IN my previous column, I discussed the nature of language norms. In this column, I want to point out what standard language is not – or quite possibly, dispel what most people think it is but shouldn’t be. When I talk about standard languages ​​in this column, I think of the well-codified English and Filipino/Tagalog, although I’m sure the regional lingua francas have been secretly standardized because they are also used relatively frequently in print.

Among the many points I wish to make, the most important is that a standard language should not be used as an instrument of discrimination against people. Indeed, being able to speak and write in the standard language says a lot about an individual. Above all, the most common assumption one can make about someone who can speak and write in the standard language is that they are educated, or even well educated. This is not unfounded and standard language is usually taught and learned in school. Even if one comes from a wealthy family, the standard language – and especially its written form – cannot simply be acquired from the environment. You have to improve before you can speak and write in a standard language. That said, I should add that another assumption people may make when they encounter someone so comfortable using standard language is that they are rich. But as I said, standard language cannot simply be acquired from the environment. Thus, it is less likely to assume that a person is wealthy rather than educated when they speak and write a standard language.

The consequence of these assumptions is that anyone who does not use a standard language well enough is often considered uneducated or undereducated, or even poor. The high esteem placed on standard language and standard forms has led the eminent sociolinguist Deborah Cameron to speak of what she calls “verbal hygiene.” This would imply that people who do not have a good command of the standard language are unlabeled, unsanitary and dirty. And this kind of linguistic bias is common in our society. Those who do not use standard language, who speak “with an accent,” are immediately dismissed as incompetent or not good enough.

Standard language has a role to play in society. It is used to ensure that language is understandable to everyone and that communication is possible without too much variation, without too many misunderstandings (this does not mean that variation always amounts to misunderstanding, but it is a subject for a other column). Language standards are useful in identifying who might get a job in a workplace or gain admission to a university, because a specific way of using language is required in that job or school, and it is a standard language. This way of using language to determine who is fit for work or school and who is not is justifiable. However, when language standards are used to disenfranchise people or ruin their dignity, it is a misunderstanding of what a standard language actually is. It is true that a standard language is often the product of a good education, but it is neither a necessary nor the only condition to prove a level of education achieved. Unfortunately, society has used standard language as a convenient way to determine whether an individual is well educated, or even wealthy. It should be noted that when this happens, the standard language ceases to be a linguistic entity. When standard language is used to judge people without basis, it becomes an instrument of discrimination. This must stop!

Ariane Macalinga Borlongan is one of the leading scholars of English in the Philippines and also conducts pioneering work on language in the context of migration. He is the youngest person to earn a doctorate in linguistics, at age 23, from De La Salle University. He has held several teaching and research positions in Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Poland and Singapore. He is a consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary. He is currently an associate professor of sociolinguistics at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies in Japan.