Re: accents
From: Iain (iain_inkster_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/29/05
- Next message: Kornelis: "meaning of capitalization and italic in phonetc transcription"
- Previous message: phippsmartin_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Teaching by Translation: a cousin"
- In reply to: Nathan Sanders: "Re: accents"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: accents"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: accents"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Mar 2005 02:45:16 -0800
Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article <1112030431.171308.136470@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nathan Sanders wrote:
> > > In article
<1112027505.098189.119190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not talking about language change, but accent specifically.
If
> > > > language never changed, nor everything we normally associate
with
> > > > bringing about accent change such as internal migration,
> > immigration,
> > > > differing media standards, social restructuring, etc, etc, to
what
> > > > extent would accent change?
> > >
> > > None at all.
> > >
> > > Accent is a component of lannguauge, and if the language doesn't
> > > change, then no piece of it changes, and thus, accent wouldn't
> > > change.
> >
> > Maybe I lack the vocabulary -- but consider then that the sound of
> > phonemes can differ in two different areas, whilst their identity
can
> > be shared. The set of phoneme identities is what I mean by
"language"
> > and their sounds and emphases is what I mean by "accent".
>
> Ah, I see what you're asking now. If you define the language only as
> the set of phonemes, then yes, it's possible for the accent (the
> pronunciation) to change without the language itself (the phonemes)
> changing, and yes, such accent change can happen spontaneously,
> without any external impetus at all.
>
> However, linguists traditionally define languages not only by their
> abstract underlying properties (phonemes, lexicon), but also by their
> measurable surface properties (pronunciation, word order).
How would a traditional linguist view the role of text in all this? I
always disagreed with people who merely see written English as a lo-fi
misrepresentation of spoken English. To a somewhat deaf person like
myself, who once could hear and whose inner monologue is maybe
fading(although it's hard to tell), written English is a visual
language with no warts and a logical correspondance with meaning.
Although language is an innately vocal instinct, wouldn't you say these
intincts have been successfully transferred to the much more hi-fi and
design friendly world of text, and that it is having a prescriptive
effect upon the spoken word, such as the reappearence of the /t/ in
"often" coinciding with increased literacy? Isn't text the real medium
for standardisation? Cannot spoken English be construed as a lo-fi
misrepresentation of text?
Will the word "byte" (an acronym) ever change in pronunciation other
than accent(accent being what I defined above)? If not, isn't that
evidence for my above point? What about "aids"?
~Iain
- Next message: Kornelis: "meaning of capitalization and italic in phonetc transcription"
- Previous message: phippsmartin_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Teaching by Translation: a cousin"
- In reply to: Nathan Sanders: "Re: accents"
- Next in thread: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: accents"
- Reply: Ruud Harmsen: "Re: accents"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|