Lecture 13

Social and territorial grouping of English vocabulary.

1. Social causes of the use of lexical units.

2. The correlation of language, variant and dialect.
3. Varieties of English (British, American, Canadian, Australian, New
Zealand)
4. Pidgin and Creole languages based on English.

Social causes of the use of lexical units. The variation of the national
language in connection with social stratification is that the language is never
uniform, since along with factors contributing to the formation of its unity, factors
that create its heterogeneity.
Two main groups of these factors can be distinguished. The first of them
reflects the specifics of local distribution of different groups of the population that
is a native speaker of this language (territorial differentiation of the language). The
second group of factors is associated with the division of society into more or less
separate social groups (strata), uniting people according to some general social
criterion (property, professional, educational level, etc.).
The social stratification of society leads to the appearance of linguistic
differences among representatives of different groups of this society - the social
differentiation of the language. For linguistic division in the social aspect, perhaps
only two sociocultural factors are necessary: the existence of a division of labor at
the level of conscious shop (in a broader than medieval sense) corporations and the
presence of integration processes based on commodity exchange. Since the
language and social structure of society are interdependent components of one
social whole, the reflection of the social structure in the language is one of the
most distinct forms of this connection.
The theoretical position on the internal stratification, heterogeneity of the
national language, allowing linguists to consider language as a set of differential
forms or (within the framework of the system approach) as a system of subsystems
(a macrosystem consisting of microsystems), proved fruitful for solving many
issues of modern linguistics. These differential forms, singled out based on both
linguistic and extralinguistic signs, and it is customary to call forms of the
existence of language. The problem of the forms of existence of the language
currently remains in many aspects of the debatable. Linguistic literature does not
yet have a single universally accepted term for this category: in addition to the
“form of the existence of a language”, the terms “existential form”, “language
subsystem”, “system-variant”, “quasisystem” are also used. “Social version of the
language”, “social component of the language”, etc. There has not been resolved
the issues of common principles for distinguishing separate forms of the existence
of a language, their correlation and hierarchy, the specific content of each form in
different historical periods, etc.
We shall now turn to the details in which the language of some English
speakers differs from that of others. We shall see what varieties of the language in
question there are, and how they are interconnected. Every language allows
different kinds of variations: geographical or territorial, perhaps the most obvious,
stylistic, the difference between the written and the spoken form of the standard
national language and others. We shall be concerned here with the territorial
variations, the others being the domain of stylistics. For historical and economic
reasons the English language has spread over vast territories. It is the national
language of England proper, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and some provinces
of Canada. It is the official language in Wales, Scotland, in Gibraltar and on the
island of Malta. The English language was also at different times enforced as an
official language on the peoples who fell under British rule or US domination in
Asia, Africa and Central and South America. The population of these countries still
spoke their mother tongue or had command of both languages. After World War II
as a result of the national liberation movement throughout Asia and Africa many
former colonies have gained independence and in some of them English as the
state language has been or is being replaced by the national language of the people
inhabiting these countries (by Hindi in India, Urdu in Pakistan, Burmanese in
Burma, etc.). However, by tradition it retains there the position of an important
means of communication.
The role of the English language in these countries is often overrated, apart
from other reasons, though not differentiating between the function of the language
as a mother tongue and its function as a means of communication between the
colonizers and the native population.
The correlation of language, variant and dialect. Languages are afforded
more prestige than a dialect because they are given a title, a nation and a canon of
literature that give it its elite status as a language. But is a dialect not a language?
A ‘code’ is a linguistic system used for communication. Languages and
dialects are codes. Linguists tend to define a language as the standardized code
used in spoken and written form, whereas dialects are spoken vernacular codes
without a standardized written system. Despite the different varieties of English
spoken throughout the English-speaking world, there is a standardized written
form of the language that can be understood by all who are literate in the language.
Dialects can be defined as different varieties of the same language that have
evolved over time and in different geographical locations. For example, Italian,
French and Spanish were once dialects of Latin, but over centuries have evolved
into their own languages and in turn, have spawned their own dialects, some of
which have become languages.
Is the crowning of a dialect as ruler over all others an accident of history? A
dialect may be elevated to the status of language for political or national purposes.
For example, newly formed nation-states may elevate a dialect to the status of
language by making it the official language of the newly formed country to create
a sense of national cohesion and identity. This can be seen in the case of Italy.
What we now think of as the Italian language is actually evolved from a dialect
that was spoken in Florence. As this was the literary centre of Italy at the time, its
dialect was adopted by the elites as the language of a unified Italy, which up until
1861, was a collection of independent city-states with their own dialects, still
regionally spoken today.
Similarly, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are considered different
languages because they are the national languages of different countries (which
they share a name with). However, a Swede, Dane and Norwegian could converse
with each other in their own languages and understand one another. So, are they
each speaking a dialect of the same language or a different language? It depends on
how you look at language. In the case of Scandinavia, languages are delineated
along national lines, not in terms of mutual intelligibility.
In the case of Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the five
countries that emerged out of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia, variants of
Serbo-Croatian, the language of Yugoslavia, became distinct national languages
