Misplaced Pages

Diasystem: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:46, 8 March 2012 editDale Chock (talk | contribs)1,004 editsm Supply missing word.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:29, 20 November 2023 edit undoOAbot (talk | contribs)Bots441,761 editsm Open access bot: doi updated in citation with #oabot. 
(70 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|System for contrasting related languages or dialects}}
In ], the term '''diasystem''' now denotes multiple related dialects.{{sfn|Weinreich|Labov|Herzog|1968|loc=section 3.2.1}} It is thus a generic term, in the way that ']' is a generic term and 'English', 'Chinese', 'French' are the names of particular languages. Some scholars use "related" in a far broader sense than other scholars.{{efn|"The term 'diasystem' stands for the complete set of varieties (diachronic as well as diatopic-synchronic) supposed to derive from one ancestor."{{sfn|De Schutter|2010|p=73}}}}


In the field of ], a '''diasystem''' or '''polylectal grammar'''{{efn|Although referentially synonymous, each term can carry different theoretical assumptions; {{Harvcoltxt|Wolfram|1982|p=3}} also lists ''overall pattern''}} is a linguistic analysis set up to encode or represent a range of related{{efn|Some scholars use "related" in a far broader sense than others. For example, {{Harvcoltxt|De Schutter|2010|p=73}} applies ''diasystem'' to "the complete set of varieties (diachronic as well as diatopic-synchronic) supposed to derive from one ancestor."}} ] in a way that displays their structural differences.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trask|1996|p=112}}</ref><ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Crystal|2011}}</ref>
The term "diasystem" originally had a different meaning. It was coined by linguist and dialectologist ] in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in theorizing aimed at exploring how to extend advances in ] theory (which in that period was ]) to ]. The basic issue was to explain ] across dialects. In his vision, a particular phenomenon of dialectal divergence would be explained by constructing a "diasystem" which is "a system of a higher level out of the discrete and homogeneous systems that are derived from description".{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=390}} "System" here has the sense as in ] linguistic philosophy, and the scope of a "system" could be the entire grammar or a portion of it (e.g., the inventory of ] ]s). A diasystem being a higher order system, its component units of analysis would accordingly be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. For example, just as allophones constitute a ] within a dialect, in the "intersystem", as it were, phonemes would constitute a ].
Weinreich's paper inspired research to test the proposal. However, the investigations soon proved it to be generally untenable, at least under structuralist theory. With the advent of ] theory circa 1960, researchers tried developing diasystemic explanations applying the generative approach instead. However, this also failed theoretically.{{sfn|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|loc=section 3.3}}{{sfn|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}} The followup to Weinreich (1954) 14 years later used the term just once (not counting footnotes).{{sfn|Weinreich|Labov|Herzog|1968|loc=section 3.2.1}} Since the 1970s, therefore, the use of the term ''diasystem'' has not implied a substantial theoretical construct, in particular a unifying level or order of grammatical structure. The terms ''diasystem'' and ''diaphoneme'' have limited currency in linguistics to the extent that neither the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2003 edition) nor the ], (second edition, 2006) mention these terms in their indexes.


The term ''diasystem'' was coined by linguist and dialectologist ] in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in exploring how to extend advances in ] ] theory to dialectology to explain ] across dialects. Weinreich's paper inspired research in the late 1950s to test the proposal. However, the investigations soon showed it to be generally untenable, at least under structuralist theory. With the advent of ] theory in the 1960s, researchers tried applying a generative approach in developing diasystemic explanations; this also fell short.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|loc=section 3.3}}</ref><ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}}</ref>
According to some ],{{sfn|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=44}}{{sfn|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}} the diasystem idea for incorporating variation into linguistic theory has been superseded by the ]'s notion of the ].


According to some leading ],<ref>e.g. {{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=44}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}}</ref> the diasystem idea for incorporating variation into linguistic theory has been superseded by ]'s notion of the ]. As such, the concept has not been part of any substantial linguistic theory and the term has limited currency in linguistics.{{citation needed|date=April 2012}}
==History of the Weinreichian sense of ''diasystem''==
===Conception by Weinreich===
By the 1950s, linguists considered variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms. In addition, there was some perceived incommensurability between dialectology and linguistics; linguists found the practice of dialectology at the time to be "impressionistic" whereas dialectologists found linguistic theory "metaphysical."{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=388}} Weinreich proposed applying the structuralist concept of the grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties.{{efn|Weinreich also proposed the use of ''variety'' to replace ''dialect'' as it was commonly used at the time {{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=389}}}} Different dialects would be described by a ''diasystem'', a supergrammar consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects and representing a higher level of abstraction.{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=389-390}} Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by an arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of ].


