A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization’ PAUL L. GARVIN This paper will deal with three aspects of the issue of language standard- ization. First of all the importance of the standardization process will be discussed. The purposes of a standard language in a modern society will be examined next. Finally, a theoretical frame of reference for the con- sideration of these questions together with some general conclusions will be presented. From the standpoint of its importance one can say that a standard language, that is to say the variety of a given language that has achieved a high degree of standardization (to be defined further below), occupies a central position from three stand-points: 1. from the standpoint of sociolinguistic in general; 2. from the more particular standpoint of the study and practice of language planning; 3. from the standpoint of the speech community that a standard lan- guage serves. The purposes of a standard language in a modern society will be studied in the perspective of the following three questions: 1. What is a standard language? 2. What does a standard language do for a speech community? 3. What are the conditions required for the development of a standard language? The frame of reference to be presented here is based on a functionalist theoretical position that includes three key notional components: the structural properties of a standard language, its functions, and the atti- tudes that it evokes. The conclusions will deal primarily with the relations between the purposes of the standard language and the components of the theoretical frame of reference. 0165-2516/93/100/101~0037 $2.00 Int'l. J. Soc. Lang. 100]101 (1993), pp. 37-54 © Walter de Gruyter38 P.L. Garvin Importance of a standard language The standard language as a sociolinguistic problem area In the study and teaching of sociolinguistics in the United States, particu- larly from a theoretical point of view, questions of standardization are usually given a marginal and relatively secondary status. Much of the work stresses primarily the issue of nonstandard varieties and their role in social conflicts, undoubtedly because of their importance in the social policies of the United States (and some of the countries of Western Europe). Without belittling the validity of this perspective, it is to be pointed out here that a good many of the problems attacked in socio- linguistic research both in the United States and in Europe suggest that the standard is one of the crucial factors. We can cite as examples some of the studies on language conflict, on bilingualism, and on bidialectalism. In most of the cases studied, at least one of the linguistic varieties dealt with is a standardized variety. As far as language conflicts go, they often concern a speech community that considers itself oppressed and that struggles for its equality against another community that dominates it within a given sociopolitical envi- ronment. What characterizes these situations from the point of view taken in this paper is the control by the dominant community of the channels of communications, education, government, etc. On its part the oppressed community struggles for equality, which from the standpoint of language use means for a part — if not an equal part at least one that can be considered just and proportionate — of the linguistic control of these channels on its territory. In sociopolitical terms this means the acceptance of the formerly oppressed language as coofficial with the dominant language at least on its territory. It is clear that the two languages in conflict will be represented by their standardized varieties since the officialization of a language requires its standardization (a more detailed discussion of this question will be given further below). Some classical cases of linguistic conflict are those of the minority languages of Europe, as for instance those of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire or those of present-day Spain. In regard to bilingualism it is often the case that at least one of the varieties that enter into a case of bilingualism is to a greater or lesser degree standardized. This is what happens most commonly in the so- called developed countries, as is evidenced by the studies conducted in Europe and America. One can here refer to studies conducted in the United States, in Germany, and in Latin America. In the studies of English-Spanish bilingualism in the United States,Language standardization 39 English is often represented by its standard variety and Spanish by nonstandard varieties based on Puerto Rican or Mexican speech patterns. Studies in Germany deal primarily with bilingualism involving German and the language of migrant workers, where the German language is represented by a standard variety and the other language by a nonstan- dard one. With regard to these studies one must keep in mind that in most cases they have come out of a school environment where the presence of the standard variety is explained by its use in the educational process. Clearly, in each of these areas one can find cases of bilingualism involving nonstan- dard varieties on both sides. The best known cases are those of bilingual- ism between nonstandard Puerto Rican Spanish and nonstandard Black English vernacular in situations where speakers of the two varieties are in contact in the same urban neighborhood. To this can be added the many cases in the Third World where bilingualism is manifested between nonstandard varieties of languages in contact, as has been shown in particular for the languages of India. In the case of bidialectalism one of the two varieties in question is almost always a standard variety. The case that has been most widely studied by sociolinguists in the United States is that of Black English vernacular, which is often in a bidialectal relationship with standard American English. In Europe it is above all the dialectologists who have studied the bidialectal coexistence of a local dialect with the standard variety. It is clear that in the two cases of bidialectalism just cited the sociolinguistic roles of the varieties are significantly different, given the difference in social status between Black English vernacular and European local