Che materia stai cercando?



At its simplest, the principle of idiom can be seen in the apparently simultaneous choice of two words, for

example, of course. This phrase operates effectively as a single word, and the word space may

disappear in time, as we see in maybe, anyway, and another. The of in of course is not the preposition of

that is found in grammar books, which, in an open-choice model, could be followed by any nominal

group. Similarly, course is not the countable noun that dictionaries mention.

It would be reasonable to add phrases like of course to the list of compounds, like cupboard, whose

elements have lost their semantic identity. The same treatment could be given to hundreds of similar

phrases -proverbs, clichés, jargon expressions, idioms, etc.

The principle of idiom is far more pervasive and elusive.

a) many phrases have an indeterminate extent (ex set eyes on seems to attract a pronoun subject, and

either never or a temporal conjunction like the first time, and the word has as an auxiliary to set.

How much of this is integral to the phrase, and how much is in the nature of collocational


b) many phrases allow internal lexical variation (ex the choice between in some cases and in some


c) many phrases allow internal lexical syntactic variation (ex In the phrase It is not in his nature to... the

word it is part of the phrase, so is the verb is (/was), in and nature are also fixed. But not can be

replaced by any 'broad' negative (hardly, scarcely) and his can be replaced by any possessive


d) many phrases allow some variation in word order (ex it is not in his nature to recriminate and to

recriminate is not in his nature);

e) many uses of words and phrases attract other words in strong collocation (ex hard work, hard luck,

hard evidence);

f) many uses of words and phrases show a tendency to co-occur with certain grammatical choices (ex

to set about is closely associated with a following verb in the -ing form. Set about leaving);

g) many uses of words and phrases show a tendency to occur in a certain semantic environment (ex

the verb happen is likely to be associated with unpleasant things).

In the current lexical analysis of long texts, a number of problems have arisen:

1. the 'meanings' of the very frequent grammatical words (words that have little lexical

meaning/ambiguous meaning, but instead sere to express grammatical relationships with other

words in a sentence);

2. some 'meanings' of frequent words seems to have very little meaning at all (ex take in take a look at

this, or make in make up your mind);

3. the commonest meanings of the commonest words are not the meanings supplied by introspection

(ex the meaning of back as the 'posterior part of the human body, extending from the neck to pelvis'


(CED, 1 sense) is not a very common meaning. The more common 'in, to or towards the original

starting point, place or condition', is only sense 47, the second adverbials sense);


4. the commonest meanings of many less common words are not those supplied by introspection (ex

sense 1 offered in the CED for pursue is 'to follow (a fugitive, etc.), yet by far the commonest

meaning is sense 5, 'to apply oneself to (one's studies, hobbies, interests, etc.) .

From these evidence, we can put forward some tentative generalizations:

1. There is a broad general tendency for frequent words to have less of a clear meaning than less

frequent words. With the very frequent words we are reduced to talking about uses rather than

meanings. The tendency can be seen as a progressive delexicalization (reduction of the distinctive

contribution made by that words to the meaning).

2. This dependency of meaning correlates with the operation of the idiom principle.

3. The 'core' meaning of a word – the one that first comes to mind for most people – will normally be a

delexical one.

4. Most normal text is made up of the occurrence of frequent words, and the frequent senses of less

frequent words. Hence, normal text is largely delexicalized, and appears to be formed by exercise of

the idiom principle, with occasional switching to the open-choice principle.

5. It is unhelpful to attempt to analyse grammatically any portion of text which appears to be

constructed on the idiom principle (like in the case of of course).

It should be recognized that the two models of language that are in use are incompatible with each other.

The switch from one model to the other will be sharp. The models are diametrically opposed.

This is one reason why language text is often indeterminate in its interpretation, and hence very flexible.

Also, two listeners, or readers, will not interpret an utterance in precisely the same meaning.

For normal texts, we can put forward the proposal that the first mode to be applied is the idiom principle,

since most of the text will be interpretable by this principle. Whenever there is good reason, the

interpretive process switches to the open-choice principle, and quickly back again. Lexical choices which

are unexpected in their environment will presumably occasion a switch; choices which, if grammatically

interpreted, would be unusual are an affirmation of the operation of the idiom principle.