==Origin of the concept==
===Critiques===
{{Harvcoltxt|Trubetzkoy|1931}} first suggested comparing accents by their synchronic states, rather than by comparing their different historical developments.{{Sfn|Wells|1982|p=72-73}}{{Sfn|Petyt|1980|p=117}} He classified sound differences between dialects into three types:{{Sfn|Trubetzkoy|1931|p=228}}
Trubetzkoy in 1931 had proposed the following types of sound difference: differences in phoneme inventory; differences in "distribution" (i.e., phonotactics), differences in the phonetic realization of phonemes; and differences in the incidence of phonemes.{{sfn|Petyt|1980|pp=118-119}} "Incidence" refers to distribution of phonemes across the vocabulary{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=34}} (in particular, which phonemes occur in which member words of a interdialectal lexical correspondence set).{{efn|The term 'incidence' was not the one used by Trubetzkoy.{{sfn|Petyt|1980|p=118}} Its introduction for the purpose of describing this part of grammar is attributed to Kurath.{{sfn|Pulgram|1964|p=70}}}}
*'''Phonological''': the inventory phonemes and ], which may vary between dialects. For example, speakers of Castilian Spanish have the phonemes {{IPAslink|θ}} and {{IPAslink|s}}, whereas Western Hemisphere dialects of Spanish have just the latter.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Martínez-Celdrán|Fernández-Planas|Carrera-Sabaté|2003|p=258}}</ref>
*'''Phonetic''': how phonemes are realized phonetically. For example, most dialects of English have strongly ] {{IPA|/p t k/}} in words like ''park'', ''tool'', and ''cat'', but some ] accents do not feature such aspiration.{{Sfn|Wells|1970|p=247}}
*'''Etymological distribution''':{{efn|Starting with Kurath, other scholars have used the term ''incidence'' for this.{{Sfn|Pulgram|1964|p=70}}{{Sfn|Petyt|1980|p=122}}{{Sfn|Francis|1983|p=34}}}} the distribution of phonemes among member words in an interdialectal lexical correspondence set. For example, most English varieties contrast {{IPA|/æ/}} and {{IPA|/ɑː/}}, but some use the former in words like ''bath'' and ''grass'' and others use the latter.{{Sfn|Wells|1982|p=79}}


Despite Trubetzkoy's proposal, linguists continued to consider variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms.
A few linguists (in particular Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960)) took up the challenge of Weinreich (1954),{{sfn|Pulgram|1964|p=}}{{efn|Trudgill mentions GR Cochrane (1959), WG Moulton (1960), E Pulgram (1964), RD King (1969), H Kurath (1969), and Trudgill's own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of Trudgill (1974).{{sfn|Trudgill|1974|p=134}}}}{{efn|Francis quotes Giuseppe Francescato (1965a, 1965b) at length.{{sfn|Francis|1983|pp=165-166}}}} and "as was very soon pointed out, the inadequacy of the diasystem as used by Weinreich is in its neglect of all phonological aspects except phonemic inventory".{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=163}} Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above. Moulton (1960) found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of ], Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. He reported that phonetically speaking, although each dialect seems to have the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair of phonetically identical vowels, /i/ ~ /i/, is in lexical correspondence, i.e., are diachronically equal, have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets are fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent.{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=163}}


Inspired by Trubetzkoy, {{Harvcoltxt|Weinreich|1954}} proposed a synthesis of linguistic geography and descriptive linguistics by applying the structuralist concept of grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties;<ref>Weinreich also proposed the use of ''variety'' to replace ''dialect'' as it was commonly used at the time {{Harvcoltxt|Cadora|1976|p=404}}.</ref> a resulting supergrammar, which he called a ''diasystem'', would be consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects.{{Sfn|Weinreich|1954|pp=389–390}} A diasystem is a higher order system and its component units of analysis would accordingly be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. That is, just as the phones present within an individual variety are grouped together into abstract ]s, the phonemes present within a group of varieties could be grouped together into even more abstract ]s. Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by a formulaic arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of ], focusing on the vowels but arguing that the principle could work for other aspects of language.
Pulgram (1964), examining Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960), noted not only the need for refinements in the original proposal, but that perhaps different researchers had not agreed on definitions, disciplines of study, and objects of inquiry. For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton for the original diasystem idea, see Pulgram (1964), and Francis (1983). The research and debate supported the conclusion that multiple dialects could in general not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory.


Although Weinreich did not elaborate the diasystemic approach, he did consider some theoretical pitfalls to be avoided. He recognized that phonemic mergers and splits with dissimilar results across dialects would pose a difficult challenge for the construction of a diasystem; he cautioned against positing a diasystem when the work of creating all the member systems (e.g. the work of phonemicization) was yet incomplete; and, following the lead of {{Harvcoltxt|Trubetzkoy|1931}}, he noted that the differences in phonological inventory and etymological distribution might prove problematic in the construction of diasystems.
Trudgill (1974), in a book length sociolinguistic study of the dialect of one medium sized English city, his hometown of ],{{efn|county of ], historical region of ]}} called it the "Norwich diasystem". But as a critic of Weinreich's original suggestion, he was using "diasystem" in a different sense. The population of Norwich in fact speaks a single "]" (as he termed it){{sfn|Trudgill|1974|p=133}} of English. However, Trudgill concluded from his investigations that this single embraces a great diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables. Most speakers of this dialect can vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking. This scholar chose to summarize this variability and versatility with the term "diasystem".


==Subsequent investigation==
Nowadays "diasystem" is used as a convenient expression for multiple related dialects.{{dubious|date=February 2012}} For example, a 1996 paper on the "diasystem of ]", whose scope is European dialects of Romani, reports only an isogloss and a set of interdialectal sound correspondences, not first steps toward a common phonology of all European Romani dialects.{{sfn|Clouthiade|1997}}{{clarification needed|date=March 2012}}
A few linguists<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974|p=134}} mentions {{Harvcoltxt|Cochrane|1959}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}}, as well as {{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, {{Harvcoltxt|King|1969}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Kurath|1957}}, and his own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of {{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974}}.</ref> took up Weinreich's challenge<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964|p=}}</ref>{{efn|{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|pp=165–166}} quotes extensively from {{Harvcoltxt|Francescato|1965a}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Francescato|1965b}}.}} and quickly found it to be inadequate.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|p=163}}</ref> Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above.


{{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}} found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of ], Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. Although each dialect had the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair ({{IPA|/i/}} ~ {{IPA|/i/}}) was shown to have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets were fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent separately.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|p=163}}</ref>
==Explanatory notes==

{{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, examining {{Harvcoltxt|Cochrane|1959}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}}, noted the need for refinements in the original proposal; different researchers did not seem to agree on definitions, disciplines of study, or objects of inquiry.<ref>For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton on the original diasystem idea, see {{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, and {{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983}}.</ref> The research and debate concluded that multiple dialects could not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory. That is, it would be unfeasible to construct a single grammar for multiple dialects unless their differences were very minor or if it incorporated only a small number of dialects.

