Ekko, as you clearly are not viewing things from a linguistically-oriented standpoint here, you have no right to speak on the subject, period. You clearly don't understand what the term "dialect" means in the first place, that is, simply *any* version of a language which is based on something other than variation in register (which may happen *within* a given dialect).
Everything your english teacher told you was wrong!
Entièrement d'accord avec Mxsmanic sur un point : le tamisien (la façon de parler l'anglais propre à l'estuaire de la Tamise et au sud-est du Royaume-Uni) n'a *****AUCUNE***** chance d'être enseignée au sud de la Manche. Cette parlure ne saurait faire l'objet d'un enseignement comparable à celui de l'anglais classique : seules les normes effectivement et durablement établies (mais pas forcément invariables) peuvent faire l'objet d'une 'transaction' interlinguistique de masse. Non pas en raison de leur qualités intrinsèques, mais précisément en raison de leur statut réellement normatif, lequel demeure arbitraire par définition.
Ici, même l'anglais des Etats-Unis (les 2/3 de l'anglophonie maternelle) végète gentiment : son marché reste confidentiel en France. Il est toujours largement perçu comme une *****VARIANTE***** de l'anglais classique, à tort ou à raison.
Les considérations strictement linguistiques, même si elles sont vraies, n'ont aucun impact sur le statut relatif des langues et de leurs dialectes dans une zone X ou Y.
Ici, même l'anglais des Etats-Unis (les 2/3 de l'anglophonie maternelle) végète gentiment : son marché reste confidentiel en France. Il est toujours largement perçu comme une *****VARIANTE***** de l'anglais classique, à tort ou à raison.
Les considérations strictement linguistiques, même si elles sont vraies, n'ont aucun impact sur le statut relatif des langues et de leurs dialectes dans une zone X ou Y.
Travis,
What is your native language? It is obviously not English. My guess is that you are Eastern European.
What is your native language? It is obviously not English. My guess is that you are Eastern European.
No, it's English, specifically that spoken here in southeastern Wisconsin, and the only language I really speak at all other than English is German. Why'd you think that my native language is anything other than such, considering that I don't really know of many non-North Americans with the first name "Travis" (just wondering)?
bob, I was using such in the strict linguistic sense of the term. No other sense of such has any place here, period.
Travis asks
Why'd you think that my native language is anything other than such, considering that I don't really know of many non-North Americans with the first name "Travis"
Answer
Because you use the language so poorly.
Exhibit 1.
"as you clearly are not viewing things from a linguistically-oriented standpoint here, you have no right to speak on the subject, period. You clearly don't understand what the term "dialect" means in the first place, that is, simply *any* version of a language which is based on something other than variation in register (which may happen *within* a given dialect"
Why'd you think that my native language is anything other than such, considering that I don't really know of many non-North Americans with the first name "Travis"
Answer
Because you use the language so poorly.
Exhibit 1.
"as you clearly are not viewing things from a linguistically-oriented standpoint here, you have no right to speak on the subject, period. You clearly don't understand what the term "dialect" means in the first place, that is, simply *any* version of a language which is based on something other than variation in register (which may happen *within* a given dialect"
Greg, the disdain to which you allude for American English in France is not consistent with my experience. Many French students of English want very much to learn American English, not British English, as they must deal with Americans more than British in business. Only the old school still attaches a superior status to British English, and in fact when students express a preference for teachers of one or the other, it is usually a preference for Americans, who are in short supply (due to visa and other considerations). I did have one student who rejected me because she definitely wanted a British teacher, but I've had many others who got me because they insisted on having an American teacher.
People who are academically minded tend to prefer British English, as they fantasize that it is some sort of golden standard. People who have to actually use English, particularly in business, are more likely to prefer American English, since most of the world's native anglophones (businesspeople and others) speak American English, and practically no one speaks any one standard British English (RP is a standard, but it is one that very few people speak as natives).
People who are academically minded tend to prefer British English, as they fantasize that it is some sort of golden standard. People who have to actually use English, particularly in business, are more likely to prefer American English, since most of the world's native anglophones (businesspeople and others) speak American English, and practically no one speaks any one standard British English (RP is a standard, but it is one that very few people speak as natives).
