8 CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Review of Literatures The research in this paper had been done before by others‟ with their own excellences and weaknesses, one of them is Ida Ayu Inten (2010), with her paper entitled “Spoken English in „3 Idiots‟ Movie”. It analyzed the differences between spoken English in “3 Idiots” movie and Standard British English, and the factors that affected the spoken English. The similarities between this paper and my paper are the theory of Sociolinguistics and Dialects were used, it analyzed the spoken English in a country, and its data was taken from the actors of a movie. The differences were the object of the study, the method of analysis, and the micro linguistics which was being studied. The method of this analysis is single sampling method. The weakness of this paper compared to my paper is this paper analyzed about Indian English while my paperanalyzed African American Vernacular Language. Indian has 18 official languages and 1,576 mother tongue languages (according to 1991 census) which is a large number and has a role in affecting the speaker of Indian English, and several data from one movie could hardly represent all of Indian English characteristics in terms of phonological features and its
30
Embed
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, … 2.pdf · REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... entitled “Spoken English in „3 Idiots‟ Movie”. ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8
CHAPTER II.
REVIEW OF LITERATURES, CONCEPTS, AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
2.1 Review of Literatures
The research in this paper had been done before by others‟ with their own
excellences and weaknesses, one of them is Ida Ayu Inten (2010), with her paper
entitled “Spoken English in „3 Idiots‟ Movie”. It analyzed the differences between
spoken English in “3 Idiots” movie and Standard British English, and the factors that
affected the spoken English. The similarities between this paper and my paper are the
theory of Sociolinguistics and Dialects were used, it analyzed the spoken English in a
country, and its data was taken from the actors of a movie.
The differences were the object of the study, the method of analysis, and the
micro linguistics which was being studied. The method of this analysis is single
sampling method. The weakness of this paper compared to my paper is this paper
analyzed about Indian English while my paperanalyzed African American Vernacular
Language. Indian has 18 official languages and 1,576 mother tongue languages
(according to 1991 census) which is a large number and has a role in affecting the
speaker of Indian English, and several data from one movie could hardly represent all
of Indian English characteristics in terms of phonological features and its
9
pronunciation. African American Vernacular Language is one of minority groups of
people in the United States and it only has 154 dialects.
Another weakness of this paper is that the data was so small in number, one
sentence of the spoken English for one phonological feature. On the other hand, the
strength of this paper is the data was available for all of the phonological features. It
has one sample of the spoken English compared to Standard British English‟s
phonetics.
The paper that brings out the Slang Language based on a movie is Djereng
(2009), with her paper entitled “The Analysis of American Slang Words and Phrases
Found in the Movie Script entitled “8 Mile” written by Scott Silver. It analyzed the
types of slang words and phrases used by the characters on the movie. The
documentary method was used to collect the data and qualitative method to describe
based on the theory of Chapman (1988), who divided the types of slang. Moreover,
the theory of Zorc (1993) was also used; who proposed the process of creating slang,
which supported the word formation, abbreviation word, blending word and the
meaning of slang was taken from some dictionaries of American slang. Slang word
that was used by the characters was different from literal meaning. It could be
concluded that the primary slang was mostly found and used by the characters in this
movie, but there were many secondary slang used by them as a group of urban street
and rapper community in America. The similarity between this paper and Djereng‟s
paper was written using sociolinguistic theory. The differences are that Djereng‟s
paper used theory of Zorc and this paper used Kelly‟s theory and the problems talked
10
about slang, while this paper discussed about pronunciation. This paper has a
weakness in its macro linguistic. It was researching about slang used as a group of
urban street and rapper community in America which is too wide in its scope and had
to be more specific. African American Vernacular Language is still less wide than
Djereng‟s paper. It is believed that finding the phonological feature of these slang
words would give more knowledge to the readers.
