3 ms·

> Even if you cannot understand it, it remains the same language. Language is defined by the syntax rules and vocabulary, not the exact way those are pronounced

> Even if you cannot understand it, it remains the same language. Language is defined by the syntax rules and vocabulary, not the exact way those are pronounced (which can vary even between the same dialect). Syntax rules like "no double negatives" or vocabulary like "fleek" and "pneumococcal" and "dreich"? All of that is English, and I can point to dialects of English that have each and dialects of English that don't have each. > There are still majorities and minorities, and the first define what's "standard". Where? In the neighborhood I grew up in, the majority uses double negatives. In the UK "colour" is the majority way to spell "color". If you want to argue that the majority determines the standards, then the standards are contextual, because different segments of the population are the majority in different contexts.

tptacek 10y ago
I agree with you, but I think the word "standard" gets deployed for lack of any better term. Maybe "Mainstream American English" would be more precise, but it's clunkier, too.
- devishard 10y ago
  I think we use the term "Standard" because it accurately describes the fact that it is a standard enforced by a lot of institutions. Failure to comply with this standard is punished in a lot of ways. To be clear, I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm merely describing what exists.
pluma 10y ago
Technically speaking there is no standard version of any language, outside artificial standards like those defined by the Academie Francaise for French. There certainly aren't any speakers of the standard version. Technically every person has a so-called idiolect, which has a shared subset with what you would call the standard language but both includes vocabulary (and likely grammar) that is non-standard and also excludes some vocabulary (and again likely grammar) that is standard. Just like a statistical average it's incredibly unlikely (and sometimes even possible) any one person matches that standard. The notion is only really useful when talking about groups -- as is the entire concept of a "language" (or even dialects). The entire notion of whether something is "correct" or "incorrect" ultimately depends on mutual intelligibility and whether some authority (even supposedly "descriptivist" authorities like dictionaries effectively act as authorities) acknowledges it or not. "Language" is a lot like "species". It's a useful concept at scale but it brakes down when you try to talk about relations between individuals and if you try to define the borders too clearly it becomes apparent that it's all just a leaky abstraction to make sense of the far too complicated mess you are trying to reason about.
- devishard 10y ago
  I don't disagree that everyone has their own idiolect, but I don't think that's generally the most relevant attribute of the way someone speaks at the given moment. I think the group within which they are speaking has a much greater impact; i.e. the dialect I speak with my friends from high school is very different from the dialect I speak in a job interview for an academic software job. Sure, there are some words or structures I use more often that are unique to me, but the differences based on the context of my speech are way larger.

tptacek 10y ago

I agree with you, but I think the word "standard" gets deployed for lack of any better term. Maybe "Mainstream American English" would be more precise, but it's clunkier, too.

devishard 10y ago
I think we use the term "Standard" because it accurately describes the fact that it is a standard enforced by a lot of institutions. Failure to comply with this standard is punished in a lot of ways. To be clear, I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm merely describing what exists.

pluma 10y ago

Technically speaking there is no standard version of any language, outside artificial standards like those defined by the Academie Francaise for French. There certainly aren't any speakers of the standard version. Technically every person has a so-called idiolect, which has a shared subset with what you would call the standard language but both includes vocabulary (and likely grammar) that is non-standard and also excludes some vocabulary (and again likely grammar) that is standard. Just like a statistical average it's incredibly unlikely (and sometimes even possible) any one person matches that standard. The notion is only really useful when talking about groups -- as is the entire concept of a "language" (or even dialects). The entire notion of whether something is "correct" or "incorrect" ultimately depends on mutual intelligibility and whether some authority (even supposedly "descriptivist" authorities like dictionaries effectively act as authorities) acknowledges it or not. "Language" is a lot like "species". It's a useful concept at scale but it brakes down when you try to talk about relations between individuals and if you try to define the borders too clearly it becomes apparent that it's all just a leaky abstraction to make sense of the far too complicated mess you are trying to reason about.

devishard 10y ago
I don't disagree that everyone has their own idiolect, but I don't think that's generally the most relevant attribute of the way someone speaks at the given moment. I think the group within which they are speaking has a much greater impact; i.e. the dialect I speak with my friends from high school is very different from the dialect I speak in a job interview for an academic software job. Sure, there are some words or structures I use more often that are unique to me, but the differences based on the context of my speech are way larger.