Common vs. normative

Another important distinction when talking about norms of language is the distinction between the notions of common and normative. This distinction is discussed by Andersen (2009, see also 1989; cf. Bicchieri 2006: 29), who categorises norms into declarative and

21

deontic norms. Declarative norms define what is common, and they are divided into descriptive (or statistical) norms and experiential norms (cf. Agha 2007: 124-127).

Descriptive norms refer to what is common linguistic behaviour in a linguistic community, which follows Coseriu’s (1970) model where the system of language is seen to restrict patterns and structures of ‘normal’ speech thus constituting the norm. For Coseriu (1970), what is common and in that sense normal builds the norm. To find out what descriptive norms exist in a community, then, we need quantitative methods that can tell us about the frequencies of linguistic expressions. For instance, variationist sociolinguists establish descriptive norms when they quantify variables and compare their usage in different social categories such as speakers’ ethnicity and age, and make statements about the frequencies of the variables (cf. Labov 1972b). Similarly, corpus linguistics can offer insights into what is common, and for instance Ranta’s (2006) study on the progressive -ing used in the ELFA corpus suggests that the form is assigned an extra function compared to how it is used by native speakers of English in the MICASE¹⁵. The extended use of the progressive in ELF, and especially its extension for the specific function of “attention-catching” (Ranta 2006: 114), suggests that we are talking about a descriptive norm. In addition to descriptive norms, declarative norms include experiential norms, which refer to what speakers consider to be common, whether, statistically speaking, this is so or not. In order to study experiental norms we might, then, devise a questionnaire asking the speakers in Ranta’s (2006) study to give their impressions of the frequency of -ing forms in ELF interaction. This way we might get an idea of the speakers’ awareness of the extended use and the meanings the speakers attach to it.

In sum, descriptive norms tell us about the actual usage and experiental norms about speakers’ beliefs about the usage. Since changes in frequency patterns can be seen to indicate language change, declarative norms are valuable in suggesting directions for such change (see Milroy 1992: 91): both in terms of what is happening at the level of usage, and how people perceive the changes. However, neither what is common nor what is considered to be common automatically translates into what is acceptable or considered to be so (see Hartung 1977: 19–20). For this, we need what Andersen (2009) terms deontic norms, that is, norms that define what is acceptable: what we are permitted to do or not allowed to do in certain circumstances, as well as what we are obligated to do or prohibited of doing (cf. Beller 2008).

15 For more on the Michigan corpus of academic spoken English (MICASE), see

<http://micase.elicorpora.info> (Accessed 28 June 2012).

22

In Andersen’s (2009) terminology, deontic norms are divided into prescriptive and living norms¹⁶. Prescriptive norms are defined as usage that is considered correct according to an established standard (Andersen 2009: 24). They are thus codified norms.

In the case of English, using prescriptive norms would mean, for instance, using Standard English as the yardstick for correct use of the language, irrespective of who would be using the language or where it would be used (cf. Bamgbose 1998). Since such language standards are widely used, for example, in language teaching, it can be expected that prescriptive norms generally form part of speakers’ normative beliefs about language.

What Andersen (2009) terms living norms, then again, are appropriateness norms that are constructed and reconstructed in linguistic communities, or communities of practice (cf.

Piippo 2012; see also Karlsson 1995). They are relevant in a community, but not necessarily codified. According to Andersen (1989, 2009), living norms are what arise and are shaped and reshaped in communities through what he calls an implicit metadialogue, where speakers’ expectations about appropriate behaviour are constantly reflected with the actual behaviour of others. Thus, living norms do not have to correspond to prescriptive norms, even if prescriptive norms may become living norms when accepted as such in a community.

To further clarify what the distinction between prescriptive and living norms means, let us briefly return to Piippo’s (2012: 30) dialogical approach to norms where norms (in general) are seen to emerge out of social interaction and to be maintained through it. This approach lends support to an interactional approach to norm construction (see Johnstone

& Baumgardt 2004; Leppänen & Piirainen-Marsh’s 2009): ultimately all norms are constructed, maintained and partially changed in interaction, whether prescribed (codified) or living (mainly non-codified). Living, or non-codified, norms emerge as a result of acceptability negotiation in interaction, whereas prescriptive, or codified, norms arise as a consequence of linguistic description and codification. What is crucial, however, is that codified norms are not treated as relevant at the outset, but rather only to the extent that they are maintained and accepted in interaction. As Piippo (2012: 225) puts it these “varyingly binding prescriptions and guidelines [of linguistic conduct] become bona fide norms at the point when language users recognize them as expectations directed at their own linguistic behaviour or that of the others”. In order to see what role speakers in a community of practice place on codified norms and what alternative norms may be

16 This division roughly corresponds to Karlsson’s (1995) discussion on correctness norms as opposed to norms that guide our everyday language use in different situations (natural norms, but also genre and situational norms).

23

constructed, then, we need to focus on the ways speakers construct acceptability (and correctness) in language during interaction.

When norms are divided into declarative and deontic ones, we realise that by quantifying expressions we can find out about what is common, whereas the question of acceptable language use requires a more qualitative approach. Further, the division of deontic norms into prescriptive (codified) and living (mainly non-codified) ones draws attention to the fact that prescriptive norms may not be constructed as relevant in a community of practice. To what extent the speakers in this study draw on prescriptive norms while constructing their living norms is discussed in chapter 7.