Compared with Suastika‟s paper (2008) entitled “The Analysis of Slang used
Among the American Undergraduate Students at Oregon State University”, his data is
more reliable. It analyzed about the differences between men and women language. It
applied qualitative and quantitative method. The data collected from 100
questionnaires to a certain class at Oregon University undergraduate students through
opportunistic sampling. The quantitative method was based on the questionnaires that
related to the percentage of the tendency in using slang between male and female
students. However, the qualitative method was used from generalization about the
students‟ opinion of slang. It used theory of Sidney Landau‟s, the definition about
slang. In Dictionary: The Art and Craft of Lexicography define slang as sometimes
grouped with the style labels (standard or non-standard), and theory of Lakoff (1975),
about slang could be pointed out where female had their own way of speaking and it
was more formal than men language. The results were the differences between men
and women using language. The similarity between Suastika‟s and this paper is using
the same Sociolinguistics‟ theory. Compared to this paper, Suastika‟s paper used
Lakoff‟s theory and discussed about women and men language while this paper
11
usedHudson‟s and Holmes‟ theory and discussing about pronunciation of dialect in a
movie. It has its own strength because it used quantitative and qualitative method
which is more accurate in numbers and it was a field research which has its own
strength and weaknesses. It is believed that finding the phonological feature of these
slang words would give more knowledge to the readers. The weaknesses could be
depended on the sample of the object or the writer as human error.
While Prabawati (2010) gave a new way to analyze the data by using
Verdonk‟s theory in her paper entitled “Stylistic Variation and Context of Situation
for Characterizing the „Characters of Lord of Flies‟ by William Golding”. It analyzed
stylistic variations and form in the novel. The data was analyzed using theory of
register and context of situation by Halliday (1985), theory of stylistic by Verdonk
(2002), theory of characterization of character by Kenney (1966). The data was taken
from written dialogues of three major characters in the novel along with the context
of situation. The result of the analysis showed that the stylistic variation found in the
novel were in the form of whole sentences, phrases, and words, which appeared as
repetition, choice of words or non-standard language. The correlation between
stylistic and context of situation could not be parted for it may have different impact
in using different stylistic or different situation. It is believed that finding the
phonological features of these style variations would give more knowledge to the
readers. The similarity to this paper is that it used the theory of sociolinguistics.
There is also one article of Journal Phonology entitled “The Origin of Vowel-
Length Neutralisation in Vocoid Sequences: Evidence from Finnish Speakers” was
12
written by Scott Myers and Benjamin B. Hansen in Phonology published online in
March 30th
, 2006.It is proposed that a vowel after a vocoid must be longarises from
the inherent acoustic ambiguity of such sequences, which are realized with a
diphthongal transition from one formant pattern to the next, with no clear boundary
between the two. Neutralization in vocoid sequences originates from listeners'
difficulties in determining the duration of vowels in this context. Lengthening of the
second vocoid arises when listeners attributed some of the transition duration to that
segment. The phonetic bases of this account were supported by three experiments
with Finnish speakers. A production study showed that speakers treat the transition as
belonging in part to the realisation of the postvocoid vowel. Two perception studies
show that increasing the duration of the transition increases the probability of such a
vowel being identified as long.
2.2 Concepts
There are several items that mostly will be discussed in this research. From
the title of this thesis, it can be concluded that the items are African American
Vernacular English, Phonological Features, and the concept of Vernacular Language
itself.
2.2.1 Concepts of African American Vernacular English
13
English as mentioned inChapter 1is the most widely used language in the
world.It is spoken as a first language by a majority of the inhabitants of several
nations, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, the
Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, and a number of Caribbean nations. This indicates
that English has many varieties because there are many countries that are speaking
English. There are British English, American English, Australian English and many
others which have their own characteristics.
As we know, AAVE (African American Vernacular English) is spoken by
African American people which are a minority in America. Therefore, in this study,
American English will also affect AAVE in its phonological features. To fulfill the
aims of the study, British English will be compared to AAVE. American English
(AmE) is the form of English that is spoken in America.
For example of American English, Marckwardt (1980) stated that Edmund E.
Miller compared results of Lion Feuchtwanger‟s novel The Oppermans that was
translated each by American translator and British translator and found several
variant translations of the same German word or expression:
American British
Subway (train) underground (train)
furniture store furnishing store
newspaper clipping newspaper cutting
That's tough! Oh crumbs!
lousy slob great imprudent oaf
from the ground up to the last detail
Elevator Lift
14
to have the jitters to get icebergs down your back
It was nearly six o'clock.