Related to Weinreich's proposal were efforts in both American dialectology and ] to construct an "overall system" that represented the underlying representation for all dialects of English.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|p=169,226}}</ref><ref>See {{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=44}} for a list of major papers in the generativist stream through 1972.</ref>

An example of this was the ] analysis,<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|McDavid|1952|p=383}}</ref>{{efn|Weinreich argued that {{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951}} fell short in constructing an accurate diasystem because the relevant component phonemic systems had not been established yet.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Weinreich|1954|p=395}}</ref> Similarly, {{Harvcoltxt|Stockwell|1959|pp=265–6}}, argues that their analysis is not truly diaphonemic because it includes oppositions without considering the effects of phonetic context.}} made by {{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951}},<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|p=224}} points to earlier works by these authors as approaching the same goal but in less detail</ref> that presumably all American varieties could fit.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951|p=9}}</ref>

{| class="IPA wikitable"
|-
!
! Front !! Central !! Back
|-align=center
! High
| i || ɨ || u
|-align=center
! Mid
| e || ə || o
|-align=center
! Low
| æ || a|| ɔ
|}

Six of the nine simple vowels in this diasystem are common across most dialects: {{IPA|/i/}} occurs in ''pit'', {{IPA|/e/}} in ''pet'', {{IPA|/æ/}} in ''pat'', {{IPA|/ə/}} in ''putt'', {{IPA|/u/}} in ''put'', and {{IPA|/a/}} in ''pot''. The other three are found in specific dialects or dialect groups: {{IPA|/o/}} represents the vowel of ''road'' in ]; {{IPA|/ɨ/}} represents a vowel that often appears in stressed syllables in words like ''just'' (when it means 'only'); and {{IPA|/ɔ/}} represents the vowel of ''pot'' in Southern British and New England dialects.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|McDavid|1952|p=388}}</ref>

These nine simple vowels can then be combined with any of three offglides ({{IPA|/j h w/}}<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Whorf|1943}} proposed that centering diphthongs and vowel length were contextual variants of syllable-final {{IPA|/r/}} rather than {{IPA|/h/}} {{Harvcol|Swadesh|1947|p=146}}.</ref>) to make 36 possible complex nuclei. This system was popular amongst American linguists (despite criticism, particularly from ]<ref>e.g. {{Harvcoltxt|Kurath|1957}}</ref>) until {{Harvcoltxt|Sledd|1966}} demonstrated its inadequacy.<ref>cited in {{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|pp=224–225}}</ref>

The most salient criticism of these broad diasystems was the issue of how ] they are. That is, whether speakers actually have competence in using or understanding the grammatical nuances of multiple varieties. In certain sociolinguistic circumstances, speakers' linguistic repertoire contains multiple varieties.{{Sfn|Wells|1982|p=72}} For example, {{Harvcoltxt|Cadora|1970|p=15}} argues that ] is a diasystem of various interference phenomena occurring when speakers of different ] attempt to speak or read ].

More concretely, ] put forth what he considered to be a cognitively real<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974|p=141}}</ref> diasystem in {{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974}}, a book-length sociolinguistic study of ]. As a critic of Weinreich's original proposal, he approached the concept as a generativist, putting forth a series of rules that could generate any possible output reflected in the diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1975|p=302}}</ref> Because most speakers of Norwich could vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking, the diasystem's rules reflected speakers' actual linguistic abilities.

Cognitively real diasystems are not limited to humans. For example, ]s are able to distinguish between different calls that prompt others to disperse, assemble, or rescue; these calls show regional variation so that French crows do not understand recorded American calls. Although captive birds show difficulty understanding the calls of birds from nearby regions, those allowed to migrate are able to understand calls from both, suggesting that they have mentally constructed a diasystem that enables them to understand both call systems.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Frings|Frings|1959}}, cited in {{Harvcoltxt|Sebeok|1963|p=456}}</ref>

Still, these sorts of "idiosyncratic" grammars differ in degree from broader diasystems, which are much less likely to be part of speakers' linguistic competence.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Ballard|1971|p=267}}, citing {{Harvcoltxt|Bailey|1972|pp=23–24}}</ref> Even Trudgill has argued against their cognitive reality, deeming the concept of a broad diasystem to be a "theoretical dead-end."<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1983}}, chapter 1</ref><ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=43–44}}</ref> Although the concept did not withstand scrutiny by research linguists, it nevertheless triggered a surge of academic work that used it in applied linguistics (e.g. for ] education materials, composition texts for native speakers, basic linguistics texts, and in the application of linguistics to literary criticism).<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Stockwell|1959|p=259}}</ref> Diasystemic representations are also possible in dictionaries. For example, the ] reflects the pronunciation of four phonetically distinct sociolects of ]. Because these sociolects are the same phonemically, readers (at least, those from Australia) can interpret the system as representing their own accent.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Algeo|1988|p=162}}</ref>

==See also==
*]
*]

