Dialects and Proper Usage

1
Dialects and Proper Usage All but the very
smallest language communities show dialect
variation. Dialect differences involve all
aspects of language syntax, lexicon,
morphology, phonology, etc. 1. Syntax I dont
have any socks. vs. I dont have no socks. vs.
I dont got no socks. I am walking. vs. I be
walking. waiting for Mike vs. waiting on
Mike waiting in line vs. waiting on line
(NYC) I knew he was guilty. vs. I knowed he was
guilty.
2
2. Phonology Listen especially for north of
north wind, warmly, other in stronger than
the other. Any guesses about what region this
speaker might be from? Note north, longer,
stronger, first, warmly, at last. Variety
of English? What region of the U.S. do you
suppose this person is from? Wheres this guy
from? http//www.youtube.com/watch?vvYabr
QrXt4A
3

• 3. Miscellaneous pronunciation differences
• inSURance vs. INsurance
• greasy vs. greazy
• Washington vs. Warshington
• poLICE vs. POlice
• 4. Prosodic differences (melody and rhythm)
• Drawn-out syllables of southern drawl
• Distinctive rising pitch of one (rapidly
  disappearing) variety of New England speech.

4
Standard or Preferred Dialects Standard,
preferred, or prestige dialects emerge from
dialect variation. British English London
dialect, not cockney, Scottish, Irish,
Manchester, etc. American English West/Western
Midwest, not Southern, South Boston, Brooklyn,
BEV, inner city Chicago, etc. Spanish
Barcelona/Madrid, not Mexico, El Salvador,
Guatemala, etc. What is it about the standard
dialects that causes them to be preferred over
the nonstandard forms? Are they preferred for
linguistic reasons i.e., are they more
grammatical?
5
Opinions vary. This is from John Simon (theater
critic, language guru)
Why should we consider some, usually poorly
educated, subcultures notion of the relationship
between sound and meaning? As for I be, you
be, he be, etc., these may indeed be
comprehensible, but they go against all accepted
classical and modern grammars and are the product
not of a language with roots in history but of
ignorance of how language works.
And this The English language is being treated
nowadays exactly as slave traders once handled
the merchandise in their slave ships, or as the
inmates of concentration camps were dealt with by
their Nazi jailers.
6
Yikes! Position is pretty clear SE is preferred
on purely linguistic grounds I am has its
roots in accepted classical grammar I be has
its roots in ignorance.
Another view linguist Dwight Bollinger In
language there are no licensed practitioners, but
the woods are full of midwives, herbalists,
colonic irrigationists, bonesetters, and
general-purpose witch doctors, some abysmally
ignorant whom we shall call shamans read John
Simon and his fellow language mavens ... We are
living in an African village and Albert
Schweitzer has not arrived yet.
7
One more view MIT linguist Stephen Pinker Most
of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens
i.e., shamans make no sense on any level. They
are bits of folklore that originated for
screwball reasons several hundred years ago and
have perpetuated themselves ever since The
rules conform neither to logic nor to tradition
Indeed, most of the ignorant errors these rules
are supposed to correct display an elegant logic
and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical
texture of the language, to which the language
mavens are oblivious.
8
These views could hardly be more different. Whos
right? The language mavens or the
linguists? Short answer the linguists. No doubt
about it. Arguments in a minute, but if we
accept (for the moment) that there are no
linguistic grounds for preferring the standard,
