Re: Of accents & dialects

Lars Finsen wrote:
[snip]
>
> Even here, the viable dialects are influenced by the standard language,
> and traditional forms are being dropped by the dozens. Still I think the
> concept of the difference between a dialect and the standard language
> spoken with a regional accent is a little confusing.
Not really. Those parts of Britain where dialect is still spoken are
AFAIK in the north of england, particularly the north-east, and the
Lowlands of Scotland. If people from those regions speak (more or less)
standard English in with a regional accent, I, as a southerner, have
some chance of understanding them; but if they speak in dialect, then
I'm quite lost and want subtitles    ;)

> If a dialect loses
> all its distinct morphology,
...don't forget the distinctive vocabulary also.

> but keeps its phonology, will linguists
> stop calling it a dialect and begin to refer to it as a regional accent
> only?
Not just linguists, but ordinary folk do so also in our country.

> How much of the morphology needs to remain for the dialect to
> remain a dialect?
If its morphology differs in a consistent way from the standard language
and there are also vocabulary differences, then clearly you have more
than just a regional accent - you have a dialect.

> And to what extent can you really separate morphology
> from phonology for this classification?
In Britain, at least, regional pronunciations (i.e. regional accents)
have lived on (and show no signs of dying) long after distinctive
dialect has disappeared.

There are also, I understand, there are regional variations in American
pronunciation.

=================================================

Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
 > On 2008-10-21 Lars Finsen wrote:
[snip]
 >
 >> How much of the morphology needs to remain for the dialect to remain a
 >> dialect?
 >
 > This can only be decided subjectively -- i.e. in terms
 > of a standard-speakers perception of differentness.
 > In the end it is a political decision.

I fail to see why it's political. I am certainly not aware of any
politics entering into it in the British scene (maybe in Scandinavia
things are different - I don't know).

 >> And to what extent can you really separate morphology from phonology
 >> for this classification?
 >
 > Because linguists have observed that phonology
 > is much more resilient against standardization
 > than morphology they have found it useful to
 > make this decision.  In the end this is also
 > political: it happens to be the case that in
 > English morphology and vocabulary are pretty
 > rigidly standardized,

Yep.

 > while phonological
 > standardization is much more fluid, changeable
 > over time,

Well, there ain't none. In the earlier part of the last century RP was
sort of promoted as 'standard' - but that idea gradually disappeared in
the second half of the century. Today, most of us Brits accept
Australian, New Zealand, South African and even 'Merkan as acceptable
forms. ;)

We've also come to accept regional British accents - tho some are
socially more acceptable than others, e.g. a Highland Scots or a West
Country accent is generally considered more acceptable than, say,
Cockney - but that's nothing to do with politics, just subjective social
perception.

 > geographically variable and
 > subjective.  Before sound recording and
 > phonetic script it was literally harder to
 > codify pronunciation.

The French managed it fairly well - much better than the proponents of
RP ever did in Britain. But, of course, they had their Académie
Française to lay down the law on such things - English has never had any
comparably authoritative body.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Replies