We live now in a globalized world, where English is broadly used.

It is therefore
necessary to find a cover term for all varieties of English: the one we will settle for is
‘English Language Complex’ (henceforth ELC), suggested by McArthur [1998].

(a) Metropolitan standards (American-British English ): For the ELC the term
would have once been applicable only to Standard English of England.
However, it is uncontroversial today, long after US independence and its
subsequent espousal of distinctly American English norms, to acknowledge the
existence of at least two metropolitan standard varieties, whose formal models
are those provided by the radio and television networks based largely in London
and US cities like Washington, Los Angeles and (for CNN) Atlanta.

(b) Colonial standards: The colonial history of English has made it an important
language in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Northern and
Southern Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe). A fairly large number of
English speakers formed an influential group of speakers in the early
history of these ‘Dominion’ territories. The varieties spoken there are
referred to in historical dialectology as ‘extraterritorial’ Englishes. It is
possible to speak of ‘colonial standards’ since informal and (to a lesser
extent) formal varieties have arisen in these territories that may be
considered ‘standard’. These standards were, until recently, not fully
accepted within the territories, since the metropolitan standards exerted a
counter-influence. Today the colonial standards are much more prominent
as British influence recedes.

(c) Social dialects: Identifiable varieties within a region along the lines of class
and ethnicity may occur. In London there is the difference between Cockney
of the working classes, Received Pronunciation (RP) of the upper-middle class
and the intermediate ‘Estuary English’. In Australia linguists identify Broad,
General and Cultivated varieties; the first is the most localized, while showing
numerous traces of its origins in British working-class dialects; the third is
historically oriented towards RP, while the second mediates between these
two poles. Amongst ‘ethnolects’ (or ethnic dialects) Black English (also known
as African American English) is identifiable as a distinct linguistic variety in the
USA (though it has some regional variation too).

(d) Regional dialects: These are the varieties that may be distinguished on the basis
of regional variation within metropolis and colony. A rule of thumb is that the
older the settlement of English speakers, the firmer the regional differentiation
within the language. Thus English dialects of the UK and USA are clearly
definable in regional terms; this is less true of Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
Regional variation

Of all the sociolinguistic and stylistic factors which promote variety in language use,
the one, which people most commonly enquire about, is geographical origin. The fact,
that speech, in particular, can convey such a clear answer to the question ‘Where are you
from?’ exercises a peculiar fascination, and the terms dialect and accent are a normal part
of everyday vocabulary. Regional differences are readily noticed in the way people talk,
and although it may be unable to describe these differences other than in the most vague
and impressionistic terms (‘guttural’, ‘musical’, ‘lilting’ ), there is no difficulty in
responding to them untuitively, laughing at dialect jokes, enjoying dialect literature and
folklore, and appreciating the point of dialect parodies.

At the same time – and this is the paradox of dialect study – we find it easy to make
harshly critical judgments about ways of speaking which we perceive as alien. These
attitudes are usually subconscious, but it evidently does not take much to bring them to
surface. Differences of opinion between people of different dialect backgrounds can
quickly lead to mutual mockery of each other’s speech, and one has to be particularly
thick-skinned for this mockery not to hurt. Moreover, disparagement of regional speech
readily transmutes into disparagement of speakers, and newspapers occasionally report
disturbing or even catastrophic consequences. Such matters have attracted a great deal of
academic study, especially by sociolinguistics, but there is still little popular awareness of
the problems. The study of regional linguistics variations has thus more to oofer that
purely descriptive interest. The more we know about regional variation and change in the
use of English, the more we will come to appreciate the striking individuality of each of
the varieties which we call dialects, and the less we are likely to adopt demeaning
stereotypes about people from other parts of the country, or of the world. An essential
first step is to replace the notion that a regional variety is ‘only a dialect’, because it lacks
the prestige of the standard language, with the realization that every dialect is a source of
great linguistic complexity and potential. It is not easy to persuade ourselves that a dialect
or accent which is disliked or detested is a variety of English language which deserves as
much respect, and has just as much right to exist, as the variety we speak ourselves. But
this is the breakthrough demanded by a genuinely democratic dialectology.

Accents and dialects

Three points should be noted in connection with regional dialects. The first is that this
kind of variation is usually associated with variation in the SPOKEN form of the
language. The existence of a standardized, written form of English, which all people born
into an English-speaking community are taught as soon as they begin to write, means that
modern dialects get written down only by their introduction into a novel or a poem for a
particular characterization or effect. The speech of the gamekeeper in Lady Chatterley's
Lover, or that of many of the characters of Dickens, or of the 'regional' novelists such as
Joyce, indicates this point abundantly - but even here, only the vaguest approximation to
the original pronunciation is made. (After all, if we tried to indicate this pronunciation
with any degree of accuracy, it would mean devising some form of phonetic
transcription, and this would make the text impossible to read without training.). In non-
literary contexts, regional dialect forms are not common, though they are sometimes used
in informal contexts, and there are a few predictable examples, such as the differing
spellings of certain words between British and American English.

Secondly, despite the association of regional variation with speech, DIALECT is a term
which should not be identified with ACCENT. The 'regional accent' of a person refers
simply to pronunciation; 'dialect', on the other hand, refers to the totality of regional
linguistic characteristics - idiosyncrasies of grammar and vocabulary as well as
pronunciation. An accent is usually the most noticeable feature of a dialect. Whenever
comedians wish to make a joke using dialect differences, they invariably get the effect
they want by simply 'putting on' a new accent, and not bothering to introduce any
grammatical or other features into their speech – but in many ways an accent is the most
superficial feature also. Changes in syntax and vocabulary are much more relevant for
defining the differences between two dialects than are variations in pronunciation.

Thirdly, we must remember that dialects are not just local matters. My only illustrations
so far have been from the dialects of one country; but far more important in a way are the
dialects of English which operate on an international, as opposed to an intranational
scale. Whatever differences exist between the regional dialects of England, they have all
a great deal in common when compared with those of, say, the West lndies or the United
States. The term 'dialects of English' must be allowed to include these areas, whose
importance will undoubtedly increase as regional forms of literature develop.

Further:

American and British English -> American dialects and British dialects.

English in: Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Canada, Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa; Pidgins and creoles.

Social variation

Regional place of origin is by no means the only kind of linguistic variation in a

language. Just as important is the variable of SOCIAL place of origin - where we come
from in terms of a position on a social scale of some kind. The social background of
individuals has a powerful and long-lasting effect on the kind of language they use, and
there are certain general linguistic markers of class which occur regardless of the
particular region to which they may belong. For example, distinctions can often be
pointed out in terms of the choices we make in the use of words referring to particular
concepts - such as how we address people or say farewell' to them, or how we refer to
various meals, relations, or the toilet. Terms like mate and old man have clear social
restrictions in British English. Again, the use of 'Received Pronunciation' normally
implies a degree of education which need not be present for any of the other accents used
in Britain. 'Class dialects', as they might be called, exist. They are not linguistically as
clearly definable as are regional dialects because the social correlates are not as readily
delimited and defined as regional ones - it is not simply a question of kind and degree of
education. Also, English has far fewer indications of position on a social scale than many
other languages: in Japanese, for example, there are distinct, 'honorific' forms of words,
which overtly recognize class distinction.

Social language variation provides an answer to a somewhat different question: ‘Who

are you?’ or ‘What are you, in the eyes of the English-speaking society to which you
belong?’ Or rather it provides several possible answers, because people acquire several
identities as they participate in social structure. They belong to different social groups
and perform different social roles. A person might be identified as ‘a woman’, ‘a parent’,
‘a doctor’, ‘a husband’, ‘a failure’, ‘an apprentice’, ‘a member of the proletariat’, or in
many other ways. Any of these identities can have consequences for the kind of language
used. Indeed, it is usually language – much more so than clothing, furnishing or other
externals – which is the chief signal of both permanent and transient aspects of social
identity.

Certain aspects of social variation seem to be of particular linguistic consequence. Age,

sex and socio-economic class have been repeatedly shown to be of importance when it
comes to explaining the way sounds, constructions and vocabulary vary. Choice of
occupation has a less predictable influence, though in some contexts it can be highly
distinctive. Adopting a social role invariably involves a choice of appropriate linguistic
forms. And the presence of influential public institutions, such as the monarchy, the
established Church, the civil service, broadcasting and the press has inevitable given rise
to a popular notion of language authority, which can even become explicit through an
official language policy.

In all of this, attitudes to social variation vary widely. All countries display social
stratification, for example, though some have more clearly-defined class boundaries than
others, and have more identifiable features of class dialect. Britain is usually said to be
linguistically much more class-conscious than other countries where English is used as a
first language. A highly valued national literature use towards, which children are taught
to aspire. And a particular set of historical circumstances may make one country or
section of society, especially sensitive to language variation.

Further:

Received Pronunciation (+Estuary English?); Occupation; Religion; Science, Law;

Politics, Mass Media – all applied to social variations

Stylistic varieties – Degrees of formality in English.

Very Formal – Formal – Neutral – Informal – Very Informal