Re: My version

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet"
<fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti"
> <frabrig@...> wrote:
>
> > I notice that you and other participants in this discussion keep
> > on emphasizing the differences in regional varieties of US
> > English as rightful differences of 'dialect' whereas they are,
> > in case, differences of 'accent'.
>
> The problem is English has very little morphology left
> and most dialectal variation will first appear in phonology and
> lexical items.

Whatever the reason(s), in Chambers and Trudgill's classification
(see below) this would amount to saying that the varieties of US
English just offer 'accent' variation, not 'dialectal' variation.

What a pity!

(Of course, one of the main reasons for that is that the divergence
process within US English dates from a very recent epoch, which is
incomparable with the much, much older divergence process within
Vulgar Latin -- several spoken varieties of it! -- that was
conductive to the development of the various dialects of Italy. In
the former case it is a matter of 'accent'-based divergence, whereas
in the latter it is a matter of *true* 'dialectal' divergence.)

> > "['Accent'] refers to the way in which a speaker pronounces, and
> > therefore refers to a variety which is phonetically and/or
> > phonologically different from other varieties. 'Dialect', on the
> > other hand, refers to varieties which are grammatically (and
> > perhaps lexically) as well as phonologically different from
> > other varieties" (J.K. Chambers & P. Trudgill, _Dialectology_,
> > Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980, p. 5).
> >
> > In other words, a difference of 'accent' is a difference between
> > varieties of a language (e.g., General English) which involves
> > only pronunciation; on the contrary, a difference of 'dialect'
> > may involve any or all of syntax, morphology, lexicon, AND
> > pronunciation.

> Your approach is phoney.

That's not _my_ approach (see the bibliographic reference).

> Differences in "accent" (I don't like this word) most often entail
> other differences.

Which ones, provided that we're talking about US English now? Do
differences in 'accent' in US English entail differences in grammar
of some sort?

> > Do regional varieties of US (or Canadian, Australian etc.)
> > English show the GRAMMATICAL variations that are the necessary
> > requisite of any genuine 'dialect' as defined by Chambers and
> > Trudgill? I don't think so.
>
> Well, I suppose that: I've got => Have you got? and I have => do
> you have? are typically British and American respectively. At
> least, this is what I've been taught.

You should compare some examples from *within* US English to fulfil
the above requirements; comparisons of examples peculiar to US
English with examples peculiar to British English don't count for
the present purpose.

> > most of 'dialects' of Italian... show variations not only in
> > pronunciation and lexicon, but also in GRAMMAR.
>
> So what? Most dialects of French also have consistent differences
> in grammar. Subjunctive in Northern French is built with -çh.

Perfect! Therefore, that's a 'dialect' of French following Chambers
and Trudgill's definition, unlike the various forms of pronunciation
of US English, which don't constitute as many 'dialects' of English
if we adhere to that classification.

Regards,
Francesco