Sociolinguistics

Until this point, we have essentially been considering language as a formal system that can be

profitably studied independently from the people who use it. This type of approach is often

referred to in the field as the are of "formal" linguistics. People use the term "formal" because

such investigation revolves around constructing formal models that allow us to understand how

various subparts or modules of the linguistic grammar function. These subparts or modules

consist of the areas that we have been studying all semester, such as phonetics, phonology,

morphology, syntax, and semantics.

There is, however, a lot more to understanding language than focusing on these core theoretical

areas. If we can gain insight into how language works by studying its formal grammatical

properties, we must also realize that language as a "thing" to be studied is necessarily a kind of

simplification, because language isn't a "thing" external to human beings, but rather, something

that makes up a part of who we are.

What I want to stress here is that language must also be profitably studied in its social context. In

so doing, we learn both about language and about ourselves, the people who use it, live with it,

and live in it. Sociolinguistics, then, as the name implies, is the study of language in human

society. We'll focus here on a major aspect of sociolinguistic research in the past decades, an area

generally referred to as language variation. As its own name implies, language variation focuses

on how language varies in different contexts, where context refers to things like ethnicity, social

class, sex, geography, age, and a number of other factors.

Language Variation

Before we review various aspects of language variation in more detail, I want to make sure we've

got some basic terms and concepts down. So, here goes...

SOME IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGY

Internal Variation: the property of languages having different ways of expressing the same

meaning. Importantly, this refers to within language, not across language, differences. An

example of internal variation in English is "ask" vs. "aks".

Language variety: This is a general term that may be used at a number of levels. So, we can use

the term to distinguish between English and French, but we can also use the term to distinguish

between two varieties of English, such as New York City English vs. Appalachian English.

Dialect: This is a complex and often misunderstood concept. For linguists, a dialect is the

collection of attributes (phonetic, phonological, syntactic, morphological, semantic) that make

one group of speakers noticeably different from another group of speakers of the same

language.

COMMON SOURCES OF MISUNDERSTANDING

1) DIALECT is NOT a negative term for linguists. . Often times, for example, we hear people

refer to non-standard varieties of English as "dialects", usually to say something bad about the

non-standard variety (and thus about the people who speak it). This happened quite a bit during

last year's ebonics controversy. But, the term dialect refers to ANY variety of a language. Thus,

by definition, we all speak a dialect of our native language.

2) DIALECT is NOT synonymous with accent. Accent is only a part of dialectal variation.

Non-linguists often think accents define a dialect (or that accents alone identify people as non-

native or foreign language speakers). Also, non-linguists tend to think that it's always the "other"

people that have "an accent". So, what is "accent"?

3) ACCENT: This term refers to phonological variation, i.e. variation in pronunciation Thus, if

we talk about a Southern Accent, we're talking about a generalized property of English

pronunciation in the Southern part of the US. But, Southern dialects have more than particular

phonological properties. Accent is thus about pronunciation, while dialect is a broader term

encompassing syntactic, morphological, and semantic properties as well.

A final note on accent. WE ALL HAVE ONE! There is no such thing as a person who speaks

without an accent. This is not an exercise in political correctness, by the way. It is a fact.

In sum, a dialect is a particular variety of a language, and we all have a dialect. Accent refers to

the phonology of a given dialect. Since we all have a dialect, we all have an accent.

Idiolect: Another term that we must be familiar with is idiolect. "What's an idiolect?" you ask,

on the edge of your seat. An idiolect is simply the technical term we use to refer to the variety of

language spoken by each individual speaker of the language. Just as there is variation among

groups of speakers of a language, there is variation from speaker to speaker. No two speakers of

a language speak identically. Each speaks her or his own particular variety of that language.

Each thus speaks her or his own idiolect.

A Snapshot of "The Big Picture":

A language, say English, is really a collection of dialects.

A dialect is a particular variety of a language that differs noticeably from the variety or

varieties of the same language spoken by another group or groups of people.

Dialects themselves are collections of idiolects (and thus so are languages).

Some Issues that complicate the "Big Picture" a bit

While the big picture is relatively simple, the world is a fuzzy and complex place. How do we

know where one dialect begins and another ends? How do we even know if two language

varieties are dialects of the same language or are dialects of different languages altogether? Let's

set aside the first question for a moment, and address the second.

Linguists use a particular criterion to address the issue of how to determine whether two dialects

are varieties of the same language or not. What we use is the criterion of mutual intelligibility.

That is, if speakers of the two dialects can converse fluently with one another, although they

recognize themselves to be speaking different varieties of the language, then we are looking at

two dialects of the same language.

Many of you are speakers of "Southern" English (I use quotes because it is actually a BIG

oversimplification to treat "Southern English" as a monolithic dialect), while I speak something

akin to so-called standard English. (Though I grew up in the New York City metropolitan area, I

do not have many of the linguistic properties in my dialect that are usually associated with that

region.) Anyway, you can understand me in lecture, and I can understand you when you ask

questions or come to talk to me in office hour. The point, to belabor the obvious, is that such

communication is possible because although we may speak different dialects of English, the

differences are not so great as to prevent us from understanding one another.

Regarding the issue of different languages, clearly there are cases where no one is going to

wonder whether two speakers are speaking dialects of one language or whether they are speakers

of different languages. So, if I come in and lecture to you in Spanish, I doubt that you'll scratch

your heads and say, "Gee, is this a variety of English or is it something else?" But, there are

many situations where the dividing line is far less clear.

There are a number of reasons why things get tricky, both linguistic and non-linguistic. A major

linguistic complication comes in the form of what we call a dialect continuum. This is a

situation in which there are a number of contiguous dialects that are closely related but that are

not all mutually intelligible.

What's a dialect continuum?

To simplify somewhat, think of it this way. Imagine we've got ten dialects (1-10) in a row:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Now, imagine that each dialect is highly similar to its immediately adjacent neighbors, but that

as we move farther away the similarities become fewer and fewer. So, 1 is very similar to 2, less

similar to 3, even less similar to 4, and by the time we get to 8, 9 or 10, 1 is no longer mutually

intelligible with these. By the criterion of mutual intelligibility, we'd want to thus say that 1 and

10 belong to different languages. That's fine. But what do we do about 5, which may be mutually

intelligible with both 1 and 10? Which language does 5 belong to? How many different

languages are we talking about here?

An example of the dialect continuum problem

An interesting example that I have first hand experience with is the case of the Mixtec languages

in Mexico. There are roughly 300,000 Mixtec speakers in Mexico, primarily spread out in the

state of Oaxaca. Mixtec is an indigenous language that is a member of a larger family called the

Otomanguean language family. But, Mixtec itself is actually composed of a number of mutually

unintelligible dialects. Estimates of how many such dialects there are vary, but a fairly

trustworthy study puts the number at 22. Perhaps more meaningful than the number 22, however,

is the observation that mutual intelligibility among Mixtecs is best measured in terms of walking

distance. Specifically, it has been reported that the geographical extension of mutual

intelligibility is roughly the equivalent of two days walking from any given Mixtec village.

(Mixtecs, as I've told you, are incredibly hearty walkers in general!) This is a clear case of a

dialect continuum similar to our case of 1-10 above, except that all the Mixtecs obviously aren't

all lined up in a row.

In fact, what more sophisticated studies of mutual intelligibility try to do is quantify in some

fashion over the issue of intelligibility. That is, rather than take mutual intelligibility to be an all

or nothing issue, they try to break the issue down into percentages so that we might be able to

distinguish between degrees of intelligibility. As a case in point, the particular variety of Mixtec

that I have worked on is among the most isolated, and has been reported to only have a 25%

intelligibility level with the closest dialect to it.

What you should take away from this discussion is that while the criterion of mutual

intelligibility is a good and useful criterion for determining whether two varieties of a language

are dialects of the same language or not, dialects often form a continuum which makes finding an

exact dividing point between languages quite difficult, if not downright impossible.

Nonlinguistic Factors and the dialect vs. language issue

Non-linguistic factors also often complicate matters further. A famous linguists once said, "A

language is a dialect with an army and a navy." What he was calling attention to were the

political factors involved in how people determine just what a language is. A good, though very

depressing, example of this can be found in the former Yugoslavia. The majority language in the

former Yugoslavia was called Serbo-Croatian. This language was spoken throughout the country

(Albanian and Macedonian, for example, were also spoken in parts of Yugoslavia, so Serbo-

Croatian wasn't the only language.) Anyway, now that Croatia has broken off into its own

independent state, the language of Croatia is officially Croatian, and the language now spoken in

what is still called Yugoslavia is officially called Serbian. These are now officially two

completely different languages, due to the fact that there is a political border between Croatia

and Serbia.

From the point of view of the linguist, of course, they are still a single language, and the

differences between them are examples of dialectal variation on a par with, say, New York vs.

Boston English. But, the animosity between Serbs and Croats makes them refuse to admit that

they are speaking the same language (even though they know they are and can, of course,

understand one another!).

An example of politics working in the other direction is the case of China. There are quite a few

languages spoken in China, but the Chinese government refers to them all as dialects of Chinese.

Two of these so-called dialects are Cantonese and Mandarin. Cantonese is spoken in part of

Southern China (it's spoken in Shanghai), while Mandarin is spoken in the north (it's the

language spoken in Beijing). Though these two languages are both historically related, they are

NOT mutually intelligible. Yet the Chinese refer to them as dialects of a single language as a

means of enforcing a vision of cultural and political unity. Imagine if the Europeans decided that

they were all going to call Spanish, French, Catalan, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and

Provencal dialects of a single language, Romance, and you start to get the picture. Or imagine

that we decide that English, Dutch, and German are all dialects of a single German language.

Yes, these languages ARE historically related, but from the point of view of the linguist, their

non-mutual intelligibility makes them different languages, not dialects of a single present day

language.

