1 

 

 

LANGUAGE INEQUALITY AND THE USE OF STANDARD 

LANGUAGE 

 

 

Prof. Ass. Flamur SHALA 

Prizren University “UKSHIN HOTI, Faculty of Philology, flamur.shala@uni-prizren.com 

 

Article history: 

Accepted 15 February 2019 

Available online 30 April 2019 

 

Keywords:  

Language Competence,  

Standard Language,  

Language Inequality, 

Language Deficit, 

Restricted Code,  

Elaborated Code. 

 

A b s t r a c t 

This paper deals with linguistic inequality and the use of standard language. Language inequality has 

a wide and multifaceted meaning with several interpretations. It should be noted that the habits of 

informal use of the language do not define all inequality because the same user in another 

circumstance may use the language standard and manage to indicate a certain degree of use of the 

language. From the research with students of Albanian language, it turns out that these students, 

starting from the first year of the studies, show the efforts, the ability and the skills of using the 

linguistic standard despite a linguistic conformism. Linguistic individuality highlights the linguistic 

inequality. 

 

Language inequality has linguistic or limited language deficits on written and speech discourse. 

Meanwhile, the text sublimates the individual skills of writing, brainstorming, text planning, 

linguistic coherence and cohesion, according to an elaborate linguistic code. Furthermore, we see 

that language inequality is relative, because everyone who writes or speaks, under certain conditions, 

has his / her linguistic competence and individuality. In my research on students` texts are noticed 

some elements dealing with linguistic inequality and use standard language.  

  

 

 

1. Language inequality and the use of 

standard language 

 

The question being raised. - Language competence, linguistic 

conformism and the use of standard language by speakers and 

writers are different. The degree of linguistic conformation (Shala 

Perla, 2018) and the use of the standard language of Albanian 

language students, based on their written and interpreted texts, is 

also different. In this context, one of the issues for study is 

language inequality. 

The students of the first year of the Albanian Language and 

Literature department were set an assignment in the subject of 

language culture: to read, to learn and to write about the topic "the 

use of standard Albanian language on Albanian TV shows". As I 

rely on the data of this research to elaborate and draw conclusions 

about linguistic conformism in relation to the use of standard 

language, I have also relied on the same data source for language 

inequality. 

On the topic "Using standard Albanian language on Albanian TV 

shows", students read and learned for a week, from one weeks` 

exercises class to the next week, a week later. They who had 

studied managed to write about the topic within one lesson class. 

The following week, the assessment was made on the use of the 

language standard in their texts, linguistic coherence and 

cohesion. In the third and fourth classes, after a week, the same 

texts were read and interpreted aloud. Each student read and 

interpreted their own text. The debate on the use of standard 

language in written lectures and speech discourse was focused on 

linguistic competence (Memushaj 2008, p. 86.), language 

conformism (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 197), linguistic individualism 

(Shkurtaj 2008, 194, p. 195) and linguistic inequality (Hadson 

2002, p. 226). These indicators are interdependent. This research 

is more about language inequality. 

Language competence and inequality. - Language competence 

refers more to Noam Chomsky. (Hadson 2002, p. 244.). 

Performance is not a direct reflection of language competence, 

because in the spoken discourse (Sosyr 1977, p. 58.), the 



 

 2 

registration marks deviations from the rules and from the 

performance data derives the "subordinate" system of the rules 

that are owned by the speaker-listener. Unlike Sosyr, where 

Langue (Sosyr 1977, p. 44.) is the language in its system. The 

competence, always according to Chomsky, is the ability of the 

ideal speaker-listener to master the language, as well as its 

system. The answer to language competence and performance 

(Memushaj, 2008, p. 86.), referring to the concept itself, raises 

even more the question of what is not covered from the language 

competence. Lack of language is out of competence. To this 

extent linguistic absence can be called the first step of language 

inequality. 

