posted
Belle: I echo my earlier recommendation of The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, with a detail: he shows a transcript of Black English, and shows how it has its own rules, as closely adhered to by the speaker as Standard English rules are adhered to be its speakers (moreso, perhaps).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My own personal take has been strongly influenced by a study of historical linguistics (ongoing) over the last 8 months.
Specifically, while proper pronunciation facilitates communication and thus can be encouraged, the fact is this is exactly how languages form.
Proto-IndoEuropean->Proto-Germanic->West Germanic->Anglic->Old English->Middle English->Modern English: British English, North American English (American and Canadian), Australian English, South African English, South Asian English
And the fact is that all language changes (in all languages) follow regular change patterns. A few examples from AAVE:
Metathesis: transposing of letters. ask>aks: as in, 'Let me aks you this.' Similarly happened in Latin>Western Romance>Spanish: Fabulare>Palabra (note the l and b are transposed. F>P is common) but Fabulare>Hablar (with the f changing to H)
sandi: changes at word boundaries. 'Gi[ve] me fi[ve] dollars,' where the five is pronounced 'fi' and 'give me' is 'gi-mee' (fairly normal even outside AAVE). Normally, all the letters are pronounced (albeit slightly differently.)
haplology: loss of a syllable. Probably>Probly>(and by elision, 'prolly')
There are many others that are discussed here (for simplicity's sake, anyway, not as a final reference.)
I've been trying to classify this AAVE change using the rules, but haven't succeeded yet. Seems regular enough:
Strength>stremf Best I can see, we have a alveolar labial nasal (n) that is replaced with a bilabial nasal (m) and a voiceless dental fricative (th) being replaced with a voiceless labial-dental frictative (f).
This actually illustrates the way languages change, however. A child (or non-native speaker, for that matter) hears a sound (allophone) and attempts to imitate it's most prominant characteristics. Thus, the most notable features of strength are "str" "ə" "n" "th", where the 'g' is almost silent, turning the 'n' into an "ŋ" (the 'ng' in 'sing') for some careful speakers of the language. But many people lose the subtle 'ŋ'. Next, most notable feature of the 'n' is that it is a nasal, and is similar to the 'm'. Thus a person casually listening and not watching the lips can easily substiture the 'm' for 'n'. Same with 'th' to 'f'. My thoughts on the matter, anyway.
Point being, this is exactly how dialects and then languages form. In 400 AD, the Old German spoken in what is now Britain and Germany where exactly the same. But it only took a few hundred years for them to differentiate drastically (factoring in the heavy layer of Greek and Latin from the Clergy/written works, Danish/Viking influence from their conquest of Northern England in the 800s, and the Norman Invasion in 1066 adding a heavy overlay of French to social and legal society), losing nearly all verb and noun inflection.
EDIT TO ADD: alot of this is talked about (including th>f) here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English
I can't prove it, but I think that we also have rules (not innate ones, but cultural ones) for what sounds funny, stupid, sophisticated, whatever.
quote:ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
Would this be as funny in the reverse? Or in French? My attempt with Spanish:
quote: !ADVERTENSIA! !TODOS LOS ESPECTADORES! El computer no es por poking con los fingeros y grabbing con los manos. Es facil por snapa los springs, blowa las fuses y make cosas pop con las sparques. No es para usar by los idiots. Rubberneckados sight-seers: mantene los manos que pick la coton en sus pockets; relaxe y las luzes blinqueria, enjoya.
Note, especially under American and Canadian Dialects, for the real differences that we hear everyday.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How many people even pronounce the whole word "can" when they say "can I?" I'm waiting for "c'I" to become a recognized contraction.
I've honestly never heard that-- I've always heard "can" pronounced. Now, sometimes it all runs together, like "kinnaye", but it's there.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IanO: Strength>stremf Best I can see, we have a alveolar labial nasal (n) that is replaced with a bilabial nasal (m) and a voiceless dental fricative (th) being replaced with a voiceless labial-dental frictative (f).
Actually, /n/ is simply an alveolar nasal, not alveolar labial (which makes no sense), and in the word 'strength' the nasal is velar (/ə/), not alveolar.
quote:This actually illustrates the way languages change, however. A child (or non-native speaker, for that matter) hears a sound (allophone) and attempts to imitate it's most prominant characteristics. Thus, the most notable features of strength are "str" "ə" "n" "th", where the 'g' is almost silent, turning the 'n' into an "ŋ" (the 'ng' in 'sing') for some careful speakers of the language. But many people lose the subtle 'ŋ'. Next, most notable feature of the 'n' is that it is a nasal, and is similar to the 'm'. Thus a person casually listening and not watching the lips can easily substiture the 'm' for 'n'. Same with 'th' to 'f'. My thoughts on the matter, anyway.
What's really going on in AAVE is that the voiceless interdental fricative has merged (at least partially) with the voiceless labiodental fricative (/θ/ > /f/). The preceding nasal then assimilates its place of articulation.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my editing, I forgot to take out the alveolar in alveolar labial (I had mistyped the wrong term, meaning to type alveolar nasal.)
Thanks for the correction.
And that explanation is really quite cool. Thanks. I was going for more of a social explanation of why the one sound was being modified (WHY the sound was changed), though (which is a huge discussion in itself). But the mechanism in your explanation makes sense.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I think if you could figure out why a certain sound changed in a certain why at a certain time, you would receive the Nobel Prize in Linguistics.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How many people even pronounce the whole word "can" when they say "can I?" I'm waiting for "c'I" to become a recognized contraction.
I've honestly never heard that-- I've always heard "can" pronounced. Now, sometimes it all runs together, like "kinnaye", but it's there.
Hmm. Maybe it's a Chicago thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I was basing it on what I had read in Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. You'll note that I implied that it was a huge and debatable subject and stated that it was just my opinion. But Fortsen presented the argument (probably from others) that the way we internalize pronounciation and grammer play's a major role in sound changes. The example of strength>stremf (especially given those particular phoneme changes) actually made sense to me in that context. So I was giving my opinion of one example between American English and AAVE because it harmonized with that explanation and was simple enough for me to work out. My opinion, as I said.
All in all, a very fascinating subject. I'm in the middle of 4 textbooks on the subject (a personal project), as well as the related subject of Indo-European Poetics (Watkins). Have only been in it for about 8 months, but am enjoying it immensely.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
