Post on 29-Nov-2015
description
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Communication is one of the most crucial things that human need in their life. Related to
the fact, language is the means of communication we use in our daily life. There are thousands of
languages in the world which emerged naturally or made in order to fill their need and goal in
communicating. There are nobody speak exactly the same to the others. Each person has their
own style. However, the styles of people’s speak can be grouped according to certain aspects. In
monolingual communities, people tend to use varieties of language to show their membership to
particular group. Two of the most clearly seen varieties are the regional and social dialects.
Regional dialect deals with the varieties of dialect according to the geographical state of the
speakers of the language. Meanwhile, the social dialect refers to varieties of dialects associated
to the membership of the speaker to the particular group. This paper will discuss about these two
varieties of dialect as well as their examples.
1.2. Problems
1. What are regional and social dialect in monolingual communities?
2. What are context, style, and class in monolingual communities?
1.3. Aims
1. To know regional and social dialect in monolingual comnmunities.
2. To know context, style, and class in monolingual communities.
II. CONTENT
2.1. Regional and social dialect
Regional and social dialects focused to the information conveyed by language variation in
monolingual communities. People often use a language to signal their membership of
particular groups. Social status, gender, age, ethnicity and the kinds of social network
belong to turn out to be important dimensions of identity in many communities.
No two people speak exactly the same. There are infinite source of variation in speech. Even
a singe vowel may be pronounced in hundreds of minutely different ways. Some features of
speech, however are shared by groups, and become important because they differentiate one
group from another. For example, the pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary of Scottish
speakers of English in some respect quite distinct from that of people from England.
1. Regional variation
1. International varieties
There are many such stories of mistakes based on regional accent differences. For
Example; to British ears, a New Zealander’s dad sounds like an English person’s dead,
and bad sounds like bed. There are vocabulary differences in the varieties spoken in
different regions too. For example; Australia has sole parents, while in England people
call it single parents, and New Zealander call it solo parents.
Pronunciation and vocabulary differences are probably the differences people most aware
off between different dialects of English but there are grammatical differences too.
Americans prefer do you have, though it can also be heard in Britain alongside the
traditional British English have you got.
2. intra-national or intra-continental variation
In this section, we are dealing not just with different accent, but also with dialect
differences within a country, since the distinguishing forms involve grammatical usages
and lexical items as well as pronunciation. Regional variation takes time to develop,
therefore British and American English provide much more evidence of regional
variation than New Zealand or Australian English. Some dialects, such as Scouse,
cockney and Geordie, even have distinct names showing how significant they are in
dishtinguishing groups from one another. In the USA, dialectologist can identify
distinguishing features of the speech of people from different regions.
In areas where English has been introduced more recently, such as Australia and New
Zealand, there seem to be considerably less regional variation – though there is evidence
of social variation. The high level of intra-national communication, together with
relatively small populations may have inhibited the development of marked regional
differences in these countries.
3. Cross continental variation: dialect chains
Though a map suggests the language of Europe or India are tidily compartmentalized, in
reality they ‘blend’ into one another. Dialect chains are very common across the whole
Europe. One chain links all the dialects of German, Dutch and Flemish from Switzerland
through Austria and Germany, to the Netherland and Belgium, and there is another which
links dialects of Portuguese, Spain, Catalan, French and Italian. However, it is hard to
define the boundaries between one dialect with another (in same language) or between
two languages which located next to another. In reality, most Norwegians claim that they
can understand Swedish, although two distinct languages are involved, while Chinese
who speak Cantonese cannot understand those who speak Mandarin, despite the fact that
both are described as dialects of the Chinese Language.
2. Social variation
1. RP: social accent
RP stands for “Received Pronunciation” – the accent of the best educated and most
prestigious members of English society. It is claimed the label derives from the accent
which was ‘received’ at the royal court, and it is sometimes identified with ‘the Queen’s
English’, although the accent used by Queen Elizabeth II is a rather old-fashioned
variety of RP. RP was promoted by BBC for decades. It is essentially a social accent not
a regional one.