Being the first step, language absence is a kind of linguistic 

inequality. Language inequality has a wide and multifaceted 

meaning, with several interpretations. Insufficient reading in new 

social contexts and the lack of speaking activity of individual 

speakers increases language inequality in relation to those who 

read, write and speak (explain, elaborate, interpret). Language 

competence as the ability to master the language in its system is 

not enough to read nor speak the individual's activity, without 

relating to normative language learning and language learning in 

the entirety of its variations. 

The habit of informal language use do not define all inequality 

because the same speaker in another circumstance can use the 

language standard and reach a high degree of linguistic 

competence. According to this measure, students of Albanian 

language who in the first year, besides a certain degree of 

language possession in its written and spoken system, also exhibit 

linguistic inequality. 

Language inequality and the use of standard language are related 

to: 

- Normative language learning; spelling, reading, and 

righteousness; 

- Normative language learning, the massiveness of variations and 

language inequality;  

-  Language Culture and Language Inequality; 

-  Rate of use of language standard and language inequality; 

-  Limited and elaborate language code; 

-  Language Individuality and Language Inequality;  

- Context (contextualization) and linguistic inequality; linguistic 

conformation and inequality. 

- Language Conformity and Language Inequality in Written 

Texts. 

 

Normative Language Learning: the correct spelling, reading and 

pronunciation. - Normative language instruction is the study of 

language system, is the study of the use of standard written and 

spoken Albanian norms. Regarding these two fundamental 

realizations, R. Ismajli has raised the question that the differences 

between written and spoken Albanian are two codes or 

realizations of a more general code? (Ismajli 2003, p. 155.). 

The written language of the students, based on the normative and 

systemic language learning, expresses a degree of language 

competence, the use of spelling with differences from text to text. 

The use of the standard language spelling represents only a degree 

of linguistic culture, which is not realized in the same way.  

The difference between linguistic accomplishments is also 

noticeable when using the spoken language according to 

normative teaching. The standard (spoken) language of a student, 

with the utmost care for the implementation of language norms, 

in most cases, achieves a degree of expression according to 

normative teaching, distinguishing from the other, according to 

the pronunciation and the prosody (metrics). In these cases, when 

using the spoken language is noticed a degree of language 

competence, according to pronunciation, but the differences are 

evident. 

Although linguistic conformism (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 197.) on the 

one hand and the standard rate of Albanian language learning 

have worked, on the other hand, the differences remain. The basis 

of these differences is the different spoken language from the 

point of view of dialectal nuances and from the sociolinguistic 

aspect of linguistic individualism.  

Normative language learning, the massiveness of variations and 

language inequality. - Using dialect of language and linguistic 

individuality are some of the factors that affect the differences 

between spoken language. Neither normative language learning 

nor linguistic conformism completely distorts the differences. 

Normative language learning and the massiveness of variations 

point to language inequality in relation to the degree of standard 

language use of each student. Variations are expressions of the 

linguistic individualism of the speaker, which imply the personal 

character of individual human speech (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 194.). 

The linguistic individuality in the totality of variations cannot 

function without a minimum of consonance and linguistic 

conformism with the social environment (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 194). 

This minimum of conformism would imply a minimum of 

normative language instruction and the entirety of variations that 

uncover and remain linguistically unequal.  

Language Culture and Language Inequality. - Issues related to 

language inequality are also related to crystallization of literary 

norms, "not as dialectical problems but as problems of language 

culture" (Lafe 1983, p. 101.). Language-related issues have 



 

 3 

attracted and still attract the attention of Albanian linguistics to 

their solution in the development of language and literary 

crystallization (Lafe 1983, p. 101.). In this context, the 

differences appear in the application of the morphological 

principle of the words of the Albanian language such as the use 

of the undefined ë, the use of plural names and irregular plurality. 

Also, the use of polysemistic words (Baylon & Mignot, 2004, p. 

17.), where the meaning of a word, being used unnecessarily in 

certain contexts, reveals language lack, thus revealing language 

inequality. 

