A quick definition of "standard" language, and some other stuff.

[conuly]

Here it is. The standard dialect is the one spoken by the people in power. They're not in power because they speak the standard dialect, this is important, rather it's that this dialect became standard because it's the one spoken by the people in power, and everybody *without* power strives to emulate it, because they want to be able to become one of the people in power. Of course, the people in power don't really want that, so language changes on all sides.

And that's really about it.

Grammar, it should be noted, is not something typically developing children have to learn in school. The typically developing child generally has mastered his or her native grammar by the age of six. In fact, most people can't begin to describe the rules of their own grammar. For example, you probably couldn't tell me what the rules are governing the order of adjectives, but you know instinctively (if you're a native English speaker) that big red dog is correct, while red big dog isn't. That's grammar. Or, even though you make thousands of unique yes/no questions in your life, you probably can't, off the top of your head, tell me the rules which you use when making a yes/no question. More grammar.

Some people have tried writing down the grammars of various languages, with a good amount of success. And a comprehensive grammar of the English language will indeed explain the rules which govern the use of double negatives in English, or the invariant use of the verb "to be" (think AAVE/ebonics), or the use of any of a dozen non-prestigious forms. Of course, the problem *here* is deciding which dialects you're looking at, because there are many many English dialects. However, you can rest assured that there is *some* book, *some*where that explains how to use a double negative in English. This book, no doubt, doesn't make value statements of right or wrong, so it's a bit of a moot point.

And there was your short linguistics lesson of the day. Tomorrow I'll find a link to the interactive IPA, that'll be fun.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot. Typically developing doesn't mean "normally intelligent". Some quite intelligent people are not typically developing in this respect, some people who are *not* normally intelligent *are* typically developing when it comes to language.

Comments

as a fellow linguist

[farraige.livejournal.com]

when arguing about 'bad' or 'substandard' grammars, it may be beneficial to specify the approach you're taking. both of us know that to a grammarian, no grammar is ever 'good' or 'bad'; however, certain types of acquired (mainly second-language) grammars may be described as deficient due to lacking of certain operatives/functions.

a lay person's approach is, however, likely to be different, owing to a *general* understanding of the concept of grammar. thus it leads to employing of evaluating terms of 'unprestigious' or 'backward', reflecting on the socio-economic implications irrelevant to a syntactician's research.

before the two opposing viewpoints are established, any argument, I fear, is in danger of being fruitless.

Re: as a fellow linguist

[conuly]

See, I thought I'd done that. Often.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

I was just going to mention to you that on PBS January 5th, at 7pm I think, s a show called "do you speak American?" It looks like it may address this issue, at least in part.

[conuly]

Remind me about it when it comes on, 'k?

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

So, if a non-English speaker was learning English, would you recommend that they learn any particular dialect of English? When English is taught, what dialect should be taught? And why?

[conuly]

I'd want to know why they're learning it, and where they intend to use it.

As an example, I took Spanish in High School. The Spanish that they taught was (apparently) Castilian Spanish. Quite a few of the people in my classes should've taken the Heritage classes but didn't. They spent a significant amount of time complaining that the words and grammar weren't "what we use", that is, what is used by Spanish-speakers in New York.

I'm sure that the State had its reasons for wanting us to learn the more prestigious dialect. However, for anybody wanting to actually use their Spanish in New York, or even in Latin America, what they taught wasn't sufficient.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

If Spanish-speakers in New York don't use standard Spanish, so what? Are you learning Spanish so you can just speak to Spanish speakers in New York, or so you can speak to a broad variety of Spanish speakers? Even if for some reason all you ever wanted to do was talk to Spanish speakers in New York, how could it possibly do anything but help you to learn the source from which their language evolved? I could learn one of the many Neopolitan dialects, but why, when I can speak standard Italian and be able to understand and be understood by people across Italy?

Lots of native speakers of languages don't use or aren't aware of the academic or standard version of their own language. They speak their dialect as if it were the only one there is. If they never have to communicate outside their own group, then I guess that's just fine and dandy. But what effect do people who don't communicate outside their own group have on the world? What message does it send to others when you refuse to use, or worse, are unaware of the standard dialect when speaking to people outside of your own group?