It was getting on for six
o'clock.
What did he have to do today? What had he got to do today?
While many of these expressions are no longer current today, they do point up
the long-standing differences between British and American English. A sign is
supposed to have appeared in a Paris shop window, prior to the great influx of
American tourists following World War II, which read English spoken-american
understood.Europeans once familiar primarily with British English have, in the last
decades, grown accustomed to the American idiom.
It is apparent then that American English does possess certain qualities
peculiar to itself. On more linguistic grounds, the degree of autochthony which may
be ascribed to it has been a matter of some difference of opinion and is strikingly
reflected in the titles of two historically influential books on the subject. It is
mentioned that the term English denies the implication of a separate language. At the
same time, the modifier American is intended to indicate more than the mere
transplanting of a vernacular to a new soil, but rather to suggest its new growth as a
somewhat changed and wholly indigenous organism. The title is merely a label, and
subject to all the limitations of labeling. If dialect research of the last four decades has
taught us anything, it is that every sub-group of the population has its own linguistic
repertoire, frequently overlapping with that other groups but never being completely
identical.
15
Certain characteristic vocabulary differences between British and American
English-considered without specific reference to the sub-group repertoires indicated
above-have already been mentioned. That there are also differences in pronunciation
is so obvious as to require no demonstration. Close scrutiny will also reveal some
differences in grammatical structure, superficial in most cases but becoming
increasingly deeper as we consider some of the sub-groups. According to Marckwardt
(1980), he mentioned in his book that AAVE, for example, has recently been shown
to have preverbal been (He been ate de chicken; you been know dat) not directly
paralleled elsewhere except in Pidgin and Creole varieties from West Africa, New
Guinea, the West Indies, and other primarily insular and coastal areas around the
world. To some extent, then, the immense potential of variation in a language with
more than 800 million speakers is now being realized.
When the Ebonics controversy broke in December 1996, one of the most
frequent requests from the media was for lists or descriptions of AAVE features
which showed how it differed from Standard English (SE) and other American
dialects, and which the general public could understand. One of the most complete
and accessible (if somewhat technical) descriptions of AAVE phonology and
grammar is Fasold and Wolfram‟s often-citied (1970) article. Rickford (1999) had
compiled AAVE phonological features from previous articles and books before him.
The points are as stated below:
1. Reduction of word-final consonant clusters (i.e., sequences of two or more
consonants), especially those ending with t and d, as in han’ for SE
16
“hand”, des for “desk”, pos for “post”, and pass for “passed” (the ed suffix
in “passed” is pronounced as [t].
2. Deletion of word-final single consonant (especially nasals) after a vowel,
as in ma‟ [mæ] for SE “man”, ca‟ [kæ] for SE “cat” and ba’ [bæ] for SE
“bad”. Not as frequent as (l).
3. Devoicing of word-final voiced stops after a vowel, i.e., realization of [b]
as [p], [d] as [t], and [g] as [k], as in [bæt] for SE “bad”, and [pɪk] for SE
“pig”. The devoiced consonant may be followed or replaced by a glottal
stop, e.g. [bæɂ]. (See Fasold and Wolfram 1970:53-4, Wolfram et al.
1993: 10, Bailey and Thomas 1998:89).
4. Realization of final ng as n in gerunds, e.g. walkin’ for SE “walking”.
5. a. Realization of voiceless th [θ] as t or f, as in tin for SE “thin” and baf
for SE “bath”.
b. Realization of voiced th [ᶞ] as d or v, as in den for SE “then”, and
bruvver for SE “brother”.
6. Realization of thr sequences as th, especially before [u] or [o], as in
thodown [θodaun] for SE “throwdown”. (See Wolfram 1993: 8).
7. Deletion or vocalization (pronunciation as a weak neutral vowel) of l after
a vowel, as in he’p for SE “help”, and toah for SE “toll”. May have the
grammatical effect of deleting the “ll” of contracted will, as in “He be here
tomorrow” for SE “He‟ll be here tomorrow”, especially when the
17
following word begins with labial b, m or w (Fasold and Wolfram
1970:51-3).
