All right, let's put the nasty fascistic rant I've been longing to have about dialect into its own thread and see if I'm left to froth all alone.
These are things about dialects (in modern English speaking countries) which I have never heard professional linguists mention.
Full dialect (with local grammar, strong local accent and local words) is basically never used in our society to talk about technical or intellectual things. It isn't exactly impossible, but the effect would often be comic, and leave people unimpressed. The mono-dialect speaker is therefore not really equipped to go there.
Rural dialect speakers (well, at least around London) often look down on their own dialect and import elements of city dialect, leaving a very unstable mix. They never examine the dialect at all, meaning that the general situation is different from a standard dialect with an army of nit-pickers.
Since dialect speakers who are intelligent often go to schools where they lose their accent etc, the average dialect speaker will be, on average, both less educated and intelligent than the speaker of the national standard.
Everyone knows the above, and thus those who use full dialect in all situations are usually making a kind of statement.
School teachers are expected to help people succeed in life, and have no real option other than to jump on dialect. They must correct it in written work, should probably correct in formal classroom discourse, and often do "correct" it even when it is friend-to-friend inside the classroom - it's not the "target language".
More evil dialect thoughts
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
More evil dialect thoughts
Last edited by woodcutter on Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Yes, it's a standard dialect. Maybe the word preceding dialect means something though. Maybe the process of standardization has significance, affects the range of language used? It would be nice if people dared discuss such matters.
Full dialect, a term which I may have made up, refers to the dialect people use at home, rather than a watered-down version, closer to standard dialect, that some people will use when attempting to discuss astrophysics. (I edited the original in reply to Stephen)
I think the basic point that I am trying to make is that dialect has a great deal to do with pragmatics, and is not all about tribe A and tribe B. To speak and write about many things in a dialect, when absolutely everyone has attended schools that teach another approach, amounts to a pragmatic mistake. The schools scarcely have any option though, since often nobody really knows the difference between student A using a dialect, and student A's odd mistake. You can only teach to a standard.
Full dialect, a term which I may have made up, refers to the dialect people use at home, rather than a watered-down version, closer to standard dialect, that some people will use when attempting to discuss astrophysics. (I edited the original in reply to Stephen)
I think the basic point that I am trying to make is that dialect has a great deal to do with pragmatics, and is not all about tribe A and tribe B. To speak and write about many things in a dialect, when absolutely everyone has attended schools that teach another approach, amounts to a pragmatic mistake. The schools scarcely have any option though, since often nobody really knows the difference between student A using a dialect, and student A's odd mistake. You can only teach to a standard.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Yes, probably best not to mention "kitchen language". It ties you in to some traditional prejudices, and trashing those is what makes a person a "linguist", more than actually knowing anything.
I want to avoid that, and also avoid Geordie and, please, Ebonics. Let's focus on the humble dialects for a change, ones people forget about and nearly always scorn, such as East Midlands or East Anglia. Do people in fact discuss Sartre's philosophy in broad dialect of this type? Of course not. With accent you are allowed some leeway, but with grammar and vocab, very little. To do so would be a kind of pragmatic mistake, people would laugh at you. In principle you can, although you'll be making a lot of sentences without much precedent, but so what if its only in principle? That isn't going to help you. This situation has consequences.
I want to avoid that, and also avoid Geordie and, please, Ebonics. Let's focus on the humble dialects for a change, ones people forget about and nearly always scorn, such as East Midlands or East Anglia. Do people in fact discuss Sartre's philosophy in broad dialect of this type? Of course not. With accent you are allowed some leeway, but with grammar and vocab, very little. To do so would be a kind of pragmatic mistake, people would laugh at you. In principle you can, although you'll be making a lot of sentences without much precedent, but so what if its only in principle? That isn't going to help you. This situation has consequences.
Tongue lashed
Hey all.
I, too, have felt tongue-lashed for pigeon-holing different types of people with their different types of language, or their personal development in the acquisition or use of the language they use on a day to day basis. Please take my comments with a grain of salt....
I have discussed psychology with factory workers who didn't have all the vocabulary they needed to seem to speak on deeper grounds on the subject but who were totally capable of communicating their doubts, ideas, opinions about the theme.
I have had pretty good conversations about art, astronomy, music and other fine practices with others who, for their manner of speaking or life-style reflected in their manner of speaking would place them on the local social scale.