 

 

Speech Communities

Okay, if we've got a pretty clear idea of what a dialect is, then the idea of a speech community is

fairly straightforward.

A speech community is a group of people who speak a common dialect.

Linguists working on language variation often characterize speech communities in terms of

extra-linguistic factors, i.e. along ethnic or geographical lines. While this can be useful and can

shed light on the hows and whys of dialect variation, it is important to note that the linguists who

do this KNOW that there is really no such thing as a pure dialect spoken only by a particular

ethnic group or by people from just one perfectly definable region. In large part, people are in

contact with one another and with many varieties of a language.

For example, your book Language Files gives you an example of speech from an older man with

many well known characteristics of Appalachian English:

1) I used to could read. (double modal)

2) I ain't no girl now. (multiple negation)

3) He has a broken back ____ was never set. ("that" deletion)

4) Put some bakin' sody on it. (sody instead of soda)

5) I fell upside of the building. (lexical substitution--upside of for against the side of)

What they point out, though, is that the speaker is a native of Southern Ohio, not actually a

native of Appalachia. And his speech is affected by factors such as age, sex, and socio-economic

status.

To cite another simple example, linguists study African American English (most recently called

ebonics), but there is no assumption here that ALL African Americans speak this dialect. Nor is

there an assumption that this dialect is limited to African Americans only. It does happen to be

true, however, that most speakers of this dialect are African Americans.

So, big picture again. A dialect is a variety of a language. A speech community is the group of

people who speak the dialect. What makes a particular group of people speak a particular dialect

has to do with a number of factors which may play a more or less significant role in any

particular case. These include socio-economic status, ethnicity, sex, and geographical location.

Kinds of Variation

Now we're ready to get down to particular aspects of language variation. Returning to our

grammatical modules, we can see that carefully examining language variation requires both

attention to grammar and attention to society. What do I mean by this? Simply, that if we

identify a particular dialect, our understanding of how that dialect works requires an

understanding of the phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics of that dialect, as

well as an understanding of who speaks it. So, here we'll cover grammatical aspects of language

variation.

Phonetic Variation

Your textbook, Language Files, is actually a bit unclear regarding the difference between

phonological and phonetic variation.

Though it doesn't come out and say so specifically, your book treats phonetic variation as

variation in pronunciation that don't affect the phonemic level of the grammar. Two examples are

provided. Here's the case of New York alveolar consonants.

In some New York City dialects, alveolar consonants are systematically produced with contact

between the tongue tip and the upper teeth (i.e. they are dento-alveolar), while in so-called

standard dialects, the alveolars are not dental. So, in New York English, the [t] word "two" is

produced with contact between the tongue tip and the teeth. In so-called standard English, this

isn't the case. Alveolar consonants are not always realized as dentals.

So, why is this a case of phonetic variation? The answer is basically this. At the phonemic level,

there is really no difference between NY English and standard English. Both have the exact same

set of alveolar consonant PHONEMES. What's different is that the place of articulation differs

ever so slightly between the two dialects. NY English speakers always produce their alveolar

consonants with contact between the tongue tip and the upper front teeth. Standard English

speakers only do this sometimes, as in words like [tenth].

In short, the difference is not found at the phoneme level but rather at the allophone level. This is

what your book is referring to by this example of phonetic variation between NY English and

standard American English.

Phonological Variation

Now let's turn to the case of phonological variation. This situation is a little different. Here, the

variation in pronunciation represents variation at the level of the phoneme or at the level of

phonotactic constraints on things like syllable shape. How so? The book gives a few useful

examples. Here's one:

I have a difference in my dialect between the vowel in the word "caught" and the vowel

in the word "cot". For me, these are a minimal pair. The first, "caught" has a lax, mid,

rounded, back vowel (its phonetic symbol is a backwards "c"), while the latter is the low,

back, unrounded vowel [a]. In a few dialects of American English, this difference has

been neutralized, aka lost. That is, these two different phonemes have merged.

Specifically, people who speak these dialects pronounce the vowel in "caught" as an [a]:

[kat], thus rendering the two words "caught" and "cot" homophonous.

Why is this a case of phonological and not phonetic variation? Because, the result of this kind of

variation is the loss of a phonological contrast. Whereas in my dialect these vowels are

allophones of two different phonemes, the dialects that don't have this difference have lost a

contrast. Another way of putting this is to say that the dialect that has lost the backwards "c"

vowel that I still have in my dialect, has one less vowel phoneme than my dialect has. What's

most important here is that we understand that the difference is relevant at the level of the

phoneme. This is what your book classifies as an example of phonological variation.

So, the big picture is that the variation means that the phoneme system is different in the two

varieties. In the case of NY alveolars above, the allophones of the alveolar consonant phonemes

are different, but both dialects still have the same alveolar phonemes in the same words. Here's

another interesting example:

In some African American dialects, the sequences Cr and Cl (C stands for consonant) are

prohibited in unstressed syllables. So, "professor" is "pofessor". This is a case of

phonological variation because in SAE, the word professor has an /r/ as the second

phoneme of the word, but in AAE, /r/ is simply not allowed to appear in this position.

This is a case of phonological variation because we are able to identify a particular difference in

phonotactics between AAE and SAE. AAE doesn't allow Cl and Cr clusters, while SAE does.

This literally means that there is a significant difference in the phonological rules of the two

dialects Specifically, the inventory of possible syllable types differs from one to the other.

Morphological Variation

Examples of morphological variation should be fairly easy for you to identify. Your book notes

the case of northern England and Southern Wales, where the -s suffix is used as a general

present tense marker. In many other dialects of English, -s is reserved for marking the present

tense in third person singular forms only.

I likes him.

We walks all the time.

Another example comes from Appalachian English, which has a number of past tense forms that

are non-standard. "Et" for "ate", "hEt" for "heated". These are all examples of morphological

variation.

Syntactic Variation

As the name suggests, syntactic variation involves syntactic differences among dialects. Keeping

close to home, it is common in many Southern dialects to find the word "done" used as an

auxiliary, as in "she done already told you" or "I done finished a while ago." In SAE, this isn't

the case. And, in fact, many times people who want to imitate Southern American English

speech often pick up on this rather salient property.

Double modals (combinations of auxiliaries) are also common across parts of the South.

Examples are: "I might could do it" or "They useta could do it" or "He might would if you asked

him nice enough."

These are examples of syntactic variation. Another famous example is the use of so-called

double negatives, as in "I didn't see nobody."

Semantic Variation

Often times, what people studying variation talk about when they discuss semantic variation is

the different meanings that particular words have from dialect to dialect, or the different words

that are used for the same thing in different dialects. We might more accurately refer to this as

the study of lexical semantic variation. That's a fancy way of saying that we are studying

variation in the meanings of words.

So, an example of a single word meaning different things is the compound "knocked up". In

England it means 'rouse from sleep'. Here in the States it means "to make pregnant".

Examples of different words being used for the same thing also abound. I remember when I first

went to college that someone asked me if I liked frappes. I literally had no idea what he was

talking about. It turns out that frappe is a common term for "milk shake" in New England.

Obviously, it wasn't a common term in the New York area that I was from.

Other examples are words like "soda". For me, this is a general term for soft drink. For speakers

of other dialects, "soda" may mean seltzer water or club soda only. In some of these dialects, the

general term for soft drink is "pop". In yet other dialects, the general term is "coke", while for

me, "coke" refers to only a specific brand of cola.

By the way, when you go to the store, what do you get your groceries in? A bag or a sack? In my

dialect, it's a bag. But when I lived in Montana, I quickly learned that you get your groceries

there in a sack.

 

 

Language and Socioeconomic Status

One of the most persistent and pernicious misunderstandings of the concept dialect revolves

around the problem of standard vs. nonstandard varieties of a language. Before I discuss this

problem in a bit more detail, let's make sure the big picture is clear. Specifically, let's break the

problem down into two categories: the WRONG view, and the RIGHT view. (I know, I know,

I'm being absolutist here. But the point is important to make, and this issue is important to

address, so why not be direct about it.)

THE WRONG VIEW

A language is composed of a "standard" dialect from which all of the other non-

standard dialects emerge.

The standard dialect is the "correct" way to speak the language.

The other dialects represent erroneous or inferior ways of speaking the language.

The non-standard language is more complex, more logical, more expressive than the

non-standard dialects.

Non-standard dialects are a product of "lazy" speech.

THE RIGHT VIEW

Languages have various dialects.

There are actually a range of varieties that people consider to be standard. So, Bill

Clinton speaks the "standard" and so do I, but my dialect is clearly NOT the same as

Clinton's.

What is considered standard is associated with prestige, a non-linguistic factor.

From a linguistic standpoint, what is considered standard has NOTHING to do with

correctness or superiority.

From a linguistic standpoint, ALL DIALECTS are equally correct, equally expressive,

equally complex, equally logical and so forth. That is, the term non-standard dialect

means just that, not the standard dialect. It DOES NOT MEAN inferior or sub-standard.

Non-standard dialects are not simply offshoots from the standard. That is, don't think of

non-standard dialects simply as daughters of some standard variety. This is important,

because when we compare non-standard and standard dialects people tend to think that

the properties of the non-standard have evolved out of the standard. This is not the case.

Non-standard and standard dialects taken together simply make up the range of dialects

that constitute a language.

Okay, I've given you the wrong and the right views. But this isn't sufficient, because I don't want

you to believe these things simply because I say so. Rather, I want you to understand why the

evidence overwhelmingly supports what I've told you.

Evidence for the RIGHT VIEW

What kinds of evidence might we look for to support these claims? Here are some ideas:

If there is a correct way to speak a language, and that correct way is reflected in the

standard, then we predict that through time the standard will be unchanging with respect

to this "right" way of doing things.