Steve K, how so, besides that I can be a bit verbose at times, and tending towards using multiple chained subordinate clauses, and multiple nested relative clauses and parentheticals? Second, whether or not I write well, why do you for some reason insist on trying to lecture me on the subject? For what reason do you even *care* about such? Furthermore, why do you go and patronizingly imply that I'm not a native English speaker, contrary to any of my posts, which you must have actually read (unless you were busy just trying to "proofread" all of them)?
Mxsmanic : je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse de mépris ou de dédain pour l'anglais des , mais plutôt de la force d'inertie dont bénéficient toutes les normes établies (dans le cas de la France : l'anglais classique du Royaume-Uni). Tu as raison d'opposer les anciens aux modernes car c'est une grille de lecture qui convient parfaitement à presque tous les sujets (linguistiques ou autres) débattus en France.
Tu signalais, à juste titre, l'impact de l'anglophonie nord-américaine dans le monde affaires. Mon intuition est qu'il est encore trop tôt pour évaluer cette tendance. Il ne faut pas sous-estimer les effets de mode et surtout pas l'inertie que j'évoquais plus haut.
Il serait intéressant d'étudier les schémas spontanés de la population francophone ayant séjourné ou vécu à la fois au Royaume-Uni et aux États-Unis (ou au Canada anglophone). Déjà, on peut envisager plusieurs catégories :
1/ ceux qui ont opté pour un dialecte à l'exclusion de l'autre
2/ ceux qui utilisent les deux indistinctement (une sorte de 'koinè' non maternelle)
3/ ceux qui utilisent les deux alternativement en fonction de leur environnement.
Peut-être y a-t-il d'autres cas ?
Tu signalais, à juste titre, l'impact de l'anglophonie nord-américaine dans le monde affaires. Mon intuition est qu'il est encore trop tôt pour évaluer cette tendance. Il ne faut pas sous-estimer les effets de mode et surtout pas l'inertie que j'évoquais plus haut.
Il serait intéressant d'étudier les schémas spontanés de la population francophone ayant séjourné ou vécu à la fois au Royaume-Uni et aux États-Unis (ou au Canada anglophone). Déjà, on peut envisager plusieurs catégories :
1/ ceux qui ont opté pour un dialecte à l'exclusion de l'autre
2/ ceux qui utilisent les deux indistinctement (une sorte de 'koinè' non maternelle)
3/ ceux qui utilisent les deux alternativement en fonction de leur environnement.
Peut-être y a-t-il d'autres cas ?
ERRATUM :
je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse de mépris ou de dédain pour l'anglais des ***États-Unis***, mais plutôt....
je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse de mépris ou de dédain pour l'anglais des ***États-Unis***, mais plutôt....
Travis says: Steve K, how so, besides that I can be a bit verbose at times, and tending towards using multiple chained subordinate clauses, and multiple nested relative clauses and parentheticals?
So you understand the problem. Good. It is quite difficult to read your posts because of the bizzare sentence structure. This is probably what Steve is complaining about. I think that you write things like you would say them out loud. It would be easier for me to read them if you punctuated them differently.
So you understand the problem (good!); it is quite difficult to read your posts because of the bizzare sentence structure, I think that's what Steve is complaing about. I think that you write them like you would say them out loud, and it would be easier for me to read them if you punctuated them differently.
In case English learners are reading this, I'll be more explicit about the style of English that I encourage. Write short sentences. Each sentence should express a single thought. Choose your sentence structure to make what you write as easy for other people to read as possible.
Don't write flowery sentences full of meaningless adverbs, and extra phrases (and parenthetical remarks), on which frustrated readers will have to spend many, many minutes of careful study to decode from their cryptic state, which is due entirely to your poor sentence structure.
So you understand the problem. Good. It is quite difficult to read your posts because of the bizzare sentence structure. This is probably what Steve is complaining about. I think that you write things like you would say them out loud. It would be easier for me to read them if you punctuated them differently.
So you understand the problem (good!); it is quite difficult to read your posts because of the bizzare sentence structure, I think that's what Steve is complaing about. I think that you write them like you would say them out loud, and it would be easier for me to read them if you punctuated them differently.
