Talking about Standard English, or any form of Standard Language, is somewhat of a fallacy, though. He provides an example of a phonemic variation with the non-standard pronunciation of the word “soot” as ( ibid. He establishes a clear hierarchy between Standard English, “the ‘best’ type of Spoken English” to what he calls the Modified Standard, “the various vulgar forms heard among the inferior ranks of the population” ( ibid. a peculiarity which intrudes itself into Standard English, and is of such a nature as to be associated with the speech of vulgar or uneducated speakers.ħ Wyld seems mainly concerned with phonological variations. He defines vulgarism as (quoted in Crowley: 2003, 150): This notion refers to linguistic forms that are deemed vulgar in a social context, precisely because they deviate from the norm. It is therefore useful to turn to what lexicographer Henry Wyld called “vulgarism” (1914, 139). Posner (1996, 98) states that it was believed that Vulgar Latin would eventually imply “ decay from God-given complexity and uniqueness towards animal-like communicative simplicity.” This implies that the term ‘vulgar’ not only referred to what was believed to be inferior linguistic practices, but also to the fact that those inferior practices were perceived as such precisely because they were associated to specific language users: the common people.Ħ Discussing vulgarity and linguistics indeed entails that linguistic features as well as social factors be analyzed simultaneously. the set of all those innovations and trends that turned up in the usage, particularly but not exclusively spoken, of the Latin-speaking population who were little or not at all influenced by school education and by literary models.ĥ What was then perceived as an unrefined form of Latin was therefore linked to the fact that it was spoken by a certain category of speakers that could threaten established linguistic norms. Interestingly, “Vulgar Latin” refers to both a less complex form of Latin, and one spoken by the common people. The term itself can be traced back to “Vulgar Latin,” a non-standard form of Classical Latin. Vulgarism: social perception of linguistic variationsĤ The word “vulgar” also has folk-linguistic implications. Though lexemes expressing vulgarity generally imply vulgar semantics (“fuck” for example may refer to sexual intercourse), it is possible to refer to vulgar topics without vulgar lexical items (for example discussing bodily functions without cursing). What is considered vulgar in this case is the meaning of the utterance, but not necessarily the lexical items used. The semantics of an utterance may be regarded as intrinsically vulgar as well. Virtually every speaker of the speech community is aware of the intrinsic vulgarity of such words. They often refer to profanity and socially taboo subjects (Ljung: 2011). On the lexical level, swear words comprise a rich variety of terms which include nouns, verbs, adjectives or interjections (Montagu: 1967). This may be expressed through the use of specific lexical items as well as semantics. Ģ The first definition suggests that what constitutes vulgarity may be indexed to norms that were taught to and fully integrated by individuals, though the scope of both “sophistication” and “good taste” may vary between social groups.ģ Linguistically, “vulgarity” may refer to features that are perceived as vulgar because they deal with unrefined or taboo topics. The online Oxford English Dictionary (2018) defines the term “vulgar” as:Ģ. Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions. Whether it be in relation to a lack of cultivation, morals, or knowledge of social etiquette, what is deemed vulgar necessarily involves perception. Introduction Linguistic coarseness: vulgarity & vulgarism Vulgarity: intrinsically vulgar featuresġ The term “vulgarity” fundamentally appeals to judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |