| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| David |
A theoryI have this theory. Since the advent of the telephone, airplane, and World Wide Web, dialects have come into closer contact with each other, and languages are starting to become more standardized. Because of this, do you think there will be less dramatic changes in languages evolution from now on? Will the English of 500 years from now be as different as Late Middle English is to Modern English? |
||||||||||
| Travis |
I would strongly disagree with the assertion that dialects have come closer to each other since the the advert of modern mass communications across the board. In some cases, such as hexagonal France and Germany, for instance, there has been clear loss of linguistic diversity, but does not seem applicable to the case of English, and this has not taken the form of dialects "becoming closer together" but rather the form of more standard forms of more widely spoken languages replacing more regional varieties. In the case of North American English, for instance, dialects have been clearly diverging in even just the last fifty years alone, with, for instance, Midwestern and Californian dialects which had been very similar overall fifty years ago having since developed the parallel and opposite Northern Cities Vowel Shift and California Vowel Shift. On a more general scale, there appears to be no net loss of linguistic diversity in English in North America, and rather there seems to be a net increase of linguistic diversity, with there being things such as increased dialectization within areas of dialects, in particular in the western US, which had little differentiation fifty years ago.
That said, in the case of English the thing is that this hard to really say, since one has to qualify it in terms of which dialect of English, as English will only become less unified over time, and yet we really cannot foresee how Anglic dialects 500 years from now will be. On average, though, I would probably not expect the same degree of difference as with Late Middle English due to the sheer effect of the Great Vowel Shift alone being atypical of the entire period between Late Middle English and present-day English, but I would expect a rate of change similar to that between Early New English and present-day English. Of course, though, there are number of chain-shifts going on in North American English at the present which, when taken to their final conclusions, will not only result in significantly increased differences from Early New English but will also result in markedly increased differences between dialects within North American English. |
||||||||||
| André in Zuid-Afrika |
Welcome back, Travis!! Good to see you around again!!   
|
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
What do you mean ? |
||||||||||
| Travis |
To put things short, the replacement of Oïl dialects other than French, Occitan dialects, and other regional languages with Standard French in France and the replacement of Low Saxon and East Low German dialects with Standard German in Germany. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
What California vowel shift are you referring to? I can't think of anything remotely similar to the Great Vowel shift during the transition from middle English to modern English in today's world. And how has California English diverged more recently than before? Most people in California speak General American, except for some ethnic minorities who speak Ebonics or whatever else. |
||||||||||
| Elaine |
He, of course, is referring to the California Vowel Shift that is still in its infancy and that linguists have only recently begun to study. You can find info on this phenomenon in the following articles: http://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead/change/changin/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_English |
||||||||||
| Travis |
The California Vowel Shift is one of a number of ongoing vowel chainshifts in North American English today, alongside the better-known and longer-active Northern Cities Vowel Shift, the Canadian Vowel Shift, and the Southern Vowel Shift. Note that while these have not advanced to the degree that the Great Vowel Shift did, and the only one of these which has really advanced significantly is the Northern Cities Vowel Shift, all of these chainshifts, except for the Canadian Vowel Shift, affect just as wide a range of vowels as the Great Vowel Shift. As there is no signs of these slowing down, it is only a matter of time until these have a greater impact upon North American English dialects than they do today. In the case of the NCVS, for instance, it is clear that it is currently expanding the area in which it is active. One must remember that aside from the NCVS these are actually quite new, with the California Vowel Shift having originated only about 25 years ago, and even the NCVS only began about 50 years ago. If one extrapolates these a century or so into the future, the small impact that these may have had today (besides in the case of the NCVS which already has had a significant impact upon affected dialects) is not so small.
Calling what is spoken in California today "General American" is simply using the term as a catchall for anything which does not sound too marked to the average North American, and has little to do with how the term is used by linguists. It is easy to call one's own dialect such if one perceives it subjectively as "unaccented", one must remember. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
You are comparing apples to oranges. You said Northern-American Anglophony was heading towards linguistic diversity — which remains to be proved as your illustration only consisted of hinting vowel change affecting Northern-American *English*. Then you made a sort of parallel with European Francophony as opposed to languages of France *other than French*. I think your comparison should take into account either [1] Northern-American English with respect to Amerindian languages (for instance) and European French with respect to France's non-French languages or, else, [2] variation within Northern-American Anglophony and variation within European Francophony, to be valid. |
||||||||||
| Travis |
Yes, I was primarily speaking in terms of North American English, since the original post was concerning English and the NAE dialect continuum is the group of English dialects which I am by far the most familiar with. Yes, there has been very great loss of linguistic diversity with respect to Amerindian languages in the last couple centuries or so, but since I was concerning future change of diversity within English, I did not take such into consideration. As for my examples, while you are right that the mention of the replacement of minority languages in France other than other Oïl languages is probably not the best of comparisons, I do not think that the mention of the replacement of Oïl dialects with Standard French and Low Saxon and East Low German dialects with Standard German is off-topic. Rather, such is akin to the historic loss of dialect diversity within the Anglic dialects through the replacement of Scots dialects with English after the union of England and Scotland, and thus is still on-topic if one considers Anglic dialects in general here and likewise considers Oïl dialects and non-Anglo-Frisian West Germanic dialects in general here as well. |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Which, in passing, sends us back to a previous topic on Langcafé about the difference between dialect & language. For instance, Picard wasn't a minority language in 16th-century Picardy. There it was a majority language "split up" in various dialects. So French replaced a majority language in Picardy — or perhaps a set of Picard dialects, which all were a majority fact in their respective areas, where French had always been a foreign language. To various degrees, European Germanophony, Anglophony & Francophony as we've known them are partially a consequence of the emergence, then hegemony, of a posteriori national languages serving as pseudonorms. Of course language appropriation means each pseudonorm ends up dialectalised to some degree. So that's an extra layer of linguistic diversity. In short, you now find Marseillais French in addition to Marseilles' Provençal. That the latter has practically been eclipsed by the former doesn't mean there's less diversity : it only means that diversity has changed. |
||||||||||
| Travis |
Tis true; calling Picard a minority language is from a present-day perspective, not the perspective of the time at which it began to be replaced by French.
Of course, but that does not mean that there is more diversity in practice after the fact than before it. For instance, just because there is a local English that is quite distinct from General American here in southeastern Wisconsin today does not mean that there is the same amount of linguistic diversity here as before the loss of the Amerindian language(s) spoken here historically and later the loss of immigrant languages such as High German and Low German languages and Polish (the occasional old person who still speaks such aside). Such is still infinitely closer to the dominant Standard English (in the general sense of the term) than anything else that was spoken here historically even though it has plenty of innovations relative to it and does have non-negligible substratum influences. |
||||||||||
| Porthos |
I read the PBS link Elaine posted and I can't say I recognize the attributes of California English the article speaks of. The "bit-bet-bat" thing is something I've never heard, and I have been all over this great state. I've not heard this in Death Valley, Bakersfield, San Jose, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Diego, Eureka, or anywhere else for that matter. What are they talking about? | ||||||||||
| Deborah |
I hear it all the time. You may not be aware of it, since you were born after it started happening, but to someone of my generation, it's very noticeable. I hear many young people saying what sounds like "latter" for "letter", for example. |
||||||||||
| Travis |
I strongly concur - individuals very often do not perceive the phonological features of their own dialects as marked, and may very well think of such as being "standard" even when such most definitely isn't. I would have to say that in my own case, it was only relatively recently (past few years) that I became really aware of much of the phonology of my own dialect and how it differed from General American, having for the longest time thought that I spoke something relatively "standard" with respect to phonology. |
||||||||||
| Yelina |
We often do not pronounce the good way either in French. For example, we never say "au revoir" but "en revoir", we don't pronounce "non" but "nan". And I remember of a guy in my class who, during a dictation, wrote "en revoir" instead of "au revoir". |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
What you should understand here is that saying en revoir is not 'bad', and that saying au revoir is not 'good'. Likewise, Deborah was not suggesting that pronouncing letter more like latter was 'bad' either. |
||||||||||
| Yelina |
That's not what I meant. I just wanted to say that when we talk, we also "deform" the original pronounciation. It's clear that it became natural to say "en revoir" instead of "au revoir" and we do not consider this as a mistake (just when it comes of writing). The similar problem happens with the negation form "NE PAS". I don't hear anymore someone who pronounces a negative form the right way. Even foreigners who are learning omit the "NE" in their sentences. Orally, that's no longer considered as a mistake. And as I was saying to a friend, it even becomes odd to hear someone saying it in the sentence. Donc en conclusion, je NE disais pas que prononcer "en revoir" était mauvais, je soulignais juste que nous aussi, nous faisons des "erreurs" de pronounciation. La seule différence qu'il y ait, est que nous ne pouvons pas confondre les mots comme dans le cas anglais (letter/latter). |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Mais c'est quoi, la prononciation « originale » ? Je crois que je comprends ce que tu veux dire —, que la langue evolue. Mais par ailleurs, il faut bien reconnaître que l'évolution linguistique et bien la diversité linguistique ne constituent ni des « déformations » ni des erreurs.
Cela ne pose pas nécessairement de problème. Par exemple, pour moi, comme quelqu'un qui provient du centre de l'Angleterre, les mots « sauce » et « source » se prononcent identiquement. Mais pour un Écossais, un Irlandais, ou bien un anglophone nord-américain, la différence est d'habitude évidente. |
||||||||||
| Yelina |
Oui, la langue évolue. Mais dans notre cas, ce c'est pas une évolution linguistique. Ce n'est qu'un problème de prononciation. Tu ne verras personne écrire "en revoir" (sauf quelques illétrés peut-être). Hors, je considère que si c'était vraiment une évolution linguistique, nous pourrions écrire "en revoir" sans que se soit considéré comme une faute.
