More evil dialect thoughts

[revel]

Hey all.

I remember seeing a movie dubbed into Spanish and then later seeing the same movie in VO. In the Spanish version I didn't get the taste of those southern people with their drawling accent (that is at times confused with dialect, at least in word choice if not in grammar) suddenly finding themselves among sophisticated New Yorkers who evidently were all trying to speak in the same, sophisticated way.

When learning to immitate accents in university, we did not put social values on the "dialects" we were faking, but we were indeed helping the audience to tune into the type of people we were pretending to be on stage.

There is a weather man here in Spain who is from Andalucia. When he gives the weather report, one might say he was from Madrid, his accent is standard. But when he gives an informal interview, one can note the sound of his southern speech, not only in the aspiration of his "ses" but again, in the choices he makes in words. However, as already pointed out, despite his "accent" or "dialect" he continues to speak in totally understandable Spanish. The only "dialects" that I have ever found impossible to understand have been village Catalan dialects, perhaps because of the closed way they pronounce, perhaps because they did not want me to understand. And when I tried to buy that bus ticket in Glasgow and had to ask the ticket agent to write the price down for me as I didn't understand a word he was saying. And worse yet was the bus driver who said something like "brr bre brr" to indicate that I should wait before getting on the bus. At least the context helped me to understand, and that I did not pigeonhole those people, the disunderstanding was my fault, not theirs.

I don't think we should talk like the kids do to get them to understand us (we might just get sacked if we begin using some of their word choices!). Kids or even adults who make asumptions based on the way we speak have enough problems with human relationships and might just not get around to learning however we speak to them. Asuming based on language or dialect doesn't seem to get us anywhere. And the news and the TV programs all are presented in that nice, easy language or people just don't tune into them. I don't find British humor funny at all, but I often wonder if it is because I'm not sure what they are talking about through their accent. And yet, Mr Bean always makes me laugh, without specific language, since he is more a mime artist than an actor.

That's all.

peace,
revel.

[woodcutter]

The point isn't that dialect speakers are less intelligent, it is that if you grow up in the south of England (and in the majority of English speaking places, I suppose), and you can't use something other than dialect by the time you are forty, people will think you aren't bright, and perhaps there will be good reason.

There is a lot to say (and that has been said, of course) about code-switching, but I think you need to break through the silence that PC blankets over all this to really look at it clearly. Code-switching "downwards" into dialect happens a little bit too, but the rules are very complex. You may sound as if you are laughing at people if you deviate from standard English. I spent most of high school working on this problem.

Let's really bite the bullet. Someone walks into your office looking for a white-collar job. If you are put off by a failure to use standard dialect, is it the same as being put off by race or sex? I really don't think so. (remembering that mere small differences in accent are basically always acceptable in any setting)

[woodcutter]

Another thing (don't !) -

The fact that dialect and standard are mutually dependent twins in many situations can be seen by looking at the attitude to hedging as well as the vocabulary. In dialect, generally, hedging is a good thing and conveys the impression that the speaker is not being arrogant and claiming a monopoly on truth. In standard-is-a-must situations the opposite is the case. (again, taking the south of England as an example)

And of course, the vocabulary you can reach for is different. Dialect is full of terms which are shorthand for various things to do with personal mental states, sex, nature, social situations and bodily functions. Standard has those too, to a lesser extent, but also terms (jargon, if you like) useful in technical areas which require a lot of mental effort. When using dialect you would sound very odd if you didn't explain difficult things in very long winded plain language - which sometimes makes it difficult to have a higher level discussion.

[Stephen Jones]

I don't understand this strange dichotomy you are making between 'standard' and 'dialect'. Standard English is a dialect like any other. The situation in English is a little different from the situation in Arabic, and possibly the situation in German, in that as well as normal diglossia, with people speaking their regional or social dialect of the language as well as the standard form for public, formal and inter-regional communication, there are also millions of speakers such as myself for whom Standard English is the native dialect, so we are not diglossic.

