Search results for 'tag:Dialects tag:Vocabulary' matching tags 'Dialects' and 'Vocabulary'

Re: slang in Mattafix songs

Anonymous — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 01:20:40 GMT

ok, Marlon is a VINCENTIAN!! not jamaican lol (proud vincy!!) anyway its vincentian dialect, which isn't so far from the jamaican english anyway.
OK to the lyrics:

Big City life
I try to get by
Pressure doesn't ease up no matter how hard i try
Big City Life
Here my heart has no foundation (this one not so much slang as use of vocabulary)
And right now Babylon is on my case

erm, not so sure how the word ' Babylon' is used here, but its a popular term in Rastafarianism, which is a popular movement in the Caribbean. He might be refering to oppression or oppositions.

lINGUISTICS as a conversation

noel gomez — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:39:42 GMT

Good day! Hi there! i just would like to know if Lingustics can be used as a tool for everyday's conversations, public speaking and many more; how does it benefit us and what are its effects to us. Thankyou. I just would like to sahre something i've read about linguistics - its history and unique characteristics. Correct me if i'm wrong. The article goes like this:

Wikipedia

Main article: Arabic grammar

Due to the rapid expansion of Islam in the 8th century, many people learned Arabic as a lingua franca. For this reason, the earliest grammatical treatises on Arabic are often written by non-native speakers.

The earliest grammarian who is known to us is Ê¿Abd AllÄh ibn AbÄ« Isá¸¥Äq al-á¸¤aá¸ramÄ« (d. 735-736 AD, 117 AH). The efforts of three generations of grammarians culminated in the book of the Persian linguist SibÄwayhi (c. 760-793).

Sibawayh made a detailed and professional description of Arabic in 760 in his monumental work, Al-kitab fi al-nahw (Ø§ÙÙØªØ§Ø¨ ÙÙ Ø§ÙÙØÙ, The Book on Grammar), bringing many linguistic aspects of language to light. In his book he distinguished phonetics from phonology.

Traditionally, the Arabic grammatical sciences are divided into five branches:

al-luÄ¡ah (lexicon) concerned with collecting and explaining vocabulary

at-taá¹£rÄ«f (morphology) determining the form of the individual words

an-naá¸¥w (syntax) primarily concerned with inflection (irÄb) which had already been lost in dialects.

al-iÅ¡tiqÄq (derivation) examining the origin of the words

al-balÄÄ¡ah (rhetoric) which elucidates construct quality

Thanks!

Re: TEFLese

Kooyeen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:35:14 GMT

Anonymous
I agree, but I don't think that sentences get any more authentic as one progresses through the learning levels. Even at advanced level, there's lots of TEFLese English going on in classrooms world over. TEFLese is a dialect. It is a product.

I know, and that's why I believe once a learner is enough "advanced" they don't need any more courses, grammars, or specific teachers. That's when they need more advanced vocabulary and idioms, which they can pick up by practicing the way they like the most. Oh, let's not forget the dictionaries... You can't throw those away, they are absolutely vital (without them, I would write worse than so, and I wouldn't be learning new vocabulary so fast).

Re: Legitimising dialect discrimination

Jon Salt — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:38:56 GMT

I think the problem is that people conflate accent and dialect. Accent varies from region to region when people use standard English. Vocabulary and grammar vary very little, and guessing nationality online can be tricky. If someone with an average educational background cannot use the vocabulary and grammar of standard English (as well as their own dialect, perhaps) then they are probably not a very capable person, and wouldn't be ideal for a white collar job. The older they are, the truer that is.

Re: Which language is most difficult language for people to learn?

Kooyeen — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:03:07 GMT

Just some quick comments:

1) It is obvious you can't tell which language is the most difficult to learn, because it's a subjective thing. "Difficult" means you are not able to do it well, but someone else might have no problems. Playing the guitar might be difficult for those who never learned how to use one, but it's pretty easy and enjoyable for many others. So I think I wouldn't have problems with Spanish grammar, since I'm Italian, but I doubt I would find Chinese ideograms quite easy.