dialects, Standard language in language planning In addition to the standardization issues that have just been dealt with this problem area covers primarily the officialization of languages and their symbolic role in the framework of speech communities viewed as sociopolitical entities. Officialization can be defined as the official recognition given to a language by a political unit (such as a state or an autonomous region). This recognition can be accorded by a formal act such a law or constitu- tional provision; in some other cases the official recognition exists in practice by legal tradition and without a formal act. The officialization of French and English in Canadian federal usage is an example of the first kind of recognition: it is based on a constitutional provision, rein-40 P.L. Garvin forced by a law, which in turn has been reinforced by a new constitutional provision. The official role of English in the United States on the other hand is an example of officialization by tradition and, at least as far as the federal government is concerned, without a formal act. A language that has received official recognition either formally or informally then becomes the official language of the political entity. It must be pointed out here that the consistent implementation of the officialization of a language recently recognized as official implies a com- plex series of political and administrative actions of which the political entities that have declared the officialization are not always fully aware. Thus the officialization of a language implies its use in service to the public, in the internal transactions of the government, in governmental symbolism (for instance postage stamps or bank notes), and in other spheres of public life. A language that serves as a national identity symbol for a speech community can be called a national language. This is not the only use of this term: it is often employed to designate a principal language of a country (for instance, Spanish as the national language of a Latin American country by contrast with the native languages that are consid- ered vernacular). In the frame of reference underlying the present paper the term national language will be limited to designate a language serving as a national symbol. The achievement of this role by a language mostly implies its use in literary production and at least the desire to use it in education. What is important to note here is that a national language in the above sense does not necessarily enjoy official recognition: in this connection one can say that many language conflicts arise from the desire of a speech community to obtain for its national language the official recognition that has not been accorded it. Although standardization does not in and of itself constitute a defining criterion for the notion of either official language or national language it still plays a very important part in their functioning. Given the multiple and complex uses of these two types of languages in the modern world it is difficult to meet these purposes without having achieved the high degree of standardization demanded by them, particularly with regard to intellectualization (for a further discussion of this notion, see below). Consequently, most official and national languages have a relatively high degree of standardization; those that do not have it attempt to achieve it. An example of the latter is Swahili, which serves as the official and national language (in the sense given to the term here) in several African countries. Thus one can say that even though standardization is not aLanguage standardization 41 necessary attribute of an official or national language, these purposes of a language tend to bring about its standardization. The standard language in the framework of a speech community We have noted the multiple and complex uses of official and national languages and the high degree of standardization required by these uses. Another aspect of the same phenomenon is the advantage that a high degree of standardization constitutes for the speakers of the language: it is thanks to having at one’s disposal a standardized variety of one’s own language that one can partake of the advantages of the modern world without having to depend on the use of some other more highly standard- ized language. Thus the speech community’s own language can serve as a vehicle for all complex forms of communication, which without having a standardized variety at one’s disposal would require the use of some other language: higher education, the conduct of government, the media, science and technology, etc. Examples of this are the standardization efforts of native languages of formerly colonial countries (for instance Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo in Nigeria) intended to allow these communities the use of their own language in domains that were previously reserved to the language of the former colonial power. In one word, it is through the standardization of its language that a speech community can achieve what our Catalan colleagues call normal- ization, that is, the extension of the use of one’s own language to all social and cultural domains. Purposes of a standard language What is a standard language? One can define standard language as a codified variety of a language that serves the multiple and complex communicative needs of a speech com- munity that has either achieved modernization or has the desire of achiev- ing it. It must first be pointed out that the uniformity implied by the term “standard” is only one of the characteristics of a standard language and that in the perspective of its functioning in the framework of a speech community it is not necessarily the most important one. It is here claimed that the most important characteristic of a standard language is its capacity of serving as a vehicle for the complex kinds of42 P.L. Garvin communication that have already been noted; it is from this point of view that the characteristics of standard language will be considered in the frame of reference to be presented further below. The issue of codification will now be considered. In the present frame of reference this term implies more than the generally recognized fact that language is a code: it