how do standard dialects become preferred? Answer
is very simple standard dialects are those
associated with geographic centers of wealth and
political power. British English Why London and
not Manchester or Liverpool? Spanish Why
Barcelona and not Guatemala or Puerto Rico?
American English Why this broad swath from the
upper Midwest to the west coast and not Brooklyn,
rural Mississippi, south Boston, south-side
Chicago (Sipowitz), East St. Louis, urban
Detroit, rural Appalachia, rural Arkansas?
9
One more wrinkle Its too simplistic to say that
there is a single preferred dialect
cultivated or aristocratic southern speech
patterns are quite well accepted (Trent Lott
Mississippi, Robert Byrd WVa, Sam Nunn
Georgia, etc.). So are some educated NYC
dialects Mario Cuomo, Rudy Guliani. Compare
these 2 southern dialects Neither speech
pattern conforms to General American, and both
are distinctively southern, but which of these
would you suppose is more accepted? Why? So, what
are the common threads among the dialect haves
vs. the have nots? Simple Money, political
power. Are there any counter-examples e.g., a
language in which the standard dialect was
associated not with Madrid but with Honduras or
El Salvador?
10
Is it really true that there are no linguistic
grounds for preferring the standard dialect? I
dont have no twinkies. This one has to be messed
up, doesnt it? Two negatives make a positive!
Its just not logical. It does violence to the
language just like the Nazis. Guess what? Many
languages do this Je ne sais pas.(I do not
know) Yikes ne negates pas negates. Its a
dreaded double negative. Spanish has a very
similar construction. Many languages do. Why not
English?
11
Proper construction is supposed to be I dont
have any twinkies. The any here turns out to
function strictly as a grammatical place holder.
How do we know? Cant be used alone I have any
twinkies. ??? The any here serves a place holder
function in the same way as the it of It is
raining. The no of I dont have no twinkies
fulfills this grammatical function just as well
as any. Last point In the world of grammar,
two negatives do not make a positive. Do these
sentences mean the same thing? He is attractive.
This is good news right? He is not
unattractive. A polite way to say, Hes a
gargoyle.
12
Heres another one Dont split infinitives
(e.g., to go). to boldly go where no man
has gone before boldy has intruded in the
middle of to go. Heres the educated way
to go boldly where no man has gone before Yech.
Any idea where this rule came from? Latin!!!!
dare (to give), docere (to teach), contare (to
sing) Reasoning (?) (1) Latin doesnt split
infinitives, (2) Latin is way cool, (3) English
speakers (if they want to be way cool) shouldnt
split infinitives.
13
This entirely idiotic usage rule is well over
100 years old. It makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever. None. The pinhead who came up with it
managed to convince people to apply a feature of
Latin to English. How was he able to pull this
off? Easy he declared himself to be a language
expert, and readers of his usage manual thought,
ok, hes the expert. Im going to follow this
rule, then people will know that Im way
educated.
14
Because speakers/writers bought this line of
bull, we can no longer say the entirely
reasonable Cecil wants to slowly cut back on his
cigar habit. It has to be the awkward-sounding Ce
cil wants to cut back slowly on his cigar
habit. And how would you fix a sentence like
this? The drop-out rate is expected to more than
double in the next ten years. Two intruders in
middle of the infinitive here Q Where do you
stick the more than without splitting the
infinitive? A Leave it alone. It doesnt need
fixing in the 1st place.
15

