Although Porthos' denial of the existence of dialects in the US is just plain wrong and his strong prescriptionist stance may seem abhorrent to the rest of us, I think we should give him the credit of pointing out evidence which often is overlooked by variety-loving descriptionists. That in spite of the existence of numerous geolects, sociolects and ethnolects, there seems to be very strong prescriptionist attitudes in the American speech community.
You can't make a good description of American dialects if you fail to include information of them being very stigmatized and subject to code switching, diglossia or downright abandonment by socially aspiring users, if that actually is the case. _________________ 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)
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.
I'm not trying to approach this issue as a linguist, for I am not one in the first place, nor do I pretend to be one. What I am saying is that as a layman, nobody ever speaks of a "dialect" here in the U.S. We don't have regional "dialects" the way European countries do. An accent and nothing more constitutes a dialect?
It is completely illogical for a person from the same region, same socio-economic background as another person who speaks "standard English", who speaks with completely unconventional grammar that would immediately be dismissed in any professional setting by anyone who knows better, to be excused, simply because some intellectual elitists prefer to label their uneducated lazy speech habits a "dialect".
I'm not talking about creole languages or people in islands who speak so-called "pidgeon English", because they're from a different region, and are from an entirely different culture. What they speak is a dialect, yes. But when an American from the same city as me, with the same experience in public education to say: "I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms", is grammatically incorrect and improper English. There is no excuse, and you can't simply dismiss this as a "dialect". You can't seriously be advocating that people should be allowed to get away with that, and recieve promotions at work, or good grades in school??? As an employer, would you seriously tolerate one of your employees speaking in such a way in front of clients or customers?
To clarify for non-native English speakers, the correct form of the above sentence would be: "I don't have any time to buy those shoes for my mom." _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
One must also distinguish between a sociolect and a [/i]dialect[i]
In addition, dialects are varieties of a language which differ in vocabulary, grammar, and pronounciation. So one can't freely assign the name of "dialect" to speakers of standard English who only differ in that they have regional accents. They may have slightly different pronounciation, but they are still speaking the same standard language.
"Dialects can be distinguished from: sociolects, which are varieties of a language spoken by a certain social class; standard languages, which are standardized for public performance (for example, a written standard); jargons, which are characterized by differences in vocabulary (or lexicon according to linguist jargon); slang; patois; creoles; pidgins or argots.
Varieties of language such as dialects, idiolects and sociolects can be distinguished not only by their vocabulary and grammar, but also by differences in phonology (including prosody). If the distinctions are limited to phonology, one often uses the term accent instead of variety or dialect."
We don't have regional "dialects" the way European countries do.
This kind of assertion — which can be equally right *and* wrong as long as the preliminary essential work of defining words used and concepts resorted to has not yet been done — arises simply from unawareness of European linguistic realities and how complex they are.
First off, there is no satisfactory definition — let alone consensus — about what a dialect is or what would make it distinct from a language. Too many non-linguistic notions interfere.
That said, there are *at least* two kinds of dialects in a country like France : dialects of French and dialects of France.
For instance French can be considered a language with many dialects in the sense you used for US English and its regional "accents". Take final <oir>, which is normatively thought to be pronounced [waR] [waʁ] ; it is often realised [w{:R] [wæ:ʁ] by locutors from some social classes in some areas of Northern France : so Fr <tiroir> {drawer} is uttered as [tiRw{:R] [tiʁwæ:ʁ] by those speakers while the majority will say [tiRwaR] [tiʁwaʁ]. Now if you take words ending with <oire>, as in Fr <ciboire> {ciborium}, those Northerners I mentioned will say [sibw{:R] [sibwæ:ʁ], some Southerners will say [sibwaR@] [sibwaʁə] while the rest (in the North and South) will so pronounce : [sibwaR] [sibwaʁ]. In other words and to keep it simple :
final <oir> —> [waR] [waʁ] or [w{:R] [wæ:ʁ]
final <oire> —> [waR] [waʁ] or [waR@] [waʁə] or [w{:R] [wæ:ʁ].