But, time and time again, we see that this is simply not the case. Language Files provides a

simple example regarding multiple negation. In current standard American English, multiple

negation structures are non-standard and people who use them are often ridiculed, e.g. "I don't

want no help". We saw an example of this in the video that we watched in class. An upper class

Southern woman ridiculed what she referred to as uneducated speech by imitating one speaker's

use of multiple negation (something about "not running into no stump and not wanting to make

no hole in the bottom of a boat").

In fact, some particularly pedantic types argue that two negatives actually cancel each other out

logically. As a consequence, they suggest that anyone who says "I don't want no help" is actually

requesting aid. Clearly, there is often an attempt to demean speakers who use double or other

multiple negative constructions.

Well, let's be pedantic ourselves, just for fun, by pointing out that in Chaucer's time, multiple

negation WAS the norm. Language Files quotes a passage from the General Prologue to the

Canterbury Tales:

 

 

He never yet no villany not said

In all his life to no kind of creature

By my count, there are FOUR (count 'em) negations in this sentence: "never" , "no", "not", and

"no". According to the rules of logic, since this is an even number of negations, I suppose a

paraphrase should have them all canceling each other out, so the passage should mean something

like: "He always said bad things to all creatures". Of course, we KNOW that it doesn't mean that.

Even with its four negations, we have a clear sense that it means that "He never said anything

bad to anyone".

So, in our time, multiple negation is non-standard. Big deal. In Chaucer's time, it was standard.

In fact, multiple negation is highly common across languages the world over. All that stuff about

multiple negations canceling each other out is basically bunk. Sure, we can use multiple negation

to this effect, but intonation plays a big role when we do so. So, I can say, "I didn't say I saw

nobody" to suggest that I did see somebody. But note that if you do this, your intonation is not

that of a normal declarative. In fact, you put extra emphasis on the word "nobody" so as to call

the listener's attention to the fact that you are playing with the double negative. Essentially, you

are being coy.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that there is nothing inherently more or less correct about

multiple negation. Thus, whether it is standard or not in contemporary English has nothing to do

with correctness or logical purity. It has to do with factors that are non-linguistic. Specifically,

our objections to multiple negation tell us more about our attitudes towards the people who use it

than about the adequacy or inadequacy of multiple negation itself.

What other kinds of things should be true if the views above are correct?

Well, if we're right, we might expect to find cases of language change in progress that

show how arbitrary the notions of standard are.

Here is a nice example that shows just this point. In contemporary American English, we have a

couple of changes that are presently taking place. Both involve "misuse" of pronouns. Note that I

put quotes around "misuse" to point out that both involve uses that depart from the traditional

prescriptive standard. Interestingly, one of these is generally accepted, while the other is

considered "incorrect". Here is an example of each:

John and me went bowling last Friday night.

Mary gave the books to John and I.

Does one of these seem somehow "worse" to you. My intuition, at least, is that the first one

sounds worse than the second one. In fact, according to old time grammar rules, both are equally

wrong. Each involves a misuse of a pronoun. "Me", as an object pronoun, is should not be used

as a subject. In the second case, "I", as a subject pronoun, should not be used as the object of the

verb "gave". If both are equally wrong, why does the second one not sound as wrong as the first

(if this is the case for you)? One explanation is that highly educated people say the second one all

the time, but tend not to say the first one as often. It's not the case that either one is actually

better (or worse). They both reflect ongoing changes in how we use pronouns in English. As an

aside, it is perhaps not surprising that such changes should happen. The pronoun system is a relic

of a case system that has been lost in the rest of the language, so losing the old case driven uses

of the pronouns isn't shocking. But, what is important here, is that our judgments about which of

the two sentences sounds better or more standard may have more to do with the speakers than

what's actually said.

Here's another example of the arbitrariness of what constitutes the standard.

An even more glaring example can be found in the Spanish spoken in Spain. In so-called

standard peninsular Spanish, there's a phonemic difference between the voiceless interdental

("th") sound and [s], so we find pairs of words like: casa (pronounced kasa) and caza

(pronounced katha). All over the Americas, this difference has been lost, and both words are

pronounced the same, with an [s] and not a [th]. Both varieties are considered "standard" or

"acceptable" by the Spanish Royal Academy. In parts of Spain, however, there is another dialect

spoken in the southern part of the country in which both words are also pronounced the same. In

this case, however, both are pronounced as [katha]. In this dialect, rather than all cases of [th] in

the standard being realized as [s], all interdental fricatives and [s] are realized as [th]. I hope you

can see that essentially the same process has occurred from a phonological point of view. In one

dialect (or set of dialects), there is no /th/ phoneme, only /s/. In another, there is no /s/ phoneme,

only the interdental /th/. BUT, only one of the dialects is accepted as falling into the standard.

The southern dialect is considered "unacceptable" by the royal academy and is frequently

ridiculed. Why? Well, the people who speak the "unacceptable" dialect are largely poor and

uneducated. Again, the message, it's not what is said, it's who says it! There is NOTHING

inherently better about either dialect. In fact, it is only attitudes towards speakers that result in

one falling into the sphere of acceptable varieties while the other remains outside.

Let's provide another argument along these lines.

If we are right above then we should expect to see the very same linguistic features be

standard in one place but non-standard in another.

This is, in fact, simple to show. English, as we all know, has an American Standard and a British

standard. In American English, "r" dropping is considered non-standard. Think about all the "r"

dropping you saw in the video of the non-prestige dialect speakers from Boston. Stereotypical

New Yorkese also has "r" dropping as a feature and "r" dropping is often taken as a sign of lack

of education and social status. By contrast, in standard British English, "r" dropping is a prestige

feature. Imitate a Brit saying "bird" or the word "car" and you'll see that the [r] is dropped. So,

here you have "r" dropping as a marker of non-standard American English but standard British

English. This should be surprising to anyone who thinks that what is found in the standard is

inherently better. It should come as no surprise to someone who thinks that the linguistic

differences between standard and non-standard dialects are simply that, differences.

One more point here:

If we are correct in our RIGHT VIEW /WRONG VIEW statements above, then we

should expect that today's standard might be tomorrow's non-standard.

And this happens all the time. I've already discussed above the example of multiple negation in

Middle English, but closer to home, it is useful to remember that "r" drop in New York English

was a marker of prestige around the turn of the last century. Now, it marks the opposite. What

gives? People. What is standard is not a matter of "better" from a linguistic point of view. What

is standard is dictated by attitudes in the society towards particular groups of people who speak

in particular ways.

Big Picture Time Again

Once we recognize the arbitrary nature of what constitutes a standard variety of a language, it is

simply impossible to maintain that any dialect is "superior" to any other. Different? Yes. Better?

Worse? Never.

Prestige

If what makes a language standard or non-standard is not a linguistic issue, what is the

difference? Of course, the reality of the situation is that the situation is VERY complex. There

are many factors that come into play. But, it is important to note that dialects are intimately

related to the notion of prestige within a society. Basically, the standard dialect is the dialect that

is associated with prestige in the society at large. Does this mean that all prestigious people

MUST speak the standard? No. But an overwhelming number do. That's why we have no trouble

associating the standard with prestige. (Just what constitutes prestige is bundled up in a number

of issues that are beyond the scope of this review sheet!)

This raises an apparently simple question. If the standard confers prestige on its speakers, why

doesn't everyone just learn the standard? Well, what looks simple isn't always so simple. One

thing is this. The question assumes that everyone is WELCOME to speak the standard. As the

case of NY "r" dropping might suggest, when lots of people in NY starting dropping their r's, the

prestige group put their "r's" back in. And, if we know anything about dialects at this point, we

should know that people's attitudes towards dialects tells us more about their attitudes towards

the speakers of those dialects.

Also, think about how you feel about your own dialect. Even if you speak a non-standard variety,

do you want to be told by someone else that the way you speak is "wrong" or inadequate and that

YOU should change? Dialects are intimately wound up with identity and with a sense of

community. It is not realistic to pretend that this is not the case and that people can simply shrug

off one dialect and adopt another with no cost. In fact, once you are an adult, learning the speech

patterns of another dialect may even require a lot of training. It is important to realize that there

are prestige factors, within group prestige factors, involved in non-standard dialects. Even

though a speaker may speak a non-standard variety of a language, she or he may gain prestige

within her or his dialect community by using the non-standard variety.

This thus brings us to two concepts:

Overt Prestige: This refers to speakers of non-standard varieties who adopt (to some

degree) the standard variety. We use the term Overt Prestige to indicate that the speaker

is seeking to associate her or himself with the general prestigious dialect within a society.

Covert Prestige: This refers to speakers who choose not to adopt a standard dialect. We

use the term Covert Prestige because the prestige associated with this choice is that

gained from within group social identification.

So, in simple terms, overt prestige is about seeking prestige by assimilating to the standard, while

covert prestige is about not choosing to assimilate to the standard. Clearly, either choice has a

distinct set of costs and benefits.

A final note on the prestige question. Many speakers of non-standard dialects are bidialectal.

What does this mean? Basically, that they control both their own non-standard dialect and are

fluent (to a greater or lesser extent) in a standard variety. This isn't surprising and is an obvious

and logical strategy for pursuing the rewards of adopting the standard without losing the sense of

group identity that is intimately related to the non-standard dialect.

Ways of classifying dialects

Okay, so we've seen that there are standard and non-standard dialects. I've tried to argue that this

distinction isn't about the linguistic properties of the dialects in question, but rather, about

sociological factors. In a society, standard dialects can also be called prestige dialects. By

prestige, we mean that these dialects are not stigmatized in the society in which they are spoken.

When attempting to characterize more precisely particular dialects, linguists conduct their

research along a number of lines. I'll review here the three major sources of language variation

that we mentioned in class. These are: geography, ethnicity, and social class.

