Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[jal]

How did the Chancery Standard (the basis for modern Standard English) come into being? Was it based on some specific dialect, spoken in a specific region?

According to Wikipedia:

The Chancery Standard of written English emerged c. 1430 in official documents that, since the Norman Conquest, had normally been written in French. Like Chaucer's work, this new standard was based on the East Midlands-influenced speech of London. Clerks using this standard were usually familiar with French and Latin, influencing the forms they chose. The Chancery Standard, which was adopted slowly, was used in England by bureaucrats for most official purposes, excluding those of the Church and legalities, which used Latin and Law French respectively.

The Chancery Standard's influence on later forms of written English is disputed, but it did undoubtedly provide the core around which Early Modern English formed. Early Modern English emerged with the help of William Caxton's printing press, developed during the 1470s. The press stabilized English through a push towards standardization, led by Chancery Standard enthusiast and writer Richard Pynson. Early Modern English began in the 1540s after the printing and wide distribution of the English Bible and Prayer Book, which made the new standard of English publicly recognizable and lasted until about 1650.

JAL

[keenir]

*snip very cool stuff*

That actually very nicely explains something I came across in my bookreadings: that, had London been a few miles in a particular direction {I don't remember which, sorry}, then we Anglophones would be saying shoen instead of shoes.

[Travis B.]

I have noticed that at least here /l/-coloring manifests itself in part as blocking vowel fronting, as seen below:

too: [ˈtʲʷʰy(ː)]
tool: [ˈtʲʷʰu(ː)ʊ̯]
toe: [ˈtʰɵ̞(ː)]
toll: [ˈtʰo̞(ː)ʊ̯]

[bradrn]

I have noticed that at least here /l/-coloring manifests itself in part as blocking vowel fronting, as seen below:

too: [ˈtʲʷʰy(ː)]
tool: [ˈtʲʷʰu(ː)ʊ̯]
toe: [ˈtʰɵ̞(ː)]
toll: [ˈtʰo̞(ː)ʊ̯]

I have this too (though obviously the precise phonetics are different). But I tend to interpret it as, not blocking of vowel fronting, but rather a simple matter of backing before [u~ɯ].

[Travis B.]

I have noticed that at least here /l/-coloring manifests itself in part as blocking vowel fronting, as seen below:

too: [ˈtʲʷʰy(ː)]
tool: [ˈtʲʷʰu(ː)ʊ̯]
toe: [ˈtʰɵ̞(ː)]
toll: [ˈtʰo̞(ː)ʊ̯]

I have this too (though obviously the precise phonetics are different). But I tend to interpret it as, not blocking of vowel fronting, but rather a simple matter of backing before [u~ɯ].

The reason why I call this blocking rather than backing is that normally my /u/, /ʊ/, and /o/ are back vowels, and are only fronted or, in the case of /o/, centralized after coronals or palatals. This is a more conservative feature, compared to, say, my daughter's speech where she generally realizes all three of those as somewhat centralized by default much of the time, even though she still fronts them more after coronals and palatals.

[Travis B.]

I again got a barista (I'm no sure if this was the same barista even though it was at the same coffee shop -- in both cases it was over an intercom) who did not understand my order for an Arnold Palmer. This time, after I repeated my order, my order was made... except I was made a cold brew coffee, which I specifically did not order!

[keenir]

I again got a barista (I'm no sure if this was the same barista even though it was at the same coffee shop -- in both cases it was over an intercom) who did not understand my order for an Arnold Palmer. This time, after I repeated my order, my order was made... except I was made a cold brew coffee, which I specifically did not order!

I fear that, next time, you may have to ask the barista to repeat your order back to you.

[jal]

I fear that, next time, you may have to ask the barista to repeat your order back to you.

Or be less stubborn and just use GenAm when ordering


JAL

[Travis B.]

I fear that, next time, you may have to ask the barista to repeat your order back to you.

Or be less stubborn and just use GenAm when ordering

That's what I did the time before (not with GA proper but with a locally-accented version of GA rather than full-on dialect). This time I had figured I was understood because the person didn't go "huh?" after I repeated myself...

Anyways, the only real cases where I speak (accented) GA are over the phone (by habit), by extension when I am on any kind of non-phone video or audio call, or when I explicitly have not been understood a couple times or so. I am kind of proud of speaking dialect everywhere I can, to be honest. (It is your own fault for not understanding Milwaukee dialect )

I feel like it is unfortunate that many people elsewhere think that they must speak a standard variety, which is why we have things like traditional English English dialects, Low German, Oïl languages, Occitan, Italian languages other than Standard Italian, traditional Scandinavian dialects (outside of Norwegian dialects, which apparently are holding on better), Sinitic languages other than Mandarin and Cantonese, traditional East Slavic varieties outside of Standard Russian and Ukrainian, and so on dying out, and that is not counting cases of plain old language loss not involving replacement of one variety by a related, but more standard, variety (e.g. the dying out of Irish and Scottish Gaelic varieties, countless languages throughout the Americas, and so on).

[jal]

I am kind of proud of speaking dialect everywhere I can, to be honest. (It is your own fault for not understanding Milwaukee dialect

I'm all for it

I feel like it is unfortunate that many people elsewhere think that they must speak a standard variety, which is why we have things like traditional English English dialects, Low German, Oïl languages, Occitan, Italian languages other than Standard Italian, traditional Scandinavian dialects (outside of Norwegian dialects, which apparently are holding on better), Sinitic languages other than Mandarin and Cantonese, traditional East Slavic varieties outside of Standard Russian and Ukrainian, and so on dying out

I think you're lumping a lot together here, and also accents like Milwaukee (would you call it a dialect? is the grammar and/or vocab that different from the standard?) are relatively new, as opposed to all your other examples that are of very old varieties.

As for the lumping: loss of English dialectical variation is the "standard" form of dialectical loss, seen everywhere in Europe (and perhaps also other parts of the world), where due to the school system and media (traditionally radio and tv, nowadays social media) young people copy the more standard variation, not bothering with the intricacies of their local dialect (though still keeping a, in some cases very strong, accent). I think the same goes for Low German, although aiui, it's like what happens with Belgian Dutch, i.e. a standard sub-standard variety (i.e. it's a local standard that deviates from the national standard) is surfacing that is an amalgam of the various local dialects. With Oïl languages and Occitan it's totally different: they were actively suppressed by the French govenment, that wanted a single French to rule them all. Not entirely sure about the Italian situation, but afaik that's akin to the situation in Britain, though also afaik some local dialects are still going strong there. As for Scandinavia, not sure about the situation in Denmark, but afaik the situation in Sweden is comparable to that in Norway, probably because both do not have a national standard, and even on television there's no pressure to conform to a certain way of speaking. In China, I very much doubt "dialects" are going anywhere, with 100s of millions of native speakers of non-Mandarin and non-Cantonese languages like Wu or Hokkien (in all their varieties).


JAL

[hwhatting]

Re Low German: What you have in Germany are regiolects. The South is different, but in the North they are not based on the old dialects, but on the Standard, they only take over some features from the dialects, like intonation / accent, and some regional words. People normally don't feel constrained from speaking their regiolect, except in very formal situations like speeches, but it's different with the dialects - in the North, they are dying, and mostly spoken by people in their 50s and older, besides a small number of younger enthusiasts, and they're mostly only used with in-groups like family, local friends, and neighbors. And German dialects are very different from each other and the standard; their differentiation started over a millennium ago, so non-neighboring dialects are not mutually comprehensible and most dialects are not mutually comprehensible with the Standard.

[jal]

Re Low German

Thanks for the addition/correction!


JAL

[Travis B.]

I think you're lumping a lot together here, and also accents like Milwaukee (would you call it a dialect? is the grammar and/or vocab that different from the standard?) are relatively new, as opposed to all your other examples that are of very old varieties.

The main differences between Milwaukee dialect and General American are morphophonological, which are significant, but there are a limited number of notable vocabulary differences (like the classic "bubbler", the use of "soda" where most other Midwestern varieties have "pop", the use of "ja" (yes, just as in German) as an affirmative). The morphophonological differences are not just purely how the same phonemes are realized, as they also significantly affect the forms of many common morphemes beyond pure phonology. Conversely, though, the underlying core grammar of Milwaukee dialect and GA are essentially the same. (If having a distinct grammar is necessary to call something a "dialect" the Milwaukee dialect is an "accent", but for the reasons I mention below I consider there as being a distinction between Milwaukee "dialect" and "accent".)