[conuly]

Well, for one thing, there's more than one Standard of Spanish. The Spanish they taught us is only useful in a small area. Much better to learn the Spanish that is helpful in the area around us, with the people we're most likely to speak to, or in the areas we're most likely to visit/work (not Spain). If I want to learn where the language came from, I'll study Latin.

What message does it send to others when you refuse to use, or worse, are unaware of the standard dialect when speaking to people outside of your own group?

What message does it send to others when you insist on speaking a fancy dialect instead of the one they use? Most people consider that condescending.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

I can't believe you are saying that standard English is a fancy dialect, and that most people consider it condescending to use it. That is just nonsense, not to mention the fact that you would look and sound like a total idiot changing the way you talk to fit every group and region you happen to find yourself in. Talk about condescending! I'd love to see how well that would go over with "most people."

You know, I'm sure you are a nice person, but I just can't take reading this stuff anymore. It's just too much.

[conuly]

Standard English *is* just another dialect.

I didn't say most people consider it condescending to use it. We were discussing Spanish, remember?

However, I know *from experience* that speaking Standard English to people who do not choose to use that dialect will have people calling you rude, or show-offy, or snotty. It isn't nonsense, it's pure fact.

Most people *do* change the way they tlak to fit in with every group they find themselves in. That's called code-switching. My sister Lizziey is a master at it. She can go from sounding like a valley-girl to speaking Black English to speaking with a Southern accent to speaking like she's from the heart of Brooklyn.

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

I agree, and saw the arguement on mock_the_stupid. However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."
We are taught a few dialects of spanish, Central American, Castillian, and Latin American.
However, they conpletely ignored a whole verb tense because it wasn't used in Central Amerca up until this year. *wft look here*
Using double negatives is a confusing way to speak, as "I don't have no oranges," could mean I don't have any oranges, or I have oranges. Education, once again, is the key.

[conuly]

Do people really interpret double negatives that way? Have you ever heard "I don't have no oranges" and actually believed that the person in question meant to say that they had oranges? Do Spanish, or French, or Russian speakers ever get confused?

However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."

You mean Bush? But, see, there's the thing. Until relatively recently he didn't talk like that. He started talking like that later. Now, we're going to ignore his actual mistakes, like "is our children learning". I don't believe *any* American dialect has that construction. As for the rest of it (al-qaider, nukyuler), it *seems* to be an attempt to "tone down" his language, so he seems like a "down-home" kind of guy, somebody you could invite over to a barbecue, the exact opposite of "a person in power". It's all very deliberate, and conscious, playing off the negative stereotypes associated with Standard English speakers.

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

This is true, however, even if he chooses to speak this way, we should not praise him for his awesome speaking and language ability.
"Fool me once... Shame on............... you... Fool me twice....er.... uhhh... shameee."
You get the picture. And as a spanish speaker, I've never been confused because it is part of the language.
I don't see it: No, no lo veo: No, no I see it
Saying, "No lo veo," though most likely understood, would not be as grammatically correct.
In a way, you can apply this to English, as I understand what one is trying to say with "I don't have no oranges," though it is not grammatically correct. Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.
(I'm still impressed if you don't. It's fun reading what informed people have to say on a given subject.)
(And about Bush? He's not your "average down home kinda guy." He was born into one of the richest families in the USA. I despise his whole dumb act.)

[conuly]

Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.

Oh, it's simple enough. Just move past the grammar guides into the linguistics section. People have analyzed ahem: the invariant use of the verb "be" in AAVE, they've definitely got to have analyzed double negatives in English.

Of course, the people writing accurate grammar books are also not very likely to make value judgments on what they find, so "correct" and "incorrect" won't be mentioned. But at least you'll have accurate information, which is never to be spurned.

As for Bush, yeah, he's still an idiot. But for his most dramatic mistakes, I don't think that's a sign of stupidity. I maintain my statement that it's more likely to be a sign of an actual learning disability. It's definitely an act, though - he grew up and was educated in the north-east.

[innerbrat]

Because "red dog" is a type of dog, and contains a description it's easy to visualise. (I visualise a red setter). there's implications to the word "red" that cover more than colour.
A big red dog is a big variety of the type "red dog".

"Big dog" doesn't have the same status as a "type". It merely implies a large size.

If someone said "red big bird", I at least would visualise a red version of the character Big Bird, because that is what I have been culturally conditionedto assoicate the phrase "big bird" (with or without capitals).