8. Deletion or vocalization of r after a vowel, as in sistuh for SE “sister” or
fouh for SE “four”. This rule applies more often when the r comes at the
end of a word and is followed by a word beginning with a consonant (four
posts) rather than a word beginning with a vowel (four apples), but it can
also apply when a vowel follows within the same word, as in Ca’ol for SE
“Carol” or sto’y for SE “story”. Grammatical effects may include the use
of they for the SE possessive “their” (Labov et al. 1968: 99-119, Fasold
and Wolfram 1970:51-3).
9. Deletion of initial d and g in certain tense-aspect auxiliaries, as in “ah ‘on
know” for SE “ Idon’t know” and “ah‟m ‘a do it” for SE “Im gonna do it”
(see Labov et al. 1968: 252); the distinctive AAVE use of ain’t for
“didn‟t” (ibid.:255) probably derives historically from this rule too. Note
parallels in Gullah/ Caribbean Creole English tense-aspect markers: da ~
a, does ~ oes, ben ~ men ~en, mos bii ~ mosii, and go ~o (Rickford 1974:
108).
10. Deletion of unstressed initial and medial syllables, as in ‘fraid’ for SE
“afraid” and sec’t’ry for SE “secretary”. Strongly age-graded. According
to Vaughn-Cooke (1987:22), the unstressed syllable deletion rate for
speakers over 60 years old in her Mississippi sample was 85 percent, for
18
speakers aged 40-59 it was 70 percent, and for speakers 8-20 years old, it
was 52 percent.
11. Metathesis or transposition of adjacent consonants, as in aksfor SE “asl”
one of the biggest shibboleths of AAVE, often referred to by teachers,
personnel officers, and other gatekeepers in the course of putting down the
variety), and waps for SE “wasp”.
12. Realization of SE v and z (voiced fricatives) as d and z respectively
(voiced stops), especially in word-medial position before a nasal, as in
seben for SE “seven” and idn’ for SE “isn‟t” (phonetically, [ɪznt]). (See
Wolfram 1993: 9, Bailey and Thomas 1998: 89).
13. Realization of syllable-initial str as skr, especially before high front
vowels like “ee” [i], as in skreet for SE “street” and deskroy for “destroy”
(see Dandy 1991: 44).
14. Monophthongal pronunciations of ay and oy, as in ah for SE “I” and boah
for SE “boy”.
15. Neutralization/ merger of [ɪ] and [ε] before nasals, as in [pɪn] for SE “pin”
and “pen”. (See Labov et al. 1968: 119-20).
16. Realization of “ing” as “ang”and “ink” as “ank” in some words, as in
thang for SE “thing”, sang for SE “sing”, and drank for SE “drink”. (See
Smitherman 1986: 18, Dandy 1991: 46).
17. Stress on first rather than second syllable, as in police
19
18. More varied intonation, with “higher pitch range and more rising and level
final contours” than other American English varieties (Wolfram et al.
1993:12; see also Rickford 1977:205).
2.2.2 Concepts of Vernacular Language
The term dialect (from the ancient Greek word Διάλεκτος diálektos,
"discourse", from διά diá, "through" + λέγω legō, "I speak") (taken from
Wikipedia.com) is used in two distinct ways, even by linguists. One usage refers to
a variety of a language that is a characteristic of a particular group of the language's
speakers. The term is applied most often to regional speech patterns, but a dialect
may also be defined by other factors, such as social class. According to Wikipedia, a
dialect that is associated with a particular social class can be termed a sociolect; a
regional dialect may be termed a regiolect or topolect. The other usage refers to a
language socially subordinate to a regional or national standard language, often
historically cognate to the standard, but not a variety of it or in any other sense
derived from it. This more precise usage enables one to distinguish between varieties
of a language, such as the French spoken in Nice, France, and local languages distinct
from the superordinate language, e.g. Nissart, the traditional native Romance
language of Nice, known in French as Niçard.(Holmes, 1992: 127)
A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation
(phonology, including prosody). Where a distinction can be made only in terms of
pronunciation, the term accent is appropriate, not dialect. Other speech varieties