that the newly born nations identified themselves. Some linguists assert that the
difference between these dialects and languages is less than the differences
between variations of English. However, such cases, the elevation of dialects to
languages are less about intelligibility are more about the politics of national
identity.
So, what is the difference between a dialect and language? Generally, a
language is written as well as spoken, while a dialect is just spoken until it is
promoted to the status of language usually for political purposes. When a dialect
becomes a national language, it then becomes codified into that nation’s literary
tradition and acts as an identifier or national identity.
In the end, all linguistic codes are essentially beautifully complex dialects,
some of which have been better polished and chosen to occupy a particular role
and thus becomes standardized and recognized as a language.
The main variants of the English language.There are many varieties of
English spoken in the world. The oldest variety of English is British English,
spoken in the United Kingdom. Approximately 60 million people are native British
English speakers. The variety of English with the largest number of native speakers
is American English, with 225 million native speakers. The other major varieties of
English are Canadian English, Australian English, New Zealand English, South
African English and Indian English. Some linguists also recognize another
classification of a variety of English known as World English. All varieties of
English share the same basic tenets of the language, but certain words, phrases or
linguistic constructs may differ. For instance, in British English, one says I am
going to hospital. In American English, one says I am going to the hospital. In
British English one may say he is going to the cinema, in American English one
says he is going to the movies, and in South African English, the phrase is going to
the bioscope.
Varieties of English may be further divided into dialects such as Anglo-
Cornish or Welsh English in Great Britain, Gallah or Gulf Southern in the United
States and Bengali English and Southern Indian English in India. Whatever the
variety or dialect, English speakers the world over may communicate with each
other, with only occasional gaps in understanding.
 It is natural that the English language is not used with uniformity in the
British Isles and in Australia, in the USA and in New Zealand, in Canada and in
India, etc. The English language also has some peculiarities in Wales, Scotland, in
other parts of the British Isles and America. Is the nature of these varieties the
same? Modern linguistics distinguishes territorial variants of a national language
and local dialects. Variants of a language are regional varieties of a standard
literary language characterized by some minor peculiarities in the sound system,
vocabulary and grammar and by their own literary norms. Dialects are varieties of
a language used as a means of oral communication in small localities; they are set
off (more or less sharply) from other varieties by some distinctive features of
pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. Close inspection of the varieties
mentioned above reveals that they are essentially different in character. It is not
difficult to establish that the varieties spoken in small areas are local dialects. The
status of the other varieties is more difficult to establish. It is over half a century
already that the nature of the two main variants of the English language, British
and American (Br and AE) has been discussed. Some American linguists, H. L.
Mencken for one, speak of two separate languages with a steady flood of linguistic
influence first (up to about 1914) from Britain to America and since then from
America to the British Isles. They even proclaim that the American influence on
British English is so powerful that there will come a time when the American
standard will be established in Britain. Other linguists regard the language of the
USA as a dialect of English. Still more questionable is the position of Australian
English (AuE) and Canadian English (CnE). The differences between the English
language as spoken in Britain, the USA, Australia and Canada are immediately
noticeable in the field of phonetics. However, these distinctions are confined to the
articulatory acoustic characteristics of some phonemes, to some differences in the
use of others and to the differences in the rhythm and intonation of speech. The
few phonemes characteristic of American pronunciation and alien to British
literary norms can as a rule be observed in British dialects. The variations in
vocabulary, to be considered below, are not very numerous. Most of them are
divergences in the semantic structure of words and in their usage. The
dissimilarities in grammar like AE gotten, proven for BE got, proved are scarce.
For the most part these dissimilarities consist in the preference of this or that
grammatical category or form to some others. For example, the preference of Past
Indefinite to Present Prefect, the formation of the Future Tense with will as the
only auxiliary verb for all persons, and some others. Recent investigations have
also shown that the Present Continuous form in the meaning of Future is used
twice as frequently in BE as in the American, Canadian and Australian variants;
infinitive constructions are used more rarely in AE than in BE and AuE and
passive constructions are, on the contrary, more frequent in America than in
Britain and in Australia. Since BE, AE and AuE have essentially the same
grammar system, phonetic system and vocabulary, they cannot be regarded as
different languages. Nor can they be referred to local dialects; because they serve
all spheres of verbal communication in society, within their territorial area they
have dialectal differences of their own; besides they differ far less than local
dialects (e.g. far less than the dialects of Dewsbury and Howden, two English
towns in Yorkshire some forty miles apart). Another consideration is that AE has
its own literary norm and AuE is developing one. Thus we must speak of three
variants of the English national language having different accepted literary
standards, one spoken in the British Isles, another spoken in the USA, the third in
Australia. As to CnE, its peculiarities began to attract linguistic attention only
some 20 years ago. The fragmentary nature of the observation available makes it
impossible to determine its status.
Speaking about the lexical distinctions between the territorial variants of the
English language, it is necessary to point out that from the point of view of their
modern currency in different parts of the English-speaking world all lexical units
may be divided into general English , those common to all the variants and locally-
marked, those specific to present-day usage in one of the variants and not found in
the others (i.e. Briticisms, Americanisms, Australianisms, Canadianisms,1 etc.).
When speaking about the territorial differences of the English language
philologists and lexicographers usually note the fact that different variants of
English use different words for the same objects. Thus in describing the lexical
differences between the British and American variants they provide long lists of
word pairs like

