Editing Standard language (section)

== Linguistic standardization ==
The term ''standard language'' identifies a repertoire of broadly recognizable conventions in spoken and written communications used in a society; the term implies neither a socially ideal idiom nor a culturally superior form of speech.{{sfnp|Charity Hudley|Mallinson|2011}} These conventions develop from related dialects, usually by social action (ethnic and cultural unification) that elevate discourse patterns associated with perceived centres of culture, or more rarely, by deliberately defining the norms of standard language with selected linguistic features drawn from the existing dialects, as in the case of [[Modern Hebrew]].{{sfnp|McArthur|McArthur|1992|p=980}}{{sfnp|Ammon|2004|p=275}}

Either course of events typically results in a relatively fixed orthography codified in [[linguistic prescription|grammars]] and normative [[Dictionary|dictionaries]], in which users can also sometimes find illustrative examples drawn from literary, legal, or religious texts.{{sfnp|Ammon|2004|p=275}} Whether grammars and dictionaries are created by the state or by private citizens (e.g. ''[[Webster's Dictionary]]''), some users regard such linguistic codifications as authoritative for correcting the spoken and written forms of the language.{{sfnp|Ammon|2004|p=276}} Effects of such codifications include slowing the pace of [[Historical linguistics|diachronic]] change in the standardized variety and affording a basis for further linguistic development (''[[Ausbau]]'').{{sfnp|Ammon|2004|p=275}} In the practices of broadcasting and of official communications, the standard usually functions as a normalizing reference for speech and writing. In educational contexts, it usually informs the version of the language taught to non-native learners.{{sfnp|Trudgill|2006|p=119}}

In those ways, the standard variety acquires [[prestige (sociolinguistics)|social prestige]] and greater functional importance than [[nonstandard dialect]]s,{{sfnp|Trudgill|2006|p=119}} which depend upon or are [[autonomy and heteronomy (sociolinguistics)|heteronomous]] with respect to the standard idiom. Standard usage serves as the linguistic authority, as in the case of specialist [[terminology]]; moreover, the standardization of spoken forms is oriented towards the codified standard.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=9}} Historically, a standard language arises in two ways: (i) in the case of [[Standard English]], linguistic standardization occurs informally and piecemeal, without formal government intervention; (ii) in the cases of the French and Spanish languages, linguistic standardization occurs formally, directed by [[Linguistic prescription|prescriptive]] language institutions, such as the {{Lang|fr|[[Académie Française]]|italic=no}} and the [[Royal Spanish Academy]], which respectively produce ''Le bon français'' and ''El buen español''.{{sfnp|McArthur|McArthur|1992|p=290}}{{sfnp|Trudgill|2006|p=119}}

A standard variety can be conceptualized in two ways: (i) as the [[sociolect]] of a given [[Social stratification|socio-economic stratum]] or (ii) as the normative codification of a [[dialect]], an idealized abstraction.{{sfnp|Van Mol|2003|p=11}} Hence, the full standardization of a language is impractical, because a standardized dialect cannot fully function as a real entity, but does function as set of linguistic norms observed to varying degrees in the course of ''[[usus]]'' – of how people actually speak and write the language.{{sfnp|Starčević|2016|p=71}}{{sfnp|Romaine|2008|p=685}} In practice, the language varieties identified as standard are neither uniform nor fully stabilized, especially in their spoken forms.{{sfnp|Milroy|2007}} From that perspective, the linguist [[Suzanne Romaine]] says that standard languages can be conceptually compared to the [[imagined communities]] of ''nation'' and ''nationalism'', as described by the political scientist [[Benedict Anderson]],{{sfnp|Romaine|2008|p=685}} which indicates that linguistic standardization is the result of a society's history and sociology, and thus is not a universal phenomenon;{{sfnp|Romaine|2008|p=685}} of the approximately 7,000 contemporary spoken languages, most do not have a codified standard dialect.{{sfnp|Romaine|2008|p=685}}

Politically, in the formation of a nation-state, identifying and cultivating a standard variety can serve efforts to establish a shared culture among the social and economic groups who compose the new nation-state.{{sfnp|Inoue|2006|p=122}} Different national standards, derived from a [[dialect continuum|continuum of dialects]], might be treated as discrete languages (along with heteronomous vernacular dialects){{sfnp|Trudgill|2004}} even if there are [[mutually intelligible]] varieties among them,{{sfnp|Stewart|1968}}{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=11}} such as the [[North Germanic language]]s of Scandinavia (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish).{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=3–4}} Moreover, in political praxis, either a government or a neighbouring population might deny the cultural status of a standard language.{{sfnp|Inoue|2006|pp=123–124}} In response to such political interference, linguists develop a standard variety from elements of the different dialects used by a society.

For example, when Norway became independent from Denmark in 1814, the only written language was Danish. Different Norwegian dialects were spoken in rural districts and provincial cities, but people with higher education and upper-class urban people spoke "Danish with a Norwegian pronunciation". Based upon the bourgeois speech of the capital [[Oslo]] (Christiania) and other major cities, several orthographic reforms, notably in 1907 and 1917, resulted in the official standard [[Riksmål]], in 1929 renamed [[Bokmål]] ('book tongue'). The philologist [[Ivar Aasen]] (1813–1896) considered urban and upper-class [[Dano-Norwegian]] too similar to Danish, so he developed [[Landsmål]] ('country tongue'), the standard based upon the dialects of western Norway. In 1885 the [[Storting]] (parliament) declared both forms official and equal. In 1929 it was officially renamed [[Nynorsk]] (New Norwegian).

Likewise, in [[Yugoslavia]] (1945–1992), when the [[Socialist Republic of Macedonia]] (1963–1991) developed their national language from the dialect continuum demarcated by Serbia to the north and Bulgaria to the east, their [[Standard Macedonian]] was based upon vernaculars from the west of the republic, which were the dialects most linguistically different from standard [[Bulgarian language|Bulgarian]], the previous linguistic norm used in that region of the [[Balkan peninsula]]. Although Macedonian functions as the standard language of the [[Republic of North Macedonia]], nonetheless, for political and cultural reasons, Bulgarians treat Macedonian as a Bulgarian dialect.{{sfnp|Trudgill|1992|pp=173–174}}