Standard English found lacking?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
There could be a number of explanations - it doesn't follow that the "standard" (whatever that is) is somehow lacking. And you seem to be forgetting that while sometimes concept X is easier to express in dialect A than dialect B, it can also be the case that concept Y is easier to express in dialect B than in dialect A i.e. it might be a "swings and roundabouts" situation. You can't just take one distinguishing feature of a dialect in isolation.
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
You're moving onto double negation already (i.e. not wanting to discuss those fat juicy modals)?
That would be a first on Dave's.
Just because some people habitually go for certain non-standard forms in secure environments ("safe" for them to use such forms) doesn't mean that the majority of speakers in the wider population (from whose usage 'Standard English' is constructed/abstracted, and in return contructs) don't have the means to express those non-standard forms' meanings/propositions (or, for that matter, are unversed or unskilled in the apparently always mysterious regional variants).
Sounds like a variation on the 'Great Eskimo vocabulary hoax' to me.

Just because some people habitually go for certain non-standard forms in secure environments ("safe" for them to use such forms) doesn't mean that the majority of speakers in the wider population (from whose usage 'Standard English' is constructed/abstracted, and in return contructs) don't have the means to express those non-standard forms' meanings/propositions (or, for that matter, are unversed or unskilled in the apparently always mysterious regional variants).
Sounds like a variation on the 'Great Eskimo vocabulary hoax' to me.
I don't think so. Standard English is definitely sufficient and above most people's needs, even for those that don't speak English: if a speaker cares to learn all the intricacies and tricks, or be educated in its effective use, communication couldn't possibly be a problem. If someone is ignorant of standard English, that isn't the fault of standard English, but of the speaker. It is true that speakers can be pretty fluent without standard English, using dialect, intonation, facial expressions, or even a liberal dose of four-letter words. But I think in the long run, they will find themselves pretty limited if they aspire to communicate about the abstract or about more involved concepts.metal56 wrote:If certain speakers feel they cannot express themselves succintly by using standard English terms, wouldn't that form lack something for such speakers?
It may be true that standard English isn't a powerful emotional vehicle when compared to the sight of tears, or a quiver in the voice. Certainly effective use of standard English can bring tears to the eyes. It can combine powerfully with tears and facial expression to make a composite, awesome effect, and probably much more potently than without standard English.
But perhaps it doesn't have to do with whether it is slang or standard, but rather the skill of the user. One who isn't well-versed in standard English but is skilled or creative at slang is a better communicater than one who relies only on standard, but is uncreative and unthoughtful. I'm also inclined to think that one who is skilled at slang will be much more awesome when given the treasury and scope of standard English with which to treat artfully.
So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?lolwhites wrote:There could be a number of explanations - it doesn't follow that the "standard" (whatever that is) is somehow lacking. And you seem to be forgetting that while sometimes concept X is easier to express in dialect A than dialect B, it can also be the case that concept Y is easier to express in dialect B than in dialect A i.e. it might be a "swings and roundabouts" situation. You can't just take one distinguishing feature of a dialect in isolation.
You're moving onto double negation already (i.e. not wanting to discuss those fat juicy modals)?
I'm still ready to discuss those if you're up to/for it.
Is that really the history of Standard English? I thought it was based on a small group of speakers.the majority of speakers in the wider population (from whose usage 'Standard English' is constructed/abstracted, and in return contructs)
So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?
Are you saying that speakers of dialects other than the Standard English dialect cannot discuss scientific topics, for example?But I think in the long run, they will find themselves pretty limited if they aspire to communicate about the abstract or about more involved concepts.
You may need to read some dialect poetry.It can combine powerfully with tears and facial expression to make a composite, awesome effect, and probably much more potently than without standard English.
Is slang the same think as dialect to you?I'm also inclined to think that one who is skilled at slang will be much more awesome when given the treasury and scope of standard English with which to treat artfully.
My answer is that while certain concepts might be expressed more succinctly in other dialects, others may be more easily expressed in "standard". Therefore SE can't be said to be "lacking" any more than any other variety (and let's not forget that SE is just another variety, albeit a more prestigious one).So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?
