Лингвофорум

I've read one nice book recently. "Good American Speech" by M.Mclean, 1941. These are some ideas from the book.
"The recognizable causes of America's poor speech are numerous; three of them merit special mention:
1) individual ignorance, carelessness, indifference, or prejudice.
2) The influence of masses of uneducated foreigners who speak English with many non-English sounds, with foreign stress, foreign choice and arrangements of words, and intonation.
3) Poor, inadequate, or no speech training in the nation's education system, especially at the lower levels where the greatest amount of speech training should be given".

So it's a possible answer to my question why it's so hard sometimes to understand American people.

Цитата: reziaSo it's a possible answer to my question why it's so hard sometimes to understand American people.

Rezia, I would suggest you to read books written by linguists. I will hint you, where the answer to your question lies: you have been taught the standard British English. It is exactly the opposite situation with me: I have learned the American English, and I have sometimes problems understanding the British. So, to sum up, there is nothing wrong with the Americans, the problem is that you are not used to their speech and you are not familiar with their phonetics/constructions/uses etc.

I would not consider American Speech bad or poor. The same thing we could do with any other two languages (german and dutch) - but we know, that these are just two different languages which had a common ansector. Let american people develop their own tradition and their own language. I'm joking.

ЦитироватьSo it's a possible answer to my question why it's so hard sometimes to understand American people.

Compare: a brit will understand an american, but a sax won't do this with a swabian. Everything's okay between americans and brits (and those who learned brittish english). Anyway after a couple of thousands years american language will look completely different (as danish and german, f.e.) to british.

id est, don't worry, be happy! :D

Цитата: rawonam
Rezia, I would suggest you to read books written by linguists.

I wonder why the author (the book I mentioned) claimed such things. Did he (or she) seriously mean that it is possible to bring American English to British standards as the whole book is about that?

Dear Mr Rawonam! I'll start to study American variant of the English language (I know just a bit about its peculiarities) as you've fairly revealed  my weak points.

Цитата: reziaI wonder why the author (the book I mentioned) claimed such things. Did he (or she) seriously mean that it is possible to bring American English to British standards as the whole book is about that?

That is a usual issue: people think that what belongs to them is more correct or better (or even THE correct and THE best) than that of the others.
So it's just the old point of view that some languages/dialects are better than the others, thinking: if I don't clearly understand someone, whose language is called the same name as mine, that means he speaks badly, simply ignoring the fact that everybody in his environment uses the same 'bad' language (quote: "poor speech") and they communicate perfectly.
Look, in our private conversation you've said that some Americans 'swallow' some sounds, therefore their speech is less understandable, I will tell you the same about the British: they 'swallow' the "r"s, which makes their speech sometimes unbearable. :_1_12

Цитата: reziaDear Mr Rawonam! I'll start to study American variant of the English language (I know just a bit about its peculiarities) as you've fairly revealed my weak points.

I'm glad for you! 8-)

Цитата: rawonam
... about the British: they 'swallow' the "r"s, which makes their speech sometimes unbearable. :_1_12

I'll tell you what my point is. I'm not suggesting for a minute that the Americans should acquire the British English. Anyway it's absurd.
But your "unbearable" proves your personal attitude to the British variant. As for me I prefer [a:] [o:] etc.  But at the same time I don't hate those [a:r] [o:r] etc.  I even like them. And there is no "one thing is more correct than the other" - that's for sure :yes:

Цитата: reziaBut your "unbearable" proves your personal attitude to the British variant.

And I don't deny it. :) Everyone of us has his own preferences, but you must always have in mind that things don't become bad just because you don't like them.
You must understand that the book we discuss here shows exactly this attitude: "I don't like American English, I don't understand it, so let me write how stupid the way they speak is".
Though I don't like to hear [ɪmpo:tnt], I would not for a second think that it's the "individual ignorance, carelessness, indifference, or prejudice" that causes the dropping of the [r].

Цитата: reziaI'll tell you what my point is.

You forgot to tell. :)

Why should it be hard to understand American people? Don't you think that it simply shows that you are not accustomed to hearing their speech and don't even want to do that? Anyway, though I prefer speaking British (esp. Scouse and RP), I find American English (all of its variants, incl. Standard Western, Southern and New England ones) to be so finely archaic. There surely is beauty in its sounds. I've always said that there can't be a language with distastegul phonetical system.
This ic sprac (This I have said).

Цитата: NordWhy should it be hard to understand American people?

Have you had much experience of this sort? Share some!

Цитата: Peamurdmisu:lesanne
Let american people develop their own tradition and their own language. I'm joking.