Geography

A major factor in dialect diversity is geography. The study of regional dialects is called

dialectology. In File 10.4 of Language Files there is a nice discussion of regional dialect

variation in the US, so I won't regurgitate this here. It is important to note that classifying

regional variation proceeds similarly to work in historical linguistics. Your book mentions things

called isoglosses. What are these? They are geographical areas that exhibit shared dialectal

features. In the review notes for historical linguistics, I cited you the examples of isoglosses for

Balto-Slavic, Germanic, and Indo-Iranian. People use isoglosses in dialect research, for example,

to mark the regions where people say bucket instead of pail, or soda instead of pop, or drop their

r's, or monopthonize their diphthongs. This results in general shared dialect properties that run

along certain geographical lines. Of course, the lines are never perfectly clear, but in broad

strokes, we can get a nice sense of how dialect varies with geography.

Ethnicity

Another factor driving language variation is ethnicity. Often, ethnicity is also closely tied to a

particular geographical area, as is the case with the so-called Pennsylvania Dutch that we saw on

the video in class. Other times, ethnicity is a factor despite geographical dispersion, as is the case

of African American Vernacular English (AAVE or Ebonics). Linguists have long noted that

there are many shared characteristics in African American English, regardless of whether

speakers live in the South, the Northeast, or the far West. This is most likely due to the recent

migration of many African Americans from the South in the early part of the 20th Century,

which in historical terms is only yesterday.

Your book provides a nice general sketch of AAVE in File 10.5. One controversy surrounding

AAVE is its origins, which are in broad strokes broken down into the dialectologist view and the

Creolist view. The former maintains that AAVE is essentially originally a regional variety of

English spoken by a particular ethnic group that for obvious historical reasons was originally

concentrated in the South and which underwent a great migration from the South. The Creolist

view maintains that AAVE emerged as a Creole from pidgins used by slaves who spoke different

African languages and that this Creole underwent a process of decreolization after increased

contact with English.

Here's my two cents. Let me start by saying that I am not an expert in this area. So, I can't really

judge which is the better account. Many people have argued (loudly) on both sides of the debate.

From my point of view, though, I'm not convinced that either answer much matters at this point.

I'm much more interested in making sure that we recognize that no matter what its historical

origins, AAVE is a dialect of English that is every bit as "complete" as any other dialect of the

language. This may seem obvious given what I've said above, but it certainly didn't seem obvious

to the people screaming in the newspapers, on the radio, and on tv last year during the ebonics

controversy. What your book does a nice job of is presenting a sketch of the structural features of

AAVE (pp. 322-324), simply to highlight its highly regular, rule governed nature. Review these.

(HINT)

Class

A third major factor in language variation is social class (the term class almost feels quaint in

these post-Marxist times! But, heck, it's useful enough to get the job done here). Often times, it is

important to bear in mind that class plays a role in dialects. Remember the case from the video of

the Boston Brahmin dialect, or the reference by an upper class Southern woman to the "poor

white trash" dialect also spoken in the South.

Regarding class, you should all review File 10.7, especially William Labov's study of R-lessness

in New York City. What did Labov's experiment show? Well, he showed that people, especially

middle class people, exhibit a large difference between whether they drop r's or produce them,

depending on how unguarded their speech is. The more unguarded, the more they drop r's. The

more guarded, the more r's they produced. Why? Labov concluded that class consciousness

played a big role. In guarded moments, their class aspirations were visible. That is, they produce

r's as a way of seeking the prestige of the r-ful dialect spoken by the upper class in NY. In

unguarded moments, they don't produce as many r's because they are not trying to put on more

prestigious airs. By contrast, the upper class group produced its r's regularly, in both careful and

casual speech. Labov concluded that they were more comfortable with their class status as

reflected in this aspect, at least, of their speech.

An Important Point

It's important to bear in mind that these factors are intermingled. The video we saw in class did a

very nice job of illustrating this by filling the screen with a range of speakers from Boston. All

spoke dialects identifiable as Boston English (a regional classification); they represented

different ethnic sub-groups with distinct speech patterns within Boston English, and they clearly

were differentiated along class (economic, education, etc.) lines. So, when we are looking at

variation, we have to constantly bear all of these factors in mind as potential extra-linguistic

factors. In fact, we also need to factor in such things as age and sex, which also play important

roles in understanding language variation.

 

 

Speech Style

One more aspect of language variation that merits discussion is the notion of speech style.

Frequently, speech style is confused with dialect. This happens for example with people who

erroneously think "rap" is synonymous with African American English.

All people, regardless of what dialect they speak, control a range of speech styles. Depending on

who we are talking to, and where we are, and so forth, we use different styles of speech. This is

called style shifting. Think about how you talk to a) your friends, b) your parents, c) your

professors. Do you use the same style with all three. I suspect not. If you are like me, maybe you

are casual with your friends, more formal but still familiar with your parents, and most formal

(sometimes you even feel stiff) with your professors (by the way, you don't need to be so

formal...).

There are a number of dimensions along which we exhibit variation in speech style. These

involve pronunciation, syntax, and vocabulary.

Pronunciation

One obvious area where speaking style shifts is how "carefully" we pronounce things.

Specifically, we see that in "casual" speech, we often "drop" endings in words such as "hunting"

which we might pronounce as something like "huntin". We see that we contract things, such as

"watcha" for "what do you" and so forth.

Again, prescriptivists argue that this is evidence of laziness and so forth. At this point in the

semester, I hope we are not fooled by such things. It's actually often evidence of efficiency and

economy of speech gestures--like building a more fuel efficient car!!! Seriously, there's nothing

wrong with such contractions. In fact, many contractions are necessary even in careful speech if

we don't want our speech to sound ridiculously stupid. Imagine saying to your partner, "you love

me, do you not?". Not real effective, I suspect.

My point: there is nothing inherently sloppy about fast speech pronunciation features. There are

simply more and less appropriate times to use them.

Syntax

Style shifting also occurs in syntax. Here's a case in point. In the prescriptive standard, we are

supposed to use "there are + plural noun" and "there is + singular noun". But, in more casual

speech registers, people often say "there's three problems with your analysis". This is a case of

syntactic style shifting. Another interesting example of syntactic style shifting is this. People

often use more passive constructions when they want to sound more formal. Note how the first

of the following sentences sounds more formal because it is in the passive:

The use of antibiotics to treat bacterial infection is generally successful.

If you use antibiotics to treat bacterial infections, you'll generally be successful.

This example also shows that the general prescriptive rule that we should never use passive

constructions where active ones are possible is simply a lot of bunk. Sometimes passive

constructions elevate your prose or speech to a necessarily more formal level.

Vocabulary

A major area of style shifting involves choice of vocabulary. We all know, for example, which

words are "dirty" words in our language and when they are acceptable and when they are not

acceptable to use. We also know which words are high-brow words that we use to impress

people. In English, it is the case that we often use more Latinate words when we want to sound

formal and impressive and intelligent. What sounds more impressive, for example, "divine" or

"godly"? My intuition is that "divine" sounds more learned. Think about differences like "there

are many factors" as opposed to "there are multiple factors". See how "multiple" makes the

phrase sound fancier? We also have words that we know constitute the technical jargon of a

particular field and we know how and when to use them (if we participate in that field). I read

you a passage from a linguistics book that was filled with what most likely sounded like

impenetrable jargon to you and which is pretty straightforward for a phonologist familiar with

the technical language of the field.

Finally, we know that some words are SLANG. Slang is actually a tricky thing to define, but that

doesn't stop us from having a clear sense that there are words that are clearly slang words. So, if

someone comes up to you and says, "yo, dude, you see that tight car?" I bet you don't think that

the speaker is talking about a car that doesn't have a lot of leg room. Instead, the word "tight" is

being used to express the speaker's admiration of the way the car looks. "Tight" here (as well as

the word "dude" is an example of slang).

From a linguistic point of view, there is nothing particularly unique about slang words as words.

They are just words and are formed by the same morphological processes as other words and are

subject to the phonotactic constraints and so forth of the language that they are a part of. What's

special about them is what we might call their sociopsychological role--i.e. how and when we

use them and how we feel about them as words. Here are a couple of properties that slang words

have:

Informality. Slang words are almost inevitably used in very informal contexts. Think about

when you'd use clueless as opposed to unaware.

Group identification. Many slang words are markers of membership in a particular group that is

outside of the "mainstream" adult society. People who use the term "dude" to refer to a person

are generally younger (though "dude" has been around for quite some time now). I didn't know

the slang use of the word "tight" above, but one of you all (who will remain nameless) taught me.

I'm older than the group that knows and uses that word. Many ethnic groups have specific slang

terms that identify people who use them as clued in members. In fact, of course, membership

works both ways. If you don't know the slang terms, you are also clearly identifying yourself as a

non-member of a particular group.

Short life span. Slang terms often have a short life span, though not all do. There are examples

like "cram" (particularly relevant here) that mean "study intensely over a short period of time"

that have been around for a long time. Other slang terms appear and then disappear from the

language fairly quickly. Maybe "groovy" is one such example. I don't think that "groovy" has

really had much staying power. It feels dated, as if its productive use really didn't extend beyond

the sixties.

Slang terms are scalar. Slang terms actually seem to fall along a continuum of slanginess.

Think about the following three examples: unaware, dense, clueless. I'd say that "unaware" is not

slangy at all, while "dense" feels marginally slangy, and finally "clueless" feels the slangiest of

the three.

A final note. Often times, when slang terms hang around for a long enough time in a language,

they lose their slanginess and become more accepted as a part of the standard use of the

language. In most cases, they still feel informal to some degree, but they don't feel like slang

anymore. An example might be the verb "rip off" meaning "steal". Basically, the idea is that if

slanginess is a scale, i.e. a continuum, there is a middle ground where items feel like they

somehow aren't clearly slang but they don't feel very formal either. Such words are what

linguists sometimes refer to as COLLOQUIAL terms. They are informal, but they do not feel

like slang.

