Dialect Enmity
“With no standard language to act as a control, Middle English illustrates an age when all dialects were equal… There was no hint of a prescriptive attitude. People wrote differently and spoke differently… but they did not write or speak wrongly.”
- Crystal, 215
“For a glorious 300 years, people could write as they wanted to, and nobody could say they were wrong.”
- Crystal, 194
I find this idea fascinating: a period in English history when no dialects carried the baggage of “rustic or humorous associations.” To me, it seems almost inherent to the concept of a dialect that it carry connotations of the speaker’s personality or intelligence; in England we think the Northerners sound stupid when they talk, and in the US we think the Southerners sound stupid when they talk. I can understand why Crystal glorifies the idea of a time when no such connotations existed, although I suspect that the real story is more complicated.
The social perception of dialects has become something of a focus in my study of linguistics. This last summer I received a grant to travel to Germany to study the social perceptions of German dialects in five major cities. My thesis will hopefully involve a similar study concerning Standard English and Southern English in my hometown of Austin, Texas.
The study in Germany was interesting because I found that people did not hold very strong prejudices towards other regional dialects. Germany has a standard, and people did tell me that they generally thought of speakers of Standard German as educated, polite, and refined. And people often held opinions about other dialects (this dialect sounds provincial, this dialect sounds rude, this dialect is used by stupid people who call in to talk shows, this dialect is used by the sort of hicks who still wear lederhosen in this day and age, etc.). But there was rarely agreement even within the same region, and the opinions were never very emphatic, in contrast with the situation in English. (Those of you have lived or studied in Germany/Europe, I would be interested to hear whether you agree with these assertions)
I imagine that the situation in the Middle English period was even milder that in present-day Germany. Lacking the presence of a standard, language attitudes would have been more diffuse and more directed towards the cultural differences of the speaker (as opposed to the inability to speak “correctly”). But they would have still engendered enmity and prejudice. In fact, Crystal himself attributes that quote,Â
“All the speech of the Northumbrians, and especially at York, is so harsh, piercing, and grating, and formless, that we Southern men can hardly understand such speech” (Crystal 216)Â
to a borrowing from a Latin writer, written as early as 1125.
 ~ Luke
sean wrote:
You’re noting something really interesting here about Crystal. Knowledgeable though he is, he could be overselling the point a bit about ME being a dialect utopia. Although it’s true there was no received pronunciation (RP) as there is today, it doesn’t mean that dialect did not have associations of class, education and power attached to it. It may be that the idea of a society where dialect and accent were not such prominent markers of class (as they have been in Britain for centuries) is inherently appealing, too appealing not to imagine.
Posted 21 Feb 2008 at 2:16 pm ¶
K_eng wrote:
Crystal did discuss the subtle clash between the Northern and Southern dialects to some extent, but the difference between the two probably did not carry as heavy of a socio-political connotation until later. As was noted in Freeborn, by the 14th century, the dialect which emerged triumphant as the “recommended” dialect was Southern. This was because, as Freeborn put it, the Southern dialect was what was used by the educated in , “the centre of government, trade and commerce”(Freeborn 235).
You noted in class that in the case of Germany, where you did your research, that the standard was a conglomeration, a kind of compromise, between dialects rather than a dialect that stemmed from a particular region. I think that this probably has a lot to do with why dialects besides the standard are treated with some amount of disdain in places like England, where the language of prestige came from the place of power.
As for the case of America, because we owe the origins of our language to the British who originally settled in the Northeastern parts of the United States. Consequently because it was dominated by the oldest and most wealthy families in the nation and became the center of power, we definitely see a preference for the dialect of English used in the East as being the standard even now.
Posted 23 Feb 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶
Judith wrote:
I also agree with what everyone has been saying. I’m think that the “dialectic democracy” is a tad overstated. I’m not sure that complete equality among dialects could ever exist, because these speech patterns will always indicate different regions (or class, or education) by their very definition. While class-based dialects might not have been as apparent in Middle English, dialects would still reflect speakers’ different geographic locations. And because people can discriminate and stereotype certain groups based on their location alone (class aside) it might not be necessary in ME for there to be an upper-class dialect for prejudices to exist.
However, in the new Freeborn readings which deal with the developing English standard, I wonder how an actual “superior” language would develop. It makes sense that this super-dialect would emerge in London, as a cultural and economic center, but it seems as if there was much variation there as well. I guess I just wonder how the specific decisions were made as to “correct” language and who had the final say when dialectic variation was so extentive even within regions?
Posted 25 Feb 2008 at 11:54 pm ¶