Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of English
Introduction to Linguistics
Fall 2004
Week 10: Questions for Singleton, Chapter 7
1. What is the difference between a language and a dialect and is the distinction absolute?
Indeed, there is no clear distinction between a language and a dialect. Linguists have tried to develop many empirical ways of trying to differentiate the two and inevitably return to that now famous quote attributed to Weinreich, A language is a dialect with an army. So really the amount of variation between a language and a dialect is more a view of degree tempered by politics rather than an absolute. This simple fact should remind us that a language itself, take Korean for example, is a concept in and of itself. Each language comprises its own category set and all categories, according to Rosch, are related across fuzzy boundaries. They collapse in on each other. So languages themselves are really just complex categories composed of a wide variety of elements, such as the way the language is suppose to sound but most importantly the words of the language.
It really does seem that words are the main indicator of what a language might be. Think of when you travel to a different country, the first thing you try to recognize are words. The same holds true when you travel in your own country. As you travel around Korea and people pronounce similar to the same words in a slightly different way all your attention is focused on decoding the word. Thus, if we are going to try to find a distinction between languages then we would probably want to look at the number or percentage of the total number of words and language which are similar for dissimilar. Dialects are part of the larger categories of a particular language by a generalized idea that they share a lexical base. Dialects use the same basic words that the language in which it is encased. That is really where we get the distinction. In the end, really the distinction between languages and dialects has to do with how the words use of each are similar for different to a degree. The Cheju dialect for example, though not necessarily intelligible to all standard Korean speakers is undoubtedly dialect of Korean and not Japanese because the lexis of the Cheju dialect is clearly Korean in origin. All the rest is political.
An interesting observation to finish off this discussion of languages vs. dialects is the idea that language change supports the idea of lexis as the basis of what our concept of a particular language might be. If we think about language change it becomes clear that lexis changes at a much more rapid pace than structural elements. Once more we could probably put the rate of change of structural elements on a continuum with the smaller elements that the higher end of the continuum and the larger items at the smaller end. But is basically means is that sound structure (phonology) is going to change much faster than syntax or morphology. Following this basic idea we can see that languages which have slightly different lexical basis often might have the same syntactic or morphological structures, or at least they are tremendous similarities in their syntax or morphology. A simple example would be that of English and Danish. English and Danish have quite similar syntactic and even morphological structure even though the lexis of the two languages varies quite a bit.
(1) I have always wondered too much about what I would do in the future.
(2) Jeg har helle tid taenkede for meget om hvad jeg sku` goere in fremtiden.
As non-speakers of Danish you probably cannot find too many close lexical correspondences between the two sentences above. A few words probably stand that is definitely being lexically linked yet the syntactic structure is virtually identical. This no point in giving a translation equivalent underneath the Danish because the order of all the lexical elements in the Danish is the same as in English sentence above. This example shows a general tendency in language for syntax not to change extremely rapidly and lexis to change much much faster. Based on this we can say with some confidence that lexis really does function as the best way of determining what is a language and what isn't.
2. What are some of the ways in which lexis can vary?
Since we have now identified lexis as the principal defining feature of a language or the concept that people have of what a language is or comprises and we have also claimed that lexical change is rapid compared to other aspects of language it would, therefore, seem appropriate to discuss some of the ways in which lexis does actually vary across dialects and maybe even languages.
Sound
The most obvious way that lexis can vary is in its sound structure or phonological shape. Last week in chapter 6 of Singleton we briefly discussed how sound is seen to function on words. The basic idea in generative phonology, and much of this theory was initially sent out in a seminal work by Chomsky and Halle (1968), is that all words have underlying representations (URs) and that all speakers of the same language and the same underlying representations. Dialectical variation is achieved through rule-based mutation or alteration of the underlying representation form. Thus, speakers of different dialects of the same language use the same underlying representations but form different surface representations (SRs) based on the different phonological rules generate different structures. This seems simple enough. What it basically claims is that speakers of different dialects simply use different phonological rules to create their different pronunciations of words. They learn this as children as part of the process of learning their particular language. It's a simple easy way of explaining different sounds present across different speakers of one is perceived as the same language. But it is really not that simple.
If we start to think about this idea certain problems arise. The first of these is that all native speakers of the same language are supposed to have the same underlying representations. Sounds good, but do underlying representations change? Well, at some point they must because languages change overtime and become what we perceive as different languages. English and Danish, for example used to be the same language called Proto-Germanic and in this idea all the current in Germanic languages would have the same lexical base and therefore the same underlying representations unless they changed. For the big question is how do underlying representations change. We'll talk more about this next week of the moment you should remember that is present a certain problem for the idea that all native speakers have exactly the same underlying representations. The other problem that we might need to face in relation to a strongly rule-based explanation of different sound structures in words is that variation is constant. The same person does not pronounce the same word exactly the same way twice. There is always variation in people's production. If people were simply using rules and the same rules all the time then we would assume that their pronunciation would be the same or similar but it only varies a little bit and sometimes a lot particularly over a longer period of time. Still one more problem is the idea of production vs. reception. If I as a speaker of American English use certain phonological rules to produce my surface representations how then in my able to understand other speakers of English who do not use the same phonological rules. I travel to Ireland on a fairly regular basis yet I have no difficulty understanding speakers of Irish English despite the fact that they are using phonological rules which I don't have. This present problem which again must somehow be solved.
Not to be entirely negative, one of the great findings to come out of generative phonology is the idea that variation is systematic. There seem to be definite patterns in variation. This means that one dialect is not necessarily superior to any other linguistically although they might be believed to be from a social point of view. All variation has a reason and a clause (but the cause may not be relevant or interesting linguistically). The mechanisms which allow variation to occur due seem to be systematic. At this point out not prepared to say that they are rule governed, for there are other explanations out there, such as those we find the connectionist models of language. It is these connectionist models which seem to be more promising particularly in the realm of variation of all kinds.
Meaning
As we should all be aware of meaning of words often changes across different dialectical boundaries for example, the word bonnet in British English means the hood of a car while in American English it means a type of old-fashioned hat that women used to wear. There are thousands of examples like this. The meanings of words change quite rapidly, particularly depending on the word and its frequency of use. Most of the time, however, these changes are much more subtle or slight. For example the word soda used in the northeastern part of the United States to indicate a sweet, fizzy, nonalcoholic beverage is used in other parts of the English-speaking world to indicate fizzy water. The same sweet, fizzy, nonalcoholic beverage in some places is called pop or soft drink. This is a matter of variation and variation of meaning. In the soda case we can see that variation is slight and fairly subtle and most northeastern Americans traveling to other places will figure out what people mean without having to wonder too much.
Usage
Patterns of usage also vary slightly across the dialectical boundaries. In Britain and Ireland, for example people say happy Christmas instead of the typical American greeting of merry Christmas. In addition, in Ireland the standard for what in American English would be thank you very much is thanks a million. These are simple, again, subtle differences in patterns of usage. Basically this refers to how individual words are actually used in different contexts and indifferent ways separate from their meaning.
Presence/absence of certain items/features
The last way in which lexis can vary is through the presence or absence of certain items. We know, upon cursory examination that different dialects have different lexical items that others don't. Often they use different lexical items to code the same concept or may even have slightly different concepts which require different lexical items to code them. In any case dialects seem to vary in their lexis.
The other thing that maybe we should have noticed is that the most part these changes are very slight. One basic thing that we can say about dialectical variation for variation in general is that it is controlled. It seems to occur on only certain features in certain words. Take the word sky for example. We said in class that the English word sky came into the language from old Norse where the word meant cloud and was pronounced /sku/ not /skaI/. As the word was brought into English and probably should have changed its phonological structure more. Certainly the vowel quality changed, but we might also have expected the initial constant cluster to change as well from /sk/ to //, for // was the normal sound in old English. Certainly it would seem that there might be some intervening force which stops too much change from occurring at any one time. As the meaning of the word sky changed as well we can see that the English meaning of sky is related and very closely so to the old Norse meaning. Sky did not suddenly become potatoes or a fish in the ocean acquired meaning which was very closely related to the original meaning. Based on this week at the clear idea that there is something which is limiting or mediating in linguistic variation. That would seem to be the words themselves. Variation seems to be licensed or controlled by the system of lexis in the language. The idea is that things need to stay comprehensible, but the system cannot be broken too much because everything is tied together in this year old network which we talked about previously related to word meaning. Things to be shuffled but in the changed too too much.
