Hello, all!

Below is the message Johanna has asked me to forward to the forum, as 
her posting troubles continue. I appreciate the change of atmosphere 
in the forum, and I hope that we can continue to exchange messages in 
a kind and friendly manner, in spite of some theoretical differences 
which may exist between us.

I haven't had the chance to look over every word or sentence in the 
message Johanna asked me to forward to the list, but I can say that 
we seem to agree on the English dialects, their linguistic value, and 
their social importance. After all that has been said between us, we 
may find that our differences in perspective are not as much in the 
theoretical positions we have taken, but in the way we have expressed 
them.

Eduard 



On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, [log in to unmask] wrote...

>
>Eduard,
>
>This is both a response to your post and a test message to see if I 
can get=
> to the list at last. If it doesn't get to the list, I hope you will 
post i=
>t, in spite of our past wrangles. I do try to take a neutral stance 
here in=
> response to your post.
>
>I'd like to refine your concept and use of the word "equal" in your 
stateme=
>nt
>
>"There is a claim in certain linguistic circles that 'all dialects 
are=20
>equal' and that there is no dialect we could call Standard English."
>
>When linguists say that all dialects are equal, they don't mean that 
all di=
>alects receive an equal amount of social respect, or are equal in 
character=
>istics such as how often they are written down, whether there are 
published=
> dictionaries and grammars that describe them, etc. What they mean 
is that =
>all dialects of a language are equally capable of expressing 
whatever meani=
>ngs a human community wishes to express. In other words, they are 
saying th=
>at every dialect (indeed, every language) has the structural 
resources to e=
>xpress any idea the community might wish to express.
>
>This is not to say that all dialects/languages have an equal number 
of word=
>s, an equal number of sentence types, an equal number of suffixes, 
or any s=
>uch specifics. Languages, as I'm sure you well know, vary 
tremendously in t=
>hese specifics. The point is that every community can expand or 
contract it=
>s language as suits the community's needs. The human mind controls 
the stat=
>e of a language. If more words are needed, more words will be 
created, whet=
>her through borrowing from another language (English "reality"), 
compoundin=
>g ("textbook"), metaphor ("computer virus"), metonymy ("ranch hand") 
or who=
>lesale creation ("nerd").
>
>Languages also change over time, and written language differs 
structurally =
>from spoken language. The latter fact often raises the prestige of a 
dialec=
>t or language, because a language that has a long tradition of 
writing may =
>gradually develop greater complexity in sentence structure. There 
are also =
>often stylistic pressures such as variety in vocabulary, and 
effective writ=
>ing is also clearer in areas such as pronoun-antecedent reference, 
because,=
> unlike listeners, readers usually cannot ask a writer to clarify an 
unclea=
>r passage. Of course, the fact that revered literature, religious 
texts, an=
>d government documents get written down also lends a written dialect 
presti=
>ge.
>
>I don't know any linguist who would deny that certain dialects of 
English a=
>re socially preferred over others (socially unequal), or that 
certain diale=
>cts have undergone the standardization process, while others have 
not. What=
> most linguists will disagree with is that the standardization 
process make=
>s a dialect "better" than another in any but a most practical sense 
(a larg=
>er vocabulary allows more to be said in less space, since 
circumlocutions a=
>ren't needed; if a standard dialect is widely taught, and local 
dialects ar=
>e very different, the standard enables easy communication across 
dialect bo=
>undaries; or similar considerations). Most linguists will disagree 
that sta=
>ndardization confers any kind of aesthetic or qualitative 
superiority =E2=
>=80=93 e.g., that there is any objective reason to prefer, say, "I 
don't wa=
>nt any" over "I don't want none", or "he cut himself" over "he cut 
hisself"=
>. To call the former expressions "proper English" and the 
latter "bad Engli=
>sh" doesn't make sense, because it  compares apples to oranges. "I 
don't wa=
>nt any" and  "he cut himself" are correct American standard English, 
and "I=
> don't want none" and "he cut hisself" are correct in several other 
dialect=
>s of English. You don't judge a move in a baseball game by the rules 
of cri=
>cket, or vice versa.
>
>As your Trudgill quotations show, there is some dispute over 
whether "stand=
>ard English", whether British, American, Australian, Canadian, South 
Africa=
>n, or Kiwi (New Zealander?) can be clearly delimited. In fact, I 
would disa=
>gree with many of Trudgill's proposals -- spelling and punctuation 
are cert=
>ainly very important in America, and the grammar of "standard 
British" diff=
>ers from "standard American" in a number of respects. Trudgill seems 
to be =
>overlooking the fact that written documents from a British source 
may be gr=
>ammatically different from those from an American source. I also 
would disa=
>gree that pronunciation is irrelevant in America.
>
>I don't think we can really attain a complete description of all the 
featur=
>es of "standard English", whether for America or elsewhere. I do 
believe th=
>ere is a sort of "statistical standard English", a collection of 
features t=
>hat would be found in most edited American English and in 
most "standard" s=
>peech.
>
>This, however, is pretty much the case for most languages and 
dialects. Few=
> communities live in such extreme isolation from other communities 
that the=
>ir language is "pure"; few communities are so small and so 
homogeneous that=
> there is no dialect variation within them. And every community will 
experi=
>ence language change between the generations.
>
>So, no competent linguist would deny that dialects are unequal in 
social st=
>atus and in such features as frequency of use, existence of written 
descrip=
>tions, and so on. Most would, however, disagree concerning 
functionality --=
> the limits of a language are the limits of the human mind and body. 
Insofa=
>r as the latter are equal, the expressive potential of languages is 
equal. =
>Lastly, that one can clearly define "standard English" and describe 
it as d=
>ifferent from every other dialect in every way is probably 
impossible, but =
>one can compile a list of features that most arbiters would agree 
are "stan=
>dard".
>
>Dr. Johanna Rubba
>Associate Professor, Linguistics
>English Department
>Cal Poly State University
>San Luis Obispo 93407
>Tel. 805-756-2184
>URL: www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/