Scots - Dialect or Language

Adam   Monday, May 30, 2005, 10:45 GMT
If Scots is separate from English, then we can also say that Geordie is separate from English.
Adam   Monday, May 30, 2005, 10:47 GMT
"It saddens me that the local Gaelic dialects overall are dying from the influence of the English language"

Scots isn't Gaelic. It's Germanic.
Adam   Monday, May 30, 2005, 10:56 GMT
The Geordie dialect that is spoken in the North East of England seems very distinct from normal English just like Scots does. However, no-one says that Geordie is a language in its own right, so why do some people say that Scots is a language? That's just the same as saying that Geordie is a language separate from English.

Geordie

How man mutha man.
Ye knaa what ah mean leik.
Eeeh man, ahm gannin te the booza.
Whees i' the netty?
Gan canny or we'll dunsh summick.



English

Please mother don't embarass me.
Do you know what I mean?
OK, I have had enough, I am going to the bar.
Who's in the lavatory?
Be carefull or we will crash into something.
Deborah   Monday, May 30, 2005, 21:16 GMT
Adam, if you wanted to make a point that Geordie isn't a separate language, you've been better off not showing the Geordie dialect in writing!
Damian   Monday, May 30, 2005, 21:45 GMT
We've covered the Scots Language/dialect issue loads of times in here before.....this part of Scotland (the Lothians and Lowlands around Edinburgh and the Borders were the first regions of Scotland to become totally Anglicised....that doesn't mean you don't find some parts were the dialect is still quite strong in everyday communication.

As for Geordieland....the first university I applied to was at Newcastle (more correctly Newcastle-upon-Tyne) the Capital of Geordieland and I found the Geordies mega friendly and helpful and I loved the way they spoke. They were all great, mon! I had a great time there over two days and no problem understanding Geordie and they are so used to Scots, not being far south of the border. The Geordie accent is amusing really in that all the sentences rise up towards the end..the last word is always an octave higher no matter what the subject matter. Newcastle is a great city ..beautiful architecture and I loved riding on the Metro....AND the clubbing is fantastic.
Jim   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 03:15 GMT
I don't know where Brennus got this idea from but it's neither the layman's view of what a dialect is and it's certainly not the linguist's view. Calling American English a kind of Queen's English is laughable. The Queen's English is probably closer to Cockney than American English.

The typical layman error is to think that a dialect is a form which is different from some standard which is imagined to exist. The layman who doesn't make this error might divide English up into British verses American. A more knowledgible layman would realise the Aussie, Kiwi, South African, Irish, etc. are seperate dialects (or dialect groups). Nobody but Brennus sees things his way.
Travis   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 06:01 GMT
If anything, from what I know, linguists generally do *not* make a distinction between an "accent" and a "dialect", as many laypersons tend to do for some reason, but rather a dialect is basically strictly any speech form linked to location, as opposed to registers, which are linked to context and level of formality and like, sociolects, which are linked to social groups, and idiolects, which are linked to individual persons, and is more loosely basically any speech form that isn't specifically an idiolect. Also, from what I've gathered, many linguists tend to think of languages as basically glorified dialect groups, which can be quite arbitrary at times, especially when dialect continuums come into play. Furthermore, some just throw out the notion of discrete languages altogether, and view things solely in terms of dialects, with varying levels of crossintelligibility of course.

I myself tend to almost favor this viewpoint, except that I do still use the concept of languages when referring to the social politics of language and the social groups tied to them, as the idea of discrete languages does help give overall "legitimacy" to them in a political context, with respect to things like education and media and like. Likewise, I prefer to separate the notion of languages based on crossintelligibility between dialect groups and the notion of "standard languages", as one may have multiple standard languages which are crossintelligible (re: Danish, Bokmål, Nynorsk, Swedish), yet you can have two different dialect groups within the same continuum which are generally *not* crossintelligible, even if they share a single standard language (re: the Italian dialects/languages).
Brennus   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 06:56 GMT
Travis,

With all due respect, you are giving me an emotional response not one based on logic ("Where the hell" is a very emotional phrase).

First of all, You need to explain how and in what way there are more dialects of English than just Kings (or Queens), Cockney and Scots.

Keep in mind that "dialect" means something a little different to a professional linguist than to the layman. Likewise, the word "theory" means something a little different to a scientist and "tornado" even means something a little different to a meteorologist. For example, I'm used to the layman's definition of "tornado" and would tell you that there are no tornados in the Pacific Northwest. I have found out, however, that by the meteorologist's definition of the word "tornado" Washington State has had tornados because even though there were no funnel clouds, the microbursts reached FO and maybe F1 on the Fujita intensity scale and that's the standard that a meteorologist goes by.

Linguistically speaking, it would probably be more accurate to call RP, General American, New England American, Tidewater American. Southern U.S. and Canadian English as "varieties" of the same dialect rather than as different dialects. The differences between them are not as sharp as the differences of any of them vis-à-vis Scots and Cockney. Occasionally, there is some overlapping. Case in point, Estuary and Australian English seem to be borderline between Queens and Cockney but will probably wind up becoming more Queens in the long run. Northumberland English, while basically a Queens, shares some features with Scots. For instance, both of them use 'lad' and 'lass' for "boy' and "girl".

Secondly, Scots is a dialect of English. Even Dictionary.com acknowledges this in its definition:

"n. The dialect of English used in the Lowlands of Scotland."


