I thought today's class was extremely interesting, particularly the discussion of the differences we found between our accents. For the most part, the accent quiz was accurate in pinpointing our accents, and I think that with a few additions it might have been improved, as we discussed. One possible addition to the quiz that I thought of afterward was the difference in pronunciation of the word "aunt," which I personally pronounce so the "au" rhymes with the "a" in father. Also, instead of just asking about "fill" and "feel," it might have helped to ask about "full" and "fool" which to me sound different, but to some people in my dorm are pronounced the same.
I noticed in the more detailed language dialect map that many major urban areas have their own particular dialects, some famous (such as Boston or New York) and others less so (Bay Area Urban). I think this makes sense, given the high concentration of people from different backgrounds in one place interacting all the time, that a new hybrid dialect might appear and develop independently of the surrounding areas. I also noticed a similar effect in mountain areas, with the Smoky, Appalachian, Ozark, and Rocky Mountain ranges all having their own distinct way of speaking; this makes sense too given the geographic isolation of these places and the lack of significant mixing with people from other areas (this same effect is true for the Georgia and Carolina shore islands with Gullah). We noticed in class that the borders of the Southern and Midland areas are changing, expanding, and I think this is natural too given the migration of people and the population patterns -- the Midwest and South are growing, while some areas of the Inland North are even declining in population as their people seek economic opportunities elsewhere. This migration would bring with it linguistic changes, a blurring of boundaries, as seen in the map.
Lastly, I'd like to comment on the IPA alphabet and how cool I thought it was. It's always been confusing for me to try and explain what a sound is using just the English alphabet, especially when I have to explain something from Hindi (which I am learning) to a non-Hindi speaker. Hindi is completely phonetic, so a letter is pronounced a certain way, or, at most, two ways; it's nice to see an international system that I can apply to sounds in Hindi, English and Spanish and any other language. At first it looks strange, but I began to get the hang of it after a while. I definitely did not understand some of the subtleties between the letters (particularly between velar and uvular) but after feeling that certain sounds in foreign languages are just beyond me, it's amazing that just using the placement of your tongue and shape of your mouth you can indeed make any sound, for any language, as long as you know how to do it precisely. I find it a little hard to believe that every single sound in every language is mapped by that chart, and I'm sure that some subtle variations might exist between two categories (as with vowels), but for the most part it seems like a great tool for linguists but also for people learning languages to help with pronunciation.
I'm looking forward to working with Praat and seeing how different sounds actually look on the spectrograph, and learning how to differentiate between them visually as opposed to just aurally.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
What's Most Important to Understanding Language
I think that vocabulary and syntax are the most important in understanding language. Sounds do play a key role, but they are easier to become accustomed to if they differ from what one normally hears. This is why someone with a different accent, meaning that their pronunciation differs, is eventually easily understood by the people around them after a period of adjustment.
On the other hand, if vocabulary differs, the entire meaning of certain phrases is lost. For example, when a drinking fountain is referred to as a "bubbler," (in Wisconsin, for example) there is little likelihood that someone from outside the community would instinctively understand. There is a large potential for miscommunication in these cases, and the differences in vocabulary can be quite significant over just a short geographic distance. Furthermore, most people are extremely surprised to hear of a different word for something they have called by a particular word for their entire lives; the instinct is to characterize it as "weird" because our own vocabulary is so integral to the way we speak.
Syntax too matters a lot. The way we put sentences together is largely predetermined, with a standard set-up in English that is not often changed. Syntax does not vary as much geographically, as vocabulary can, but it often varies based on social class or education. While certain flexibility exists, a radical change in syntax is usually associated with a specific dialect and can occasionally carry stigma. Using different syntax can be considered "uneducated" or "lower class," and while this is not a fair judgment, it is a common one in today's society. Unlike other European languages, there is no central institute that mandates correct syntax and vocabulary for English, which allows for greater flexibility in theory, but social stigma and certain problems of understanding mean that there is a certain rigidity that must be adhered to if we want to understand each other.
Although sounds are easy to adjust to, it's much more difficult to adjust to different ways of speaking, that is, the vocabulary and syntax. Without standard vocabulary and syntax, the problems of understanding are far deeper than merely not understanding how someone is saying something. This is why I believe that these two aspects are the more important for language than sounds.