--

"At least that's what I think," said Pooh.
"But I don't suppose I'm right," he said.

[conuly]

Except that if they said "red big bird" with that meaning, they wouldn't use the same intonation. They'd go a rehhhhd BIGbird (exaggerated greatly to make the point) instead of red big bird. Big bird here would be one lexical unit, like black bird or greenhouse. You know the difference between "a big green house" (a house that is painted green) and "a big greenhouse" (a building made of glass for plants) because they're said differently.

[innerbrat]

Hmm. Good point, I guess. OK, you win...

[conuly]

*tosses confetti*

Sorry, I just love to expound on my knowledge. *hugs* Forgive?

[innerbrat]

Forgive you for being right?
You don't need forgiveness for that. :D

*hugs anyway*

as a fellow linguist

[farraige.livejournal.com]

when arguing about 'bad' or 'substandard' grammars, it may be beneficial to specify the approach you're taking. both of us know that to a grammarian, no grammar is ever 'good' or 'bad'; however, certain types of acquired (mainly second-language) grammars may be described as deficient due to lacking of certain operatives/functions.

a lay person's approach is, however, likely to be different, owing to a *general* understanding of the concept of grammar. thus it leads to employing of evaluating terms of 'unprestigious' or 'backward', reflecting on the socio-economic implications irrelevant to a syntactician's research.

before the two opposing viewpoints are established, any argument, I fear, is in danger of being fruitless.

Re: as a fellow linguist

[conuly]

See, I thought I'd done that. Often.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

I was just going to mention to you that on PBS January 5th, at 7pm I think, s a show called "do you speak American?" It looks like it may address this issue, at least in part.

[conuly]

Remind me about it when it comes on, 'k?

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

So, if a non-English speaker was learning English, would you recommend that they learn any particular dialect of English? When English is taught, what dialect should be taught? And why?

[conuly]

I'd want to know why they're learning it, and where they intend to use it.

As an example, I took Spanish in High School. The Spanish that they taught was (apparently) Castilian Spanish. Quite a few of the people in my classes should've taken the Heritage classes but didn't. They spent a significant amount of time complaining that the words and grammar weren't "what we use", that is, what is used by Spanish-speakers in New York.

I'm sure that the State had its reasons for wanting us to learn the more prestigious dialect. However, for anybody wanting to actually use their Spanish in New York, or even in Latin America, what they taught wasn't sufficient.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

If Spanish-speakers in New York don't use standard Spanish, so what? Are you learning Spanish so you can just speak to Spanish speakers in New York, or so you can speak to a broad variety of Spanish speakers? Even if for some reason all you ever wanted to do was talk to Spanish speakers in New York, how could it possibly do anything but help you to learn the source from which their language evolved? I could learn one of the many Neopolitan dialects, but why, when I can speak standard Italian and be able to understand and be understood by people across Italy?

Lots of native speakers of languages don't use or aren't aware of the academic or standard version of their own language. They speak their dialect as if it were the only one there is. If they never have to communicate outside their own group, then I guess that's just fine and dandy. But what effect do people who don't communicate outside their own group have on the world? What message does it send to others when you refuse to use, or worse, are unaware of the standard dialect when speaking to people outside of your own group?

[conuly]

Well, for one thing, there's more than one Standard of Spanish. The Spanish they taught us is only useful in a small area. Much better to learn the Spanish that is helpful in the area around us, with the people we're most likely to speak to, or in the areas we're most likely to visit/work (not Spain). If I want to learn where the language came from, I'll study Latin.

What message does it send to others when you refuse to use, or worse, are unaware of the standard dialect when speaking to people outside of your own group?

What message does it send to others when you insist on speaking a fancy dialect instead of the one they use? Most people consider that condescending.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

I can't believe you are saying that standard English is a fancy dialect, and that most people consider it condescending to use it. That is just nonsense, not to mention the fact that you would look and sound like a total idiot changing the way you talk to fit every group and region you happen to find yourself in. Talk about condescending! I'd love to see how well that would go over with "most people."

You know, I'm sure you are a nice person, but I just can't take reading this stuff anymore. It's just too much.

[conuly]

Standard English *is* just another dialect.

I didn't say most people consider it condescending to use it. We were discussing Spanish, remember?

