applied with some show of reason. But, as appl
languages, I fail to understand what they could mean. What do we me
saying that one language is cheaper to acquire than another, or cheap
maintain, unless we are referring to the learning of a second language
surely this is not intended. In what sense is one language more depen
in performance than another ? All along, linguists have maintained th
languages are capable of doing linguistic work for which they are ev
And finally what are we to understand by the expression that each spe
of the language should be more like any other ? Does it refer to the inher
homogeneity in a given language as compared to others, which is always tr
or lack of variations in the language itself, in which case each languag
show a different picture ? Surely, the application of criteria of this n
to languages is not much revealing, and so, standardisation in language sho
mean something else than is suggested by this book.

Both scholars amd laymen have taken two distinct and slightly oppos
attitudes towards language. One such attitude is to let the language a
to itself, while the other is to try to lay down norms for it to shape and d
The layman lets the language alone because he is not much concerned w
and its working, except as a means to some practical end, and the sc
impressed by its importance and compelling social force, thinks it b
the scope of either modification or change with a definite purpose in view
the other hand, the same layman is keenly conscious of the value and pres
which attaches to the linguistic expression in life, and constantly ende
to adjust his own speech to the accepted norm, either from one dial
another, or one style to another, and so on. In the past, scholars also
similar attitude and attempted to lay down standards and norms which sh
be followed in languages. These took the form of prescriptive or norm
grammars, and were even legislated in the form of the decisions of lan
academics.

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
52 A. M. GHATAGE

This ambivalent attitude towa

connection it has with its speak
with constant application some
activities, knowledge with respect
But we have also grown with some
law, form of government, custo
have internalised in our earliest
lived. Language, in particular, h
inner life and has acquired an im
basis of its being merely means
emphasis on the use of language an

Another characteristic feature

show when it is used by a large
an ideal system of communicatio
rence in its coding and decoding
leading to lack of perfect under
communication its primary pur
tions of diverse kinds in their act
age which is homogeneous throu
stratified society or even over a
a system becomes the less like
notation, or a rigidly formulated
symbolism of logic is felt as less o
reason is obvious. We do not wa
tion of ideas or thoughts or info
tions, overtones and attitudes wh
suppleness and variation.

Standardization in language, as
out of these two features, variatio
overtones of social and personal
in this context are, is standardi
desirable and if so how and to w
cussion of these questions will a
means in linguistic matters.

It is often contended that it is

no predesigned change can be in
natural languages cannot be specif
to improve the situation is to p
such attempts, of artificial int
Both linguistic theory and the pra
credit this type of approach for
expected along this line. Whethe

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION 53

ing to a preconceived plan is yet an unsettled question and

which is available in this respect is of an inconclusive
people speak of developing languages, enriching them
modern uses and needs, or incorporating in it material
so as to suit its genius etc., these are mere phrases the
which is too vague and imprecise to help us get anyw
operandi for it is unknown.

One of the basic assumptions of historical linguisti

undergoes constant change in course of time, and suc
arrested if the language is to be a live means of contin
forces which produce these changes either for good or
mostly untraced and unknown, the problem of controlling
a matter óf doubt and uncertainty. Hence one is left w
of regarding the natural growth in language as either
automatically brought about, and hence cause for satisf
degeneration, and hence causing despair, but, in any cas
of speakers and policy-makers. But this leaves behind a
theory at least, a language can be modified and desirabl
in it, provided the root causes of such changes can be
controlled and modified in the way one desires. Slightly m
the way in which the linguistic changes work, and it is
than a precept or an order, what may succeed in lingu
examples and persuasion, which is certainly going to
it should be. It is neither possible nor desirable to force th
changes. Once it is admitted that linguistici changes c
standardization should then mean nothing but these ch
along desired lines, mostly leading to convergent developm
process is inherent in the natural development of langu
what can be called standardization is simply to help it pro
ways. There is reason to believe that every literary lan
portance has undergone such a process and the examp
Greek are cases of unusual clarity.

Standardization in language thus implies a choice of

of speech giving it a wider scope in use, with the nece
cope with new situations. In theory, any dialect or eve
thus standardised and there are cases of a local dialect,
single town Roma, becoming the basis of a standard lan
graphical and cultural expanse, or the ideolects of a Dante
the basis of standard Italian or German. All the same, it is a matter of
historical accidence and the forces involved in it are so complex and so unpre-
dictable that planning on this basis is impracticable and futile. We thus
answer our first question by saying that standardization of a given form of
speech is possible, though the choice of the form and the way in which this

