3 ms·
> I don’t think you could name ten pre-1940 films that most Americans have seen Conversely, I don't think I know any Americans who haven't seen The Wizard of O
by ajross 3y ago
> I don’t think you could name ten pre-1940 films that most Americans have seen
Conversely, I don't think I know any Americans who haven't seen The Wizard of Oz (1939). And again with the sole exceptions of superficial idiom and vocabulary (and some really minor pronunciation changes that are as much theater affectation as they are language) there's absolutely no change at all from the stuff you hear from a 15 year old member of the High School class of 2027 (I live with one). Again, I really don't think that's normal historically.
- philwelch 3y agoIf you're going to dismiss dialectical features of old films as "theater affectation", that's also going to work against your thesis that old films and speech recording in general exerts a conservative influence on dialect change, isn't it? And I mean...actually listen closely to these people's accents. You're really going to claim that there's "absolutely no change at all" between them and your teenager? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amclN9RG49c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amclN9RG49c
- simonh 3y agoThey may have seen it, but how much does it influence their day to day language? I think there's an argument audio-visual recordings will promote comprehension of older spoken language forms. I'm sure a lot of modern English speakers have a much better ability to comprehend dialogue in English Circa 1700 due to familiarity with Shakespeare than they would otherwise, but influencing modern usage is a very different thing.