Categories of Australian English

[thushan]

There are two ways we can break up Australian English.

Australian English --> Broad, General and Cultivated Australian English/Accent

OR

Australian English --> Standard Australian English, ethnocultural varieties, Aboriginal English

I have issues with both of these. The first one is obvious; we have forgotten to consider ethnolects and Aboriginal English. Also, are Broad, Cultivated and General Australian ACCENTS or VARIETIES of language? The Living Lingo clearly states that they are accents, yet stonecold maintains that they are varieties. Which is it?

Second one - we forget an important part of Australian English - Strine. If we take the definition of Standard Australian English as the prestige variety of Australian English, the language that you could use in an essay, then our dimunitives and non-standard lexicon and syntax (eg. 'he done it' or 'the data is doing XYZ' or 'me and Sue') cannot fit into this. These are integral parts of Australian English, but cannot be fit into any of SAE, ethnolects or Aboriginal English. What I thought to fit this in is to equate Standard Australian English to Standard English WITH non-standard Australian features such as our dimunitives.

Your ideas?

[Plan-B]

In regards to the Broad, Cultivated and General Accent/English... I would like to agree that they are sociolects, and essentially unique varieties in their own right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can see how users of the Broad variety/accent are  more inclined to employ traditional and connotatively 'true Australian' colloquialisms, rhyming slang, diminutives and what not. Whilst somewhat prevalent by those of the 'General' accent, such accompanying features are not as extensively used, but rather influenced by the likes of contemporary Americanisations, etc. The point is, we can see non-phonological features that support and accompany those of supposedly 'Broad' or 'Cultivated' backgrounds, leading me to think that it is a little more than just an accent that represents the subsets of identities that reflect Australia?

Iunno, just my take on it. :s And I'm aware that Kate Burridge and the others have referred to it as accents, which makes me feel stupid for diverging on the descriptions defined by linguists. :s

For your second point, I thought Standard English was used for formal, written contexts? Not Australian Standard English? I was under the impression that Standard Australian English referred to the most prominent features of the 'General' Australian, or features most outstanding in the 'average' Australian? For instance, the high rise terminal is usually a 'standard' feature amongst many young Australian girls? Or how our orthography is dictated mainly by that of British English? I feel like the Living Lingo didn't give a clear depiction on what exactly is the Standard, but rather features that are common to or unique in Australia?

[thushan]

Yeah, quite complicated huh?

How about this theory: Broad, Cultivated and General Australian can be considered as variation within Standard Australian English - so SAE encompasses all three forms. However, the three are simply signposts in a continuum of SAE, with Cultivated being effectively reminiscent of Standard English/RP and Broad being the most distinctively Australian.

So we have Standard Australian English, with its features in phonology, morphology/lexicology, syntax, semantics, etc.

Now we think about what Broad, General and Cultivated mean.

Perhaps this continuum is defined along seveal fronts:

Broad -- General -- Cultivated:

Phonology: distinctively Australian phonology -- intermediate -- RP
Mor/Lex: Australian slang, diminutives -- intermediate -- Standard English
Syntax: non-standard Australian -- intermediate -- Standard English
Semantics: same throughout

One can speak a particular arrangement of SAE, with varying degrees of Broadness or Cultivatedness along these fronts. For example, Michael Cathcart from Sounds of Aus speaks SAE, and he utilises a Broad/General phonology with Cultivated lexicology and syntax.

Generally, Broad phonology is associated with Broad lexicology and syntax - and same for Cultivated; there is a decent correlation. However, the degrees of Broadness between these four fronts are independent.

This whole system can be considered SAE, distinct from Standard English, although related.

How's that for a theory?

[Plan-B]

Yeah, that seems reasonable
But be careful in stating that the continuum is the same semantically throughout. Doesn't the Broad variety engender a sense of egalitarian and informal values whilst the Cultivated can lead to that of prestige and being 'educated'?

I think the notion of 'standard' in Australian English is rather misleading. If I were to tell you that he or she speaks SAE, would you be able to deduce the lexical, phonological and syntactical choices of the user? :s

Rather, I like to think that 'AE' encompasses all the variations that occur. And the Standard be attached to the features that most, or traditionally used to represent Australia's identity (therefore features prevalent in Broad and General users). Like, Standard English, it can then be the Australian variety in which other Australian varieties deviate from or are compared to.

That being said, and as you mentioned, we have to acknowledge the sociolectal continuum that occurs. From this, I like to make the distinction between the traditional standard, the general standard, and the standard we are progressing into. If that makes any sense :p


Just my thoughts and intepretation..




By the way, do you know if the exam will always have a topic on one of the following?:
- Standard English
- Varieties and functions of Language
- Language change over time
- Attitudes to Language
- Standardisation and codification
Basically, anything that comes from the first area of study, or Unit 3? Struggling to write on every topic :s

[thefeminist]

so much text to go through. I'll try my best

ACCENTS/VARIETIES
I think I should start by saying that varieties and accents are not the same thing. Accents are just the phonological features; varieties include accents plus at least one other subsystem. For example, British English and Australian English are different varieties not only because they have different accents, but also because they have differing lexicon and semantics etc.

Therefore, the accent continuum does not depict sub-varieties of Australian English. It may be true that those who speak towards the Broad end of the continuum use more non-standard features, but it does not necessarily correlate. I remember stories being told to me about smart people being discounted because they spoke in a Broad accent. Take Julia Gillard for example - she speaks in a Broad accent, but definitely not in a Broad 'variety'.

STANDARD
I'll preface this section by saying there is no standard. As native speakers, we all have different definitions on what is Standard. However, we generally concur on what is non-standard, therefore you never say standard features in your essays, but instead non-standard features.

Standard Australian English is the highest prestige form of our variety. Thus, rather than being spoken, it is written. We wouldn't generally write diminutives etc. unless it was casually. However, some Australia-specific lexicon is definitely part of SAE; words such as footpath etc. are used in prestige situations (at least, Wikipedia.) When it comes to Strine, it is not SAE. The best I can equate it to is the 'Broad variety'. In any case, the thing with Strine is that it mocks our Broad accent (I read some of the book. Quite hilarious.) which is not standard anyway. Think of ethnolects etc. as sub-varieties of Australian English (remember, as long as they have more than the accent going for them!).

With the whole lexical/syntax continuum, I personally think that isn't language according to user, but language according to use (phonology=accent anyway). I'm using more formal language here than I would speaking to my friends. Therefore, what I'm writing is closer to our idea of SAE because of its use. However, when talking to my friends, it's more informal, therefore I use more non-standard lexical and syntactic features. It may just be that our general idea of people who speak with Broad accents are normally in informal settings, therefore increasing the amount of non-standard features likely to appear.

The thing about thushan's classification systems (in the first post) is the subsystem they affect. Accents are purely phonological; varieties are phonological and frequently lexical, syntactic or semantic as well. I guess use the classification system that best suits your paragraph.

ESSAYS
Just by thinking about it, some are meatier topics than others. I would personally think that all those topics that Plan-B mentioned could potentially pop up in a question together. You could have Standard English + Varieties + Attitudes or Varieties + Change + Attitudes. Codification would probably pop up with Standard English, I would have thought, however it's not really that interesting in my opinion.


ah, such a long post. feel free to ask any questions for qualification. I love doing uni lingustics

[thushan]

WOW. Respect there. Someone's going to get a 50 for Englang...

Having said that, I am somewhat nervous with your definition of Standard Australian English, simply on the basis of linguist Felicity Cox's usage of the term. From "Australian Voices:"

"Standard Australian English (SAusE) is one of the major subgroups within the Australian English dialect, used by the vast majority of speakers." http://clas.mq.edu.au/voices/glossary

AND

"Australian English is a regional dialect of the English language. Within the Australian English dialect, there are three major subgroups:

    Standard Australian English
    Aboriginal English
    Ethnocultural Australian English varieties"


I think that the use of 'standard' in the term "Standard Australian English" (as distinct from Standard English) is misleading in that one would assume that it is the prestige variety. I would say that it is not necessarily a prestige variety, but it is a variety to which we compare other varieties of Australian English. Issues with considering Standard Australian English and Standard English as synonymous are that Standard English is only defined through morphology/lexicology and syntax, and not phonology, whilst Standard Australian English as per Cox's definition, is defined along phonology as well. Also, if Standard Australian English were simply the prestige variety (i.e. synonymous with Standard English), then where in the three aforementioned categories do non-standard distinctively Australian features belong?

Again, just my two cents.

The lesson I learn from this is that definitions of terms are in flux, given the immensely complex nature of the entire system of Australian English. According to my tutor, with whom I discussed this yesterday, so long as you substantiate your definition of the relevant terms in the essays, the examiner would not penalise you.

EDIT: change ur English Language sig to "English Language [Premiers]"

[thefeminist]

The greatest thing about English Language: as long as you argue it and provide evidence, it's yours. Had many analyses differ to my teacher, but I argued them enough and got the marks

Here is an addition to my previous two cents ...?

For me, the most important thing about Standards is they don't exist in real life. They are simply ideals in heads of speakers of a common speech community of the 'proper' or 'best' way to speak. For example, the frequent gripes with 'like'. Therefore, being the 'proper' or 'best' way to communicate is prestigious and thus also frequently compared to. I definitely think it is prestige, simply because we all wish to speak in this certain way, even though it is completely unachievable because who says which definition of Standard is the right one? And other features which aren't part of the Standard are simply 'non-standard'. Therefore any ethnolectal features that vary from the Standard are 'non-standard'. There's basically SAE and everything else.

When it comes to Standard English, even that's in flux. I think that instead of there being not many phonological problems with it, there is too many to really deal with for this point in the debate - British, American, Australian, South African ... too many accents to deal with and there isn't one 'main' accent when it comes to English. As for SAE, there is one standard accent, General Australian, therefore that's kind of the 'prestige' one. Again, this is user-dependent.

Personally, I sort of agree with Cox's first point, not so much the second. That's just me. I don't think that's the best way of grouping them; frankly, I don't like to group them. If I was to group, I would probably simply group Aboriginal English under ethnolects, because that's what it basically is. And I don't think that people speak SAE either. They can speak a variant close to the standard, but again, the standard does not exist. You also need to take into account that Cox's research is primarily phonetically and phonologically based, therefore perhaps her categories are more based upon those topics.

I think I might be a bit too descriptivist for my own good. ==;;

EDIT: change ur English Language sig to "English Language [Premiers]"

done

[thushan]

This is a pretty good discussion, I must say!

I like your idea of the notion of Standard. However, we're taking different definitions of Standard Australian English. I think you're defining it as the 'prestige' variety whilst I'm using it as an umbrella term of Standard English, Australian phonology and non-standard Australian lexicon and syntax. Then again, I guess it's just our different approaches to this immensely complex system of language.

Personally, I prefer to separate Aboriginal English from other ethnolects, given that I think there's a subtle difference between the two - namely, Aboriginal English is learnt as a first language in many Aboriginal communities.

Of course you're a descriptivist, you're a fully fledged linguist!