Re: The whole dialect business


"Sharon L. Krossa" <skrossa-unn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:0001HW.BFAEA9E6014F4049F04075B0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:30:05 -0800, Iain <iain_inkster@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> (in article <1132950605.095825.153090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
>
>> Custos Custodum wrote:
>>> In what respects does a dialect differ from 'a fully developed and
>>> competent language in its own right'?
>>
>> The best explanation is this:
>
> I don't think your explanation is "the best explanation" -- it certainly
> doesn't match the explanations of trained and professional linguists --
> the folks who spend their careers studying the whole subject, and so have
> more than just half a clue what they're talking about.
>
>> Every local community has its own vocabulary. From small community to
>> small community, norms subtly differ.
>>
>> However, the rate of geographical contrast differs between certain
>> words and grammars, forming a particular pattern.
>>
>> Usually in any language the most common 300 words or so are those that
>> differ more between local communities. These characterise a DIALECT
>>
>> There is an upper layer of words, mostly the rest of the language, that
>> is applicable to a the community of communities. This is basically the
>> overlapping area between dialects and is the "Standard" or "Classical"
>> form of the language.
>>
>> Dialect speakers always understand the Standard form (colloqueal Scots
>> and English both understand The Sun), but they do not always understand
>> eachother, without media help.
>
> You seem to be classifying the "Standard form" as the "language", and
> "dialect" as all forms other than the "Standard form". Linguists,
> however, tell us that the "standard form" is simply another dialect --
> usually the prestige dialect of the elites -- and it is the entire
> grouping of dialects (the "standard" form or forms plus all the other
> forms) together that make up the language.
>
> (So it is not the case that some people speak a language and other people
> speak a dialect -- _everyone_ speaks a dialect and since a dialect is a
> form of the language, when speaking their dialect everyone is also
> speaking the relevant language of that dialect.)
>
> Further, it simply isn't true that those who speak non-standard dialects
> always understand the standard dialect of their language. Indeed, some
> languages don't even have a standard dialect (or a "classical" dialect).
> For example, English itself didn't develop a standard form until the
> modern era -- but somehow I doubt you consider English to have been just
> a dialect until a few hundred years ago and only a language since the
> development of that standard form.
>
> Note that one of the reasons why Scots didn't develop a standard form is
> because in the era when (Southern) English was establishing its standard
> form (that is, the single form spoken by the upperclasses and educated),
> upper class and educated Scottish people were replacing their Scots with
> that modern (Southern) English standard form. Thus, instead of the
> Scottish elite (developing and) speaking a prestige standard dialect of
> Scots and the non-elites speaking other dialects of the Scots, you had
> the elites speaking a prestige standard dialect derived from (Southern)
> English and the non-elites speaking dialects of Scots.
>
> All of which is so much easier to explain, and to understand, if one
> calls Scots a separate language from English. It is easier and clearer to
> talk of modern Scotland having three national languages -- Gaelic, Scots,
> and Scottish English, with most speakers of Gaelic or Scots being
> bilingual with Scottish English. (Which is the primary reason why I call
> Scots a separate language from English -- it simply makes it easier to
> talk about language in Scotland.)
>
> But when one doesn't, and instead calls Scots a dialect of English, all
> too often what one gets is the confusing mess such as we have been seeing
> in this discussion, with people confusing (as you do) Scots and Scottish
> English, and failing to appreciate that not only is their definition of
> "language" severely flawed, but so too are their criteria for what
> supposedly makes Scots not a "language".
>
> Consider, if your criteria for the distinction between dialect and
> language were applied to Gaelic vs. English as you have been applying it
> to Scots vs. English, it would result in having to conclude that Gaelic
> is a dialect of English:
> You can stick any English word into a Gaelic sentence and a modern Gaelic
> speaker will still understand you (because Gaelic speakers are nearly
> universally bilingual with English). Gaelic gets its modern technical
> terminology straight from English. Etc. Therefore, Gaelic must be a
> dialect of English!
>
>> The thing that links a dialect(e.g. Scots) to a language (e.g. English)
>
> Yes, you definitely are using non-linguistic definitions of the terms
> "dialect" and "language". Your usage may be popular among those who don't
> know much about linguistics, but it does not match the linguistic
> reality. That is, language doesn't work the way most people who haven't
> studied linguistics assume.
>
>> is that you can be speaking a dialect to whatever degree, and insert as
>> many or as little Standard words in it as you like -- and not be
>> misunderstood. The reverse is not always true.
>
> Neither is always true -- especially for languages that have no standard
> dialect.
>
>> Because commonality leads to variability, it is the uncommon words,
>> such as technical jargon, that are the most geographically consistent.
>>
>> Therefore, we would expect two languages to have an overall
>> inconsistency in that jargonal area.
>
> Too bad the linguistic evidence doesn't support this claim. Technical
> terminology -- especially the more modern it is -- tends to be more than
> usually consistent from language to language, since most languages
> acquire such technical terms at essentially the same time from the same
> source. Thus, many different languages all have words that look and/or
> sound like English <electron> as their word for "electron"; for example:
> German <Elektron>
> French <Zlectron> (e/lectron, for those with garbled accents)
> Italian <elettrone>
> Portuguese <elZtron> (ele/tron)
> Spanish <electr-n> (electro/n)
> Gaelic <eleactron>
> etc.
> Likewise, many different languages all have words that look and/or sound
> like English <nobelium> for their word for the element "nobelium"; for
> example:
> Dutch <Nobelium>
> German <Nobelium>
> French <nobZlium> (nobe/lium>
> Italian <nobelio>
> Portuguese <NobZlio> (Nobe/lio>
> Spanish <nobelio>
> Swedish <Nobelium>
> etc.
>
> In contrast, older, more mundane words, like, say, "cow" tend to vary
> more from language to language; for example:
> Standard English English <cow>
> Standard Scottish English <cow>
> Standard American English <cow>
> Scots <coo>
> German <Kuh>
> French <vache>
> Italian <mucca>
> Portuguese <vaca>
> Spanish <vaca>
> Gaelic <b~> (bo\)
>
> And before claiming this just shows that Scots is just English pronounced
> with a Scots accent, note that German <Kuh> is pronounced essentially the
> same way as Scots <coo>. Indeed, a large number of Scots words sound much
> more like the equivalent German word rather than like the equivalent RP
> English or even Standard Scottish English word. Further note the
> morphological differences -- the plural of Scots <coo> is commonly <kye>,
> quite unlike Standard (Scottish/English/American/etc.) English. The
> differences between Scots and Standard English are more than just sound
> and vocabulary.
>
> In any case, note that if we apply your dialect vs. language criteria to
> European languages, we will have to conclude that English, German,
> French, Gaelic, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. are all just dialects of the
> same language, since they only differ from one another in the common
> words, but not the "upper level" of modern technological terminology.
>
>> Other languages differ slightly in that area, sometimes much, but Scots
>> and English are an item in that regard.
>
> So, for the most part, are Gaelic and English -- most modern technical
> terms in Gaelic are simply the English word said with a Gaelic accent and
> spelled using Gaelic spelling rules. Does that mean Gaelic is a dialect
> of English?
>
>> They are not two languages.
>> Scots is one of many British dialects. It is organic, it is native, it
>> is interesting but it is a dialect.
>
> Standard Scottish English, Standard English English (e.g. RP English or
> BBC English or whatever is considered the standard now) are likewise
> dialects, and no more languages (or just as much languages) as Doric or
> Glaswegian. Whether you consider Scots to be a dialect (or rather, a
> grouping of dialects) of English or not, the English language is _all_
> the dialects of English, not just the prestige dialect of the elites.
>
> This whole discussion has been rife with confused terminology like this.
> You've been writing "language" when you're really talking about
> "prestige/standard dialect", you've been writing "Scots" when you're
> really talking about "Scottish English" -- no wonder your claims and
> interpretations attract so much criticism!
>
> Sharon
>
> PS Please also note that Scots, whether a separate language from English
> or not, is a group of dialects, not just "a" dialect. Glaswegian and
> Doric -- heck, even Aberdonian and Doric -- are different dialects from
> one another.
> --
> Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skrossa-unn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Medieval Scotland: http://MedievalScotland.org/
> The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names:
> The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/
>
One tiny point, Sharon, the Scots language for cow would probably be, "coo",
but may also be, "kye". The later may well be old Scots while the latter,
the proverbial, "commonality", with English but with a Scots accent.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Leodhasach & Hearasch - Gaelic help please
    ... course our own traditional language is even more neglected than Gaelic is. ... who speak English soon get the gist of it. ... are as closely related to other lanagages as Scots is to Standard English. ... is someone who truly appreciates Scottish culture in that you won't find ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: The whole dialect business
    ... >>> But of course Scots has a very full and complex legal jargon. ... > made it either a language or a dialect. ... > "Defender" in this context is quite different from the English language word ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: The whole dialect business
    ... >>linguistic studies as a clear marker between Scots and English, ... >>Scots did not, as Scotland was never conquered by the Normans ... >>language in its own right. ... Dialect speakers always understand the Standard form (colloqueal Scots ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: The whole dialect business
    ... >>> actually is in Scots and in what you think is the English equivalency. ... Dictionary of the English Language, ... > which are current international borders). ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: The whole dialect business
    ... >> competent language in its own right'? ... These characterise a DIALECT ... > Dialect speakers always understand the Standard form (colloqueal Scots ... English itself didn't develop a standard form until the ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)