I take the liberty of carrying on the very interesting discussion we had going about standard versus non-standard language from a somewhat Marxist viewpoint (mmm, it feels so cool to type that!). As a person very much prone to synthesis I can understand both Porthos' and everyone else's viewpoint quite well.
What I think Porthos should give some thought is how language is linked with power. If your variety is branded as "improper" this might deprive you of power in several ways:
- You might be so ashamed of your language that you avoid speaking in public etc. and thereby looses the power to stand up for yourself and voice your concerns.
- You might have to spend time learning the standard variety, time that native speakers of the standard variety can use for further education, i.e. you will lag behind.
Now, from a British point of view these facts are self-evident and untill recently very much present in society. But from an American point of view it might not be as evident, as the US has been a democracy and a land of immigrants from the beginning. In the US, the majority has always spoken the standard variety and not just a small elite, as in Britain. Thus it's logical that Americans have stronger prejudicsm against non-standard varieties. I also think it's very interesting that our two fierce prescriptists Porthos and loic both come from immigrant stock. Their views probably reflect immigrants' appreciation of one easily recognizable norm and a certain pride in having successfully succeeded in adopting that norm.
Porthos is sweetly, youthfully naïve when he thinks that what is true is also right. Pauline (and the rest of us English learners) should of course study standard English grammar, not because it's a god-given, divine ideal, but because we will benefit from it, even though it means that we indirectly acknowledge the standardizing power of certain past and present elites or majorities.
André in Zuid-Afrika
A sensible post, which will hopefully set the trend for this discussion, as compared to the previous one.
Quote:
- You might be so ashamed of your language that you avoid speaking in public etc. and thereby looses the power to stand up for yourself and voice your concerns.
True. In South Africa, many blacks are reluctant to speak their own languages, while they can't speak "proper" English or Afrikaans, so they struggle to convey their needs and concerns.
Quote:
You might have to spend time learning the standard variety, time that native speakers of the standard variety can use for further education, i.e. you will lag behind.
True again. The high failure rate of black students here is to a large extent attributed to the fact that they are forced to study in what is their second, third or even fourth or fifth language.
My own language developed because of people speaking another language "wrong". No language is stagnant, they are constantly evolving, and what is considered wrong today could be right tomorrow. So while you have the official, standard form of a language, you also have the various dialects, sociolects, and yes, the "informal" language of which much might become part of the "formal" language in future.
In my job, I'm required to use only the official standard version of Afrikaans. How I write for the newspaper, differs (slightly) from how I speak to my friends. Anyone who cannot speak or write the official version, won't get a job at any paper. And indeed, in most work places, at least a fairly good working knowledge of the standard language would be required. For example, people would be required to use the standard language when writing documents, but be free to use their own dialects when speaking.
Porthos did make one point which he got some flak for, but which I agree with. There are people who are simply sloppy speakers. That has nothing to do with dialects, socialects, or any other kind of -ect. And they're not always from a lower income group, or of inferiour education. They simply don't bother to speak (or write) properly. And that's just stupid.
Fredrik
Yes, true andré. I do agree that in some ways one can say that some native speakers speak their language badly or sloppily, at least with regard to syntax and especially vocabulary. When people just say "fucking" instead of the wide range of available adjectives, it's bad, in my subjective opinion. But if people make grammar mistakes, for example saying "you was" and things like that, I would rather call it inventive and as you say, a hint of how the language will develop in the future. Language is very economical and different verb forms for different persons and numbers isn't really necessary. It's a luxury that can be done away with, as Norwegian has and I also think Afrikaans has?
Pauline
I know that some people are lazy, and this include how they speak their native language, but to speak a non-standard dialect don't mean this but Porthos find that dialects are lazy, improper, subnormal speech: this is with which i disagree.
The other point I don't agree with Porthos is the importance to speak the standard version to be correct. There're two different groups in this case:
1. Native speakers
They are always correct, also in the dialect version what can be wth grammar considered incorrect in the standard version. There will be great variation - some people are eloquent others not, but this is another, separate thing that correct.
2. Non-native speakers
When they don't speak correctly the standard version then it's a mistake, also they must learn the standard one. Porthos wrote about my mistakes, but the discussion was about native speakers!!! Of course when I make mistakes in english they are *not* correct. I didn't never tell that it's okay how I write english and that there's no point to study the grammar!!! I learn it since little bit longer that one year, and I hope that it will improve.
I think that Porthos didn't separated this two groups of speakers, but it's an important differentiation.
What I agree with Porthos is that to speak the standard/ prestige version will (unfortunatly I think) create an impression of better educated, more intelligent etc...and that in some places it's more appropriate speaking this version that your dialect. In this sense it's good if you can switch, but of course there will remain an unjust advantage for those people who's native version is the standard. So, I agree with André about this.
The french language has the Academy who tell what is correct / incorrect. But despite it there are *very* many variations. In Belgium we've standard belgian french, but also many dialects as well as versions of walloon. At school you learn in standard belgian french and I know that if a belgian (walloon) will go to France and if the person would like a good job then they must adapt to speak french french (the version of France), to avoid to say the belgian things because immediatley the french will find that the person's stupid based on those elements of speech. I think that many belgians know to adapt to France-french in such situations, but nobody like it that this is the case.
So, I didn't want being nasty to Porthos and I'm sorry if it seemed it. But, i don't like such social snobbyness or exclusion, and I don't agree that dialects are subnormal or lazy. I can speak without effort standard belgian french or standard north France french, so I havn't this problem (in my language) but there are people who can't switch and there must absolutly not be discrimination. Probably in many languages there's this situation because discrimination and prejudice are evil and the most of human being have this things in him/her, unfortunatly
Fredrik
Pauline wrote:
1. Native speakers
They are always correct, also in the dialect version what can be wth grammar considered incorrect in the standard version. There will be great variation - some people are eloquent others not, but this is another, separate thing that correct.
Well said. I guess I have to admit that I'm actually prejudiced against people who aren't eloquent, i.e. people who don't take advantage of the richness of expression in their different varities.
I don't think Porthos tried to make fun of your English, Pauline, he was merely trying to illustrate his point with you as his example. I'm sure everybody agrees with me when I say that your English is very impressive if you've just been learning the language for one year! Your sometimes savage treatment of the syntax and grammar of English is quite amusing, as it gives your statements a probably unintended appearance of "stream of consciousness", like as if you were writing half asleep, like something from
"Ulysses" by James Joyce's (who is the Irish Thomas Mann, BTW!)
AND PS - I've just returned from a lecture on Norwegian dialects! Here dialects are taken very seriously....
Benjamin [inactive]
Re: Is language power?
Fredrik wrote:
What I think Porthos should give some thought is how language is linked with power. If your variety is branded as "improper" this might deprive you of power in several ways:
- You might be so ashamed of your language that you avoid speaking in public etc. and thereby looses the power to stand up for yourself and voice your concerns.
- You might have to spend time learning the standard variety, time that native speakers of the standard variety can use for further education, i.e. you will lag behind.
Now, from a British point of view these facts are self-evident and untill recently very much present in society.
This is so true. After all, it's only rather recently that Britain has started to become more of a meritocracy, as opposed to a snobocracy. But even now, I feel that a significant reason for why so many young people continue to fail English language exams here is because the percentage of people who really speak 'Standard British English' as their native language are a minority.
Fredrik wrote:
Thus it's logical that Americans have stronger prejudicsm against non-standard varieties.
That may be true. However, I do not believe that where a person is from justifies this sort of prejudice — although I do accept that I am perhaps in a more advantageous position to immediately understand this concept than Porthos is.
Fredrik wrote:
I also think it's very interesting that our two fierce prescriptists Porthos and loic both come from immigrant stock. Their views probably reflect immigrants' appreciation of one easily recognizable norm and a certain pride in having successfully succeeded in adopting that norm.
I also find it interesting that their recent ancestors (literally one or two generations) would not have spoken English as (one of) their first language(s).
Fredrik wrote:
Pauline (and the rest of us English learners) should of course study standard English grammar, not because it's a god-given, divine ideal, but because we will benefit from it, even though it means that we indirectly acknowledge the standardizing power of certain past and present elites or majorities.
Essentially, when people learn English, they usually learn one of the 'standard' varieties of English because they are the most widely understood. They are simply more practical than, say, Black Country dialect, which is tied intimately to a rather restricted geographical area.
Fredrik wrote:
But if people make grammar mistakes, for example saying "you was" and things like that, I would rather call it inventive and as you say, a hint of how the language will develop in the future.
Totally agree with you there as well. Interesting that you mentioned that, actually, because in Birmingham dialect, it's very normal to use 'was' after all numbers and persons. So people here often say 'you was', 'we was', 'they was', or even 'yous was' as a second person plural pronoun.
Pauline
Fredrik wrote:
I guess I have to admit that I'm actually prejudiced against people who aren't eloquent, i.e. people who don't take advantage of the richness of expression in their different varities.
Why not appreciate eloquence without prejudice against people who aren't? I think you refer a very narrow range;I have met people who can't talk at all, or, who construct language completely inintelligible. we *all* have limitations, if intelligence, education, opportunities, genetic, neurologic etc... but I agree that eloquence is beautiful, an art. Another thing: to speak or to write (for me) are completely separated, and I can write veyr much but speak, I can't sufficiently. I can physically speak, but many times I can't think something to say because my thoughts have disappeared. Are this things separated for you, or if you write much, then probably you speak this amount also?
Quote:
I don't think Porthos tried to make fun of your English, Pauline, he was merely trying to illustrate his point with you as his example.
Don't worry, I didn't perceive it this way. Yes, it was an illustration, but incorrect as we have discussed native speakers on the thread. Also, Porthos hasn't (much) experience of learn foreign languages -sometimes this is evident. Porthos, i know that we don't intend insulting each other!!!
Quote:
Your sometimes savage treatment of the syntax and grammar of English is quite amusing, as it gives your statements a probably unintended appearance of "stream of consciousness", like as if you were writing half asleep
It's completely unintended, also unaware of and not deliberalty. I don't write when I'm half asleep but maybe for the other people I would seem half in the reality. For sure this feeling vary for me as well -if I can concentrate or not. I looked up stream of consciousness, and I find this interesting. But when an author write this way, it would be like manipulation of thoughts: a conscious action.
Quote:
, like something from "Ulysses" by James Joyce's (who is the Irish Thomas Mann, BTW!)
LOL !!
Quote:
I've just returned from a lecture on Norwegian dialects! Here dialects are taken very seriously....
I like very much dialects!!! I think as well that you can discover more from the dialects that from the standard prescripted language.
Loic
Actually, I don't think Porthos and I have ever stepped forward and audaciously pronounced the inferiority of dialects. Note that I never once said that dialects are inferior. Calling them sloppy doesn't confer upon them a status of inferiority. It is sloppy because words are not properly enunciated, thus making it slightly unintelligible to outsiders.
I think there is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. I don't have the time to dig out the relevant post, but there was one in which George Bush made a sign language symbol that was slightly different from the standard version. Elaine jokingly speculated that he was mispronouncing in this case; Deborah gleefully agreed. Isn't this a dig at his dialect? At that moment, isn't Deborah insinuating that the dialect of George Bush is inferior and hence worthy of snide remarks?
Personally, I think English dialects are fascinating. However, I wonder if they are adequate to meet the demands of a modern society. What do I mean by that? For example, would it be possible for me to study engineering through the medium of the Birmingham dialect? Is the vocabulary rich enough to fully convey the meaning of technical terms? How would you translate Newton's First law of motion into the Brummie dialect: An object is forever in a state of rest or in perpetual motion unless acted on by a resultant force?
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Calling them sloppy doesn't confer upon them a status of inferiority. It is sloppy because words are not properly enunciated, thus making it slightly unintelligible to outsiders.
It seems that your definition of a 'non-standard' dialect involves words not being 'properly enunciated'. So what exactly is your definition of 'properly enunciated' in this sense?
loic wrote:
Personally, I think English dialects are fascinating. However, I wonder if they are adequate to meet the demands of a modern society. What do I mean by that? For example, would it be possible for me to study engineering through the medium of the Birmingham dialect? Is the vocabulary rich enough to fully convey the meaning of technical terms? How would you translate Newton's First law of motion into the Brummie dialect: An object is forever in a state of rest or in perpetual motion unless acted on by a resultant force?
If new technical terms are needed, then they can always be created or borrowed, but used according to the grammar and pronunciation of the dialect. I think you'll notice that many of the words used in Newton's first law of motion there are actually not even of Germanic origin anyway.
There's no reason why those words you quoted above cannot be used in Birmingham dialect. However, there should not be any need to alter one's overall pronunciation, grammar and non-technical vocabulary simply when using them. You're right that that sentence would not sound very natural in Birmingham dialect, but it doesn't seem very natural to me either, and I speak RP.
Pauline
International termnology is introduced into languages, (standard or dialects) for exemple television is the same in *many* languages. It seem that most technologic terminology is international. I suppose that all native speakers can express all those things like Newton's first Law of motion in their language (standard / dialect). I don't think that dialects are lesser able for this. Anyway, when exaclty is a language separate or a dialect? With the logic that only standard language can express certain things, when a language before regarded as dialect become a language then *suddenly* like abracadabra it can express those things.This is clearly not possible. I think the only languages (dialects) not capable to express such things, are languages deliberatly simplified by non-native speakers therefore not the standard version of the language or dialect!!!
I think that dialect has nothing to see with sloppyness or not properly enunciated. the inintelligibility can be because of differences of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary etc...
Deborah
loic wrote:
I think there is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. I don't have the time to dig out the relevant post, but there was one in which George Bush made a sign language symbol that was slightly different from the standard version. Elaine jokingly speculated that he was mispronouncing in this case; Deborah gleefully agreed. Isn't this a dig at his dialect? At that moment, isn't Deborah insinuating that the dialect of George Bush is inferior and hence worthy of snide remarks?
No one's making fun of George Bush's dialect -- at least, I'm not. A person's individual, occasional bloopers are just that -- bloopers. Bush just happens to make a lot of bloopers. And I'm not talking about pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular".
André in Zuid-Afrika
Fredrik wrote:
Yes, true andré. I do agree that in some ways one can say that some native speakers speak their language badly or sloppily, at least with regard to syntax and especially vocabulary. When people just say "fucking" instead of the wide range of available adjectives, it's bad, in my subjective opinion. But if people make grammar mistakes, for example saying "you was" and things like that, I would rather call it inventive and as you say, a hint of how the language will develop in the future. Language is very economical and different verb forms for different persons and numbers isn't really necessary. It's a luxury that can be done away with, as Norwegian has and I also think Afrikaans has?
Totally agree. As I said, what's wrong today may be right tomorrow. If it becomes a trend that people say "you was", it could be only a matter of time before it becomes standard. But only if it becomes a trend, and a permanent trend at that. Sometimes trends like these disappear again after a while, and never becomes part of the standard language. A requirement is that it should become widely used and accepted.
Sloppy use of language seldom becomes standard, for the very reason that it's not widely accepted. Quite frankly, it irritates me when people speak sloppy, it just sounds bad.*
And you're right, Afrikaans has done away with different verb forms for different persons, reduced the tenses to only three (and even simplified that) and a lot of other things we deemed unnecessary.
I want to emphasise that I strictly mean native language speakers, not people who are still learning a language.
Elaine
Deborah wrote:
loic wrote:
I think there is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. I don't have the time to dig out the relevant post, but there was one in which George Bush made a sign language symbol that was slightly different from the standard version. Elaine jokingly speculated that he was mispronouncing in this case; Deborah gleefully agreed. Isn't this a dig at his dialect? At that moment, isn't Deborah insinuating that the dialect of George Bush is inferior and hence worthy of snide remarks?
No one's making fun of George Bush's dialect -- at least, I'm not. A person's individual, occasional bloopers are just that -- bloopers. Bush just happens to make a lot of bloopers. And I'm not talking about pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular".
That's right. Neither I nor Deborah were mocking Bush's dialect, but rather his well-documented tendency to misspeak, which in my opinion, has little to do with his dialect, but more to do with his lack of eloquence, which, I might add, is strange for someone of his background and Ivy League schooling. <-- probably my longest sentence to date!
André in Zuid-Afrika
Elaine wrote:
Deborah wrote:
loic wrote:
I think there is a fair bit of hypocrisy here. I don't have the time to dig out the relevant post, but there was one in which George Bush made a sign language symbol that was slightly different from the standard version. Elaine jokingly speculated that he was mispronouncing in this case; Deborah gleefully agreed. Isn't this a dig at his dialect? At that moment, isn't Deborah insinuating that the dialect of George Bush is inferior and hence worthy of snide remarks?
No one's making fun of George Bush's dialect -- at least, I'm not. A person's individual, occasional bloopers are just that -- bloopers. Bush just happens to make a lot of bloopers. And I'm not talking about pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular".
That's right. Neither I nor Deborah were mocking Bush's dialect, but rather his well-documented tendency to misspeak, which in my opinion, has little to do with his dialect, but more to do with his lack of eloquence, which, I might add, is strange for someone of his background and Ivy League schooling. <-- probably my longest sentence to date!
Might he fall into the category of people who speak sloppy?
Deborah
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Might he fall into the category of people who speak sloppy?
He's not my idea of a sloppy speaker. If I had to come up with some way of speaking that I might call "sloppy" (since I don't usually think of speech that way), it would be mumbling and letting the ends of your sentences fade off so that even people who speak the same dialect continually have to ask you to repeat yourself.
Benjamin [inactive]
One thing I've noticed in many British dialects, which might possibly be a form of innovation, is where supposedly unvoiced final consonants are often realised as glottal stops, and where supposedly voiced final consonants are often devoiced. I wonder if this will ever be considered 'standard'. That's actually how I speak, even though I usually think of myself as speaking RP.
Loic
Deborah & Elaine: I apologise for making unfounded statements then. I was under the impression that the President's speech patterns reflect the general sterotype of rural Texan speech and if that were the case, George Bush has been delivering all his State of the Union addresses in his dialect.
Benjamin: I think an example of sloppy speech would include pronouncing 'tree' and 'three' as the same or pronouncing silent letters in words such as 'salmon' or 'almond' or pronouncing 'debt' with a 'b'.
I am very sure that you can rebut every argument I make, given your superior knowledge of linguistics. I still think that languages have inherent strengths and defects and that certain speeches -that includes dialects- are not suited for certain occasions. I am not talking about something as trivial as an accent here. For example, I can't imagine you explaining something as esoteric as the laws of cricket to me using a Birmingham dialect. Granted, if the Birmingham dialect is awfully similar to standard English, we are making a mountain out of a molehill as far as dialectal differences are concerned.
After all, English dialects are still broadly similar to one another. I suppose you have heard about the exceptional differences that exist amongst Chinese dialects.
Andre: I hope that English doesn't evolve too much. I'd like my grandchildren to be able to read the great classics of the 19th century without feeling that they are reading in a foreign language. We are still fairly comfortable with authors from the 19th century; can our grandchildren say the same? What is the point of a rapidly evolving language if it fails to store accumulated knowledge for posterity?
Chinese characters have remained the same since the Tang dynasty (AD 600 onwards). I am amazed how I am able to read calligraphy prose from that period and actually able to understand what it means. I lament the fact that I would not be able to do the same in English.
Like you, sloppy speakers get on my nerves. I just have to grit my teeth and smile patiently at that git who is yepping away in god knows what. A sloppy speaker doesn't need to be necessarily guilty of mispronunciation. He could be misusing words in the wrong context: not making a distinction between 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' for example. It is a shame when people do not pay enough respect to the language they speak.
To the ancient Greeks, oratory was a superior form of art. Eloquence was a very valuable skill. It is a pity that such an asset is fast falling out of favour as society becomes more tolerant of human failings.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Benjamin: I think an example of sloppy speech would include pronouncing 'tree' and 'three' as the same or pronouncing silent letters in words such as 'salmon' or 'almond' or pronouncing 'debt' with a 'b'.
In simple terms, the 'th' sounds do not exist in all dialects of English — in the same way that these sounds no longer exist in German.
Likewise, my dialect is non-rhotic, meaning that for me, there is no difference in pronunciation between 'sauce' and 'source', or between 'agenda' and 'a gender'. Since I do not pronounce these Rs, would you consider my speech to be sloppy?
Equally, supposedly silent letters in words such as 'almond' may not be silent in all dialects. I actually pronounce the L in that word, although I pronounce the final D as a T.
loic wrote:
For example, I can't imagine you explaining something as esoteric as the laws of cricket to me using a Birmingham dialect.
I can easily imagine someone who speaks Birmingham dialect explaining the laws of cricket to someone else who speaks Birmingham dialect.
loic wrote:
After all, English dialects are still broadly similar to one another. I suppose you have heard about the exceptional differences that exist amongst Chinese dialects.
The distinction between a 'language' and a 'dialect' is rather arbitrary and often political. Thus, one could say that speakers of 'Chinese dialects' speak 'Chinese' in the same way that speakers of 'English' speak 'West Germanic'. Essentially no-one with a background in linguistics really considers Mandarin and Cantonese to be 'the same language'.
loic wrote:
Chinese characters have remained the same since the Tang dynasty (AD 600 onwards). I am amazed how I am able to read calligraphy prose from that period and actually able to understand what it means. I lament the fact that I would not be able to do the same in English.
But even then, modern English orthography is still to a large extent based on the pronunciation of one particular dialect in the 14th century. But anyway, you cannot compare Chinese characters with the Latin alphabet — it's not the same thing at all.
Pauline
Fredrik and Porthos
I think that it's very nasty that you tell me things like this: my treatment of english is savage, it make you dizzy, give an headache, mess up words, frnech syntax etc......... This things I was told on this forum. But fredrik and porthos, how many languages can you speak and how close related is english with your language?
i know that I can''t speak well english and I don't like it because it's spoekn completely impossible for understand and the most of english-speaker don't speak another language. I don't like that it's the language what everyone must learn, it's because the english-speaker countries have invaded all the world and force all the people learning their language.
I don't write savage at all it's very mean and nasty telling this. Of course I make mistakes and in school my grades for english are bad. I would like to give up it but it's not allowed because it's obligatory unfortunatly. I hope that in my new school it won't be obligaotry then I will *not* learn anymore the horrible and stupid language. When I didn't catch up in latin it was allowed give up, but latin is *much* nicer and more interestign that english, for sure.
so the next time my english make you to be dizzy or the words are messed up and all this things then don't read it or tell me what are the mistakes and how can you correclty construct the things.
Loic
Pauline, I am sure you know that Porthos and Fredrik are not out to deliberately insult anybody. You have interacted with them long enough to know that they are good blokes. Injuring your sensibilities would be the furthest thing in their minds.
I greatly admire the fact that you're quite a polyglot, notwithstanding the fact that you have never written a word in French so far. I know that you would do well in any future enterprise and it is only a matter of time -as well as exposure- before your English becomes truly idiomatic and native. By the way, your English is already very good. I do not mean it as a gratuitous compliment; I sincerely mean it.
Benjamin: Actually, I also do not make a distinction between 'sauce' and 'souce'. 'Agenda' and 'a gender' is also pronounced identically to me. Do you mean to say that they can be pronounced so that an audible distinction is observed?
When I was young, I was sent to a playschool organised under the aegis of the local British Council. I still remember this old teacher from England impressing upon us the importance of making a distinction between 'tree' and 'three'. As they say, nursery education is formative and their emphasis has left an indelible imprint on my consciousness since then. English, when enunciated properly, is crisp and clear. When the speaker chooses to drop letters at the wrong places, he makes a travesty out of English as a medium of communication. The whole point of speaking English is defeated.
PS: I like to add that I sometimes slur my speech when I speak quickly in an informal surrounding. I know this makes me seem like a hypocrite, but I can't help it.
Pauline
Loic
thank you for the compliments. i've written some words in french but few because it's dangersou and not worth it to risk. I make my homework in french but when it's not connected with the internet.I thought that fredrik was nice but he criticise me now so I don't like this. porthos as well. I thought he was friendly but I think that he's changed so now he's against me and why he ciriticise when he can't speak other languages? I don't know some english-speaker but I knwo dutch and german native-speakers also I leanr those languages since more time. If porthos would learn a foreign langauge then he would mess up the words and make incrrectly the synatx but he didn't learn another language so he dont know so he can shut up to criticise me and discover how difficutl is it learning a foreign language. Not all the world want speaking english. There are some very nice englis-sepaker as well, i was in Ireland and thsoe people were *very* nice, also the people here except some.
Ich habe entschiende, ab jetzt, auf deutsch oder holländisch zu schreiben nicht mehr auf englisch ausser wenn es nette Leute dabei gibt, die nur englisch verstehen. Ik heb besloten vanf nu in het duits of nederlands te schrijven en niet meer in het engels behalve wanneer er aardige mesnen daarbij zijn die alleen engels kunnen. van de constant kritik ben ik gewoon zat. Die mensen moeten eens op een andere taal proberen te schrijven bijzonder de ene die talen nog nooit heeft geleerd maar desondanks vindt dat hij alles daarvan weet en de hele wereld moet vertellen hoe het allemaal zit met taalgroepen enz. Van de fascistische prescritivisten heb ik vast en zeker meer dan genoeg gehad en nu kunnen ze iemand anders uitzoeken voor hun beschuldigiingen en kritik want ik luister niet meer.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Benjamin: Actually, I also do not make a distinction between 'sauce' and 'source'. 'Agenda' and 'a gender' is also pronounced identically to me. Do you mean to say that they can be pronounced so that an audible distinction is observed?
Yes. The majority of English speakers from the United States, Canada, Barbados, Bermuda, Scotland and Ireland, as well as many (older?) people from Wales, Southwest England and parts of Northwest England, clearly make a distinction between the pronunciations of those words. They are called rhotic dialects, meaning that they generally pronounce an R whenever one is written. Of course, one must realise that it's not because the R is written that they pronounce it, but because their phonology is more conservative, and reflects a time when the prestige dialects of Southeast England used to be rhotic as well.
loic wrote:
English, when enunciated properly, is crisp and clear. When the speaker chooses to drop letters at the wrong places, he makes a travesty out of English as a medium of communication. The whole point of speaking English is defeated.
Do you make a distinction between speakers who apparently 'choose to drop letters at the wrong places', and people whose native dialect is pronounced in that way?
For me, the words 'fern', 'bird' and 'hurt' all have the same vowel sound, and the R is not pronounced. However, most people from Scotland pronounce those three words with three distinct vowel sounds. For them, 'fern' has the same vowel sound as 'fen'; 'bird' has the same vowel sound as 'bid'; and 'hurt' has the same vowel sound as 'hut' — but they clearly pronounce the R (which is usually rolled) where it is written, which is how they distinguish between 'bid' and 'bird' etc.
In your overtly prescriptivist view of the English language where people deliberately forget to pronounce letters in the wrong places, who would you say is speaking more 'clearly'? Me, or this hypothetical Scottish person?
Loic
Frankly, I've only heard of this phenomenon called rhoticity after reading what our learned members of the forum had to say on this subject. I am a dunce as far as linguistics terminology is concerned.
I am not in a position to judge a native dialect speaker. I suppose I can take an accomodating view that their speech, which has been hallowed by centuries of usage, has to be 'correct' in their own way. It is through an accident of circumstances that the speech of the Southeast has evolved to become the language of prestige and hence power. I perfectly empathise as I find myself in a strikingly similar position where Chinese languages are concerned. Mandarin is where it is today not because it is an intrinsically superior tongue, but because it has found favour with those in power since the Yuan dynasty.
I am less accomodating towards non native speakers who do not make an effort to enunciate every vowel. They sound thick, incoherent and unclear. It does no justice to their intelligence as it is often the case that people who fail to speak the language of power is derided as having subpar intelligence.
I do not consider myself to be an overt prescriptivist. I do not believe in having strict rules to adhere in a language. Rather, we have guidelines and we must try our best to follow them. This is for the sake of clarity of communication as well as consistency. And as I've said earlier, I do not want contemporary literature to become as inaccessible as Beowulf to our grandchildren half a century down the road. This would be a tragedy.
Benjamin [inactive]
Pauline wrote:
I thought that fredrik was nice but he criticise me now so I don't like this.
Puisque je suis anglophone maternelle, je peux t'assurer que Fredrik ne t'a pas critiquée. En fait, il a dit :
Fredrik wrote:
I'm sure everybody agrees with me when I say that your English is very impressive if you've just been learning the language for one year!
Et je suis tout à fait d'accord avec lui. Et lorsqu'il a dit :
Fredrik wrote:
Your sometimes savage treatment of the syntax and grammar of English is quite amusing, as it gives your statements a probably unintended appearance of "stream of consciousness", like as if you were writing half asleep, like something from
"Ulysses" by James Joyce's (who is the Irish Thomas Mann, BTW!)
... c'est ce qu'on appelle une *plaisanterie*.
Pauline wrote:
porthos as well. I thought he was friendly but I think that he's changed so now he's against me and why he ciriticise when he can't speak other languages?
Porthos parle espagnol aussi. Mais il n'a pas eu l'intention de te critiquer ; il ne voulait qu'expliquer la raison pour laquelle il faut d'habitude que ceux qui apprennent l'anglais comme langue étrangère apprennent la grammaire oficielle.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
I am less accomodating towards non native speakers who do not make an effort to enunciate every vowel.
So which do you prefer? The Southeast England way, where the vowels of 'fern', 'bird' and 'hurt' are all merged together and the Rs are not pronounced, or the Scotland way, where the vowels are distinct and the Rs are clearly pronounced?
In many ways, I often feel that Scottish Standard English is actually easier for many non-native speakers to learn than British Received Pronunciation or General American, at least as far as phonology is concerned.
Loic
Since the educated speech here is largely based upon RP, I'd naturally gravitate towards the speech variety of the Southeast.
Do you consider me as a native or non-native speaker to begin with?
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Do you consider me as a native or non-native speaker to begin with?
I would consider you a native English speaker since English is your primary language. Perhaps it wasn't the very first language you started speaking (I don't know), but the same would be true for Uriel.
Fredrik
Benjamin wrote:
Pauline wrote:
I thought that fredrik was nice but he criticise me now so I don't like this.
Et lorsqu'il a dit :
Fredrik wrote:
Your sometimes savage treatment of the syntax and grammar of English is quite amusing, as it gives your statements a probably unintended appearance of "stream of consciousness", like as if you were writing half asleep, like something from
"Ulysses" by James Joyce's (who is the Irish Thomas Mann, BTW!)
... c'est ce qu'on appelle une *plaisanterie*.
Yes, that was how I intended it. Sorry if it came out the wrong way, Pauline.
Pauline wrote:
Fredrik wrote:
I guess I have to admit that I'm actually prejudiced against people who aren't eloquent, i.e. people who don't take advantage of the richness of expression in their different varities.
Why not appreciate eloquence without prejudice against people who aren't? I think you refer a very narrow range;I have met people who can't talk at all, or, who construct language completely inintelligible. we *all* have limitations, if intelligence, education, opportunities, genetic, neurologic etc... but I agree that eloquence is beautiful, an art. Another thing: to speak or to write (for me) are completely separated, and I can write veyr much but speak, I can't sufficiently. I can physically speak, but many times I can't think something to say because my thoughts have disappeared. Are this things separated for you, or if you write much, then probably you speak this amount also?
Well, prejudices is of course not something I choose to have, but something that develops from my beliefs, experiences and knowledge. And of course I judge people according to their state and station. I don't expect oratory worthy of Cicero from autists, but value everybody's efforts at using their own individual variety of language to the fullest. For me, being human is basically about our ability to communicate with language. But then I'm a person who doesn't get very excited about music, for instance. And for me, speaking, reading and writing are basically just three aspects of the same thing. Like you I used to not speak very much at that age, because I couldn't think of much to say and I didn't think others would have very much interesting to say either, but I never thought that eloquency was linked to speaking a lot. Sometimes less is more.
loic wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I think English dialects are fascinating. However, I wonder if they are adequate to meet the demands of a modern society. What do I mean by that? For example, would it be possible for me to study engineering through the medium of the Birmingham dialect? Is the vocabulary rich enough to fully convey the meaning of technical terms? How would you translate Newton's First law of motion into the Brummie dialect: An object is forever in a state of rest or in perpetual motion unless acted on by a resultant force?
I don't know Brummie, but I can imagine a random speaker of some English dialect saying:
/an ohbject is forivver in ay steht of rest or in perpetual mohtion onless acted on by ay resultant force/. (This sample does of course not show differences in grammar.)
Is it your Chinese background that makes you think that English dialects has another vocabulary than standard English, loic? Of course these scientific words are quite absent in most dialect conversations down in the pub, but so are they in the speech of numerous dimwitted upper-class people too!
Benjamin [inactive]
Fredrik wrote:
I don't know Brummie, but I can imagine a random speaker of some English dialect saying:
/an ohbject is forivver in ay steht of rest or in perpetual mohtion onless acted on by ay resultant force/.
Wulverampton! (Wolverhampton)
— at least that's what it sounded like when I read it!
Loic
Fredrik: In your example in which you tried to recreate the aforementioned law of motion in an English dialect, I'd say that it is more an accent than anything else.
Accents do not make a dialect.
Not only do many English dialects suffer the fate of inadequacy when it comes to meeting the demands of the modern world. I do know that Thai is a language that has not developed the necessary vocabulary to describe many scientific phenomena. Thai engineers have to use English terms in their everyday conversation if they wish to talk about their trade. Some people might see such code-switching as quaintly pleasant; I think it just demonstrates the inadequacy of a particular language.
Benjamin: Just as Uriel was largely monolinggual (in German) in her first 5 years of her life, I was largely monolinggual (in English) up till my last year of kindergarten. When I first entered primary school, I was told that I was not even aware of my Chinese name. Of course, I could not recall that incident, but my mother has to bring this purpoted incident up from time to time.
On another note, if language is equated with power, does it necessarily confer upon its speakers a sense of social prestige that is absent in those who do not speak the language? Does this explain why largely French-speaking Quebec has felt alienated by largely English-speaking Canada?
Fredrik
loic wrote:
Accents do not make a dialect.
In linguistics they do. As Newton's First law of Motion contains hardly any conjugated or declined forms, it didn't become obvious that there would be differences in grammar to. Because that's usually how European dialects differ - in pronounciation and grammar. If there are large differences in vocabulary, they usually get the label "languages" over here.
Even people with the wildest English dialect, be it Cockney or Scouse or Geordie would recognize "object", "perpetual" and "motion" as native, albeit seldom words in their dialects. Otherwise they wouldn't be speaking English!
Loic
You know, I have never thought that regional speech varieties such as Geordie or Scouce are sufficiently different enough to merit dialect status. When I hear Alan Shearer speak back when he was still playing for Newcastle, I never walked away with an impression that I was hearing an English dialect.
Or maybe he was speaking standard English with a Geordie accent.
I must say that my knowledge of English dialects or regional speech patterns are often gleamed from listening to English footballers or cricketers giving post-match conferences. It's quite a good way of getting an insight into the world of English linguistic diversity without having to step foot on the British Isle.
Pauline
Fredrik wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
Pauline wrote:
I thought that fredrik was nice but he criticise me now so I don't like this.
Et lorsqu'il a dit :
Fredrik wrote:
Your sometimes savage treatment of the syntax and grammar of English is quite amusing, as it gives your statements a probably unintended appearance of "stream of consciousness", like as if you were writing half asleep, like something from
"Ulysses" by James Joyce's (who is the Irish Thomas Mann, BTW!)
... c'est ce qu'on appelle une *plaisanterie*.
Yes, that was how I intended it. Sorry if it came out the wrong way, Pauline.
Benjamin and Frderik,
Thanks for explaining. I didn't notice that it was a joke. I know that sometimes I've the tendance at taking something literally when it wasn't meaned this way.
Quote:
value everybody's efforts at using their own individual variety of language to the fullest. For me, being human is basically about our ability to communicate with language. But then I'm a person who doesn't get very excited about music, for instance.
I agree with you that music is a way to express, like language is as well, but I don't agree that being human is basically about our ability to communicate with language, despite I know that this often is quoted to be the difference between humans and animals - meaningful and unlimited langauge.
I think, that you can be human also if you havn't the ability to communicate with language because what is the reason for wanting this communication is the thing most basic about being human, not exclusiviely the ability. But, i think tht to lose the ablity to communicate is truly terrible- I mean two-way communication. It don't mean you lose your humanity, but you lose nearly all other things and would be absolutly trapped and isolated. The other ways -music, art etc.. can communicate also, but only somethings, although sometimes this ways can communicate things what language can't.
i've thought *very* much about thsi things because I've fear to lose the ability to have language, more exactly that it would be removed and this is why I've learned several languages. in my opinion music and art they are not less communicative that language, maybe the most of poeple don't look to them this way because language is the first choice except for musicians and artists. Some literature can change your emotions via thinking, but I find that music is the most directly powerful and it don't require thoughts, only feelings. I don't refer music created for fame or money, but for expression.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
Benjamin: Just as Uriel was largely monolinggual (in German) in her first 5 years of her life, I was largely monolinggual (in English) up till my last year of kindergarten. When I first entered primary school, I was told that I was not even aware of my Chinese name. Of course, I could not recall that incident, but my mother has to bring this purpoted incident up from time to time.
In that case, you're definitely a native English speaker, as far as I'm concerned. (Although I realise that words like 'native' may have rather different connotations in the New World than in the Old World).
loic wrote:
You know, I have never thought that regional speech varieties such as Geordie or Scouce are sufficiently different enough to merit dialect status. When I hear Alan Shearer speak back when he was still playing for Newcastle, I never walked away with an impression that I was hearing an English dialect.
Or maybe he was speaking standard English with a Geordie accent.
'Accent' is a non-technical term which is not used by actual linguists. As a result, I try to avoid using it, because I find it to be rather inappropriate. On the other hand, a dialect is a variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area. But as I've said before, the distinction between a 'dialect' and a 'language' tends to be rather arbitrary and is often political.
As Fredrik said, English dialects distinguish themselves mainly via pronunciation, grammar, and some everyday vocabulary (e.g. 'hemmel' means 'sky'/'heaven' in Northumbria; 'bab' can refer to any person when one doesn't know their name in Birmingham etc.).
Of course occasionally, differences in vocabulary are accepted in standard regional use. For example, there are a number of differences in technical vocabulary between Britain and the United States. Another example is 'outwith' which is very commonly used (even in formal writing) in Scotland to mean 'outside of' — when I received an offer from the University of St Andrews a few weeks ago, they sent me a letter which used 'outwith' many times.
loic wrote:
Not only do many English dialects suffer the fate of inadequacy when it comes to meeting the demands of the modern world. I do know that Thai is a language that has not developed the necessary vocabulary to describe many scientific phenomena. Thai engineers have to use English terms in their everyday conversation if they wish to talk about their trade. Some people might see such code-switching as quaintly pleasant; I think it just demonstrates the inadequacy of a particular language.
Let's have a look at Newton's first law of motion again:
An object is forever in a state of rest or in perpetualmotion unless acted on by a resultant force
All the words in bold are not of Germanic origin. This means that English speakers borrowed them from other languages (French, Latin and Greek) because the terms did not exist in English* — exactly like how Thai engineers borrow English terms now. Shall we therefore conclude that the English languages is inadequate?
* In some cases it was more because the classically educated academics believed that the perfectly good Germanic words which already existed were inferior and unsophisticated, for totally irrational reasons.
Uriel
Language is power. From the very beginning it has always been about organizing information so you can exploit it. That's its entire biological basis. Speech is a behavior -- it's how we manage our social interactions with each other, and how you use it can have a profound impact on where you get in life, how high or low your status is, who you end up mating with, how well you network, etc.
You can't describe such a complex behavior simply in terms of syntax and structure, which I think is why Porthos and loic and I tend to get frustrated with a linguistic school of thought that strives mightily to really emulate the theoretical model of "hard" sciences like mathematics and physics and chemistry -- a model that stresses quantitative data and strict objectivity. That's fine when you are plotting lines on a graph or predicting the motion of molecules, but it bogs down when you are talking about animal behavior -- which is often heavily influenced by non-logical brain processes, individual idiosyncracies, and a high degree of subjectivity. At the most, linguistics only reveals a small fraction of all the information that is conveyed, grasped, or manipulated by people. It is a small flashlight in a vast, dark cavern, or only one of the blind men feeling the elephant.
I think people -- especially educated people -- are often uncomfortable with the whole idea of subjectivity because it interferes with the goal of most serious scholars to unveil universal truths -- single-model theoretical frameworks that are provable and reproducible and give predictable results -- the scientific method, in other words. They certainly hate to introduce nonquantifiable, nonlogical factors like emotions, value judgments, and perspective into the mix -- we've all been taught that those are not consistent with the role of a serious researcher.
But language is generated and interpreted in the human brain, where thought processes are based on both the rational and the irrational, where emotions are not a detriment but a sophisticated survival guide, where hormones and chemical levels have major impact, and where we communicate at least half of the information our audience "reads" with nonverbal cues as we speak, and where everything we hear is colored by our own idiosyncratic conception of the world -- our individual consciousness. Which in itself defies any rational explanation or quantification.
Loic
Quote:
I think people -- especially educated people -- are often uncomfortable with the whole idea of subjectivity because it interferes with the goal of most serious scholars to unveil universal truths -- single-model theoretical frameworks that are provable and reproducible and give predictable results -- the scientific method, in other words.
I concurr. As Lord Kelvin said, if you cannot measure something, your knowledge must then be of a meagre kind.
Quote:
All the words in bold are not of Germanic origin. This means that English speakers borrowed them from other languages (French, Latin and Greek) because the terms did not exist in English* — exactly like how Thai engineers borrow English terms now. Shall we therefore conclude that the English languages is inadequate?
You are comparing apples and pears. The Thais are well aware of their foreign pedigree when they use loan words for technical terms. These words have yet to become assimilated into the Thai language. As you are aware, the Thai language comes with its own complex set of alphabet that was partly inspired by Sanskrit. I've seen technical manuals in the Thai language where the English words in Roman letters were simply inserted in mid-sentence while the rest remains as complex gobbledygook to me.
The fact that many of our scientific vocabulary in English stems from Latin as well as French sources has very much to do with Latin as the educated language of men in those days. Schoolboys were required to memorise elegant verses by Cicero as well as conjugate Latin verbs; Newton wrote his major thesis Principia in Latin. As such, Latin was never a wholly foreign language to them. It served as their left hand just as English was their right.
If all languages are equal and fully capable of expressing thought and ideas, pray tell me why so few singers in Germanic Europe sing in their own language. You might say that they are motivated by money and singing in English allows them access to a wider market. Perhaps.
Or rather, they subtly acknowledge the deficiencies of their language when it comes to singing in certain musical genres.
Lazar
I think the Thai engineers would just use English terms because English is the dominant language of business and engineering right now, and consequently they have a great familiarity with it, just as Latin was dominant in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. I don't think it's a case of linguistic deficiency - if you try hard enough, you can usually find some native equivalent to a foreign technical term. (If you examine the Latin and Greek-derived words in English, you'll see that they tend to have simple, translatable meanings. Instead of "television" and "chromosome", we could say "farsight" and "colorbody". But we don't.) I think borrowing shows that the source language is "in fashion" more than that the borrower's language is deficient.
Loic
Lazar:
Perhaps. Or maybe the native equivalents are too convoluted to be spoken in a sentence.
But in Chinese, we never resort to foreign bororwings in such a pathetic fashion. There is a native term for everything.
Lazar
loic wrote:
Or maybe the native equivalents are too convoluted to be spoken in a sentence.
It's just that you're not used to hearing them. I'm sure "televisio" and "chromosoma" would have sounded convoluted to the Greeks or Romans.
Quote:
But in Chinese, we never resort to foreign bororwings in such a pathetic fashion. There is a native term for everything.
Exactly. There's nothing magical about Greek or Latin, or English or Chinese, that gives them a greater ability to generate new native vocabulary. It has to do with the speakers' preference for borrowing versus native construction, not with any inherent deficiencies.
Porthos
Huh. I didn't know "rest" was not of Germanic origin.
Lazar
I checked at etymonline.com, and although "rest" meaning "remainer" comes from French "reste, rester" (Latin "restare"), "rest" as it's used in Newton's law, meaning "repose", comes from Old English "ræste, reste" (Proto-Germanic "rastjo, rasto"). So in fact, Benjamin was mistaken.
Benjamin [inactive]
loic wrote:
If all languages are equal and fully capable of expressing thought and ideas, pray tell me why so few singers in Germanic Europe sing in their own language. You might say that they are motivated by money and singing in English allows them access to a wider market. Perhaps.
'Germanic Europe' fundamentally has to include Britain. However, I have heard interviews with some Dutch (for example) singers who say that they do prefer to sing in English.
greg in noord-frankrijk
Uriel wrote:
You can't describe such a complex behavior simply in terms of syntax and structure, which I think is why Porthos and loic and I tend to get frustrated with a linguistic school of thought that strives mightily to really emulate the theoretical model of "hard" sciences like mathematics and physics and chemistry -- a model that stresses quantitative data and strict objectivity.
But language science, let alone (socio)linguistics, is not aiming at explaining human behaviour. Its field is limited to articulated languages (not necessarily spoken ones, though).
Uriel wrote:
At the most, linguistics only reveals a small fraction of all the information that is conveyed, grasped, or manipulated by people.
Yes. Linguistics is of no succour if you want to investigate about extralinguistic communication. Nor is it of any help if you want to know why people use articulated languages to communicate.
Uriel wrote:
I think people -- especially educated people -- are often uncomfortable with the whole idea of subjectivity because it interferes with the goal of most serious scholars to unveil universal truths -- single-model theoretical frameworks that are provable and reproducible and give predictable results -- the scientific method, in other words.
Perhaps not. *All* scientific methods, findings, knowledge, discourses (etc) have been steadily challenged and disproved. The only thing we know is that we know close to nothing, if we know anything at all. However, you need facts or arguments if you want to challenge or disprove a theory X or Y.
Uriel wrote:
They certainly hate to introduce nonquantifiable, nonlogical factors like emotions, value judgments, and perspective into the mix -- we've all been taught that those are not consistent with the role of a serious researcher.
No. What they take heed of is not to fail to acknowledge the presence of such factors in their own selves and in others'. If they did, they would just be misobserving and misunderstanding.
Uriel wrote:
But language is generated and interpreted in the human brain, where thought processes are based on both the rational and the irrational, where emotions are not a detriment but a sophisticated survival guide, where hormones and chemical levels have major impact, and where we communicate at least half of the information our audience "reads" with nonverbal cues as we speak, and where everything we hear is colored by our own idiosyncratic conception of the world -- our individual consciousness. Which in itself defies any rational explanation or quantification.
True — as far as linguistics is concerned. It's the same for any discipline, the aim of which is not to study human beings in their entirety. But is there even one able to do so ?
André in Zuid-Afrika
loic wrote:
If all languages are equal and fully capable of expressing thought and ideas, pray tell me why so few singers in Germanic Europe sing in their own language. You might say that they are motivated by money and singing in English allows them access to a wider market. Perhaps.
Or rather, they subtly acknowledge the deficiencies of their language when it comes to singing in certain musical genres.
In South Africa, there is not a single Afrikaans singer who sings exclusively or even mostly in English. On the other hand, several English singers sing mostly or even exclusively in Afrikaans (Amor Vittone, Kurt Darren, Patricia Lewis being the best known of these, and Danny K, considered one of the major English singers at the moment, planning to launch an Afrikaans CD soon). Do these singers "subtly acknowledge the deficiencies of their language (English) when it comes to singing in certain musical genres"? '
It's all about money. In SA the Afrikaans market is far more vibrant (at the moment) than the English market. Simply put, singers who sing in Afrikaans sell more CD's. On the other hand, any Afrikaans singer who wants to go international, will have to sing in English, just as European singers sing in English when competing in the international market.
It has nothing to do with one language's "deficiencies".
Porthos
Lazar wrote:
I checked at etymonline.com, and although "rest" meaning "remainer" comes from French "reste, rester" (Latin "restare"), "rest" as it's used in Newton's law, meaning "repose", comes from Old English "ræste, reste" (Proto-Germanic "rastjo, rasto"). So in fact, Benjamin was mistaken.
Yeah, I checked as well, and the "rest" which he quoted was the one of Germanic origin, while the other "rest" is of Latin origin.
Fredrik
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
It's all about money.
And fashion. Many people consider(ed) it cheesy and unfashionable to sing in Norwegian. When you sing in English (or in Swedish, as the case often is in East Norwegian country music), you get a little more distance and heavy overuse of the word "love" doesn't sound so cheesy. You had a similar situation in the Middle Ages, when Occitan was THE language of ballads of courtly love. In Scandinavian languages we even went so far as to replace the Old Norse word for "love", ást with a French dervied hybrid construction, kjærlighet (cher + lig + het ≈ dearliness).
André in Zuid-Afrika
Fredrik wrote:
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
It's all about money.
And fashion. Many people consider(ed) it cheesy and unfashionable to sing in Norwegian. When you sing in English (or in Swedish, as the case often is in East Norwegian country music), you get a little more distance and heavy overuse of the word "love" doesn't sound so cheesy. You had a similar situation in the Middle Ages, when Occitan was THE language of ballads of courtly love. In Scandinavian languages we even went so far as to replace the Old Norse word for "love", ást with a French dervied hybrid construction, kjærlighet (cher + lig + het ≈ dearliness).
Agree. During the seventies and the eighties it wasn't fashionable to sing in Afrikaans (with the same kind of arguments you mention), and if you owned an Afrikaans LP, you wouldn't dare admit it to anyone! But Afrikaans music has developed a lot since then, and now teenagers pack concerts of Afrikaans artists.
Liz
Benjamin wrote:
'Accent' is a non-technical term which is not used by actual linguists. As a result, I try to avoid using it, because I find it to be rather inappropriate. On the other hand, a dialect is a variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area. But as I've said before, the distinction between a 'dialect' and a 'language' tends to be rather arbitrary and is often political.
I beg to differ here. "Accent" *is* a technical term and *is* used by linguists, therefore there is no reason why you should avoid using it. It is by no means inappropriate - it's just used inappropriately in the pedestrian sense. In fact, accents and dialects are not exactly the same. "Accent" refers strictly to pronunciation characteristics of a certain dialect/language variety/group of people etc., whereas the term "dialect" involves other areas such as syntax and vocabulary. Everyone speaks with an accent but not necessarily everyone speaks in a regional dialect. (However, I am not sure if we should consider non-regional varieties dialects or they should be denoted as sociolects or simply varieties.) It is not unusual that someone speaks Standard English with, say, a Manchester accent. In this case, accent and dialect are clearly different from each other - you can't really say that the given speaker speaks in a Manchester dialect. It's just his accent - otherwise he is using Standard English.
Deborah
It seems to me that there could be more than one school of thought on this subject in the linguistics world. Even simple dictionary definitions differ. They all agree that it refers to the distinct way that a certain group of people speak, but some say that it has to include grammar and/or vocabulary that differs from the standard, while other phrase it as differences in grammar, vocabulary, syntax or pronuciation, indicating that mere variation in pronunciation is sufficient to warrant the label "dialect".
I think as well that you can discover more from the dialects that from the standard prescripted language.