 

 

Sosiolinguistik

Sampai titik ini, kita telah dasarnya telah mempertimbangkan bahasa sebagai sistem formal yang dapat

menguntungkan dipelajari secara independen dari orang-orang yang menggunakannya. Jenis

pendekatan ini sering disebut di lapangan sebagai adalah dari "formal" linguistik. Orang menggunakan

"resmi" istilah karena penyelidikan tersebut berkisar membangun model formal yang memungkinkan

kita untuk memahami bagaimana berbagai subparts atau modul dari fungsi tata bahasa linguistik. Ini

subparts atau modul terdiri dari daerah yang kita telah mempelajari semua semester, seperti fonetik,

fonologi, morfologi, sintaksis, dan semantik.

Ada, bagaimanapun, lebih banyak untuk memahami bahasa daripada berfokus pada bidang-bidang teori

inti. Jika kita bisa mendapatkan informasi tentang bagaimana bahasa bekerja dengan mempelajari sifat

formalnya tata bahasa, kita juga harus menyadari bahwa bahasa sebagai "sesuatu" yang akan dibahas

adalah selalu semacam penyederhanaan, karena bahasa bukanlah "sesuatu" eksternal untuk manusia ,

melainkan, sesuatu yang membentuk bagian dari siapa kita.

Yang ingin saya tekankan di sini adalah bahwa bahasa juga harus menguntungkan dipelajari dalam

konteks sosialnya. Dengan demikian, kita belajar baik tentang bahasa dan diri kita, orang-orang yang

menggunakannya, hidup dengan itu, dan hidup di dalamnya. Sosiolinguistik, kemudian, seperti

namanya, adalah studi bahasa dalam masyarakat manusia. Kami akan fokus di sini pada aspek utama

penelitian sosiolinguistik dalam dekade terakhir, suatu daerah umumnya disebut sebagai variasi bahasa.

Seperti nama sendiri menyiratkan, variasi bahasa berfokus pada bagaimana bahasa bervariasi dalam

konteks yang berbeda, dimana konteks mengacu pada hal-hal seperti etnisitas, kelas sosial, jenis

kelamin, geografi, usia, dan sejumlah faktor lainnya.

Variasi Bahasa

Sebelum kita meninjau berbagai aspek variasi bahasa secara lebih rinci, saya ingin memastikan kami

punya istilah dan konsep dasar bawah. Jadi, here goes ...

BEBERAPA TERMINOLOGI PENTING

Variasi internal: milik dari bahasa memiliki cara yang berbeda untuk mengekspresikan arti yang sama.

Yang penting, ini mengacu ke dalam bahasa, tidak di bahasa, perbedaan. Contoh variasi internal dalam

bahasa Inggris adalah "bertanya" vs "AKS".

Berbagai bahasa: Ini adalah istilah umum yang dapat digunakan di sejumlah tingkatan. Jadi, kita dapat

menggunakan istilah untuk membedakan antara bahasa Inggris dan Perancis, tetapi kita juga bisa

menggunakan istilah tersebut untuk membedakan antara dua varietas bahasa Inggris, seperti New York

City Inggris vs Appalachian Inggris.

Dialek: Ini adalah konsep yang rumit dan sering disalahpahami. Untuk ahli bahasa, dialek adalah

kumpulan atribut (fonetik, fonologi, sintaksis, morfologi, semantik) yang membuat satu kelompok

penutur tampak berbeda dari kelompok lain penutur bahasa yang sama.

UMUM SUMBER Kesalahpahaman

1) dialek TIDAK istilah negatif untuk ahli bahasa. . Sering kali, misalnya, kita mendengar orang menyebut

non-standar varietas bahasa Inggris sebagai "dialek", biasanya untuk mengatakan sesuatu yang buruk

tentang berbagai non-standar (dan dengan demikian tentang orang-orang yang berbicara itu). Hal ini

terjadi cukup sedikit selama kontroversi ebonics tahun lalu. Tapi, dialek merujuk APAPUN berbagai

bahasa. Jadi, dengan definisi, kita semua berbicara dengan dialek bahasa ibu kita.

2) dialek TIDAK identik dengan aksen. Accent hanya sebagian variasi dialek. Non-ahli bahasa sering

berpikir aksen mendefinisikan dialek (atau yang aksen saja mengidentifikasi orang sebagai pembicara

bahasa non-pribumi atau asing). Juga, bukan ahli bahasa cenderung berpikir bahwa itu selalu "orang

lain" orang yang memiliki "aksen". Jadi, apa yang "aksen"?

3) aksen: Istilah ini mengacu pada variasi fonologi, variasi yaitu dalam pengucapan Jadi, jika kita

berbicara tentang Accent Selatan, kita sedang berbicara tentang sebuah properti umum dari

pengucapan bahasa Inggris di bagian Selatan Amerika Serikat. Tapi, dialek Selatan memiliki lebih dari

sifat fonologis tertentu. Accent demikian tentang pengucapan, sedangkan dialek adalah istilah yang

lebih luas meliputi sifat sintaksis, morfologi, dan semantik juga.

Catatan terakhir pada aksen. KITA SEMUA MEMILIKI SATU! Tidak ada hal seperti orang yang berbicara

tanpa aksen. Ini bukan latihan dalam kebenaran politik, by the way. Ini adalah fakta.

Singkatnya, dialek adalah varietas tertentu dari suatu bahasa, dan kita semua memiliki dialek. Accent

mengacu pada fonologi dialek tertentu. Karena kita semua memiliki dialek, kita semua memiliki aksen.

Idiolect: Istilah lain yang kita harus akrab dengan adalah idiolect. "Apa idiolect itu?" Anda bertanya, di

tepi kursi Anda. Idiolect Sebuah hanyalah istilah teknis yang kita gunakan untuk merujuk pada berbagai

bahasa yang digunakan oleh setiap pembicara individu dari bahasa. Sama seperti ada variasi antara

kelompok penutur bahasa, ada variasi di antara penutur. Tidak ada dua penutur bahasa berbicara

identik. Setiap berbicara padanya atau varietas sendiri yang khusus dari bahasa tersebut. Setiap begitu

membicarakan dirinya atau idiolect sendiri.

Sebuah Snapshot "The Big Picture":

• Bahasa A, mengatakan Inggris, benar-benar sebuah koleksi dialek.

• dialek adalah varietas tertentu bahasa yang berbeda terasa dari berbagai varietas atau bahasa yang

sama diucapkan oleh kelompok lain atau kelompok orang.

• Dialek sendiri adalah koleksi idiolects (dan dengan demikian begitu juga bahasa).

Beberapa Masalah yang menyulitkan "Big Picture" sedikit

Sementara gambaran besar relatif sederhana, dunia adalah tempat yang fuzzy dan kompleks. Bagaimana

kita tahu di mana satu dialek dimulai dan berakhir lain? Bagaimana kita tahu apakah dua varietas bahasa

adalah dialek dari bahasa yang sama atau dialek bahasa yang berbeda sama sekali? Mari kita sisihkan

pertanyaan pertama sejenak, dan menangani kedua.

Ahli bahasa menggunakan kriteria tertentu untuk menangani masalah bagaimana menentukan apakah

dua dialek rupa-rupa bahasa yang sama atau tidak. Apa yang kami gunakan adalah kriteria dimengerti

bersama. Artinya, jika speaker dari dua dialek dapat berkomunikasi lancar dengan satu sama lain,

meskipun mereka mengakui diri mereka berbicara varietas yang berbeda dari bahasa, maka kita melihat

dua dialek bahasa yang sama.

Banyak dari Anda adalah penutur dari "Selatan" Inggris (saya menggunakan tanda kutip karena

sebenarnya merupakan penyederhanaan yang berlebihan BESAR untuk mengobati "Selatan Inggris"

sebagai dialek monolitik), sementara saya berbicara sesuatu yang mirip dengan apa yang disebut

standar bahasa Inggris. (Meskipun aku dibesarkan di wilayah New York City metropolitan, saya tidak

memiliki banyak sifat linguistik dalam dialek saya yang biasanya berhubungan dengan daerah itu.)

Anyway, Anda dapat memahami saya dalam kuliah, dan saya bisa mengerti Anda ketika Anda bertanya

atau datang untuk berbicara dengan saya dalam jam kantor. Intinya, untuk memukul yang sudah jelas,

adalah bahwa komunikasi tersebut dimungkinkan karena meskipun kita dapat berbicara dialek berbeda

bahasa Inggris, perbedaannya tidak begitu besar untuk mencegah kita dari memahami satu sama lain.

Mengenai isu bahasa yang berbeda, jelas ada kasus di mana tidak ada orang yang akan bertanya-tanya

apakah dua pembicara berbicara dialek dari satu bahasa atau apakah mereka penutur bahasa yang

berbeda. Jadi, jika saya datang dan kuliah kepada Anda dalam bahasa Spanyol, saya ragu bahwa Anda

akan menggaruk kepala Anda dan berkata, "Wah, apakah ini berbagai bahasa Inggris atau itu sesuatu

yang lain?" Tapi, ada banyak situasi di mana garis pemisah jauh kurang jelas.

Ada beberapa alasan mengapa hal-hal menjadi sulit, baik linguistik dan non-linguistik. Sebuah komplikasi

linguistik utama datang dalam bentuk apa yang kita sebut sebuah kontinum dialek. Ini adalah situasi di

mana ada sejumlah dialek berdekatan yang berhubungan erat tetapi tidak semua saling dimengerti.

Apa itu kontinum dialek?