Finally, while I don't particularly care if people refer to the English of Newfoundland, the American Deep South or even California as "dialects" in informal speech one has to be careful when using that word in academic circles around linguists. At least, that's how I see it.

Kirk,

You wrote: "...I would laugh at the prospect of saying I speak a variation of the Queen's English."

But why? Kings or Queens English was spoken in the American Colonies from the very beginning. Contrary to what many people believe, or may have been taught in school, most of the English colonists who came to America were educated and spoke a pretty standard, proper English. On the other hand, Cockney never took root anywhere in North America because (unlike Australia) there were very few Cockneys who immigrated America.
Brennus   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 06:58 GMT
immigrated America > immigrated TO America..
Travis   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 07:07 GMT
Well, it is a bit of an emotional response, yes, in that I'm a bit irked by the manner in which you speak here, as you appear to be speaking for all linguists, even though you're the first individual which I've seen put forward such a view as that which you've been putting forward above, rather than just for yourself. Whether it's been my linguistics class in school or the various linguistics-related materials that I've read on my own, this is the *first* time that I've seen the view above, and honestly, I myself much prefer (and find *far* more useful) the view of Ausbausprache / Abstandsprache / Dachsprache and thinking in terms of sections of dialect continuums, defined by crossintelligibility, or specific isoglosses, or whatever, rather than of thinking in terms of specific languages and like.
Damian   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 07:50 GMT
Am I being pedantic when I say this:

Emigrated TO America
Immigrated FROM Europe

?
Frances   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 08:35 GMT
Damian - isn't it the other way around? Emigrate is to leave a country and vice-versa for immigrate
Kirk   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 09:01 GMT
<<Linguistically speaking, it would probably be more accurate to call RP, General American, New England American, Tidewater American. Southern U.S. and Canadian English as "varieties" of the same dialect rather than as different dialects.>>

But why would anyone *ever* want to group such disparate varieties under one dialect anyway? I mean, these aren't small, picky hair-splitting differences separating these varieties--by linguistic standards these are clearly separate dialects. If, for some reason, you wanted to group them together, practice would be to call them "groupings of dialects."

Also, I'll say again that I realize that technical terms in linguistics may vary from popular usage, but, really, whether you ask the "layman" or the linguist, all those varieties will be called dialects. It's just that the linguist has specific and technical evidence backing them up. And all those are separate dialects which in fact deserve further clarification in terms of splitting up into even more dialects.

Simply, put, Brennus, as everyone has commented here, I highly doubt any "layman" (if that's important to your defintion), and certainly *no* linguist would **ever** **ever** group such widely different varieties as the ones you've listed as one dialect.

<<...most of the English colonists who came to America were educated and spoke a pretty standard, proper English. On the other hand, Cockney never took root anywhere in North America because (unlike Australia) there were very few Cockneys who immigrated America.>>

!!!! An entirely subjective statement, Brennus. I don't think you have a very good grasp of how dialects emerge and evolve. North American English never developed features now known as Cockney because when North America was settled, features now part of Cockney English largely did not exist, not because there was an absence of Cockneys moving to America. In fact, when Australia was settled, even things like intervocalic glottal-stops had not yet arisen in Cockney English, and today that feature is absent from Australian English while being the standard in current Cockney English....even if Australia had been settled 100% by Cockneys they would not speak the same as Cockneys do today in London because of language change.

Also, your implication that there's a standard, "proper" English and that Cockney is somehow inferior is wholly inaccurate and linguistically invalid.

Honestly, Brennus, you're digging yourself deeper in a hole--the things you're saying make little sense and aren't supported by any linguistic fact. I'm not going to tell you to stop making your arguments because you're free to do so, but at least realize that they are linguistically highly inaccurate and unsubstantiated anywhere.
Deborah   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 09:09 GMT
Frances,

<< Damian - isn't it the other way around? Emigrate is to leave a country and vice-versa for immigrate >>

But from, let's say, Damian's point of view, he's in Scotland and the emigrants to America ARE leaving the country (in droves, Adam might say).
Damian   Tuesday, May 31, 2005, 14:47 GMT
LOL ...FRANCES.....maybe soon I'll be the only one left in Scotland! Just imagine...I could have the run of the place all to myself...I'd have a field day in all the stores down Princes Street with no coppers left to sling me into the van! I don't know where ADAM gets his amazing stats from.....cloud cuckoo land I think. When I have a moment I'll check on Scotland's REAL population stats.....there seem to be more people than ever clogging up Edinburgh and that's for sure! Maybe it's just an illusion on my part. Perhaps ADAM means they are all EMIGRATING out of Scotland and IMMIGRATING into Edinburgh? Or is it the other way round? I'm diffused....as Mrs Malaprop would say.

It depends really which way you look at it FRANCES...I would say you emigrate OUT of a country and immigrate INTO another. It's like debits and credits I reckon...if I left Scotland... like everyone else is right now according to our whizzkid statistician ADAM...and went to live in America I would be an emigrant as far as Scotland is concerned and an immigrant as far as America is concerned. But I don't think it would be right to say "I immigrated TO America"...would it? The guy in US Immigration would tell me that I was immigrating INTO America just as his counterpart in Scotland would gleefully tell me that I was emigrating OUT of Scotland as he waved me bye bye.

I wish I hadn't started this now! :-(