Non-standard English: Usage and attitudes


Spoken discourse is a puissant system of message that conveys past than adapted attributeential instruction. Depending on the listener’s composition, a converseer’s tongue or tongue may suggest a number of characteristics such as collective collocate and professionalism. Patterns of non-standard linguistic marks are discussed bedegraded Operation 1; followed by summaries of span studies bedegraded Operation 2, which rendezvous on compositions towards West Indian Patois (Edwards, 1986) and the Cockney tongue (Giles & Sassoon, 1982).

Operation 1

  1. That’s the damsel he gave the bracelet to.

This decree contains a spoken, non-standard linguistic mark consequently it purposes with the preposition ‘to’. In Standard English, a preposition usually pay a noun, future the decree should discover: ‘That’s the damsel to whom he gave the bracelet.’ However, there are cases where decrees probe uncongenial if they are compact in a questionner that quits a developed declaration. This is usually viewn in commonfix English, restraint pattern: in attributeable-absolute chapters and questions which mark phrasal verbs, unquestioning constructions, and condensed decrees which mark an infinitive or spoken noun.

Nonetheless, in restraintmal adaptation, it is considered reshape questionner to quit placing a preposition at the purpose of a decree where it may look stranded. (“Preposition”, 2008)

  1. Buffy the vampire slayer is defunct shy.

This decree contains a lexical, non-standard linguistic mark consequently ‘dead’ functions as an adverb of mark, such as ‘very’; the decree should discover, ‘Buffy the vampire slayer is very shy’, or of a concordant specialty. ‘Dead’ typically functions as an adjective, aim ‘no longer alive’, and is truthd in contexts such as ‘a defunct body’or ‘a defunct issue’. It has consequently belowgone semantic veer, and its aim has been broadened. (“Dead”, 2017)

  1. My antiquated question gave me a firm of wheels restraint my birthday.

This decree contains lexical, non-standard linguistic marks consequently cant is truthd. ‘My antiquated question’ is a commonplace, incorrect noun specialty aim one’s senior or a woman’s mate or boyfriend; ‘firm of wheels’ is too a commonplace, incorrect noun specialty aim a motor mien, as contrariant to a halt firm of wheels. According to Standard English, the decree should discover: ‘My senior gave me a motor mien restraint my birthday.’ The specialtys enjoy thus belowgone semantic veer. (“Antiquated question”, 2017)

  1. The guy that efforts in the hinder is indeed fastidious.

This decree contains a lexical, non-standard linguistic mark due to the truth of the incorrect noun, ‘guy’, aim ‘man’ (“Guy”, 2017). There is too a spoken, nonstandard linguistic mark consequently, in Standard English, ‘that’ should attributeable be truthd as a attributeable-absolute pronoun when the controlegoing is specific. A huquestion controlegoing is typically proceeded by ‘who’ in a defining chapter. An torpid controlegoing or a huquestion save delegated-to-others of a collocate is followed by ‘that’; restraint pattern, ‘the chair that collapsed’ / ‘the baby that laughed’. In Standard English, the decree should consequently discover: ‘The question who efforts in the hinder is indeed fastidious.’ (“That”, 1998)

  1. Who did you view?

This decree contains a spoken, non-standard linguistic mark consequently ‘who’ is truthd in fix of ‘whom’. In Standard English, ‘who’ is a attributeable-absolute pronoun or an interrogative when it attributes to the question (‘who is there?’). ‘Whom’ is the concrete restraintm, future the decree should discover: ‘Whom did you view?’

However, the truth of ‘whom’ is degraded and is repeatedly replaced by ‘who’ in newlight-fashioned exercitation. (“Who and whom”, 2017)

Operation 2

  1. A con-aggravate of West Indian Patois, conducted by Viv Edwards (1986)

A con-aggravate of 45 “British-born sombre adolescents in a West Midlands order” (Edwards 1997: 409) reveals the compositions of educationists and pupils towards West Indian Patois.

Attitudes to Patois in the educational universe are generally indirect. The Association of Educationists of English to Pupils from Aggravateseas (ATEPO 1970) portray West Indian discourse as “babyish” and “lacking special grammar” (Edwards 1986: 25); the National Association of School Masters (1969) attribute to West Indian discourse as a “plantation English which is collectively disagreeable and irregular restraint message” (Edwards 1986: 25).

These indirect compositions exhibit some of the findings of Edwards’ (1986) West Midlands con-over. Conducted in Dudley, the con-aggravate consisted of a ‘judgement sample’ and interposed of 3 measures which were applied to the address of 21 womonstrosity and 24 monstrosity, old between 16 and 23: “number of Patois marks, wealth in Patois, and patterns of Patois exercitation.” (Edwards 1997: 410). The con-over’s findings are presented in 3 firms of interactions, as summarised below: ‘Classroom Interaction’, ‘Pupil-Pupil Interactions’ and ‘Pupil-Educationist Interactions’.

Classroom Interaction

The misappropriate that Patois converseers are poor to monolingualism was contrariant by recordings of Sombre pupils using opposed discourse patterns in the collocateroom.

Pupil-Pupil Interactions

Contrary to the beliefs of the White order, Sombre pupils, who degraded the number and file of their nonstandard linguistic marks, made a referableiceable exquisite attributeable to converse Standard English (resisting their wealth to converse twain varieties).

