Evaluate the idea that British Standard English is superior to other varieties of English used around the world

 Fundamentally, this idea that British standard English as 'superior' is inherently flawed despite the quantity of theories, namely Kachru and Strevens, who imply that the root of English can be traced back to British standard English and thereby acting as some pinnacle form. However, a much stronger argument, that fits more with our growing diverse society, is that each English variety should be accepted through it's own innovative use: as suggested by Plat et al in 1984. A variation can become so distinct that it becomes incomparable to a 'British standard', thus putting to question how a variation could be superior. An example of this could be Hinglish, Hindu-English, where this becomes a child's native language. Purposive language could be a factor for detecting 'superiority' in a variety, however, Hinglish has borrowed idioms and completely re-purposed them into a new understanding making the two semantics of the idiom completely incomparable to each other and in no way having the ability to suggest that one is 'superior' than the other with reasonable grounds of justification. This idea, which is also known as 'localisation' or 'nativisation' as suggested by Plat et al (1984), shows that language patterns are accommodated for specific purposes in society and are incomparable.This idea that language patterns and varieties change with society and with the understanding that the change happens to benefit society makes it really difficult to prove that one variation is superior than the other. Especially when the English language has changed, and continues to change, in exactly the same manner. From when it was a 'melting pot' of Anglo-Saxon-Germanic-Gaelic-French dialects in the between the 5-12th centuries, to when the standard became more experimental in the 16th century with the borrowed 'inkhorn terms'. Finally, to when English became 'standardised' by Swift and Lowth in the 18th centuries - noting that the acceptable grammar standardisation proposed has changed in numerous ways since then. It seems difficult therefore to be treating 'British Standard English' as a singular entity when it has changed, and continues to change, in every generation. Therefore, it seems difficult to suggest that this one changing standard that is superior to a another variety which is also undergoing the exact same process of change. It is much easier and stronger to accept that each variety has it's innovative purpose and should ought to be treated with respect rather than being placed into a hierarchical order.