2) Every language has some aspects you would find difficult, and others you would not find so difficult after all. All this is still very subjective. Some aspects you might want to consider are grammar, pronunciation, writing, speech registers, cultural aspects, regional aspects, etc.

3) The more a language it taught, the simpler it is to find what you need (more material = a better perspective and understanding). So English and Spanish, no matter how difficult and who finds them difficult, have a huge advantage: they are taught a lot. On the net you'll find an avalanche of websites to learn them, for free. Lots of teachers, lots of courses, lots of material. But now try to learn Finnish for example... how many forums to learn Finnish for free from volunteers are there online? As many as those for ESL? Hmm, no way. So less material --> higher probability of confusion and slower improvement.

4) What do you mean by learning a language? Learning the basic words? The basic grammar? Advanced vocabulary? Good style too? Perfect pronunciation? Learning about the major dialects too? And about the cultural aspects?
So the point is, at what level are you going to use a language you are learning? Maybe it's simple to learn how to say the most basic things ("hello, how are you?") in every language, but how about talking about eye surgery like a professor would? Attending a history lecture and understanding basically everything? You need "mastery" for that, and it's probably extremely hard to achieve for every language, no matter how subjective the difficulty might be.

Just my thoughts

Re: If I'm used only to Standard English, might I have trouble understanding dialects?

Mr Wordy — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:26:35 GMT

There are some differences in vocabulary and idiom across the British Isles, and you might encounter some regional words and expressions that you're not familiar with. But the core vocabulary and grammar are not hugely different, and you might find that a bigger problem is pronunciation. If you're only familiar with the sort of English spoken by middle class people from the south of England, and you go into a pub in a rough part of Glasgow, say, then you might not even realise that the people there are speaking English at all.

The native speakers I (as a native speaker myself) have most difficulty with are young urban working class people. In this case, vocabulary (lots of "yoof slang" I've never heard of) and pronunciation both cause problems. I might overhear, say, a group of youths chatting in a London suburb and only catch about 50% of it.

There's no need to try to speak regional dialects of British English yourself (unless you're particularly interested in doing so, of course). If you speak something approximating to "standard" British English then you should be able to make yourself understood anywhere in the British Isles.

Re: Native-speaker/native language

Tanit — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:03:57 GMT

Forbes

I remember listening to a radio programme about the varieties of forms of speech in Italy ... They simply change language like they change clothes without worrying about the status of their "home" speech.

There's some truth in that article. My parents, for instance, used to speak in Sardinian (not a dialect, but recognised as an endangered language by the UNESCO) when talking to each other or to their relatives, but they would only speak Italian with my brother and me. I grew up monolingual, and although I can understand Sardinian, I am unable to articulate a sentence that contains more than a few words!

Many people who speak both Italian and their dialect, although able to switch from the first to the second depending on the context, speak a form of Italian that I would classify as regional and sub-standard. I noticed that people from Southern Italy (I have little experience of Northern Italy) who speak also a dialect usually don't speak standard Italian, but a form of language deeply affected by their dialect. Accent is not an issue. I find some grammatical structures odd, as well as the choice of some verb modes, tenses and aspects (ex. past simple versus present perfect, indicative versus subjunctive), and have problems with some vocabulary (let alone idioms, of course). I am usually able to understand the general meaning, though.

