1

ASSIGNMENT#1

Language Variations and Stylistics

CODE:556

Q.1 Standard English

It is the variety of English Language that is normally employed by
the educated speakers and writers of the Language while speaking and writing. It is the
same variety that is taught to the students of EFL/ESL, when they receive formal
instruction. Standard English includes two things.
1. Grammar that is grammatically correct sentence structure.
2. Vocabulary, which is used generally by the educated people.
As pronunciation varied extensively, it has not been included in Standard English as an
essential pre-requisite.
There are two main varieties of Standard English.
1. English English (EngEng)
2. North American English (NAm Eng)
1. English English( EngEng)
It is the variety of Standard English that is mostly spoken in England by
the educated people and in some other parts of the world as Scotland,
Australia and Ireland with minor differences in accent. However,
internationally there is Received Pronunciation (RP) that is used in the
whole of Commonwealth. Thus, British English grammar and vocabulary
with RP accent is called English English.
2. North American English (NAmEng)
It is the second variety of English that is used widely in United States of
America and Canada. It is taught to the students studying in North
America, Latin America and in many other parts of the world like
Singapore.
However, there are many other varieties of English like AusEng, NZEng and SAFEng. It
is useful for the students of English as EFL/ESL to introduce with the major varieties of
English as well. It was not a process in English Universities to use NAmEng and in
American Universities to use EngEng. Recently the process of exchange in Standard
varieties of English has been introduced in major universities to make students aware of
the other standard varieties so that they should not remain confused.
EXAMPLES
NON-STANDARD ENGLISH
1. He did not get no something.
2. He said that it is not he.
3. He got any money from his friend.
STANDARD ENGLISH
1. He did not get anything.
2. He said that it was not he.
3. He got some money from his friend.
2

Q.2 Main differences between EngEng and NAmEng.

There are three main differences between these two varieties of Standard
English. There are as under:
1. Grammatical Differences.
2. Spelling and Punctuation.
3. Vocabulary.
Grammatical and spelling differences are those which tend to be quite trivial
when considered from the point of mutual understanding. Vocabulary differences
however cause a great degree of comprehension problems.
Differences of grammar have been discussed briefly below.
1. Grammatical Differences
1.1 Verb. There are many regular verbs in English that have separate
present, past and past participle forms, but in NAmEng they are
quite similar,e.g. burn has past and participle form in EngEng as
burnt while in NAmEng it is burned and respectively of smell ,
smelled. However in many cases there are only vowel changes, as
in dream, dreamt (EngEng) and dreamed in NAmEng. Sometimes
in NAmEng there are more regular forms, in: dive, dove and dived
while in EngEng only dived is used for both the cases.
1.2 Derivational. Verb derivation is obtained by putting prefix or
suffix with the word that is adjective or noun. It is the
characteristics of both the varieties however, NAmEng is more
productive. Another way is to use noun as a verb directly. Again
NAmEng is more innovative in this case.
1.3 Auxiliaries. There is a great difference in using modal verbs. Shall
is rarely used in NAmEng while should is often used. Should is
often used for obligations in EngEng while in NAmEng would is
used instead of it. And would is also used in different sense in both
the varieties. Other auxiliaries as must, dare, need, used to, may,
ought, do, have, do have, are also used differently with slight
changes in structure of the sentence.
1.4 In Verb Phrases EngEng tends to use preposition before subject
complement or object but in NAmEng the case is contrary. So is
the case with finitive, gerund, participle, collocative, dative,
causative and periphrastic causative use as well. And in the case
of derivation of nouns through verbs is also more productive in
NAmEngl.
1.5 Noun. The use of collective noun is quite contrary in both the
varieties, and equally in their respective tag questions. Other nouns
as countable, abstract and quantative are also used differently.
1.6 Articles. There is great contradiction in the use of definite article,
while indefinite articles are used more or less in the same way.
1.7 Order of attributes is also vice versa as; The River Thames is in
EngEng while in NAm it is The Thames River.
3

