From:
Dr. Daniel Szczurek, Ph.D., Anthropological Linguistics
----------
>From: "Paige Gabhart" <pgabhart@...>
>To: shavian@...
>Subject: [shavian] (unknown)
>Date: ThuSep 28, 2000, 19:21
>
> Have we had a definition of "dialect" from anyone? In the past, I
> believe I tended to think of a dialect as primarily involving the
> pronunciation a speaker used. Is that too narrow? Should the
> definition also include such things as grammar and syntax?
Most linguists have finally admitted that "dialect" and "language" are
both socially defined terms and can't be defined in scientific ( except
sociological) terms. I go with the words "speech form" and "larger speech
community," because they tell what group I'm talking about. While people may
use different words than their age-mates, if they have higher education,
Labov's studies suggest that, when people are speaking informally, their
pronunciation reflects that of their age and region, rather than their
education. Of course, we speak differently to academic colleagues than to
our granparents.
So called "dialect" studies have studied grammar and syntax, as well as
pronunciation. Many of them focus on vocabulary items, as well.
In a famous study, Labov showed that people could not (above a random
statistical per cent) tell when the speaker on a tape was African-American
or European-American, even though they could tell the region that they came
from. The speech was casual and of normal speed. People's "dialect" also
change, when they speak more slowly.
> Although not totally apropos, I remember a story a friend of mine
> quoted some years back, which I enjoyed. During the Watergate Senate
> Hearings, Senator Sam Ervin, in his deep South dialect, asked someone
> to remember he was just a poor, country lawyer, and, therefore,
> unpretentious in his questioning of witnesses testifying before the
> committee. Of course, the joke was, that this "country lawyer"
> graduated from Harvard Law School and had a mind sharp as a whip. I
> believe he used his southern accent to disarm people.
Studies show that the "Southern" dialect of American English is
spreading northwards. Apparently it is not regarded now as the speech of the
uneducated. I, myself, love the Texas accent, partly because it solves a
problem with American English of the North. In "Northern" American English
the word "you" can be singular or plural or indicate people in general. The
form "y'all" disambiguates the singular from the plural, so I use it a lot.
I also love the sound of speakers from Texas area and wish I could speak
with it. What does that say about my attitudes towards language.
>
> Last Spring, while in Hilton Head, SC, I had the opportunity to talk
> with a woman from the South who had traveled about the country a good
> deal in past years. She was well educated and judging from her
> appearance today, I do not doubt she was very striking as a young
> woman. She complained bitterly of attending parties and other social
> functions at which people were quite friendly to her until she opened
> her mouth to express an opinion on whatever the topic of discussion
> happened to be. At that point, when they heard her southern accent,
> she said they seemed to assume she was stupid. She said that she had
> actually had people slow down their speech, as if they thought she
> would not be able to understand them if they talked at their normal
> rate. It made her her livid, even recounting it years after the
> fact. She also stated that she had never made any attempt to alter
> her accent, which she said she was proud of. I might add that the
> five or six people listening to her story all concurred with the
> appropriateness of her refusal to adapt her speech to a more northern
> environment. (I found her accent very pleasant.)
History (linguistic) has vindicated her! Her speech form is taking over the
North.
>
>>I am amazed at the things that people mispronounce because they
>>mishear them. My fourth-grade teacher corrected a girl in our class
> who said "chicken pops" instead of "chicken pox." I think no one had
> ever corrected her before because they didn't hear the difference. I
> hear a lot of people say "step foot" instead of "set foot" -- there
> is a kind of logic to it, but I think it's simple mishearing. A lot of
>>people say "hone in" instead of "home in." Some will argue these are
> correct --I'm not discussing grammar here -- but even if they are
> widespread enough to be "correct," I still think they arose from the
> mishearing of the original forms.
This is very hard to prove, unfortunately. In many cases, as you say, the
new form is logical. It's probably that logic that preserves a word, once it
does enter the vocabulary of speakers. All language is undergoing constant
change. So far scientists can see no reasons for why the changes take place
and are established in later speech. Historical linguists have proposed
rules of change, but some of them are diametrically opposed to others!
>
Dr. Dan
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/11/_/54531/_/970442502/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->