Anonymous“Again we seem to be looking at multiple Standard Englishes - dialects of a dialect/sociolect, so to speak.”
It is the classic problem of how far you go in classification. If one is comparing the styles of two different writers, or perhaps 'schools' of writers, it is perfectly legitimate to point out the differences. A newspaper may for example have a 'house style' that differs from that of another newspaper. I do not think that justifies us in saying that there are two different dialects or even sociolects.
'Standard English' involves some continuity, but is nevertheless constantly changingly and within it at any given moment there are always possibilities. There is no hard and fast rule as to what Standard English is and to an extent it is what people say it is. Anyone who contributes to this forum by writing in Standard English, but says he does not know what it is, is really indulging in a bit of a game. Such a game helps us to concentrate our minds on what Standard English is and it is no bad thing to think carefully about any words and phrases we bandy about. The game can be fun, but it is getting a bit tiresome.
I cannot help feeling that behind many of the quotes thrown at us by Anon (whether he be one or many) there is an agenda that somehow wants to see English fragmented. Now of course all languages tend to fragment, though I think the process is slower for languages which enjoy widespread literacy. Some seem to want to accelerate this natural tendency to give whatever community they are interested in a unique voice - its own "English of many Englishes" - and perhaps thereby weaken over all the strength of English with a very captial "E". This is all very well, but forgets that language is above all about communication and is only after that an aspect of culture.
Let us embrace and rejoice in the many varieties of English, but at the same time not forget that all native English speakers really ought to be able to speak to each other without too much difficulty.