Peculiarities of regional varieties of the English language in newspapers in English-speaking countries
Дипломная работа - Иностранные языки
Другие дипломы по предмету Иностранные языки
linguistic manners, but educating people in what language and linguistic manners are all about. [2: 45].
[Standard English is that] particular variety of English which is regarded by educated people as appropriate for most types of public discourse, including most broadcasting, almost all publication, and virtually all conversation with anyone other than intimatesтАж [4: 51].
Standard English is not entirely uniform around the globe: for example, American users of standard English say first floor and I've just gotten a letter and write center and color, while British users say ground floor and I've just got a letter and write centre and colour. But these regional differences are few in comparison with the very high degree of agreement about which forms should count as standard. Nevertheless, standard English, like all living languages, changes over time [3: 41].
"It is important to realize that standard English is in no way intrinsically superior to any other variety of English: in particular, it is not 'more logical,' 'more grammatical,' or 'more expressive.' It is, at bottom, a convenience: the use of a single agreed standard form, learned by speakers everywhere, minimizes uncertainty, confusion, misunderstanding and communicative difficulty generally" [8: 72]. this start point can be so-called Standard English SE as well. To determine what is it and what its features we used web sites. According to numerous Russian web sites weve found out the follows definition: standard English - the official language of Great Britain taught at schools and universities, used by the press, the radio and the television and spoken by educated people may be defined as that form of English which is current and literary, substantially uniform and recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood [3: 41]. Is stands too far from science, but still some points are unquestionable for example: official language of Great Britain it really is, the statement that it is recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or understood [6: 223] is not wrong too, but today English is understood in the most part of the globe and under the concept is understood we mean any combinations of English-like-sound words which provide communication. It means that in India or in South Africa the English language is spoken and understood we deal with Standard English. As we know that it is wrong we cant accept the definition. Though in the further description of Standard English we can find some remarks: its vocabulary is contrasted to dialect words or dialectisms belonging to various local dialects (Trask R. L., 2000: 52). So the Indian English because of the dialectisms cant be considered as Standard, but there is no explanation of evaluation the dialectisms within the Great Britain, another weak point of the definition. And finally we can find wrong statement about dialect and language variant such as: local dialects are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having no normalized literary form. Regional varieties possessing a literary form are called variants [4: 78]. Weve paid a lot of attention to this difference and it seems there is no need to go back to our arguments. This is the content of many essays and it is the same in many works, unfortunately we couldnt determine its origin but its obvious that it is taken from one and the same book.found the previous definition as unsatisfying we analyzed the material from Bad Language, suggested it as more reliable source. Their article is as follows: Standard English (often shortened to S.E. within linguistic circles) refers to whatever form of the English language is accepted as a national norm in an Anglophone country. It encompasses grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. In the British Isles, particularly in England and Wales, it is often associated with the "Received Pronunciation" accent, also known as Queen's English. In the United States it is generally associated with the "General American" accent, and in Australia with General Australian. Unlike the case of other standard languages, however, there is no official or central regulating body defining Standard English [2: 75]. It is quite informative and as usual native speakers provided more valuable information. The first difference is determining the Standard English as national norm in an Anglophone country, thus the author accepts that Standard Language can belong not only to the Great Britain and it is reasonable from the one point of view: there is a country which uses this language as official and it is no doubt standard for them, the laws, the literature, everyone goes along with these norms. But from another point of view in such a way we dont have a start point to determine deviations and variants. So if every English is the Standard English we should consider this as a paradox and give up this point of view, or neglect the regional division and consider it just wide set of rules which a rather flexible and can satisfy peoples from different countries.problems of point of views of two previous web sites left the question opened, but another source, devoted to the problem we find as proper and want to present it with the analyses. The article begins from the origins of the Standard English: By far the most influential factor in the rise of Standard English was the importance of London as the capital of England. London English took as well as gave. It began as a Southern and ended as a Midland dialect. By the 15th century there had come to prevail in the East Midlands a fairly uniform dialect, and the language of London agrees in all important respects with it. We can hardly doubt that the importance of the eastern counties is largely responsible for this change. Even such Northern characteristics as are found in the standard words seem to have entered by way of these counties. The history of Standard English is almost a history of London English. [1: 172]. explains why we should consider the British English as standard through the history. But the question is still open: half-way through the 17th century, the lexicographer Thomas Blount declares that the 'Babel' of the vernacular made England a 'self-stranger' nation--one growing alien to itself through this diversity of available forms. He dedicates his dictionary of 1656 to the cause of having 'English Englished.' Arguably, in this context it is not the rise of a standard variety of language, but a new awareness of dialect and variability of discourse - the 'self-stranger' English of the Renaissance - that best defines the linguistic culture of early modern England [6: 62]. the final accord was in the end of the article: [T]here is no such thing (at present) as a Standard English which is not British or American or Australian, etc. There is no International Standard (yet), in the sense that publishers cannot currently aim at a standard which is not locally bound. [5: 23]. we can give up the search of standard English due to its declination to the International Standard, which is not bound to any country.
english language dialect newspaper
2. Analyzes of English-speaking countries newspapers
, weve described the question of choice between dialect and variety and also touched upon question of Standard English. Thus weve taken extracts of newspapers of English-speaking countries and gave them analyzes of the important qualities such as information capability. The criterion was evaluated according such rates ac metaphors, euphemisms, and slang expressions, which was considered as useful.ve divided the materials into three blocks in order to emphasize the achieved characteristics: the UK, the US, Canada.UK newspaper the Telegraph:Cameron faces mutiny over NHS climb downCameron will today be forced to appeal for help from his newest MPs to head off a backbench revolt over his watered down health reforms. the face of Liberal Democrat opposition to his proposed shake-up of the NHS, the Prime Minister ordered a time-out so the views of doctors and nurses could be heard. , a report by the group NHS Future Forum, led by former chairman of the Royal College of GPs Prof Steve Field, will be published and is expected to recommend a string of changes. Liberal Democrats claimed yesterday that the concessions they had demanded had been achieved, while backbench Tories were warning that Mr Cameron had given too much away. Pritchard MP, secretary of the 1922 committee of backbench Tory MPs, suggested that the changes would lose the Tories votes. told The Daily Telegraph: History may judge this moment as a lost golden opportunity to make the NHS fit for the 21st century.
For the discerning voter, and politically, it may be a case of 'a plague on both their houses. NHS reforms are needed. The status quo will not deliver improved patient outcomes or improved value for hard-pressed taxpayers. Cameron has called an emergency meeting of all 143 Tories who joined the Commons at last years election. is being interpreted in Westminster as an attempt to ensure Mr Cameron has enough support to see off opposition from old guard MPs, who have been angered at concessions to the Tories Coalition partners and perceived gloating from Lib Dems. Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, will tell his MPs tonight the Lib Dems have won. They believe they have secured virtually all of the concessions demanded of Mr Clegg at the partys spring conference in Sheffield, such as limiting the scale of competition in the health service by private providers. Clegg will say at the special meeting: We have achieved what we set out to achieve. It is a job well done. Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Ashdown said Mr Clegg had played a blinder on this. Field is expected to warn that the NHS must remain free from day-to-day politics, while ensuring the Health Secretary must remain ultimately in charg