BE AE
flat Apartment
underground Subway
lorry Truck
Pavement Sidewalk
post Mail
tin-opener can-opener
government administration
leader editorial
teaching staff faculty

From such lists one may infer that the words in the left column are the
equivalents of those given in the right column and used on the other side of the
Atlantic. However, the matter is not as simple as that. These pairs present quite
different cases. It is only in some rare cases like tin-opener — can-opener or
fishmonger — fish-dealer that the members of such pairs are semantically
equivalent. In pairs like government — administration, leader — editorial only one
lexical semantic variant of one of the members is locally marked. Thus in the first
pair the lexical semantic variant of administration — ‘the executive officials of a
government’ is an Americanism, in the second pair the word leader in the meaning
of ‘leading article in a newspaper’ is a Briticism. In some cases, a notion may have
two synonymous designations used on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, but one of
them is more frequent in Britain, the other — in the USA. Thus in the pairs post —
mail, timetable — schedule, notice — bulletin the first word is more frequent in
Britain, the second — in America. So the difference “here lies only in word
frequency. Most locally-marked lexical units belong to partial Briticisms,
Americanisms, etc., that is they are typical of this or that variant only in one or
some of their meanings. Within the semantic structure of such words one may
often find meanings belonging to general English, Americanisms and Briticisms,
e.g., in the word pavement, the meaning ’street or road covered with stone, asphalt,
concrete, etc’ is an Americanism, the meaning ‘paved path for pedestrians at the
side of the road’ is a Briticism (the corresponding American expression is
sidewalk), the other two meanings ‘the covering of the floor made of flat blocks of
wood, stone, etc’ and ’soil’ (geol.) are general English. Very often the meanings
that belong to general English are common and neutral, central, direct, while the
Americanisms are colloquial, marginal and figurative, e.g. shoulder — general
English — ‘the joint connecting the arm or forelimb with the body’, Americanism
— ‘either edge of a road or highway’. There are also some full Briticisms,
Americanisms, etc., i.e. lexical units specific to the British, American, etc. variant
in all their meanings. For example, the words fortnight, pillar-box are full
Briticisms, campus, mailbox are full Americanisms, outback, backblocks are full
Australianisms. These may be subdivided into lexical units denoting some realia
that have no counterparts elsewhere (such as the Americanism junior high school)
and those denoting phenomena observable in other English-speaking countries but
expressed there in a different way (e.g. campus is defined in British dictionaries as
‘grounds of a school or college’). The number of lexical units denoting some
“realia having no counterparts in the other English-speaking countries is
considerable in each variant. To these we may refer, for example, lexical units
pertaining to such spheres of life as flora and fauna (e.g. AuE kangaroo, koala,
dingo, gumtree), names of schools of learning (e.g. junior high school and senior
high school in AE or composite high school in CnE), names of things of everyday
life, often connected with peculiar national conditions, traditions and customs (e.g.
AuE boomerang, AE drug-store, CnE float-house). But it is not the lexical units of
this kind that can be considered distinguishing features of this or that variant. As
the lexical units are the only means of expressing the notions in question in the
English language some of them have become common property of the entire
English-speaking community (as, e.g., drug-store, lightning rod, super-market,
babysitter that extended from AE, or the hockey terms that originated in Canada
(body-check, red-line, puck-carrier, etc.); others have even become international
