|
 |
Common errors vs language evolution | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4104 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes  Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 57 of 72 19 November 2013 at 5:25pm | IP Logged | |||||
Sounds like the "wh" "w" distinction in English, which I never personally hear except in extremely posh spoken English. With this accent feature, a speaker pronounces "whale" and "whip" with a little breathless /h/ sound before the /w/. Everyone else (the vast majority) who have no such distinction are still perfectly understandable, so the sound is not a part of the phonology of the whole language. In these cases I would just accept that you are witnessing a natural sound change, deletion, but feel free to prefer the older speech style. Foreign learners will probably try to match people of their own age group and the content of language learning books will be a reflection of the people who wrote them and the style of speech they imagine their readers speaking. Maybe the word-initial "ch" sound will be considered archaic soon, if it's not a part of the phonology. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Chung Diglot Senior Member Joined 6952 days ago 4228 posts - 8259 votes 20 sounds Speaks: English*, French Studies: Polish, Slovak, Uzbek, Turkish, Korean, Finnish | Message 58 of 72 19 November 2013 at 5:32pm | IP Logged | |||||
I agree. MixedUpCody's assumption that those in power consciously and regularly decide that their native dialect is the template for the standard language is also shaky. - Standard Slovak is based mainly on dialects used in central Slovakia - i.e. distinct from those in the capital, Bratislava, which is in the far southwest. It was by historical accident and specifically the work of one philologist / language geek, Ľudovít Štúr, that this is so. - Standard BCMS/SC is based on a dialect spoken originally in a broad band stretching from what is now far southern Croatia to southwestern Serbia - crossing southern Bosnia-Herzegovina and northwestern Montenegro. None of the capitals use this dialect natively. It was also chosen because a handful of intellectuals thought that it was the best choice as a basis for the emerging standard regardless of their own native dialects and the opposition of other intellectuals (especially those in the capitals who felt that association to the capitals' political power should have allowed a greater say to them in standardization). - Standard German is based on dialects from certain parts of central Germany - far away from Berlin which falls under a different dialectal group. If the Hanseatic League had lasted longer, standard German might have instead come to be based on something closer to what's used in Berlin (and incidentally more closely resembled Dutch) than otherwise. The prominence of these central German dialects in forming the standard was raised when copies of Martin Luther's translated Bible proliferated in the German city-states. He had no pretensions of gaining political power. He just put out copies of his Bible in something translated closest to his dialect out of convenience instead of toiling to make some hybrid of a language in the name of inclusiveness or warm fuzzies to show his enlightenment in thinking of people in the other city-states. 7 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4104 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 59 of 72 19 November 2013 at 5:46pm | IP Logged | |||||
You could do with being more specific. Because it's far too easy to poke holes in your statements, even though one can tell what you're talking about. For example there IS "right and wrong" in language, in the case of technical terms. Many areas of civilized communication are deeply technical, e.g. law and academic subjects. Does the language of law and of various academic subjects form "a dialect"? It's difficult to say, but if we say they are, then there's here an example of a dialect which it is "incorrect" to deviate from.