3. What are some of the different dimensions which cause lexis to vary?
Geography
Variation has often been seen as occurring on either side of strong geographical boundaries such as rivers, mountains, or now oceans. Based on this geography has always been a major finding variable of different dialectical boundaries. The basic idea is that dialects flourish in certain areas because the speakers there are cut off from other speakers. Geographical boundaries stop them from being able to contact other people and thus their language the games to form its own particular patterns. This is interesting because it tells us that people tend to speak like the other people around them. This means that language learning is based at least in part on language use. We learned to speak language based on what we hear from those around us. The fact that this occurs in certain geographical boundaries only strengthens this hypothesis.
Gender
In all languages gender is one of the most striking variables in how people speak. Men and women speak the same language but with certain variability. This variability extends to all aspects of language but occurs most often and most strikingly in the vocabulary that the genders will use. Again, it's all about words. Some gender differences have been structuralized but the most part is differences are again rather subtle. Men and women often pronounce the same words differently and often use different words. These linguistic differences could be said to underscore differences between positions than men and women have in the world itself. Many women artists acted to play certain roles society and this is reflected in the language that she is expected to use. Of course individuals don't need to use this language all-time but they will certainly use some of this gender-specific language some of the time. This is inevitable because language truly is part of behavior and to speak a certain way indicates a certain type of behavior and very concretely.
Age
Age is also a major variable in linguistic or lexical variation. The basic idea is that age is not only a part of someone's identity in part of the role they claim society and therefore manifests itself through specific linguistic behaviors but that as people get older they tend to retain the forms they used when they were younger. Lexis often changes faster than people do for reasons that we will not necessarily be able to discuss here. So, not only are people trying to show their affiliation with the age group in which gave along or feel they belong but older people will also be used in variant forms based on the idea that they will retain older forms which have passed out of use.
Socio-economic Status
One of the most closely studied variables and was the variation is that of the socio-economic status. The basic idea here is that people of different social classes will use language differently. This seems to be true in all societies that actually do have classes. Again, the differences could be claimed to be a result of individuals trying to show their affiliation with these particular social class, or some might argue that it also has to do with the types of endeavors that each social class engages in. Since people in the lower class engage in more manual labor and have been exposed to less education and require different types of language in their interactions they will use use different linguistic forms than people in the upper class who engage in more intellectual, cerebral pursuits which require more education and interaction on a different level.
Specific Social Affiliations
All of the above variables point to the same basic idea that language is an indicator of who we are. All people use language and make specific linguistic choices to identify themselves as a person. Since humans are social animals we define ourselves through group affiliation. All of us affiliate ourselves with a wide variety of different social groups. This can be our nationality, the particular place where we live, our social class, our level of education and even the school we went to. People who engage in similar occupations often wind up speaking in similar ways, varying their language in similar ways.
4. What is it that lexical variation tells us about culture and thought?
The important point to remember here is that lexical variation is often planned. People plan how they're going to vary their language based on the situation that they find themselves in. Research has shown over and over again that variation is something which people are able to control. In fact, we could do so far as to say that our definition of a good speaker is a person who can vary their language well (authentically) and in a wide range of different ways for different situations. Language is all about variation. The smarter person is the more they're going to be able to vary their language. This is because variation is about planning. Variations in not accidental. We not vary like machines because we have to because there are rules which force us to vary our language. People vary their language constantly in order to better fit into the situation in which they find themselves.
It is also true that linguistic variation is determined by culture. Here we can make a distinction between macro cultures and mico cultures or subcultures, but the basic idea is that it is culture which determines how people are going to vary their language. Variation is based on fitting in with particular cultures. Based on this we may turn the coin over and say that if variation must fit culture then culture is that determine of variation. Variation is culture bound. Culture might therefore have a particular role to play in how variation occurs.
This brings us to the point that generalized thought patterns must somehow be encoded in language. How we choose to encode the language itself is a indicator of what are thought patterns are. I know this is complex but think about it.