| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Porthos |
Stereotypes of various nationalitiesThis should be fun. Although I might not subscribe to most of these stereotypes, I must admit that due to media brainwashing, my perception of foreign peoples is influenced by the stereotypes conveyed through television and other media elements, so that these stereotypes, often historically based, play a part in the back of my mind. What are some of your stereotypes of foreign peoples, or of Americans? Feel free to write whatever you want. I won't be offended.http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Australians |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
They are all nationalities, then suddenly :
Pirates !! 
from Pirateland  and they know Johnny DeppLOL !!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Lol, yeah. It's mainly for comic purposes, but some of these things mentioned are veritable stereotypes here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
This will all sound rather typical and negative, but I'd say that here a stereotypical American: is rich, and flaunts this is obese, through eating lots of fast food drives almost everywhere lives in a large detached house is loud and tends to complain about things is overly friendly and informal, which can be seen as intrusive has perfectly straight white teeth and (if female) 'big hair' is extremely religious probably goes to church on a regular basis does not accept evolution, and believes that the world is only 6,000 years old is not convinced that global warming is a reality is rather conservative is very prudish on the surface, but in reality is not prudish at all is interested primarily in making lots of money is largely ignorant of the world outside of the United States is very patriotic respects the office of President, regardless of whether they like the current president or not may be homophobic and/or racist believes that anyone can become rich through hard work and capitalism, regardless of social background claims to have a 'personal relationship with Jesus Christ' is overly emotional or 'touchy-feely'; often has therapy sessions either with professionals or friends where they pour out their personal problems; may find it appropriate to talk out-loud with dead people etc. Of course, that's not to say I actually think those things about Americans. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Yeah those negative stereotypes of Americans you mentioned seem pretty typical among you Euros. Unfortunately, they're almost entirely based on an exaggerated image of Americans from conservative states in the south-east, or rural areas of the mid-west, or south-west.
So, for someone from urban areas, or the North East or West Coast, these stereotypes seem absurd. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
American's stereotypes; as all stereotypes they are based upon one part of the population (the most visible and noisy maybe?), and are generally very negative - (sorry for all the nice, cultured and smart Americans of langcafι ! ):
- fat, fast food eaters, soda and heavy beer drinkers - business and money-obssessed - Leisure and sport-minded - superficial human relation - smaily at first, but difficult to make true contacts, distant in their social relation. - people that don't have interest/knowledge of other countries - people that dress badly with strong colors that don't match - people who think that everyone speaking and understanding their language, because it is supposed to be the unique universal one - unpolite people that speak loudly in American slangs in foreign countries - Very religious and conservative - Brainwashed by their medias and governement Dutch people : - Tall, blond-haired - speak a strange ununderstandable language - clean, modern and very densely populated country, with a lot of flowers - protistution tolerants - cannabis smoker, Drug over-tolerant - heavy beer drinkers - bike drivers - come to our beaches with caravans - buy a lot of houses in french countryside English/British people : - Red-haired or/and pale-skinned people - Heavy beer drinkers, like being drunk in pubs - Holligans - francophobic - multicultural society - traditionalists, tea-time and royal family - speak with a snobish accent - come also buy houses in french countryside Belgians - divided in two different people - nice and friendly, but a bit stupid (sorry Pauline )
- beer drinkers - live in a flat country - are subject of jokes from us - Europeans Germans - blond haired, blue eyed - one religion: beer drinking ! - rigid-minded, and over-organised - time-obsessed - eat very heavy food - dress badly with colors that don't match - former enemies but now good partners in the EU |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Akoni |
Stereotypes about Dutch people:
- Wear clogs - Smoke weed - Live in or near a windmill(s) any others? 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Yes
eat cheese eat hagelslag on biscuitjes wear orange very tall and blond have bicycles and cycle all the time have subtitled TV very clean houses no curtains in their house tiny houses all the same |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Why is that specifically associated with England/Britain? Most Western European countries have considerable cultural diversity within their societies today. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
You'd be hard-pressed finding one as culturally diverse as Britain! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Stereotypes of belgians :
eat very good quality chocolate eat very much chocolate eat chips (french fries) very stupid bad drivers on holiday avoid pay tax (zwartwerk / geld can you translate it in english, Akoni?) old-fashioned no famous belgians laughed at in dutch and french jokes are there some more? Stereotypes of americans loud and complaining friendly want to invade all the world hate french visit Europe: 2 hours in each country don't speak other languages want to be the biggest, best , first, etc i.e very competitive racist against black people extremely fat or extrelemy thin eat hamburger and chips stereotypes of english/british wear suits , umbrella and hat to work drink tea live in fog and/or rain have teatime everyday extremely intellectual (Oxford, Cambridge professor) or extremely ignorant (football hooligan, drunk and shouting) don't speak other language anti-UE good pop music |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Not at all! France, for example. And definitely also the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Benjamin, it is a STEREOTYPE !... I didn't say that is was what I believed or that is was the reality!
Actually, i said that because the UK is though to have very different view than we generally have about the process of assimilation of the peoples of foreign origins. In France a foreign person who makes is roots in France is supposed to become one day fully french, while it is thought that in UK, the idea the the country has not proper "British cultural identity" and is just a collection and juxtaposition of "ethnic identities" is accepted, at least it is what we tend to think. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
Yeah, but Britain more so. I don't understand why you suddenly seem so opposed to the idea of Britain being multi-cultural - only a couple of weeks ago you seemed to agree with it! And besides, this thread is about STEREOTYPES. Don't nitpick over one 'stereotype' that Britain has, if it can even be called that, when you've heaped a whole load of your own stereotypes onto America!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
A stereotypical French person:
is very civilised and sophisticated dresses very well and stylishly never gets fat smokes a lot is arrogant and snobbish believes that they are wonderful at cooking, even if they're not believes that anything 'French' is superior to anything from anywhere else believes that life would be much better if everyone else in the world simply became French is very patriotic believes fundamentally in 'republican values', which are non-negotiable believes that there is not significant regional or cultural diversity within France uses 20 words when one or two would have been sufficient is racist and xenophobic is opposed to any public display of religion believes that French people are the antithesis of Americans, even though they're not secretly loves America, even though they won't admit it almost never travels outside of France started drinking wine when they were about five years old is very protective of their children Again, I must emphasise that this is not what I personally think. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I suppose that's sort of right, actually. There is not really a 'British cultural identity' as such but I don't really think that there should be, because the UK is supposed to be the political union of four different countries, rather than one single country. And strongly emphasising a 'British identity' is often perceived as being proud of Britain's imperial past and asserting British superiority. However, there isn't really much of an 'English cultural identity' either, because such a thing would often be seen as politically incorrect or possibly even racist or offensive, at least in many parts of England. However, when our French exchange partners came to stay with us last year, they actually said that they thought that the 'ethnic minorities' in Birmingham were much more 'integrated' than in most French cities. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Yes, but you could have added Spain or Italy also. By the way let's continue : Spanish people : - people that never sleep, passing all their night in bar-tapas and parties - people that sleep during the day - very friendly but lazy, and not efficient at work - tapas eaters and wine drinkers - tragic landscapes, extreme climates - like to kill bulls Portuguese people : - nostalgic people that sing fados - eat fishes with a glass of Porto - dream of their glorious but forgotten past - work as concierge in Parisian building - all men are house own-builders Italians : - ultra-fashioned people, always wear the last fashion object - speak loudly, and move a lot their hands when speaking - not very trusty (NB: can we say this ?) (ex berlusconi) - very different ecomically between north and south - ferraris, gucci, versace, etc... and in the same time mafias - racists, fascists - good food, and good wines - historic towns, arts and architecture |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
trustworthy? or trusting?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
[quote="fab"]
Ah, there's a country we don't have any negative stereotypes about.... O felix Lusitania! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I tend to think that more a country is big and powerfull more negative stereotypes we apply to its people. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Lol, I don't think I've ever heard any stereotypes (negative or otherwise) of Portuguese people either! A stereotypical Welsh person: pretends not to be able to speak English speaks Welsh only when English people are present is very proud of Wales and their Welsh heritage is rather religious and goes to 'chapel' spends a lot of time in the valleys with sheep is very good at singing is likely to be unemployed |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
LOL, now THOSE are good stereotypes! Gotta love the Welsh.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I like this one !!
The same is said about Corsicans, they start to switch from French to Corsican when "les continentaux*" are coming around. * that's how are called the people from mainland France in Corsica. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
spain
where live Saint Nicholas (belgian santa claus) bull fighting wine sun beaches mountains historical architecture people talk loud and fast norway fjords green and blue snow mountains rain fish sweden Ikea forests cold boring good welfare state sauna russia drink vodka very cold grey, terrible big blocks of flats, broken, unreparated maffia fat old ladys in ugly clothes corruption |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Swedish/Nowegians/Danish (I'm sorry Fredrerik, but all three are lumped in the same stereotype)
- Very tall, very blond, very blue eyes people - quiet, peacefull and VERY clean countries - ecological, practical, well organized and clean - drink lot of beer and also strong alcohols until being completly drunk - beautiful natural countries covered of pine forests, lakes and fjords - nice but reserved and distant people - boring people and depressed due to lack of sun. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Scottish people:
hate English people live off the welfare state paid for by English taxpayers live in run-down grey concrete apartment blocks are always depressed are generally rather boring almost never visit Scotland's beautiful countryside eat very unhealthily consume a lot of alcohol have a low life-expectancy of about 50 years have the worst rate of [-insert any social problem here-] in Western Europe |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It sounds like the perpetual, downward spiral system of welfare and income redistribution is not working in Scotland. It has kept people dependent on welfare and social programs, thus inhibiting them from improving their own lot in life the old fashioned way, through hard work and self-improvement.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Would that be "ncome tax"? That's the tax on the money you earn. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I have, but only from my mother. She adored everything Spanish and told me on numerous occasions, as if it were an established fact and not just her opinion, that Spaniards are lively and energetic, while the Portuguese are all dull and boring. And this was from a woman who fancied herself unprejudiced and open-minded. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Apparently, Canadians have some negative stereotypes of the Portuguese.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vw29K3LQ5Ps[/quote] |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Icke |
Well, I heard of a negative stereotype of Potuguese people: - cheating football players
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Akoni |
lol, more like dramaqueen football (/soccer) players. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
True. My lively internet persona is all a sham. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I must add another stereotype which I have of Italian men in general:
- they do not seem to respect the fact that another woman might be taken. In fact, a wedding ring on her finger acts as a stimulant and spurs them on to greater heights, married women being the ultimate triumph of conquest. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
That's Latin machismo in action for ya!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
It is quite true in other countries too. if the woman is beautiful and harder to have it will be a good stimulation. Actually you can find also the inverse - young women that are attracted to married men is very spread also. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Speaking of infidelity and national stereotypes...
I wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I don't think that the society celebrates infidelity. That's maybe an idae you have. But I think it is quite true that it is quite usual to have a mistress/amant for a lot of married people. I don't have any "moral" preconcieved ideas about that - everyone is free to lead is life as he wants, and if it can save the couple long term stability, I'd say there is nothing bad.
I don't think that's an imcompability, at the contrary - The family is often seen as one of the foundation of the "traditional values in france", much less now, but quite true especially before 1968 = "travail, famille, patrie"/ the Loic exemple of Italian stereotype tend to shwo that there is no link the traditional family-oriented societies and infidelity - it seem to be even the inverse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Oh my God, your stance is too Danish! (Since we are talking about national stereotypes... ) Being a Norwegian, I love to make moral judgements! (Our Swede would probably have preffered to say something vague and neutral.)
I guess you French guys don't experience it that way, but I would say that from an outsider's point of view, a celebration of infidelity is part of France's stereotype image. (Starting with the mistresses of Louis XIV, Madame Bovary etc...). Of course, there is a lot of infidelity in for example American movies too, but they are always moral in the end, i.e. people are punished for their infedility and "the good all-American family order" is restored. BTW I have nothing against celebrations of infidelity as long as it's celebrated for my entertainment far away from me, but I can't imagine being part of a family or raising a family in a culture which looks upon infidelity as some sort of refinement instead of a disgusting breach of trust. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Oh, but you're Portuguese-American! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
All tax especially VAT what's 21% here. so, it's usual that people ask: with or without receipt? So, if there will be receipt, both will put it on the tax form and the person will charge 21% VAT. If it's without receipt, it will be paid in cash and there won't be receipt. In Belgium it's this, and I've heard that other countrys don't do this. I looked up and it was called VAT (Value Added Tax, in dutch it's BTW and spanish TVA) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Jacques Chirac has admitted to a potential affair with a journalist which he had in the halcyon years of the 1970s. How is it possible, I asked myself?
Apparently, he wrote that 'it was very possible' when quizzed about his alleged dalliance and that he has also 'loved many women before as discreetly as possible'. I don't really know what to make of his frank but puzzling confessions in his autobiography. It seems to me that having extra-marital affairs is not a barrier to success in French politics. There's another stereotype I heard about the Italians and I think such a characteristic was more prevalent in the past than in the present. Apparently, Italian men think -or thought- that pinching the bums of attractive female strangers is a compliment. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Yeah, in France, it is not uncommon for politicians to openly engage in extra-marital affairs with other women. People in France just don't seem to care, and they look the other way, because in their eyes, what their leaders do in their personal lives makes no difference, so long as they are effective executors of their office.
That's why French people couldn't understand all the outrage in America during Clinton's impeachment due to his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I find the French to be the most puzzling people in Western Europe, in that their attitudes toward so many things are very unique. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Quite true The clinton "affair", was for us a non-affair... it was really seen as a surealistic affair, which had nothing to do with public opinions and politician capacities, but just should be an affair between the only three concerned persons : Bill, Hillary and Monica. Almost all french presidents have been known to have mistresses, especially Mitterrand. I that sens I don't think that we are different than other poeple in the world, adultere exists as much in all countries. Maybe we are not as much hypocrytes as in other cultures who seems to be shoked by a thing that in reality is frequent, and, finally is just sex - not murder or violence... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Quite true The clinton "affair", was for us a non-affair... it was really seen as a surealistic affair, which had nothing to do with public opinions and politician capacities, but just should be an affair between the only three concerned persons : Bill, Hillary and Monica. Almost all french presidents have been known to have mistresses, especially Mitterrand. I that sens I don't think that we are different than other poeple in the world, adultere exists as much in all countries. Maybe we are not as much hypocrytes as in other cultures who seems to be shoked by a thing that in reality is frequent, and, finally is just sex - not murder or violence...
Which ones ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
I agree. I think what happens in France happens everywhere in the world, it's just that the French seem to approach the issue more pragmatically. In Mexico and Latin America you always hear about politicians having a secret second or third family tucked away somewhere, and their opponents try to make a big issue out of it, but in France they probably think, "C'est la vie!"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Elaine !!!!!
It is good to "see" you again... We didn't had news since a lot time !! By the way; Feliz ano nuevo ! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elaine |
Mille merci, fab! Bonne Annιe! I see you've been busy without me.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I can't say I'm surprised he apparently vouvoies his own wife. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Spot on, Benjamin! That's how I feel about this French infidelity business. It's a very aristocratic concept and as such a highly agreeable way of doing it. Why not do it properly and romantic with lunch and the whole package instead of sleazy and seedy, as it often gets in more puritan countries, whether it's a dirty shag on the copy machine or a rump in a run-down motel. But as an aristocratic thing it has little to do with me and my world. I get amused by Clinton's and Chirac's flings, but if it happened in my world I would be utterly shocked. Because in my world, families are not disconnected aristocrats who only live in pro-forma communal domesticity, but people who love and trust each other and sit down to dinner together and say grace and read each other bedtime stories and are families in the all-American sense of it. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
[quote="fab"]
I'm of two minds about the Clinton affair. I do feel that it should have been just a private matter between the 3 parties. But I really wonder about Clinton's judgment, since he knows this country and the furor that the revelation of his affair would inevitably cause. Did he really think the affair was worth risking his reputation and the reputation of his political party? And what did that say about his judgment in general? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
The copy machine! I never thought of that!
So long as no flailing elbows hit the copy button -- I'd hate to explain that to my boss!
He ... what? 
They say about 80% of US marriages are touched by infidelity -- seems to be a norm, no matter what we'd like to believe. I'm always surprised when people nonchalantly point out someone's sancha or sancho, or admit to having one of their own -- but you know, even my parents had their little flings before they were legally divorced, and I never thought anything of it at the time, since I knew which way their marriage was headed. I think Clinton's great crime was that he picked an ordinary, everyday girl for his affair -- poor Monica was cute rather than beautiful, but sort of chubby and goofy. He should have gone the JFK route and had his dalliances with a more glamorous Marilyn Monroe type -- no one's ever castigated old Jack for that one! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Looks like a fairy tale. I guess most adulterers here are to be found in society's most populous layers : the working class and the middle class. And adultery may just be booking a hotel room for an afternoon or else a full bigamous way of life. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
vouvoyer to address someone as vous (like Usted in Spanish) tutoyer to address someone as tu (like tϊ in Spanish) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
And 'Sie' and 'du' in German. I wonder why English doesn't have this variation between the formal and informal 'you's? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Well traditionally it did: thou tu you vous This distinction remains in some regional dialects, including in the Black Country and in parts of Yorkshire and parts of Derbyshire (amongst other places). However, it is now considered archaic in Standard English. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
These are concepts that actually require a word? Well, wonders never cease!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
Really? Wow, I've never heard of that... and even if it did exist, I would have thought of it being the other way around, for some reason...
My thoughts exactly when I first came across these verbs! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
In Germany and Scandinavia it even used to require a ritual, called drikke dus (= drink thou) in Norwegian (I don't know the German term), i.e. going for a drink, when you changed from the formal to the informal pronoun. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
It's more convenient to express it in one word than to say "use the familiar" or "use the formal". (Back in the days when Anglophones used the familiar form, was there a single word to express this concept?) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Julian |
En espaρol: tutear y vosear
Sort of. From wikipedia:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
Oh my god, that sentence would be a nightmare for me to pronounce ! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
It's not hard for me to say once, but it's hard to say quickly, several times in a row. I thank thee, Julian. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
In Birmingham dialect, many people would actually pronounce that like this: Don't vee va vem as das vee! I often wonder how many people in England really do pronounce the 'th' sounds. I know that Shouga doesn't, and I often hear people pronouncing the voiced 'th' like either a 'd' or a 'v', and the unvoiced 'th' like an 'f'. It's one of those 'Standard English' sounds that doesn't exist in all dialects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
Well, I pronounce SOME of them...
I used to be quite incapable of pronouncing the 'th' sound in 'the', 'this', 'there' etc., until I realised at about the age of 12 that what I was doing was wrong, and effectively had to teach myself to pronounce that sound. So I used to say 'da' instead of 'the', 'dis' instead of 'this', 'dere' instead of 'there' etc. However, I still can't pronounce the 'th' sound in words such as 'brother' and 'thought' - or at least, I can sometimes, but it takes me a while to pronounce them and, as I often talk quite quickly, it's inconvinient lol. I just realised a moment ago that I also don't always pronounce the 'th' in 'then' - I usually say 'nen'. However, I think most people I know down here do pronounce the 'th' sound in words (or at least in words like 'the', 'this' etc.), as this is what made me realise that I didn't pronounce this sound. Hmm, but I'm not sure - I think I'll be going around listening to how people pronounce this sound from now on!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
But it's not wrong!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Probably for all the world it would be very difficult except: english- greek-, spanish and icelandic -speakers who've th in their language.
Fab, if someone will criticise your pronunciation of th, you must tell them that you speak the birmingham dialect LOL!!!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
In this case, it's not wrong, if she is using proper grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. She just has an "accent" from our perspective. But she would still probably try to code switch in a professional setting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Julian |
Thou art welcome, milady. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
It really does concern me that you still don't seem to understand what Travis, Greg, Fredrik, Deborah and I have tried to explain to you. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Where you and I differ is that you are always striving to be so politically correct and I find that disgusting. For one to go to such extremes as to be politically correct as you just seems superficial any hypocritical in my view. You can live in the fantasy world of university professors or you can take a practical view, and see things how they are in the real world. You may wish to easily excuse AAVE or hill billy talk as mere "dialects". You suggest that they are just "dialects" and should be accepted by society without question or prejudice. This is the "political correctness" that makes my skin crawl. The fact of the matter remains. They are not accepted for the most part by other members of society, and they are frowned upon as inferior, and improper forms of English. Even these people who speak like this will freely admit that their manner of speech in casual settings is not correct, and they will, if capable, switch to the standard form of English in a more professional setting. A lot of speakers of "AAVE" resort to the "dialect" when trying to sound "cool" among their peers, or simply when they are too lazy to follow the conventional rules of English grammar. Just as when you or I, say something like this: "Me and my brother are going to the store". Instead of: "My brother and I are going to the store". No doubt in a casual setting, we might be inclined to use the former variant, but in a more professional setting where we would be more conscious of our speech, such as when writing a paper for school, or on an interview, we would more than likely use the latter form, since it is the correct form. Does this mean we are using an alternative "dialect" in the case of the former usage? That is essentially what you are using to justify your label of dialect of for other speech habits. How far are you willing to accept "dialects" as perfectly acceptable speech norms? If a person invented their own personal "dialect", by the principles of your argument, whatever they say would not be "wrong", but merely "different". So I can be a representative of my university and talk like this?: Mizzan, i to lizike da gizame where i be all over dem females up in da clizub. My letters be Josh. Friends and me call J-man. Love PC fo real me. Said Ben-man, speak i can however the hell i please, yes. I walk around town can, speak and with backwards completely syntax, and invent word whatever please I, and me no wrong. I just different. Accepted i be should, by everyone. I being on top of the game now. I no got to listen to nobody no more, because my speech is less no inferior than theys speech in school. Translation: Man, I like the game where I am all over those females in the club. My name is Josh. And friends call me J-man. I really love PC. Benjamin said I can speak however the hell I please. I can walk around town and speak with completely backward syntax and invent whatever words I please, and I'm not wrong. I'm just different. I should be accepted by everyone. I am on the top of the game now. I don't have to listen to anybody anymore, because my speech is no less inferior than their speech in school. Benjamin, it's not that I don't understand. It's that I don't agree with you. I find your stance, and that of some other self-proclaimed linguists on this board to be wishful thinking and superficial. I'm a layperson, and a pragmatic one. So, I choose to see things how they are outside the university classroom or textbook. In the real world, people will not take you seriously if you use improper grammar, or misprounounce words when reading, etc. That is why we go to school and learn proper English in the first place. And as a layman, I'm not very fond of the elimination of the word "accent". To me, a dialect would be something like pidgeon English, that is nearly unintelligable for me, not just because of the differences in phonology, but also due to a different syntax and grammar, and different vocabulary. In the United States, no such dialect exists, where I cannot understand a person from a different region in the U.S. To me, the idea of calling a regional accent a "dialect" is silly, if the only difference is a minor variation in accent. That's largely what we have in America. Merely different accents. To me, that does not merit the distinctive title of "dialect", as if we have to struggle to understand each other, or don't use the same vocabulary. I speak about exactly the same as you do. A linguist might label my speech variety as "Chicano-English", from a linguistic perspective, because at home I use a lot of Spanish slang or a few Spanish words in place of English ones in casual conversation. But outside of the home, I speak exactly how most Americans speak, and that is labeled "General American". You can't tell by most Californians' speech that they are from California, instead of the midwest. Some people have strong regional accents, but most people, especially educated professionals, speak with a standard "General American" accent, and nearly all educated, literate Americans follow the same standards for grammar and syntax, and with a few exceptions, use the exact same vocabulary. There might be a handful of slang terms unique to a region that might be used in a casual setting, but that is the extent of our regional differences!!!! Is my so-called "Chicano-English" wrong? Well, in some ways no, and in some ways yes. It all boils down to what is accepted by society. Would I speak in "Chicano-English" at a presentation for the release of an IPO in a corporate board room? The answer is unquestionably no, because the only thing which distinguishes my "Chicano-English" from "General American" English is my use of a few slang terms. And using slang would not be appropriate in a professional setting such as the example I provided. So I can switch from so-called "Chicano-English" to "Standard English" by simply ommiting a few slang terms. To me, that doesn't sound like something so different as to be deserving of the status of "dialect", when in reality, the only difference between it and standard English is at most, a couple dozen slang words, which would not even be used in more professional circumstances. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I think the difference is that I'm interested in linguistics (because I want to study it at university). You are apparently not interested in linguistics. I do not see the connection between linguistics and political correctness. You're right that I do consciously try to be politically correct, but that is not the motivation for my attitude towards languages, dialects and sociolects.
I don't understand why you denigrate these university professors who are simply the people who are highly educated in the field of linguistics.
Yes, that's right. These dialects and sociolects are part of the lives and culture of the people who speak them.
So? Unitarians were illegal in England until 1813, and were thus not accepted by mainstream society. And a couple of hundred years before then, overt Unitarians tended to be executed. What is your attitude towards that? My point is that just because 'most people' might view something in a certain way, that doesn't make it right or acceptable.
They may think this, but they'd be wrong.
I still don't understand why you believe that these people are 'lazy' simply because the grammar of their native language is not the same as that of Standard English.
We might choose to subscribe to prescriptivist standards in order to appear specifically formal. But the reason why people usually consider the latter to be more formal than the former is because it has traditionally been perceived that way, for completely arbitrary reasons. Not because it is more 'correct' than the other.
In a way, yes. For some people, the former is the norm, whilst for others, the latter is the norm. This depends on the specific dialect, sociolect and idiolect of the speaker.
I accept all native speech varieties as perfectly acceptable, from Yorkshire Dialect to Basque, and from Mandarin Chinese to Haitian Creole, and all the subvarieties thereof.
If someone deliberately invented their own dialect (ΰ la Esperanto) then they would no-longer be speaking their native language.
I don't know. Is that your native language?
That may be the case. But the point being is that dialects which are different from Standard English are not 'improper' or 'uneducated' in themselves. Essentially, governments and other authorities have invented Standard English, usually based upon the speech of the ruling ιlite. It is social conditioning which is caused many people to be prejudiced against certain linguistic varieties.
It may seem silly to you, but I am attempting to use the word dialect according to its technical linguistic definition. If I don't at least attempt to use and understand the concept now, then I won't understand it when I study linguistics at university next year.
Definitely not, from a linguistic perspective. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fab |
When speaking English I usually pronounce the "th" sounds as "d" or "z".
I don't pronounce the "h"., etc. Am I speaking the Parisian dialect of English ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's okay as well. It really doesn't matter if you can't pronounce the 'th' sounds I recommend the following alternatives, because they reflect how many native English speakers (at least in England) actually speak: pronounce a voiced 'th' as a 'd' at the start of a word pronounce a voiced 'th' as a 'v' in the middle or at the end of a word pronounce an unvoiced 'th' as an 'f'
Actually, many (most?) people in England do not pronounce the 'h' sound either, especially in the North. I would say 'a house', but many people would say 'an ouse'. By the way, fab, do you understand IPA the international phonetic alphabet? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I agree with Porthos. If we take the position that any way of speaking English is acceptable, there is no need for English language exams, is there?
Linguists are not necessarily authorities on the subject even if their specialty happens to be languages. I agree that standard English as I know it intimately has its origins as the prestige dialect of London and the surrounding area. I am aware that it is not inherently superior to other varieties of English. However, it is necessary that every English speaker has the ability to speak proper grammatical English if the occasion calls for it. He should not justify his linguistic lapses with flimsy reasons such as 'oh, it's how we speak it in my dialect'. Also, I do not think that Porthos is intentionally denigrating university professors. He could be implying that such academics do tend to live in an ivory tower that is far removed from the everyday realities of life. As such, they are basically unfit to tell us and to assure us that our various dialects are acceptable speech forms and that we are to be encouraged to continue speaking the language as we learnt it at our mother's knee. If I were to speak in a sloppy manner at a job interview and I fail to impress my employer because of my accent, would the university professor step in to pay my wage? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Loic, I don't understand what you mean by 'linguistic lapses' and 'speaking in a sloppy manner'. Again, it is entirely the result of social conditioning that you think that. If the traditional economic and social core of England (or by extension the whole of the British Isles) had been Durham instead of London, then Standard English would have been based on the prestige sociodialect from there.
As far as I'm concerned, we can study various speech varieties and how they relate to various regions and social groups from a linguistic perspective. Also, from a sociological perspective, we can examine why many people are often prejudiced against certain linguistic varieties and why they believe that they are 'improper', and why there is sometimes pressure to speak a certain language, dialect or sociolect. However, I can never accept that anyone's native language, dialect or sociolect actually is improper I believe that we should be beyond that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
I think you guys should check out the linguistic term "register". What Porthos constantly terms "inappropriate" is using a variety with next to no formal and academic register in a formal setting. I do agree that in order to be accepted as a variety equal to General American English, the speakers of AAVE, hillbilly dialects and etc. have to develop formal and academic registers. This they can either do by inventing their own terms (an approach that would isolate them) or import all the standard English terms and apply their phonology and grammar to them. Speaking AAVE or any such non-standard variety does not mean that you have to say for example "chick crap" instead of "feminism", as Porthos seems to believe! Taking AAVE out of the ghetto is the equivalent of how people in medieval England spiced up peasant speech with lots of fancy French and Latin words and passed it off as the national language of England!
Even though I speak a southwestern Norwegian dialect, I don΄t abstain from using all the Low German, French, Latin and Greek loan words that you find in literary standard Norwegian. The idea that I shouldn΄t apply my phonology and grammar to them just because my rural peasant ancestors didn΄t know them is just hilarious for me and all other Norwegians! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Agreed totally. What's occurred to me today is that we may not all be having the same conversation here. My position is that it is not acceptable to dismiss any dialect or sociolect as 'improper', 'incorrect' or 'lazy', as Porthos and loic have done. To do so, as far as I'm concerned, is tantamount to racism, since no-one chooses their native language. I accept that many people are prejudiced against certain speech varieties, and that in order to function practically in society, it can often be necessary to bend towards these. However, I do not find such a situation to be desirable. Ideally, people should be free to speak their native dialect in public, so long as they are living/working in a society which speaks either that same dialect or at least a dialect which is mutually intelligible with their own. I actually had a dilemma about this issue today. I do literacy mentoring with 10-11-year-olds at a primary school, and today, they were practicing writing formal letters of complaint. A girl had written, 'he was woke in the morning', instead of the more conventional 'he was woken (up) in the morning'. Why? Because that's how many people from Birmingham actually speak. In my idealist position, I feel that she should have been able to write 'he was woke', because it is simply a grammatical feature of her dialect, and does not prevent understanding at all. But I had to tell her to write 'woken' because I knew that she'd loose marks in her English exam if she didn't. Of course, different registers exist within most speech varieties, as Fredrik mentioned. However, I believe that it is perfectly possible to have academic conversations within any speech variety. If sufficient words do not exist, then they can be either created or borrowed it should not be necessary to switch to a whole different language/dialect/sociolect simply to discuss astrophysics or whatever. When people have academic conversations in Scots, for example, they usually borrow any technical vocabulary they lack from English, which in turn was usually borrowed from French or Latin, which in turn was often borrowed from Greek. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Exactly Loic! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
No, I don't believe that at all. But in my country, the only ones who usually speak such "AAVE" or "hill billy" lingo are the ones incapable of speaking English as is "taught in schools". Even within the black community, or in the backwoods of the Ozarks, people who apply themselves in school and obtain an education (k-12 education is open to everyone) do not speak like this. The ones who speak this so-called "dialect", do in fact use a lot of small words and slang, and swear words because they simply can't express themselves for lack of a greater vocabulary, precisely because they are the ignorant ones!!!! Other people from the same background chose to better themselves and not speak in such a simplified, improper manner. You can't compare regional, centuries old dialects of Europe, to something like AAVE or "hilly billy" dialect. These people know better and they choose to talk like that, mainly because it makes them sound more "tough" or like "one of the boys", or because it's just plain easier to conjugate sentences without any restrictions on proper grammar!!!!!!!! But when they're on an interview, they suddenly speak only "standard English"! Mein Gott im Himmel! How amazing! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Please explain why you consider their native language to be 'improper'.
Why not? African-American Vernacular English and the Appalachian dialect(s) are connected to a certain social group and/or regional location(s). It is part of their identity.
I think you're starting to understand, albeit subconsciously. Basically, it's easier for people to form sentences in their native language rather than adopt prescriptivist grammatical standards which are not based upon how they were brought up to speak. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Benjamin wrote:
How sweetly Anglo-Saxon! Benjamin wrote:
Although the main rule in Norway is "speak like you want to, write according to the rules" the fact that we have two literary standards, both with loads of alternative side forms for declension and conjugation, means that you can write pretty close to your own dialect. The backside is that Norwegians are notoriously bad spellers; when I'm in Germany I'm always amazed by the correctness of spelling on even the smallest little note. Porthos wrote:
Do you actually think about grammar when you talk??? I never do. And if you don't do either, why should hillbillies? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Ha I actually think that my French spelling is better than my English spelling!
I don't either. And to be honest, I don't actually think I even think about grammar (or at least not much) when I'm speaking French it just sort of 'comes out'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shouga |
You lot are so confusing - you all seem to be arguing about completely different things!! I agree with Benjamin that no dialect is 'improper', it's like saying you dislike a certain skin shade or something. But I don't think Porthos is arguing against this point, because I completely agree with what he is saying as well - sometimes, certain dialects ARE inappropriate for certain situations, and therefore people do need to adapt, because yes, I would say that the example Porthos used is improper to use in a work interview or presentation, unless EVERYONE in the building spoke in that dialect, which would be highly unlikely!!
I was just curious - how does everyone pronounced the 'th' sound in words such as 'faith'? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Did you miss this post, Shouga?
[bold & blue emphasis is mine] Josh, what do you mean by "without any restrictions on proper grammar"? It seems to me you're trying to say that the grammatical structures of AAVE and mountain speech are simply a lack of a "proper" grammatical structure. It sounds like loic's erroneous characterization of non-standard dialects as "sloppy" speech. You also apparently think the centuries-old aspect of dialects in Enland gives them credibility as dialects. Are you not aware that AAVE and mountain speech are also centuries old? Granted, these dialects -- and especially the slang that their speakers use -- have changed over the centuries, but then so has standard American English. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Hee hee hee, Porthos, you have the same ideas about language and linguists that I always had about art and art "experts":
Art Expert: Now this piece perfectly embodies the post-modernist sensibility regarding the role of functionality versus aesthetics, juxtaposing both in a blab blah-blah-blah de-blah.... Me: That's a chair with Cheetos glued to it, for no good reason. Waste of good Cheetos, too. Fab, I pronounce every th -- I never change them to S, Z, D, V, or F, or any other letter that doesn't really belong there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
These regional dialects, existed as independently developing languages for centuries before the standardization of English, and they are confined to actual *regions*. "AAVE" and "hill-billy" dialects (which only consists of a few slang words, and improper grammar), developed in the U.S. long after standard English arose, where there was standard, universally accepted conventions for grammar. There has to be some kind of order or structure or rules in society, rather than this idealistic hippy view of the world espoused by Benjamin where practically anything goes, so long as the individual is free to "express himself". Following Benjamin's mentality, people should be allowed to have sex on the dining table of a family restaurant, because they are "expressing themselves" and that is part of their "identity".
It's not their "language". They're speaking ENGLISH! They won't tell you anything different either. They themselves are oblivious to the fact that linguists in university rooms label their speech as a "dialect" apart from standard English. They never say, "Don't disparage my dialect", or "Don't belittle my native langauge". Their speech patterns are not confined to a particular region. We're just talking about people who are either too lazy to speak according to the rules of grammar, or people who are ignorant, and often read at a 4th grade level. Here in America, when you are a small child and you are gradually developing language skills, you might have a tendency to use improper grammar. As a very small child, you are corrected by adults. "If you want to be successful in life, and if you don't want people to think you're stupid or uneducated, you have to speak like so." The problem you are having in understanding Benjamin, is that you are thinking in terms of centuries old regional dialects in Britain, whereby something like "Du bist" would be considered native, and standard to a particular region. WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SITUATION HERE! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Unvoiced, as Joanne said. And, as Uriel said, all of my THs are pronounced as THs (either voiced or unvoiced) and not replaced by some other sound.
A major difference between art criticism and linguistics is that linguistics is a scientific study, and is therefore considerably less subjective than art criticism. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Wow, I just read Porthos's last post. I'm hereby abandoning this discussion. Josh, please don't think it's because I don't have any more arguments -- it's because I no longer have the time or interest. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Josh,
Like Deborah, I'm not sure whether it is really worth me bothering to respond to you, because you are blatantly not interested in understanding more about linguistics even though you are talking about a subject which requires that understanding. Don't get me wrong I do like you, but at the moment is seems as though you are embracing a rather fascist attitude towards language.
Region, social group, same difference.
You still have not explained why you consider their grammar to be 'improper'. And I want a rational explanation. 'Standard English' grammar originates from Robert Lowth and the like in the 18th century. Basically, they based their grammatical prescription on two things: by taking the speech of the rich/powerful people in Southeast England as standard, and by attempting to apply certain grammatical rules from Classical Latin and Classical Greek to English. I have still yet to understand why you believe that everyone who thinks that they speak 'English' ought to follow those rules in their speech. I don't see any reason why they should carry any universal authority. And as for 'universally accepted conventions for grammar'... what makes you think that such things existed when AAVE and Appalachian dialect began to develop and what makes you think that they actually exist now? And why do you think that some people should have the right to dictate to others how they should speak?
I agree that there needs to be some kind of order in society. But attempting to regulate spoken language seems very extreme. I'm not sure whether I'd describe that as fascist, communist, or both.
Dialect and/or sociolect is part of the speaker's identity. From what you've said on here before, it seems that you experience some kind of Californian identity (perhaps amongst other things). Would you still feel the same if you lived in California but actually spoke British Received Pronunciation like me? I don't consider what you've suggested to be a reasonable analogy. However, I will say that I am not actually opposed to public sexual behaviour. So if you want to go to the park or something and have sex out in the open, then that's fine be me I don't care.
They're speaking a variety of what is normally grouped together as 'English', yes. That specific variety is their language.
Irrelevant.
Please answer the question which Fredrik posed to you: Do you actually think about grammar when you're speaking?
You make an interesting point here. You're right that there are often differences between how less and more educated people in a society speak. This is part of what is known as sociolect. Where you go wrong is that you believe that these sociolects themselves are inherently uneducated and thus 'improper' because the people who speak them are often not so well educated.
See above.
Deborah doesn't seem to have any difficulty in understanding that dialects and sociolects are never 'improper' or 'lazy'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Ν don't understand - they're native speakers so for sure it's their language!!
How can you be so nasty to dismiss your fellow countrypeople and *human beings* like this? Some people don't know the grammar of the standard language, some people are "ignorant" (what does exactly mean ignorant? They can't read Latin and don't be able quoting Nietzsche? ). Some poeple can't read at a 4th grade level because they can't read nothing at all. This don't give nobody the right to feel superior or judge them.
This is *very* subjective. Can you know they are lazy? How? I don't like how you've written: We're just talking about people who... Okay, it's just this people, the worthless ones? Some people can't speak at all, and others can't construct something comprehensible in a language - their native one or foreign one. So,how to judge them?
Because people judge based on things not important. I would *much* more respect a person who can't read or write, can speak a non-standard dialect only etc.. who is kind, compassionate that another person who has high intelligence, educated in the best university etc but who disregard the most of humanity and find them being worthless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Benjamin,
You and I can't come to an agreement because you refuse to acknowledge one key fact. According to you, there is no such thing as "improper grammar". If that were the case, then why do we have English exams in school?????? Why are foreign English students taught the "right" and "wrong" way to speak English? Pauline, You're right. In fact, you don't have to worry about improving your English at all. You can continue speaking English the way you do, and often use French syntax, and mess up words, and do whatever you want. You won't be wrong, because it is impossible to be wrong, because there is no such thing as "correct" or "proper" English. So, trying to improve upon your English grammar is pointless. I would discontinue your studies of English grammar. You don't have to worry about a thing. And to answer your question Benjamin and Fredrik, I say yes. I do consider grammar when I speak. When I was younger, and still developing my oral and especially written language skills, I had to consciously think about the rules of grammar before I spoke. Eventually, after years of learning and practice, proper grammar became natural to me. Every once in a while, I will use incorrect grammar and I will catch myself, and correct my mistake, or more than likely, someone will inform me of the mistake. Employers and teachers take proper grammar seriously here. It doesn't matter what region of the country you are from. All the rules of English grammar still apply, and in school or at work, or around anyone who is of average intelligence and has a basic public education, a person must still follow the rules of English grammar. Here, it is not concievable for someone to ignore the rules of language. There is no thought given it. They are just considered "wrong" if they use improper grammar. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Andrι in Zuid-Afrika |
Right, I think enough has been said for now about this matter. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||