implies that the rules of language correctness that are derived from a standardization process are codified in a more or less official manner in some documents to which the speech community has access, such as grammars, dictionaries, style and usage manuals. The way in which codification is established can be represented in a continuum of styles of codification. One end of the continuum is here called the academy-governed style, the other end the “free-enterprise” style. The academy-governed style implies that in a speech community there is a single unquestioned source of authority, which is generally recognized and obeyed by everybody. The classical example of this style of codifica- tion is the work of the academies in the socialist countries: these academies formulate the rules and publish the documents that set forth the linguistic norm through particular agencies that they create for this purpose, such as institutes of linguistics or of national language. It is not necessarily an academy that constitutes the single central authority in questions of language correctness. In a good many countries it is a ministry of education that has this authority and exercises it through appropriate agencies. In these countries one can also speak of an academy-governed style of codification even through the term “acad- emy” is not used. The “free-enterprise” style on the other hand is characterized by the absence of a central agency charged with the formulation and propagation of the rules of language correctness. In this case the establishment and propagation of these rules becomes almost literally a matter of free enterprise: the formulation and promulgation of the rules is in the hands of private institutions such as publishing houses (including dictionary publishers) and editorial boards of various publications; the application of the rules is in the hands of a school system that likewise can be private and decentralized. The typical example of a “free-enterprise” style of codification is American English, which is characterized by a diversity of sources of authority as far as language correctness is concerned: various dictionaries, grammar books, style manuals, etc., share this authority. These sources usually agree on basic questions but often differ with regard to subtle details. Between these two extremes there is a whole range of intermediate possibilities, such as for instance the case of German. For this language (which was the official language of four large countries: the former twoLanguage standardization 43 German states, Austria, and Switzerland, not to mention the German- speaking part of Belgium), a real academy existed in only one of the German states, the German Democratic Republic, and its role in the codification of the German language is not clear. In the other German- speaking countries, codification is more or less in the “free-enterprise” style but with important reservations. Among the private enterprises and institutions that publish authoritative manuals there is one that is tradi- tionally accepted as more authoritative than the others: the House of Duden. This publishing house even had its equivalent in East Germany. In addition, the Ministries of Education of the constituent states of the German Federal Republic and of Austria, as well as the school boards of the Swiss cantons, play a certain role in the codification of standard German as used in their territories and especially in the enforcement of this codification. As has already been said standardization is a question of degree: the standard variety of a given language can be more or less standardized. Two of the structural properties of a standard language (proposed in the 1930s by the Prague School) can serve as an approximate measure of standardization: flexible stability and intellectualization. Flexible stability means that a standard language in order to serve its functions has to be stabilized by an appropriate codification process and that the norms established by this codification have to be sufficiently flexible so as to accommodate the modifications required by the cultural changes and developments that occur in the speech community. Intellectualization means the capacity of a language to develop increas- ingly more accurate and detailed means of expression, especially in the domains of modern life, that is to say in the spheres of science and technology, of government and politics, of higher education, of contempo- rary culture, etc. These two structural properties are manifested in all the aspects of the structure of the language, but most conspicuously in the realms of vocabu- lary and syntax. Of the two, vocabulary lends itself most easily to numeri- cal measures and can thus serve as an index, no matter how gross, of the two properties. A vocabulary that is both stable and capable of being easily enlarged can serve as an index of a high degree of flexible stability; a well-developed vocabulary that is adapted to the expressive needs of modern living will serve as an index of a high degree of intellectualization. There is no doubt that vocabulary alone is not sufficient as an index, particularly in the case of intellectualization, since stylistic factors depend- ing largely on the syntactic means available to the user are at least as important. But since syntactic elements are much more difficult to codify44° PLL. Garvin and are more difficult to incorporate into precise measures, they lend themselves only to an intuitive evaluation. How does a standard language serve its users? As has already been noted, a standard language serves above all for the cultural and intellectual communication of a speech community and allows it to use its own language to deal with these important domains. It is the language that one uses for the publication and presentation of important texts, for formal speeches and debates, etc.; thus its presence creates the necessary conditions for the use of the given language in all domains. The role of the standard language in the accomplishments of the communicative tasks is made possible not only by the structural properties that have been presented, but also by the European cultural tradition in which secular prestige varieties have been developed which were originally considered vernacular, and which have progressively replaced the reli- gious prestige languages in secular usage. Thus one can see the gradual replacement of Latin by the vernaculars of Western and Central Europe and the replacement of Church Slavonic by the Slavic vernaculars of the Orthodox world, Standardization in the sense in which it is being dis- cussed here has thus originally developed in that tradition. This tradition has later been followed in many speech communities where historical conditions (for instance the influence of European colonization) have favored the adoption of European precedents. In other speech communities there are traditions and precedents that differ radically from those of Europe. One has only to think of the Arab world where the classical language is closely linked to the religious tradition, or of China where the role of the writing system is totally different from the one it has in Europe in order to become aware of the fact that the European tradition of standardization is far from universal. Thus, one can think of the possibility of a standardization process based on orality instead of writing, stemming from the special conditions of modernization in certain speech communities of the third world. Such a case has been described in Bolivia: a kind of oral standardization is in the process of development for the native language Aymara on the basis of its use by small radio stations in the capital of the country. This standardization has become necessary by virtue of the fact that the Aymara speakers who have moved to the capital speak a multiplicity of dialects. This situation has brought about the development of a variety that is not only relatively uniform and understandable to all but is alsoLanguage standardization 45 standardized in the sense that it is capable of serving as a vehicle for a modernized form of culture — all this orally and independently of a process of literacy development, which is present on its own in this speech community. The conditions required for the development of a standard language Traditionally linguistics used to distinguish civilized languages such as those of Europe from primitive languages such as those of the native populations of the different regions of the world that were colonized by Europeans. According to this tradition only civilized languages are capa- ble of a standardization process, while the so-called primitive languages are destined to remain underdeveloped since they do not have the inherent potential for the development of the attributes required for standardiza- tion. At present many linguists, including the author of this paper, disagree with this position. On the contrary, they accept in differing degrees the notion formulated by the followers of linguistic relativism according to which all languages are, given appropriate cultural condi- tions, in principle capable of expressing whatever the speakers have a need to express. This means that any linguistic structure is in principle capable of developing the attributes required for standardization. If the development of these attributes has not taken place in the case of given language this is therefore in the light of this position not due to a lack of inherent structural potential but for other reasons, more specifically, for cultural reasons and concretely for reasons of the absence of certain necessary cultural preconditions. Among the latter, the most important is motivation, the desire of a community to entertain the development of a standardized variety of its own language. In the absence of such a motivation even the most generous external initiatives will most likely not be sufficient to initiate and main- tain a standardization process. Motivation by itself is a necessary but not a sufficient beginning condi- tion. It has to be accompanied by the presence within the speech com- munity of a constituency, a group of active adherents that are willing to devote themselves to the cultivation of their language. The reason for this is that the attainment of the attributes required for standardization demands of the users of the language a consistent and sustained effort. Flexible stability requires a high degree of intellectual discipline; the rules of language correctness once developed have to be observed in a consistent manner in order to insure stability and with an open mind in order to insure flexibility. Intellectualization requires a high46 P.L. Garvin degree of creativity in the utilization of the structural and other resources of the language in order to insure the development of the terminologies and styles required for the achievement of the desired level of intellectual- ization. These efforts constitute high-level intellectual tasks; for these tasks to be accomplished a speech community has to have at its disposal the constituency, the group of active adherents, that was just mentioned. In order to accomplish these tasks the constituency not only has to display the necessary activity but also has to have an intellectual level high enough to insure the success of the development. Frame of reference As we have noted, the frame of reference for the study of language standardization contains three key notional components: the structural properties of a standard language, its functions, and the attitudes that it evokes. The latter two concepts are closely linked to each other: to each function there corresponds an attitude, and it is through the attitudes that the functions can be studied. Consequently, these two kinds of phenomena will be discussed together. Structural properties of a standard language These are the flexible stability and intellectualization that have already been discussed. These notions were introduced by the linguists of the Prague School during a debate among Czech intellectuals on the cultiva- tion of good language in general and the issue of language correctness in particular. They have led to a redefinition of language correctness and language cultivation. In addition to the linguists of the Prague School that have been mentioned some more traditionally oriented intellectuals and linguists took part in the debate. This debate concerned among others the defining criteria for language correctness and it is in this setting