==Notes==
{{notelist}} {{notelist}}


==Citations== ==Citations==
{{reflist}} {{reflist|2}}


==Works consulted== ==Works cited==
*{{cite book *{{citation
|last=Algeo
|ref=harv
|first=John
|last=Auer
|year=1988
|first=Peter
|title= Aussie Words
|journal=American Speech
|volume=63
|issue=2
|pages=159–163
|doi=10.2307/454420
|jstor=454420
}}
*{{citation
|last=Allen
|first=Harold B.
|year=1977
|title=Regional dialects, 1945-1974
|journal=American Speech
|volume=52
|issue=3/4
|pages=163–261
|doi=10.2307/455241
|jstor=455241
}}
*{{citation
|last1=Auer
|first1=Peter
|last2=Di Luzio |last2=Di Luzio
|first2=Aldo |first2=Aldo
Line 39: Line 101:
|editor2-last=Di Luzio |editor2-last=Di Luzio
|editor2-first=Aldo |editor2-first=Aldo
|url=
|year=1988 |year=1988
|chapter=Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics |chapter=Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics
|title=Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology |title=Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology
|edition=
|loc=
|publisher=
|series=Sociolinguistics and language contact |series=Sociolinguistics and language contact
|volume=4 |volume=4
|pages=1-10 |pages=1–10
}}
*{{citation
|last=Bailey
|first=Charles-James N.
|editor-last=Stockwell
|editor-first=Robert P.
|editor2-last=Macaulay
|editor2-first=Ronald K.S.
|year=1972
|chapter=The integration of linguistic theory: Internal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive analysis
|title=Linguistic Change and Generative Theory
|place=Bloomington
|publisher=Indiana University Press
|pages=22–31
}}
*{{citation
|last=Ballard
|first=W.L.
|year=1971
|title=Review: Linguistic change and the Saussurian paradox
|journal=American Speech
|volume=46
|issue=3/4
|pages=254–270
|doi=10.2307/3087780
|jstor=3087780
}}
*{{citation
|last=Bickerton
|first=Derek
|author-link=Derek Bickerton
|year=1975
|title=review of ''The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich'' by Peter Trudgill
|journal=Journal of Linguistics
|volume=11
|issue=2
|pages=299–308
|doi=10.1017/s0022226700004631
|s2cid=144397602
}}
*{{citation
|last=Cadora
|first=Frederic J.
|year=1970
|title=Some linguistic concomitants of contactual factors of urbanization
|journal=Anthropological Linguistics
|volume=12
|issue=1
|pages=10–19
}}
*{{citation
|last=Cadora
|first=Frederic J.
|year=1976
|title=Contrastive compatibility in some Arabic dialects and their classification
|journal=Anthropological Linguistics
|volume=18
|issue=9
|pages=393–407
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|last1=Chambers
|ref=harv
|first1=J. K.
|last=Chambers
|first=J. K.
|last2=Trudgill |last2=Trudgill
|first2=Peter |first2=Peter
|url=
|year=1998 |year=1998
|chaptertitle=
|title=Dialectology |title=Dialectology
|edition=2nd |edition=2nd
|loc=
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |publisher=Cambridge University Press
|series=Cambridge textbooks in linguistics |series=Cambridge textbooks in linguistics
|volume=
|pages=
}} }}
*{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|last=Clouthiade
|first=Marcel
|url=http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/flang_1244-5460_1997_num_5_10_1175
|year=1997
|title=Quelques aspects du diasystème phonologique de la langue rromani
|journal=Faits de langue
|volume=5
|issue=10
|loc=
|publisher=
|pages=113-120
}} (This author uses the Albanian language spelling, Rromani.)
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|last=Crystal
|ref=harv
|first=David
|year=2011
|title=Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
|edition=Sixth
|publisher=John Wiley & Sons
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZPQVuSgDAkC
|isbn=9781444356755
}}
*{{citation
|last=De Schutter |last=De Schutter
|first=Georges |first=Georges
Line 91: Line 197:
|editor3-last=Verscheuren |editor3-last=Verscheuren
|editor3-first=Jef |editor3-first=Jef
|url=
|year=2010 |year=2010
|chapter=Dialectology |chapter=Dialectology
|title=Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives |title=Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives
|edition=
|loc=
|publisher=John Benjamins |publisher=John Benjamins
|series=Handbook of pragmatics highlights |series=Handbook of pragmatics highlights
|volume=6 |volume=6
|pages=73-80 |pages=73–80
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|ref=harv
|last=Francis |last=Francis
|first=W. N. |first=Winthrop Nelson
|url=
|year=1983 |year=1983
|chaptertitle=
|title=Dialectology: an introduction |title=Dialectology: an introduction
|loc=
|publisher=Longman |publisher=Longman
|series=Longman linguistics library |series=Longman linguistics library
|volume=29 |volume=29
}}
|pages=
*{{citation
|last1=Frings
|first1=H.
|last2=Frings
|first2=M.
|year=1959
|title=The language of crows
|journal=Scientific American
|volume=201
|issue=5
|pages=119–131
|doi=10.1038/scientificamerican1159-119
|bibcode=1959SciAm.201e.119H
}}
*{{citation
|last=King
|first=Robert D.
|year=1969
|title=Historical linguistics and generative grammar
|place=Englewood Cliffs, NJ
|publisher=Prentice-Hall
}}
*{{citation
|last=Kurath
|first=Hans
|author-link=Hans Kurath
|year=1957
|title=The binary interpretation of English vowels: A critique
|journal=Language
|volume=33
|issue=2
|pages=111–122
|doi=10.2307/410723
|jstor=410723
}}
*{{citation
|last1=Martínez-Celdrán
|first1=Eugenio
|last2=Fernández-Planas
|first2=Ana Ma.
|last3=Carrera-Sabaté
|first3=Josefina
|year=2003
|title=Castilian Spanish
|journal=Journal of the International Phonetic Association
|volume=33
|issue=2
|pages=255–259
|doi=10.1017/S0025100303001373
|doi-access=free
}}
*{{cite journal
|last=McDavid
|first=Raven Jr.
|year=1952
|title=
|journal=Language
|volume=28
|issue=3
|pages=377–386
|doi=10.2307/410108
|jstor=410108
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|ref=harv
|authorlink=
|last=Petyt |last=Petyt
|first=K. M. |first=K. M.
|url=
|year=1980 |year=1980
|title=The study of dialect: an introduction to dialectology
|chaptertitle=
|location=London
|title=The study of dialect : an introduction to dialectology
|edition=
|loc=London
|publisher=A. Deutsch |publisher=A. Deutsch
|series=The language library |series=The language library
}}.
|volume=
|pages=
}} Published simultaneously in Boulder, Colorado by Westview Press. The chapter, "Other recent approaches", which discusses generative explanations and the lect theory of Bickerton, was anthologized in Harold B. Allen, Michael D. Linn, eds., 1986, ''Dialect and language variation'', Academic Press.
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|authorlink=Ernst Pulgram
|last=Pulgram |last=Pulgram
|first=Ernst |first=Ernst
|author-link=Ernst Pulgram
|url=
|year=1964 |year=1964
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology
Line 143: Line 295:
|volume=2 |volume=2
|issue=4 |issue=4
|pages=66–82
|loc=
|doi=10.1515/ling.1964.2.4.66
|publisher=
|s2cid=143746333
|pages=66-82
}}
*{{citation
|last=Sebeok
|first=Thomas
|year=1963
|title=
|journal=Language
|volume=39
|issue=3
|pages=448–466
|doi=10.2307/411126
|jstor=411126
}}
*{{citation
|last=Sledd
|first=James H.
|year=1966
|title=Breaking, umlaut, and the southern drawl
|journal=Language
|volume=42
|issue=1
|pages=18–41
|doi=10.2307/411598
|jstor=411598
}}
*{{cite journal
|last=Stockwell
|first=Robert
|year=1959
|title=Structural dialectology: A proposal
|journal=American Speech
|volume=34
|issue=4
|pages=258–268
|doi=10.2307/453704
|jstor=453704
}}
*{{citation
|last=Swadesh
|first=Morris
|author-link=Morris Swadesh
|year=1947
|title=On the analysis of English syllabics
|journal=Language
|volume=23
|issue=2
|pages=137–150
|doi=10.2307/410385
|jstor=410385
}}
*{{cite journal
|last1=Trager
|first1=George L.
|author-link=George L. Trager
|last2=Smith
|first2=Henry L Jr.
|year=1951
|title=An outline of English structure
|series=Studies in Linguistics occasional papers
|volume=3
|place=Norman, OK
|publisher=Battenberg Press
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Trask
|first=Robert L.
|year=1996
|title=A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology
|place=London
|publisher=Routledge
}}
*{{citation
|last=Trubetzkoy
|first=Nikolai
|author-link=Nikolai Trubetzkoy
|year=1931
|title=Phonologie et géographie linguistique
|journal=Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague
|volume=4
|pages=228–234
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|author-link=Peter Trudgill
|ref=harv
|authorlink=Peter Trudgill
|last=Trudgill |last=Trudgill
|first=Peter |first=Peter
|url=
|year=1974 |year=1974
|chaptertitle=
|title=The social differentiation of English in Norwich |title=The social differentiation of English in Norwich
|edition=
|loc=
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |publisher=Cambridge University Press
|series=Cambridge studies in linguistics |series=Cambridge studies in linguistics
|volume=13 |volume=13
}}
|pages=
*{{citation
|last=Trudgill
|first=Peter
|year=1983
|title=On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives
|place=New York
|publisher=New York University Press
}} }}
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|last = Weinreich
|ref=harv
|first = Uriel
|authorlink=Uriel Weinreich
|last=Weinreich |author-link = Uriel Weinreich
|year = 1954
|first=Uriel
|title = Is a structural dialectology possible?
|url=http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~ddurian/AWAC/weinreich%201954.pdf
|journal = Word
|year=1954
|volume = 10
|title=Is a structural dialectology possible?
|issue = 2–3
|journal=Word
|pages = 388–400
|volume=10
|doi = 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659535
|issue=
}}
|loc=
*{{citation
|publisher=
|last=Wells
|pages=388-400
|first=John Christopher
|author-link=John C. Wells
|year=1970
|title=Local accents in England and Wales
|journal=Journal of Linguistics
|volume=6
|issue=2
|pages=231–252
|doi=10.1017/S0022226700002632
|s2cid=143523909
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{citation
|last=Wells
|ref=harv
|first=John Christopher
|last=Weinreich
|year=1982
|first=Uriel
|title=Accents of English: An Introduction
|last2=Labov
|place=Cambridge
|first2=William
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
|last3=Herzog
}}
|first3=Marvin
*{{citation
|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html
|last=Whorf
|year=1968
|first=Benjamin Lee
|editor1-last=Lehmann
|author-link=Benjamin Lee Whorf
|editor1-first=Winfred P.
|year=1943
|editor2-last=Malkiel
|title=Phonemic analysis of the English of Eastern Massachusetts
|editor2-first=Yakov
|journal=SIL
|chapter=Empirical foundations for a theory of language change
|volume=2
|title=Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium
|pages=1–40
|edition=
}}
|loc=
*{{citation
|publisher=University of Texas Press
|last=Wolfram
|series=
|first=Walt
|pages=97-195
|year=1982
|title=Language knowledge and other dialects
|journal=American Speech
|volume=57
|issue=1
|pages=3–18
|doi=10.2307/455176
|jstor=455176
}} }}