Untuk menyederhanakan agak, memikirkan cara ini. Bayangkan kita punya sepuluh dialek (1-10)

berturut-turut:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sekarang, bayangkan bahwa dialek masing-masing sangat mirip dengan tetangga berdekatan, tapi

seperti yang kita bergerak lebih jauh persamaan menjadi semakin sedikit. Jadi, 1 sangat mirip dengan 2,

kurang mirip dengan 3, bahkan kurang sama dengan 4, dan pada saat kita sampai 8, 9 atau 10, 1 adalah

tidak lagi saling dimengerti dengan ini. Dengan kriteria kejelasan bersama, kami ingin mengatakan

bahwa dengan demikian 1 dan 10 milik bahasa yang berbeda. Itu bagus. Tapi apa yang kita lakukan

tentang 5, yang dapat saling dimengerti dengan kedua 1 dan 10? Yang bahasa tidak 5 milik? Berapa

banyak bahasa yang berbeda yang kita bicarakan di sini?

Contoh masalah kontinum dialek

Contoh menarik yang saya memiliki pengalaman tangan pertama dengan adalah kasus bahasa Mixtec di

Meksiko. Ada sekitar 300.000 speaker Mixtec di Meksiko, terutama tersebar di negara bagian Oaxaca.

Mixtec adalah bahasa asli yang merupakan anggota dari keluarga yang lebih besar disebut keluarga

bahasa Otomanguean. Tapi, Mixtec itu sendiri sebenarnya terdiri dari sejumlah dialek yang saling

dimengerti. Perkiraan berapa banyak dialek seperti ada bervariasi, namun sebuah penelitian yang cukup

dapat dipercaya menempatkan angka pada 22. Mungkin lebih bermakna dari jumlah 22, bagaimanapun,

adalah pengamatan bahwa kejelasan bersama di antara Mixtecs paling baik diukur dengan berjalan kaki.

Secara khusus, telah dilaporkan bahwa perpanjangan geografis kejelasan saling kira-kira setara dengan

dua hari berjalan dari setiap desa Mixtec diberikan. (Mixtecs, karena saya sudah bilang, adalah pejalan

kaki yang sangat hangat pada umumnya!) Ini adalah kasus yang jelas dari sebuah kontinum dialek mirip

dengan kasus kami dari 1-10 di atas, kecuali bahwa semua Mixtecs jelas tidak semua berbaris di

berturut-turut.

Pada kenyataannya, apa studi lebih canggih dari kejelasan saling mencoba untuk lakukan adalah

mengukur dengan cara tertentu atas masalah kejelasan. Artinya, daripada harus mengambil kejelasan

saling menjadi masalah semua atau tidak, mereka mencoba untuk memecahkan masalah ini ke dalam

persentase supaya kita bisa membedakan antara derajat kejelasan. Sebagai kasus di titik, varietas

tertentu Mixtec bahwa saya telah bekerja pada termasuk yang paling terisolasi, dan telah dilaporkan

hanya memiliki tingkat kejelasan 25% dengan dialek yang paling dekat untuk itu.

Apa yang harus Anda ambil dari diskusi ini adalah bahwa sementara kriteria kejelasan bersama

merupakan kriteria baik dan berguna untuk menentukan apakah dua jenis bahasa adalah dialek dari

bahasa yang sama atau tidak, dialek sering membentuk sebuah kontinum yang membuat menemukan

sebuah tepat membagi titik antara bahasa cukup sulit, bahkan tidak mungkin.

Faktor-faktor nonlinguistik dan isu dialek vs bahasa

Faktor non-linguistik juga sering memperumit masalah lebih lanjut. Seorang ahli bahasa yang terkenal

pernah berkata, "bahasa adalah dialek dengan angkatan darat dan angkatan laut." Apa dia meminta

perhatian adalah faktor politik yang terlibat dalam cara orang menentukan apa bahasa adalah. A, baik

meskipun sangat menyedihkan, contoh ini dapat ditemukan di bekas Yugoslavia. Bahasa mayoritas di

bekas Yugoslavia disebut Serbo-Kroasia. Bahasa ini dituturkan di seluruh negara (Albania dan

Macedonia, misalnya, juga dituturkan di bagian Yugoslavia, sehingga Serbo-Kroasia bukan satu-satunya

bahasa.) Anyway, sekarang Kroasia telah patah menjadi negara mandiri, yang bahasa Kroasia secara

resmi Kroasia, dan bahasa sekarang berbicara dalam apa masih disebut Yugoslavia secara resmi disebut

Serbia. Ini sekarang resmi dua bahasa yang sama sekali berbeda, karena fakta bahwa ada perbatasan

politik antara Kroasia dan Serbia.

Dari sudut pandang ahli bahasa, tentu saja, mereka masih satu bahasa, dan perbedaan antara mereka

adalah contoh dari variasi dialek setara dengan, katakanlah, New York vs Boston Inggris. Tapi,

permusuhan antara Serbia dan Kroasia yang membuat mereka menolak untuk mengakui bahwa mereka

berbicara bahasa yang sama (meskipun mereka tahu mereka dan bisa, tentu saja, memahami satu sama

lain!).

Contoh politik yang bekerja di arah lain adalah kasus Cina. Ada cukup beberapa bahasa yang digunakan

di Cina, namun pemerintah Cina menyebut mereka semua sebagai dialek Cina. Dua dari apa yang

disebut dialek Kanton dan Mandarin. Kanton dituturkan di bagian dari Cina Selatan (itu diucapkan di

Shanghai), sementara Mandarin diucapkan di utara (itu bahasa yang digunakan di Beijing). Meskipun

kedua bahasa keduanya secara historis terkait, mereka TIDAK saling dimengerti. Namun Cina merujuk

kepada mereka sebagai dialek dari satu bahasa sebagai sarana untuk menegakkan visi persatuan budaya

dan politik. Bayangkan jika orang Eropa memutuskan bahwa mereka semua akan menelepon Spanyol,

Perancis, Catalan, Italia, Portugis, Rumania, dan dialek Provencal dari Romantis, bahasa tunggal, dan

Anda mulai mendapatkan gambar. Atau bayangkan kita memutuskan bahwa Inggris, Belanda, dan

Jerman semua dialek bahasa Jerman tunggal. Ya, bahasa-bahasa ADALAH historis terkait, tapi dari sudut

pandang ahli linguistik, bukan saling dimengerti mereka membuat mereka bahasa yang berbeda, bukan

dialek bahasa hari ini.

Pidato Masyarakat

Oke, jika kita punya ide yang cukup jelas tentang apa dialek adalah, maka gagasan tentang masyarakat

penutur cukup mudah.

• Sebuah masyarakat tutur adalah sekelompok orang yang berbicara dengan dialek umum.

Ahli bahasa bekerja pada variasi bahasa sering menjadi ciri masyarakat pidato dalam hal ekstra-linguistik

faktor, yaitu garis etnis atau geografis. Sementara ini dapat bermanfaat dan dapat menjelaskan hows

dan mengapa variasi dialek, penting untuk dicatat bahwa ahli bahasa yang melakukan ini TAHU bahwa

ada benar-benar ada hal seperti dialek murni diucapkan hanya oleh sekelompok etnis tertentu atau

dengan orang hanya dari satu wilayah sempurna ditentukan. Dalam sebagian besar, orang berada dalam

kontak dengan satu sama lain dan dengan banyak jenis bahasa.

Misalnya, buku Anda File Bahasa memberi Anda contoh pidato dari seorang pria tua dengan

karakteristik terkenal banyak Appalachian Inggris:

1) Saya dulu bisa membaca. (Modal ganda)

2) Saya tidak gadis lagi sekarang. (Negasi ganda)

3) Dia memiliki ____ kembali rusak tidak pernah ditetapkan. ("Bahwa" penghapusan)

4) Masukan sody beberapa BAKIN 'di atasnya. (Sody bukan soda)

5) saya jatuh terbalik bangunan. (Substitusi leksikal - terbalik untuk melawan sisi)

Apa yang mereka menunjukkan, meskipun, adalah bahwa pembicara adalah penduduk asli Southern

Ohio, tidak benar-benar penduduk asli Appalachia. Dan pidatonya dipengaruhi oleh faktor-faktor seperti

usia, jenis kelamin, dan status sosial ekonomi.

Untuk menyebut contoh lain yang sederhana, ahli bahasa studi Afrika Amerika Inggris (yang terakhir

dipanggil ebonics), tetapi ada asumsi di sini bahwa tidak SEMUA Afrika Amerika berbicara dialek ini. Juga

tidak ada asumsi bahwa dialek ini terbatas pada Amerika Afrika saja. Itu tidak terjadi untuk menjadi

kenyataan, bahwa sebagian besar pembicara dialek ini adalah Afrika Amerika.

Jadi gambar, besar lagi. Dialek adalah berbagai bahasa. Sebuah masyarakat tutur adalah sekelompok

orang yang berbicara dialek. Apa yang membuat kelompok tertentu orang berbicara dengan dialek

tertentu harus dilakukan dengan sejumlah faktor yang mungkin memainkan peran yang lebih atau

kurang signifikan dalam setiap kasus tertentu. Ini termasuk status sosial ekonomi, etnis, jenis kelamin,

dan lokasi geografis.

Jenis Variasi

Sekarang kita siap untuk turun ke aspek-aspek tertentu dari variasi bahasa. Kembali ke modul tata

bahasa kita, kita dapat melihat bahwa hati-hati memeriksa variasi bahasa membutuhkan baik

memperhatikan tata bahasa dan perhatian terhadap masyarakat. Apa yang saya maksudkan dengan ini?

Cukup, bahwa jika kita mengidentifikasi dialek tertentu, pemahaman kita tentang bagaimana dialek yang

bekerja memerlukan pemahaman tentang fonetik, fonologi, morfologi, sintaksis, dan semantik yang

dialek, serta pemahaman yang berbicara itu. Jadi, di sini kita akan membahas aspek tata bahasa variasi

bahasa.

Variasi fonetis

Buku teks, File Bahasa, sebenarnya agak tidak jelas tentang perbedaan antara variasi fonologi dan

fonetik.