1.8 Pronouns, Adjectives and Adverbs are also differently used.

Pronoun one must have its antecedent as ones while in
NAmEng it may be followed by his. And in the case of
comparative adjective, adverbial placement and adverbs as yet
and still are used differently. And same is the case with tenses
and preposition. It has been observed that in EngEng preposition
are used extensively while in NAmEng sometimes they are entirely
absent.
2. Spellings and Punctuation. There are several sets of regular
spelling differences that exist between the varieties. NAmEng
variety tends to attempt innovations and regularizations of
spellings. However in EngEng they are linguistic offences that
must not be committed. In the placing o punctuation, there is a
minor difference of only Hyphen between compound words that is
omitted in NAmEng variety and Colon is also used contrarily.
3. Vocabulary differences. This is the most notable difference. There
are thousands of words which slightly and sometimes greatly differ
in meanings. It is due to several factors. These are as under:
1. Adaptations.
2. Separate Environmental experience.
3. Immediate Innovations.
4. Separate Technological cultural and literary developments.
This is called independent linguistic change. And one variety borrows words from other
varieties. Differing vocabulary can be divides to ease recognition.
1. Same words, different meaning.
2. Same words, additional meaning.
3. Same words, difference in style and connotations.
4. Same concept, different words.
Many other words also differ in many other spheres of life. As a language teacher, I
regard grammatical differences as minor if they are explained before the students and
students are made aware about smaller discrepancies in grammatical structure of
sentences. It is because we are living in the socio-politico-cultural environment which is
influenced and have an impact from both varieties of the Standard English equally.
However, most of our academics favour spellings of EngEng variety instead of NAmEng.
And now when computer is taking hold over everything, students should be informed
beforehand, so they may not remain confuse in these minor differences.
In spite of all this the differences in vocabulary is a major one. It involves the
comprehension of ESL/EFL students. So that students should not form wrong concepts
and ideas about the piece of writing and a spoken treatise, they must be taught thoroughly
to avoid comprehension confusion.

Q.3 There is a great deal of difference between the language a person speaks and
the class to which he belongs. All different classes which we find in a society find their
different reflections in further language varieties. In every society, class or regional
group, people have their thoughts, beliefs, aspirations, and professionals, doctrinal and
intellectual requirements. Therefore, it stands to reason that different social differences in
4

these matters and those differences will be reflected in the kind of language used in the
shape of;
1. Accent.
2. Dialect.
3. Class.
4. Profession.
5. Personal and General Uses.
Branstein and Lawton have used some methods of language testing to check relationship
of the speaker of his class. Branstien divided this difference in two codes.
1. Restricted Code.
2. Elaborated Code.
As the divisions in society gave birth to two classes linguistically;
1. Working Class Speakers.
2. Middle Class Speakers.
Restricted Code was used by the working class speakers as they were linguistically
deprived and the middle class had more opportunities to exchange standard variety. It was
however come to be believed that the working class speakers were handicapped in that
they could not switch from one code to the other. While the speakers of middle class have
the opportunities to use both the codes according to occasion. A teacher for instance when
talking informally to students or colleagues switches quite naturally to restricted or
elaborated codes according to the demand of the occasion. But a bricklayer, on the other
hand, was likely to have the only restricted code at his disposal, and this world places him
at a certain linguistic disadvantage in certain social situations.
So, as a conclusion, it has been felt that certain students
belonging to middle class remained under-achieve, because they cant switch their codes
in an easy manner. They cannot handle them linguistically. So it has been proved that
there is an inevitable relationship between a speakers and language he speaks. And for the
students it has certain disadvantages.

