Who speaks better English, a rich man in London originally named Charlie Battenberg or a left-handed guitar player from a Liverpool slum with an Irish background?
You decide.
The point is, one dialect is no better linguistically than any other dialect. One manner of speaking differs from another just as the language as spoken in Liverpool or Brooklyn differs.
But to say one is "better" than another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Compare the London dialect to that in Dublin or Glasgow. Or Boston and New Orleans. Or Memphis and Los Angeles. Or Manitoba and the island of Jamaica. Or Australia and New Zealand.
With each of these regions there are social dialects, based on people's status in society, their gender, their family traditions and other factors.
One can also compare Spanish as spoken in Madrid or Barcelona, Cuba or Mexico. The Castilian dialect is considered "better" because it was spoken by Queen Isabella in the 15th Century.
Or compare French as spoken in Paris or Montreal.
Or Dutch as spoken in Amsterdam or in South Africa, where it's known as Afrikaans.
Which is "better"?
The answer is that all or equal, linguistically. They all enable people to communicate. The only thing that specifies one as "superior" to another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
However, speakers of some dialects believe that because their social status is higher, therefore their manner of speaking is "better," and it follows that they are better people.
Compare that with the American Constitution, which states that we are all created equal. Our financial or social status does not matter.
Sadly, many people do not accept that, either.
As for the two people mentioned in the first paragraph, one became king of Great Britain, known as Charles, and the other became world famous as Paul McCartney.
Each speaks a different dialect. Does that make one "better" than the other?
You decide.
The point is, one dialect is no better linguistically than any other dialect. One manner of speaking differs from another just as the language as spoken in Liverpool or Brooklyn differs.
But to say one is "better" than another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
Compare the London dialect to that in Dublin or Glasgow. Or Boston and New Orleans. Or Memphis and Los Angeles. Or Manitoba and the island of Jamaica. Or Australia and New Zealand.
With each of these regions there are social dialects, based on people's status in society, their gender, their family traditions and other factors.
One can also compare Spanish as spoken in Madrid or Barcelona, Cuba or Mexico. The Castilian dialect is considered "better" because it was spoken by Queen Isabella in the 15th Century.
Or compare French as spoken in Paris or Montreal.
Or Dutch as spoken in Amsterdam or in South Africa, where it's known as Afrikaans.
Which is "better"?
The answer is that all or equal, linguistically. They all enable people to communicate. The only thing that specifies one as "superior" to another is a social judgment, not linguistic.
However, speakers of some dialects believe that because their social status is higher, therefore their manner of speaking is "better," and it follows that they are better people.
Compare that with the American Constitution, which states that we are all created equal. Our financial or social status does not matter.
Sadly, many people do not accept that, either.
As for the two people mentioned in the first paragraph, one became king of Great Britain, known as Charles, and the other became world famous as Paul McCartney.
Each speaks a different dialect. Does that make one "better" than the other?
No comments:
Post a Comment