Talk:Eye dialect

"Eye dialect" in Huck Finn

Huck is supposed to have written the text, so words such as "sivilize" are examples of his bad spelling and don't directly indicate anything about his pronunciation. —JerryFriedman 16:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In any case, 'sivilize' would not indicate a variant pronunciation as the 'c' in civilize is pronounced /s/. However, eye dialect does not necessarily have to be linked directly with pronuncation - in fact, it is often used to mark speakers as having a 'normal' or 'common' pronunciation, as opposed to a 'proper' pronunciation (e.g. the working-class characters in Sue Townsend's The Queen and I --Junglehungry 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference between written dialect and Eye dialect?

In some cases, eye dialect is intended as a relatively faithful representation of a non-standard pronunciation. Isn't that simply dialect writing? P. Krap's definition of eye dialect is basically spellings where the convention violated is one of the eyes, not of the ear. That means non-standard spellings although there is no distinctive difference in pronunciation, as in the sivilize example above.

84.135.221.36 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of some disagreement; the OED defines "eye-dialect" as "unusual spelling intended to represent dialectal or colloquial idiosyncrasies of speech (see quots.)", but then the quotes are "The impression of popular speech..is often assisted by what may be termed ‘eye dialect’, in which the convention violated is one of the eye, not of the ear. Thus a dialect writer often spells a word like front as frunt, or face as fase, or picture as pictsher, not because he intends to indicate here a genuine difference of pronunciation, but the spelling is merely a friendly nudge to the reader" (from G. P. Krapp's English Language in America) and "Which of the most fastidious elocutionists could object to the vocalized result of enuff, probably the oftenest repeated of Capp's eye-dialect usages?" (from American Speech in 1965). —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: both the OED's stated definition and the quote from American Speech take "eye dialect" in the more general sense given in the article, while G. P. Krapp's quote takes it in a narrower sense. —Ruakh_TALK 15:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between merely respelling words (wuz, donut, hi, fone, thru, u) and representing a dialect phonetically. The article says it covers the former ("a pronunciation that is actually no different from the standard pronunciation") but most of the examples show the latter. "dat", "de", "gwine ter", "vouldn't", and "sezee" don't correspond to standard English pronunciations but rather to regional dialects or foreign accents. Thus according to the definition they are not eye dialect, yet they are used as examples of eye dialect! Sluggoster (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article currently has the problem of having the wrong examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(Continued in "Introduction" section below.) Sluggoster (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, why is Sherlock Holmes singled out? Does Doyle really use more eye dialect than other authors? If so, please give examples.

We need two articles: eye dialect as in women and wimmin and dialect spelling as in that and dat. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Or Perhaps eye dialect describing spellings in which the convention violated is one of the eye, not of the ear, and Dialect writing which describes how authors represent genuine differences in pronunciation. 79.197.85.24 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Gonna

I disagree with:

For example, an author trying to convey the effect of an uneducated speaker might respell says as sez, reflecting its (perfectly standard) pronunciation as [sɛz]. The line here may sometimes be blurry; for example, going to (in the sense of "he's going to do it") may be pronounced either as ['goʊɪŋ tu] or as ['gʌnə]. Respelling it as gonna does unambiguously identify the latter pronunciation; but since this is already the more common pronunciation in colloquial American English, doing so might be seen as comparable to re-spelling says as sez.

This isn't comparable to a situation where two different people have markedly different pronunciations of the same word. This is a case of two utterances that can frequently come from the same person in different contexts, based on the audience, the register, etc. Sometimes I say "going to" and sometimes I say "gonna". They mean the same thing, but I use them in different contexts. Moreover, when I read going to, I read it as going to. I don't read it as gonna any more than I would read bicycle as bike or vice versa.

Comments?—Largo Plazo 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The passage you quote does mention the effect of context/register (identifying ['gʌnə] as "the more common pronunciation in colloquial American English"). I'm pretty sure that journalists commonly spell ['gʌnə] as <going to> in quotes and whatnot, whereas a journalist would have to be crazy to spell ['baɪk] as <bicycle>; I think that writers who aren't using eye dialect don't generally write <gonna>, either. You really don't think that the situation is at all blurry? —Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, probably. (Read: yeah, prolly.) —Largo Plazo 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I am not entirely satisfied that the sources for the Criticism section are good enough and I believe most, if not all, of the section to be original research. The sources given is a book published in 1913 (!) and a book about writing fiction that describes itself as "A creative and funny guide to writing fiction shows readers where to go to find inspiration, stories, and characters, in a guide that demystifies the writing process while maintaining the author's comic voice". I believe that this section should prove the many claims it makes or that it should be deleted. JayKeaton (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What parts do you believe to be original research? The two resources pretty much cover the ground that the section covers. It doesn't use their words--it isn't supposed to be a patchwork of sentences copied from other places. As for a proof, a Wikipedia article is not a place to carry out a proof. How would you prove a remark to the effect that "The use of eye dialect is often criticized on the grounds that the definition of standard speech is subjective and regionally biased, and that it is often overused or misused to represent what is actually quite standard speech"? Is there some particular number of unrelated citations that need to be made before it's sufficiently established? What do the age or nature of the works cited have to do with it? They establish the existence of criticisms of this practice, because these criticisms are right there in their pages. Personally, I find the section fairly well established and it jives with comments I've read over the years about the use of eye diaclect, and I don't have any counterevidence to the effect that nobody has any criticisms of eye dialect. Out of curiosity: do you? What is the source of your doubt? —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have some actual sources, one of the "comments [you have] read over the years", then please add them. I do not really care much about the topic, I have no feelings either way, I just care about the sources and I do not believe the sources provided reflect real world criticisms, rather I believe the sources have been cherry picked to try and support a statement written by a an editor (which is a no no on WP). So please find some relevant and notable sources if you can, otherwise my original statement still stands. JayKeaton (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you're asking me to add my own personal experiences, WP:OR, which I'm not going to; you haven't explained why the appearance of a kind of criticism in two cited resources isn't evidence that that kind of criticism exists (other than stating your disdain for those resources, which nevertheless doesn't alter the fact that something that appears in them exists); and you persist in showing no basis of your own for finding anything incredible about the assertions made in the section.

You can easily satisfy your own curiosity by Googling the phrase "use of eye dialect". Besides the citation I added, one more is in "Approaches to discourse" by Deborah Schiffrin, citing the linguists Macauley in 1991 and Preston in 1982. Or see William Dahill-Baue's "Insignificant Monkeys: Preaching Black English in Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury and Morrison's The Bluest Eye and Beloved", written precisely on this subject. If you remain in doubt, check as many additional references as you feel you need to to convince yourself. But as for the article, it isn't necessary to cite an overabundance of redundant sources containing the same criticism to establish the fact that that criticism exists. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't my job to find sources for other peoples claims, and I wasn't asking you to cite your "personal experiences" I was asking you to cite the sources that you said you keep running into regarding eye dialect. You DID say you have ran into many sources over your life, or what were none of those you ran into notable? JayKeaton (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is your job, if you doubt something for which you've already been shown evidence, to make sure you have some foundation on your side to justify your contentious stance.

For the third time: there are already two references there, and you still haven't told me, if two is insufficient, how many you would consider sufficient.

If someone writes, "Many people wear blue jeans" and I myself have run into tens of thousands of people in my life, none of them notable, wearing blue jeans, then I consider the person's note to be a true comment, and if he's even provided a couple of citations showing people wearing blue jeans, it wouldn't occur to me to challenge it, especially if I didn't have some counterevidence to dilute the evidence he's already provided.

You're asking for citations, but citations are there. The remarks aren't about the kind of thing that calls for scientific rigor, like claiming that PCBs cause cancer. It's like the difference between claims in court that call for expert testimony to back them up, and those that call merely for testimony. In this case, lofty references aren't need to prove "A causes B" or "C did D". All that's required is examples of or reports of criticisms to prove that criticisms exist. Once that has been established, it is your responsibility to provide counterevidence if you continue to disagree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"Many people wear blue jeans", but how can a source written in 1905 reflect many people today wearing blue jeans? How can a source that is meant to be about writting fiction comedy meant to reflect people wearing blue jeans? Your citations are poor, that's all there is to it. If the claims made are true, then you picked the poorest possible citations to try and support your claims. JayKeaton (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ....

... It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion. [Italics mine.]

