Talk:East Anglian English

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Formal request has been received to merge: the Norfolk dialect and Suffolk dialect articles into East Anglian English; dated: 9 October 2023;

Proposer's Rationale: As I've previously stated, both Norfolk and Suffolk dialects are a sub-type of East Anglian English, e.g. as defined by Wells' (1982) Accents of English and Trudgill's East Anglian English. I see a very natural merge occurring to that page. The Norfolk dialect (and, in fact, Wells labels it Norwich or even urban Norwich) seems to have been on the wane after the 19th century. What is the argument to keep it separate from another nearly-gone Suffolk variety? This seems like the typical dialect page of some gung-ho local-pride editors, involving an infodump where much of the grammar and phonology sections are unsourced, looking very shaky at the moment. In the case of Suffolk dialect specifically, virtually nothing is sourced. The fact that East Anglian English is a single dialect as distinct from, say, the London area or Yorkshire, for example, is robustly documented. But the hypothesis that East Anglian English is distinct from Norfolk or Suffolk English is not only not interesting/notable enough for our online encyclopedia, it isn't empirically true; clearly one is a subset of the other. This is an age-old battle that has to be constantly fought on WP: how microscopically distinct we want dialect pages to be. Instead of us editors making an arbitrary cut-off point on a spectrum (since all language varieties form a spectrum), let's instead let the sources speak as to where the most defensible cut-off points exist. Wolfdog (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss below. GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A few points from me

• I remember reading a study done maybe 40 years ago in the Fens which showed that there was variation in the accent even from village to village, so one can infer that there would be even greater variation going as far down as Suffolk. I can try and find the study if needs be.
• Here's some quotes from Trudgill's East Anglian English which are significant:

• Interestingly, Beadle (1978: 31) writes that: the significance of Jocelin of Brakelond’s well-known remark about the English used by Abbot Samson of Bury can . . . be taken as the earliest surviving reference to East Anglian varieties of Middle English. As early as the 1180’s Samson took the unusual step of preaching to the lay people in their own language, and Jocelin’s sly humour hints that the Suffolk congregation had difficulty in understanding the dialect of the Norfolk monk.

Abbot Samson came from Tottington, which is across the Little Ouse on the other side of the Norfolk-Suffolk border from Bury St Edmunds, but not much more than 16 miles away

• Kristensson (1995), however, takes the north-south difference much more seriously. In his treatment of Middle English dialects from 1290 to 1350 (see Map 2.2), Norfolk lies in his East Midland dialect area, along with central and northern Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, eastern Northamptonshire, Rutland, Leicestershire, southern Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and southwestern Yorkshire; but Suffolk does not. Instead, it is located in Kristensson’s Southeastern dialect zone along with southeastern Cambridgeshire, Essex, Kent and East Sussex.
• Northern East Anglia was a region relatively cut off from the rest of England and heavily influenced by contacts with the circum-North Sea world, either directly across the North Sea or via the rivers which drained into the Wash. The Southern East Anglian area, on the other hand, “looked more to the south and south-east of England – to London, the Home Counties, the Channel, and ultimately northern France and Belgium” (Williamson, 2013: 60), reminding us again of the divide between the Iceni and the Trinovantes.

Admittedly, some of these quotes refer to several hundred years ago (if not more), but it still seems relevant in a geolinguistic context.

• The Norfolk dialect (and, in fact, Wells labels it Norwich or even urban Norwich) seems to have been on the wane after the 19th century. What is the argument to keep it separate from another nearly-gone Suffolk variety? how is this relevant here? Firstly there's the fact that I think it is to an extent incorrect, but also just because something is in the past, that does not make it less notable.
• The state of these articles is not a reason to delete or merge. There's plenty of sources to improve each individually.

Overall, I think that the Norfolk and Suffolk dialects are distinct, although they do share plenty of common features, while the term 'East Anglian English' groups a collection of distinct dialects according to geography and not according to linguistics. As such, it doesn't seem appropriate to merge. I am happy to discuss more sources (I know plenty exist on this topic) but right now there doesn't seem to be a need. Willbb234 18:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're making compelling arguments. As you mention, most of your quotations are referring to a snapshot of language over a century ago: and, in fact, many centuries ago... a form of Middle English. Is that what this page is focused on? Importantly, too, no particular features are mentioned. It's true that the Fens may have their own features. We could well have a Fen English page. We could have a page on nearly any conceivable village's dialect too. But (as you yourself allude to) the crux of the issue is WP:NOTABILITY, right? There are two in-text citations at Suffolk dialect; it's barely sourced. That suggests a lack of notability. Passing references to possible older varieties in scholarly sources are not notability either. The main reason at WP:MERGEREASON for merging this article is "Context": If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. It almost entirely requires knowledge of East Anglian English. Again: why not merge? Or where are you seeing that I'm going up against merger guidelines? Wolfdog (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

My point is that age is not a particular concern here. We can talk about a 'Norfolk dialect' and a 'Suffolk dialect' from centuries ago, and as long as they are both individually notable in combination with sources talking about the contemporary dialects, then there would be no reason for a merger. You have quoted If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it., but I strongly disagree that in order for one to understand either of the articles on Norfolk dialect or Suffolk dialect, one must have knowledge of 'East Anglian English'. Regarding your question Again: why not merge?, I assume this is rhetorical, but I would still like to answer it. Just because there might be reasons to merge, this doesn't mean a merge should take place. I'm clearly seeing evidence that the two dialects are distinct and even stronger evidence that they were even more distinct in the past (refer to the above quotes), and so there would have to be some very compelling reasons to merge into East Anglian English, which I am not seeing. You are still referring to the state of the articles as a reason to merge, saying that the current state does not demonstrate notability, but a key concept of notability is that the sources don't have to be in the article for it to be notable, they just have to exist somewhere. Willbb234 13:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

In response to a key concept of notability is that the sources don't have to be in the article for it to be notable, they just have to exist somewhere, I agree with the theory but disagree with your conclusion. If something is indeed notable, show me. You just saying that sources exist somewhere does not suffice. I'm not convinced your evidence from the text East Anglian English is strong enough. The title itself actually indicates that even Trudgill himself is taking the "lumper" approach, feeling the broader topic here is "East Anglian English". (Admittedly, that may just be the current level of our historical and linguistic research. Perhaps future research will unearth more robust and specific differences. But that's not our contention here.) Wolfdog (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)