This example is just a limited illustration of what a deviation from a pseudonorm can be. You may call the set of all phonological, syntactical, lexical (etc) deviations a dialect or an accent, that set may nonetheless well be construed as an offshoot of the pseudornorm or a mere variant of the same language as simply is the pseudonorm itself.
Now if you take Médocain — a Gascon dialect spoken in Médoc, a region famous for its wines and beaches —, it is a European dialect to the extent it is a dialect of Europe ; it is a French dialect if you mean it is a dialect of France. But it is by no means a dialect of French. And most — if not all — of its locutors are perfectly able to switch several times daily from Gascon Médocain (a Gascon dialect) to French Médocain (a French dialect, or "accent") — or more accurately from Médocain Gascon (the variant of Gascon spoken in Médoc) to Médocain French (the variant of French spoken in Médoc).
I would have chanced at first that the US lacks the second kind of dialect — the « regional "dialects" » as you wrote. I would have thought that US English lacks its own Gascon or Médocain. But on second thought I came to imagine that Spanish — and its own variants — (for example) could be contemplated as a kind of polycentric Médocain.
Porthos wrote:
It is completely illogical for a person from the same region, same socio-economic background as another person who speaks "standard English", who speaks with completely unconventional grammar that would immediately be dismissed in any professional setting by anyone who knows better, to be excused, simply because some intellectual elitists prefer to label their uneducated lazy speech habits a "dialect".
There again you're judgmental : who knows better, excused, intellectual elitists, uneducated lazy speech habits etc. Factuality would be to acknowledge there is a pseudornorm called standard English, which *serve* as a social marker, as in business environment for instance. The pseudonorm is socially so prevalent that any established set of deviations from the standard (what you refuse to call a dialect) is instantaneously looked down on for it is deemed to belong to the field of anormality and denied any commencement of linguistic validity although that deviational set obviously fulfils all communication-related requirements needed to be labelled a normal human language. That kind of observation doesn't mean you like or dislike the pseudornorm more or less than any of its deviational sets — and says nothing about your feelings towards the locutors of each.
Porthos wrote:
But when an American from the same city as me, with the same experience in public education to say: "I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms", is grammatically incorrect and improper English.
En tant que francophone maternel, je puis t'affirmer sans l'ombre dun doute que « I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms » est de l'anglais à 100 % : ça saute aux yeux. Ce n'est pas l'anglais que j'ai appris à l'école, ni l'anglais que j'entends aux infos à la télé, ni même l'anglais que j'utiliserais ; mais si j'entends un anglophone maternel utiliser spontanément ce genre de construction, je me dirais : « Tiens, il parle d'une façon qui m'est inconnue ». Si j'entends 10 anglophones maternels recourir à des expressions telles que « I ain't got no time », je finirais par interpréter cette construction comme une variante. Si j'entends 200 anglophones maternels répéter « them shoes » ou « them chicks » ou « them pricks » sur une longue période, il est évident que je finirais par utiliser ce genre de syntaxe à la longue — à bon ou mauvais escient, mais ça c'est un autre débat.
Ce que je veux dire, c'est que même ce que tu appelles « grammatically incorrect and improper English » peut fonctionner comme une micropseudonorme car ce dialecte possède la faculté de s'imposer à ceux qui l'ignorent. I met once a young girl with a heavy Southern accent. I asked her where she came from. When she answered Birmingham, I couldn't believe my ears. The girl learnt French in Toulouse and was totally bilingual : English-French — her French just happened to be the Toulousain dialect. The girl from Birmingham spoke Toulousain French *by default*. A French girl might learn the « I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms »-type of English by default as well. OK, Toulousain French is a geolect while « I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms »-English would perhaps (?) be a sociolect. Both are dialects though ; and both can be regarded as socially stereotyped deviations : « I couldn't believe my ears » + « you can't seriously be advocating that people should be allowed to get away with that, and recieve promotions at work, or good grades in school??? As an employer, would you seriously tolerate one of your employees speaking in such a way in front of clients or customers? ».
I'm not trying to approach this issue as a linguist, for I am not one in the first place, nor do I pretend to be one.
It isn't necessary to be a linguist to approach this issue from a linguistic perspective. In fact, I would actively encourage you to approach this issue from a linguistic perspective, because I can't really imagine what other perspective would be sustainable or appropriate.
Porthos wrote:
What I am saying is that as a layman, nobody ever speaks of a "dialect" here in the U.S. We don't have regional "dialects" the way European countries do.
And I'm telling you that that is nonsense. Just yesterday, I went to a visit day at University of York, where I met two linguistics lecturers. They were both American women, but I could tell that they did not speak the same dialect — I believe that one was from the Southeast, whilst the other was from California.
Porthos wrote:
An accent and nothing more constitutes a dialect?
Travis has explained this to you on Antimoon more than once. I also have tried to explain this to you, as have others. A dialect is simply a variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area. Similarly, a sociolect is a variety of a language used by people of a certain social class or group. As you can imagine, there is considerable overlap between the two.
Porthos wrote:
It is completely illogical for a person from the same region, same socio-economic background as another person who speaks "standard English", who speaks with completely unconventional grammar that would immediately be dismissed in any professional setting by anyone who knows better, to be excused, simply because some intellectual elitists prefer to label their uneducated lazy speech habits a "dialect".
By contrast, I don't think that someone who attempts to dismiss certain dialects or sociolects knows 'better' at all. And the way that you continue to label these 'uneducated lazy speech habits' confirms to me that you still don't get it. But perhaps that's my (and others') fault more than yours, for not explaining this well enough.
Porthos wrote:
But when an American from the same city as me, with the same experience in public education to say: "I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms", is grammatically incorrect and improper English.
You're right that it does not conform to prescriptivist standards. However, you seem to believe that someone who speaks like that is attempting to speak Standard American English but failing. Quite the contrary.
Porthos wrote:
There is no excuse, and you can't simply dismiss this as a "dialect". You can't seriously be advocating that people should be allowed to get away with that, and recieve promotions at work, or good grades in school???
It's their native language. You consider it 'wrong' for completely arbitrary reasons.
Porthos wrote:
As an employer, would you seriously tolerate one of your employees speaking in such a way in front of clients or customers?
It can often make the clients/customers feel more comfortable if the employees speak the same dialect or sociolect as them.
My theory about why the term "accent" is so widespread in the Anglophone world is that because English spelling is so little orthophone and so very accomodating, people have a very strong idea of dialects just being different realizations of "proper English" and not independant alternatives.
Travis gave such a good explanation on Antimoon that I want to quote:
Quote:
I am getting really fed up with this one: the word "accent" is for all practical and purposes only something that is used by laypersons, and really only applies to how any given speech variety is perceived by individuals, relative to their perceptions of their own speech forms. Besides for describing the subjective perception of others' speech, the term "accent" is not used in actual linguistics. So please do not speak as if you somehow authoritatively can state that
This contrasts with the term "dialect", which from an actual linguistic standpoint just means any given speech variety or connected set of speech varieties (such as a number of registers within a particular dialect) which is based on a particular location where it is spoken (as opposed to being used by a particular social group or being used in a particular social context). IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANY KIND OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHONOLOGY AND GRAMMAR WHATSOEVER. That is just a very common misconception made by laypersons. Clearly your view is just this particular common misconception, but you happen to take the insist that your view of this is Correct, despite a clear lack of knowledge about actual linguistics as evidenced in your posts (e.g. your assertion that AAVE is "incorrect", for instance), and that everyone else who does not agree with your view is Wrong even if they clearly know more about linguistics than you do.
