"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoisNOS...@mninter.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:udp6seip6v9t29@corp.supernews.com...
> The farthest back that I have been able to trace the concept of "informal
> Standard English" is to George Philip Krapp's *A Comprehensive Guide to
Good
> English,* New York: Rand McNally & Company, (C) 1927, in which Krapp, in
the
> beginning pages, while defining the terms used in the book, says, under
the
> entry for "standard":
> [quote]
> Manifestly standard speech is not all of one type, for a usage may be
> standard colloquial, like _He isn't,_ or standard literary, as in those
> constructions peculiar to the style of writing in prose and verse.
> [end quote]
> I strongly suspect that Krapp used this concept in his earlier works,
> perhaps even as early as twenty years before he wrote the above. I will
> check on that theory by consulting those of his works which are available
in
> the libraries of the University of Minnesota. I am writing this post,
> however, to ask if any of you know of other authors who used of the
concept
> of "informal Standard English" or "standard colloquial English" before
even
> Krapp's time.
I took a look at several of Krapp's earlier works today, in attempt to see
if he indeed used the concept of "standard colloquial" at an earlier date. I
did not find as unambiguous a statement as that given in the quote above,
but I was able to push back the date, I think.
In Krapp's *Modern English: Its Growth and Present Use* New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, (C) 1909, he makes a distinction between "popular speech,"
"colloquial English," and "formal or literary English." Based upon the
accompanying text, it's possible that what he meant by "colloquial English"
is the same as what he labeled in his later work "standard colloquial." I
would have to take a closer look at what he wrote to decide the matter.
In the meantime, the following was interesting. From page 332:
[quote]
In one community or one group, _he don't,_ or _these kind of people,_ or _I
will,_ for the future, will be accepted as the conventional, standard speech
of the community. When they are used in this community or this group, they
express their thought completely, and carry with them no connotation to the
discredit of the speaker.
[end quote]
The following is from Krapp's *The Pronunciation of Standard English in
America,* New York: Oxford University Press, (C) 1919:
From page v:
[quote]
The instances discussed in the present volume are such as the author himself
has observed. None are taken at second hand from books.
[end quote]
The book is indeed an attempt to accurately represent the speak of
"cultivated Americans." His definition of "standard speech" is similar to
the one he gave in his 1927 usage guide. From page ix of the 1919 work:
[quote]
The term standard speech, it will thus be seen, has been used by the author
without a very exact definition. Everybody knows that there is no type of
speech uniform and accepted in practice by all persons in America. What the
author has called standard may perhaps be best defined negatively, as the
speech which is least likely to attract attention to itself as being
peculiar to any class or locality. As a matter of fact, unless it is
markedly peculiar. For the most part when one is listening to the speech of
others, one is intent upon getting the meaning, not upon observing the form.
In consequence there is likely to be, even in what we may justly call
standard speech, a considerable area of negligible variation, negligible,
that is, from the point of view of the practical use of language. To the
conscientious and critical listener, many of these variations may seem
reprehensible, but only so by the test of some theoretical or ideal
standard. In the following pages, wherever the author has put down a form or
several forms of speech without defining them as provincial, or dialectal,
or vulgar, or artificial, he would have the usages taken as being, in his
opinion, standard pronunciations are given, the implication is that a
speaker is as likely to offend as many critical listeners by using one as by
using another of the pronunciations.
[end quote]
Now, what makes me believe that I can push Krapp's idea of "standard
colloquial"--what in today's terms would be called "informal Standard
English"--back to 1919 is that in *The Pronunciation of Standard English in
America* he includes among the examples used to illustrate pronunciation the
words "can't" and "shan't." These are certainly *not* representative of
formal or literary speech, but I believe Krapp would consider them usages
which would not "attract attention to [themselves] as being peculiar to any
class or locality," especially when spoken by educated speakers in an
informal setting.
One point I would like to explain is that what Krapp meant by "good
English," as used, for example, in the title of his 1927 usage book, was
*not* Standard English. Good English was English which "hit the mark," which
most effectively communicated to the listener the speaker's intended
meaning. Standard English was what was conventional, but innovations to
English come, according to Krapp, from "good English" usages in what is of
necessity unconventional, nonstandard English. It follows from Krapp's
definition of "good English," of course, that there is good and bad English
in all varieties of the language.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