I wonder what it is now. An accent of English or its dialect? I bet on the dialect though.

Цитата: reziaI wonder what it is now. An accent of English or its dialect?

Both, of course. A dialect usually has a peculiar accent. Furthermore, you cannot speak about "THE" American dialect, because in America itself there are lots of dialects (and the same applies to Britain).

Цитата: rawonam

Цитата: reziaI wonder what it is now. An accent of English or its dialect?

Both, of course. A dialect usually has a peculiar accent.

You didn't get me quite right. "Accent" in my context meant "variety" as there is a bordering line between an accent and a dialect:

Цитата: Oxford concise dict of linguistics
Accent: a variety of speech differing phonetically from other varieties...Normally restricted by linguists to cases where the differences are at most in phonology: further differences , e.g. in syntax, are said to be between dialects.

So the question is whether American English represents an accent or a dialect as under such circumstances it can't be both. There are linguists who consider it a dialect or even a separate language. At the same time there are specialists who claim American English to be a variety of the English language (i.e. an accent). And the latter prove their point by the fact that American English possesses only a kind of peculiar vocabulary.  Neither grammar nor pronunciation (British/American) varies greatly.

Цитата: reziaTo the question is whether American English represents an accent or a dialect as under such circumstances it can't be both. There are linguists who consider it a dialect or even a separate language. At the same time there are specialists who claim American English to be a variety of the English language (i.e. an accent). And the latter prove their point by the fact that American English possesses only a kind of peculiar vocabulary. Neither grammar nor pronunciation (British/American) varies greatly.

I got you perfectly right, it's you who misunderstood the answer and the definition in the dictionary.
Let us define the terms in our words:
varieties - different "sorts" of something (in this case language).
accent - differences in phonology.
dialect - local differences in any linguistic aspect, usually includes phonology (i.e. includes accent).
etc.

Thus, American/British varieties (which doesn't mean only accents) are dialects, because they are local varieties, and that they have different pronunciations (which is really different) means that they have differences in phonology, i.e. different accents.

Цитата: rawonam
Let us define the terms in our words

Kinda strange phrase. Could you, please, bother to explain a bit?

Цитата: rezia

Цитата: rawonam
Let us define the terms in our words

Kinda strange phrase. Could you, please, bother to explain a bit?

Explain what?

Цитата: rawonam

Цитата: rezia

Цитата: rawonam
Let us define the terms in our words

Kinda strange phrase. Could you, please, bother to explain a bit?

Explain what?

"The terms in our words". As it's hard to guess what you are driving at.:)

Цитата: rezia

Цитата: rawonam

Цитата: rezia

Цитата: rawonam
Let us define the terms in our words

Kinda strange phrase. Could you, please, bother to explain a bit?

Explain what?

"The terms in our words". As it's hard to guess what you are driving at.:)

Ah... that you mean... :skler:
There is a syntactic ambiguity: I meant define smth in our words, and not the terms in our words, that is, in our words being an adverbial phrase, not an adjectival.
The second option is ruled out by semantics, it just doesn't make sense.

Цитата: rawonam

Thus, American/British varieties (which doesn't mean only accents) are dialects

As we can deduce from the definition of a dialect, dialects imply differences in syntax. So, could you, please, kindly give a number of such examples for British and American "dialects""?

Цитата: reziaAs we can deduce from the definition of a dialect, dialects imply differences in syntax. So, could you, please, kindly give a number of such examples for British and American "dialects""?

From which definition? It doesn't imply, it might have, but it doesn't have to.
Take a look at: http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/usgbintr.html

Oh, I had a look. You've been really very helpful.:)

Добавлено спустя 18 часов 4 минуты 43 секунды:

Цитата: RawonaM

Цитата: reziaAs we can deduce from the definition of a dialect, dialects imply differences in syntax. So, could you, please, kindly give a number of such examples for British and American "dialects""?

From which definition? It doesn't imply, it might have, but it doesn't have to.
Take a look at: http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/usgbintr.html

I am amazed at the scope of terms. Now they call them "variants" (your link). Actually this term "variant" responds to the point of view of Russian linguists.

Here is a typical quotation: "По своей структурной самостоятельности и независимости от функционирования варианты языка бывают разными: одни различаются на уровне самой структуры (без привлечения специфики функционирования), другие различаются именно на уровне функционирования при малом или относительно малом различии самой структуры. Что касается британского и американского вариантов языка, то они совпадают в своих наиболее важных и характерных структурных признаках. Различие между этими вариантами следует рассматривать на уровне функционирования при очень незначительном различии самой структуры вариантов" (Киссел, Швейцер, Головин).

Цитата: reziaI am amazed at the scope of terms. Now they call them "variants" (your link). Actually this term "variant" responds to the point of view of Russian linguists.

Local variant=dialect.

Цитата: reziaHere is a typical quotation: "По своей структурной самостоятельности и независимости от функционирования варианты языка бывают разными: одни различаются на уровне самой структуры (без привлечения специфики функционирования), другие различаются именно на уровне функционирования при малом или относительно малом различии самой структуры. Что касается британского и американского вариантов языка, то они совпадают в своих наиболее важных и характерных структурных признаках. Различие между этими вариантами следует рассматривать на уровне функционирования при очень незначительном различии самой структуры вариантов" (Киссел, Швейцер, Головин).

Variant (вариант) is not a term, it's just a word.

Цитата: RawonaM
Variant[/i] (вариант) is not a term, it's just a word.

It IS a term. Bet 100$ :)

Цитата: RawonaMVariant (вариант) is not a term, it's just a word.

NB! "here", 'cause every word can be a term. :)

But here it's not a term for sure - it seems like Rezia lost $100. :(

Цитата: DigammaNB! "here", 'cause every word can be a term.

Well, I thought it was obvious, but it's good that you mentioned it, maybe it was such only for me.

Добавлено спустя 13 минут 51 секунду:

And, I forgot to add, it is actually a term in phonetics.

Цитата: Digamma
But here it's not a term for sure - it seems like Rezia lost $100. :(

It'll serve me right :).

Цитата: RawonaMAnd, I forgot to add, it is actually a term in phonetics.

And it is a term in Russian linguistics: the meanings of a polysemantic word  are called lexico-semantic VARIANTS. ;--)

Цитата: RawonaM

Цитата: reziaI am amazed at the scope of terms. Now they call them "variants" (your link). Actually this term "variant" responds to the point of view of Russian linguists.

Local variant=dialect.

Цитата: reziaHere is a typical quotation: "По своей структурной самостоятельности и независимости от функционирования варианты языка бывают разными: одни различаются на уровне самой структуры (без привлечения специфики функционирования), другие различаются именно на уровне функционирования при малом или относительно малом различии самой структуры. Что касается британского и американского вариантов языка, то они совпадают в своих наиболее важных и характерных структурных признаках. Различие между этими вариантами следует рассматривать на уровне функционирования при очень незначительном различии самой структуры вариантов" (Киссел, Швейцер, Головин).

Variant (вариант) is not a term, it's just a word.

It's just dawned on me.
I've made a  translation mistake. There is no term "variant" - concerning languages, in this case there should be the term "variety", while "variant'' means "a form (word, sound, or grammatical form) which alternates with another under definable conditions"  (B.Spolsky "Sociolinguistics") as we put it earlier.

Цитата: reziaThere is no term "variant" - concerning languages, in this case there should be the term "variety",

Neither "variety" is a term.

Цитата: RawonaM

Цитата: reziaThere is no term "variant" - concerning languages, in this case there should be the term "variety",

Neither "variety" is a term.

:_3_01

You mean that it's not a term "in the terms":) of our discussion or it's not a term in general?
If the latter is true why then I have this in the glossary of terms: "variety - a term used to denote any identifiable kind of language" [Sociolinguistics p.126]

Цитата: Webster, 1913XVII. Term ·noun A word or expression; specifically, one that has a precisely limited meaning in certain relations and uses, or is peculiar to a science, art, profession, or the like; as, a technical term.

Could you show me how the word variety "has a precisely limited meaning" in sociolinguistics?

The question is rather reasonable.

Цитата: RawonaM

Цитата: reziaI wonder what it is now. An accent of English or its dialect?

Both, of course. A dialect usually has a peculiar accent. Furthermore, you cannot speak about "THE" American dialect, because in America itself there are lots of dialects (and the same applies to Britain).

Concerning the global character of the English language which has been accepted as a decided thing by now. I've come across quite an interesting suggestion recently. The idea is that soon there'll be a family of English languages:
British English
American English
Nigerian English
Indian English
Singaporean English
etc.

Actually that's not my idea (I'm not that smart and bold when making judgements).
David Cristal wrote that in the preface to his recent book "English as a Global Language".
:)

Цитата: reziaConcerning the global character of the English language which has been accepted as a decided thing by now. I've come across quite an interesting suggestion recently. The idea is that soon there'll be a family of English languages:

If people remembered that there is no linguistic difference between «language» and «dialect», such questions would not be disputed at all (as it, by the way, frequently happens on this forum, which is really irritating).
Call it whatever you want, either group of dialects or group of languages, it's not a matter, no one should care.

