A History of English Language

The nineteenth century and after 295
the common language from which these are diverging forms it is possible to distinguish
at least three broad types.
Occupying a sort of middle ground is the spoken standard. It is the language heard in
the conversation of educated people. It is marked by conformity to the rules of grammar
and to certain considerations of taste that are not easily defined but are present in the
minds of those who are conscious of their speech. Whatever its dialectal coloring or
qualities varying with the particular circumstances involved, it is free from features that
are regarded as substandard in the region. To one side of this spoken standard lies the
domain of the written standard. This is the language of books, and it ranges from the
somewhat elevated style of poetry to that of simple but cultivated prose. It may differ
both in vocabulary and idiom from the spoken standard, although the two frequently
overlap. When we say big time and write to a superlative degree we are making a
conscious choice between these two functional varieties. In the other direction we pass
from one cultural level to another, from the spoken standard to the region of popular or
illiterate speech. This is the language of those who are ignorant of or indifferent to the
ideals of correctness by which the educated are governed. It is especially sympathetic to
all sorts of neologisms and generally is rich in slang.
While the three types—the literary standard, the spoken standard, and popular
speech—are easily recognized, it is not possible to draw a sharp line of demarcation
between them. To a certain extent they run into one another. The spoken standard itself
covers a wide range of usage. In speech suitable to formal occasions the spoken standard
approaches the written standard, whereas in easy and relaxed conversation it may tend in
the direction of its more unconventional neighbor. Some interchange between one type
and the next is constantly going on. The written and the spoken standards have been
drawing appreciably closer, possibly because reading is such a widespread
accomplishment today, possibly because we have come to feel that the simplest and best
prose is that which most resembles the easy and natural tone of cultivated speech. In the
same way words and locutions current among the masses sometimes find their way into
the lower reaches of the spoken standard. This is particularly true of slang. One may
reason that when slang is acceptable to those who in general conform to the spoken
standard it should no longer be called slang. But such a conclusion is hardly justified. It is
better to hold that there are different levels in slang, and that some use of slang is
rhetorically effective in the conversation of most educated speakers.
It is necessary to recognize that from a linguistic point of view each of the varieties—
whether of cultural level or degree of formality—has its own right to exist. If we judge
them simply on their capacity to express ideas clearly and effectively, we must admit that
one kind of English is seldom superior to another. I seen it and I knowed it may not
conform to the standard of correctness demanded of cultivated speech, but these
expressions convey their meaning just as clearly as the standard forms and historically
are no worse than dozens of others now in accepted use. Likewise much could be said,
historically and logically, for ain’t and the double negative. It is rather in their social
implications that the varieties of English differ. The difference between the spoken
standard and popular speech is in their association with broadly different classes. As
Bernard Shaw once remarked, “People know very well that certain sorts of speech cut off
a person for ever from getting more than three or four pounds a week all their life long—