The view of how the two principles are deployed in interpretation can be used to make predictions about

the way people behave, about the transitional probabilities of words, and also about the behaviour of

subjects trying to guess the next word in a mystery text.

2.2 Collocation

Collocation illustrates the idiom principle. When two words of different frequencies collocate significantly,

the collocation has a different value in the description of each of the two words. If word a is twice as

frequent as word b, then each time they occur together is twice as important for b than it is for a.

By entering the same set of events twice, once as the collocation of a with b and again the collocation of

b with a, the possibility of double entry allows us to highlight two different aspects of collocation; using

the term node for the word that is being studied, and the term collocate for any word that occurs in the

specified environment of a node. Each successive word in a text is thus both node and collocate, though

never at the same time. 11

When a is node and b is collocate, we speak of downward collocation – collocation of a with a less

frequent word b. When b is node and a is collocate, we call this upward collocation. The whole of a given

word list may be treated in this way.

Upward collocation is the weaker pattern in statistical terms, and where the words tend to be elements of

grammatical frame. Downward collocation by contrast gives us a semantic analysis of a word.

2.2.1 Collocation of back:

Let us illustrate collocational patterns with the word back. In distinguishing upward and downward

collocation we have made a buffer are of (plus or minus) 15 per cent of the frequency of the node word.

For example, let's take a word occurring 1000 times; when it is examined as a node, collocates are

grouped into:

a) upward collocates – those whose own occurrence is over 115 per cent of the node frequency (that is


b) neutral collocates – between 85 and 115 per cent of the node frequency (that is 850 and 1150);

c) downward collocates – less than 80 percent (that is 850).

2.2.2 Analysis of collocational patterns of back:

Upward collocates: back

Prepositions/adverbs/conjunctions: at, from, into, now, on, then, to, up, when

Pronouns: her, him, me, she, them, we

Possessive pronouns: her, his, my

Verb: get, got

The meaning of back as 'return' attracts expressions of time and place; after and where are also

prominent. Possessive pronouns suggest the anatomical sense of back. Two verbs get and go are

superordinates of a large number of verbs of motion.

Downward collocates: back

Verbs: arrive, come, leaned, looking, flew, stepped, steps, turned, drove, etc.

Prepositions: along, behind, onto, past, toward, towards

Adverbs: again, forth, further, slowly, straight

Adjective: normal

Nouns: camp, garden, room, road, yard, bed, couch, window, hand, head, neck, car, seat, etc.

Verbs are given in their most frequent form. Note the preponderance of past tense verbs, reflecting the

temporal meaning of back. The prepositions and adverbs suggest some typical phrases with back, and

the nouns are largely those of direction, physical space and human anatomy.

2.3 Conclusion

All the evidence points to an underlying rigidity of phraseology, despite a rich superficial variation. Hardly

any collocates occur most than once in more than two word patterns. The phraseology is frequently

discriminatory in terms of sense.

Early predictions of lexical structure were suitably cautious; there was no reason to believe that the

patterns of lexis shold map on to semantic structures.


The early results given here are characteristic of present evidence; there is a great deal of overlap with

semantics, and very little reason to posit an independent semantics for the purpose of text description.


Standardisation is a consisting of the process of language determination, codification and stabilisation.

Determination refers to decisions which have to be taken concerning the selection of particular

languages or varieties of language for particular purposes in the society or nation in question.

Codification is the process whereby a language variety acquires a publicly recognized and fixed form.

Stabilisation is a process whereby a formerly diffuse variety undergoes focussing and takes on a more

fixed and stable form.

3.1 Standard English is not a language

Standard English is less than a language, since it is only one variety of English among many. It is the

variety of English normally used in writing; it is the variety normally associated with the education

system, and it therefore the variety spoken by those who are often referred to as 'educated people'; and

It is the variety taught to non-native learners. But most native-speakers of English in the world are native

speakers of some non-standard variety of the language, and English can be described as consisting of

an autonomous standardised variety together.

3.2 Standard English is not an accent

There is in Britain a high status and widely described accent known as Received Pronunciation (RP), a

purely social accent associated with speakers in all parts of the country, from upper-class and upper-

middle class backgrounds. While all RP speakers also speak standard English, the reverse is not the


RP is in a sense a standardised accent of English and not Standard English itself. This point becomes

even clearer from an international perspective. Standard English speakers can be found in all English

speaking countries ad they speak this variety with different non-RP accents depending on whether they

come from Scotland or the USA or New Zealand, or wherever.

3.3 Standard English is not a style

We characterise styles as varieties of language viewed from the point of view of formality, ranging from

very formal to very informal. Speakers are able to influence and change the degree of formality if a social

situation by manipulation of stylistic choice. The repertoire of styles available to individual speakers will

be a reflection of their social experiences and, in many cases, also their education. In many areas of the

world, switching from informal to formal situations also involves switching from one language to another.

English as it is employed in area where it is the major native language of the community, such as the

British Isles, North America and Australasia, is a language which has the fullest possible range of styles

running from the most to the least formal.

Stylistic differences in English are most obvious at the level of lexis. But also grammatical constructions

vary as between informal and formal English (the passive voice, for instance, is more frequent in formal

than in informal styles), and phonology is also highly sensitive to style.


Standard English is no different from any other (non-standard) variety of the language. Speakers of

Standard English have a full range of styles open to them, just as speakers of other varieties do.

• The old man was bloody knackered after his long trip

is a Standard English sentence, couched in a very informal style, while

• Father were very tired after his lengthy journey

is a sentence in a non-standard English (north of England, for instance) variety of English as

attested by the non-standard verb form were, couched in a rather formal style.

It is true that, in most English-speaking societies, there is a tendency for Standard English to dominate in

relatively formal social situations, but there is no necessary connection.

There are many parts of the world where speakers employ the local dialect for nearly all purposes, such

as Luxembourg or Norway. In such situations, discussing important political matters with the mayor will

not elicit a switch to Standard Norwegian, but it will produce styles of greater formality than those to be

found on a Friday night in a pub with friends. Stylistic switching occurs within dialects and not between


3.4 Standard English is not a register

We use the term register in the sense of a variety of language determined by topic, subject matter or

activity (ex the register of mathematics, the register of medicine, etc.) In English this is almost exclusively

a matter of lexis, although some registers (notably the register of law) are known to have special

syntactic characteristics, too.

It is of course true that it is most usual in English-speaking societies to employ Standard English when

using scientific registers; but one can certainly acquire and use technical registers without using

standard English, just as one can employ non-technical registers while speaking or writing Standard


There was two eskers what we saw in them U-shaped valleys

is a non-standard English sentence couched in the technical register of physical geography.

The type of combination of technical register with a non-standard variety is much more common in some

language communities than others. In German-speaking countries, like Switzerland, most speakers use

their local non-standard dialect in nearly all social situations and for all purposes.

3.5 So what is it then?

Standard English is a sub-variety of English. Sub-varieties of languages are usually referred to as

dialects, and language are often described as consisting of dialects.

Standard English is an unusual dialect. It is by far the most important dialect in the English-speaking

world from a social, intellectual and cultural point of view; and it does not have an associated accent.

It is also of interest that dialects are generally simultaneously both geographical and social dialects

which combine to form both geographical and social dialect continua. It is thus legitimate and usual to

talk about Yorkshire dialect, or South Yorkshire dialect, or Sheffield dialect, or middle-class Sheffield

dialect, depending on what out particular objectives are. Unlike other dialects, Standard English, is a

purely social dialect. It is no longer a geographical one, even if we can tell that its origins were originally


in the southeast England. It is true that, in the English-speaking world as a whole, it comes in a number

of different forms, so that we can talk of Scottish Standard English, or American Standard English or

English Standard English. But the most salient sociolinguistic characteristic of Standard English is that it

is a social dialect.

Historically, we can say that Standard English was selected as the variety to become the standard

variety precisely because it was the variety associated with the social group with the highest degree of

power, wealth and prestige. Subsequent developments have reinforced its social character: the fact that

is has been employed as the dialect of an education to which pupils, especially in the earlier centuries,

have had differential access depending on their social background.

Standard English is a social dialect which is distinguished from other dialects of language by its

grammatical forms. There grammatical forms are not necessarily identical with those which prescriptive

grammarians have concerned themselves with over the last few centuries.

3.6 Standard English is not a set of prescriptive rules

These grammatical forms are not necessarily identical with those which prescriptive grammarians have

concerned themselves with over the last few centuries.

3.7 Grammatical Idiosyncrasies of Standard English

1. Standard English fails to distinguish between the forms of the auxiliary verb do and its main verb

form. This is true both of present tense, where many other dialects distinguish between auxiliary I

do, he do and main verb I does, he does or similar, and the past tense, where most dialects

distinguish between auxiliary did and main verb done, as in You done it, did you?

2. Standard English has an unusual and irregular present tense verb morphology in that only the third-

person singular receives morphological marking. Many other dialects use either zero for all persons

or -s for all persons.

3. Standard English lacks multiple negation, so that no choice is available between I don't want none

and I don't want any. Most non-standard dialects of English around the world permit multiple


4. Standard English has an irregular formation of reflexive pronouns with some forms based on the

possessive pronouns. ex myself, and others on objective pronouns, ex himself. Most non-standard

English dialects have a regular system of employing possessive forms throughout, i.e. hisself,


5. Standard English fails to distinguish between second-person singular and second-person plural

pronouns, having you in both cases. Many non-standard dialects maintain the older English

distinction between thou and you, or have developed newer distinctions such as you versus youse.

6. Standard English has irregular forms of the verb to be both in the present tense (am, is, are) and in

the past (was, were). Many non-standard dialects have the same forms for all persons, such as I be,

you be, he be, etc. and I were, you were, he were, etc.

7. Standard English redundantly distinguishes, in the case of many irregular verbs, between preterite

and perfect form both by the use of the auxiliary have and by the use of distinct preterite and past

participle forms: I have seen versus I saw. Many dialects have I have seen versus I seen.


8. Standard English has only a two-way contrast in its demonstrative system, with this (near to the

speaker) opposed to that (away from the speaker). Many other dialects have a three-way system

involving a further distinction between, for example, that (near to the listener) and yon (away from

both speaker and listener).

3.8 Linguistic change

Given that it is possible for non-standard features to become standard (and vice versa), it follows that

there will be a period of time when a form's status will be uncertain or ambiguous. For example, most

Standard English speakers are happy to accept the new status of than as a preposition rather than a

conjunction in constructions such as:

He is bigger than me.

but less happy, for the time being, to do so in:

He is bigger than what I am.

Similarly, American Standard English currently admits a new verb to got in:

You haven't got any money, do you?

but not (or not yet) in:

You don't got any money, do you?

3.9 Non standard lexis

There s no such thing as Standard English Vocabulary, but there is such a thing as non-standard


For instance, in the non-standard dialect of Norwich, England, there is a verb to blar which means to cry.

Not only is this verb regionally restricted, but also socially – the small proportion of the population of

Norwich who are native speakers of Standard English do not normally use this word although they are

perfectly aware of what it means. Cry is a standard English word, whereas blar is not. However, cry is by

no means only a Standard English word, since there are very many other non-standard dialects

elsewhere in which it is the only word available with this meaning.

Because Standard English is not geographically restricted to any particular region, its vocabulary is

available to all.

3.10 Conclusion

From an educational point of view, the position of Standard English as the dialect of English used in

writing is unassailable.

The teaching of Standard English to speakers of other dialects may be commendable.



On 1 January 1900 there were approximately 140 million native speakers of English in the world. A

century later that figure has almost tripled to nearly 400 million. Add to them about 100 million who speak

English a second language. Given that huge increase in the number of English-speakers since 1900,

and the myriad new ideas, inventions, and discoveries that have proliferated in that period, it would be

astonishing if the vocabulary of English had not grown substantially. And so it has. We shall never know


how many words were coined during the 20 century, some of them got lost before being taken into


account, but officially in dictionaries about 90000 new words, and new meanings of old words, are

recorded into the English language; a 25 per cent increase in the total vocabulary of the language.

Words are a mirror of their times. By looking at the areas in which the vocabulary of a language is

expanding fastest in a given period, we can form an impression of the chief preoccupations of society at

that time and the points at which boundaries of human endeavour are being advanced.

Table 1 – Lexical growth-areas by decade

1900s - Cars, Aviation, Radio, Film, Psychology

1910s - War, Aviation, Film, Psychology

1920s - Clothes/dance/youth, Transport, Radio, Film

1930s - War/build-up to war, Transport, Film/entertainment

1940s - War, Post-war society/international affairs, Nuclear power, Computers, Space

1950s - Media, Nuclear power, Space, Computers, Youth culture

1960s - Computers, Space, Youth culture/music, Media, Drugs

1970s - Computers, Media, Business, Environment, Political correctness

1980s - Media, Computers, Finance/money, Environment, Political correctness, Youth


1990s - Politics, Media, Internet

The new technology dominated lexical innovation on the 1900s (dashboard (cruscotto), aerodrome,

wireless, cinema), along with the vocabulary of psychology (psychoanalysis, libido). In the decade of

World War I they were overshadowed by the broad spectrum of military vocabulary (gas mask, tank),

and in the 1920s the lexicon of national post-war relief and the Jazz Age, dominated the scene

(Charleston, Oxford bags), followed in the 1930s by the approach of a new war (Blitzkrieg, black-out). In

the first half of the 1940s, World War II was providing the majority of new usages (gas chamber,

kamikaze), but the return of peace in the second half brought national and international reconstruction

(National Health, superpower) and the nuclear threat (nuclear bomb) to the fore. The 1950s saw the first

significantly burgeonings of youth culture (beatnik, teen), which has continued to be a prolific contributor

to the English language throughout the rest of the century. It was also the decade of a new vocabulary of

the media (hi-fi, transistor radio, videotape) that would dominate the next fifty years. Both had particular

offshoots in the sixties in language of music (the twist, Merseybeat) and the language of drugs (acid,

speed). In the 1970s, concerns about the destruction of the environment became a long-term source of

new vocabulary (global warming), and the language of political correctness began to get into its stride

(chairperson (presidente), herstory). The 1980s were the decade of money, typified both by financial

jargon (dawn raid, white knight) and by the lifestyle terminology of those who made and enjoyed it

(yuppie, dinky). The major new player on the 1990s lexical scene was the Internet (cyberspace, web


It is not at all uncommon for a new term to potter along for decades in obscurity, before being suddenly

taken into account by linguists and lexicographers: greenhouse effect, for example, was coined in the

1920s, but few non-climatologists had heard of it until the 1980s.

Our changing modes of social interaction have a lexical fingerprint, too. Take, for example, the 20th

century's rehabilitation of the notorious 'four-letter words', formerly doubtlessly widely used in casual


speech, but heavily tabooed in the print throughout the century. It appears to have been the great

melting pot of World War I, bringing together people of all classes and backgrounds, that encouraged the

spread of such words. But the most significant step was the publication in Penguin English Dictionary:

the first mainstream general English dictionary to include fuck and cunt. By the end of the century these

words are included as a matter of course in any unabridged English dictionary. This state of affairs would

have been unthinkable in the 1950s.

Up to the 1960s the notion of Standard English was based exclusively on written English; at the end of

the century that is no longer so, and colloquial usages are widely accepted in situations where they once

would have been considered inappropriate. Behind this may perceived a more general breaking of social

barriers, and a profound shift away from former (moral) role models.