Meskipun tidak keluar dan mengatakan begitu khusus, buku Anda memperlakukan variasi fonetis

sebagai variasi dalam pengucapan yang tidak mempengaruhi tingkat fonemik tata bahasa. Dua contoh

disediakan. Berikut adalah kasus New York konsonan alveolar.

Dalam beberapa dialek New York City, konsonan alveolar secara sistematis diproduksi dengan kontak

antara ujung lidah dan gigi atas (yaitu mereka dento-alveolar), sementara dalam apa yang disebut dialek

standar, alveolars tidak gigi. Jadi, di New York bahasa Inggris, [t] kata "dua" diproduksi dengan kontak

antara ujung lidah dan gigi. Dalam apa yang disebut bahasa Inggris standar, hal ini tidak terjadi.

Konsonan alveolar tidak selalu direalisasikan sebagai dental.

Jadi, mengapa ini kasus variasi fonetis? Jawabannya adalah pada dasarnya ini. Pada tingkat fonemik, ada

benar-benar ada perbedaan antara NY bahasa Inggris dan bahasa Inggris standar. Keduanya memiliki set

sama persis fonem konsonan alveolar. Apa yang berbeda adalah bahwa tempat artikulasi yang sedikit

berbeda antara dua dialek. NY berbahasa Inggris selalu menghasilkan konsonan alveolar mereka dengan

kontak antara ujung lidah dan gigi depan atas. Penutur bahasa Inggris standar hanya melakukan hal ini

kadang-kadang, seperti dalam kata-kata seperti [kesepuluh].

Singkatnya, perbedaan tersebut tidak ditemukan di tingkat fonem melainkan pada tingkat alofon. Inilah

yang buku Anda adalah mengacu pada contoh ini oleh variasi fonetis antara NY Inggris dan standar

bahasa Inggris Amerika.

Variasi fonologis

Sekarang mari kita beralih ke kasus variasi fonologis. Situasi ini sedikit berbeda. Di sini, variasi dalam

pengucapan merupakan variasi pada tingkat fonem atau di tingkat kendala phonotactic pada hal-hal

seperti bentuk suku kata. Bagaimana bisa begitu? Buku ini memberikan contoh yang berguna sedikit.

Berikut ini salah satu:

• Saya memiliki perbedaan dalam dialek saya antara vokal dalam kata "tertangkap" dan vokal dalam

kata "ranjang". Bagi saya, ini adalah sepasang minimal. Yang pertama, "tertangkap" memiliki, lemah

pertengahan, bulat, vokal belakang (simbol fonetis adalah mundur "c"), sedangkan yang kedua adalah

rendah, punggung, vokal unrounded [a]. Dalam beberapa dialek bahasa Inggris Amerika, perbedaan ini

telah dinetralkan, alias hilang. Artinya, dua fonem yang berbeda telah bergabung. Secara khusus, orang

yang berbicara dialek ini mengucapkan vokal di "tertangkap" sebagai [a]: [kat], sehingga rendering dua

kata "tertangkap" dan "ranjang" homofon.

Mengapa ini kasus variasi fonologis dan tidak fonetis? Karena, hasil dari jenis variasi adalah hilangnya

kontras fonologis. Sedangkan dalam dialek saya ini vokal adalah allophone dari dua fonem yang

berbeda, dialek yang tidak memiliki perbedaan ini telah kehilangan kontras. Cara lain untuk

menempatkan ini adalah dengan mengatakan bahwa dialek yang telah kehilangan mundur "c" vokal

bahwa saya masih memiliki dalam dialek saya, memiliki satu fonem vokal kurang dari dialek saya

memiliki. Apa yang paling penting di sini adalah bahwa kita memahami bahwa perbedaan adalah relevan

di tingkat fonem tersebut. Inilah yang buku Anda mengklasifikasikan sebagai contoh variasi fonologis.

Jadi, gambaran besar adalah bahwa variasi berarti bahwa sistem fonem berbeda dalam dua varietas.

Dalam kasus alveolars NY atas, alofon dari fonem konsonan alveolar berbeda, namun kedua dialek

masih memiliki fonem alveolar yang sama dalam kata-kata yang sama. Berikut contoh lain yang menarik:

• Dalam beberapa dialek Afrika Amerika, urutan Cr dan Cl (C singkatan konsonan) dilarang dalam suku

kata tanpa tekanan. Jadi, "profesor" adalah "pofessor". Ini adalah kasus variasi fonologis karena dalam

SAE, profesor memiliki kata / r / sebagai fonem kedua kata tersebut, tetapi di AAE, / r / sama sekali tidak

diijinkan berada pada posisi ini.

Ini adalah kasus variasi fonologis karena kita dapat mengidentifikasi perbedaan tertentu di antara

phonotactics AAE dan SAE. AAE tidak memungkinkan cluster Cl dan Cr, sedangkan SAE tidak. Ini secara

harfiah berarti bahwa ada perbedaan yang signifikan dalam aturan fonologis dari dua dialek khusus,

inventarisasi jenis suku kata yang mungkin berbeda dari satu ke yang lain.

Variasi morfologi

Contoh variasi morfologi harus cukup mudah bagi Anda untuk mengidentifikasi. Buku Anda mencatat

kasus Inggris utara dan selatan Wales, di mana akhiran-s digunakan sebagai penanda tegang umum ini.

Dalam dialek lain dari bahasa Inggris,-s disediakan untuk menandai present tense dalam bentuk orang

ketiga tunggal saja.

Aku menyukainya.

Kami berjalan sepanjang waktu.

Contoh lain datang dari Appalachian bahasa Inggris, yang memiliki sejumlah bentuk past tense yang

non-standar. "Et" untuk "makan", "het" untuk "dipanaskan". Ini semua adalah contoh variasi morfologi.

Sintaksis Variasi

Seperti namanya, variasi sintaksis melibatkan perbedaan sintaksis antara dialek. Menjaga dekat dengan

rumah, biasanya dalam dialek Selatan banyak menemukan kata "dilakukan" digunakan sebagai

tambahan, seperti dalam "ia lakukan sudah katakan" atau "Aku sudah selesai beberapa waktu lalu."

Dalam SAE, ini tidak terjadi. Dan, pada kenyataannya, banyak kali orang yang ingin meniru Amerika

Selatan pidato bahasa Inggris sering menangkap properti agak menonjol.

Kata modal ganda (kombinasi pembantu) juga umum di bagian Selatan. Contohnya adalah: "Saya

mungkin bisa melakukannya" atau "Mereka useta bisa melakukannya" atau "Mungkin akan jika Anda

memintanya bagus cukup."

Ini adalah contoh dari variasi sintaksis. Contoh lain yang terkenal adalah penggunaan apa yang disebut

negatif ganda, seperti dalam "Aku tidak melihat siapa-siapa."

Semantic Variasi

Sering kali, apa yang orang belajar bicara variasi tentang kapan mereka mendiskusikan variasi semantik

adalah arti yang berbeda yang memiliki kata-kata tertentu dari dialek ke dialek, atau kata-kata berbeda

yang digunakan untuk hal yang sama dalam dialek berbeda. Kita mungkin lebih tepat menyebutnya

sebagai studi variasi semantik leksikal. Itu cara mewah untuk mengatakan bahwa kita sedang

mempelajari variasi dalam makna kata-kata.

Jadi, contoh dari satu kata yang berarti hal yang berbeda adalah senyawa "hamil". Di Inggris berarti

'membangunkan dari tidur. Di sini, di Amerika itu berarti "untuk membuat hamil".

Contoh kata yang berbeda digunakan untuk hal yang sama juga berlimpah. Saya ingat ketika saya

pertama kali pergi ke perguruan tinggi bahwa seseorang bertanya apakah aku menyukai frappes. Aku

benar-benar tidak tahu apa yang dia bicarakan. Ternyata frappe adalah istilah umum untuk "milk shake"

di New England. Jelas, itu bukan istilah umum di daerah New York bahwa aku dari.

Contoh lain adalah kata-kata seperti "soda". Bagi saya, ini adalah istilah umum untuk minuman ringan.

Untuk penutur dialek lain, "soda" mungkin berarti air soda atau soda saja. Dalam beberapa dialek, istilah

umum untuk minuman ringan adalah "pop". Dalam namun dialek lain, istilah umumnya adalah "kokas",

sementara bagi saya, "kokas" mengacu hanya merek tertentu cola.

By the way, ketika Anda pergi ke toko, apa yang Anda dapatkan belanjaan Anda di? Sebuah tas atau

karung? Dalam dialek saya, itu tas. Tapi ketika saya tinggal di Montana, saya cepat belajar bahwa Anda

mendapatkan belanjaan Anda ada dalam karung.

Bahasa dan Status Sosial Ekonomi

Salah satu kesalahpahaman yang paling gigih dan berbahaya dari dialek konsep berkisar pada masalah

varietas standar vs tidak standar dari sebuah bahasa. Sebelum saya membahas masalah ini secara rinci

sedikit lebih, mari kita pastikan gambaran besar jelas. Secara khusus, mari kita memecah masalah ke

dalam dua kategori: pandangan SALAH, dan tampilan KANAN. (Aku tahu, aku tahu, aku bersikap absolut

sini Tapi yang penting penting untuk membuat., Dan masalah ini penting untuk diperhatikan, jadi

mengapa tidak berterus terang tentang itu.)

THE VIEW SALAH

• Sebuah bahasa terdiri dari dialek "standar" dari mana semua non-standar dialek lain muncul.

• Dialek standar yang "benar" cara untuk berbicara bahasa.

• Para dialek lainnya merupakan cara salah atau inferior berbicara bahasa.

• Bahasa yang non-standar yang lebih kompleks, lebih logis, lebih ekspresif daripada non-standar dialek.

• Non-standar dialek adalah produk dari pidato "malas".