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
54 A. M. GHATAGE

can be done are not completely unde

the desirability or otherwise of a giv
choice, involving non-linguistic consi

Can there be a large linguistic comm

for some specific uses ? I doubt it v
and every regional and class dialect is
and probably does not exist. It Í9 po
different levels, like the local standa
standard etc., as there could be diff
poetry, standards for refined speech,
type of conversation. In a situation o
to each other, and hence do not produc
tions are well demarcated from each other with no conflict involved. If the
forms are much different a situation develops in which one becomes the
standard language and the others sink to the status of mere patois. No plan-
ning can reverse this position and the only way out is to develop the standard
to the fullest extent and to see that it takes on itself the functions of the
other forms. It goes without saying that extra-linguistic considerations, like
economy of effort, facilities of printing and publication, closer contact in all
walks of life and many other things, are going to favour a fewer number of
standards, or standard of wider scope, than many standards of limited use.
A situation like that of ancient Greek dialects for different types of works, or
different Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrits for different social and sex groups, is in-
herently artificial and to that extent unstable. It has nothing to recommend itself.

The procedure of standardization is simple enough. It involves no

new creation, no translation, no caiques, no borrowing, no adoptation. These
are ths normal processes of linguistic change and are operative as much in the
standard language as in other sub-standard forms. The basic process is a
choice of one feature as against others, a kind of selection out of the existing
material, and then endowing it with greater prestige, which would naturally
lead to its wider and more frequent use. This may pertain to a linguistic
feature which in itself may have no importance as to the case of the alternative
inflections in Middle English for the third person singular of the present
tense -th or -s, the second of which was selected and given wider scope. The
discarded feature may either remain as an archaism, as in this case, or lose
prestige and become a sub-standard form, as in Marathi sāpadņe and gavasņe.

The real problem in language standardization is to get to know and

be able to put into operation the means of making the choice acceptable to all
concerned and help it spread at the cost of the discarded alternatives. As
there is nothing inherent in the features themselves, which can help us accept
one at the expense of the other, and as innovations or choices in languages
can as much attract as repel the speakers by their being mere innovations or

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 LANGUAGE STANDARDIZATION 55

choices, this problem is well-nigh insoluble at the theoret

come in considerations like expediency, use of coercion, pers
more subtle pressures like bestowing praise or prize9, monopol
and a host of other well-known methods usually used in bringi
changes. To what extent linguistics can be of help in this
a doubtful proposition.

Discussion

Dr. (Mrs.) I. Karve : In Sanskrit drama there is one language for

prose and another for poetry. Paris, for instance, plays an important role
in standardising the French language.

Dr. L. M. Khubchandam : Norwegian and Modem Hebrew are good

instances which show that with proper planning existing speech can be given
a form for serving specific purposes of the community.

Dr. D. P. Pattcmayak : From the point of view of a locality, the

language spoken there is the standardised speech of that locality.

Dr. A. i M. Ghatage : Unless y agrees to speak the language of x, no

standardisation can be there. If every speaker says that his form of speech
is correct, I doubt if any standard language exists there.

Some standard must be accepted by all speakers of the group. The

very process of standardising a form is done at the cost of another form. When
one form is accepted, the other one is not driven out but becomes less frequent
or is treated as archaic.

Every innovation starts at an individual level. It cannot start in the

air. Standardisation is one kind of language change. When one form is
chosen at the cost of another, it is standardisation.

Shri Munkodi : Does this mean that standardisation is a matter of

choice ?

Dr. A. M. Ghatage: Standardisation is a process of the selecting a

dialect. But if a language is driven out to replace another, it is not standardi-
sation but imposition.
Dr. H. S. Biligiri : Suppose we have a local dialect, do you think that
the standardardisation has taken place there?

Dr. A. M. Ghatage : Yes, that will be a local standardisation.

Shri. S. B. Kulkami : Preventing the use of certain words as un-
parliamentary, would you call it standardisation?
Dr. A. M. Ghatage : Certainly.

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
56 A. M. GHATAGE

Dr. h. M. Khubchandani : I would

to your statement, if a dialect is se
standardisation and if a language is re
In a bilingual situation, if a child unco
his mothertongue, it cannot be calle

Dr. (Mrs.) I. Karve : If authorit

habits it is 'imposition'.

Dr. L. M. Khubchandani : Different varieties of Hindi or Hindustani

are spoken in Delhi, Lucknow, Bañaras, Patna, Calcutta, Bombay and other
places. A linguist can study these different varieties and give certain directions
for selecting a common core which is mutually intelligible and unambiguous
to all Indian speakers. A linguist can only place these guidelines before
the society and the ultimate acceptance depends on the prestige attached
to these suggestions and all other socio-cultural factors. This role of a linguist
can be considered as an effort towards the standardisation of a language.

This content downloaded from

213.55.85.89 on Tue, 19 Oct 2021 11:40:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms