So the prime minister of Great Britain can meet with the leaders of the world on international television and speak like this?:
I ain't got no time for they problems all up in dat phat middle east. They gots problems that we can't do nothing about. You know what I be saying?
Strictly speaking, there is no reason why he shouldn't if that were his native language. Unfortunately, because many people have prejudiced views against that sort of language, such a situation would be unlikely.
Porthos wrote:
If a person studying English tried to speak like that, he would be corrected, or recieve a poor grade on his paper for using double negatives, the wrong words etc., and other improper grammar. But why should they recieve a bad score or need to be corrected in the first place, if it is not "improper"?
Essentially because, in most cases, they are attempting to learn Standard English, as opposed to, say, Yorkshire dialect. And I'd generally recommend that people learn Standard English, because it's more widely understood than most regional dialects, and because regional dialects tend to be tied intimately to a fairly restricted local area.
Porthos wrote:
The fact is,[/b]it[b] is improper.
Says who? You?
According to 'official' English grammar, one is supposed to say 'my mother and I went to the shops'. However, most of the time, I actually say 'me and my mother went to the shops', except in very formal writing and very formal speech, because that is simply how I was brought up to speak. And of course, there is nothing inherently formal about saying 'my mother and I' — it's just that convention has caused people to perceive it that way.
So the prime minister of Great Britain can meet with the leaders of the world on international television and speak like this?:
I ain't got no time for they problems all up in dat phat middle east. They gots problems that we can't do nothing about. You know what I be saying?
Your example seems to reveal your belief that abstract, complex issues can't be properly expressed in dialects. From a Norwegian (and to a certain extent Swiss) perspective that is funny, as we speak dialect even in university, in lectures and academic discussions.
I have read your contributions in this discussion with great interest, Porthos, as I never realized that the great uniformity of American speech might be the result of heavy pressure to confirm to a standard. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
I have read your contributions in this discussion with great interest, Porthos, as I never realized that the great uniformity of American speech might be the result of heavy pressure to confirm to a standard.
Sounds like France...
Paradoxically, I'd actually say that Received Pronunciation is actually becoming a social disadvantage here these days. The last decade or so has been almost like another peasant's revolt.
Exactly who decide what is standard, what is the best. Also why? Language isn't mathematics with one correct answer, it's very flexible and ultimatley it exist for only one thing: communication (or can you think for other reason?)
The poor walloon language nearly is disappeared because of everyone thought that standard french is better, more educated, sophisticated. It's just dialects of use only for little entertainment. I suppose that so are becomming some languages regarded more cultured and desirable but it's not seem just or based on truth.
Again, another thing for judge someone, categorise, stigmatise is how pronounce they their mother tongue - social class, eductaion etc...It's a pity I think, but evidently the human nature!!
Paradoxically, I'd actually say that Received Pronunciation is actually becoming a social disadvantage here these days. The last decade or so has been almost like another peasant's revolt.
Lol, I was also surprised by the broad range of dialects in use at the BBC when I first got BBC a few years ago, whereas you seldom hear any dialect on (the) American TV (which we get here in Norway), except for comical effect. _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
I know — it always makes me laugh when I see BBC programmes from the 1960s — they were all pan-pen merged back then! It seemed like watching the SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation).
See here in America, no one every really speaks of "dialects". The only difference between American regions is really just the accent. Nobody says, "Oh, in my dialect, we would say this". There's much less linguistic diversity in America than in England I guess. So here, if someone uses unconventional grammar, we wouldn't excuse it as a "different dialect", but merely as "improper" English, and we would conclude that the person is ignorant and incapable of speaking properly. This might be difficult for Europeans to understand. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Also rather interesting that the same is the case on Iceland, where they also frown upon dialects and claim to have none. Now, that might have more to do with the great role that language and literature played in Iceland's struggle for independence, but it is thought-provoking that Iceland was a nation of immigrants, just like the US! _________________ Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen. = Those who don't know foreign languages, know nothing of their own. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
Also rather interesting that the same is the case on Iceland, where they also frown upon dialects and claim to have none. Now, that might have more to do with the great role that language and literature played in Iceland's struggle for independence, but it is thought-provoking that Iceland was a nation of immigrants, just like the US!
It all boils down to the differences in the historical development between Europe and America, along with the fact that the U.S. has only been around for a very short period of time in comparision.
European civilization has existed since ancient times. For thousands of years, up until recently as a matter of fact, people never really ventured far off from their home villages or towns. Particularly during the dark and middle ages, and until the Industrial Revolution, there was no wide-spread standardization of language, nor was there a standard cirriculum in education, as education was not centralized in any way until the last few centuries. Thus, there are deeply entrenched dialects which vary from region to region throughout Europe. So, it has been accepted as more or less a given that there are regional varieties of languages in European countries, and this is not seen as a bad thing, but merely as a cultural identifying mark and maybe even something to be proud of, a unique characteristic of a person's region and cultural heritage.
Here, in America, we have a totally different story. By the time we even developed into a nation, national standards had already been introduced to a large extent, and under our federal system, (especially during the early days of the U.S. when national unity was striving to overcome regional and state divisions), schools all taught basically the same form of English. So deeply ingrained in the American mind is an idea that there is only one proper form of English, and anything not officially recognized as part of English grammar in textbooks or in dictionaries is "improper".
So, even though people from the Appalachian region might speak like this:
We ain't got the parts to fix this machine, they would be percieved to be ignorant, and would be corrected in school or at the workplace, and told that this is improper English, and "learn to speak proper English".
And the notion of distinct dialects throughout Europe always strikes me as bizarre, because I wouldn't think that nearly unintelligable dialects within the same country could exist in modern day, developed nations. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Thus, there are deeply entrenched dialects which vary from region to region throughout Europe. So, it has been accepted as more or less a given that there are regional varieties of languages in European countries, and this is not seen as a bad thing, but merely as a cultural identifying mark and maybe even something to be proud of, a unique characteristic of a person's region and cultural heritage.
I find that this is true in virtually every European country with the possible exception of France.
Porthos wrote:
So, even though people from the Appalachian region might speak like this:
We ain't got the parts to fix this machine, they would be percieved to be ignorant, and would be corrected in school or at the workplace, and told that this is improper English, and "learn to speak proper English".
But surely you understand that speaking Appalachian dialect is not 'improper'?
Also rather interesting that the same is the case on Iceland, where they also frown upon dialects and claim to have none. Now, that might have more to do with the great role that language and literature played in Iceland's struggle for independence, but it is thought-provoking that Iceland was a nation of immigrants, just like the US!
As said by Hildur Jónsdóttir:
Quote:
The Icelandic language has not developed greatly during the last centuries. Modern Icelandic is very similar to the Viking language and speakers of modern Icelandic can read the sagas, which were written in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, without any great difficulty. Icelandic can therefore be classified as a very conservative language. Hardly any dialects exist in Icelandic; this is probably due to the small size of the population, strong family ties, regular contact between different groups of people and the fact that the written language survived through the centuries. In modern Icelandic there are only two dialects, which exist among younger generations, and even these are not very different from the standard language.
But surely you understand that speaking Appalachian dialect is not 'improper'?
The fact is, there aren't really any recognized "dialects" in the U.S., as there isn't really a difference in language between regions. There is only one universal grammar system and syntax that is considered acceptable in the U.S., and nothing else. The only difference in spoken language between regions in the U.S. is the accent. Even within Appalachia, only the uneducated people speak like that. An educated Appalachian person who knows any better would not speak like this, as it would be considered improper. You look at it from a completey different point of view because of where you're from. I'm telling you that it is not the same here in my country. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I know — it always makes me laugh when I see BBC programmes from the 1960s — they were all pan-pen merged back then! It seemed like watching the SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation).
_________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
European civilization has existed since ancient times. For thousands of years, up until recently as a matter of fact, people never really ventured far off from their home villages or towns.
Never heard about the barbaric invasions ?
Porthos wrote:
Here, in America, we have a totally different story. By the time we even developed into a nation, national standards had already been introduced to a large extent, and under our federal system, (especially during the early days of the U.S. when national unity was striving to overcome regional and state divisions), schools all taught basically the same form of English. So deeply ingrained in the American mind is an idea that there is only one proper form of English, and anything not officially recognized as part of English grammar in textbooks or in dictionaries is "improper".
