Section 3.1 Dialects and Language Varieties
No language is monolithic. Every language exists in multiple varieties, used by different groups of speakers in different situations. These varieties are called dialects, and understanding them is essential for understanding how language works in society.
A dialect is a version of a language associated with a particular region, social group, or community. The term can refer to varieties as small as "Colorado Springs English" or as broad as "Caribbean Englishes." Everyone speaks a dialect—including people who speak what is called "Standard American English." There is no dialect-free way of speaking a language.
This point bears emphasizing: you speak a dialect. The prestige varieties that get called "Standard English" are themselves dialects—varieties associated with particular social groups (typically educated, middle- and upper-class speakers). They’re not more "pure" or "correct" than other varieties; they’re just more prestigious because of who speaks them.
Geographic Dialects.
The most familiar type of variation is geographic: speakers from different regions often speak differently. In the United States, speakers from Boston, New York, the South, and the Midwest have distinctive pronunciations, vocabulary, and grammatical features.
Pronunciation differences:
-
Bostonians may drop the r in words like car (producing something like cah)
-
New Yorkers may distinguish caught and cot while many Western Americans pronounce them identically
-
Southerners often merge the vowels in pin and pen
-
Some regions preserve distinct vowels in Mary, marry, and merry; others collapse them all together
Vocabulary differences:
-
Americans say elevator while the British say lift
-
What’s a sub in the Northeast is a hoagie in Philadelphia, a grinder in New England, a hero in New York, and a po’boy in Louisiana
-
Southerners might say y’all while others say you guys, you all, or yinz (Pittsburgh)
-
A bubbler is a drinking fountain in Wisconsin
Grammatical differences:
-
Some regions use might could or used to could (double modals)
-
Scottish English has I’ll not where other varieties have I won’t
-
Many Southern varieties use fixin’ to to mean about to
These differences emerge because communities that are geographically separated develop their language independently. Settlement patterns, migration routes, and geographic barriers all shape dialect boundaries.
Social and Ethnic Varieties.
Language also varies according to social factors like class, ethnicity, and community membership. Working-class speakers often use different forms than middle-class speakers; different ethnic communities may have distinctive varieties reflecting their history and culture.
African American Vernacular English (AAVE), also called African American English or Black English, is a systematic variety with its own grammatical rules, developed from the historical experience of African Americans. It features constructions like:
-
Habitual "be": She be working means she works regularly—a distinction Standard English can’t make as concisely
-
Aspectual "been": I been known that indicates something known for a long time, with emphasis
-
Negative concord: I don’t know nothing uses multiple negatives for emphasis
-
Copula deletion: She nice omits is in exactly the contexts where Standard English can contract it
-
Completive "done": He done finished emphasizes completion
These are not errors or "bad grammar"—they’re rule-governed features of a particular variety, just as systematic as any features of Standard American English. Linguists have studied AAVE extensively and documented its complex, internally consistent grammar.
Similarly, Chicano English, Appalachian English, Indian English, and other ethnic and regional varieties have their own systematic patterns. Each is internally logical and perfectly adequate for the communicative needs of its speakers.
Sociolinguistic Variables.
Sociolinguists study variation systematically by identifying linguistic variables—features that can be realized in different ways. For example, the variable (ing) can be realized as “-ing” or “-in’” (walking vs. walkin’). The variable (th) in “this” can be realized as a dental fricative [ð] or a stop [d] (this vs. dis).
Research shows that the choice between variants isn’t random—it correlates with social factors:
-
Social class: Working-class speakers typically use more vernacular variants
-
Formality: The same speaker uses more standard variants in formal contexts
-
Gender: Some variants are associated more with women or men
-
Age: Some variants are spreading among younger speakers or disappearing among older ones
-
Addressee: Speakers accommodate toward the speech of their conversation partners
This variation isn’t chaotic—it’s patterned and predictable. Sociolinguists can often predict what percentage of speakers from a given demographic group will use a particular variant in a particular context.
All Dialects Are Linguistically Equal.
A fundamental principle of linguistics is that all dialects are linguistically equal. No dialect is inherently better, more logical, more expressive, or more sophisticated than any other. Each has a complete grammar; each can express anything its speakers need to express; each is learned perfectly by children who grow up hearing it.
Consider some supposed "problems" with non-standard dialects:
Claim: "Double negatives are illogical."
Response: Multiple negation is used in many languages (French, Spanish, Russian) without confusion. It’s a systematic grammatical pattern for emphasis, not a logical error. Everyone understands “I don’t want nothing”.
Claim: "AAVE is just bad English with lazy pronunciation."
Response: AAVE has its own complex grammatical rules—some of which make distinctions Standard English can’t. Habitual “be” expresses aspect more precisely than Standard English can. That’s not laziness; that’s linguistic sophistication.
Claim: "Some dialects are more suited for abstract thought or literature."
Response: Any language or dialect can express any concept. If a word or construction doesn’t exist, speakers coin one. Some of the most celebrated American literature uses non-standard dialects: Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Twain, 1884), Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God (Hurston, 1937), and Toni Morrison’s entire oeuvre.
The differences between dialects are differences of social prestige, not linguistic quality. When people say that one dialect is "better" than another, they’re really making a social judgment about the people who speak it. The dialect spoken by socially powerful groups becomes the "standard," and other dialects become "nonstandard"—but this distinction reflects social hierarchy, not linguistic fact.
The Standard Language Ideology.
The belief that one variety of a language is inherently superior—usually the one associated with education, wealth, and power—is sometimes called the standard language ideology. This ideology is so pervasive that most people accept it without question. But it’s worth examining critically.
Standard varieties are useful. They provide a common code for communication across dialect boundaries, a stable written form, and shared conventions for formal contexts. But treating the standard as the only "correct" form has costs:
-
It stigmatizes millions of speakers as "deficient" for speaking perfectly good varieties
-
It creates linguistic insecurity that can impede learning
-
It erases the rich grammatical complexity of non-standard varieties
-
It reinforces social inequalities by privileging those who already speak the prestige variety
This doesn’t mean all language choices are equally appropriate in all situations. Standard American English is expected in many formal and institutional contexts, and using a nonstandard dialect in those contexts can have social consequences. But understanding that these are social conventions—not linguistic necessities—is the first step toward thinking critically about language and fairness.
