The impact of lexical and syntactic dialect differences on reading and writing

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Acceptance

Acceptance of a written standard, like selection, is focused on the language community rather than the language itself. Acceptance has to do with the language community taking ownership of the written standard, viewing it as the written form of their language and putting it to use in ever-increasing degrees. Acceptance is in one sense the most neglected aspect of standardization, for it receives little treatment separate from the other three aspects: selection, codification and elaboration. On the other hand, it is the most referenced because it is repeatedly mentioned in discussions of the other three aspects. Haugen (1966b:62) observes that acceptance rarely occurs uniformly within a language community, but is rather used more by some subsets of the community and less by others. Chamberlain (2004:24) discusses the impact of five sociolinguistic factors related to the scriptal environment on acceptance of written standards in general: ethnic identity, religious identity, tradition, politics, and literacy.

he functions of standard languages

Garvin (1993:47) describes five primary functions of a standard language that give the language symbolic meaning in the community: the unifying function, the separatist function, the prestige function, the participatory function and the frame of reference function. In its unifying function, which is also pointed out by others, the standard draws speakers of various dialects together (Ribbens, 2001:43; Hudson, 1980:33; Coulmas, 1999), while at the same time the standard, in its separating function, shows the speakers’ uniqueness from speakers of other languages. In its prestige function, the standard language gains respect, because it has moved from being a language that is only spoken, to one that can also be read and written. In its participatory function, the standard language is used in domains, which were formerly the realm of a national language or LWC. Finally, the standard language provides a model for correct language usage, especially in the written form (Garvin, 1993:48).

Participation in standardization

A key component to effective language development is the active involvement of the language community. “The community needs to be involved with the planner at every step, from the conception to the implementation of any program for development of a written standard” (Robbins, 1992:163). Some of the literature focuses simply on many members of the speech community being involved (Mühlhäusler, 2000:343; Wiesemann, 1989) while others focus on the fact that communities must be the decision makers (Robinson, 1997; Naden and Naden) or the codifiers and standardizers (Joseph, 1987:6; Kutsch-Lojenga, 1996; Easton, 2003). Only Sadembouo (1989) and Johnson (1990:92) specify that speakers of each dialect should serve on the language committee which will oversee all language development work. The involvement of the language community in the codification process is considered essential by Kutsch-Lojenga (1996) and Easton (2003). Both have developed ways in which literate and preliterate people can be actively involved in the collection of lexical items, the identification of phonemes and the selection of graphemes for their languages.

Time as a factor in standardization

For many of today’s international languages, the process of developing a written standard took place over a period of hundreds of years with little organized effort at the level of the entire language for most of the process (Hatfield, 1991; Brye, 1992). The idea, for example, that English words should have one spelling “is a convention which has developed over only the last two hundred years, but did not hold before that” (Stubbs, 1980:69). Today governments and NGOs seek to establish written standards that gain acceptance by speakers of several language varieties in a matter of years or decades (Robbins, 1992:615). Joseph (1987:15) states that such efforts at rapid language planning are futile. Rather, “standard languages have come about through a historically stable, long-term sequence of developments”.

Written versus spoken language

Both written and spoken language are representations of language itself, the former through the medium of a writing system and the latter through sound waves (Stubbs, 1980:34). Some of the similarities and differences between these two representations of language have the potential to influence CAWS. In general, written language is more difficult, less natural and less universal12 than spoken language because reading and writing must be learned consciously while listening and speaking of one’s first language are learned unconsciously (Liberman, 1992:167; Frost and Katz, 1992:4; Stubbs, 1980; Lundberg, 2006:13; Joseph, 1987; Kibby and Dechert, 2006:200). In addition to these general differences, many specific differences have been mentioned by Haugen (1966b), Joseph (1987), Just and Carpenter (1987), Liberman (1992) and Stubbs (1980).

The impact of lexical and syntactic dialect differences on reading and writing

Dialect differences at the level of the lexicon and syntax influence reading and writing as much or more than do the phonological differences that change the orthographic depth. Jaffe (2000:499) states that a person whose spoken syntax differs from the syntax of the written standard is often viewed as speaking incorrectly. Stubbs (1980:134) supports this when he states that dialect differences may not only impede comprehension, but they may also injure the learners morale if his spoken dialect is criticized. In the context of students learning to read in an LWC, Stubbs states that learners’ languages and cultures should be respected. Learners should not be introduced to the written standard in a way that demeans their own culture (Stubbs, 1980:157). Wiesemann (1989) applies this to a cross-dialectal situation when she emphasizes that the written standard be taught in a way that affirms the spoken dialect of the learners and helps them recognise the differences between their dialect and the written materials.

Table of Contents Table of Contents :

• ABSTRACT
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• Table of Tables
• Table of Figures
• Abbreviations and acronyms used in this thesis
• 1 Chapter 1 The research problem
  • 1.0 Introduction
  • 1.1 The context of the study
  • 1.1.1 Extensibility: balancing the desires of the people with the limitations of resources
  • 1.1.2 Differences between established standards and new ones
  • 1.1.3 The roles of comprehension and acceptance in extensibility
  • 1.1.4 Examples of languages with non-acceptance
  • 1.1.4.1 The Limba written standard
  • 1.1.4.2 The Grebo written standard
  • 1.2 Aims and hypotheses
  • 1.3 Scope and limitations
  • 1.4 Language development situation in Ghana
  • 1.5 Definitions of terms and conventions used in this thesis
  • 1.5.1 Definitions of terms
  • 1.5.2 Conventions in spelling and transcription
  • 1.6 Organization of the dissertation
• 2 Chapter 2 Review of Literature
  • 2.0 Introduction
  • 2.1 Development of the written standard
  • 2.1.1 Variation as an inherent characteristic of language
  • 2.1.2 Categories of variation and its impact on comprehension
  • 2.1.3 The standardization process
  • 2.1.3.1 Selection
  • 2.1.3.2 Codification
  • 2.1.3.3 Elaboration
  • 2.1.3.4 Acceptance
  • 2.1.4 The functions of standard languages
  • 2.1.5 Participation in standardization
  • 2.1.6 Time as a factor in standardization
  • 2.1.7 The written standard as a separate language variety
  • 2.2 Reading the written standard
  • 2.2.1 Written versus spoken language
  • 2.2.2 Learning to read: decoding versus discovering meaning
  • 2.2.3 The impact of the depth of an orthography on reading
  • 2.2.4 The impact of lexical and syntactic dialect differences on reading and writing
  • 2.2.5 Dialect sensitive methodologies for the development of reading materials
  • 2.3 Diffusion of innovations theory as a model for acceptance
  • 2.3.1 Diffusion theory as applied to linguistics
  • 2.3.2 Diffusion of Innovations theory
  • 2.3.2.1 Perceived attributes
  • 2.3.2.2 Social Networks
  • 2.3.2.3 Innovation-Decision Process
  • 2.3.2.4 Reinvention of innovations
  • 2.3.3 Community readiness
  • 2.4 Studies related to the acceptance of written standards
  • 2.4.1 Walker’s thesis on the acceptance of vernacular literacy
  • 2.4.2 Dube’s thesis on Shona orthography
  • 2.4.3 Losey’s thesis on the Gojri orthography
  • 2.4.4 Relevance of the three studies to a study of CAWS
  • 2.5 Summary
• 3 Chapter 3 Methodology
  • 3.0 Introduction
  • 3.1 Methodological principles and considerations
  • 3.1.1 Defining the case
  • 3.1.1.1 The Lelemi case
  • 3.1.1.2 The Likpakpaanl case
  • 3.2 Diffusion of Innovations as a theoretical approach to CAWS
  • 3.3 Methods employed in this study
  • 3.3.1 An overview of the data gathering process
  • 3.3.2 Qualitative methods used
  • 3.3.2.1 Interviews
  • 3.3.2.2 Analysis of interviews
  • 3.3.2.3 Observations
  • 3.3.2.4 Examination of records and archives
  • 3.3.3 Quantitative aspects of the research
  • 3.3.3.1 Lexical and phonological comparisons
  • 3.3.3.2 Questionnaires
  • 3.4 Difficulties encountered during data gathering and analysis
  • 3.5 Ethical issues
  • 3.6 Summary
• 4 Chapter 4 Dialect differences within Lelemi and Likpakpaanl
  • 4.0 Introduction
  • 4.1 The Lelemi language
  • 4.1.1 Some aspects of Lelemi phonology
  • 4.1.2 The dialects of Lelemi
  • 4.1.2.1 The basis of the Lelemi written standard
  • 4.1.2.2 Lexical comparison of Lelemi dialects
  • 4.1.2.3 Phonetic comparison of Lelemi dialects
  • 4.1.2.4 Dialect differences mentioned during interviews
  • 4.2 The Likpakpaanl language
  • 4.2.1 Some aspects of Likpakpaanl phonology
  • 4.2.2 The dialects of Likpakpaanl
  • 4.2.2.1 Steele’s 1966 dialect survey
  • 4.2.2.2 The basis of the Likpakpaanl written standard
  • 4.2.2.3 Lexical comparison of Likpakpaanl dialects
  • 4.2.2.4 Phonetic comparison of Likpakpaanl dialects
  • 4.2.2.5 Dialect differences mentioned during interviews
  • 4.3 Comparison of dialect differences in Lelemi and Likpakpaanl with those of other languages
  • 4.4 Summary
• 5 Chapter 5 Socio-cultural factors pertinent to CAWS

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
CROSS-DIALECTAL ACCEPTANCE OF WRITTEN STANDARDS: TWO GHANAIAN CASE STUDIES