(as the former Americanisms motel, lynch, abolitionist, radio, cybernetics,
telephone, anesthesia, or the former Australianisms dingo, kangaroo and cockatoo).
The numerous locally-marked slangisms, professionalisms and dialectisms cannot
be considered distinguishing features either, since they do not belong to the literary
language. Less obvious, yet not less important, are the regional differences of
another kind, the so-called derivational variants of words, having the same root and
identical in lexical meaning though differing in derivational affixes (e.g. BE
acclimate — AE acclimatize, BE aluminium — AE aluminum). Sometimes the
derivational variation embraces several words of the same word-cluster. Compare,
for example, the derivatives of race (division of mankind) in British and American
English: BE racial/racialist a, racialist n, racialism n AE racist a, racist n,
racialism/racism n When speaking about the territorial lexical divergences it is not
sufficient to bring into comparison separate words, it is necessary to compare
lexico-semantic groups of words or synonymic sets, to study the relations within
these groups and sets, because on the one hand a different number of members in a
lexico-semantic group is connected with a different semantic structure of its
members, on the other hand even insignificant modifications in the semantic
structure of a word bring about tangible reshuffle in the structure of the lexico-
semantic group to which the word belongs. For example, the British and Australian
variants have different sets of words denoting inland areas: only inland is common
to both, besides BE has interior, remote, etc., AuE has bush, outback, backblocks,
back of beyond, back of Bourke and many others. Accordingly, the semantic
structure of the word bush and its position in the two variants are altogether
different: in BE it has one central meaning (’shrub’) and several derived ones,
some of which are now obsolete, in AuE it has two semantic centres (‘wood’ and
‘inland areas’) that embrace five main and four derived meanings. Lexical
peculiarities in different parts of the English-speaking world are not only those in
vocabulary, to be disposed of in an alphabetical list, they also concern the very
fashion of using words. For instance, the grammatical valency of the verb to push
is much narrower in AuE, than in BE and AE (e.g. in this variant it is not used in
the patterns VVen, NVen, NVing, NprpVing. Some patterns of the verb are typical
only of one variant (e.g. NVen and NprpVinf — of BE, NV and NVing — of AE).
There are also some features of dissimilarity in the word’s lexical valency, e.g. a
specifically British peculiarity observed in newspaper style is the ability of the
verb to be used in combination with nouns denoting price or quality (to push up
prices, rents, etc.).
As to word-formation in different variants, the word-building means
employed are the same and most of them are equally productive. The difference
lies only in the varying degree of productivity of some of them in this or that
variant. As compared with the British variant, for example, in the American variant
the affixes -ette, -ее, super-, as in kitchenette, draftee, super-market, are used more
extensively; the same is true of conversion and blending (as in walk-out —
‘workers’ strike’ from (to) walk out; (to) major — ’specialise in a subject or field
of study’ from the adjective major; motel from motor + hotel, etc.). In the
Australian variant the suffixes -ie/-y and -ее, as well as abbreviations are more
productive than in BE. Thus, the lexical distinctions between different variants of
English are intricate and varied, but they do not make a system. For the most part,
they are partial divergences in the semantic structure and usage of some words.
What makes a language a language? Is a dialect a lesser form of a language?
A dialect is essentially a language that has not been awarded the prestigious title of
a language. What’s the difference between a dialect and language?