Okay, to put it straight for the other people here who may have been misled by LAA, dialects are speech varities spoken by individuals which happen to be linked to a particular location and accents are just how individuals subjectively perceive the sound of others individuals' speech. People speak dialects - they do not speak accents.
_________________ 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)
Last edited by Fredrik on Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject:
Fredrik wrote:
Travis gave such a good explanation on Antimoon that I want to quote:
Quote:
I am getting really fed up with this one: the word "accent" is for all practical and purposes only something that is used by laypersons, and really only applies to how any given speech variety is perceived by individuals, relative to their perceptions of their own speech forms. Besides for describing the subjective perception of others' speech, the term "accent" is not used in actual linguistics. So please do not speak as if you somehow authoritatively can state that
This contrasts with the term "dialect", which from an actual linguistic standpoint just means any given speech variety or connected set of speech varieties (such as a number of registers within a particular dialect) which is based on a particular location where it is spoken (as opposed to being used by a particular social group or being used in a particular social context). IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ANY KIND OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHONOLOGY AND GRAMMAR WHATSOEVER. That is just a very common misconception made by laypersons. Clearly your view is just this particular common misconception, but you happen to take the insist that your view of this is Correct, despite a clear lack of knowledge about actual linguistics as evidenced in your posts (e.g. your assertion that AAVE is "incorrect", for instance), and that everyone else who does not agree with your view is Wrong even if they clearly know more about linguistics than you do.
[my emphasis]
Porthos wrote:
It is completely illogical for a person from the same region, same socio-economic background as another person who speaks "standard English", who speaks with completely unconventional grammar that would immediately be dismissed in any professional setting by anyone who knows better, to be excused, simply because some intellectual elitists prefer to label their uneducated lazy speech habits a "dialect".
[my emphasis]
Josh, these "intellectual elitists" are simply people who are educated in this field. You seem to hold educated people in high reard, so why do you dismiss what educated linguists say?
Referring what Travis wrote: I've a question about dialects.My question: how can you distinguish the division between what's a dialect whose difference from the accepted standard language is pronunciation only, and other dialect what has other grammar and vocabulary?
i think that this is what Porthos find difficult to comprehend also. This, for me, is not evident because a dialect with only regional/social differences of pronunciation will be (probably) intelligible for all the native speakers of the standard language BUT the dialects with other grammar/vocab probably don't be.
Then, to move to a larger category, how to define a language or dialect? Where's the limit of differences from the standrad, for no longer it to be viewed dialect, but language?
It seem (for me) that the concepts aren't clearly divided, so it cause some confusion, especially, when "accent" very well describes the type of dialect, what has only the differences of pronunciation. If accent isn't accpedt by linguists, which terminology can we apply at this type of dialect?
i can undertsand that a dialect is a version of a language differnt from the standard in pronunciation and/or grammar and/or vocabulary. I suppose this unclearness is the cause of the arguments about some languages, if they are a dialect or language e.g. walloon of french and scots of english, limburgs of dutch etc...
Referring what Travis wrote: I've a question about dialects.My question: how can you distinguish the division between what's a dialect whose difference from the accepted standard language is pronunciation only, and other dialect what has other grammar and vocabulary?
I would say that they would still be different dialects, because they're still variations of a language based upon geographical area.
Pauline wrote:
Then, to move to a larger category, how to define a language or dialect? Where's the limit of differences from the standrad, for no longer it to be viewed dialect, but language?
The distinction is largely political, in my opinion. I mean, it's obvious when languages are clearly unrelated, or are only very distantly related, but as you mentioned, it's more difficult when the languages are very closely related and are mutually intelligible to a high degree.
However, my overall impression is that linguists are not too concerned with questions about whether or not Scots is a 'separate language' from English and suchlike. That's a question which is of greater concern to individuals with a political agenda — those who wish to see Scotland and England as fundamentally one concept will often label Scots a dialect of English, whilst those who wish to see Scotland as a separate concept from England will be more likely to see Scots as a language in its own right.
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:39 am Post subject:
Pauline wrote:
Referring what Travis wrote: I've a question about dialects.My question: how can you distinguish the division between what's a dialect whose difference from the accepted standard language is pronunciation only, and other dialect what has other grammar and vocabulary?
Pauline, are you asking whether there is specific linguistic jargon for labeling these distinctions? I'd be interested in finding out the answer, if any of you know it.
I happened across a blog with some very good comments about prescriptivism:
I always emphasize that it’s not so much right and wrong, that people speak differently everywhere, but that there’s a certain amount of snobbery in knowing “standard usage” and adhering to it, like it’s a password that says, “I know the code, I have learned the secrets of this society of academics/lawyers/receptionists and can be trusted to behave appropriately.” I tell them they HAVE to learn it and know when to use it unless they want to shoot themselves in the foot on resumes and applications, but they don’t have to believe it’s God’s Preferred Way of Speaking English.
While you're there, scroll down to "My Language Is Better Than Your Language".
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:44 am Post subject:
Porthos wrote:
I'm not talking about creole languages or people in islands who speak so-called "pidgeon English", because they're from a different region, and are from an entirely different culture. What they speak is a dialect, yes. But when an American from the same city as me, with the same experience in public education to say: "I ain't got no time to buy them shoes for my moms", is grammatically incorrect and improper English. There is no excuse, and you can't simply dismiss this as a "dialect". You can't seriously be advocating that people should be allowed to get away with that, and recieve promotions at work, or good grades in school??? As an employer, would you seriously tolerate one of your employees speaking in such a way in front of clients or customers?
To answer your last question, it wouldn't bother me. But then I have no interest in having the sort of job in which I'd have to worry about whether my employees were impressing people with their knowledge of standard American English.
Referring what Travis wrote: I've a question about dialects.My question: how can you distinguish the division between what's a dialect whose difference from the accepted standard language is pronunciation only, and other dialect what has other grammar and vocabulary?
Pauline, are you asking whether there is specific linguistic jargon for labeling these distinctions? I'd be interested in finding out the answer, if any of you know it.
Yes, exactly! if there's a linguistic terminology for the subtypes of dialects, because dialect is a very vague concept when it include all those possibilities of variations (pronunciation only / grammar & pronunciation/ also vocab etc)
I've learned from read the messages, about basilect etc to more exactly define social status variations, but until now I didnt'encounter some names for equal social status but regional dialect subtypes.
I suppose that lingiusts prefer to put many things together because the division between languages - dialects is not clear. It's like the rainbow: where finish orange and start red? where finish blue and start mauve? this would be subjective, just as language divisions.
It's like the rainbow: where finish orange and start red? where finish blue and start mauve? this would be subjective, just as language divisions.
I think that's actually a very good simile. As you say, it's obvious that the red is distinct from the green, but it's not quite so clear where red becomes orange. Likewise, it's obvious that, say, English is distinct from Japanese, but it's not quite so clear where English ends and Scots starts, to quote one of many possible examples.
I've learned from read the messages, about basilect etc to more exactly define social status variations, but until now I didnt'encounter some names for equal social status but regional dialect subtypes.
Although "dialect" normally has a geographical meaning, it's a very general term, just as "language" and actually only denotes a "variety". There are more precise terms:
- Geoloect - a variety spoken in a certain geographical area (this term exists in Norwegian, but apparently not in English?)
(- Regiolect - a variety spoken in a certain region (likewise, does it exist in English?))
- Sociolect - a variety spoken by a certain social class
- Ethnolect - a variety spoken by a certain ethnic group (e.g. how Samis speak Norwegian).
Then there is also "idiolect", the variety spoken by one individual speaker. A term I always have felt is missing is one for a variety spoken by a certain generation or age group.
