The first myth is the belief that the way in which someone uses their language reflects upon their intelligence. Now, as a myth, one might assume that this one bears merit after observing modern society and social connotations. In some ways, it does. However, one must have a clear definition of intelligence. Is intelligence the ability to recall clear-cut rules established throughout education? Or, is it more mental ability: the scope and potential of an individual's thoughts and perspective? Shakespeare was famous for his liberal take on the English language, his notoriety for coining new terms unparalleled throughout the language, yet he is also heralded as a master of the quill - one would not assume him to be lacking in intelligence simply because he did not stick to the dictation of language at the time. Another, more contemporary, example to be held in argument for this point is that which Hall, Smith and Wicaksono highlight: the modern day IQ tests. IQ is commonly held as an indicator of one’s intelligence, the measuring unit. Then why is it that these tests are often comprised of mathematical, orthographical or grammar-related questions?  Hall, Smith, and Wicaksono (2011, p.10) state “None of these attributes are present in the test-taker because of their intelligence.” The work of Bernstein (1960) also supports this view as he denotes that the role of intelligence in the use of language is the ability to exploit more successfully the wider forms of language use, not in that language use in itself is a bold indicator of one’s intelligence. Bernstein makes this analysis as part of a broader series of research around the subject of language and social class – a possible source of the myth. As was previously mentioned, observing social connotations and modern society, it is easy to append a certain type of speech to a ‘social class’, in turn attaching the stereotypes of that class to that manner of diction.

The final myth this portfolio will cover is that, ‘some groups of people don’t use their language properly’. Hall, Smith and Wicaksono outline this with the theory that a ‘standard language’ has to be present for the perceived improper use to be pertinent. How do we then define this standard language? One might argue that ‘standard language’ is as we have discussed in the myth regarding written language: that it is the tongue of the elite and almost like a centre of power. In English, we can observe this that the common colloquialism “the Queen’s English” is in reference to the Received Pronunciation and standard form. However, if one is to assume that this is the ‘correct’ form, then what is it that makes any deviating form incorrect? Certainly, a standard form persists as this is what we use as a baseline. It is what children are marked on in school, what legal documents are penned in, what even most novels are constructed in. This becomes a ‘dead end’, however, when one starts to perceive any deviating form as problematic and wrong. Take, for example, the presence of regional accents and the assumptions people make on those who speak with them; or, more broadly, those from outside the UK who speak with altered forms of English. At one point, it would be unheard of for the BBC to broadcast a news report with the presenter bearing even a slightly regional accent. If one form of English is perceived to be superior, to be ‘correct’, then this distinctly hinders the progress of the study of language, the teaching of language and even the evolution of the language itself. The attached video, while being a comedy skit, is an example of this myth in popular culture.