As triangle suggests, the linguist will find most linguistic variation at the lowest socio-
economic level where regional differences around. The variation reduces until one
reaches the pinnacle of RP – an accent used by less than 5 percent of the British
population. In addition, in ex-colonies of Britain such as Australia and Canada, other
accent of English have displace the RP from its former position as the most admired
accent of English.
2. Social Dialects
Dialects are simply linguistic varieties which are distinguishable by their vocabulary,
grammar, and pronunciation. Just as RP is a social accent, so standard English is a social
dialects.
a. Standard English
Standard English is more accommodating than RP and allows for some variation
within its boundaries. This is reflected by the figure below:
The flat top reflects the broader range of variants (alternative linguistic forms) which
qualify as part of standard dialect of English in any country. It is estimated that up to
15 percent of the British regularly use standard British English. In Standard English, a
limited amount of grammar variation is acceptable. The dialect of Standard English is
spoken in many differences accents. However, American Standard English is
distinguishable from Australian Standard English, for instance, and both differ from
Australian Standard dialect. In social terms, linguistic forms which are not part of
standard English are by definition non-standard. However, even though non-standard
forms are associated with the speech of less prestigious social groups, there is nothing
linguistically inferior about non-standard forms. They are simply different from the
forms which happen to be used by more socially prestigious speakers.
Just as vernacular languages contrast with standard languages, vernacular dialect
features contrast with standard dialect features. Vernacular dialects lack public or
overt prestige, though they are generally valued by their users, especially as means of
expressing solidarity and affective meaning.
3. Social Status
a. Castes
People can be grouped together on the basis of similar social and economic factors.
Their language generally reflects these groupings- they use different social dialects.
In places such as Indonesia and India social divisions are very clear-cut. In these
countries, there are caste systems determined by birth, and strict social rules govern
the kind of behavior appropriate to each group. These social distinctions are also
reflected in speech differences. A person’s dialect reflects their social background.
There are quite clear differences in Indian languages, for example, between the
speech of the Brahmins and non Brahmins castes. The Brahmin word for ‘milk’ in the
Kannada language, for instance, is haalu, while non Brahmin dialects say aalu. In
Javanese, too, linguistic differences reflect very clear-cut social or caste divisions.
Javannese social status is reflected not only in choice of linguistic forms which each
social groups customarily uses, i.e. the varieties of stylistic levels that together make
up the group’s distinctive dialect. In English, stylistic variation involves choices such
as ta mate vs thank you so much.
4. Social Class
a. Vocabulary
Social dialect research in many different countries has revealed a consistent
relationship between social class and language patterns. People from different social
classes speak differently. The most obvious differences is in their vocabulary.
Vocabulary differences exist at all, they are rather like those which distinguish
Brahmin and non-Brahmin castes, they distinguish social groups on a categorical
basis.
b. Pronunciation
The way different pronunciation reflect the social class of their speakers was first
demonstrated by William Labov in a study of new York City speech He interviewed
120 people and examines their pronunciations of a number of different consonant and
vowels. He found regular patterns relating the social class of the speakers to the
percentage of standard as opposed to vernacular pronunciation they produced. Some
of the linguistic features he studied have been found to pattern socially in English-
speaking communities all over the world. The pronunciation –ing vs –in at the end of
the word like sleeping and swimming, for instance, distinguishes social groups in
every English-speaking community in which it has been investigated.
c. [r]-Pronunciation
There are two possible variants of [r]. Either it is present and pronounced [r], or it is
absent. In a range of dialects, sometimes people pronounce [r] following a vowel, and
sometimes they don’t. In some regions, pronouncing [r] is part of standard prestige
dialect, e.g.; Scotland and Ireland. In other areas, standard dialect speaker do not
pronounce [r] after vowels (or ‘post-vocally’ as linguists describe it) in words like car
and card.
