Power in English Dialect Variations

Introduction

Van Gelderen (2014) has stated that no particular Standard meter or gram for defining and measuring and accuracy of English accents could be in existence. The British Standard English (BrSE) is only a variation of the language itself and most of the educated adults in the UK and it countries where, English is prevalent or observed as a major communication tool, could recognise or utilise it. In this context, the corresponding study essay would be delving into certain research based approaches through which better understanding could be developed concerning comparison of three English dialects (BrSE, American Standard English and Australian Standard English) regarding specific issues of power.

A comparison of English dialects concering issues of power

BrSE (Standard English) is mostly different from the other varieties of the language in the format of it being a mostly written variety of English. Fennell (2001) has defined it as lexical and grammatical system which could be considered to be a superposed dialect for the purpose of institutional utilisation which has been socially sanctioned. () have specified that BrSE is primarily associated with utilisation of certain grammatical forms vocabulary and spellings in both verbal and written format. No codified pronunciation format exists for the BrSE since most of the different English accents could be utilise to speak this variation of English. Baugh and Cable (1993) have researched that in terms of the grammatical procedures and conventions, the primarily broad agreement on the rules on utilisation of BrSE formulates a relatively stable comprehension regarding this format of English. As an instance, it is perceived to be a standardised practice of BrSE for the principal verb and subject to agree in any sentence. Some examples are as the following:

1: I fell (not I failed).

2: I have done it (not I have did it).

Cable (2013) has outlined that the utilisation of Split Infinitives in terms of grammatical alteration evolution could be a definitive indication of the development of the practices related to BrSE. This involves the splitting of the infinitive form of any verb. For instance, To go could be turned into To quickly leave. This specificity of change could only be applicable in the aspects of BrSE. Milroy and Milroy (2012) have stated that similarity between the standard format of English, pertaining to BrSE, practiced within the Anglophone countries, does exist to certain extents. However, there are minor differences in terms of grammar along with vocabulary based divergences which could be considered as primary variables in terms of the evolution of regional dialects and accents pertaining to BrSE. For instance, the American and Australian Standard English could accept the transformation of sink into the past tense form as sunk, however, the BrSE has preferred to retain the past tense form of the previously mentioned verb as sank. Similarly, the verb of shrink, has been accepted in the simple past form of shrunk in both the Australian and American English, on the contrary to the BrSE preferred shrank. Another significant aspect of the BrSE from other regional Standardised English has been highlighted by Trudgill and Hannah (2013) in the measure of non-existence of the deletion of different verbal components, for instance, Transitive verbs. In case of South African English (Standard), the omission of Transitive Verbs has become a progressing phenomenon such as You can put in the box. Regarding the social and geographical variations, the BrSE has been transformed through the factor of accent as well. The primary components of such transformations have been Punctuations and Spellings. Though it has been an observed fact that BrSE could be spoken in the entire gamut of regional accents of the UK, a particular accept type known as ‘The Queen’s English’ has been universally recognised to be the most standardised dialect and accent of English by both the UK citizens and by foreigners alike. This format of accent is further known as the Received Pronunciation (RP). Philologically, this accent had developed as the particular accent attributable to those who had been received in society.

Though it has been often perceived that RP is based upon the accents prevalent at Southern England, Britain (2017) has suggested that RP does have an extensive commonality with the dialects of East Midlands. In this context, the stress timing of any word with dual or greater numbers of syllables could be performed in BrSE through the utilisation of the pattern of ‘Ooo’, where the emphasis is placed on the initial segment of the word which has to be stress timed. However, in case of words of medium length such as record and import, the pronunciation could be performed through both the stress pattern of Oo and oO, After the selection of the syllable to be stressed is completed, it could be observed that the main vowel pronunciation in the unstressed syllable changes to the sound of ‘uh’. This is the commonest sound in all of the English dialects and this sound has been named as Schwa which could be further represented through any vowel. The unstressed vowels in both the previously mentioned words are pronounced as Schwa without any regard to the spelling. The following are some additional examples:

Stress on A= Atlas, Candid, Sardine. Stress on E= College, Reveal, Denial. Stress on I= Cousin, Disease, Similar. Stress on O= Anchor, Contain, Gondolas. Stress on U= Lettuce, Support.

The similarity between the American Standard English and British Standard English is extensive in spite of the minor differences in phonology, vocabulary, grammar and spelling. The comparison has been demonstrated in the following table:

In a similar manner, Australian Standard English (AuSE) could be considered as a homogeneous variation of BrSE and regional variations are not forthcoming in this context. The reason has been the fact that the regional and minority variations have been levelled through focus on the similarities between the two dialects. However, some regional variations persist and the Sydneyites could identify the personnel from Perth and Cairns through such variations. Yan and Vaseghi (2003) have pointed out the debate concerning the particular length of /æ/ at Melbourne and regarding the phonemic opposition in between the /æ/ and /æː/. Reed and Levis (2019) have further outlined that the non-rhoticity feature of contemporary AuSE is not a subject to variability. In this context, the description of rhoticity is essential since this is the point of difference in between the two linguistic traditions specifically. The distinction between the two varieties of English is as the following:

1: In case of non-rhotic varieties, /r/ is not realised ever while it could not be in the onset of any syllable. The examples are Car, Cart and Party while the exceptions are Rat, Carry, Flowering and Train.

2: In case of rhotic varieties, /r/ could be realised while it would be at the onset and at the coda of any syllable. Such non-rhotic varieties are mostly distinguished from the rhotic varieties of AuSE in the manner that /r/ could be pronounced while a word could end with an etymological and then it could be followed by any word which could commence with a vowel. This format is known as a linking r.

Example: The car is standing on the parking station. This is a speciality of the nonstandard English of AuSE and in rohotic varieties, such as in the BrSE, this phenomenon does not exist since /r/ is primarily pronounced in the coda position.

Carley, Mees and Collins (2017) have highlighted that in the book Class, Codes and Control, Basil Bernstein had specified that special forms of socio-cultural relationships are initiated, generalised and then reinforced by the different forms of spoken languages for the individuals who could be associated with such processes. The relationships are mostly related to the surrounding and social environments. Such forms of relationships formulate particular significances for such individuals. This has been explained by Katamba (2015) to be the utilisation of language could have particular impacts upon specific societal classes regarding assigning of social significance and meaning to the context of the voiced languages. The language codes provide the people practicing such languages with their place in society through the virtue of association and perceptive significance. The social identity of any person could be symbolised by the language code which such a person could put into practice. The language codes are two in number which could be identified as Restricted code and Elaborated code. Freeborn (1998) has been off the opinion that the Restricted code does not indicate any form of restricted vocabulary and the Elaborated code, in a similar manner, does not stand for eloquence of language. The particular distinction has been outlined by Milroy (2002) to be the suitability of context of the language. In situations where the shared and effortlessly accessible information could be available for the speaker groups, the Restricted code could be of greater significance than that of the Elaborated code since this code could covey extensive meaning through frugal utilisation of words. The frugality of number of words is meant to highlight a complex extent of different connotations which does operate as an index to point the listener towards multiplicity of unvoiced context and meaning. The speakers have to utilise the background information and knowledge within the Restricted code to apply their shared understanding about the context of the speech. The outcome is the fostering of inclusivity and belonging to particular ethnological units or identities. The intimately knit ethnic lineages demonstrate the utilisation of the Restricted code. In a converse manner, the span of the Elaborated code is infinitely greater so as to foster greater understanding regarding the context. The Elaborated code in the BrSE precludes any attempt on part of the speakers to condense the meaning and this becomes an effective element in terms of shared communications in situations which do not require any shared understanding or knowledge and explanation becomes the rhetoric device through which the communication could take place. Thus, fostering of international communication between speakers based on diverging ethnic and cultural as well as linguistic backgrounds could be effected profitably through the application of the Restricted code. This could be highlighted as the factor which has enabled BrSE to become the lingua franca of the digital commercial world based on the fluidity and flexibility of the rhetorical devices.

According to Upton (2015), the prevalent social and economic relationships between the various population sections within any specific place and time as well as the accompanying ideological predispositions are the primary influents which shape the social conditions through which the acceptance and utilisation of British Standard English have been historically developed. The concept of a standardised pronunciation in the UK had been a historical testament of the notions which defined BrSE concepts. The issues of power in this context, could be contemplated from the historical perspective of early and mid-Victorian England. This era bore witness to the emergence of industrial and urbanised working classes and the hitherto rural dialect experienced revalorisation in the forms of class dialects with particular emphasis becoming concentrated on the discourse of class which further signified the social formation which could not be defined or determined by ethnic lineages or birth relations.

Conclusion

The preceding study has emphasised on the defining of the influence of British Standard English as sources of socio-political and cultural power and the experiences of the historical processes of impacts imparted by such power sources on the evolution and development of socio-linguistic perspectives. Furthermore, the link between linguistic versatility and social mobility has been explored through the Sociolinguistic Theory of Bernstein. The study essay has included the reflection of personal history of language development and the analysis of principle influences emanating from peer groups and various other external sources.

Reference List

Algeo, J., 2006. British or American English?: a handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge University Press.

Britain, D., 2017. Beyond the “gentry aesthetic”: elites, Received Pronunciation and the dialectological gaze. Social semiotics, 27(3), pp.288-298.

Cable, T., 2013. A Companion to Baugh and Cable's A History of the English Language. Routledge.

Fennell, B.A., 2001. A history of English: A sociolinguistic approach (p. 148154). Oxford: Blackwell.

Freeborn, D., 1998. From Old English to Standard English: A course book in language variation across time. University of Ottawa Press.

Helt, M., 2001. A multi-dimensional comparison of British and American spoken English. Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies, pp.171-184.

Milroy, J. and Milroy, L., 2012. Authority in language: Investigating standard English. Routledge.

Milroy, L., 2002. Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the United States. In Standard English (pp. 185-218). Routledge.

Upton, C. and Kretzschmar Jr, W.A., 2017. The Routledge dictionary of pronunciation for Current English. Routledge.

Van Gelderen, E., 2014. A history of the English language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Yan, Q. and Vaseghi, S., 2003, April. Analysis, modelling and synthesis of formants of British, American and Australian accents. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings.(ICASSP'03). (Vol. 1, pp. I-I). IEEE.