that the two properties set forth here were proposed. The adversaries of the Prague School stayed with the traditional criteria based on considerations of purity and historical exactness. The first of these criteria implied above all the rejection of foreign loans. The second criterion implied that correctness and good usage should be defined principally on the basis of historical continuity: an expression that more closely corresponds to its historical origin is preferable to oneLanguage standardization 47 that is more remote from it. The linguists of the Prague School did not reject the validity of these criteria in entirety; they proposed that purity and historical exactness should not be required at the expense of already- established good usage, as was often demanded by the traditional critics of language correctness, and that the criteria for good language should be based on the most desirable attributes of a standard language from the standpoint of its role in the speech community. It is on the basis of this consideration that the two structural properties discussed here were proposed by the Prague School. Functions of the standard language and attitudes towards it The importance of these notional components derives from the fact that they are at the root of the purposes that a standard language serves in a speech community. It is to be noted that the term “function” is used here in a more abstract sense than the term “purposes”: the latter term is used to designate the various services that a standard language renders to the speech community, while the term “functions” is used to indicate the general and often symbolic meanings that a standard language has for its community. Five functions of the standard language are here proposed: 1, unifying function — this is the function of a standard language to serve as a unifying bond in spite of dialectal and other differences; 2. separatist function — this is the function of a standard language to affirm the separate identity of a speech community in the face of other speech communities; 3. prestige function — this is the function that confers a certain prestige on a speech community that possesses a standard language and on an individual that masters it; 4. participatory function — this is the function of a standard language to allow a speech community to use its own language in order to partici- pate in the cultural, scientific, and other developments of the modern world; 5. frame-of-reference function — this is the function of a standard language to serve as a frame of reference primarily in matters of language correctness but also in other respects. To these five functions there corresponds four attitudes: 1. to the unifying and separatist functions there corresponds an atti- tude of language loyalty; 2. to the prestige function there corresponds an attitude of pride;48 P.L. Garvin 3. to the participatory function there corresponds an attitude of desire to participate; 4. to the frame-of-reference function there corresponds an attitude of awareness of the norm. The attitudes lend themselves to various kinds of empirical investiga- tion and can thus be studied directly, while the functions are abstractions derived from a study of the attitudes. Thus function can be studies through attitude. In the following each of the functions and attitudes will be discussed individually. Unifying function The function of a unifying link in spite of the differences between the varieties is the most widely developed standard language function in the great speech communities of Europe where traditionally the differences between dialects have constituted a barrier to understanding. The dialects of northern and southern Germany are the classical case: a speaker of a northern dialect cannot understand a speaker from the south if they both use their local variety; it is the standardized variety that serves as a means of communication and a unifying bond. In addition in many cases it is the standard language rather than the local dialect that serves as a means of national identification with respect to foreigners: one is German rather than a Rhinelander, French rather than a Burgunder. This aspect of the unifying function is of course affected by political and social factors: one has only to think of the Austrians, Swiss Germans, or Luxemburgers in order to become aware of the complexities that arise in this respect. The separatist function The importance of the function of a standard language to assert a separate identity of a speech community is quite clear — it is by developing its own standard language that a speech community moves from the status of being a dialect community to the status of being a language community, thus distinguishing itself from another language community that may be related and/or politically dominant. There are many examples of this, in many parts of the world. Often the separatist function of the standard language is linked to political tendenciesLanguage standardization 49 toward autonomy and independence, and this is likewise a well-known phenomenon in recent history. Language loyalty Language loyalty is associated with the two functions that have just been discussed. The link to the unifying function implies that language loyalty is directed more toward the standard language of a community than toward a dialectal or other nonstandard variety. The link to the separatist function implies that language loyalty is directed toward the standard of one’s own speech community rather than toward that of some other linguistic entity. There is a whole range of possible manifestations of language loyalty. The two ends of this continuum are a pragmatic loyalty that implies a relatively detached conviction of the excellence of one’s own language, and at the other end an emotional loyalty, here called the “national- treasure” attitude, which implies a highly affect-laden attitude toward one’s mother tongue and its standard variety, which is considered an essential and highly valued part of one’s national heritage. The national-treasure attitude can clearly be associated with the sepa- ratist function; one can even say that in many cases it is this particular attitude that motivates the development of a separate standard lan- guage — it is precisely the appreciation of this aspect of the national heritage that brings about standardization. In the same vein it can be noted that it is very likely this national-treasure attitude that gives rise to a dedicated constituency, so necessary for the furtherance of standardization. The situation is less clear-cut at the other end of the continuum: languages toward which a pragmatic loyalty is experienced seem to tend toward the unifying rather than the separatist function, but the reverse is not automatically the case. A language characterized by the dominance of the unifying function can well be the target of a national-treasure attitude; a well-known example is that of German. As an example of pragmatic loyalty one can cite the attitude of North American English speakers toward their mother tongue: for these speak- ers, English represents the most practical language in the world, the one that is the most highly developed and best suited to serve as a means of international communication, scientific expression, etc. All other lan- guages are almost curiosities and are spoken by populations who haven’t had the advantages of being brought up in an English-speaking environ- ment. The interesting thing here is that many speakers of other languages50 P.L. Garvin share this attitude toward English, as is shown by the large number of students of English as a second or foreign language. Russian may serve as an example of an intermediate case. Russian speakers seem to have a form of language loyalty that includes some pragmatic and some national- treasure facets; it is possible that languages of other nations that consider themselves important might fall into the same category but our knowledge of these matters is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Prestige function and pride As has been suggested this function and the corresponding attitude of pride exhibit a collective and an individual aspect. The collective aspect of the prestige function prevails in less powerful and/or more recently standardized speech communities. It is based on the fact that the possession of a standardized variety gives a speech community the prestige of having a “real language” and not just a “dialect,” that is, a language complete in all respects, capable of express- ing everything, of being used for all culturally significant purposes and thus being the equal of other better known languages that are used by more powerful speech communities. In one word it gives a speech com- munity the prestige of considering itself modern and civilized and of being recognized as such. The kind of pride that corresponds to the collective aspect of the Prestige function is evident from responses of the speech communities that manifest it — one often hears statements of the kind “our language is just as highly developed, just as modern, just as capable of expressing everything as the language of our more powerful neighbor.” This kind of pride is often associated with the national-treasure attitude that was just discussed. This is related to the fact that the attachment of the members of a speech community to their national heritage often means that they are also proud of it (or at least would like to be proud of it). Finally, it is quite possible that this type of pride is not manifested in speech communities where the national-treasure attitude is not present, and for the same reason: these are speech communities (like that of North American English speakers) that consider themselves important and that take for granted the possession of a standardized variety of their language. The individual aspect of the prestige function stems from the prestige that the members of the speech community derive from the fact of being educated and “cultured”; mastery of the standardized variety is part of this high personal “level of education.” The manifestations of this indivi- dual aspect of the prestige function are not limited to speech communitiesLanguage standardization 51 where the national-treasure attitude is prevalent. On the contrary, in communities where the national-treasure attitude is absent, the individual- prestige function is not only present but prevalent as can easily be observed in the case of North American English speakers. The same can be said about the attitude of pride: the individual aspect of this attitude is as general as the individual aspect of the prestige function, and as prevalent in speech communities where the national-treasure attitude is absent. The participatory function and the desire to participate As has been noted the participatory function is the function of the standard language of allowing the speech community to participate in modern life with all the scientific, intellectual, political, and other develop- ments implied by it, through the use of its own language and without having to have recourse to another language. It is by attaining a sufficient degree of intellectualization that the standard variety of a language becomes capable of serving these communicative needs: this is why non- standard varieties are not ordinarily employed in these usages. The atti- tude linked to this function, the desire to participate, seems to touch upon all aspects of cultural modernization and is not limited to its linguistic aspect: everybody is aware of the attraction that Western fash- ions and technologies have for the peoples of the world — one need only think of the popularity of the “youth culture” with its music and its clothing, or of that of the gadgets made possible by the transistor, etc. With respect to language the desire to participate implies the possibility of language shift: in many speech communities the introduction of modern cultural elements implies the use of another language (as for instance that of the former colonial power). It is in this connection that the participatory function may conflict with the separatist function. The most typical example here is the issue of the selection of an official language in a recently independent former colony. For such a country the problem arises of choosing between the continued utilization of the language of the former colonial power as official language or the introduction of a native language (such as Swahili in some African