ATAS KANAN VIEW

• Bahasa memiliki berbagai dialek.

• Sebenarnya ada berbagai varietas yang orang anggap sebagai standar. Jadi, Bill Clinton berbicara

"standar" dan begitu juga saya, tapi dialek saya jelas TIDAK sama dengan Clinton.

• Apa yang dianggap standar dikaitkan dengan prestise, faktor non-linguistik.

• Dari sudut pandang linguistik, apa yang dianggap memiliki standar ADA hubungannya dengan

kebenaran atau superioritas.

• Dari sudut pandang linguistik, SEMUA dialek sama-sama benar, sama-sama ekspresif, sama-sama

kompleks, sama-sama logis dan sebagainya. Artinya, dialek non-standar istilah berarti hanya itu, bukan

dialek standar. Ini TIDAK BERARTI inferior atau sub-standar.

• Non-standar dialek tidak hanya cabang dari standar. Artinya, tidak berpikir non-standar dialek hanya

sebagai putri beberapa variasi standar. Hal ini penting, karena ketika kita membandingkan dialek non-

standar dan standar orang cenderung berpikir bahwa sifat-sifat non-standar telah berevolusi dari

standar. Hal ini tidak terjadi. Dialek non-standar dan standar secara bersama-sama hanya membentuk

berbagai dialek yang merupakan bahasa.

Oke, saya sudah memberikan salah dan pandangan yang tepat. Tapi ini tidak cukup, karena saya tidak

ingin kau percaya hal-hal ini hanya karena saya mengatakan begitu. Sebaliknya, saya ingin Anda untuk

memahami mengapa bukti sangat mendukung apa yang saya sudah bilang.

Bukti untuk VIEW KANAN

Apa jenis bukti mungkin kita mencari untuk mendukung klaim tersebut? Berikut adalah beberapa ide:

• Jika ada cara yang benar untuk berbicara bahasa, dan bahwa cara yang benar tercermin dalam

standar, maka kami memperkirakan bahwa melalui waktu standar akan berubah sehubungan dengan

cara ini "benar" dalam melakukan sesuatu.

Tapi, waktu dan waktu lagi, kita melihat bahwa ini hanyalah tidak terjadi. File Bahasa memberikan

contoh sederhana tentang negasi ganda. Pada saat ini standar bahasa Inggris Amerika, struktur negasi

ganda non-standar dan orang yang menggunakannya sering diejek, misalnya "Saya tidak ingin bantuan

tidak". Kami melihat contoh ini dalam video yang kami menonton di kelas. Seorang wanita kelas atas

Selatan diejek apa yang disebut sebagai pidato yang tidak berpendidikan dengan meniru menggunakan

salah satu pembicara dari negasi ganda (sesuatu tentang "tidak berjalan ke tunggul tidak ada dan tidak

ingin membuat lubang ada di dasar perahu").

Bahkan, beberapa jenis sangat bertele-tele berpendapat bahwa dua negatif benar-benar membatalkan

satu sama lain secara logis. Akibatnya, mereka berpendapat bahwa siapa pun yang mengatakan "Saya

tidak ingin ada bantuan" sebenarnya meminta bantuan. Jelas, sering ada upaya untuk merendahkan

speaker yang menggunakan double atau lainnya konstruksi negatif ganda.

Yah, mari kita menjadi sok pintar diri kita sendiri, hanya untuk menyenangkan, dengan menunjukkan

bahwa dalam waktu Chaucer, negasi beberapa WS norma. File Bahasa mengutip suatu bagian dari

Prolog Umum ke Canterbury Tales:

Dia belum pernah villany untuk tidak mengatakan

Dalam semua hidupnya untuk tidak jenis makhluk

Dengan hitungan saya, ada EMPAT (hitung) negasi dalam kalimat ini: "tidak pernah", "tidak", "tidak",

dan "tidak". Menurut peraturan logika, karena ini adalah bahkan jumlah negations, saya kira parafrase

harus memiliki mereka semua membatalkan satu sama lain, sehingga bagian itu seharusnya berarti

sesuatu seperti: "Dia selalu mengatakan hal yang buruk kepada semua makhluk". Tentu saja, kita TAHU

bahwa itu tidak berarti itu. Bahkan dengan negasi empat, kami memiliki rasa yang jelas bahwa hal itu

berarti bahwa "Dia tidak pernah mengatakan sesuatu yang buruk kepada siapa pun".

Jadi, di zaman kita, negasi ganda adalah non-standar. Big kesepakatan. Dalam waktu Chaucer, itu

standar. Bahkan, negasi beberapa sangat umum di seluruh bahasa di seluruh dunia. Semua hal tentang

negasi ganda membatalkan satu sama lain pada dasarnya susun. Tentu, kita dapat menggunakan negasi

ganda untuk efek ini, tetapi intonasi memainkan peran besar ketika kita melakukannya. Jadi, saya bisa

mengatakan, "Saya tidak mengatakan saya melihat tidak ada" untuk menunjukkan bahwa saya memang

melihat seseorang. Tetapi perhatikan bahwa jika Anda melakukan ini, intonasi Anda bukan yang dari

deklaratif normal. Bahkan, Anda menekankan ekstra pada "tidak ada" kata sehingga untuk menarik

perhatian pendengar pada fakta bahwa Anda sedang bermain dengan negatif ganda. Pada dasarnya,

Anda sedang malu-malu.

Pokoknya, intinya di sini adalah bahwa tidak ada yang inheren lebih atau kurang benar tentang negasi

ganda. Jadi, apakah itu standar atau tidak dalam bahasa Inggris kontemporer tidak ada hubungannya

dengan kebenaran atau kemurnian logis. Ini ada hubungannya dengan faktor-faktor yang non-linguistik.

Secara khusus, kami keberatan untuk negasi beberapa ceritakan lebih lanjut tentang sikap kami

terhadap orang-orang yang menggunakannya dari sekitar kecukupan atau ketidakcukupan negasi ganda

itu sendiri.

Apa jenis lain hal harus benar jika dilihat di atas sudah benar?

• Nah, jika kita benar, kita mungkin berharap untuk menemukan kasus perubahan bahasa dalam

kemajuan yang menunjukkan bagaimana sewenang-wenang pengertian tentang standar adalah.

Berikut ini adalah contoh bagus yang menunjukkan hanya saat ini. Dalam bahasa Inggris Amerika

kontemporer, kami memiliki beberapa perubahan yang saat ini berlangsung. Keduanya melibatkan

"penyalahgunaan" dari kata ganti. Perhatikan bahwa saya menaruh tanda kutip "penyalahgunaan" untuk

menunjukkan bahwa keduanya melibatkan penggunaan yang menyimpang dari standar preskriptif

tradisional. Menariknya, salah satu yang berlaku umum, sementara yang lain dianggap "tidak benar".

Berikut adalah contoh dari masing-masing:

• John dan saya pergi bowling Jumat malam.

• Maria memberikan buku kepada Yohanes dan I.

Apakah salah satu entah bagaimana tampaknya "lebih buruk" untuk Anda. Intuisi saya, setidaknya,

adalah bahwa yang pertama terdengar lebih buruk dari yang kedua. Bahkan, menurut aturan tata

bahasa waktu lama, keduanya sama-sama salah. Setiap melibatkan penyalahgunaan kata ganti. "Aku",

sebagai kata ganti objek, tidak boleh digunakan sebagai subjek. Dalam kasus kedua, "Aku", sebagai kata

ganti subjek, tidak boleh digunakan sebagai objek dari kata kerja "memberi". Jika keduanya sama-sama

salah, mengapa yang kedua tidak terdengar sebagai salah sebagai yang pertama (jika ini adalah kasus

untuk Anda)? Salah satu penjelasan adalah bahwa orang-orang berpendidikan tinggi mengatakan yang

kedua sepanjang waktu, tetapi cenderung untuk tidak mengatakan yang pertama sering. Ini bukan kasus

yang satu baik sebenarnya lebih baik (atau buruk). Mereka berdua mencerminkan perubahan yang

sedang berlangsung dalam cara kita menggunakan kata ganti dalam bahasa Inggris. Sebagai samping,

mungkin tidak mengherankan bahwa perubahan tersebut harus terjadi. Sistem kata ganti adalah

peninggalan dari sistem kasus yang telah hilang di seluruh bahasa, sehingga kehilangan kasus lama

didorong penggunaan kata ganti tidak mengejutkan. Tapi, yang penting disini adalah bahwa penilaian

kami tentang mana dari dua kalimat terdengar lebih baik atau lebih standar mungkin lebih berkaitan

dengan speaker dari apa yang sebenarnya kata.

Berikut ini contoh lain dari kesewenang-wenangan apa yang merupakan standar.

Contoh yang lebih mencolok dapat ditemukan di Spanyol dituturkan di Spanyol. Dalam apa yang disebut

standar semenanjung Spanyol, ada perbedaan fonemis antara interdental tak bersuara ("th") suara dan

[s], sehingga kita menemukan pasangan kata-kata seperti: casa (diucapkan kasa) dan Caza (diucapkan

katha). Di seluruh Amerika, perbedaan ini telah hilang, dan kedua kata yang diucapkan sama, dengan [s]

dan bukan [th]. Kedua varietas dianggap "standar" atau "diterima" oleh Spanyol Royal Academy. Di

bagian dari Spanyol, namun, ada satu dialek yang dituturkan di bagian selatan negara di mana kedua

kata juga diucapkan sama. Dalam kasus ini, bagaimanapun, keduanya diucapkan sebagai [katha]. Dalam

dialek ini, bukan semua kasus [th] dalam standar yang direalisasikan sebagai [s], semua frikatif

interdental dan [s] direalisasikan sebagai [th]. Mengapa?

Apa yang menyebabkannya? Orang.

Ya. Tidak pernah

Apa artinya ini?

Geografi

Apa ini?

Etnis