In case English learners are reading this, I'll be more explicit about the style of English that I encourage. Write short sentences. Each sentence should express a single thought. Choose your sentence structure to make what you write as easy for other people to read as possible.
Don't write flowery sentences full of meaningless adverbs, and extra phrases (and parenthetical remarks), on which frustrated readers will have to spend many, many minutes of careful study to decode from their cryptic state, which is due entirely to your poor sentence structure.
Thank you D. That is precisely my point with Travis.
Writing in short clear sentences is an important part of communicating effectively. The same is true of following standard usage. Whether you know a few lingusitics terms like Travis, or do not like Eikko, really is beside the point. Poor grammar, wrong choice of words, poor phrasing, and sloppy wordiness are all part of the same problem. They prevent your language from being clear, logical, accurate, and effective to the widest possible audience .
Writing in short clear sentences is an important part of communicating effectively. The same is true of following standard usage. Whether you know a few lingusitics terms like Travis, or do not like Eikko, really is beside the point. Poor grammar, wrong choice of words, poor phrasing, and sloppy wordiness are all part of the same problem. They prevent your language from being clear, logical, accurate, and effective to the widest possible audience .
Travi, take it easy, i know what full well what a dialect is(and what it isnt).
When something is a dialect, its different enough from its parent language that there isnt a question. Latin>Spanish is an example. These are 2 different languages and are clearly not the same language. Some very slight differences in how people talk in different states is nowhere enough for a dialect. I gave an example of that and explained that it wasnt a dialect, just English grammar being used incorrectly, not another language.
When something is a dialect, its different enough from its parent language that there isnt a question. Latin>Spanish is an example. These are 2 different languages and are clearly not the same language. Some very slight differences in how people talk in different states is nowhere enough for a dialect. I gave an example of that and explained that it wasnt a dialect, just English grammar being used incorrectly, not another language.
Ekko, for starters, do you know what "prescriptivism" is, as the idea of what forms some may use natively as being "incorrect" falls clearly under that. The matter is that modern linguistics is based purely on descriptivism, and prescriptivism has absolutely no place in such. For more on the issue, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_and_description
As for what a dialect is, for starters, you're making the fundamental assumption that a dialect is a variation upon a "standard" form. Such is linguistically unfounded, especially when one considers that such "standard" forms are often rather artificial in nature, and do not necessarily coincide with the barycenter of a given group of dialects, when they exist in the first place. Furthermore, a dialect, from a linguistic standpoint, is simply any given language form that is spoken in a given area, no matter how little variation such has from other related dialects, or how small the number of speakers. Anyways, for more on this given subject, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_and_description
As for what a dialect is, for starters, you're making the fundamental assumption that a dialect is a variation upon a "standard" form. Such is linguistically unfounded, especially when one considers that such "standard" forms are often rather artificial in nature, and do not necessarily coincide with the barycenter of a given group of dialects, when they exist in the first place. Furthermore, a dialect, from a linguistic standpoint, is simply any given language form that is spoken in a given area, no matter how little variation such has from other related dialects, or how small the number of speakers. Anyways, for more on this given subject, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect
The influence of the United States in world affairs is waning, not waxing … however, the inertia of English as a lingua franca throughout the world has now been firmly established and it continues to reinforce itself even without the participation of the United States. Very often non-native speakers of English will communicate with each other in English simply because it's the only language they share.
The influence of the UK has been essentially nil since early in the 20th century. The world wars pushed Europe so far back that it's questionable whether it will ever catch up again, and it certainly caused the sun to permanently set on the British Empire. It's amusing to see the British deluding themselves into thinking that the spread of English is somehow due to their (nonexistent) influence in the world, when in fact most people today would have trouble finding the UK on a map.
The influence of the UK has been essentially nil since early in the 20th century. The world wars pushed Europe so far back that it's questionable whether it will ever catch up again, and it certainly caused the sun to permanently set on the British Empire. It's amusing to see the British deluding themselves into thinking that the spread of English is somehow due to their (nonexistent) influence in the world, when in fact most people today would have trouble finding the UK on a map.