d. Vowels
Measuring small but significant differences in vowel pronunciation can seem a
nightmare. Labov developed a method which involved giving a score to different
pronunciations according to how close they were to prestige pronunciation or
standard in the community. In New Zealand, a survey of 141 people living in the
South Island distinguished three different social groups on the basis of the way
speakers pronounced the diphthongs in words such as boat, bite, and, bout. Many
New Zealanders consider RP an inappropriate standard accent for New Zealand, but
in practice it is still an influential prestige norm. the higher a person’s social class, the
closer their pronunciation was to RP.
e. Other Languages
Although the sociolinguistic patterns have been most extensively researched in
English-speaking communities, they have been found in other languages too. In fact
we would expect to find such patterns in all communities which can be divided into
different social groups. In Paris the pronunciation of the first vowel in words like
casser and pas varies from one social group to another. In Montreal the frequency
with which [l] is deleted distinguishes the French of two social groups.
f. Grammatical Pattern
On average it was found that children from lower-class families used more
vernacular verb forms that children from middle-class families. This pattern has been
noted for a variety of grammatical variables. As with pronunciation, there is a clear
pattern to the relationship between the grammatical speech forms and the social
groups who use them. The higher social groups use more of the standard grammatical
form and fewer instances of the vernacular or the non-standard form. People are often
more aware of social stigma in relation to vernacular grammatical forms, and this is
reflected in the lower incidence of vernacular forms among middle class speakers in
particular.
2.2 Style, context, and register
Language varies according to its uses as well as its users, according to where it is used and to
whom, as well as according to who is using it. The addressees and the context affect our
choice of code or variety, whether language, dialect or style. Therefore, the focus will be on
the ways in which speech reflects the contexts in which language is used, rather than the
characteristics of the speakers.
1. Addressee as an influence on style
The speaker’s relationship to the addressee is crucial in determining the appropriate style
of speaking. People use considerably more standard forms to those they don’t know well,
and more vernacular forms to their friends. Therefore, relative social distance or
solidarity is one important dimension of social relationships. There are many factors
contributed in determining the degree of social distance or solidarity between people,
such as relative age, gender, social roles, whether people work together, or are part of the
same family, and so on.
1. Age of addressee
People generally talk differently to children and to adults. When talking or writing to
a 6-year-old as opposed to a 30-year-old, most people choose simpler vocabulary and
grammatical constructions. Many speakers also use a different style in addressing
elderly people, often with features similar to those which characterize their speech to
children by using a simpler range of vocabulary and less complex grammar, the use
of we rather than you to refer to the addressee, and even the sing-song intonation
which characterize baby talk.
2. Social background of addressee
Addressee or audience is a very important influence on speaker’s style. The speakers
accommodating their speech style to their addressees in order to get on well with
them and make people feel comfortable. One example comes from the behavior of the
same news reader on different stations. Where the stations share studios, a person
may read the same news on two different stations during the same day. In this
situation newsreaders produce consistently different styles for each audience. The
news is the same and the context is identical, except for the addressees. Therefore, the
same person reading the news on the middle-level station reads in very much less
formal style than on the higher-brow station.
2. Accommodation Theory
1. Speech Convergence
When people talk to each other their speech often becomes more similar. Speech
accommodation is the process of converging each person’s speech towards the
speech of the person they are talking to. It tends to happen when the speakers like
one another or where one speaker has a vested interest in pleasing the other or
putting them at ease. Converging towards the speech of another person is usually
a polite speech strategy. Using the same pronunciation and the same sort
vocabulary, for instance is a way of getting in the same wavelength.
Speakers accommodate by converging their speech downwards or upwards. When
people simplify their vocabulary and grammar in talking to foreigners or children,
they are converging downwards towards the lesser linguistic proficiency of their
addressees. When, in an interview with the hospital matron, a nurse adopts some
of the matron’s pronunciation features, she is converging upwards in her speech.
2. Speech Divergence
Sometimes for obvious reasons, the respondents deliberately diverged from the
speech style, and even the language, of the person addressing them. They do it
because they disagree with his sentiments and had no desire to accommodate to
his speech. Deliberately choosing a language not used by one’s addressee is the
clearest example of speech divergence. Accent divergence also occurs. People
diverging his/her pronunciation in order to make him/her distinguishable from
their addressees. Speech divergence does not always reflect a speaker’s negative
attitudes towards the addressees. Where the divergent forms are admired,
divergence can be used to benefit the diverger. A small difference, such as a slight
foreign accent (provided it is one which is viewed favorably), can be appealing. A
foreigner can also elicit help by using an accent or vocabulary which signals
inadequate control of the language.
