|
| |
|
Sponsor |  kurt37 | Jul 4, 2005 3:02pm | | Bad grammar or dialect? |
|
| 
Sponsor | |
| 
Sponsor | | Thlayli | Jul 6, 2005 10:45am | | Dialect. Speakers can identity proper or improper usage. |
|
| 
|  andygavin | Nov 16, 2005 6:57am | What's to say it's bad, I thought modern linguistics was about the description not the prescription of language. From a language point of view might be quite valid; it might be frowned on culturally though. For example creole is considered a language: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_Creole [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_Creole] some though would frown in a victorian type of way and say it's improper. Linguistically though it has it's own grammar, and is describably as a different language.
Linguistically Ebonics may be a different language with a shared lexicon, there is evidence that it only takes a generation for dialect (if it is such) to form a grammar (if the grammar is indeed different from english).
Some linguists, I heard at least, have a tendancy to see changes of grammar within our own langauges as more like sub-languages; for example you might speak differently when you are doing buisness, to when you are out with friends. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | stillwatersca | Nov 17, 2005 2:35pm | There's no such thing as bad grammar (unless you're a non-native speaker making mistakes and being misunderstood). Try saying something in AAVE but with a few words changed to an AAVE-speaker, and see if they go, "You're saying it all wrong!"
Yes, it's a dialect that has its own distinct grammar. |
|
|
| | andygavin | Nov 21, 2005 4:52am | I suppose there is a question of how do you recognise incompetence versus idiolect.
Perhaps it's consistency? Did chomsky cover how you distinguish between the two? |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Linguistics A-go-go → Discussion