Standardization: The criteria of distinguishing a human language from others

Standardization of language refers to the process of establishing and maintaining a set of

rules and conventions for a language, ensuring consistency and uniformity in its usage. This
typically involves defining grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and other linguistic elements
to create a standardized form that can be widely understood and accepted within a community
or across regions. Standardization is often seen in written forms, such as official documents,
literature, and education, to facilitate effective communication.
While standardization presents certain advantages, its limitations become evident when we
consider the vibrant tapestry of human communication across cultures and throughout history.
Let's dive deeper into the points you raised and explore alternatives to understand languages
in their full complexity.

1. Vitality vs. Rigidity:

Standardization, often associated with prescriptive grammars and dictionaries, aims to create
a uniform standard for a language. While this can facilitate communication and education, it
doesn't equate to vitality. Catalan, for example, enjoys widespread use and cultural
significance in Spain, despite lacking official recognition at the national level. Conversely,
Latin, once a language of empires and scholarship, is no longer actively spoken but retains its
standardized form for specific religious and academic contexts. This highlights the disconnect
between standardization and a language's active living existence.

2. Historical Roots vs. Imposed Order:

Languages evolve continuously, shaped by their historical journeys, interactions with other
languages, and the sociocultural contexts in which they are used. Focusing solely on
standardized forms ignores this rich tapestry. Comparing English and French, both Indo-
European languages, reveals their shared ancestry despite their vastly different standardized
forms. Attributing their distinctness solely to standardization overlooks their intricate
historical development and independent evolutions.

3. Autonomy and the Power Dynamics of Language:

Standardization often involves power dynamics, particularly when applied to minority
languages. Imposing a dominant language's standards can threaten the autonomy and
endanger the very existence of less powerful languages. The ongoing struggle of Scottish
Gaelic against the dominance of English is a stark example. While standardization can aim
for clarity and unity, it's crucial to be mindful of potential power imbalances and respect the
unique character of each language.

4. Embracing Variation Beyond Uniformity:

Standardization often strives for uniformity, aiming to eliminate regional variations and
dialectal nuances. However, these variations hold immense value, reflecting the linguistic
diversity and dynamism within a single language. The vast array of Arabic dialects across the
Middle East and North Africa showcases how a standardized form coexists with vibrant
regional variations, each enriching the overall linguistic landscape. Rigidly defining
languages based on a single standardized form risks overlooking this valuable linguistic
diversity.

5. Recognizing the Intertwined Dance of Borrowing and Blending:

Languages are not isolated entities. They borrow, blend, and influence each other throughout
history. Focusing solely on standardized forms fails to capture this rich tapestry of
interaction. Modern English, for example, is heavily influenced by Latin, French, and other
languages, reflecting its historical encounters and cultural exchanges. Rigidly categorizing
languages based on their standardized forms ignores this fundamental aspect of linguistic
evolution and interconnectedness.

6. Beyond Formal Rules: The Power of "De Facto" Norms:

Even without formal standardization, communities develop shared linguistic norms and
conventions that facilitate communication within their group. These de facto norms,
unwritten and often unspoken, are crucial for understanding language use in its social
context. The unique slang and vernacular used by teenagers, for example, exemplifies how
shared understanding can exist outside formal standardization, reflecting the dynamic nature
of spoken language.
Alternative Criteria for a Nuanced View:
Instead of relying solely on standardization, here are some alternative factors to consider
when distinguishing and understanding human languages:
Shared Ancestry and Historical Development: Tracing a language's family tree through
historical linguistics offers insights into its evolution and relationships with other languages.
Structural Features: Analysing grammar, syntax, and phonology reveals deeper similarities
and differences beyond superficial vocabulary or standardized forms.
Mutual Intelligibility: The ability of speakers from different dialects or related languages to
understand each other highlights shared linguistic roots and ongoing interactions.

Social and Cultural Context: Recognizing the link between language and its users' identity,
history, and social dynamics provides a valuable lens for understanding its unique character
and significance.
Conclusion:
Standardization, while providing certain benefits, must not be the sole criterion for defining
or distinguishing human languages. By considering historical, structural, functional, and
social factors, we gain a more holistic and nuanced understanding of linguistic diversity.
Languages are living entities, constantly evolving and interacting with each other, defying
rigid definitions based on a single factor like standardization. Embracing this complexity
allows us to appreciate the true richness and beauty of human communication across the
globe.