[fluffyhamster]

Don't you sometimes wish you were diglossic though, Stevie? It must be tough when you're trying to get that last parking space off some yob (who's preparing to beat you up because you sounded too posh).

[woodcutter]

I've addressed Stephen's point at length, I feel. A standard dialect isn't the same because the type of vocabulary you can use is different, the attitudes you are supposed to display are different, and the there are some explicitly known rules (and books about rules) which govern what you say. I expect that Stephen does change his language when talking to "yobs", if he thinks about it, and in ways that would be alien to any American, for example, so the English would be less standard than that which he uses here.

A "good at accents" American person on You Tube makes a point that people who can imitate various other accents always seem to have an accent close to standard themselves. Do you think that's fair?

The crucial thing seems to be whether people are using a dialect for the full range of human experience. If not, and I feel that southern UK rural dialect speakers especially are not, then there is a kind of symbiosis with standard going on.

[Stephen Jones]

If the 'full range of human experience' includes speaking to members of other dialects then obviously most diglossics will use the standard dialect in those circumstances.

The main flaw with your argument is that the lexis for much of human experience is common throughout dialects. 'Immanence', 'Boolean', 'epistemic' and 'meme' are the same in Geordie and Brummie as in standard English. It's just that because they do not belong to any particular dialect we fall into the trap of presuming they are special to standard English.

And fluffy is confusing register with dialect. "Fuck off you cunt!" is perfectly good standard English.

[woodcutter]

It seems to me that the more informal/slangy you get the more dialectish you get. **** off you **** would often have local variants employed.

As I said, you can say meme in broad dialect, but you won't, you won't surround it with non-standard grammar, and you won't employ the customary hedging techniques, unless you are, y'know, just kind of explaining what kind of thing what that is, not trying to sound clever or nothing. It would be a pragmatic mistake.

The difference with tribal languages is that however lacking in technical vocab a language may be, people will use it to the best of their ability to talk about neuroscience if they feel the need to do so, and swiftly import things, and expand the language. Non-status dialects are on the contrary often stuck in a rut.

[fluffyhamster]

And fluffy is confusing register with dialect. "*beep* off you *beep*!" is perfectly good standard English.

Ah yeah, I remember now. I had a run-in with some plummy but hard-as-nails linguist in a car park once, and he bashed me over the head with his copy of the CGEL. I've not been quite "right" ever since.

[woodcutter]

You would imagine Stephen to be rather posh, but he does after all claim to be somewhat Welsh, so his harsh comments are perhaps mentally delivered in a hard-as-nails Rhyl accent.

[fluffyhamster]

I'd be interested to know what people think of the first section (pages 1 to 4) of the first chapter of Huddleston and Pullum's A Student's Introduction to English Grammar (available in the 'Excerpt' part of the 'Look Inside' feature on amazon.com), particularly the part about 'Formal and informal style' (on pages 3 to 4).

[woodcutter]

Clicking on the "look inside" icon down the bottom of the book's page just seems to bring me back to reviews again. You couldn't post it by any chance?

[fluffyhamster]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521848 ... eader-link

That should do it. I'd've posted it before, but for some reason the copy n' paste function wasn't working from my URL box the other day, and I was too lazy to write it out then type it up manually.

[woodcutter]

Thanks. What do you mean? That they seem to forget about grammar in different dialects at first? That if everyone can switch within dialect then people ought to be able to come out with standard English (otherwise, what kind of switching is the farmhand doing?). That "ain't" is a word known to all and sundry, not dialect? The rather bizarre claim that if you can imitate some accents off the TV you are a bit of a freak?

Pullum finally gets to be the one on the throne saying things which are easy to pull apart...

[Stephen Jones]

I find nothing bizarre in what Pullum is saying. Seems straightforward common sense to me.

A person who learns a dialect from the TV is unusual. There are many who are capable of imitating the accent but few would get the grammar or lexis right.