Pidgin and Creole languages based on English. Pidgins and creoles are
both the result of what happens when you blend two or more languages, but they
are not the same. Put simply, a pidgin is the first-generation version of a language
that forms between native speakers of different languages — a makeshift
communication bridge, if you will. A creole is a pidgin with native speakers, or
one that has been passed down to a second generation of speakers who will
formalize it and fortify the bridge into a robust structure with a fully developed
grammar and syntax.
Pidgins form in the context of a multicultural population. Historically, this
has often happened in areas where multiple groups were trading with each other, or
when groups of slaves from various nations were assimilated into a single
population and developed a language.
Pidgins often borrow words from their source languages and feature a
simplified grammar. It is a bare-bones language designed to enable minimum-
viable communication.
By the time a pidgin becomes a creole, the language has developed enough
of its own characteristics to have a distinct grammar of its own. Beyond the well-
known French/West African creole spoken in Haiti, there is also Hawaiian Creole
English, which is a mix of Hawaiian, English, Chinese, Spanish and other
languages. Malay also has at least 14 recognized creole offshoots thanks to Dutch
and Portuguese colonial impact. Gullah is an English-based creole spoken in the
southern United States, and then there is the French-based Louisiana Creole. There
is also Chavacano, a Spanish-based creole spoken in the Philippines. The list goes
on.
There is some disagreement among linguists over whether pidgins
immediately become creoles, or whether this process can require more than one
generation. Some argue that neurologically, there are always a ton of
commonalities in the way humans learn native tongues, which means first-
generation speakers of creole languages will inevitably “fill in the blanks” of any
language aspects missing from the pidgin version. There is often many lexical,
syntactical and phonetical changes, which occur during the first 20 to 30 years of
creole formation. In either case, some pidgins are still in use today, such as
Nigerian Pidgin and Cameroonian Pidgin English, but they are often referred to
creoles as well as pidgins.
There is also some disagreement over whether creoles always arise from
pidgins, otherwise known as the “life cycle” theory, which was introduced by
Robert Hall in 1962. Other theories have surfaced since, like the notion that creoles
can develop in much more intimate contexts than trade, such as between slaves and
plantation owners. Some linguists contest the notion that Haitian and Louisiana
Creole arose from a pidgin stage, for example.
Additionally, it is important to note that pidgins do not always become
creoles. If a second generation of speakers picks up aspects of the pidgin as a
second language, it is still generally considered to be a pidgin. Additionally, if the
society does not provide an environment where the language can continue
developing in relative isolation, the pidgin will often disappear, along with the
need for it.
In either case, the distinction is not always very cut-and-dried.
 “In actual usage, distinctions are also difficult, such as with Tok Pisin (in its
name and also as it is usually considered a pidgin) now being the native language
of some in Papua New Guinea,” writes Daniel Ross on Quora. “So is it a creole
yet? Well, in a sense. However, it is also still a major non-native language for
many, probably for more. So perfect boundaries/distinctions are not possible, but
the ideas are fairly clear, and I would think it would be harder to separate other
kinds of mixed languages from creoles than creoles from pidgins.”
As with languages and dialects, the difference between pidgin and creole is
not exactly airtight. Language is a vast continuum, and it is ever in flux.

Tövsiyə olunan ədəbiyyat

1. Arnold İ.V. The English word. M., 1986.
2 Hajiyeva A. English Lexicology. Textbook. Baku: Elm və təhsil, 2011.
3. Lectures on English Lexicology (Курс лекций по лексикологии английского
языка). Учебное пособие. Казань: ТГГПУ, 2010.
4. Ginzburg R.S. A Course in Modern English Lexicology.M., 1979
5. Antrushina G.B.Лексикология Английского языка. M.,1985
6. Rayevskaya N. English Lexicology. Kiev, 1957
7. Jana Molhova. Outlines of English Lexicology. Sofia, 1967