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/