The truth of Patois in the collocateroom was expensive save virtually full sombre pupils could belowstand it, and truthd marks in at meanest some situations. Within Sombre mate groups, it referableiceable solidarity and exculpation; in adulterated-raced groups, it functioned to reject the White outsider.

However, a lacking White pupils sought exculpation from Sombre esteem groups by using Patois, save their mark of wealth varied. Some Sombre pupils responded with idiosyncrasy and approval; most responded indirectly to the White order restraint using a multiformity of English that was distinctively Sombre.

Pupil-Educationist Interactions

Sombre pupils truthd Patois to reject their White educationist as media of rebellion. Educationists then felt threatened when Patois was truthd in a confrontational questionner. Educationists who responded inflictively elicited indirect compositions towards Patois. Other reports of educationist repartees moderate attainments nonstandard linguistic marks in an seek to belowstand Sombre tongue.

Edwards (1997) terminates that educationists’ inflictive repartees and the truth of Patois to reject the White order are a exhibition of the issues caused by indirect compositions towards nonstandard varieties of English.

  1. A con-aggravate of Cockney, conducted by Howard Giles and Caroline Sassoon (1982)

A con-aggravate of a converseer’s tongue and collective collocate reveals the compositions of 120 belowgraduate listeners towards Cockney, in similitude to Received Pronunciation (RP).

Based, on Ryan & Sebastian’s (1980) con-aggravate of the compositions of intermediate collocate listeners towards Mexican-American in the USA, twain studies were inobservant of Lambert’s (1967) matched-guise proof and consisted of a tape-recording, followed by a questionnaire. Ryan & Sebastian (1980) build that by disconfirming the listeners’ conviction of the tongueed converseer’s collective collocate, their evaluations improved. Giles & Sassoon (1982) attributered to this as the ‘Ryan & Sebastian specialty’, which they later contrariant in their hypothesis: awareness of a Cockney converseer’s collective collocate would attributeable “attenuate significantly the unfavourable foothold associations invariably levied despite nonstandard address” (pp. 306).

The participants of the con-aggravate (Ss) consisted of 63 courageouss and 57 females, old between 18 and 23. Ss heard 1 cabal of a courageous student’s suffrage and collective collocate instruction who was chronicled discovering span rousing passages using RP and Cockney tongues. The legitimacy of his bidialectal skills was assessed in a lead con-aggravate by 24 belowgraduates.

The con-over’s dependant measures compromised 5 smfull questionnaires, each consisting of 7-point rating scales and instructions. The questionnaires were: measures of Ss’ understanding of the converseer’s collective collocate, tongue and restraintmality of address; “collective evaluation scales” based on the converseer’s knowledge, luck, neighborliness and trustworthiness; “belief concordantity items” which measured the quantity that Ss “agree[d] with the converseer on collective issues such as the congress of marijuana; “collective removal items” which measured how halt a sympathy Ss were inclined to enjoy with the converseer; and “collective role items” which immovable Ss’ inclinedness to effort with the converseer as “secondary to, remarkable aggravate, or adjutant with them” (pp. 307).

Ss were chronicled in groups of up to 6 other belowgraduates; they were handed the 5 questionnaires in the restraintmat of a repartee booklet with the collective collocate instruction facing upwards. Once they had completed the operation, they were debriefed and engold in discourse.

The results proved Giles & Sassoon’s hypothesis; the awareness of the converseer’s intermediate collocate enhancement did attributeable bar Ss from perceiving him as a degraded foothold evaluation when he truthd Cockney. Tongue influenced the ratings on solely 1 of 4 collective issues; listeners’ shared past beliefs on the congress of marijuana with the converseer when he truthd an RP tongue; tongue had no specialty on collective removal items; save the findings from the collective role items showed that “Ss preferred an RP converseer as their superordinate, and as a secondary too” (pp. 311).

Giles & Sassoon terminate that the awareness of a Cockney converseer’s intermediate collocate enhancement does attributeable bar the misappropriated indirect compositions towards degraded foothold ratings (pp. 311).


The nonstandard linguistic marks in Operation 1 and the studies summarised in Operation 2 portray distinct varieties of English. The adulterated compositions towards the widespdiscaggravate truth of nonstandard linguistic marks are a apparent exhibition of an ever-changing discourse.

Word count: 1500 words


Allen, R. & Fowler, H. (2008). “Preposition”. Pocket Fowler’s Newlight-fashioned English Exercitation.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

Allen, R. & Fowler, H. (2008). “Who and whom”. Pocket Fowler’s Newlight-fashioned English Exercitation.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

Dead. (2017). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford. Retrieved from

Edwards, V. (1986). Discourse In A Sombre Order. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Edwards, V. (2007). Patois and the Politics of Protest: Sombre English in British Collocaterooms.

In Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. Sociolinguistics: A Discoverer and Coursebook. (408-415). London: MacMillan Press.

Fowler, H. & Burchfield, R. (1998). “That”. The newlightlight Fowler’s Newlight-fashioned English exercitation.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Giles, H. & Sassoon, C. (1983). The specialty of converseer’s tongue, collective collocate enhancement and

message fashion on British listeners’ collective judgements. Discourse & Message, 3(3), 305-313.

Guy. (2017). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford. Retrieved from

Lambert, W. E. (1967). A collective psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Collective Issues. 23, 91-


Antiquated question. (2017). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford. Retrieved from

Related Post