Dialect/language problems

As far as dialect is concerned, it is possible, for example, in England to speak of 'the Norfolk dialect' or 'the Suffolk dialect'. On the other hand, one can also talk of more than one 'Norfolk dialect' - 'East Norfolk' or 'South Norfolk'. Nor is the distinction between 'Norfolk dialect' and 'Suffolk dialect' so straightfoward as one might think. If you travel from Norfolk into Suffolk, investigating conservative rural dialects, you will find, at least at some points, that the linguistic characteristics of these dialects change gradually from place to place. There is no clear linguistic break between Norfolk and Suffolk dialects. It is not possible to state in linguistic terms where people stop speaking Norfolk dialect and start speaking Suffolk dialect. There exists the so-called geographical dialect continuum. If we choose to place the dividing line between the two dialects at the county boundary, we are basing our decision on social (local, political) rather than on linguistic facts.

The same sort of problem arises with the term language. For example, Dutch and German are known to be two distinct languages. However, at some 'places along the Dutch-German frontier the languages spoken on either side of the border are absolutely similar. If we choose to say that the people on one side of the border speak German and those on the other Dutch, our choice is again based on social and political rather than linguistic factors. And the paradox is emphasized by the fact that the ability of speakers from either side of the border to understand each other is often greater than that of the German speakers from different areas of Germany or from Austria or Switzerland. Now, in attempting to decide which language someone is speaking, we could say that if two speakers cannot understand one another, then they are speaking different languages. Similarly, if they can understand each other, we could say that they are speaking dialects of the same language.

'Mutual intelligibility', and other purely linguistic criteria, are, therefore, of less importance in the use of the terms language and dialect than are political and cultural factors, of which the two most important are autonomy (independence) and heteronomy (dependence). We can say that Dutch and German are autonomous, since both are independent, standardized varieties of language with a life of their own. On the other hand, the nonstandard dialects of Germany, Austria and German-speaking Switzerland are all heteronymous with respect to Standard German, in spite of the fact that they may be very unlike each other and that some of them may be very like Dutch dialects. This is because speakers of these German dialects look to German as their standard language, read and write in German, and listen to German on radio and television. Speakers of dialects on the Dutch side of the border, in the same way, will read newspapers and write letters in Dutch, and any standardizing changes that occur in their dialects will take place in the direction of Standard Dutch, not Standard German.

A more extreme case, which illustrates the sociopolitical nature of these two terms, can be taken from Scandinavian, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish languages. All are autonomous, standard languages, corresponding to three distinct nation states. Educated speakers of all three, however, can communicate freely with each other using their native tongues. The same may be said about Russian and Ukrainian, Serbian and Croatian, Hindi and Urdu. This discussion of the difficulty of using purely linguistic criteria to divide up varieties of language into distinct languages or dialects is our first encounter with the problem very common in the study of language and society - the problem of discreteness and continuity.

This is a great problem since the terms like 'cockney', ‘Brooklynese', 'Yorkshire accents' in Great Britain, and 'Black dialect' in the USA are frequently used as if they were self-evident, self-contained discrete varieties with well-defined, obvious characteristics. It is often convenient to talk as if this were the case, but the true picture may be more complex. We can talk, for example, about 'Canadian English' and 'American English' as if they were two clearly distinct entities, but it is in fact very difficult to find any single linguistic feature, which is common to any variety of Canadian English and not present in any variety of American English.

If at this point we return to purely linguistic facts the term dialect refers, strictly speaking, to differences between kinds of language, which are differences of vocabulary, grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of pronunciation, and it is often important to distinguish clearly between the two. This is particularly true, in the context of English, in the case of the dialect known as Standard English. In many important respects this dialect is different from other English dialects, and some people may find it surprising to see it refer to as a dialect at all. However, in so far as it differs grammatically and lexically from other varieties of English, it is legitimate to consider it a dialect: the term dialect can be used to apply to all varieties, not just to nonstandard varieties. Standard English is that variety of English, which is usually used in, print, and which is normally taught at schools and to non-native speakers learning English. It is also the variety, which is normally spoken by educated people and used in broadcasts, and other similar situations. The difference between standard and non-standard has nothing in principle to do with differences between formal and colloquial languages, or with concepts such as 'bad language'. Standard English has colloquial as well as formal variants, and Standard English speakers swear as much as others.

