Language Comprehension: Round 2

To me, the most important/influential feature of language comprehension is still vocabulary. If a person has never been exposed to a word or phrase, it is very unlikely that they will be able to understand its meaning even within correct context. Sound is important as well, but it is much easier for me to comprehend a speaker who mispronounces a familiar word than it is to understand someone, who could even be a native speaker of English, but uses an unfamiliar word. Also, the frustration involving completely unknown words is greater, as people assume that because you speak their language, you should know what they are trying to say. If a person with whom you are speaking simply does not know the vocabulary and is not understanding you from the context, it is easier to just explain to the person what you are trying to say rather than continuing to use the confusing vocabulary. I have experienced many instances in which people have no idea what I am saying because I am using words that are totally foreign to them. I believe it is vital to learn the multiple synonyms of common words, as it obviously makes it easier to communicate and can avoid some potentially extremely enraging situations. Also, it is beneficial to learn unfamiliar synonyms to preserve "dying" dialects, as the Ocracoke article suggested.

Lexical Differences

Lexical differences always result in a lot of confusion and usually laughter. The one word that exists in my lexicon that appears to exist in very few other lexicons is the word "bubbler." Rather than saying "bubbler" most people say drinking/water fountain. I have received a variety of reactions to this work ranging from those who think it is the most amazing word ever to those who negatively view it as a primitive, juvenile, or nonexistent word. It can be extremely difficult for those who hear the word for the first time, as (I will admit) drinking fountain really is much more comprehensible than bubbler.
One lexical (though apparently very common in Wisconsin) difference that I encountered that gave me a lot of confusion. My boss came up to me and told me to "unthaw" some cookie dough. My immediate translation of this was to make some cookie dough and put it in the freezer for later. As soon as my boss saw that I was making cookie dough she asked why I was making new dough when she wanted me to take some out of the freezer. So, in this case, "unthaw" means to thaw, not freeze.
Another lexical difference that is common for most of Wisconsin is the idea that the words "yet" and "still" are interchangeable. For example it is common to hear something like: Are you using that book yet? Rather than: Are you still using that book/ are you using that book still? I have no idea where this could have originated, but it is extremely common. It is very confusing to those who have never heard (I am used to it because my parents say it all the time) because of the big differences in the definitions of the words.

Dialect Perception

This article was very interesting, and it still baffles me to think that when we hear a different accent, we sometimes cannot identify some very distinct differences in vowels. I was surprised that there was a higher frequency of Non-Mobile Northerners perceiving the Northern and Midland dialects as being more similar. Is this the result of either not recognizing actual differences in vowels? Or is it the result of the stigmatization of the Northern accent and the idea that the Midland accent is ideal? I also found it interesting that none of the results were statistically unbiased. Even if the perception of one dialect was at 17% (statistically unbiased) there were other dialects of which there were stronger biases.

Though this experiment was seemingly conducted with the utmost precision, there would still be room for improvement. My idea of mobile and nonmobile speakers definitely conflicts with those presented in the article. I constantly had questions about cases in which the experiment's data could be completely off due to details not included in the general criteria for being classified as either nonmobile or mobile. As far as dialects are concerned, state boundaries can seem rather arbitrary. In looking at the dialect map given to us earlier in the quarter, I noticed that dialect boundaries transcend federal boundaries. This could be problematic if a mobile speaker has been to three different states with the same dialect. Conversely, a state can contain more than one dialect. A way to somewhat imperfectly remedy this situation could be to take distance between residences into account. The criteria for nonmobile speakers is also problematic for the validity of this experiment. For example: I have always lived in the same place, and my parents have always lived in the same place as me as well. Despite my seemingly nonmobile characteristics, I have been exposed to many different accents because I have traveled for extended periods of time (a month at the most), where there were other people in my age range who were from different countries and states. This could seriously skew the results of the experiment if a participant has only lived in one state but has traveled extensively. A way of collecting more accurate results could be to have stricter definitions of nonmobile and mobile speakers.