LL-L: "Language contacts" LOWLANDS-L, 27.FEB.2001 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 27.FEB.2001 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
 =======================================================================

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language contacts"

> From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language contacts" LOWLANDS-L, 25.FEB.2001 (02) [E]
>
> At 17:00 25/02/01 -0800, Sandy Fleming wrote:
>
> >Anyway, this is why language isn't transmitted through a passive
> >medium like TV. If it were, then surely British women of all ages
> >would be speaking a mixture of Cockney, Manky and Scouse by now?
> >Linguistic maps show language change occurring along trunk roads
> >and railways, hence cities taking up on the permanent changes
> >more quickly than country areas.
>
> It would be good if Sandy was right about this, but I have my doubts,
> and I'm not the only one. If Sandy is right, then minority language
> campaigners in many places are labouring under a massive
> misunderstanding. Some people have fought long and hard to get
> a decent TV service, in some cases (such as with Welsh, for
> example) threatening to starve themselves to death unless their
> demands were met. If it's true that language isn't transmitted (I
> do like the pun) through TV, then any such sacrifice would have been
> for nothing.

Not at all. Bear in mind that what I said above was in
response to the idea that centralised TV was changing
the speech of people in other areas. This is what I'm
saying isn't true.

On the other hand, as I've said before when discussing
Welsh TV, television in the local language does cause
people to assign higher status to their own language
and does give them an opportunity to improve it if they
so wish. It's still all to do with what I was saying -
people only change their way of speaking if they have
motivation.

> I've been waiting for any British women here to comment on the
> implication that they only watch those programmes where "Cockney,
> Manky and Scouse" are used (for anyone who doesn't know, the
> programmes concerned are soap operas) but perhaps there aren't any

I never said that anybody watched only these programmes.
But it's easily enough observed that even the most avid
fans of Coronation Street &c don't, in the long term, pick
up anything in their own speech that would suggest that
they did watch those programmes.

> among our readers. That aside, I think it's reasonable to say that the
> dominant form of language on TV is what is often called "BBC
> English", and I also don't think anyone can reasonably doubt that
> this is the direction towards which language in the UK has been moving
> at least since TV started in the middle of the last century.

I do doubt it, if you mean to say that this language is
picked up from television. My father watches the news and
many other topical programmes every day, for example, and
still has considerable difficulty talking anything other
than his native Scots. In fact the dominance of standard
English arises from its use in the education system and
from migration.

For example, the death of Scots in Glasgow in the early
20th century was a result of an immigrant English and
Irish workforce, not television. Glasgow was heavily
anglicised long before the widespread availability of
TV in Scotland.

Again, Scots speakers who wilfully use English in the
midst of other Scots speakers are normally conscious of
their professional standing, eg nurses, teachers,
managers &c and the fact that this is how they're
expected to speak in work. It's certainly not from a
desire to sound like a BBC newsreader!

> From: Pat Reynolds [pat at caerlas.demon.co.uk]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language contacts" LOWLANDS-L, 25.FEB.2001 (02) [E]
>
> Possibly not counting as a 'significant' change, a study in Milton
> Keynes (Bucks) about ten years ago (I think) found that young people
> were speaking what you'ld expect - except they'd got a few Australian
> vowel sounds, picked up from soaps.

I've heard of this particular study, but as I said, this
does happen with young people. I don't think this study
tells us anything useful about language change because it
doesn't establish whether this sort of change is lasting
or, like dudespeak in England, just a fad.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

==================================END===================================
  You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
  request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
  as message text from the same account to
  <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
  * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
  * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
  * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
  * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
    to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
    <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
  * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
    type of format, in your submissions
=======================================================================