Introduction
The concept of Standard English, often regarded as the ‘correct’ or ‘proper’ form of the language, holds a dominant position in societal and institutional contexts across the UK. This essay explores how ideologies surrounding Standard English shape perceptions of other English varieties, particularly in media representations. By examining the linguistic hierarchy perpetuated through ideologies of correctness and prestige, this discussion will highlight how non-standard varieties are often marginalised or stigmatised in various media forms, including television, radio, and online platforms. The essay will first define Standard English and its associated ideologies, then analyse how media portrayals reinforce linguistic prejudice, and finally consider the implications of these representations for social attitudes. Through this exploration, the aim is to demonstrate that media, as a powerful cultural institution, often perpetuates a biased view of language varieties, influenced by deeply ingrained ideological assumptions.
Defining Standard English and Its Ideological Foundations
Standard English is typically defined as the variety of English taught in schools, used in formal writing, and often associated with the speech of educated, middle-class speakers, particularly in the south-east of England (Trudgill, 2002). However, this definition is not neutral; it is underpinned by ideologies that equate Standard English with correctness, clarity, and social prestige. As Milroy and Milroy (1999) argue, the standard variety is often seen as inherently superior, a belief rooted in historical processes of codification and the association of Standard English with power and authority.
These ideologies are not merely linguistic but are intertwined with social values. For instance, Standard English is frequently linked to perceptions of intelligence, professionalism, and reliability, while non-standard varieties—such as regional dialects or sociolects like Multicultural London English (MLE)—are often deemed less prestigious or even ‘incorrect’ (Cheshire et al., 2011). This linguistic hierarchy is not a natural outcome but a constructed ideology reinforced through education, policy, and, significantly, the media. Understanding this ideological framework is essential to examining how media representations of language varieties influence public perceptions.
Media Representations and the Reinforcement of Linguistic Prejudice
The media plays a pivotal role in shaping societal attitudes towards language varieties, often reinforcing the dominance of Standard English. Television and radio, for example, have historically privileged Standard English through the use of Received Pronunciation (RP) in news broadcasting and formal programming. This practice, though less rigid today, still subtly conveys the notion that Standard English is the norm against which other varieties are judged. As Bell (1991) notes, media outlets often select language varieties to align with specific audience expectations, thereby perpetuating the idea that Standard English is the default for authority and credibility.
Moreover, non-standard varieties are frequently portrayed in stereotypical or derogatory ways in entertainment media. For instance, regional accents such as those from the North of England are sometimes used in television dramas or comedies to signify working-class identities, often with negative connotations of lack of education or roughness (Coupland and Bishop, 2007). Similarly, urban sociolects like MLE are often associated with youth subcultures or criminality in media portrayals, as seen in certain crime dramas or news reports, which can reinforce harmful stereotypes about the speakers of these varieties (Cheshire et al., 2011). Such representations are not merely reflective of societal attitudes but actively shape them, embedding the ideological superiority of Standard English into public consciousness.
Furthermore, the rise of social media has introduced new dimensions to this dynamic. While platforms like Twitter and YouTube provide spaces for diverse voices and linguistic varieties, they also amplify criticism of non-standard speech through viral content or memes that mock accents or dialects. Indeed, online discussions often reveal overt linguistic prejudice, where deviations from Standard English are ridiculed as ‘uneducated’ or ‘slang’ (Androutsopoulos, 2014). Therefore, while digital media offers potential for linguistic diversity, it often mirrors and exacerbates existing biases rooted in standard language ideology.
The Social Implications of Media-Driven Linguistic Attitudes
The media’s perpetuation of Standard English as the ideal has significant social consequences. Firstly, it marginalises speakers of non-standard varieties, potentially affecting their self-esteem and social opportunities. As Lippi-Green (2012) argues, language discrimination in media can contribute to broader social exclusion, where individuals feel pressured to conform to the standard variety to be taken seriously. For example, job applicants or public figures with strong regional accents may face implicit bias, partly influenced by media portrayals that equate Standard English with competence.
Secondly, the consistent elevation of Standard English in media limits linguistic diversity and cultural representation. By prioritising a narrow definition of ‘correct’ English, the media often erases the rich linguistic heritage of various communities, thereby reinforcing a monolingual, monocultural ideal. This is particularly evident in the underrepresentation of varieties such as Scottish English or Welsh English in mainstream programming, where their speakers are rarely depicted in roles of authority or prestige (Coupland and Bishop, 2007).
However, it is worth noting that some media outlets are beginning to challenge these norms. For instance, the inclusion of regional accents in BBC programming and advertisements reflects a growing acceptance of linguistic diversity (Trudgill, 2002). While such efforts are limited, they suggest a slow shift in attitudes, potentially driven by audience demand for authenticity and representation. Nevertheless, these changes are often superficial and do not fully dismantle the entrenched ideology of Standard English as superior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ideologies of Standard English profoundly influence perceptions of other English varieties in the media, perpetuating a linguistic hierarchy that privileges the standard form while marginalising non-standard varieties. Through historical associations with prestige and correctness, Standard English is upheld as the norm in news, entertainment, and even digital media, often at the expense of regional and urban dialects. These portrayals not only reflect but also reinforce societal prejudices, linking non-standard speech with negative traits and limiting linguistic diversity. The social implications are significant, as such biases can contribute to discrimination and cultural erasure. While there are emerging efforts to embrace linguistic variety in the media, these are arguably insufficient to counteract the deep-rooted dominance of Standard English ideology. Ultimately, this discussion underscores the need for critical awareness of how media shapes language attitudes and the broader societal values they reflect. Only through challenging these ideologies can a more inclusive representation of English varieties be achieved, fostering a media landscape that values linguistic diversity over outdated notions of correctness.
References
- Androutsopoulos, J. (2014) Language and digital media: New challenges for sociolinguistics. Routledge.
- Bell, A. (1991) The language of news media. Blackwell.
- Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S., and Torgersen, E. (2011) Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), pp. 151-196.
- Coupland, N. and Bishop, H. (2007) Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1), pp. 74-93.
- Lippi-Green, R. (2012) English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. Routledge.
- Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999) Authority in language: Investigating standard English. Routledge.
- Trudgill, P. (2002) Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh University Press.