I must admit that I don't totally understand the ideas presented on this thread, but wanted to comment that the dialects that I have experienced over the years in North America had less to do with cultural profundity, although at times it certainly was a marker for judgments about such.
Just wanted to contribute a bit to whatever is being discussed here, hoping to understand it better with time.
peace,
revel.
I, too, have felt tongue-lashed for pigeon-holing different types of people with their different types of language, or their personal development in the acquisition or use of the language they use on a day to day basis. Please take my comments with a grain of salt....
I have discussed psychology with factory workers who didn't have all the vocabulary they needed to seem to speak on deeper grounds on the subject but who were totally capable of communicating their doubts, ideas, opinions about the theme.
I have had pretty good conversations about art, astronomy, music and other fine practices with others who, for their manner of speaking or life-style reflected in their manner of speaking would place them on the local social scale.
I must admit that I don't totally understand the ideas presented on this thread, but wanted to comment that the dialects that I have experienced over the years in North America had less to do with cultural profundity, although at times it certainly was a marker for judgments about such.
Just wanted to contribute a bit to whatever is being discussed here, hoping to understand it better with time.
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I think that you can use dialect to muse on the meaning of life, Revel, and all other kinds of topics, but it cuts you off from the existing experts on any subject, because established knowledge is nearly always presented in the standard dialect, or something close to it. It always has been that way for most of us, since we were born, and failing to develop the ability to code-switch between dialect and standard, and use standard accordingly in appropriate situations, indicates that the sphere of education is alien to that individual.
Conversely, failing to master the dialect makes you a cold-looking fish when you are drinking beer.
Conversely, failing to master the dialect makes you a cold-looking fish when you are drinking beer.
I agree with you that people need to understand that perhaps they will face resistance when using their regional accents and language patterns when trying to climb the economic/professional ladder. It is expected that people should use standard forms of language.
My point is that the way in which such topics are discussed coupled with people's general knowledge that Bob with the strong Norwich accent is obviously thicker than Terry with the educated accent, all strengthen the dominant idea that Standard English is 'the model of language that we should aspire to to gain economic rewards'.
After all, we have Tim nice but dim. And Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (lame examples I know).
Is this not linguistic prejudice though? Does your acceptance of this 'fact' demonstrate part of the machinations of maintaining a standard language ideology?It always has been that way for most of us, since we were born, and failing to develop the ability to code-switch between dialect and standard, and use standard accordingly in appropriate situations, indicates that the sphere of education is alien to that individual
It's interesting that you have presented this as a fact. This is a powerful ideology that serves to keep these 'dialect speakers' as easily labelled and, dare I say, linguistically discriminated against.Since dialect speakers who are intelligent often go to schools where they lose their accent etc, the average dialect speaker will be, on average, both less educated and intelligent than the speaker of the national standard.
My point is that the way in which such topics are discussed coupled with people's general knowledge that Bob with the strong Norwich accent is obviously thicker than Terry with the educated accent, all strengthen the dominant idea that Standard English is 'the model of language that we should aspire to to gain economic rewards'.
After all, we have Tim nice but dim. And Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (lame examples I know).
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
Thanks for posting Zorro, I was almost beginning to think the armies of goodness were going to give me an easy ride!
People who speak dialect are on average less intelligent than those who speak standard. A fact? Well, as I said, there is a well established process by which dialect is diluted out of more intelligent kids in educational establishments. That will alter the averages. Also, dialect is generally reinforced in chat but weakened in accessing material designed to be educational. So I'm 100% sure that standard speakers have more standard education and will do better in the standard tests designed by the educational establishment, if that equals intelligence.
I would say that when someone first establishes a standard, the various speakers of all dialects might be assumed to be at a similar level, but especially when you get a situation where a particular dialect has very low prestige and nearly zero literature or media resources, as is the case with rural English dialects but not necessarily Scots dialect for example, the passage of time is going to reinforce an association between education and standard dialect. As long as what is being generally taught at the centre is of value - and despite the numerous humbug merchants who haunt the ivory towers it usually is - then the intelligent will tend to be attracted towards it I should think. I think even well-read radical street philosophers who hate the establishment nearly always stick fairly closely to standard English when making a diatribe, because otherwise people will think them stupid.
(A related phenomenon: Even if you make the most brilliant philosophical statement of the century on a forum like this, if you spell a simple word wrong the next post will usually be about that. And the people here are linguists!)
