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

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.

Re: Learn various accents/dialects

nona the brit — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:08:28 GMT

accent: a way of speaking typical of a particular group of people and especially of the natives or residents of a region

dialect: a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language

Dialects need a greater variation from the 'standard' or other varieties, whereas accent is more about pronounciation.

You should find this wiki article on British English accents and dialects useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_English

I'd disagree that RP is the standard English accent - only about 2% of us speak it. And certainly the other dialects did not develop from RP - they developed over hundreds if not thousands of years for a variety of reasons. For example, there is still a language difference between the areas that were ruled by the Vikings and the rest of the country. The history of English as spoken in England is a very interesting one due to the constant influence of other languages.

I don't know how many different English accents there are. Some areas have their own accent and even some cities/towns have their own accent. 'Lots' would be my best answer, although many of them can be loosely grouped together. I know someone who reckons you can tell which side of her village-street people were born on, as the accents are slightly different! She could be pulling my leg though...

Scottish (two t's) - again there isn't a single Scottish accent. Someone from Glasgow sounds different to someone from Edinburgh, for example, but there are some overall similarities. All I know is that they often do not pronounce the letter "h", so here becomes 'ere - I haven't noticed my Scottish friends doing this?,

and my becomes 'me', *** sounds like fock, up like op and so on. That's pretty much all I know. Also, is there any place online where I can listen to this accent? I don't care what I listen to, may it be a podcast, or an audio book, I really don't care, I just want to grasp the accent. To be honest, what you are saying here sounds more like an Irish accent to me than Scottish?

Also, with British accents you have to factor in class as well as geography. That makes a difference to how people speak. My Scottish friends are two sisters with quite different accents, even though they grew up together. One went to a local private school and has a posher accent than the one who went to the local state school.

Re: What makes English so difficult to learn?

Kooyeen — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:40:51 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
This is why English is superior to every other language, because of it's limitless versatility and boundless possibilities. In comparison to all other languages (which I can also speak fluently), English is the only dialect where you can express yourself precisely enough to articulate unrivalled thought.

Hi,
I wanted to say that's not true at all. English is very very "limited" compared to Italian, for example. There are an avalanche of basic expressions that can't be translated into English and that are very useful. I always feel a little limited when using English instead of Italian, and it's not a matter of vocabulary. Really, English is not very expressive compared with Italian.

Re: I WANT A SCOTTISH ACCENT

Rigel — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:24:01 GMT

I am Italian, two years ago my father and I decided to visit a friend of him who is from Middlesbrough; we decided to spent some days in London, then visit the eastern Wales, stay some days vith this friend and then spent some days in Edinburgh. I am quite good at English, I can understand it very well even if spoken quickly if it hasn't too much accent and I enjoyed a lot listening to different accents during this holiday.

when we arrived in Edimburgh I immediatly loved the accent, even if I think it's not only ad accent but also the vocabulary is very different. I didn't find it too much difficult to understand if people speack slow. I think this is because I always had to pay more attention when speaking with people during that trip because to me also the plainest english is a foreign langage, and because some sounds were very similar to my local dialect! I'm now planning to return to Scotland this year, and I want to learn Scottish accent [or better, dialect]. Luckily, an English teacher in my school is from Scotland so maybe I could ask him some tips

Re: Which of the following three descriptions best describes dialect?

Kooyeen — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:23:29 GMT

Hi,
I would say #3, Wikipedia then. The other two definitions are biased in my opinion, they consider mainly English and its variations. I already gave my opinion in the other thread about dialects, where I said that in my opinion a dialect is a language that is not standardized and recognized by some kind of institution. A dialect is a language, then.

definition #2: Variety of a language spoken by a group of people and having features of vocabulary, grammar, and/or pronunciation that distinguish it from other varieties of the same language. Dialects usually develop as a result of geographic, social, political, or economic barriers between groups of people who speak the same language. When dialects diverge to the point that they are mutually incomprehensible, they become languages in their own right' [Encyclopedia Britannica] I disagree.

A dialect should be pretty different form the standard language in a certain region. It could have its own grammar, vocabulary, etc. The first time I searched Wikipedia for dialects of English I was very surprised to see that "California English" and other varieties were considered as dialects. I would consider them regional variations of English, mainly variations of the pronunciation, not dialects.
I find this thread interesting, since I speak a dialect myself. There are several dialects in Italy, they have their own grammar and vocabulary. They didn't develop "as a result of geographic, social, political, or economic barriers between groups of people who speak the same language," as definition #2 says. I think they developed from a mix of old languages, not from Italian. Plus, they are not mutually intelligible, generally speaking.

Which of the following three descriptions best describes dialect?

milky — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:49:47 GMT

Which of the following three descriptions best describes dialect?

1 'One of the subordinate forms of varieties of a language arising from local peculiarities of pronunciation and idiom.' [OED]

-----------------

2 'Variety of a language spoken by a group of people and having features of vocabulary, grammar, and/or pronunciation that distinguish it from other varieties of the same language. Dialects usually develop as a result of geographic, social, political, or economic barriers between groups of people who speak the same language. When dialects diverge to the point that they are mutually incomprehensible, they become languages in their own right' [Encyclopedia Britannica]

----------

3 'A dialect is a complete system of verbal communication (oral or signed but not necessarily written) with its own vocabulary and/or grammar.' [Wikipedia]