Now, since you started this thread, would you be so kind as to address all the points others have made instead of your usual tiresome modus operandi of quoting isolated fragments and ignoring the rest. It might help the discussion along if we knew what you had to say about jotham's comments about deficiencies being on the part of the speaker rather than the language, for example.
lolwhites wrote:Lost me on that one, Lolwhites. Some dialects are found lacking in some areas, right? So, we can say that Standard English can also be found lacking in other areas.Therefore SE can't be said to be "lacking" any more than any other variety
What's your opinion on this?
There is a special habitual aspect that standard English lacks, and for this "be" is used and must never be omitted; "they be sayin' " means "they habitually say."
PullumI pick out that which interest me.Now, since you started this thread, would you be so kind as to address all the points others have made instead of your usual tiresome modus operandi of quoting isolated fragments and ignoring the rest..
I find that most dialect speakers are fully aware of what is on offer in Standard English, in fact many of those speakers are bi-dialectal (unlike many Standard English speakers), and are intelligent enough to know what their own form and Standard English lacks.It might help the discussion along if we knew what you had to say about jotham's comments about deficiencies being on the part of the speaker rather than the language, for example.
You've taken Pullum's quote out of context so I don't know what he means by "lacks" here, but if we take it at face value we can see that since you can say They habitually say in SE, there is no difficulty in expressing the concept, so SE doesn't "lack" anything, it just doesn't use the verb to get the idea across.
I never said other dialects "lacked" anything, just that certain concepts might be easier to express, which is not the same thing. If you could give an example of a concept that cannot be expressed in SE, as opposed to cannot easily be expressed, that would be a different matter.
So you only pick out the stuff that interests you. That speaks volumes! When I start a thread I like to think that I don't just do so for my own benefit, but rather that we'll all get something out of participating in it.
I never said other dialects "lacked" anything, just that certain concepts might be easier to express, which is not the same thing. If you could give an example of a concept that cannot be expressed in SE, as opposed to cannot easily be expressed, that would be a different matter.
So you only pick out the stuff that interests you. That speaks volumes! When I start a thread I like to think that I don't just do so for my own benefit, but rather that we'll all get something out of participating in it.
Sorry: http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/9 ... bonics.htmlolwhites wrote:You've taken Pullum's quote out of context so I don't know what he means by "lacks" here, but if we take it at face value we can see that since you can say They habitually say in SE, there is no difficulty in expressing the concept, so SE doesn't "lack" anything, it just doesn't use the verb to get the idea across.
I don't think I said anything such as "cannot be expressed": I said cannot be expressed as succintly or precisely. For example, Standard English only has one form of the second person pronoun. Some dialects have two forms.I never said other dialects "lacked" anything, just that certain concepts might be easier to express, which is not the same thing. If you could give an example of a concept that cannot be expressed in SE, as opposed to cannot easily be expressed, that would be a different matter.
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you wish to continue discussing the way I post, and not the topic itself, we can go over to your "enough already" thread. OK?So you only pick out the stuff that interests you. That speaks volumes! When I start a thread I like to think that I don't just do so for my own benefit, but rather that we'll all get something out of participating in it.
To me, it seems that Standard English users are allowed to notice such things about other dialects, but all hell breaks loose when a non-standard dialect speaker makes similar comments about the standard dialect.Those of us who regard the patois of the Black ghetto as inferior do so not because we think it lacks "internal logic"-if it did, it could not serve as a medium of communication at all-but because it demonstrably lacks the means of expressing many ideas and shades of meaning that standard English possesses.
http://www.rules-of-the-game.com/forum/ ... FORUM_ID=1
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... 55&start=0Stephen Jones wrote:metal56 thinks that ...
It's true that there are some SE users who act as you describe, but I think most of us here appreciate that SE is just another variety, albeit a useful one to know if you want to be understood by a large number of people and be taken seriously.To me, it seems that Standard English users are allowed to notice such things about other dialects, but all hell breaks loose when a non-standard dialect speaker makes similar comments about the standard dialect.