==Further reading== ==Further reading==
*{{cite book
|last=Bailey
|first=Charles-James N.
|year=1973
|title=Variation and Linguistic Theory
|place=Washington, D.C.
|publisher=Center for Applied Linguistics
}}
*{{cite book
|last=Bickerton
|first=Derek
|year=1976
|title=Dynamics of a Creole System
|place=New York
|publisher=Cambridge University Press
}}
*{{cite journal
|last=Clouthiade
|first=Marcel
|year=1997
|title=Quelques aspects du diasystème phonologique de la langue rromani
|journal=Faits de Langues
|volume=5
|issue=10
|pages=113–120
|doi=10.3406/flang.1997.1175
}}
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|last=Cochrane |last=Cochrane
|first=G. R. |first=G. R.
|url=
|year=1959 |year=1959
|title=The Australian English vowels as a diasystem |title=The Australian English vowels as a diasystem
|journal=Word |journal=Word
|volume=15 |volume=15
|pages=69–88
|issue=
|doi=10.1080/00437956.1959.11659684
|loc=
|doi-access=free
|publisher=
|pages=69-88
}} }}
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|last=Francescato |last=Francescato
|first=Giuseppe |first=Giuseppe
|url=
|year=1965a |year=1965a
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology
|journal=Zeitschrift für romanische philologie |journal=Zeitschrift für romanische philologie
|volume=81 |volume=81
|pages=484–491
|issue=
|loc=
|publisher=
|pages=484-491
}} }}
*{{cite book *{{cite book
|ref=harv
|last=Francescato |last=Francescato
|first=Giuseppe |first=Giuseppe
|editor-last=Straka |editor-last=Straka
|editor-first=G. |editor-first=G.
|url=
|year=1965b |year=1965b
|chapter=Struttura linguistica e dialetto |chapter=Struttura linguistica e dialetto
|title=Actes du Xe congrès international de linguistique et philologie |title=Actes du Xe congrès international de linguistique et philologie
|location=Paris
|volume=
|issue=
|loc=Paris
|publisher=Klincksieck |publisher=Klincksieck
|pages=1011-1017 |pages=1011–1017
}} }}
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|last=Moulton |last=Moulton
|first=William G. |first=William G.
|url=
|year=1960 |year=1960
|title=The short vowel systems of Northern Switzerland: a study in structural dialectology |title=The short vowel systems of Northern Switzerland: a study in structural dialectology
|journal=Word |journal=Word
|volume=37 |volume=37
|pages=155–182
|issue=
|doi=10.1080/00437956.1960.11659724
|loc=
|doi-access=free
|publisher=
|pages=155-182
}} }}
*{{cite journal *{{cite journal
|ref=harv
|last=Moulton |last=Moulton
|first=William G. |first=William G.
|url=
|year=1968 |year=1968
|title=Structural dialectology |title=Structural dialectology
|journal=Language |journal=Language
|volume=44 |volume=44
|issue= |issue=3
|pages=451–466
|loc=
|doi=10.2307/411713
|publisher=
|jstor=411713
|pages=451-466
}} }}
*{{cite book
]
|last1 = Weinreich
|first1 = Uriel
|last2 = Labov
|first2 = William
|last3 = Herzog
|first3 = Marvin
|chapter-url = http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html
|year = 1968
|editor1-last = Lehmann
|editor1-first = Winfred P.
|editor2-last = Malkiel
|editor2-first = Yakov
|chapter = Empirical foundations for a theory of language change
|title = Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium
|publisher = University of Texas Press
|pages = 97–195
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120118031415/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html
|archive-date = 2012-01-18
}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 18:29, 20 November 2023