Note that I perceive a clear distinction between Milwaukee dialect and speaking GA with a Milwaukee accent. For instance, when I am speaking carefully I am speaking GA with a Milwaukee accent. (I practically never speak "pure" GA, which I find very unnatural and quite difficult.) The biggest difference is the morphology, where with GA with a Milwaukee accent is essentially just taking GA phonemes and directly mapping Milwaukee realizations onto them, without the underlying Milwaukee morphophonology. (Note, though, that when speaking GA with a Milwaukee accent my speech is often mildly hypercorrect, e.g. I often realize intervocalic post-tonic /nt/ as [nt] rather than as [ɾ̃] as a native GA-speaker would.)

For this reason I would differentiate "Milwaukee dialect" and "Milwaukee accent", and I would emphasize that I speak both of them.

[Travis B.]

Re Low German: What you have in Germany are regiolects. The South is different, but in the North they are not based on the old dialects, but on the Standard, they only take over some features from the dialects, like intonation / accent, and some regional words. People normally don't feel constrained from speaking their regiolect, except in very formal situations like speeches, but it's different with the dialects - in the North, they are dying, and mostly spoken by people in their 50s and older, besides a small number of younger enthusiasts, and they're mostly only used with in-groups like family, local friends, and neighbors. And German dialects are very different from each other and the standard; their differentiation started over a millennium ago, so non-neighboring dialects are not mutually comprehensible and most dialects are not mutually comprehensible with the Standard.

I find stuff like that to be sad, and at least find it encouraging that the old dialects are surviving better in the South.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Is there a set date when English language became well, English instead of being just Proto West Germanic?

[Travis B.]

Is there a set date when English language became well, English instead of being just Proto West Germanic?

You do know there is no good answer for that.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Is there a set date when English language became well, English instead of being just Proto West Germanic?

You do know there is no good answer for that.

Now I know, thanks

Wiki lists 600 AD as the beginning of Old English period though.

[Zju]

Right, begining of the Old English period, not language.

It's not like the ol' Angles went to bed one night speaking Proto-Germanic and woke up the next morning speaking Old English. "English", "Old English" and "Proto-Germanic" are all labels we arbitrarily tack on a smooth continuum of vernaculars spoken through space and time.
Really the only non arbitrary distinction might be the distinction of attested vs. unattested languages, but even then the distinction could get hairy.

[Travis B.]

Right, begining of the Old English period, not language.

It's not like the ol' Angles went to bed one night speaking Proto-Germanic and woke up the next morning speaking Old English. "English", "Old English" and "Proto-Germanic" are all labels we arbitrarily tack on a smooth continuum of vernaculars spoken through space and time.
Really the only non arbitrary distinction might be the distinction of attested vs. unattested languages, but even then the distinction could get hairy.

Exactly. And in this case there are no convenient historical events that we can firmly peg a transition in our periodization to (such as how 1066 is used as a demarcation between Old and Middle English).

[WeepingElf]

Right, begining of the Old English period, not language.

It's not like the ol' Angles went to bed one night speaking Proto-Germanic and woke up the next morning speaking Old English. "English", "Old English" and "Proto-Germanic" are all labels we arbitrarily tack on a smooth continuum of vernaculars spoken through space and time.
Really the only non arbitrary distinction might be the distinction of attested vs. unattested languages, but even then the distinction could get hairy.

Exactly. And in this case there are no convenient historical events that we can firmly peg a transition in our periodization to (such as how 1066 is used as a demarcation between Old and Middle English).

Well, Old English began to diverge from Old Saxon when the Anglo-Saxons colonized Britain, but the languages still were very similar to the point of mutual intelligibility as late as about 800 BC, when the Church sent Anglo-Saxon missionaries to the Saxons of mainland Europe. Why did they send missionaries, of all places, from England? Because they spoke pretty much the same language!