On the other hand, if vocabulary differs, the entire meaning of certain phrases is lost. For example, when a drinking fountain is referred to as a "bubbler," (in Wisconsin, for example) there is little likelihood that someone from outside the community would instinctively understand. There is a large potential for miscommunication in these cases, and the differences in vocabulary can be quite significant over just a short geographic distance. Furthermore, most people are extremely surprised to hear of a different word for something they have called by a particular word for their entire lives; the instinct is to characterize it as "weird" because our own vocabulary is so integral to the way we speak.
Syntax too matters a lot. The way we put sentences together is largely predetermined, with a standard set-up in English that is not often changed. Syntax does not vary as much geographically, as vocabulary can, but it often varies based on social class or education. While certain flexibility exists, a radical change in syntax is usually associated with a specific dialect and can occasionally carry stigma. Using different syntax can be considered "uneducated" or "lower class," and while this is not a fair judgment, it is a common one in today's society. Unlike other European languages, there is no central institute that mandates correct syntax and vocabulary for English, which allows for greater flexibility in theory, but social stigma and certain problems of understanding mean that there is a certain rigidity that must be adhered to if we want to understand each other.
Although sounds are easy to adjust to, it's much more difficult to adjust to different ways of speaking, that is, the vocabulary and syntax. Without standard vocabulary and syntax, the problems of understanding are far deeper than merely not understanding how someone is saying something. This is why I believe that these two aspects are the more important for language than sounds.
Monday, September 22, 2008
My Dialect
So I took the quiz, and I found out that I have a "Midland" accent, meaning that I'm supposedly from the area around Pennsylvania, southern Illinois, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and Missouri, but I might also be from any large Southern city, meaning that my accent is pretty nondescript. Apparently I would have a good voice for TV since it's not particularly regional.
This makes sense to me because I have moved around a lot, attending international American schools, and I have been surrounded by people with all types of American and non-American dialects in English which has prevented me from developing one particular accent. I also lived four years in Wisconsin during my middle school years (when my accent might still have been developing), which might explain the more Midwestern tilt of my accent. My next-closest matches were Boston and the Northeast, which is interesting to me because I have not spent very much time there at all, though I have friends from those places.
I thought it was interesting, the questions that were asked. They all centered around vowel sounds, particularly "o" and "a", which suggests to me that differences in accents are based primarily on these vowels. I thought it was also interesting that some of the answers were "sounds very similar but just a little bit different" which fit, at least for me, for quite a few of the answers. Perhaps that only slight differentiation led to my result of a nondescript accent, since I didn't have any really distinct ways of saying anything. For some of the other choices (Mary, merry, marry, for example) I had fun pronouncing the words the different ways -- that seemed pretty alien to me -- after I'd chosen my own selection.
This was an interesting test because it simplified a topic that must have many variables and various subtleties into just a few simple questions to determine accent. As such it's not completely accurate, but it's cool the way that accents can be determined, and I hadn't realized how many different ones there are (Boston as opposed to Northeast, North Central vs. Philly, etc.). I'll be on the lookout for the differences between some of these from now on.
-Mitul
(Linguistics 5N)
This makes sense to me because I have moved around a lot, attending international American schools, and I have been surrounded by people with all types of American and non-American dialects in English which has prevented me from developing one particular accent. I also lived four years in Wisconsin during my middle school years (when my accent might still have been developing), which might explain the more Midwestern tilt of my accent. My next-closest matches were Boston and the Northeast, which is interesting to me because I have not spent very much time there at all, though I have friends from those places.
I thought it was interesting, the questions that were asked. They all centered around vowel sounds, particularly "o" and "a", which suggests to me that differences in accents are based primarily on these vowels. I thought it was also interesting that some of the answers were "sounds very similar but just a little bit different" which fit, at least for me, for quite a few of the answers. Perhaps that only slight differentiation led to my result of a nondescript accent, since I didn't have any really distinct ways of saying anything. For some of the other choices (Mary, merry, marry, for example) I had fun pronouncing the words the different ways -- that seemed pretty alien to me -- after I'd chosen my own selection.
This was an interesting test because it simplified a topic that must have many variables and various subtleties into just a few simple questions to determine accent. As such it's not completely accurate, but it's cool the way that accents can be determined, and I hadn't realized how many different ones there are (Boston as opposed to Northeast, North Central vs. Philly, etc.). I'll be on the lookout for the differences between some of these from now on.
-Mitul
(Linguistics 5N)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)