countries or Indonesian in Indonesia). In these cases one can say that the first choice represents a predominance of the participatory function and the second a predominance of the separatist function. The officialization of a native language does not stem solely from the separatist function and the national-treasure attitude accompanying it; in general these phenomena occur when there is a link between language52 P.L. Garvin and group identity in a given community. In addition, as has already been noted, these are phenomena having to do with the motivation of the development of a standardized variety of the language of the com- munity, which, as has been suggested, is the variety capable of assuring the participatory function without switching language. If this happens, the conflict between the separatist function and the Participatory function is resolved: the two functions will then coexist and mutually reinforce each other. Frame-of-reference function and awareness of the norm This function of a standard language has been characterized as its func- tion to serve as a frame of reference for correct language and in other respects, the most important of which is to serve as a frame of reference for the perception of literary and poetic creation. These two aspects of the frame-of-reference function presuppose awareness of the norm: it is on the basis of such an awareness that the members of a speech com- munity become conscious of the importance of having a model that can be followed as a frame of reference. As regards language correctness, the frame-of-reference function is not limited to the standardized variety of a language; questions of correctness arise also in other varieties in the case of languages that have not yet become subject to standardization. But this function is more conspicuous in the case of a standardized variety: in the case of languages that have such a variety, it is the latter that preferably serves as a frame of reference, even if this function is not limited to it. In the case of nonstandardized varieties, the norm is not formally codified and thus there is no recourse to such a formal codification to resolve issues of correctness, and in these cases one is then limited to models of correctness that are less clearly defined. It is from the standpoint of this function that the range of styles of codification becomes important. Given the clearly defined authority of an academy or its functional equivalent, an academy-governed codifica- tion is usually more unequivocal and definitive than a “free-enterprise” style of codification (thus, for instance, there is less variation in matters of language correctness in Russian than in American English). As far as questions of literary and poetic perception are concerned, the frame-of-reference function is based on the sociolinguistic fact that the majority of literary and poetic works are composed in the standardized variety of the language. Thus, even if a work contains nonstandard elemenzts or is composed in its entirety in a nonstandardized variety, thisLanguage standardization 53 choice of variety in itself constitutes an essential element of the aesthetic structure of the text. Thus, the text is perceived against the background of the standardized variety, which therefore constitutes the frame of reference for the aesthetic perception of the text. Here again it’s the awareness of the standard norm that allows the members of the speech community to perceive the differences between standard and nonstandard forms upon which is based this aspect of aesthetic perception. Conclusions In conclusion, the manner in which the different aspects of standardiza- tion discussed here are interlaced will be summed up. More specifically, the relations between the roles of the standard language and the frame of reference that has been proposed for its analysis will be stressed. In the beginning of this paper, the purposes of the standard language were considered, as part of an attempt to define it. For such a definition, the notion of structural properties of a standard language was introduced, more particularly the properties of flexible stability and intellectualization. Since these properties are gradual phenomena, they can serve not only as defining criteria but also as measures of the degree of standardization. The second question touched upon here is that of the services rendered by a standard language to the speech community that possesses one. It was noted that in order to be capable of rendering these services a standard language must have achieved a level of intellectualization that allows it to assume the participatory function and the prestige function and a level of fiexible stability which allows it to assume the frame-of- reference function. The third question concerns the conditions required for the develop- ment of a standard language. The first of these is motivation. Motivation stems from the separatist function and the collective aspect of the prestige function, with the accompanying attitude of loyalty of the national- treasure variety and pride. In addition to the question of motivation there arises the issue of a constituency; the component of the theoretical frame of reference that corresponds to it is once again the national- treasure attitude: this is the moving force for the development of a constituency. In the preceding an attempt was made to show to what degree the standardization of the language is complex and demanding. It is complex in the sense that it involves a multiplicity of linguistic and social factors. It is demanding in the sense that it requires the active and dedicated participation of the most outstanding members of the speech community.54 P.L. Garvin The result of this process is to provide the speech community with a highly developed means of communication that is capable of serving the most advanced intellectual and artistic needs. State University of New York at Buffalo Note 1. This is an updated and somewhat revised English-language version of an address origi- nally given in French under the title of “Langue standard — concepts et processus” to the IInd International Congress of the Catalan Language at Palma de Mallorca, Balearic Islands, 4 May 1986.Copyright © 2003 EBSCO Publishing