From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63198
Date: 2009-02-19
> From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>Another problem is that regional dialects and accents are being replaced, often reduced to rural or class accents/dialects.
> Subject: [tied] Re: My version
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:25 PM
> --- 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