She wasn't arguing that there are scientific reasons why some languages are better than others. But you are positively wrong that the only reason for the existence of standards are because of ignorance and privilege. For example the introduction of the first printing presses and the industry of bookmaking in European countries. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4503 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish | Message 60 of 72 19 November 2013 at 5:52pm | IP Logged | |||||
Similarly, had eastern regions of the Netherlands been the more wealthy so would our standard dialect have been based on that of Twente or Frisia (in which case we'd actually have spoken Frisian!!!!) Instead, Hollandic dialects have become the norm due to the far-reaching influence of the economic hubbub of the 17th century, namely Amsterdam, which eventually beat out Antwerp (!) as the main economic center of activity in Dutch-speaking Europe. The biggest influences on standard Dutch are Hollandic and Brabantic dialects - but its mixture is such that none of the big cities speaks a dialect which approximates standard Dutch closely enough, although they come nearer than that of Groningen or Limburg. When people ask me what standard Dutch is based on, and they ask me about Amsterdam, I always respond that Amsterdam dialect REALLY is in a class of its own with its consistent devoicing, vowel changes and slang, and that standard Dutch is something everyone aspires to but nobody actually achieves. Hollandic dialects are the closest, but they are not 100% on the mark either (the purest is said to be spoken in Haarlem). I myself deviate in small ways from the standard, and people consider that I speak very general Dutch without much dialectal influence. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5024 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 61 of 72 19 November 2013 at 11:24pm | IP Logged | |||||
It may be true that a certain utterance is ungrammatical (compared to the pool of people who speak that language), but that's a separate question from whether or not the mistake in that utterance "impoverishes" (to use the Italian poster's term) the language. If a group of people adopt the grammatical mistake, then the resulting language (dialect, what have you) will have as much linguistic merit as any other. I could start speaking English using OVS order. The language would still be capable of expressing every thought that normal English could express, although viewed against normal English, most of my utterances would be ungrammatical. This well explained other posters. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4104 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 62 of 72 20 November 2013 at 12:08am | IP Logged | |||||
|
While you make a good point about the dubious value of "impoverish" as a verb, I think
that it's important to stress that the main reason that linguistic chauvinism is incorrect is that "language," as a scientist would describe it (not the specific words but the internal and external structure of it), is only one faculty of the human brain which happens to unfold developmentarily into manifold mutually-unintelligible dialects spread over the globe. Languages differ in details but there aren't "more civilized languages" in different parts of the nation or the globe, in the same way that there are "more civilized customs." Redundant as it is to say: Natural languages are not engineered by humans, but spontaneously become assembled, invented and mature in the developing minds of human communities. That is why its ridiculous to take "world languages" and "standard English" as inherently superior languages to its comprehensible alternatives. This or that language/dialect might be superior in their usefulness or heritage to others, but that's another matter. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| ScottScheule Diglot Senior Member United States scheule.blogspot.com Joined 5024 days ago 645 posts - 1176 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish Studies: Latin, Hungarian, Biblical Hebrew, Old English, Russian, Swedish, German, Italian, French | Message 63 of 72 20 November 2013 at 12:54am | IP Logged | |||||
|
Elegantly put. I agree.
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6378 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 64 of 72 20 November 2013 at 7:20am | IP Logged | |||||
|
I'm a die-hard descriptivist. I think that applying the terms "right" (or "correct") and "wrong" to language is a mistake because it tends to give people the wrong associations. When we say "wrong", what we really mean is "inappropriate for a certain context". If I pronounce "potato" as "gloptiwok", that's perfectly fine if I'm talking to my brother who pronounces it the same way. If I speak with someone who doesn't understand this, I'd be well advised to try to adapt my pronunciation. This doesn't mean that my pronunciation is "wrong" in some absolute sense. It's only wrong in a certain context. If you speak RP English and go to a rural village where many terms are very different, it'd be a good idea to adapt your speech. Your speech, though it agrees with the global majority, is inappropriate in this context, and you need to change it if you want to be understood.
There are other (more common) situations where you might be understood, but your speech will have unwanted effects or associations. If you pronounce all "th" sounds as "f", in some contexts you might be thought of as uneducated, and you cetrainly will be in many context if you say "he are" instead of "he is". If you stick to standard English grammar in a group where everyone speaks Ebonics, you might be though of as a stuck-up idiot. Your way of speaking affects the way people recieve your message, and if you want it to be recieved a certain way, you'd be well advised to formulate it in a certain way. But this doesn't mean that "he are" is wrong in some absolute way, devoid of context. It's just as correct as "he is", but it's inappropriate in pretty much all circumstances. Whether you're a child, a foreigner or an educated native speaker doesn't matter one bit, though of course it influences how you're expected to speak and how your message is recieved. A white guy is not expected to speak Ebonics and a foreigner can get away with more mistakes* without suffering a drop in status. * Defined as saying something you wouldn't have said had you known all the facts about how the language is used in this context. 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