Historically speaking, the standard language developed out of the English dialects used in and around London. In the course of time these were modified by speakers at the court, by scholars of universities and, later on, of public schools. As time passed, the English language used in the upper classes of society in the capital city came to diverge quite markedly from that used by other social groups and came to be regarded as the model for all those who wished to speak and write well. When printing became widespread, it was the form of English most widely used in books, and, although it has undergone many changes, it has always retained its character as the form of the English language with the highest profile and prestige.

Within Standard English there is a number of regional differences, which tend to attract attention. Standard Scottish English is not the same as Standard British English, and Standard American English is somewhat different again. The differences include large numbers of well-known vocabulary items, grammatical constructions, such as

British English American English

aeroplane aluminium arse barmy behove bogeyman carburettor charivari coupé furore grotty haulier moustache mum(my) naivety pernickety quin scallywag snigger speciality titbit

airplane aluminum ass balmy behoove boogeyman carburetor shivaree, coupe furor grody hauler mustache mom(my) naïveté persnickety quint scalawag snicker specialty tidbit

British: I have got. American: I have gotten.

English: It needs washing. Scottish: It needs washed.

North of Eng :You need your hair cutting. South of Eng: You need your hair cut.

Generally speaking, however, Standard English has a widely accepted and codified grammar. There is a general consensus among educated people and, in particular, among those who hold powerful and influential positions, as to what Standard English is and what is not. However, it was imposed on the native speakers from above, over the range of regional dialects, and for this very reason can be called a superposed (навязанный силой) variety of language.

This general consensus, however, does not apply to pronunciation. There is no universally acknowledged standard accent for English, and it is possible to speak Standard English with any regional or social accent. There is also one accent, which only occurs together with Standard English. This is the British English accent, or more properly the English English accent, which is known to linguists as RP ('Received Pronunciation'). This is the accent which developed largely in the English Public Schools, and which was until recently required of all the BBC announcers. It is known colloquially under various names such as 'Oxford English' and 'BBC English', and it is still the accent taught to non-native speakers learning British pronunciation.RP is unusual as there is a very small number of RP speakers and they do not identify themselves as coming from any particular geographical region. RP is largely confined to England, although it also has prestige in the rest of the British Isles (and, to a decreasing extent, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa). As far as England is concerned, though, RP is not necessary for speaking Standard English. It can be spoken with any regional accent, and in the vast majority of cases it is.

So, Standard English is the language, which with respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary is substantially uniform though not devoid of regional differences, that is well established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated people.

Language as a social phenomenon is closely tied up with the social structure and value systems of society, different dialects and accents are evaluated in different ways. Standard English, for example, has much more status and prestige than any other English dialect. It is a dialect that is highly valued by many people, and certain economic, social and political benefits tend to accrue (присвоить, приписать) to those who speak and write it. The RP accent also has very high prestige, as do certain American accents. In fact the 'conventional wisdom' of most English-speaking communities goes further than this. So status are Standard English and RP accents that they are widely considered to be 'correct', 'beautiful', 'nice', 'pure' and so on. Other nonstandard, non-prestige varieties are often held to be 'wrong', 'ugly', 'corrupt' or lazy'. Standard English, moreover, is frequently considered to be the English language, which inevitably leads to the view that other varieties of English are some kind of deviation from a norm, the deviation being due to laziness, ignorance or lack of intelligence. In this way, millions of people who have English as their mother tongue are persuaded that they 'can't speak English'.