• Morals
• The self-appointed language gurus who have
  blessed us with most usage rules almost always
  have a primitive and simplistic understanding of
  English grammar that is quite frequently dead
  wrong. In what other areas can this kind of thing
  happen? Can you walk into an operating room,
  declare yourself to be an expert in surgery, then
  proceed to demonstrate how a spleen should be
  removed? I dont think so, but in the world of
  language use this happens all the time.
• When you set out to solve a problem that doesnt
  exist (in this case, the dreaded split
  infinitive) you are not going to get a good
  result.

16
Dont end a sentence with a preposition. Why not?
Because I said so. uncooth That is something
Ive been thinking about. cooth That is
something about which Ive been thinking. There
is simply no natural rule of English that forbids
ending a sentence with a preposition. How
preposterous is this artificial rule? This is
the kind of English up with which I will not
put. -unknown, often attributed to Churchill
17
How would you fix this one? Tennis is the game
Ive been playing around with. There are two
prepositions at the end. How to fix it? How
about Tennis is the game around with which
Ive been playing. Sound OK? I dont think so.
It could be completely reworded from scratch
but why? Theres nothing wrong with it.
18
NOTE This next example, which has to do a bogus
usage rule involving the word hopefully, is the
single best example that I have. If you
understand this example youll understand what
the whole usage-rule mess is all about. There
isnt anything difficult about it.
19
(Alleged) misuse of the word hopefully
Hopefully may be one of the most abused words
in the English language. Take for example the
sentence Hopefully, the package will
arrive. In this case, hopefully is a dangling
modifier, because the package is not hopeful.
Hopefully describes nothing at all in this
sentence. All of the above is a direct quote
from a website on English usage. (From
http//www.ehow.com/how_2387485_use-hopefully-corr
ectly.html) This analysis is ENTIRELY wrong.
(details soon)
20
Another (alleged) misuse of hopefully
Hopefully, our team will win. Whats wrong? The
usage experts argument hopefully is an adverb,
like carefully, as in Bob read the book
carefully. The Bob sentence is ok because
there is an agent (Bob) who is doing something
(reading) in a careful manner. In Hopefully, our
team will win, the argument goes, there is no
agent doing something in a hopeful manner.
Therefore, hopefully is being abused. It is a
dangling modifier. This does violence to the
language, much in the manner of Nazis and slave
traders.
21
Whats the problem with this usage rule? The
problem is that its completely wrong. The
stupies who came up with this rule were
blissfully unaware that there are two different
kinds of adverbs in English verb-phrase
adverbs Ordinary adverbs that behave exactly
like carefully in Bob read the book carefully.
(This is the only kind you learn about in grade
school, which is as far as the experts
got.) sentence adverbs These apply globally to a
sentence as a whole, not locally to an individual
verb (or verb phrase or adjective).
22
Hopefully in Hopefully, our team will win. is a
sentence adverb, not a verb-phrase adverb. These
are exceedingly common in English Curiously, he
never showed up. (curiously modifies the
following sentence) What is it thats curious?
The fact that he never showed up a sentence.
This explains why they are called sentence
adverbs.
23
Typically, we treat first offenses lightly.
(typically modifies the following
sentence) What is it thats typical? The fact
that we treat first offenses lighly a
sentence. The adverb applies to the sentence as a
unit. (There is a 2nd adverb lightly. What
kind is this, and why?) The word lightly
modifies treat. It is telling the listener the
manner in which treatment occurs. Therefore it is
one of the ordinary adverbs i.e., the
verb-phrase type.
24
Amazingly, there is nothing wrong with this
sentence. (amazingly modifies the
following sentence)
25
Confidentially, John Simon is a hairball.
Q What is being modified by the adverb
confidentially? A Not an individual word or
phrase, but the sentence John Simon is a
hairball the speaker is telling you that
sentence is being uttered in a confidential
manner.
26
Ideally, language experts should actually
understand how adverbs work. Sadly, it is often
the case that they do not. Q What is being
modified by the adverb ideally? A Not an
individual word or phrase, but the sentence
language experts should actually understand how
adverbs work. Q What is being modified by the
adverb sadly? A Not an individual , but the
sentence it is often the case that they do not.
27
Is there anything wrong with any of these
sentences? No Are they different in any way
from hopefully? No Does the jughead who came up
with this rule know what he/she is talking
about? No Why was hopefully picked on and not
candidly, basically, incidentally, predictably,
oddly, supposedly ? No one knows
28
Final Note on Verb-Phrase Adverbs vs. Sentence
adverbs The distinction is based entirely on
what the adverb is modifying either a verb/verb
phrase (thats a verb-phrase adverb) or a
sentence (thats a sentence adverb). You dont
necessarily create a sentence adverb by moving
the word to the beginning of the
sentence. Hurriedly, Sidney put his pants on. He
wasnt sure when Veras husband would be
home. What does hurriedly modify? It tells the
listener the manner in which Ralph put his pants
on. The adverb is at the front, but that doesnt
make it a sentence adverb.
29
Q How did we end up with an idiot rule telling
us that we should not say things like, Hopefully
it wont rain, along with a very large
collection of other nonsensical usage rules like
it? A They were given to us by all kinds of
people over the years who believed themselves to
be language experts. They based their judgments
mainly on bits and pieces of stuff they learned
mostly in grade school and middle school and only
half understood. They wrote usage books and
newspaper columns on language. Once an idea like
the hopefully thing catches on no matter how
stupid it is we are stuck with it indefinitely.
30
The dreaded Sally and me went fishing. There
isnt a single grammar issue that teenagers get
pestered about more than this one. Are any of
the sentences below wrong (based on what usage
experts say)?If so, which one(s)? Frances drove
Mikey and me to the bank. He gave the pizza to
Willard and me. This is just between you and
me. Will you loan Amy and I your hockey stick?
31

• Frances drove Mikey and me to the bank. -- ok
• He gave the pizza to Willard and me. -- ok
• This is just between you and me. -- ok
• Will you loan Amy and I your hockey stick? not
  ok
• Why do the wrong ones sound right and the
  right ones sound wrong?
• Amazingly enough, the usage rule about Frank and
  me went to the game even this one is bogus
  (for an explanation, see Pinkers Grammar Puss on
  my 2040 web page).
• Bogus or not, almost nobody actually learns the
  rule. What most speakers learn is, say X and I
  dont say X and me.