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:21 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that grammar speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language,and you can learn grammar as much as you want.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all.I mean you may not need a spade to dig a hole,you can dig it with your fingers,but you'll certainly find a spade helpful.If you know what I mean.Grammar gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar does is the analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even if you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar,of course paralelly with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

Re: Two question about "where"

Velimir — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:27:00 GMT

Hello Ant 222,

I wouldn't say that the answer on your question is so clearcut,that's all.What I'm saying is that by using grammar you speed up the process of the acquisition of the language.And it is beyond doubt.One reason I often come across in discussion on this issue is that a native learner may never learn grammar and still you will never have his/her grasp of language.Such comparison is ridiculous.Put somebody in the situation to live the language,to make for his/her living surrounded with that language,to ask for a glass of water,or a piece of bread,and I bet he'll learn the hardest chinese dialect in no time,along with the whole trillion symbols of alphabet if needed.But people like to make things complicated when they are not. I've read an interesting sentence in one post on the forum nearby:

"Chomsky suggested that children have a built-in mechanism, which he called the Language Acquisition Device, or LAD, which pre-programs them to develop grammar based on the linguistic input they receive."

Although I don't know the context of this sentence,I understand that children have a knack for languages and all other mankind doesn't.That is,children have one device for automatic learning and when they grow up that LAD gadget break down and they are not able to automatically learn anymore,and they have to fetch grammar if they want to learn a language.
Here goes a few trillions of smiling smilies.That would make learning of language very much similar to "Star Wars" or so.I would say that people enjoy making miracles out of everything.Let me be allowed to advise you not to fall for that kind of reasoning.I mean "Look at me,I'm a miracle,I speak english gorgeuously and I don't have to learn grammar",that kind of reasoning.

As to the learning of a second language,I believe that circumstances in which the learner lives make a difference.First of all,the need to use the language daily,how much you read,how much you listen the language,which depends on his/her place of living,job, his/her affinities i.e personality,lifestyle etc.So,your learning situation and my learning situation are two different situations.More or less different.An immigrant who lives in the USA and is exposed to the english language daily,will need less grammar stuff to learn,and I need more to know about it.It is simple as that.And although,the learning of a language is pretty specific,still it doesn't mean that you don't need grammar at all(as an ESL learner)since it gives the basis i.e the logic for learning.What grammar do is analysis of the mechanics of a language(i.e cutting into pieces)and then put it together in the way which will make it easier to you to learn.By the way,I remember it from high school that analysis and synthesis are scientific methods in acquiring (any) knowledge.If you give proofs that it is just a useless entertainment for idle men then you'll make a scientific breakthrough,and not only in the field of language.Here goes one smiling smiley.

I think that if an ESL learner avoided confusion caused by different terminology for the same concepts (which is a major problem)and occasionaly manage to find some help when he is baffled(as it is possible from this forum for example) he'll find grammar helpful,and will not shy of it.And there is no reason for that since in essence it is not difficult,so you can read it even you don't see its real value,and don't worry about your health,it will not put some special strain on your brain.Only when you read it and understand it you will know whether it is worth reading.
I think that Quirk gave neatly arranged structure for a correct acquisition of a language i.e its vocabulary. One can learn the bulk of the english language with the help of his grammar along with learning the vocabulary.Let's say 90% of it,and if somebody want to split hairs he may freely turn linguist,or if he want to learn some expression of Texas shepherds which he didn't understand and it gave him a headache,or solve logical puzzles in your leisure time,he can post a question on some forum.Or something.

Best regards

Velimir

Re: English and social background, and "Standard English"

Kooyeen — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:07:03 GMT

Hi,

How can English vary according to the social background of the speaker? Does anyone have any examples of this?
English has a lot of dialects (most of them only differ in pronunciation though). So a Canadian doesn't talk the same way as a Texan does. Also, for example, teenagers usually don't talk the same way as adults do. Their vocabulary is often different. There are other factors too, like race and job.

What exacly is meant by the concept "Standard English"? How, and why can the standard vary from country to country?
Standard English doesn't really exist. When you hear the term "Standard English", people are referring to the variety you mostly find in news and press, which usually doesn't break any "rules" of "prescriptive grammar". Even though some call that variety "standard", it doesn't mean it's the best variety. Obviously, it is not always the most appropriate.