YAEDT? Syntax in dialects of English (was: Of accents & dialects (was: Azurian phonology)

Doesn't Wells' _Accents_of_English_ cover dialectical variation as well?



On 10/24/08, Eldin Raigmore <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:50:26 +0100, R A Brown
> <ray@...> wrote:
>>Michael Poxon wrote:
>>>You don't have to go outside England for weird dialects, by the way!
>>>Yes, there certainly are huge differences in both vocab and syntax just
>>>within England.
>>
>>Quite so. Eldin is unlikely to have heard them from over the other side
>>of the Pond. You have be there among the dialect speakers.
>>[snip]
>>>> But as for English dialects (that is, dialects of the English
>>>> language, spoken
>>>> within parts of the nation of England), are there really big
>>>> differences in
>>>> syntax between one and another?  If so I've never heard of them.
>>
>>Syntax, morphology & lexis, as well as phonology. As I said above, it's
>>not likely you would hear them across the Pond.
>>
>>--
>>Ray
>
> Can anyone tell us what some of these major differences in syntax are, and
> which dialects have them, and where they're spoken?
>
> Especially those spoken within the kingdom of England itself.
>
> And, why those differences in syntax count as "major"?
>
> And, if there are any dialects of English spoken in England, that have
> several
> such major differences in syntax, what dialects and what differences are
> involved?
>
> And BTW: When you speak of major differences in morphology; are there any
> dialects of English spoken in England, in which there are any morphological
> categories that don't exist in Standard English?
> And if there are some that omit morphological categories that exist in
> Standard English, which dialects omit them, and which categories are
> omitted,
> and what do dialect-speakers say instead?
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>>In these days of universal education and mass communication, most people
>>in such places are 'bilingual', i.e. they speak dialect among those
>>around them, but in situations when a wide audience is aimed at then
>>they'll speak more or less standard English with some regional coloring
>>in pronunciation.
>>
>>In my last job before I retired one of my colleagues came from the
>>Toxteth area of Liverpool. He spoke standard English with a marked
>>regional accent - he referred to it as "poshed up Scouse" - i.e. the
>>phonology was partially modified to smooth out, so to speak, the more
>>extreme differences between Scouse & RP (and the syntax and vocab were,
>>of course, standard). But his wife told me that when he's with his
>>brother then he's actually speaking Scouse and is almost
>>incomprehensible to us southerners.
>>
>
> I have noticed among nearly all of my acquaintances that their speech
> conforms more closely to whatever 'lect they happen to share with their
> interlocutors whenever they have a common 'lect, and to Standard Average
> American English whenever they don't have a common 'lect.
>
> My own speech, when speaking to another Texan, is markedly more Texan,
> than when speaking to other Michiganders.
>
> For children, or people who haven't "been around" much, differences in
> dialect
> between, say, Tennessee and New York, can be "mutually unintelligible".  For
> most random pairs of adult USAans or Canadians, though, it's possible for
> any
> two of them to make themselves comprehensible to each other.
>
--
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com

Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>