32

• Lets back up here and see if we can figure out
  whats going on. What is the rule about I and
  me?
• The rule
• I is the nominative case nominative subject,
  so it is I went fishing. not Me went fishing.
• Me is the objective case object object, so
  it is Give the bobber to me. not Give the
  bobber to I.
• Pretty simple rule, eh? Kids figure this one out
  while theyre still in short pants.

33
If a five-year old can easily avoid saying, Me
is going to South Haven, how is it that much
older kids and many adults get sucked into
Me and Cosmo are going to South Haven? Its
because, once again, the rule itself is bogus.
The explanation is not a short one. If youre
interested, read Pinkers Grammar Puss, available
on my web page. Even if youre not interested in
the explanation, I recommend Grammar Puss. Its a
short paper, a good read, and fun.
34
What about constructions that seem obviously
wrong? He workin. (nonstandard) He be workin.
(nonstandard) He is working. (standard) Imagine
that we handed these sentences to the worlds
best linguist knows everything about every
language, but does not know any sociolinguistics
i.e., knows nothing about preferred dialects. We
ask the linguistic one question Which of the
forms above is standard and which nonstandard?
35
One last point Is it the case that nonstandard
forms are stripped-down, or simplified versions
of the standard dialect? No. There are
grammatical features in the standard dialect that
can go unmarked in the nonstandard dialect. Just
as often the reverse is true. BEV He
workin. Not the same as He is working.
Specifically means hes working right now. He
be workin. Not the same as He is working.
Refers specifically to a habitual or frequent
activity, as in "He be workin' Tuesdays all
month." A form of aspect is being marked here
that is not observed in SAE. Does that make SAE
impoverished? No, there are other ways to do it,
using words like right now or usually. One more
simple example SAE you for both plural and
singular vs. the nonstandard you vs. yall or
youse.
36
Where does this leave us? The criteria for
preferring standard dialects over nonstandard
dialects are political, social, and
economic. They are not cognitive or
linguistic. Should people in the education
business start advising students to speak and
write any way they please, ignoring the standard
dialect since it is no better than any other
dialect based on linguistic criteria?
37
Attitude change about proper and improper
dialects do not come easily, but they do
sometimes happen. Check out this commentary on
Cockney. Changing attitudes towards Cockney
English The Cockney accent has long been looked
down upon and thought of as inferior by many. In
1909 these attitudes even received an official
recognition thanks to the report of The
Conference on the Teaching of English in London
Elementary Schools issued by the London County
Council, where it is stated that " the Cockney
mode of speech, with its unpleasant twang, is a
modern corruption without legitimate credentials,
and is unworthy of being the speech of any person
in the capital city of the Empire". On the other
hand, however, there started rising at the same
time cries in defence of Cockney as, for example
the following one "The London dialect is really,
especially on the South side of the Thames, a
perfectly legitimate and responsible child of the
old kentish tongue the dialect of London
North of the Thames has been shown to be one of
the many varieties of the Midland or Mercian
dialect, flavoured by the East Anglian variety of
the same speech ". Since then, the Cockney
accent has been more accepted as an alternative
form of the English Language rather than an
"inferior" one in the 1950s the only accent to
be heard on the BBC (except in entertainment
programmes such as Sooty) was RP, whereas
nowadays many different accents, including
Cockney or ones heavily influenced by it, can be
heard on the BBC. In a survey of 2000 people
conducted by Coolbrands in autumn 2008, Cockney
was voted equal fourth coolest accent in Britain
with 7 of the votes, while The Queen's English
was considered the coolest, with 20 of the
votes. Brummie was voted least popular, receiving
just 2. Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co
ckney