eye dialect

[Dennis R. Preston]

>I think it is not at all transparent. It means something like "The
>use of spellings which create the impression of a "dialect"
>(variation in language) when, in fact, no such variation exists in
>the spoken language." In short, it is "dialect for the eye (not the
>ear)."

I'm pretty sure that when compounds get as loaded as that, they are
hardly transparent, although, it may be that the polysemy of
"dialect" contributes more to the opacity than the compounding.

dInIs (who likes to say 'opacity')





>At 07:54 PM 3/25/2001 -0500, Dennis Preston wrote:
>
>>>I use 'dialect' very broadly (to cover social and stylistic levels).
>>>I think I'm not alone. For me, thereefore, since 'gonna' reflects an
>>>actual pronunciation difference (however badly), it is not
>>>'eye-dialect.'
>>>
>Is "eye dialect" a transparent compound? Or is it so only to some
>extent but not fully a transparent one? Does "dialect" in "eye
>dialect" have the same meaning as "dialect" in "English dialects?"
>
>Sali.
>
>
>*********************************************************************
>Salikoko S. Mufwene                   s-mufwene at uchicago.edu
>University of Chicago        773-702-8531; FAX 773-834-0924
>Department of Linguistics
>1010 East 59th Street
>Chicago, IL 60637
>http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/linguistics/faculty/mufwene.html
>**********************************************************************

--
Dennis R. Preston
Department of Linguistics and Languages
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
preston at pilot.msu.edu
Office: (517)353-0740
Fax: (517)432-2736
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/attachments/20010326/16745e3f/attachment.htm>