System for contrasting related languages or dialects

In the field of dialectology, a diasystem or polylectal grammar is a linguistic analysis set up to encode or represent a range of related varieties in a way that displays their structural differences.

The term diasystem was coined by linguist and dialectologist Uriel Weinreich in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in exploring how to extend advances in structuralist linguistic theory to dialectology to explain linguistic variation across dialects. Weinreich's paper inspired research in the late 1950s to test the proposal. However, the investigations soon showed it to be generally untenable, at least under structuralist theory. With the advent of generative theory in the 1960s, researchers tried applying a generative approach in developing diasystemic explanations; this also fell short.

According to some leading sociolinguists, the diasystem idea for incorporating variation into linguistic theory has been superseded by William Labov's notion of the linguistic variable. As such, the concept has not been part of any substantial linguistic theory and the term has limited currency in linguistics.

Origin of the concept

Trubetzkoy (1931) first suggested comparing accents by their synchronic states, rather than by comparing their different historical developments. He classified sound differences between dialects into three types:

  • Phonological: the inventory phonemes and contextual restrictions, which may vary between dialects. For example, speakers of Castilian Spanish have the phonemes /θ/ and /s/, whereas Western Hemisphere dialects of Spanish have just the latter.
  • Phonetic: how phonemes are realized phonetically. For example, most dialects of English have strongly aspirated /p t k/ in words like park, tool, and cat, but some Northern English accents do not feature such aspiration.
  • Etymological distribution: the distribution of phonemes among member words in an interdialectal lexical correspondence set. For example, most English varieties contrast /æ/ and /ɑː/, but some use the former in words like bath and grass and others use the latter.

Despite Trubetzkoy's proposal, linguists continued to consider variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms.

Inspired by Trubetzkoy, Weinreich (1954) proposed a synthesis of linguistic geography and descriptive linguistics by applying the structuralist concept of grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties; a resulting supergrammar, which he called a diasystem, would be consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects. A diasystem is a higher order system and its component units of analysis would accordingly be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. That is, just as the phones present within an individual variety are grouped together into abstract phonemes, the phonemes present within a group of varieties could be grouped together into even more abstract diaphonemes. Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by a formulaic arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of Yiddish, focusing on the vowels but arguing that the principle could work for other aspects of language.

Although Weinreich did not elaborate the diasystemic approach, he did consider some theoretical pitfalls to be avoided. He recognized that phonemic mergers and splits with dissimilar results across dialects would pose a difficult challenge for the construction of a diasystem; he cautioned against positing a diasystem when the work of creating all the member systems (e.g. the work of phonemicization) was yet incomplete; and, following the lead of Trubetzkoy (1931), he noted that the differences in phonological inventory and etymological distribution might prove problematic in the construction of diasystems.