On the other hand, there are a good many usages which once went unremarked, but which we now dare


not allow to pass our lips. In the 19 century, for instance, it was socially acceptable to be fat and there

was nothing bad associated to the word itself. At the end of the century thinness has become

fashionable, and fat is an insult, and we have evolved a range of euphemisms to avoid the direct


accusation. It sometimes seems as if the 20 century were the century of euphemism: there are many

areas which English-speakers have become embarrassed to talk about in the last hundred years. The

one with the highest-profile is probably racial (and sexual) discrimination. But if underlying tensions

remain, a change of name will not stick. th

Terms such as black and nigger fell under a taboo in the middle part of the 20 century. They tended to

be replaced by negro, but this went out of favour in the 1960s. Back stepped black, revived by blacks

themselves as a term of pride, and joined in the US by Afro-American and in the UK by Afro-Caribbean.

The politically correct lobby revived the 18th-century person of colour; then in the 1980s US blacks

subverted the whole process by reclaiming nigger, in the assertive new spelling of nigga.

The term racism dates from the 1930s, but the broader concept of -ism, in the sense of a censured

discrimination on unacceptable grounds, is a creature of the 1960s. Sexism led the way. The era of non-

discriminatory, 'politically correct' vocabulary was arriving.

There are fundamental five ways in which neologisms are created:

1. Putting existing words to new uses: the most effort-free way of expanding language. This generally

implies modifying the meaning of the word. The percentage of such modifications among the total

neologisms are between 10 and 15. Much rarer is the process known as conversion: this is when

the word-class of a word changes, so that, for instance, a noun is used as a verb (ex to garage the


car). 20 century linguists purists see in it a threat to the coherence of the language.

2. Combining existing words or word-parts: by far the commonest in English: it accounts for ¾ of the

new vocabulary coming into the language. It can be divided into two main categories:

• two or more words can be combined in such a way together, they mean something different

from what they would mean separately (dirty dancing, dreadnought (corazzata))

• an existing word can have a prefix or a suffix added to it (unbundle, beatnik)


But there is one particular compound that is highly characteristic of the 29 century: the blend. You

take two words and put them together, so that the end of the first word merges with the beginning of


the second one (ex motor + hotel = motel). It is a pattern that seems to have had its beginnings in

Victorian word-play, its most celebrated early exponent was Lewis Carroll. The pattern was

th th

established itself at the end of the 19 century, and the 20 century has taken to it with great

enthusiasm. The 1980s and 1990s in particular have been addicted to the blend's cool snappiness

(vivacità) – hence all the cross-genre terms such as infotainment and docusoap).

3. Shortening existing words or word-parts: the most straightforward way is to knock off the end (porn

for pornography), but there is a particular subset of these shortened words (nearly all verbs) that are

created by deleting a suffix, thereby usually altering the word-class (destruct from destruction,


elevate from elevator). They are known as back-formations, and they have proliferated in the 20 -

century English, particularly in US military and scientific jargon.

4. An extreme form of shortening a word is to leave only its first letter. This is called initialism (LP, PC).

When the resulting string of letters is pronounced as if it were an ordinary word, it is termed an


acronym (Aids, NATO). Acronyms have been the 20 century's great new contribution to English

word-formation. The main reasons for this are non-linguistic: the proliferation of organizations and

other entities with multi-word names (especially during and after World War II) and an increasingly

rushed world which prefers not to waste time on saying or writing such long names.

5. Borrowing words from other languages: foreign borrowing has provided approximatively 5 per cent


of new words in the 20 century. The Anglo-Saxon's attitude to foreign food, for instance, has

undergone a sea change in the past fifty years, introducing new culinary vocabulary: doner kebab,

pizza, quiche, tandoori, etc. Scientific and technological developments in a particular country ca lead

to a sudden inrush of foreign terminology (ex the prominence of France in early aircraft technology,

introducing in English terms like aerodrome and hangar). And an interaction at a political level often

contributes neologisms to English (führer, perestroika).

6. Coining words out of nothing: these account for less than one per cent of English neologisms. The

great majority of them are proprietary names or commercial names (Teflon, nylon, kleenex), but

some technical terms are devised in this way, either directly (googol) or by a piece of judicious

borrowing from a literary source (quark).


5.1 English: a living language

English is a constantly changing, living language, adapting to an ever-changing world which requires

new means of communication. Linguistic pessimists (prescriptive approach) see change as phenomenon

running parallel to the breakdown of society. They are concerned about the supposedly decreasing

standards of literacy marked by poor spelling and grammar, the use of informal spoken language in

written contexts, and the inaccurate pronunciation. Others (descriptive approach) see a flexibility and

vitality in the adaptability of the English language, watching at current linguistic developments as a

possibility to broaden our world view and understanding.

Language changes can be considered from a historical perspective, analysing the ways in which English

has evolved from its early, old form to its current, late modern one, as a continuum (diachronic


approach); others consider changes as 'snapshots' of a particular moment in time, and they define the

language characteristics of the English language at that time (synchronic approach).

5.2 What changes language?

Because language patterns remain constant, we can assume that change is not random or arbitrary.

Because the basic function of language is to communicate, its users subconsciously protect its

expressive capabilities. Language can therefore be seen as systematic:

Historical factors

• Cultural transmission

• Social factors

• Geographical location: characterised by dialect and accent

• The use of different registers

• The development of English as a world language

5.3 The changing faces of English

As a living language, English is constantly changing to meet the needs of its users.

Social changes: gender and language

Gender describes a cultural system by which society constructs different identities for men and women.

Sexist language reinforces stereotypical attitudes and expectations – it often implies male superiority.

Often words associated with men have positive connotations (virile, sporty); women, on the other hand,

are associated with weakness and emotional and erratic behaviour. In an age of political correctness this

kind of divisive language is often seen as unacceptable. Equal opportunities and anti-sexist alternatives

are now offered as substitutes: the chairman becomes a chairperson, man-hours become work-hours,

etc. Some people argue that language change must be actively promoted id the status quo is to be

altered; others believe that language will change automatically to reflect the new roles women have in


Linguistic research suggests that the very roles men and women take in informal conversation are


On a level of discourse:

• men: more likely to interrupt

• men: often reject topics introduced by women/ women: talk about topics raised by men

• women: initiate conversations, but succeed less often because males are less willing to co-


• men: use familiar terms of address even on occasions when a more formal tone is appropriate

The grammatical structures:

• women: frequent tag questions

• women: modal verbs, modal adverbs (maybe, probably), tentative verbs (think, suppose)


• men: use commands/ women: use commands framed as interrogatives (Would you mind...?) or

as hypothetical statements (I wonder if you could...)

Lexical choices:

• women: evaluative adjectives (wonderful, brilliant)

• women: adverbs of degree (so, very)

• women: adjectives describing approximate amounts (about, around)

• women: reduplicated forms, like itsy-bitsy, also linked to baby talk

• men: frequent swearing and use of slang

• women: frequent politeness markers (please, sorry, thank you)

Phonological differences:

• women: adjust their accents to match other participants in a formal speech encounter

• women: less likely to drop consonants and to speak with a broad accent if they want to make a

good impression

Terms of address: In many cases there is no longer need to distinguish the gender of workers: firefighter

replaces fireman, officer replaces policeman; such changes in lexis reflect social changes – women are

now part of the workforce at all levels and language needs to reflect it.

Many words belittle women, making them seem no more than sexual objects. The words master and

mistress, for instance, were originally equivalents, mistress is now associated with a negative, often

sexual side.

The generic man: In Old English, mann meant person. This term was then accompanied by other distinct

forms which marked differences in gender: wer (adult man); wif (adult female). By 1850 an Act of

Parliament had ruled that 'words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include

females'. Many collocations use the generic man (ex no man is an island), but even though these are all

meant to be inclusive it is difficult to believe that speakers clearly visualise both men and women. The

order of words in compound phrases also suggests a male-dominated view of the world (husband and

wife, brother and sister).

The use of the third person singular pronoun he also causes a lot of controversy. Sixteenth century

grammar books established its use – at that time grammar books were addressed to school boys in a

male-dominated society. It reflected a reality that is no more today's case, since girls have equal access

to free education. Because English does not have an indefinite pronoun which could replace the

supposedly inclusive he, many new pronominal forms have been suggested. Some propose to use the

third person plural they (which some linguists claim to be inaccurate to use after a single noun reference:

every person must now collect their ticket); others suggest to use both the feminine and the masculine

singular pronouns (s/he, he/she); others again, come forward with new pronoun forms (hesh for he/she,

hirm for him/her).

5.4 Cultural changes – Black English 21

Black American English (BAE) is the language used by mostly lower-class Blacks in urban communities.

80% of Black Americans can speak this variety, but as Blacks have become more integrated and as

Black middle class as developed, the language form used by the other 20% moved closer to Standard

American English. Black English Vernacular (BEV) is a cultural or social variant from the standard form.

It is a political 'non-standard' form, because as a distinct and separate variety of spoken English, it is in

direct conflict with Standard American English (SAE). th th

The history of Black English in America can be linked to the slave trade in the 17 - 19 centuries. So

that English-speaking whites could communicate with Africans a contact or pidgin language was

developed. Pidgins are marginal languages created by people who need to communicate but have no

common language. They are marked by a simplified grammar and a small vocabulary (700-2000 words),

and they have a smaller range of functions. They can be distinguished from dialects because they are

clearly made up from two different source languages; most pidgins are based on European languages

reflecting Europe's history of colonisation. Often when the original need for communication is no longer

important, pidgin languages die. Some, however, develop a more formal role, gaining official status and

expanding to meet the needs of users. This phenomenon is called expanding pidgin or lingua franca.

When later generations learn it as a first language it is called a creole. For a pidgin to become a creole,

certain criteria must be met: the vocabulary has to expand, grammatical structures have to be able to

communicate more complex meanings, and style has to be adapted.

There are two kinds of creole Englishes: Atlantic and Pacific creoles. English creoles are marked by the

number of Portuguese words (also mixed with African terms) they still contain, survived from the former


portuguese trading and colonisation of the 15 century.

Grammatical structures of creole languages:

• absence of plural forms (in Atlantic varieties, dem is often places immediately after

the noun)

• third person singular pronouns are not marked for gender

• nouns can be marked for gender by adding man (man) or meri (woman)

• verbs are not marked for person or tense (different timescales are indicated by the

addition of the auxiliary verbs, like did or been; or by creole words, like baimbai (by and by) for future

time, and pinish (finish) for past time

• multiple negations are common

• some varieties distinguish between two kinds of we: yumi (you and me), and mipela

(me and other people, not including you)

Lexical patterns:

• reduplication of words is used to

- extend a limited vocabulary: ile (hilly) → ileile (choppy sea)

- distinguish between two words that sound similar: sun and sand are both articulated as san, so

sand is realised as sansan

- intensify meanings: smal (small) → smalsmal (very small)



2 volte




73.47 KB


+1 anno fa


Riassunto per l'esame di Linguistica Inglese della prof.ssa Maggioni, basato su appunti personali del publisher e studio autonomo del libro consigliato dal docente: Readings in English Lexicogrammar, di M. Ulrych.
Gli argomenti trattati sono i seguenti: lexis and lexicography, collocation, standard English, twentieth-century words, English: a living language, language variation: regional and social.

Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea in scienze linguistiche (BRESCIA - MILANO)

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher ilaria.possenti di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Linguistica inglese e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Milano Unicatt o del prof Maggioni Maria Luisa.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Linguistica inglese

Riassunto esame Linguistica inglese, prof. Camaiora, libro consigliato Readings in English Lexicogrammar, Ulrych
Riassunto esame Linguistica Inglese, prof. Camaiora, libro consigliato The Frameworks of english, Ballard
Riassunto esame Linguistica inglese, prof. Camaiora, libro consigliato libro A handbook of present day English, Pulcini
Riassunto esame Linguistica inglese, prof. Camaiora, libro consigliato Aspects of discourse and genre, Ulrych