2. Accommodation problems
Over-convergent behavior may be perceived as patronising and ingratiating, as
sycophantic, or even as evidence that the speaker is making fun of others. In general, then
reactions to speech convergence and divergence depend on the reasons people attribute for
the convergence or divergence. If divergence is perceived as unavoidable, for instance,
then the reaction will be more tolerant than when it is considered deliberate. Deliberate
divergence will be heard as uncooperative or antagonistic. Someone who uses English in
Montreal because their French is clearly inadequate will be perceived more
sympathetically than someone who, though a fluent bilingual, deliberately chooses to use
English to Francophones. The best way of solving an accommodation problem will
depend on the context. The speech accommodation or style shifting which often occurs
unconsciously in casual contexts may not be appropriate in more formal settings.
2.2 Context, Style and Class
1. Formal contexts and social roles
Besides characteristics of the addressee, formality of the context and their relative roles
and statuses within a setting are also relevant factors on choice of style. For instance; the
way the businesswoman was addressed was determined largely by the relationship
between the woman and her addressee in terms of relative status and solidarity. People
who were very close to her used a short form of her first name (Meg), while people who
were less close and socially subordinate used her title and last name (Mrs Walker). In
classrooms where a child’s mother or father is the teacher, the children will call their
parents Mrs Grady or Mr Davis rather than Mum or Dad. People’s roles in formal
contexts determine the appropriate speech forms.
2. Colloquial style or the vernacular
There are other strategies besides topic manipulation which have been used in order to
capture people’s most relaxed or vernacular style. Taping groups of people rather than
individuals, for instance, and choosing a very comfortable or informal setting are
strategies which have been found to shift people’s speech towards the vernacular. There
are many such features which distinguish colloquial from more formal style of English.
Two examples which can be found in the English of widely different regions of the
worlds are the use of me(for formal my), e.g. then me mate arrives, and the use of them
(instead of those) as a determiner: there’s a cross-piece in them old-fashioned doors.
3. The interaction of social class and style
When information about the way people from different social groups speak with
information about the way people speak in different contexts is combined, it is clear that
features of social class and contextual style interact.
Figure above illustrates the relationship between social class, style and linguistic
variation. The structured hierarchy of the Norwich social classes is reflected in each of
the distinct lines drawn on the diagram.. Each social class uses more [iŋ] pronunciations
than the one below and less than the one above. The diagram also shows that the more
formal the style a person is using, the fewer vernacular [iŋ] pronunciations or the more
standard [iŋ] pronunciations they will use. A low frequency of vernacular [iŋ]
pronunciations or a higher frequency of standard [iŋ] pronunciations may therefore signal
that the speaker belongs to a high social class, or reflect the fact that they are speaking in
a more formal context, or both. The same linguistic feature often distinguishes between
speakers socially (inter-speaker variation), while within the speech of one person it
distinguishes different styles (intra-speaker variation). When people want to shift style,
the obvious way is to imitate the speech of another person. Therefore, they often adopt
the linguistic features of different group. For instance, In order to sound more casual,
people model their speech on that of a lower social group.
4. Hypercorrection
Hypercorrect usage goes beyond the norm. it involves extending a form beyond the
standard. The use of I rather than me in constructions such as between you and I
illustrates structural hypercorrection. So does with he asked for you and I. These
examples of hypercorrect behavior result from the insecurity introduced by Latin-based
English grammars. I is over-extended from contexts such as It was I who rang you last
night where one could argue it is formally and technically correct, to contexts which
appear similar but in fact grammatically different.
