(archaism) in dialect B. Sometimes a separate innovation occurs in each of
the two dialects. Of course, different innovations will appear in different
dialects, so that, in comparison with its contemporaries, no one dialect as
a whole can be considered archaic in any absolute sense. A dialect may be
characterized as relatively archaic, because it shows fewer innovations
than the others; or it may be archaic in one feature only”. (№9, p.415)
After the appearance of a dialectal feature, interaction between
speakers who have adopted this feature and those who have not leads to the
expansion of its area or even to its disappearance. In a single social
milieu (generally the inhabitants of the same locality, generation and
social class), the chance of the complete adoption or rejection of a new
dialectal feature is very great; the intense contact and consciousness of
membership within the social group fosters such uniformity. When several
age groups or social strata live within the same locality and especially
when people speaking the same language live in separate communities
dialectal differences are easily maintained.
“The element of mutual contact plays a large role in the maintenance
of speech patterns; that is why differences between geographically distant
dialects are normally greater than those between dialects of neighbouring
settlements. This also explains why bundles of isoglosses so often form
along major natural barriers - impassable mountain ranges, deserts,
uninhabited marshes or forests, or wide rivers - or along political
borders. Similarly, racial or religious differences contribute to
linguistic differentiation because contact between members of one faith or
race and those of another within the same area is very often much more
superficial and less frequent than contact between members of the same
racial or religious group. An especially powerful influence is the
relatively infrequent occurrence of intemarriages, thus preventing
dialectal mixture at the point where it is most effective; namely, in the
mother tongue learned by the child at home”. (№9, p.417)
The fact that speech, in particular, can give such a clear answer to
the question “Where are you from?” exercises a peculiar fascination, and
the terms dialect and accent are a normal part of everyday vocabulary. We
can notice regional differences in the way people talk, laugh at dialect
jokes, enjoy dialect literature and folklore and appreciate the point of
dialect parodies.
At the same time - and this is the paradox of dialect study - we can
easily make critical judgements about ways of speaking which we perceive as
alien. These attitudes are usually subconscious.
The study of regional linguistic variation is very important. The more
we know about regional variation and change in the use of English, the more
we will come to appreciate the individuality of each of the varieties which
we call dialects, and the less we are likely to adopt demeaning stereotypes
about people from other parts of the country.
As for the United Kingdom until 1700 the small population was sparsely
distributed and largely rural and agricultural, much as it had been in
medieval times. From the mid-18th century, scientific and technological
innovations created the first modern industrial state, while, at the same
time, agriculture was undergoing technical and tenurial changes and
revolutionary improvements in transport made easier the movement of
materials and people. As a result, by the first decade of the 19th century,
a previously mainly rural population had been largely replaced by a nation
made up of industrial workers and town dwellers.
The rural exodus was a long process. The breakdown of communal farming
started before the 14th century; and subsequently enclosures advanced
steadily, especially after 1740, until a century later open fields had
virtually disappeared from the landscape. Many of the landless agricultural
labourers so displaced were attracted to the better opportunities for
employment and the higher wage levels existing in the growing industries;
their movements, together with those of the surplus population produced by
the contemporary rapid rise in the birth rate, resulted in a high volume of
internal migration that took the form of a movement toward the towns.
Industry, as well as the urban centres that inevitably grew up around
it, was increasingly located near the coalfields, while the railway
network, which grew rapidly after 1830, enhanced the commercial importance
of many towns. The migration of people especially young people, from the
country to industrialized towns took place at an unprecedented rate in the
early railway age, and such movements were relatively confined
geographically.
Soon after World War I, new interregional migrations flow commenced
when the formerly booming 19th-century industrial and mining districts lost
much of their economic momentum. Declining or stagnating heavy industry in
Clydeside, northeastern England, South Wales, and parts of Lancashire and
Yorkshire swelled the ranks of the unemployed, and the consequent outward
migration became the drift to the relatively more prosperous Midlands and
southern England. This movement of people continued until it was arrested
by the relatively full employment conditions that obtained soon after the
outbreak of World War II.
In the 1950-s, opportunities for employment in the United Kingdom
improved with government sponsored diversification of industry, and this
did much to reduce the magnitude of the prewar drift to the south. The
decline of certain northern industries - coal mining shipbuilding, and
cotton textiles in particular - had nevertheless reached a critical level
by the late 1960s, and the emergence of new growth points in the West
Midlands and southwestern England made the drift to the south a continuing
feature of British economic life. Subsequently, the area of most rapid
growth shifted to East Anglia, the South West, and the East Midlands. This
particular spatial emphasis resulted from the deliberately planned movement
of people to the New Towns in order to relieve the congestion around
London.
4. Unifying influences on dialects.
Communication lines such as roads (if they are at least several
centuries old), river valleys, or seacoasts often have a unifying
influence. Also important urban centres often form the hub of a circular
region in which the same dialect is spoken. In such areas the prestige
dialect of the city has obviously expanded. As a general rule, those
dialects, or at least certain dialectal features, with greater social
prestige tend to replace those that are valued lower on the social scale.
In times of less frequent contact between populations, dialectal
differences increase, in periods, of greater contact, they diminish. Mass
literacy, schools, increased mobility of populations, and mass
communications all contribute to this tendency.
Mass migrations may also contribute to the formation of a more or less
uniform dialect over broad geographic areas. Either the resulting dialect
is that of the original homeland of a particular migrating population or it
is a dialect mixture formed by the levelling of differences among migrants
from more than one homeland. The degree of dialectal differentiation
depends to a great extent on the length of time a certain population has
remained in a certain place.
5. Focal, relic, and transitional areas.
Dialectologists often distinguish between focal areas - which provide
sources of numerous important innovations and usually coincide with centres
of lively economic or cultural activity - and relic areas - places toward
which such innovations are spreading but have not usually arrived. (Relic
areas also have their own innovations, which, however, usually extend over
a smaller geographical area.)
“Relic areas or relic phenomena are particularly common in out-of-the-
way regional pockets or along the periphery of a particular language’s
geographical territory.
The borders of regional dialects often contain transitional areas that
share some features with one neighbour and some with the other. Such
mixtures result from unequal diffusion of innovations from both sides.
Similar unequal diffusion in mixed dialects in any region also may be a
consequence of population mixture created by migrations”. (№9, p.420)
6. Received Pronunciation.
“The abbreviation RP (Received Pronunciation) denotes the speech of
educated people living in London and the southeast of England and of other
people elsewhere who speak in this way. If the qualifier ‘educated’ be
assumed, RP is then a regional (geographical) dialect, as contrasted with
London Cockney, which is a class (social) dialect. RP is not intrinsically
superior to other varieties of English; it is itself only one particular
regional dialect that has, through the accidents of history, achieved more
extensive use than others. Although acquiring its unique status without the
aid of any established authority, it may have been fostered by the public
schools (Winchester, Eton, Harrow and so on) and the ancient universities
(Oxford and Cambridge). Other varieties of English are well preserved in
spite of the levelling influences of film, television, and radio”. (№8,
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
