English questions

[Travis B.]

Oh, and I sometimes pronounce okay as [ɑˈkʰe̞(ː)].

[Travis B.]

One thing I wonder about from threads like this is how long English will remain a unified language, as my own dialect and Darren's AusE seem to be about as far apart phonologically as, say, Low Saxon and Austro-Bavarian. Take, for instance, the foreign TV I watch with my parents ─ my parents insist on watching it with subtitles even though it is in English. (Yes, I do mock them for this.) And take the fact that the phonologies of my own dialect and AusE are sufficiently far apart that someone who did not already know that they belonged to the same language would be easily forgiven for not recognizing them as such.

Of course, on the other hand, lexically, morphologically, and syntactically present-day English varieties seem to be much closer together than, say, continental West Germanic varieties. However, the lack of impact by lexical differences on crossintelligibility could be chalked up to familiarity, as most educated English-speakers today are familiar with the lexicon used elsewhere even though they do not use it themselves. And the seeming morphological and syntactic homogeneity could be chalked up to the use of a more homogeneous high register rather than true homogeneity throughout the full range of speech. Even within a single variety there are often drastic morphological and syntactic differences between low and high registers.

Yet at the same time there are few signs that English is really going to go the same route as Standard Dutch and Afrikaans. In high registers English remains highly crossintelligible across GenAm, SSBE, GenAus, and GenNZ, even if basilectal varieties vary significantly. Also, most of the more drastic differences in the analyses of these varieties are due to the combination of rhoticism versus non-rhoticism and of diphthongization versus monophthongization, compounded by things such as intrusive 'r' in SSBE, GenAus, and GenNZ and loss of historical phonemic vowel length in GenAm; once these differences are accounted for, they seem much closer together than naive analyses might imply.

[Travis B.]

For those with a contrast between /aɪ/ and /əɪ/, what vowel do you have in iota, iotacism, and coyote? I ask because I notice that while in careful speech I use /aɪ/ in these words, when I am not paying attention to how I speak I often use /əɪ/ in these words. And this is not merely a matter of stress, because I unambiguously have /aɪ/ in words like titanium and hyperbola even though it is unstressed (and in fact it seems to me that in many words where the syllable immediately after PRICE has primary stress I often prefer /aɪ/).

[Nortaneous]

ai: iota, coyote, python, tiger, fire
əi: titanium, hyperbola

[Travis B.]

ai: iota, coyote, python, tiger, fire
əi: titanium, hyperbola

Interesting! That is like a mirror image of my own everyday pronunciation. (For the record, I always have /əɪ/ in python, tiger, and fire.)

[jal]

One thing I wonder about from threads like this is how long English will remain a unified language, as my own dialect and Darren's AusE seem to be about as far apart phonologically as, say, Low Saxon and Austro-Bavarian. (...) Of course, on the other hand, lexically, morphologically, and syntactically present-day English varieties seem to be much closer together than, say, continental West Germanic varieties.

Depends on what you'd call "unified". Clearly two varieties that only differ in phonology can't be said to be two different languages - one needs extensive differences in both syntax and lexicon before you get to "dialects" let alone "languages".


JAL

[Travis B.]

One thing I wonder about from threads like this is how long English will remain a unified language, as my own dialect and Darren's AusE seem to be about as far apart phonologically as, say, Low Saxon and Austro-Bavarian. (...) Of course, on the other hand, lexically, morphologically, and syntactically present-day English varieties seem to be much closer together than, say, continental West Germanic varieties.

Depends on what you'd call "unified". Clearly two varieties that only differ in phonology can't be said to be two different languages - one needs extensive differences in both syntax and lexicon before you get to "dialects" let alone "languages".

To me language-hood is partly crossintelligibility and partly politics, but in the end largely politics. As Max Weinreich famously said, a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot.

Note that I personally would consider accent to be the phonetics and phonology of someone's idiolect, and a dialect to be simply a language variety spoken in a particular place or by a particular group of people as opposed to being a 'stronger' version of an accent. For instance, I would consider Milwaukee dialect and Chicago dialect to be distinct dialects, because they are distinct language varieties spoken in different places, even though the lexical and syntactic differences between the two are rather minimal.

As for language-hood or lack thereof, in the case of NAE and AusE, they are largely crossintelligible, even when you consider people like Steve Irwin, and are considered by their speakers to belong to the same language (the political part). There are definite lexical differences, but most educated English-speakers are aware of the lexical differences between English dialects (after all, an American knows what a flat or a lift is, and an Australian knows what a diaper or gasoline are, even if they may not use those terms as such on an everyday basis). There are also quite a few syntactic differences, ranging from things like the usage of the present perfect versus the simple past, auxiliary verb usage, preposition usage, verb agreement differences, and so on. However, at the present these things do not get in the way of understanding between NAE and AusE-speakers even if they may sound a bit odd to one another.

Contrast this with Norwegian and Swedish ─ they are conventionally considered to be separate languages even though they are largely crossintelligible, and some of their dialects are very close together. At least phonologically, Standard Swedish and Urban East Norwegian seem closer together than General American and General Australian do. Consequently, these essentially are a case of two languages being defined almost entirely in political terms, hence Max Weinreich's aphorism.

However, you also get things in the opposite direction. For instance, it is normal for people to speak of 'German', even though it encompasses a range of dialects that have great amount of internal variation, because it largely shares a single standard variety, even if there are minor national variations upon that standard. Hence German is a language also defined in largely political terms, except that the politics are one of a shared multinational standard language existing in spite of great dialectal variation rather than one of splitting a language along national lines in spite of only relatively limited underlying differences.

[Raphael]

However, you also get things in the opposite direction. For instance, it is normal for people to speak of 'German', even though it encompasses a range of dialects that have great amount of internal variation, because it largely shares a single standard variety, even if there are minor national variations upon that standard. Hence German is a language also defined in largely political terms, except that the politics are one of a shared multinational standard language existing in spite of great dialectal variation rather than one of splitting a language along national lines in spite of only relatively limited underlying differences.

Not to mention Chinese.

[jcb]

For those with a contrast between /aɪ/ and /əɪ/, what vowel do you have in iota, iotacism, and coyote? I ask because I notice that while in careful speech I use /aɪ/ in these words, when I am not paying attention to how I speak I often use /əɪ/ in these words. And this is not merely a matter of stress, because I unambiguously have /aɪ/ in words like titanium and hyperbola even though it is unstressed (and in fact it seems to me that in many words where the syllable immediately after PRICE has primary stress I often prefer /aɪ/).

[ai]: iota, coyote (I think that the following vowel blocks the change.)
both: titanium, fiber (I think the sound change is in progress and hasn't fully changed all words yet.)
[əi] : python, tiger, fire, hyperbola, tight

An observation: Common words are changing to [əi] before uncommon ones are.
[ai]: dire, ("buyer, flyer" are blocked from changing because they're still transparently verb+er.)
both: mire, pyre
[əi]: fire, hire, tire

Note: What you call [ai] and [əi], I'd call [Aj] and [Vj].

[Travis B.]

An observation: Common words are changing to [əi] before uncommon ones are.

This is lexical diffusion in action.

Note: What you call [ai] and [əi], I'd call [Aj] and [Vj].

What I write as [aɪ] and [əɪ] are just generic, relatively dialect-neutral representations because we haven't agreed on formal lexical set names to distinguish these with; e.g. I actually pronounce these [ăĕ̯]~[ae̯] and [ə̆ĕ̯]~[əe̯] respectively myself.

[jal]

Contrast this with Norwegian and Swedish ─ they are conventionally considered to be separate languages even though they are largely crossintelligible, and some of their dialects are very close together.

Of course, there's are dialect continuums across Scandinavia, but so are there across Switzerland, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, so that doesn't mean much.

At least phonologically, Standard Swedish and Urban East Norwegian seem closer together than General American and General Australian do.

Perhaps "seem" to your untrained ear, but my sister, who is an L2 Swedish speaker and teacher who also studied other Scandinavian languages, assures me they are not (not even phonologically, but definitely not grammatically). (Also, there's no such thing as "standard Swedish"; like Norwegian and to a lesser degree Danish, there's not a single standard: everyone just speaks their own accent/dialect.)

Consequently, these essentially are a case of two languages being defined almost entirely in political terms, hence Max Weinreich's aphorism.

Well, since you're wrong, they're not.

However, you also get things in the opposite direction. For instance, it is normal for people to speak of 'German', even though it encompasses a range of dialects that have great amount of internal variation, because it largely shares a single standard variety, even if there are minor national variations upon that standard.

German is a language standard, with national sub-standards, in that respect comparable to English. But there are countless dialects or even languages, of which "people" do not (at least not in Europe, and definitely not in the German-speaking areas) think or speak of as "German", other than "a dialect of German".

A better example of the former would be Serbo-Croat, that's really a single language with dialectical variation, but due to politics Croation, Bosnian and Serbian are seen as seperate languages by their speakers, even though they are fully mutual intelligible in their standard form. And a better example of the latter Chinese, where fully different languages are seen as "Chinese" by many people, even in China itself, if I've been told correctly.


JAL

[Travis B.]

Contrast this with Norwegian and Swedish ─ they are conventionally considered to be separate languages even though they are largely crossintelligible, and some of their dialects are very close together.

Of course, there's are dialect continuums across Scandinavia, but so are there across Switzerland, Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, so that doesn't mean much.

My point was that the reason why German is positioned as a single language while Norwegian and Swedish are not is more political than anything.

At least phonologically, Standard Swedish and Urban East Norwegian seem closer together than General American and General Australian do.

Perhaps "seem" to your untrained ear, but my sister, who is an L2 Swedish speaker and teacher who also studied other Scandinavian languages, assures me they are not (not even phonologically, but definitely not grammatically). (Also, there's no such thing as "standard Swedish"; like Norwegian and to a lesser degree Danish, there's not a single standard: everyone just speaks their own accent/dialect.)

I was not going by how they sound to my ear but rather how their phonological analyses appear when written down when compared to phonological analyses of General American and General Australian. I did not mean to say that they were the same by any means, but rather that there appears to be less distance phonologically between them than between GenAm and GenAus. (Also note that I am specifically speaking of Urban East Norwegian here -- I fully recognize how many Norwegian dialects can be much further from Swedish than it is.)

As for "there's no such thing as 'standard Swedish'", by the same count you could argue that there is no such thing as General American. Yes, there are a variety of prestige Swedish regiolects, just as much as GenAm is a rather nebulous concept when you look at the details.

Consequently, these essentially are a case of two languages being defined almost entirely in political terms, hence Max Weinreich's aphorism.

Well, since you're wrong, they're not.

Sure, there are more differences between Urban East Norwegian and prestige varieties of Swedish than there are between, say, the Neo-Shtokavian varieties standardized as standard Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian, to use your example, but that still does not mean that calling Urban East Norwegian and prestige varieties of Swedish separate languages isn't political.

It would be as if we called GenAm the "American" language and SSBE the "British" language; yes, there are definite differences between the two, especially when you look outside those standard varieties, but they would still comprise languages defined in political terms nonetheless. But the consensus of speakers of Anglic varieties is that they all belong to the same language with the exclusion of Scots and some extinct offshoots of Middle English once spoken in Ireland, which is itself political even though it can be justified in non-political terms on the basis of crossintelligibility.

However, you also get things in the opposite direction. For instance, it is normal for people to speak of 'German', even though it encompasses a
range of dialects that have great amount of internal variation, because it largely shares a single standard variety, even if there are minor national variations upon that standard.

German is a language standard, with national sub-standards, in that respect comparable to English. But there are countless dialects or even languages, of which "people" do not (at least not in Europe, and definitely not in the German-speaking areas) think or speak of as "German", other than "a dialect of German".

So you'd argue that speakers of, say, Alemannic or Austro-Bavarian varieties would think of themselves as not speaking German in the first place but rather as specifically speakers of Alemannisch and Bairisch (or more specifically of the particular variety they speak thereof), with Deutsch being merely a standard variety (cf. Schriftdeutsch)?

A better example of the former would be Serbo-Croat, that's really a single language with dialectical variation, but due to politics Croation, Bosnian and Serbian are seen as seperate languages by their speakers, even though they are fully mutual intelligible in their standard form. And a better example of the latter Chinese, where fully different languages are seen as "Chinese" by many people, even in China itself, if I've been told correctly.

Yes, Serbo-Croatian and Chinese certainly are good examples of this in action undoubtedly.

[jal]

My point was that the reason why German is positioned as a single language while Norwegian and Swedish are not is more political than anything.

I know that's your point, but I disagree with it :).

I was not going by how they sound to my ear but rather how their phonological analyses appear when written down when compared to phonological analyses of General American and General Australian.

Noted, I misunderstood.

As for "there's no such thing as 'standard Swedish'", by the same count you could argue that there is no such thing as General American. Yes, there are a variety of prestige Swedish regiolects, just as much as GenAm is a rather nebulous concept when you look at the details.

True, I wouldn't claim a "standard American". I'm not sure whether linguists (or Swedes) are speaking of a "general Swedish" (my sister's not at hand right now :)).

but that still does not mean that calling Urban East Norwegian and prestige varieties of Swedish separate languages isn't political.

I'd say both the grammar and vocabulary of the languages is different enough to give them language status, especially given Danish' historical influence on Norwegian (rather than any Swedish influence).

So you'd argue that speakers of, say, Alemannic or Austro-Bavarian varieties would think of themselves as not speaking German in the first place but rather as specifically speakers of Alemannisch and Bairisch (or more specifically of the particular variety they speak thereof), with Deutsch being merely a standard variety (cf. Schiftdeutsch)?

Yes, especially Bavarian Germans I know don't call their language "German". "German" is the standard language, Boarisch is the language they speak amongst friends and family. It's the same in the Netherlands btw, "Dutch" is the standard language, but people think of themselves as speaking "Brabantian" or "Limburgish" etc. (for those people that have a dialect - I myself only speak Dutch).


JAL

[Travis B.]

As for "there's no such thing as 'standard Swedish'", by the same count you could argue that there is no such thing as General American. Yes, there are a variety of prestige Swedish regiolects, just as much as GenAm is a rather nebulous concept when you look at the details.

True, I wouldn't claim a "standard American". I'm not sure whether linguists (or Swedes) are speaking of a "general Swedish" (my sister's not at hand right now ).

From doing a bit of reading around, there are multiple distinct prestige Swedish regiolects, like that of Stockholm, that of Gothenburg, that of Malmö, that of Helsinki, etc. This contrasts with GenAm, where the situation is essentially "does it sound vaguely standard to me?" and which covers a wide range of varieties spoken in places ranging from the Lower Midwest to the West to Canada (which don't agree on things such as the cot-caught merger, the Mary-merry-marry merger, the presence or lack thereof of Canadian raising, the exact realization of PALM, etc.).

but that still does not mean that calling Urban East Norwegian and prestige varieties of Swedish separate languages isn't political.

I'd say both the grammar and vocabulary of the languages is different enough to give them language status, especially given Danish' historical influence on Norwegian (rather than any Swedish influence).

However, grammatical and lexical differences do exist between NAE on one hand and EngE, AusE, and NZE on the other hand, and yet no one seriously suggests that they are separate languages just because of these.

So you'd argue that speakers of, say, Alemannic or Austro-Bavarian varieties would think of themselves as not speaking German in the first place but rather as specifically speakers of Alemannisch and Bairisch (or more specifically of the particular variety they speak thereof), with Deutsch being merely a standard variety (cf. Schiftdeutsch)?

Yes, especially Bavarian Germans I know don't call their language "German". "German" is the standard language, Boarisch is the language they speak amongst friends and family. It's the same in the Netherlands btw, "Dutch" is the standard language, but people think of themselves as speaking "Brabantian" or "Limburgish" etc. (for those people that have a dialect - I myself only speak Dutch).

Okay, this is very different from the situation in the English-speaking world. People here consider themselves as speaking 'English' regardless of the particular variety they speak. If you asked me what language I speak I would say 'English', not 'Milwaukee dialect' or like, without thinking twice, even though frankly I don't really speak GenAm even when speaking in a high, formal register.

[jal]

However, grammatical and lexical differences do exist between NAE on one hand and EngE, AusE, and NZE on the other hand, and yet no one seriously suggests that they are separate languages just because of these.

Though I don't speak any Scandinavian languages myself, I bet the grammatical differences between Norse and Swedish are larger than between the standard varieties of various English-speaking countries. If only because of the time they have had to divirge.

Okay, this is very different from the situation in the English-speaking world. People here consider themselves as speaking 'English' regardless of the particular variety they speak. If you asked me what language I speak I would say 'English', not 'Milwaukee dialect' or like, without thinking twice, even though frankly I don't really speak GenAm even when speaking in a high, formal register.

Wouldn't you mean "the English speaking world outside Britain"? Perhaps a native Brit here can chime in, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear people say they speak "Scouse" or "Brummie" or "Geordie" rather than "English" when asked what they speak amongst friends and family.


JAL

[zompist]

However, grammatical and lexical differences do exist between NAE on one hand and EngE, AusE, and NZE on the other hand, and yet no one seriously suggests that they are separate languages just because of these.

Though I don't speak any Scandinavian languages myself, I bet the grammatical differences between Norse and Swedish are larger than between the standard varieties of various English-speaking countries. If only because of the time they have had to divirge.

My understanding is that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes can understand each other quite well. It takes a little effort, but the same could be said about, say, AAVE vs. Irish English.

[Travis B.]

However, grammatical and lexical differences do exist between NAE on one hand and EngE, AusE, and NZE on the other hand, and yet no one seriously suggests that they are separate languages just because of these.

Though I don't speak any Scandinavian languages myself, I bet the grammatical differences between Norse and Swedish are larger than between the standard varieties of various English-speaking countries. If only because of the time they have had to divirge.

My understanding is that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes can understand each other quite well. It takes a little effort, but the same could be said about, say, AAVE vs. Irish English.

As I understand it, Danish is harder to understand for Swedes or Norwegians in a rather one-way fashion due to Danish's infamous 'potato-in-the-mouth' phonology.

[jal]

My understanding is that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes can understand each other quite well. It takes a little effort, but the same could be said about, say, AAVE vs. Irish English.

As I understand it, Danish is harder to understand for Swedes or Norwegians in a rather one-way fashion due to Danish's infamous 'potato-in-the-mouth' phonology.

Basically. Danes have a very obscure pronunciation, the spelling (which is fairly similar to Norwegian/Swedish) is worse than English's with regards to matching pronunciation. However, "quite well" depends a lot on mutual exposure, and the willingness of the speech partner to use known common words and slow down speech.


JAL

[Travis B.]

My understanding is that Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes can understand each other quite well. It takes a little effort, but the same could be said about, say, AAVE vs. Irish English.

As I understand it, Danish is harder to understand for Swedes or Norwegians in a rather one-way fashion due to Danish's infamous 'potato-in-the-mouth' phonology.

Basically. Danes have a very obscure pronunciation, the spelling (which is fairly similar to Norwegian/Swedish) is worse than English's with regards to matching pronunciation. However, "quite well" depends a lot on mutual exposure, and the willingness of the speech partner to use known common words and slow down speech.

Of course, Urban East Norwegian is essentially a Norwegian spelling pronunciation of Danish, so I would expect the lexical differences between Standard Danish and Urban East Norwegian to be smaller than the pronunciation differences.

[Travis B.]

Apparently RP has /ˈpɒlkə/ for polka, which seems really odd to me (I myself have /ˈpoʊkə/ [ˈpʰo̞kə(ː)] here; my analogue to the RP pronunciation would be *[ˈpʰaɯ̯kə(ː)], which feels really strange).