Re: My version

From: Rick McCallister
Message: 63198
Date: 2009-02-19

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:

> From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
> 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

Another problem is that regional dialects and accents are being replaced, often reduced to rural or class accents/dialects.
R-less Englsh has been pretty much squeezed out of New York where it was once the norm (another reason Torsten is wrong), and also out of much of the South. In the South you often see a triune system with middle class speakers speaking a lightly accented version of standard English while working class Whites speak a form of Appalachian English and working class Blacks speaking something similar to the original dialect. Occsionally you run into older Whites who speak an acrolect version of the original dialect. This is what I heard in Columbus Mississippi when I lived there in the 90s