5. Style in Non-Western Societies
One of the numbers of languages with a special set of grammatical contrasts for
expressing politeness and respect for others is Japanese. Before deciding which style of
Japanese to use, Japanese speakers access their status in relation to their addresses on the
basis of such factors as family background, gender, and age, as well as the formality of
the context. They then select from plain, polite and deferential styles. The choice of
appropriate style involves not only pronunciation, but also word forms and syntax. The
appropriate form of verb, for instance, varies in different styles.
Knowledge of the complexities of stylistic variation in countries like Japan and Korea
reflects a person’s educational level and social status. Better- educated people have
greater control of the various styles. Although the Islamic revolution has increased the
use of reciprocal forms of address, ritual courtesy is still very important in Iranian society
too. In all social groups, there is a dramatic increase in the percentage of standard
variants in people’s reading and word-list styles, compared to their careful and casual
styles. For at least some linguistic features, then, this society marks speech style
differently from social group membership.
Here, it is shown that linguistic features which signal social group membership are often,
but not always, signals of contextual variation too. A high level of education and
familiarity with using language in more formal contexts frequently go hand-in-hand, and
so it is scarcely surprising that the features which characterize each tend to overlap.
However, particular pronunciations, syntactic constructions or vocabulary items may
simply indicate a person’s social group without also patterning for style.
6. Register
Styles are often analyzed along a scale of formality, as in the examples from social
dialect research discussed. Registers, on the other hand, when they are distinguished from
styles, tend to be associated with particular groups of people or sometimes specific
situations of use. Journalese, baby-talk, race-callers, and sport commentators could all be
considered examples of different registers. The term ‘ register’ here describes the
language of groups of people with common interests or jobs, or the language used in
situations associated with such groups.
Sports announcer talk
Example of this – sports announcer talk – to illustrate the kind of linguistic features
which may distinguish different registers. When people describe a sporting event, the
language they use is quite clearly distinguishable from language used in other contexts.
The most obvious distinguishing feature is usually the vocabulary. Terms like silly, mid
on, square leg, the covers, and gully, for instance to describe positions, and offbreak,
googly, and leg break to describe deliveries, are example of vocabulary peculiar to
cricket. .
1. Syntatic reduction
Example
From Baseball or cricket commentaries.
a. (it) bounced to second base
b. (it’s) a breaking ball outside
c. (He’s) a guy who’s a pressure player
d. McCatty (is) in difficulty
e. Tucker (is) taking a few ah shuttering steps down the wicket from the bowler’s
end but Waugh (is) sending him back
While describing the action they are observing, sports announcers often omit the subject
noun or pronoun, as in (a), and frequently omit the verb be as well, as utterances (b) and
(c) illustrate. Utterance (d) and (e) omit only be. There is no loss of meaning as a result of
this syntactic reduction, since the omitted elements are totally predictable in the context.
2. Syntactic inversion
Reversal or inversion of the normal word order is another feature of sports announcer
talk. This device allows the announcer to foreground or focus on the action and provides
him or her (but almost universally him in fact) with time to identify the subject of the
action- an important piece of information for listeners.
3. Heavy noun modification
From baseball or cricket commentaries
a. David Winfield, the 25-million-dollar ma, who is hitting zero, five, six in this
World Series…
b. First-base umpire Larry Barnet…
c. This much sought- after and very expensive fast bowler
People rather than action are the focus of interest at certain points during the sports
announcer’s spiel. When this is the case, the subject nouns which are the focus of interest
are often heavily modified both after the noun as in (a), and before the noun as in (b) and
(c).
4. Routines and formulas
An interesting feature of sports commentaries, including race calling, is the use of
routines to reduce the memory burden on the speaker. The formulas involve a small
number of fixed syntactic patterns and a narrow range of lexical items. The sound
patterns of race calling are also distinctive. Race callers use particular intonation patterns
or tunes as they call the race.
Sports commentators are expected to give the impression of fluency. Pauses and
hesitations in race calling, for instance, are unacceptable. Race callers must keep talking
at four to five syllables per second. The use of formulas enables them to convey
information with the minimum demand on short-term memory. Sports commentators
must also retain the listener’s interest and convey the drama of the action.
III. CONCLUSION