Q.4 Montgomerys Argument

Montgomerys Argument is that ones social class has a strong relationship with
his social utterances. Working class uses restricted code while the middle class uses
elaborated code; thus he derives two speech variants according to these codes. He
concludes that the use of either speech orientation is influenced partly by;
1. Situational circumstances.
2. Social class position.
In this way a person utters certain utterances according to situational circumstances
assuming a role. There are two roles.
1. Personal role.
2. Positional role.
Positional role gives rise to restricted code and personal role gives rise to elaborated
code. The restricted has implicit meanings and is tied to particular and immediate
contexts. On the other hand elaborated code has universalistic meaning and is relatively
explicit according to immediate contexts and more innovative. Montgomery has in this
way neatly differentiated both the codes and given these speech variants a name
according to persons allotted role.
5

Then he goes on to explain and relate these codes to the relevant social class. He says
there is correspondence between two codes and social formations. Thus difficulty arises
when se face the problem of linking them into real and actual texture of contemporary
class structure overly schematic and somewhat stereotypical. However, in
Montgomerys stance there are exceptions. As a person has his own individual
disposition and temperament. And this plays an important role in adopting
universalizing tendency that is elaborated code and particularizing tendency that is
restricted code. Montgomery has cited two examples of dialogues and defined those
terms in more clarified way.
He has defined and redefined Bransteins arguments and made
additions according to persons role in social formation. He states as this argument was
rigid and schematic and was based on two contrasting terms: positional versus
personal, restricted versus elaborated, closed versus, open and object, versus
person , so it was susceptible to many interpretations. And thus many critics
assumed that based on this argument working class is inherently uneducable.
Montgomery says that speakers adopt a degree of restrictedness or elaborated ness
depending on social factors- how much common ground can be assumed, how much
explicitness is required and so on. There are few of us who are equally proficient and at
home in all the situations. And he says that his hypothesis is elastic than that commonly
associated with codes-class position.
Thus inductively Montgomery has explained Bransteins thesis by
coding examples and social relevancies and made it more expedient to understand and
thus it is elastic.

Q.5 Socio-economic status of the family and childs linguistic development.

Lawton has cited from many renowned empirical linguists like Bayley, Fisher,
Shire to name few, who have proved through collecting data that there is a relationship
between childs back ground either social or financial and his linguistic development.
There are main researches and points as under:
1. Moore and Pringle(1965) concluded testing linguistic abilities of children
ranging three years to eight belonging to:
a) Orphanages
b) Institutionalized group.
The result was that orphans were retarded in specific areas and had levels of
abstract conceptual activity.
2. Goldfarb concluded that cultural deprivation and absence of external
stimulation resulted in dramatization of and individual behaviour, that is it
was less differentiated, showed a greater degree of aimlessness and a
preponderance of trial and error, now reflective activity.
3. Chamberlain stated that rich children understood more words and less
actions where as the poor children understood fewer words and more
actions.
4. Descoudres (1921) investigation showed that upper class children were
superior on nearly every item of her battery of linguistic tests.
5. Milner attempted to show that in familial relationships, where parent child
interaction is greater, the children are linguistically more able. And the
6

same is the case with adults. This is social inhibition for the working class
children.
6. McCarthy summarized all the investigations in these words that as the
working class had more restricted areas so that parents are also likely to be
developed linguistically less. She thought that the parental attitudes
towards their children and habits of family life were the really important
factors of language development and they happened to vary with socio-
economic class as well.
7. Sampson attempted to assess the speech environment of the home by
assessing to emotional atmosphere and encouragement. Even Chomsky
investigated though various test that social and financial factors are
interconnected to linguistic progress.
As a conclusion, these main points are found related:
1. Class differences.
2. Communication ratio with adults.
3. Rate of linguistic interaction of the parents.
4. Homely atmosphere.
5. Congenial environment in which emotional and linguistic
exploitation is possible.
A childs linguistic elements are affected a great deal and there is a deep
relationship between the circumstances in relation their social and financial
factors and childs linguistic development.

THE END
7

ASSIGNMENT#1

BY MAZHAR ABBASB
ROLL NOM533435
ADDRESS: 133-GULSHAN PARK OPPOSITE MELAD
HOUSE MANSOORAH MULTAN ROAD
LAHORE.

TO
PROFESSOR IZHAR UL HASSAN SAHIB
48/B WHADAT COLONY LAHORE.

ALLAMA IQBLA OPEN UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD.