In this fourth edition of their much respected publication Authority in language, James Milroy & Lesley Milroy introduce a new tenth chapter, appearing as an afterword, that builds a broader understanding of the significance of language ideology as a product of sociohistorical conditioning. Language ideology is closely connected with the theme of linguistic prescriptivism and standardization, as covered in the title. Chs. 1 through 9 are left unaltered, attesting to the relevance of the material ten years on from the third edition, published in 1999.

The sociolinguistic research produced by Milroy & Milroy is held to be among the most important in the field, and, in this volume, emphasis is placed on sociolinguistic inquiry to help inform attitudes to linguistic correctness, which impacts upon both language prescriptivism and standardization. As language prescriptivism is dependent on an ideology concerning language use, it is fitting that Milroy & Milroy produce a tenth chapter on the broader significance of ideology as it is understood in the current sociolinguistic literature.

Chs. 1 and 2 examine prescriptive attitudes towards language, and how these attitudes influence standardization. The modern “complaint tradition” and prescriptivism surrounding Standard English are explored, and it is demonstrated that, typically, language attitudes stand informed by a wider set of societal norms. Prescriptivism is then further investigated in Chs. 3 and 4 by comparing written text (i.e. grammaticality judgments) and spoken language (i.e. regional variation), where it is emphasized that the ideology of the standard has tended towards the promotion of minimal variation in form across both styles; this is explained to be inherently problematic in the cases of spontaneous speech. In Ch. 5, linguistic variation along the interspeaker dimension is examined more closely in connection with prescriptive complaint. Examples are taken from several varieties of English, and include a case study on the so-called Ebonics debate, where prescriptivism was framed within the context of education. The notion that perceptions relating to language ability are usually based on a very narrow range of styles is the principal concern of Chs. 6 and 7, where the intraspeaker dimension is assessed by scrutinizing communicative competence and speech events, and their implications for perceived incorrectness in language use. Ch. 8 then considers the implications of linguistic prescriptivism within the context of language assessment practices in both Britain and America. It is suggested that the differing application of such tests can impact upon the future of individuals in very different ways; the corollary is that an uninformed understanding of linguistic variation can ultimately hinder social mobility. Ch. 9 contains an up-to-date assessment of standard language ideology from a British and American perspective, where contrasting interpretations of “standard” are explored in accordance with the very disparate sociohistorical developments that have shaped the arguments developed in earlier chapters.

This is an excellent and very readable book that should appeal to individuals interested in the debate on linguistic prescriptivism. Undergraduates too would find this book a useful introduction to research in the field.