Standard English found lacking?

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:07 pm

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.

fluffyhamster
Posts: 3031
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again

Post by fluffyhamster » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:19 am

You're moving onto double negation already (i.e. not wanting to discuss those fat juicy modals)? :o 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.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:56 am

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?
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.
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.

jotham
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by jotham » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:41 am

By the way, I don't think pronunciation figures heavily in this. Standard English can be fluent in any dialectal pronunciation. Mostly, I was talking about ungrammatical structures.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:26 am

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.
So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:32 am

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.
the majority of speakers in the wider population (from whose usage 'Standard English' is constructed/abstracted, and in return contructs)
Is that really the history of Standard English? I thought it was based on a small group of speakers.

So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:12 am

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.
Are you saying that speakers of dialects other than the Standard English dialect cannot discuss scientific topics, for example?
It can combine powerfully with tears and facial expression to make a composite, awesome effect, and probably much more potently than without standard English.
You may need to read some dialect poetry.
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.
Is slang the same think as dialect to you?

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:21 am

So your answer to the thread question is that Standard English cannot be found lacking, right?
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).

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:41 am

lolwhites wrote:
Therefore SE can't be said to be "lacking" any more than any other variety
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.

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."

Pullum
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 pick out that which interest me.
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.
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.

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:55 am

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.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:06 am

lolwhites 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.
Sorry: http://www.ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/9 ... bonics.htm
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.
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.
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:07 am

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.
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?
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
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.
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:15 am

metal56 thinks that posting cryptic one liners will give him the immortality of the Sphinx.

What he fails to realize that the smug rictus on his visage is not the enigmatic smile of the Cairene, but the trademark gesture of the potential Bedlamite.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:42 am

Stephen Jones wrote:metal56 thinks that ...
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... 55&start=0

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:32 am

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.
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.

Locked