Missing normative language lesson, its system and the use of 

standard Albanian, written and spoken norms, highlight the 

differences that mark language inequality.             

The absence of normative language instruction, on its system and 

on the standard Albanian language use, in the spoken and written 

form, reveals the differences which mark linguistic inequality.  

Rate of use of language standard and language inequality. - The 

use of language standard by students is an effort to apply spelling 

alongside the daily language learning. In addition to the 

differences in text and style planning, linguistic inequality in 

standard use also occurs in some grammatical terms of words as 

well as in syntactic connections. In the 33 evaluated texts, for the 

same topic, the introductory paragraph is different and in some 

cases the text begins with a finding or analytical elaboration of 

the topic in question. Standard deviations point to certain forms 

of words and improper links of words in sentences. Inequality 

also results from language learning, with unequal dedication. 

Thus, deviations from the norm on the one hand and the correct 

use of the linguistic standard, on the other hand, reveal the limited 

and elaborate linguistic code. 

Limited and elaborate language code. - The text written with 

concentration sublimates the individual ability and skills of 

writing, linguistic coherence and cohesion, the degree of 

language learning. On the contrary, through it appear the 

stagnation, the lack of language skills. So, the limited code or 

linguistic deficit emerges (Hadson 2002, p. 246.). 

In spite of the idea of "Using standard language in Albanian TV 

shows", the texts are conceived, more or less, they differ from the 

use of the language ( the form) and the way of explication (the 

content). Based on the above parameters, such as normative 

learning, language learning, the massiveness of variations and the 

degree of use of the language standard, reading and evaluating the 

texts is a limited and elaborate language code, according to the 

texts. Here, the limited code relates to the unequal recognition of 

particular units (Hadson 2002, p. 246.), relevant to the text. Thus, 

the limited code refers to a kind of linguistic deficit of language 

use according to normative and stylistic learning. The limited 

code is the lack of language tools needed for a text with a certain 

topic and content. In student texts, language use shows the degree 

of normative language learning that discovers restricted and 

elaborate language code. This is the linguistic inequality 

associated with the normative level of language learning. 

Language Individuality and Language Inequality. - As stated 

above, Hadson says that different language units can be used to 

express more or less the same meaning in different instances of 

language use. In the textbooks of the same pre-arranged subject 

we find a different linguistic arrangement, essentially with almost 

the same meaning. We find texts activated differently from one 

another, to the contextualization process, so to reconstruct the 

recipient's goals identical to the target recipients. Language 

inequality here, however, is concerned with the linguistic 

individuality and degree of linguistic conformity, as well as with 

the individual language competence and culture in written 

discourse and speech discourse. 

The use of "different" language units to express the same meaning 

is in the nature of linguistic communication. The different use of 

language units is more common in spoken discourse, generally. 

Anyway, it also comes down to the written discourse. Different 

use of language units for the same meaning does not escape the 

use of units according to language standard. The measurement in 

each of the texts gives the language-related results for the 

standard, the elaborated language code, the language, the 

language deficit, and the lack of language tools, in the limited 

language code. 

In the texts used for standard measurements of the standard 

language of the students, we find that the same subject can be 

written differently, can be written with standard language of a 

certain level. Fulfilling the use of standard language is a 

continuous requirement. It is not unnatural to attempt and 

therefore it is possible to use the language standard of the level of 

learning that the student has achieved. It is not just a standard 

language learning factor, though it is the main factor. Another 

factor is the textual planning on the subject and the stylistic 

fulfillment of the text. 

In these texts there is generally an "elaborate code" dependent by 

the situation, by the type of text. The situation is that the student 

writes the text of the argumentative type and gives his opinion 

using the standard language. Each has an elaborate code with its 

own linguistic individuality, different dependent from the text. 

