A friend and I have recently been discussing language, specifically “standard English” and “American slang” or vernacular. We came to a general agreement that standard English has an important role to play, especially in the context of text which is intended to be official (in the sense of government-produced documents) or printed for a wide general audience for the sake of informing the public (or customers, as in the case of signs in supermarkets or bus stations, et al.) but that vernacular, so long as it accomplishes the goal of effective communication, is not “wrong” in most cases.
I know that there are other examples in english-speaking communities, such as the rhyming slang of Cockneys, Aussie slang, etc., but I’m wondering about non-english language. Is there, for example, a definite division between “formal” Japanese and “slang” Japanese, or variations of Spanish or Slovakian and so forth? Can some Dopers provide some examples, please? Thanks in advance!
A very large number of languages have different ways to address people, depending on their station relative to the speaker. For example, you use one pronoun “you” when speaking to children or people you are on a first name basis with, and another “you” when speaking to an adult that you would call “Sir”. Some languages even go so far as two have two completely separate vocabularies, one used by women and one by men, which are not mutually intelligible.
So English is in a smallish minority among languages in which there is relatively little distinction between formal and informal language.
Having said that, there is another side to the coin. Since English is a portmanteau of several different root languages, one of them originally in more formal use than the other, nearly everything can be said in English either in formal or non-formal terms. A grunt laborer would describe the work he does using a completely different set of verbs than an attorney who is representing him in work-related lawsuit. English is replete with two-word verbs from the Germanic (take away, put in, leave out, etc.) that have one-world synonyms from French (remove, insert, omit). This binary system is rare or absent in nearly all other languages. I’m reminded of a 4-year-old boy in Guatemala playing by himself with a toy truck, saying “rapido, rapido”, because there is no less formal word in Spanish for “fast”. An English-speaking child would not know the word “rapid” at all.
In many languages - but not English - the verb is in different forms depending on who is doing the action. Depending on the context, the subject might not be required, in which case formal speech would include it, while informal speech would not. (I’m thinking specifically of the “-nos” ending in Spanish, and the “-nu” ending in Hebrew, both of which mean “we”.)
Please note the the OP may be confusing two things: The distinctions between formal and informal speech are not the same as between standard and slang.
Latin was divided into classical and vulgar (then meaning colloquial) forms. The former was spoken in the Senate; the latter was the common language of the people (and came in varying flavors depending on where you were in the empire.)
The Javanese language has about four different sets of vocabulary and grammar to say the same thing, depending on the social positions of the speakers, social distance, and humility/politeness. So complicated that few Javanese speakers ever learn the whole system.
To say, for example, “I want to eat,” you have to choose the right level or risk making a serious social faux pas.
Informal: Aku arep mangan.
Middling: Kula ajeng nedha.
Formal:
(neutral) Kula badhé nadhi. (speaking to someone of equal status)
(humble) Dalem badhé nedhi. (to someone of higher status)
Small wonder that independent Indonesia made the much simpler Malay language the national language—although Malay itself has different levels of formality, it’s far less complicated to master them. There are special words only used by royalty. It would be considered low to use the same word for “eat” as you do for animals eating (like we do in English). To be proper you have to use more refined language.
I think a trace of that system has leaked into Malaysian English: Nobody says to you “Have you eaten lunch?” It’s always “Have you taken lunch?” Saying “take” instead of “eat” or “drink” is apparently felt to be more refined.
I recall reading something that even by the time of Julius Caesar, the “formal latin” was rarely used outside of formal government settings and was fairly incomprehensible to the man in the street, as the vulgar unwritten latin had changed so much.
Isaac Asimov had an essay on how English is essentially two languages - the Norman French/Latinate language laid over top of the common Germanic language, so we do have a normal language and a set of high-falutin’ fancier words for many things; something most other languages lack. (“sweat” vs. “prespire”, “breath” vs. “respire”, “fast” vs 'rapid", etc.)
I also have a theory that widespread literacy and the printing press, and now the recorded word and audio-visual media, help to freeze the current language a lot more effectively than in previous eras. There’s a lot of newer slang in the world, but the language in movies of the 1930’s or the books of for example, Dickens or Arthur Conan Doyle are not very foreign to modern readers.
Can you give examples of some of these languages? And elaborate on what you mean exactly? I can’t imagine men and women who speak these languages literally can’t communicate with each other (or couldn’t if you’re referring to ancient languages that were like this).
A follow-up question: is there any kind of stigma generally attached to informal language among the well-to-do or whomever most often uses the formal language? The comparison I’m thinking of here is to the so-called “grammar nazis” of American english…
I don’t think he means that men don’t understand the women’s language and vice-versa. In modern Japanese women have a certain style of speaking, and men have a certain style of speaking, and one speaking in the manner of the other is thought of as weird.
Like if a CEO stepped into a boardroom and started talking like a hip-hop artist, or a hip-hop artist got up on stage and started going on about “utilizing synergy”, but with genders.
I hope this doesn’t cross into GD territory, but … hmmm… how can I say this politely? Many people who are accustomed to standard English look down upon Ebonics. But that’s only an example. It is probably true of any language used by a particular group. In fact, I would offer the phrase “grammar nazis” as evidence that precise grammar carries a stigma among people who speak less formally.
I strongly doubt this is specific to English. I could take the same examples in French and use a low key vocabulary (enlever, mettre, laisser) or a high key vocabulary (retirer, insérer, omettre : note that two of these words are the exact same words as in English. Regarding the third, I had not clue that “remove” was of French origin. The corresponding word disappeared in modern French).
Hmmm, no. The fact that a word is formal in English doesn’t mean that the same word is formal in another language. The kid used “rapido” because it’s not formal in Spanish.On the other hand, he probably didn’t know a formal word like “veloz”.
Vulgar Latin wasn’t really written at all, as far as we can tell. Not in Caesar’s time, anyway. The vulgate and classical forms remained mutually intelligible in Rome for several centuries after him. It was in the provinces that the vulgate became distinct (and ultimately became the Romance languages).
There are a few Vulgar Latin texts, like that woman Egeria who wrote the story of her pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 4th century. It’s an invaluable text for studying how VL evolved into Romance languages.
You really should use AAVE, not ebonics as it does actually only describe a particular dialect used by african americans, not black english speakers in general.
Speaking as a “grammar Allied”, I do not see people using grammar nazi as a term of disparagement. I generally see people using it self-deprecatingly or as a badge of honor.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like you consider AAVE to be generally less precise than SAE. How exactly do you define precise?
One thing that I have heard, anecdotally, is that the social distinctions in the Japanese language cause grief for a lot of westerners who watch a lot of anime and get exposed to large doses of anime-heroine Japanese that is really only appropriate for young girls. Guy watches lots of anime, assumes he’s picked up enough Japanese, goes to Tokyo, tries to communicate, locals fall over laughing and tell him to stop talking like a 13 year old girl who has been overdosing on sugar all day.
I can think of a handful of English words which are used mainly by women, at least in my dialect, like “lovely” and “darling”. In a similar vein, although utterly unsupported by my exposure to the language, I remember reading somewhere that “Aren’t I?” was thought to sound “womanish and affected”, and “stunning” was also supposed to be effeminate if spoken by a man. This wasn’t in some hamfisted and moronic men’s magazine, but in a usage guide appearing within a large dictionary aimed at the general public.
I imagine there are also plenty of “male” words, as well. But both males and females do understand all of them.