Цитата: RawonaM

Цитата: reziaConcerning the global character of the English language which has been accepted as a decided thing by now. I've come across quite an interesting suggestion recently. The idea is that soon there'll be a family of English languages:

If people remembered that there is no linguistic difference between «language» and «dialect», such questions would not be disputed at all (as it, by the way, frequently happens on this forum, which is really irritating).
Call it whatever you want, either group of dialects or group of languages, it's not a matter, no one should care.

This word "group" here is really very important. English being a hyperonym, a family name (I'd say) for it. You see?

Добавлено спустя 18 часов 48 минут 46 секунд:

And about pidgins. I happened to find out that the one in Papua New Guinea is so wide-spread that there are translations of the Bible and Shakespeare's works into this pidgin English, there variant is called something like "talk-pisin". I would really like to read such translations. :roll: It's very very interesting.
"Two households both alike in dignity,/ In fair Verona..." :). What will it be in pidgin, I wonder?

Цитата: reziaAnd about pidgins. I happened to find out that the one in Papua New Guinea is so wide-spread that there are translations of the Bible and Shakespeare's works into this pidgin English, there variant is called something like "talk-pisin". I would really like to read such translations.  It's very very interesting.

http://lingvoforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=38692#38692

Oh, thanks a lot.  Sometimes I realize that's it's very useful to read everything on the forum. :)
So, it's tok-pisin. But no Shakespeare or Bible on the link. Gonna look for some. ;--)

Цитата: rezia
Concerning the global character of the English language which has been accepted as a decided thing by now. I've come across quite an interesting suggestion recently. The idea is that soon there'll be a family of English languages:
British English
American English
Nigerian English
Indian English
Singaporean English
etc.

Well, there are some regional peculiarities in different varieties of English, like regional vocabulary and different spelling in AE, but there are no big differences in written English, be it BE, AE or other varieties of English.

In this regard English is like other "Global Languages".

Spanish has also many regional varieties - though they have such an authority in Spain, like "Instituto Servantes".

Even Russian language has many regional varieties. If you read the Russian papers printed in Germany, you will know what I am talking about.

:D

Цитата: ArtAllm
In this regard English is like other "Global Languages".

What do you mean? What "other"?! There's no other one besides English. Even Spanish though being rather wide-spead and influential in the USA it cannot be a rival to English. What are you talking about?

Цитата: ArtAllm
Even Russian language has many regional varieties. If you read the Russian papers printed in Germany, you will know what I am talking about.

:D

I've never had a chance. Maybe you could procure any extracts? :)

Цитата: rezia

Цитата: ArtAllm
In this regard English is like other "Global Languages".

What do you mean? What "other"?! There's no other one besides English. Even Spanish though being rather wide-spead and influential in the USA it cannot be a rival to English. What are you talking about?

According to UNO, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish are global languages.

:o

This fact doesnt change the global character of English as it is. It just shows that these other influential states don't want their language to be considered as some kind of the second to English. And it's absolutely correct. But when it comes to real life people (including politians :) ) use English more often if they have to find some language-mediator ( I'm not sure of the term, though). That's what I've presumed.

Цитата: "Rezia" от
But when it comes to real life people use English more often if they have to find some language-mediator.

Once again, I have just made sure THEY HAVE (being in China). I'll push my son to learn Chinese, though!

BTW, there's a funny thing. My "good American speech" in China (i.e. my own off-camera voice) sounded very close to Nizhegorodish in fact. But in recent times, ones from the United States had flattered on my good command of AE. In China, very likely, I left any attempt to care about as the same did my Chinese interlocutors. In that way, we created some new kind of "English with many non-English sounds, with foreign stress, foreign choice and arrangements of words, and intonation". In Chinese English, they omit any "inconvenient" sound. In two days, I got used to it.

So, I beg your pardon for this post, poor and inadequate. :)

Цитата: "Jumis" от
ones from the United States had flattered on my good command of AE

As soon as you can put a few English words together, they will deliver compliments like 'oh your English is so very good, where'd you learn it?'. It's all bollocks.

Цитата: "Radley" от
As soon as you can put a few English words together, they will deliver compliments like 'oh your English is so very good, where'd you learn it?'. It's all bollocks.

You're almost right. Nevertheless, I use it in my work every single day. And I'm paid :)

You don't have to be perfect in your English to be paid for using it, either.

Цитата: "Radley" от
You don't have to be perfect in your English to be paid for using it, either.

Of course, I don't.

Truth to tell, all of us are not really perfect even in Russian. But anyone, that I know of, can freely either breath or copulate, the same with salary...  :)