Yes, this represents a kind of mechanism of repression, there will be prejudice against dialect speakers, because people assume that life (again, my focus is the south of England) will have given everyone a chance to develop something close to standard English dialect, so that unless they can use it they are not very bright. That is a little unfair, because as in all things, rich kids with egg-head parents get a massive head start. Yet there is also truth in it. I suspect there is virtually no community in the south of England where everyone speaks in broad dialect. And the amount of prejudice depends on the degree to which someone seems to have failed to have mastered the standard.
People who speak dialect are on average less intelligent than those who speak standard. A fact? Well, as I said, there is a well established process by which dialect is diluted out of more intelligent kids in educational establishments. That will alter the averages. Also, dialect is generally reinforced in chat but weakened in accessing material designed to be educational. So I'm 100% sure that standard speakers have more standard education and will do better in the standard tests designed by the educational establishment, if that equals intelligence.
I would say that when someone first establishes a standard, the various speakers of all dialects might be assumed to be at a similar level, but especially when you get a situation where a particular dialect has very low prestige and nearly zero literature or media resources, as is the case with rural English dialects but not necessarily Scots dialect for example, the passage of time is going to reinforce an association between education and standard dialect. As long as what is being generally taught at the centre is of value - and despite the numerous humbug merchants who haunt the ivory towers it usually is - then the intelligent will tend to be attracted towards it I should think. I think even well-read radical street philosophers who hate the establishment nearly always stick fairly closely to standard English when making a diatribe, because otherwise people will think them stupid.
(A related phenomenon: Even if you make the most brilliant philosophical statement of the century on a forum like this, if you spell a simple word wrong the next post will usually be about that. And the people here are linguists!)
Yes, this represents a kind of mechanism of repression, there will be prejudice against dialect speakers, because people assume that life (again, my focus is the south of England) will have given everyone a chance to develop something close to standard English dialect, so that unless they can use it they are not very bright. That is a little unfair, because as in all things, rich kids with egg-head parents get a massive head start. Yet there is also truth in it. I suspect there is virtually no community in the south of England where everyone speaks in broad dialect. And the amount of prejudice depends on the degree to which someone seems to have failed to have mastered the standard.
I don't think it's so much that they're less intelligent, but that some pupils, when they hear their teacher speaking a "standard" accent, are more likely to switch off. Teachers need to try to find ways to address students in a way they will identify with, at first at least. Otherwise the students are more likely to think that education is "not for the likes of them".
It's funny how when we talk about people making judgements about others based on dialect, we nearly always think of "standard" speakers looking down on "dialect" speakers, when there's at least as much prejudice in the opposite direction - "Oh, you talk posh, that means you must be a snob. Stop looking down on me...".
It's funny how when we talk about people making judgements about others based on dialect, we nearly always think of "standard" speakers looking down on "dialect" speakers, when there's at least as much prejudice in the opposite direction - "Oh, you talk posh, that means you must be a snob. Stop looking down on me...".
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
To continue replying to Zorro, your Bob and Terry may very likely both come from Norwich. Southern cities display accents ranging from standard dialect to broad local, and although the accent and dialect you have at four years of age will depend on your parents, your dialect at 40 will depend to a great extent on your attitude towards and aptitude for education.
Since the linguistic community highlights the geographical and ignores the developmental aspect of dialect I am mentioning, also highlights the repressive aspect of these nearly universal views, and never feels the need to live in the real world with its various sorts of problems, Lolwhites attitude is the natural outcome - we should fill the classrooms with broad dialect speakers in order to reach broad dialect speaking children. The textbooks ought to be in dialect too, no doubt, and the quality newspapers. Regional children would all have a tough time leaving their region, or reading non-local books, but never mind that. I think, on the contrary, that though languages should develop intellectual resources and swiftly do when necessary, non-standard dialects do not need to.
(alright, the above not quite what lol said, but what was that? That teachers should attempt to speak in a local accent for the first month of the school year?)
As to outright hostility towards an accent, I think it is most likely going to take place in the form lol described. And is it not an attack on the supposed attitude of the speaker, and a kind of acknowledgement from below that dialect depends mainly on attitude?