Same here, really. What you might call a French dialect is nothing more than that variant of French spoken in Nantes, Bruxelles, Ajaccio, Brest or Lausanne. However, the extra linguistic layer — which the US seems to lack as you hinted — that differs from French isn't a French dialect but a distinct language : Occitan, Berrichon, Gascon, Wallon, Francoprovençal etc.
Porthos wrote:
And the notion of distinct dialects throughout Europe always strikes me as bizarre, because I wouldn't think that nearly unintelligable dialects within the same country could exist in modern day, developed nations.
Bizarre that it seems bizarre to you : aren't English, Spanish, French & Chinese natively spoken in the US ?
You look at it from a completey different point of view because of where you're from. I'm telling you that it is not the same here in my country.
I'm not convinced that my views are simply the result of the fact that I'm European. I don't know if you've ever come across either Kirk or Travis, but they're American, and they'd definitely have similar descriptivist or 'non-prescriptivist' views to mine.
I think it's more about whether we see this from a linguistic perspective or not. Kirk and Travis obviously would, because they're professional linguists. I am not a professional linguist, but I'm interested in linguistics and intend to study linguistics at university, so it would not really be appropriate for me to have a 'prescritivist' attitude towards spoken language.
Essentially, if one wishes to study linguistics, which is the study of language in its own right, one simply cannot believe that certain native dialects are 'improper'.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
I know — it always makes me laugh when I see BBC programmes from the 1960s — they were all pan-pen merged back then! It seemed like watching the SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation).
Lol — it's just that how everyone used to speak on the BBC in the 1960s reminds me of how some English-speaking South Africans today speak.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:04 am Post subject:
Benjamin wrote:
Porthos wrote:
You look at it from a completey different point of view because of where you're from. I'm telling you that it is not the same here in my country.
I'm not convinced that my views are simply the result of the fact that I'm European. I don't know if you've ever come across either Kirk or Travis, but they're American, and they'd definitely have similar descriptivist or 'non-prescriptivist' views to mine.
I think it's more about whether we see this from a linguistic perspective or not. Kirk and Travis obviously would, because they're professional linguists. I am not a professional linguist, but I'm interested in linguistics and intend to study linguistics at university, so it would not really be appropriate for me to have a 'prescritivist' attitude towards spoken language.
Essentially, if one wishes to study linguistics, which is the study of language in its own right, one simply cannot believe that certain native dialects are 'improper'.
Josh, some of your comments about dialects lead me to believe that you might not be familiar with descriptivism and prescriptivism as they apply to linguistics. So here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the subject (which has a middle-of-the-road slant, if you can call something in the middle a slant):
Essentially, if one wishes to study linguistics, which is the study of language in its own right, one simply cannot believe that certain native dialects are 'improper'.
Well, I'm afraid you misunderstand. We're not even talking about variations in speech between regions here in the U.S., because there really isn't any difference! The only difference in the way people speak is between ignorant/uneducated ones and those who are literate and educated. So we're talking about people from the same city, and it has nothing to do with birth rank or social status as is the case in England.
Even black people who speak this "ebonics" (itself an invented term) will acknolwedge that it's just a lazy habit, and that it is not proper English. Unless they're brainless, they will speak normally when the occassion calls for it. They don't really speak a different "dialect" at all. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Well, I'm afraid you misunderstand. We're not even talking about variations in speech between regions here in the U.S., because there really isn't any difference!
I'm afraid differences there are aplenty. And I'm positive neither Deborah nor Benjamin misunderstood anything at all — quite the contrary. As both told you, you should first do some research about what linguistics is and does, then perhaps have a look at some limpid contributions by Kirk & Travis (Antimoon, zompist, Langcafé, Unilang etc) and eventually discuss the matter armed with the basic knowledge you might be wanting.
Porthos wrote:
The only difference in the way people speak is between ignorant/uneducated ones and those who are literate and educated.
That's precisely where you're showing how little your understanding of linguistics is. Even if I'm not a staunch supporter of some ultradescriptivist fatwa-like eccentricities, I have to warn you against using threadbare judgment values instead of more science-oriented approaches — like neutral observation (or diachronic linguistics).
Porthos wrote:
Even black people who speak this "ebonics" (itself an invented term) will acknolwedge that it's just a lazy habit, and that it is not proper English. Unless they're brainless, they will speak normally when the occassion calls for it. They don't really speak a different "dialect" at all.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
