jueves, 2 de septiembre de 2010
On Wolfram
I thought the article was interesting but a bit stereotypical. It made several references about certain ethnicities and their dialects but not enough data to support the claims made. Many claims were made as statements which in turn appeared in my opinion to be be simpy opinions. In addition, it also seemed contradictory because it mentions that saturated and unsaturated group exclusive usages are not to be determined on the basis of specifc proportions of speakers, yet it makes reference to a set of speakers. To be saturated or unsaturated is still referring to a particular group; otherwise the term cannot be classified, right? Therefore, I simply think that more evidence should have been provided, which would have presented better comparisons of different group dialects.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios de la entrada (Atom)
Diana,
ResponderBorrarAll of these measures, such as saturated or unsaturated forms, are ones that a researcher can potentially use in order to make claims about the relevance of a particular form in relation to a speech community. They should be viewed as possible phenomenon that are applicable to a group of speakers.
At the same time, I did see some stereotyping in the article. It seemed like every time Wolfram mentions the 'vernacular' that he incidentally is referring to a minoritized speech community. It sends the meta-message that minoritized speech communities always speak in a vernacular and that others speak dialects. It's always good to see things with a critical eye. Good job!!