At the risk of banging on too much, I'd like to say that the applied linguistics hierachy is utterly hypocritical, because they do not lift one little finger to help any speaker of dialect. On the contrary, all work in applied linguistics faculties must be in perfect standard English, of one or another national variety, otherwise you will be ferociously marked down. I have even been marked down for mixing British and US standards, even though the essay itself stated that I work in East Asia with North Americans and teach US English, so that this is a fairly understandable outcome (and that's the Canadian standard mix anyway. Can't I follow Canadian practice if I want?)
Since the linguistic community highlights the geographical and ignores the developmental aspect of dialect I am mentioning, also highlights the repressive aspect of these nearly universal views, and never feels the need to live in the real world with its various sorts of problems, Lolwhites attitude is the natural outcome - we should fill the classrooms with broad dialect speakers in order to reach broad dialect speaking children. The textbooks ought to be in dialect too, no doubt, and the quality newspapers. Regional children would all have a tough time leaving their region, or reading non-local books, but never mind that. I think, on the contrary, that though languages should develop intellectual resources and swiftly do when necessary, non-standard dialects do not need to.
(alright, the above not quite what lol said, but what was that? That teachers should attempt to speak in a local accent for the first month of the school year?)
As to outright hostility towards an accent, I think it is most likely going to take place in the form lol described. And is it not an attack on the supposed attitude of the speaker, and a kind of acknowledgement from below that dialect depends mainly on attitude?
At the risk of banging on too much, I'd like to say that the applied linguistics hierachy is utterly hypocritical, because they do not lift one little finger to help any speaker of dialect. On the contrary, all work in applied linguistics faculties must be in perfect standard English, of one or another national variety, otherwise you will be ferociously marked down. I have even been marked down for mixing British and US standards, even though the essay itself stated that I work in East Asia with North Americans and teach US English, so that this is a fairly understandable outcome (and that's the Canadian standard mix anyway. Can't I follow Canadian practice if I want?)
My point wasn't that teachers should start speaking their pupils' dialect until the Christmas holidays, but they may well need to find ways for them to access whatever it is they're teaching. Otherwise the kids just won't understand what they're being taught. Likewise, if they're adopting a hostile attitude to a teacher just because he or she is "talking posh", that needs to be cracked down on just as much as any other kind of prejudice.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
Speaking a dialect and a more standard English is not of course an either/or. It wasn't for my Gran who spoke Geordie and Standard, or for Tess D'Urberville/Durbeyfield :
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=6716
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=29322
Ideally I suppose we'd have speakers in the enviable position of being fluent in a dialect and in a more standard form.
To be picky, BTW, Standard English or EIL or whatever is not a dialect but a sociolect (socialect?).
How much is this an English thing? Everybody in Andalucia has an Andalucian accent even though their grammar and vocabulary is more or less standard whereas in the middle of Wales in every town there is a pocket of people with no discernable Welsh accent, although they were born there and even sometimes went to school locally.
In the UK it's not aspirationally useful to even have a regional accent, let alone use regionalisms.
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=6716
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?p=29322
Ideally I suppose we'd have speakers in the enviable position of being fluent in a dialect and in a more standard form.
To be picky, BTW, Standard English or EIL or whatever is not a dialect but a sociolect (socialect?).
How much is this an English thing? Everybody in Andalucia has an Andalucian accent even though their grammar and vocabulary is more or less standard whereas in the middle of Wales in every town there is a pocket of people with no discernable Welsh accent, although they were born there and even sometimes went to school locally.
In the UK it's not aspirationally useful to even have a regional accent, let alone use regionalisms.
The point is how does one ensure kids can "access educational material" that isn't presented in a way thay can initially relate to or understand? If people from certain social groups feel cut off right from the word go, they never get a chance, prejudices are reinforced and education ends up being seen as something for other people.
While it's true that being hostile to a teacher just because they sound different is no better than being hostle to them because of their race, what should one do if it's somehow wrong to present materials in more accessible language?
The statement that people who speak dialect are somehow "less intelligent" strikes me as pretty meaningless without a clear definition of "intelligent". The old IQ tests only measure certain types of intelligence, and creating a test that isn't culturally biased is a pretty monumental task in itself!
While it's true that being hostile to a teacher just because they sound different is no better than being hostle to them because of their race, what should one do if it's somehow wrong to present materials in more accessible language?
The statement that people who speak dialect are somehow "less intelligent" strikes me as pretty meaningless without a clear definition of "intelligent". The old IQ tests only measure certain types of intelligence, and creating a test that isn't culturally biased is a pretty monumental task in itself!