Subsequent investigation

A few linguists took up Weinreich's challenge and quickly found it to be inadequate. Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above.

Moulton (1960) found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of Swiss German, Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. Although each dialect had the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair (/i/ ~ /i/) was shown to have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets were fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent separately.

Pulgram (1964), examining Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960), noted the need for refinements in the original proposal; different researchers did not seem to agree on definitions, disciplines of study, or objects of inquiry. The research and debate concluded that multiple dialects could not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory. That is, it would be unfeasible to construct a single grammar for multiple dialects unless their differences were very minor or if it incorporated only a small number of dialects.

Related to Weinreich's proposal were efforts in both American dialectology and generative phonology to construct an "overall system" that represented the underlying representation for all dialects of English.

An example of this was the diaphonemic analysis, made by Trager & Smith (1951), that presumably all American varieties could fit.

Front Central Back
High i ɨ u
Mid e ə o
Low æ a ɔ

Six of the nine simple vowels in this diasystem are common across most dialects: /i/ occurs in pit, /e/ in pet, /æ/ in pat, /ə/ in putt, /u/ in put, and /a/ in pot. The other three are found in specific dialects or dialect groups: /o/ represents the vowel of road in New England varieties; /ɨ/ represents a vowel that often appears in stressed syllables in words like just (when it means 'only'); and /ɔ/ represents the vowel of pot in Southern British and New England dialects.

These nine simple vowels can then be combined with any of three offglides (/j h w/) to make 36 possible complex nuclei. This system was popular amongst American linguists (despite criticism, particularly from Hans Kurath) until Sledd (1966) demonstrated its inadequacy.

The most salient criticism of these broad diasystems was the issue of how cognitively real they are. That is, whether speakers actually have competence in using or understanding the grammatical nuances of multiple varieties. In certain sociolinguistic circumstances, speakers' linguistic repertoire contains multiple varieties. For example, Cadora (1970:15) argues that Modern Literary Arabic is a diasystem of various interference phenomena occurring when speakers of different Arabic varieties attempt to speak or read Literary Arabic.

More concretely, Peter Trudgill put forth what he considered to be a cognitively real diasystem in Trudgill (1974), a book-length sociolinguistic study of Norwich. As a critic of Weinreich's original proposal, he approached the concept as a generativist, putting forth a series of rules that could generate any possible output reflected in the diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables. Because most speakers of Norwich could vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking, the diasystem's rules reflected speakers' actual linguistic abilities.

Cognitively real diasystems are not limited to humans. For example, crows are able to distinguish between different calls that prompt others to disperse, assemble, or rescue; these calls show regional variation so that French crows do not understand recorded American calls. Although captive birds show difficulty understanding the calls of birds from nearby regions, those allowed to migrate are able to understand calls from both, suggesting that they have mentally constructed a diasystem that enables them to understand both call systems.

Still, these sorts of "idiosyncratic" grammars differ in degree from broader diasystems, which are much less likely to be part of speakers' linguistic competence. Even Trudgill has argued against their cognitive reality, deeming the concept of a broad diasystem to be a "theoretical dead-end." Although the concept did not withstand scrutiny by research linguists, it nevertheless triggered a surge of academic work that used it in applied linguistics (e.g. for ESL education materials, composition texts for native speakers, basic linguistics texts, and in the application of linguistics to literary criticism). Diasystemic representations are also possible in dictionaries. For example, the Macquarie Dictionary reflects the pronunciation of four phonetically distinct sociolects of Australian English. Because these sociolects are the same phonemically, readers (at least, those from Australia) can interpret the system as representing their own accent.

See also

Notes

  1. Although referentially synonymous, each term can carry different theoretical assumptions; Wolfram (1982:3) also lists overall pattern
  2. Some scholars use "related" in a far broader sense than others. For example, De Schutter (2010:73) applies diasystem to "the complete set of varieties (diachronic as well as diatopic-synchronic) supposed to derive from one ancestor."
  3. Starting with Kurath, other scholars have used the term incidence for this.
  4. Francis (1983:165–166) quotes extensively from Francescato (1965a) and Francescato (1965b).
  5. Weinreich argued that Trager & Smith (1951) fell short in constructing an accurate diasystem because the relevant component phonemic systems had not been established yet. Similarly, Stockwell (1959:265–6), argues that their analysis is not truly diaphonemic because it includes oppositions without considering the effects of phonetic context.

Citations

  1. Trask (1996:112)
  2. Crystal (2011)
  3. Chambers & Trudgill (1998, section 3.3)
  4. Auer & Di Luzio (1988:1)
  5. e.g. Chambers & Trudgill (1998:44) and Auer & Di Luzio (1988:1)
  6. Wells 1982, p. 72-73.
  7. Petyt 1980, p. 117.
  8. Trubetzkoy 1931, p. 228.
  9. Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas & Carrera-Sabaté (2003:258)
  10. Wells 1970, p. 247.
  11. Pulgram 1964, p. 70.
  12. Petyt 1980, p. 122.
  13. Francis 1983, p. 34.
  14. Wells 1982, p. 79.
  15. Weinreich also proposed the use of variety to replace dialect as it was commonly used at the time Cadora (1976:404).
  16. Weinreich 1954, pp. 389–390.
  17. Trudgill (1974:134) mentions Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960), as well as Pulgram (1964), King (1969), Kurath (1957), and his own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of Trudgill (1974).
  18. Pulgram (1964)
  19. Francis (1983:163)
  20. Francis (1983:163)
  21. For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton on the original diasystem idea, see Pulgram (1964), and Francis (1983).
  22. Allen (1977:169,226)
  23. See Chambers & Trudgill (1998:44) for a list of major papers in the generativist stream through 1972.
  24. McDavid (1952:383)
  25. Weinreich (1954:395)
  26. Allen (1977:224) points to earlier works by these authors as approaching the same goal but in less detail
  27. Trager & Smith (1951:9)
  28. McDavid (1952:388)
  29. Whorf (1943) proposed that centering diphthongs and vowel length were contextual variants of syllable-final /r/ rather than /h/ (Swadesh 1947:146).
  30. e.g. Kurath (1957)
  31. cited in Allen (1977:224–225)
  32. Wells 1982, p. 72.
  33. Trudgill (1974:141)
  34. Bickerton (1975:302)
  35. Frings & Frings (1959), cited in Sebeok (1963:456)
  36. Ballard (1971:267), citing Bailey (1972:23–24)
  37. Trudgill (1983), chapter 1
  38. Chambers & Trudgill (1998:43–44)
  39. Stockwell (1959:259)
  40. Algeo (1988:162)