However, I know *from experience* that speaking Standard English to people who do not choose to use that dialect will have people calling you rude, or show-offy, or snotty. It isn't nonsense, it's pure fact.

Most people *do* change the way they tlak to fit in with every group they find themselves in. That's called code-switching. My sister Lizziey is a master at it. She can go from sounding like a valley-girl to speaking Black English to speaking with a Southern accent to speaking like she's from the heart of Brooklyn.

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

I agree, and saw the arguement on mock_the_stupid. However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."
We are taught a few dialects of spanish, Central American, Castillian, and Latin American.
However, they conpletely ignored a whole verb tense because it wasn't used in Central Amerca up until this year. *wft look here*
Using double negatives is a confusing way to speak, as "I don't have no oranges," could mean I don't have any oranges, or I have oranges. Education, once again, is the key.

[conuly]

Do people really interpret double negatives that way? Have you ever heard "I don't have no oranges" and actually believed that the person in question meant to say that they had oranges? Do Spanish, or French, or Russian speakers ever get confused?

However, the people in power (one in particular) is not exactly... A landmark of "standard english."

You mean Bush? But, see, there's the thing. Until relatively recently he didn't talk like that. He started talking like that later. Now, we're going to ignore his actual mistakes, like "is our children learning". I don't believe *any* American dialect has that construction. As for the rest of it (al-qaider, nukyuler), it *seems* to be an attempt to "tone down" his language, so he seems like a "down-home" kind of guy, somebody you could invite over to a barbecue, the exact opposite of "a person in power". It's all very deliberate, and conscious, playing off the negative stereotypes associated with Standard English speakers.

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

This is true, however, even if he chooses to speak this way, we should not praise him for his awesome speaking and language ability.
"Fool me once... Shame on............... you... Fool me twice....er.... uhhh... shameee."
You get the picture. And as a spanish speaker, I've never been confused because it is part of the language.
I don't see it: No, no lo veo: No, no I see it
Saying, "No lo veo," though most likely understood, would not be as grammatically correct.
In a way, you can apply this to English, as I understand what one is trying to say with "I don't have no oranges," though it is not grammatically correct. Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.
(I'm still impressed if you don't. It's fun reading what informed people have to say on a given subject.)
(And about Bush? He's not your "average down home kinda guy." He was born into one of the richest families in the USA. I despise his whole dumb act.)

[conuly]

Uly, if you can find a single book on English grammar that says that double negatives are an accepted way of expressing oneself, I would be impressed.

Oh, it's simple enough. Just move past the grammar guides into the linguistics section. People have analyzed ahem: the invariant use of the verb "be" in AAVE, they've definitely got to have analyzed double negatives in English.

Of course, the people writing accurate grammar books are also not very likely to make value judgments on what they find, so "correct" and "incorrect" won't be mentioned. But at least you'll have accurate information, which is never to be spurned.

As for Bush, yeah, he's still an idiot. But for his most dramatic mistakes, I don't think that's a sign of stupidity. I maintain my statement that it's more likely to be a sign of an actual learning disability. It's definitely an act, though - he grew up and was educated in the north-east.

[innerbrat]

Because "red dog" is a type of dog, and contains a description it's easy to visualise. (I visualise a red setter). there's implications to the word "red" that cover more than colour.
A big red dog is a big variety of the type "red dog".

"Big dog" doesn't have the same status as a "type". It merely implies a large size.

If someone said "red big bird", I at least would visualise a red version of the character Big Bird, because that is what I have been culturally conditionedto assoicate the phrase "big bird" (with or without capitals).

--

"At least that's what I think," said Pooh.
"But I don't suppose I'm right," he said.

[conuly]

Except that if they said "red big bird" with that meaning, they wouldn't use the same intonation. They'd go a rehhhhd BIGbird (exaggerated greatly to make the point) instead of red big bird. Big bird here would be one lexical unit, like black bird or greenhouse. You know the difference between "a big green house" (a house that is painted green) and "a big greenhouse" (a building made of glass for plants) because they're said differently.

[innerbrat]

Hmm. Good point, I guess. OK, you win...

[conuly]

*tosses confetti*

Sorry, I just love to expound on my knowledge. *hugs* Forgive?

[innerbrat]

Forgive you for being right?
You don't need forgiveness for that. :D

*hugs anyway*