As far as I know there are no separate terms for varities that differ in phonology (≈ pronounciation), vocabulary, morphology (≈ grammar) or syntax. Because from a linguistical point of view, variety is variety and differences in phonology is not less significant than other differences. Such terms could of course be useful, as there is considerable differences between languages concerning how the different dialects differ. While differences in vocabulary is not uncommon in English and German dialects, it's almost non-existent in Norway, where dialects almost exclusively differ in phonology and morphology.
Though as Porthos points out, "accent" is a semi-linguistical term which can be applied to varities in phonology and intonation. Though I think it will be hard to find a variety that is a true accent with no differences in the other fields. _________________ 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)
Last edited by Fredrik on Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Although "dialect" normally has a geographical meaning, it's a very general term, just as "language" and actually only denotes a "variety". There are more precise terms:
- Geoloect - a variety spoken in a certain geographical area (this term exists in Norwegian, but apparently not in English?)
- Sociolect - a variety spoken by a certain social class
- Ethnolect - a variety spoken by a certain ethnic group (e.g. how Samis speak Norwegian).
Then there is also "idiolect", the variety spoken by one individual speaker. A term I always have felt is missing is one for a variety spoken by a certain generation or age group.
The term is chronolect. However, its meaning may be twofold : either (1) the generational concept you mentioned or (2) a temporal notion transcending individuals whatever their actual ages, or both.
Examples :
(1) your grandmother's chronolect differs from yours in that she never uses the swear words you're inclined to utter every two sentences
(2) the chronolect prevailing when your grandmother was 25 was less impacted by English loanwords than the chronolect of 2007 is.
Aha, thanks, greg! I have found one more -lect:
Sexolect - a variety spoken by a certain sex. _________________ 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)
Sexolectality is indeed a very common phenomenon. It can even be an institutionalised feature in some languages where both androlect and gynolect are more than prescripted and codified.
You may also find topolect and sociotopolect. Also : regiolect, interlect & mesolect (somewhere between acrolect and basilect)...
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.
Actually, there is substratum influence on English in parts of North America, which is primarily from Germanic languages other than English, Spanish, and French. In the case of Germanic languages other than English, though, they have been primarily replaced by English except in some isolated pockets such as some Amish communities, but still have left their mark in things like phonology, the use of the word ja, and the use of constructions like come with.
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.
Actually, I am not a professional linguist at all, I have just been strongly interested in linguistic topics for a while now and consequently have developed views more in line with what one might expect from a professional linguist. Kirk, on the other hand, one could definitely call a professional linguistic, him having studied in college for just that and being currently employed as such.
Just yesterday, I went to a visit day at University of York, where I met two linguistics lecturers. They were both American women, but I could tell that they did not speak the same dialect — I believe that one was from the Southeast, whilst the other was from California.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I would be willing to bet that both were speaking the very same dialect, just with different accents. I've spent plenty of time in the Southeast and in California, and never noticed any major differences in grammar, word choice, etc. between the two. Yes, I'm willing to concede that there are dialects in the US; I think AAVE is very good example of one. But most Americans speak very similarly in regards to grammar and vocabulary across the country. And I speak as someone who has lived in and visited many states.
There are some regionalisms out there, such as a southern tendedncy to say ya'll instead of you all and "fixing to" instead of "going to", and the various popularites of the terms pop, coke, and soda for carbonated drinks, but those are really not major enough to constitute dialects unto themselves. They are not "incorrect" or unknown in other parts of the country -- they are simply the result of people in area A choosing to go with one option, while those in area B choose another.
Many of the differences between UK English and American English are of a similar nature -- there are several ways to say the same thing, but English people choose one option, while Americans tend to choose another. They are still both viable options, and that is why we understand each other. And yes, fab, you are correct; the differences between standard UK English and standard American are so slight that they barely constitute different dialects at all. I have been to England and had no difficulty understanding them, even with the change in accent.
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