The fact is, however, that Standard English is only one variety among many, although an important one. Linguistically speaking, it cannot even legitimately be considered better than other varieties. The scientific study of language has convinced scholars that all languages, and correspondingly all dialects, are equally 'good' as linguistic systems. All varieties of a language are structured, complex, rule-governed systems which are wholly adequate for the needs of their speakers. It follows that value judgements concerning the correctness and purity of linguistic varieties are social rather than linguistic. There is nothing at all inherent (присущий) in nonstandard varieties, which makes them inferior.

In the same way, societal values may also be reflected in judgements concerning linguistic varieties. For example, it is quite common in heavily urbanized Britain for rural accents, such as those of Devonshire, Northumberland or the Scottish Highlands, to be considered pleasant, charming, quaint or amusing. Urban accents, on the other hand, such as those of Birmingham, Newcastle or London, are often thought to be ugly, careless or unpleasant. This type of attitude towards rural speech is not so widespread in the United States, and this difference may well reflect the different way in which rural life is evaluated in the two countries. The following example illustrates the extent to which judgements concerning the correctness and purity of linguistic varieties and features are social rather than linguistic. All accents of English have an /r/ sound in words such as rat and rich and most have an /r/ in carry, sorry. On the other hand, there are a number of accents, which have no /r/ in words like cart and car. These words formerly had an /r/ sound, as the spelling shows, but in these accents /r/ has been lost except where it occurs before a vowel. The /r/ in other contexts - at the end of a word (car) or before a consonant (cart) - can be referred to as 'non-prevocalic /r /'. Accents which lack non-prevocalic /r/ include a number in the United States and West Indies, many in England, Wales and New Zealand, and all in Australia and South Africa. In these accents pairs of words like ma and mar are pronounced in exactly the same way.

Now, if we compare the accents of England and America with respect to this feature, one striking fact emerges. In England, other things being equal, accents without non-prevocalic /r/ have more status and are considered more 'correct' than accents with. RP, the prestige accent, does not have this /r/, and non-prevocalic /r/ is often used on radio, television and in the theatre to indicate that a character is rural, uneducated or both. One frequently hears it employed for comic effect in radio comedy series.

On the other hand, although the situation in the United States is more complex, there are parts of the country where the exact reverse is true. In New York City, other things being equal, accents with non-prevocalic /r/ have more prestige and are considered more 'correct' than those without. The pronunciation of words like car and cart without an /r/ is socially stigmatized, and generally speaking, the higher up the social scale a speaker is, the more non-prevocalic /r/ he is likely to use.

In English towns where both types of pronunciation can be heard, such as Bristol and Reading, this pattern is completely reversed. In other words, value judgements about language are, from a linguistic point of view, completely arbitrary. There is nothing inherent in non-prevocalic /r/ that is good or bad, right or wrong, sophisticated or uncultured. Judgements of this kind are social judgements based on the social connotations that a particular feature has in the area in question.

The fact that this is so, however, does not mean that linguists do not acknowledge that society evaluates different linguistic varieties in different ways. Linguistic descriptions note the appropriateness (rather than the 'correctness') of varieties for different contexts, and foreign-language teaching programmes are usually developed to teach the learner the standard variety of language. At the same time, many linguists believe that the attitude discussed above can in some cases be harmful. For example, it might have undesirable socio-psychological and pedagogical consequences if the scholars involved in teaching Standard English to speakers of nonstandard varieties appear hostile towards their pupil's speech.

Linguists also pay attention to the subjective attitudes towards language for other reasons. They are important, for example, in the study of linguistic change, and can often help to explain why a dialect changes when and how it does. An investigation into the speech of New York City has shown that since the Second World War non-prevocalic /r/ has been very much on the increase in the city in the speech of the upper middle class. The impetus for this change may have come from the influx into the city during the war of many speakers from areas where non-prevocalic /r/ was a standard or prestige feature. Subjective attitudes towards linguistic forms do not always have this kind of effect. It will take place if a certain pronunciation comes to be regarded as a prestige feature in a particular community, only then it will tend to be exaggerated.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11