Works cited

  • Algeo, John (1988), "Aussie Words", American Speech, 63 (2): 159–163, doi:10.2307/454420, JSTOR 454420
  • Allen, Harold B. (1977), "Regional dialects, 1945-1974", American Speech, 52 (3/4): 163–261, doi:10.2307/455241, JSTOR 455241
  • Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (1988), "Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics", in Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (eds.), Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology, Sociolinguistics and language contact, vol. 4, pp. 1–10
  • Bailey, Charles-James N. (1972), "The integration of linguistic theory: Internal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive analysis", in Stockwell, Robert P.; Macaulay, Ronald K.S. (eds.), Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 22–31
  • Ballard, W.L. (1971), "Review: Linguistic change and the Saussurian paradox", American Speech, 46 (3/4): 254–270, doi:10.2307/3087780, JSTOR 3087780
  • Bickerton, Derek (1975), "review of The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich by Peter Trudgill", Journal of Linguistics, 11 (2): 299–308, doi:10.1017/s0022226700004631, S2CID 144397602
  • Cadora, Frederic J. (1970), "Some linguistic concomitants of contactual factors of urbanization", Anthropological Linguistics, 12 (1): 10–19
  • Cadora, Frederic J. (1976), "Contrastive compatibility in some Arabic dialects and their classification", Anthropological Linguistics, 18 (9): 393–407
  • Chambers, J. K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Crystal, David (2011). Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (Sixth ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444356755.
  • De Schutter, Georges (2010), "Dialectology", in Fried, Mirjam; Östman, Jan-Ola; Verscheuren, Jef (eds.), Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives, Handbook of pragmatics highlights, vol. 6, John Benjamins, pp. 73–80
  • Francis, Winthrop Nelson (1983). Dialectology: an introduction. Longman linguistics library. Vol. 29. Longman.
  • Frings, H.; Frings, M. (1959), "The language of crows", Scientific American, 201 (5): 119–131, Bibcode:1959SciAm.201e.119H, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1159-119
  • King, Robert D. (1969), Historical linguistics and generative grammar, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  • Kurath, Hans (1957), "The binary interpretation of English vowels: A critique", Language, 33 (2): 111–122, doi:10.2307/410723, JSTOR 410723
  • Martínez-Celdrán, Eugenio; Fernández-Planas, Ana Ma.; Carrera-Sabaté, Josefina (2003), "Castilian Spanish", Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33 (2): 255–259, doi:10.1017/S0025100303001373
  • McDavid, Raven Jr. (1952). "". Language. 28 (3): 377–386. doi:10.2307/410108. JSTOR 410108.
  • Petyt, K. M. (1980). The study of dialect: an introduction to dialectology. The language library. London: A. Deutsch..
  • Pulgram, Ernst (1964). "Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology". Linguistics. 2 (4): 66–82. doi:10.1515/ling.1964.2.4.66. S2CID 143746333.
  • Sebeok, Thomas (1963), "", Language, 39 (3): 448–466, doi:10.2307/411126, JSTOR 411126
  • Sledd, James H. (1966), "Breaking, umlaut, and the southern drawl", Language, 42 (1): 18–41, doi:10.2307/411598, JSTOR 411598
  • Stockwell, Robert (1959). "Structural dialectology: A proposal". American Speech. 34 (4): 258–268. doi:10.2307/453704. JSTOR 453704.
  • Swadesh, Morris (1947), "On the analysis of English syllabics", Language, 23 (2): 137–150, doi:10.2307/410385, JSTOR 410385
  • Trager, George L.; Smith, Henry L Jr. (1951). "An outline of English structure". Studies in Linguistics occasional papers. 3. Norman, OK: Battenberg Press. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Trask, Robert L. (1996). A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology. London: Routledge.
  • Trubetzkoy, Nikolai (1931), "Phonologie et géographie linguistique", Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4: 228–234
  • Trudgill, Peter (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press.
  • Trudgill, Peter (1983), On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives, New York: New York University Press
  • Weinreich, Uriel (1954). "Is a structural dialectology possible?". Word. 10 (2–3): 388–400. doi:10.1080/00437956.1954.11659535.
  • Wells, John Christopher (1970), "Local accents in England and Wales", Journal of Linguistics, 6 (2): 231–252, doi:10.1017/S0022226700002632, S2CID 143523909
  • Wells, John Christopher (1982), Accents of English: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1943), "Phonemic analysis of the English of Eastern Massachusetts", SIL, 2: 1–40
  • Wolfram, Walt (1982), "Language knowledge and other dialects", American Speech, 57 (1): 3–18, doi:10.2307/455176, JSTOR 455176

Further reading

Category: