Bringing informal standardization to the forefrontThe term 'standardization' typically refers to the endeavor of codifying linguistic norms and establishing a prescriptive set of rules, usually encompassing a dictionary, grammar and orthography that define what is considered the 'best language' (in the Anglo-Saxon tradition) or le bon usage (in the Romance tradition).As a result, a standard language can be perceived as something quite tangible, often manifesting in the form of multi-volume dictionaries, orthography treatises, and grammar books.However, this perspective on standardization focuses only on the (presumed) endpoint of a much broader narrative-a story that often begins much earlier and may not conclude with codification (no 'happy ending', one might say).Whereas codified standard languages, defined by prescriptive norms, are frequently regarded as artificial, they are typically not created ex nihilo.Instead, they are the outcome of choices reflecting the linguistic preferences of a particular social elite.In this sense, formal standardization nearly always follows the emergence of usage norms, accompanied by an increasingly conscious understanding of which variants belong to, or should be excluded from, the community's concept of the 'best language'.As indicated in the title of this thematic focus, "Informal standardization and the regionalization of language norms", the articles compiled here, along with this introduction, aim to highlight a recent trend in linguistic standardology: the study of informal standardization processes, or, in other words, the emergence of usage norms.While informal standardization processes can be examined in historical contexts-illuminating the variant selection that preceded the codification of today's languages-this issue specifically focuses on the informal standardization processes by which new standard languages (or 'neo-standard languages') emerge alongside already codified standard languages in contemporary language cultures.The studies presented in this issue cover developments in French, Portuguese and Spanish as well as German, examining the diverse linguistic practices that contribute to the emergence of oral standard languages.They also explore the coexistence and frequent competition between these oral standard languages and codified written standard languages, along with the representations, attitudes, and linguistic insecurities that arise among speakers as a result.Furthermore, the articles study the fact that, in many-if not most-cases, informal standardization involves both a vernacularization and a regionalization of linguistic standards.This process leads to the reevaluation of diaphasically or diatopically marked variants-that is, endogenous variants in pluricentric scenarios-previously considered (or even stigmatized) as sub-standard, now being recognized as standard forms.In the following, we will first outline the specific vocabulary, both old and new, used to describe the increasingly complex reality of formal and especially informal standardization (section 2).We will then contextualize these processes in historical terms (section 3).Finally, section 4 will provide an overview of the contributions to this thematic focus. How to describe an ever more complex reality of linguistic standardnessThe most important distinction to be made in the field of standardization contrasts informal standardization with formal standardization, as first delineated by Stewart (1968Stewart ( [1962]]: 534).Whereas informal standardization refers to the 'natural' evolution of linguistic standards, i.e. to the observable regularizations within language usage that lead to the emergence of variants considered exemplary by speakers, the explicit setting of standards that may follow it is known as formal standardization or codification, as it is more commonly referred to (cf.Lebsanft /