Students come from language circles, not a school, with different 

interests, with different background preparation and with 

different linguistic individualities. They associate "linguistic 

conformism" with the use of standard language. During this use, 

their language individualities are modeled and adapted. Language 

Modeling (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 199.) occurs from standard language 

learning, requirements and school needs for "linguistic 



 

 4 

conformism" (Shkurtaj 2009, p. 201.) based on the use of standard 

language. Language modeling and adaptation or conformism 

does not avoid linguistic inequality. 

Linguistic inequality has its own linguistic, sociolinguistic and 

psycholinguistic side, in spoken and written discourse. The 

appearance of linguistic individuality and language inequality in 

written discourse is not the same as the language inequality in 

speech discourse. Measurement of language inequality in these 

relationships is derived from the texts, on the one hand and from 

reading and interpreting them, on the other hand developed in a 

process within exercises classes. The results derive from the 

measurement of the use of the linguistic standard as a part of 

linguistic culture and the emergence of language inequality in 

written discourse and speech discourse. The measurement is not 

supposed to be completed. Measurement has started with the first-

year students with tangible indicators and measurements of 

language inequality in the discourse of written texts and speech 

discourse, according to the correct pronunciation of the language-

word units and the use of proxies. 

Context, contextualization and language inequality. - The 

linguistic context (Rugova & Sejdiu Rugova 2015, p. 39-40.), as 

an implicit quote of the text, is new in a social communication 

context (Islamaj, 2014, p. 117-126.). Hence, linguistic change 

occurs with social change to reflect new social-linguistic contexts 

within language communication. In other words, the standard 

word of the standard language was not used at the time of the 

Albanian Language Scripting Congress and many years after the 

Congress, when in some other languages it had long stood; at least 

it was not used with the meaning that is used today. Thus, the 

standard word, standard language, standard norm, linguistic 

standard, in textbooks are written with the meaning of the literary 

language, the term that was used, is used and there are linguists 

who prefer it today. 

Contextualization is reconstruction by the sender's target 

recipient and it results from the text activation process by linking 

it to a context of use. This activation of text associated with a 

context of use would now be called discourse. Language 

inequality results from the different activation of the text on the 

same topic of each student. Activating the text reveals the degree 

of language competence, coherence and language cohesion and 

the elaborated language code (Hadson 2002, pp. 245.) and the 

same as the lack of language tools (Hadson 2002, p. 245.), the 

limited code and the linguistic deficit (Hadson 2002, p. 246.). 

Language Conformity and Language Inequality in Written Texts. 

- Language inequality, as mentioned above, appears in the written 

discourse and speech discourse. The text sublimates the ability 

and individual skills of writing, brainstorming, textual planning, 

coherence and linguistic cohesion, the degree of language 

learning, and vice versa, through which it shows latencies, lack of 

language skills, limited code a linguistic deficit (Hadson 2002, p. 

246.). Through the written discourse, more than anything else 

comes up with the language culture of the individual. Generally, 

depending on education as a requirement of the education system 

and individual sentiment, the desire to master the language better, 

the students reveal the level of use of standard language including 

the measured linguistic inequality.  Even when language use by 

students is within the "linguistic conformism" and conditionally 

accurate, even then there is a language inequality. As in other 

cases, the inequality results from linguistic individualism to 

express the same meaning. 

Hadson (2002, p. 57.) mentions language inequality even when 

"The same person can use very different linguistic units to express 

more or less the same meaning in different instances" and adds 

that "the concept of dialect logically cannot be extended as far as  

to include such a variation "(Hadson 2002, p. 57.). The linguistic, 

morphological, syntax and stylistic aspect, the individual 

language processing code, and the standard rate teaching of the 

language planning in education (Holmes 2015, 138.) on the one 

hand, and the sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic aspect, 

individuality and degree of conformity to conformism language, 

on the other hand, constitute the elements (indicators) of 

measuring language inequality. 

Language inequality is relative. It is relative, because everyone 

who writes or speaks, under certain conditions has his own 

linguistic individuality, has a customized (lexicon) word 

"confirmed" by others. We always talk to those who have normal 

language communication conditions. 