La prononciation correcte est "au revoir". Juste comme ça, quand toi tu le prononces, laquelle des deux occurences dis-tu? |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Mais non. C'est que la langue a changé un petit peu, au moins dans certains cas.
Il me semble donc que tu ne comprends pas la science linguistique. C'est la langue parlée qui est naturelle (sauf les langues artificielles comme l'espéranto), tandis que la langue écrite est créée. Et bien que la langue écrite essaye de réprésenter la langue parlée, c'est souvent plus conservateur, surtout en ce qui concerne le français et l'anglais. (Je ne parle que des langues qui utilisent un alphabet).
Qui a l'autorité de prescrire que c'est nécéssairement la seule prononciation correcte, particulièrement si l'on considère que beaucoup de gens disent « en revoir » ?
Je le prononce très souvent comme « en revoir » en fait. |
||||||||||
| Yelina |
Ce n'est pas parce que la langue parlée est naturelle, qu'elle est pour autant correcte. Si tu te penches sur l'éthymologie du mot "au revoir", ça veut dire "à la prochaine fois" tandis que "en revoir" ne veut rien dire.
De toute façon je crois que je n'arriverai pas à te faire comprendre ce que je veux dire, donc j'arrête ma conversation ici. Qui a l'autorité de prescrire que c'est nécéssairement la seule prononciation correcte, particulièrement si l'on considère que beaucoup de gens disent « en revoir » ? Ce sont messieurs Bescherelle et Bled! 
[/quote] |
||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Je crois que oui. C'est-à-dire que je ne crois pas qu'il soit possible pour quelqu'un de parler « incorrectement » sa langue maternelle —, à moins que l'on ait l'intention de modifier artificiellement sa langue maternelle (ce qui en fait ne serait plus vraiment sa langue maternelle, et pas naturelle non plus).
C'est vrai, bien sûr. Mais il n'est pas nécessaire que l'éthymologie d'un mot ou d'une phrase soutienne l'usage actuel pour que l'usage actuel soit encore « correct ». Je connais beaucoup de ces sorts de cas, surtout entre l'anglais et l'allemand. Par exemple, l'anglais yet et l'allemand jetzt sont éthymologiquement identiques. Pourtant, l'usage de ce mot en anglais n'est pas de nos jours semblable à celui en allemand, parce que yet signifie « encore/toujours/déjà » (il n'y a pas de traduction directe en français), alors que jetzt veut dire « maintenant ».
Au contraire, « en revoir » veut dire « au revoir » pour ceux qui l'utilisent pour signifier cela. Si j'étais un francophone maternel qui vivait dans un environnement où presque tout le monde dit principalement « en revoir », ça serait comment je le prononcerait aussi. Ça serait donc correct dans ma langue natale. Je n'ai pas spécifiquement étudié l'usage de « en revoir » par rapport à « au revoir », mais il me semble qu'il est possible que l'on n'ait que changé la prononciation, plutôt que l'on commence littéralement à remplacer au avec en dans ce cas.
Mais non.  Nos amis Louis-Michel, Édouard et Odette n'ont pas le droit de prescrire aux autres comment ils devraient parler leur langue maternelle.
|
||||||||||
| Deborah |
Ah, the old prescriptivism/descriptivism argument crops up again. At least this time it's in French!
It seems to me that the etymology of "good-bye" has some relevance to this discussion: good-bye 1591, from godbwye (1573), itself a contraction of God be with ye, infl. by good day, good evening, etc. (From the Online Etymological Dictionary) |
||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
L'apparition de /ÃRvwaR/ = /ɑ̃ʁvwaʁ/ — je n'utiliserai pas la graphie <en revoir>, ni même <anrvoar> — est une variation phonétique de /ORvwaR/ = /ɔʁvwaʁ/ qui s'écrit <au revoir>, de même que /tal9R/ = /talœʁ/ et /adtal9R/ = /adtalœʁ/ sont des occurences sonores pour <à tout à l'heure>, soit /atutal9R/ = /atutalœʁ/.
Pour moi, les variations du type /ÃRvwaR/ = /ɑ̃ʁvwaʁ/ ne sont rien d'autre que des fogiélismes — je rigole, mais y a de ça. Des fogiélismes du type de ceux qu'on retrouve dans les Guignols de l'info : « Guy-aaah ». 
Sont-y pas mignons tous les deux ? |
||||||||||
| Yelina |
Sont-y pas mignons tous les deux ?[/quote] Ils sont trop mignons! Je crois qu'ils représentent un des plus beaux couples de la télévision française!
|
||||||||||