Chapter 2 examines criteria that people use when forming perceptions of how they and others have been treated is fair or unfair. One of the important criteria that people use is whether they were given sufficient opportunities to voice their opinions about important issues at stake. It is crucial that voiced opinions are given due consideration. Being treated in a polite and respectful manner by people, and especially people of power, is also among the core criteria for evaluating procedural fairness. Generally being treated in a fair and just manner by competent and professional authorities is also among the important criteria of perceived procedural fairness. Taken together, perceived procedural fairness boils down to feeling to be a full-fledged member of your community and society and, ideally, the entire world.

Chapter 6 points out that people’s searching for information plays an important role in understanding different forms of distrust. People especially tend to be oriented toward what authorities think of them, in part because authorities have power over people and can exclude them from important groups or grant them permission to become full-fledged members of those groups. Furthermore, how institutions evaluate someone conveys important symbolic information whether they are viewed as a valuable member of society. In turn, when someone assesses or suspects that their views are not taken seriously into consideration, this increases the chances of distrust in the social institutions at hand, and the people representing those institutions. Processing information about what happens in society in an abstract way tends to facilitate the formation of distrusting attitudes. A central theme of this book is that fairness and justice are taking place where the individual meets the group. That is, whether your group (including your community and society) treats you in a fair way reflects how the group and important members of the group think of you. Experiencing concrete instances of unfair treatment has special significance and increases the chances of judgments of distrust to develop and flourish.

Chapter 3 explains the procedural guarantees established in the Agreement on Safeguards, including the transparency requirements of an initiation notice and a report setting forth the findings and conclusions, as well as due process guarantees for interested parties during the investigation, including the possibility of making submissions on the basis of public interest. The chapter also explains the complexities of the granting of confidential treatment to information provided by the interested parties, including the subsmission of non-confidential summaries.

Linguistic standardization has long preoccupied researchers from different sub-disciplines of linguistics, including historical, applied and sociolinguists, as well as those working on language policy. This Introduction outlines some of the key issues that run through the literature on standardization, as well as the chapters in this volume, and on which there has not always been a clear consensus. These include terminological issues, the relationship between written and spoken standards, the variability of the standard both synchronically and diachronically and the authorities on which standard languages are based. We consider how traditional models are being reviewed and challenged by opening up the scope and type of case studies to embrace multilingual situations, minoritized languages and transnational contexts. Traditional standardization narratives are also being questioned through consideration of standardization ‘from below’. Standard languages play an important role in the legal and educational systems, bringing opportunities but also challenges. We conclude by discussing a number of symptoms of the increased ‘democratization’ of standardization, such as online and digital channels, and the emergence of ‘unofficial spoken standards’.

Early eighteenth-century dictionaries departed from the hard-word tradition to include common words for a wider and expanding audience. Bailey s dictionaries (1721, 1730) provided comprehensive coverage of information of all kinds, not only linguistic, but were found lacking in clarity and lexicographic sophistication. Increasing desire for an authoritative standard for the language prompted Johnson s work on his dictionary of 1755. In this dictionary, he raised the standards of lexicography in regard to definitions (especially multiple ones), phrasal verbs, and other aspects, including the illustration of usage through the use of written authorities; however, he abandoned his hopes and intentions of fixing the language (prescriptivism) in the midst of his work, turning to a more descriptive model of English written usage. The change in method and approach occurred after the failure of his attempts to order literary and other written material he consulted into pre-ordained structures of definition. Concerns for proper speaking and spelling became louder throughout the century, because of the rapidly increasing and increasingly mobile population, as well as the Act of Union of 1707, uniting England and Scotland. Dictionary makers increasingly included guides to pronunciation and spelling in reaction to these concerns, and numerous pronouncing dictionaries appeared from mid-century onwards.