 

Conclusion 

When talking about language competence we refer more to Noam 

Chomsky (Hadson 2002, p. 244.). What is the language 

competence, referring to the word itself, raises even more the 

question of what is not the language competence? Lack of 

language is out of the question. Lack of language may be 

language inequality.  

 

Lack of language is a kind of language inequality. Language 

inequality has a wider and multifaceted meaning, with few 

interpretations. Insufficient reading and lack of speaking activity 

of individual speaker increases language inequality in relation to 

those who read, write and speak (interpret and elaborate). 

 

The habit of informal language use do not define all inequality 

because the same speaker in another circumstance can use the 

language standard and reach a high degree of linguistic 

competence. According to this measure, students of Albanian 

language who in the first year, besides a certain degree of 



 

 5 

language possession in its written and spoken system, also exhibit 

linguistic inequality. 

 

Language inequality is distinguished both in written discourse 

and speech discourse. The text sublimates the individual ability 

and versatility of writing, brainstorming, planning, coherence, 

and linguistic cohesion. Through the written discourse emerges 

the language culture of the individual, it is known, depending on 

the education as a requirement of the education system,  

dedication and individual sensitivity to the desire to know the 

language better. 

 

"The same person can use very different linguistic units to express 

more or less the same meaning in different cases and the concept 

of dialectically cannot be extended to include such variation" 

(Hadson, 2002, p. 57.). 

 

Language inequality is relative. It is relative, because everyone 

who speaks, under certain conditions, has a linguistic 

individuality of its own. We always talk to those who have normal 

communication conditions.  

 

The results of this paper reveal student language inequality and 

the use of standard language in written discourse and speech 

discourse. They are summarized in these measuring indicators on 

the written text, reading and interpreting the text on the subject. 

 

 

References 

 

1. Baylon Ch. & Mignot, X., 2004. Komunikimi, Shkup. 

2. Dë Sosyr, F., 1977. Kurs i gjuhëssë së përgjithshme, 

Prishtinë. 

3. Grup autorësh, 2002. Gamatika e gjuhës shqipe I, 

Tiranë. 

4. Holmes, J., 2015. Hyrje në sociolinguistikë, Tiranë. 

5. Hudson, R. A., 2002. Sociolinguistika, Tiranë. 

6. Islamaj, Sh., 2014. Gjuha teksti dhe konteksti, 

Prishtinë.  

7. Ismajli, R., 2003. Standarde dhe identitete, Pejë. 

8. Kostallari, A., 1973. Gjuha e sotme letrare shqipe dhe 

disa problem themelore të drejtshkrimit të saj, Tiranë. 

9. Lafe, E., 1983. Rreth normës së sotme në formimin e 

shumësit të emrave, Probleme aktuale të kulturës së 

gjuhës shqipe, Prishtinë. 

10. Lloshi, Xh., 2012. Stilistika e gjuhës shqipe, Tiranë. 

11. Martine, A., 1983. Elemente të gjuhësisë së 

përgjithshme, Prishtinë. 

12. Memushaj, R., 2008. Gjuhësia gjenerative, Tiranë. 

13. Ndreca, M., 1986. Fjalor fjalësh e shprehjesh të 

huaja, Prishtinë. 

14. Nuhiu, V., 1990. Ndikimet ndërgjuhësore, Prishtinë. 

15. Paҫarizi, Rr., 2011. Shqipja standarde në parametrat 

sociolinguistikë, Prishtinë. 

16. Ronald, B., 2008. Aventuara semiologjike, Pejë, 2008.  

17. Shala, F., 2018. Konformizmi gjuhësor dhe përdorimi 

i gjuhës standarde, Perla, Tiranë. 

18. Shkurtaj, Gj., 2009. Sociolinguistikë e shqipes, Tiranë. 

 

 

 

 

 


	1. Language inequality and the use of standard language
	Conclusion
	References