Hence my blue jeans analogy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I really do feel that it is original research and it rings as inaccurate (bold mine). I do not believe that a book written over a hundred years ago and a book about humor in writing are what could be considered reliable. I believe that, as per policy, the sources given are questionable: The "funny" book is written heavily from "personal opinion". Also under the reliable sources section of Wikipedia policy: I believe that the sources do not represent "majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" and that they are "Tiny-minority views [which] need not be included". Also per the same policy neither book has been "published by respected publishing houses" and also (again as per the same policy) the author of either sources is (just like their books) not notable in themselves, so they should not have been considered as sources to begin with (not to mention everything else I have just mentioned). JayKeaton (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just enacted the complete removal of the criticism section. User Largoplazo has demonstrated bad faith with his edits "see my post above" and the citation used [1] actually admits that "there are theoretical objections to devising non-standard spellings which represent certain groups of vernacular speakers". "theoretical objections" are not actual objections or actual criticism, and "theoretical objections" do not warrant inclusion in this article. JayKeaton (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You can go soak your head about the "bad faith" part. Who do you think you are? As for the rest of it, I can't believe the sophistry you employ to pretend that direct proof you are shown of the existence of criticisms don't show that criticisms exist. Further, as I pointed out to you, you are supposed to have a good reason to challenge a section like this before removing it, and so far your only reason has been that you didn't believe it before you came across it and you decided that the references provided don't meet whatever your outlandish criteria are to prove that something exists, while you have provided no counterevidence. I can't even imagine how, in this day and age, with political correctness all about, you can imagine in your wildest dreams that there wouldn't be many people who are offended by eye dialect. For that reason alone, I consider your opinion on the matter to be sheer fantasy. Therefore, I'm reinstating the text. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you attempted to use did not back your claims, in fact it opposed your claims. Like I said, "theoretical criticism" is not criticism. I don't know why you used that source at all actually, did you even read it before adding it in? JayKeaton (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the expression. "Theoretical criticism" doesn't mean "criticism that in theory might exist", it means "criticism on theoretical grounds". It is real criticism. I used that source because I didn't misunderstand that expression.

Now, I'm looking at your change, and am surprised that you made it. If you really believed that there was no such criticism, then why would you mention that it could exist in theory? That's OR, an explanation based on your own assessment, since you provided no reference to show, in the supposed absence of actual criticism, why such criticism could theoretically exist. And since there is such criticism, whether you agree with the strength or the basis of that criticism or whether it's criticism that occurs often, it doesn't make sense to replace a phrase saying that this criticism does exist with one that only says that it could. But everything in this paragraph of mine up until this point is academic anyway, presented for the sake of argument beginning with your mistaken understanding of the expression "theoretical criticism". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

The use of eye-dialect is widely discouraged in today’s writing workshops and anyone versed in the craft of writing will tell you this. So the section is not original research. While not all statements in an article need references, when a fact is questioned, references should be provided. In this case the section already had references. The first reference, which is available on-line, states that eye dialect is patronizing and almost always pejorative. It clearly supports the text and is sufficient.

Although the section could use some copy editing (for example The use of eye dialect could be criticized should be changed to The use of eye dialect is criticized to eliminate the unnecessary use of weasel words), with respect to its containing original research or being insufficiently referenced, I’d say it is fine just the way it is. Mmyotis (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"is often" is the most weasily word you could possibly have chosen. The sources given do not reflect that it has been criticized on an "often" basis. In fact the sources, such as the Finnish one, do not demonstrate any actual criticism at all. The only other source, there is no evidence given that the author is at all notable to be considered a good enough source. He is just some guy that wrote a completely unrelated book that you cherry picked a statement using Google to try and support YOUR views on eye dialect. You need to support your claim that it is "often" criticized, and before you BAWWWWW BAWWWW about it you do not need a hundred citations, you just need a single citation that says it is "often criticized". You can't just make up unsupported statements and critiisms and expect Google to find you sources for your own bias. JayKeaton (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And also you claim that "The use of eye-dialect is widely discouraged" and that "anyone versed in the craft of writing will tell you this". If any expert will tell me this it must be something extremely common and something that is much discussed and eye dialect must be something that is actively criticized to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. I encourage you to find genuine sources from the wealth of "anyone['s] versed in the craft of writing" to end this now. I am actually surprised to hear that it is so commonly known and discussed among notable experts, because if this is so I would have assumed that Largo would have long ago found some real citations in his Google searches to back this claim. JayKeaton (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Article Tags

I notice that this article recently got tagged for supposedly having an introduction that does not adequately summarize the contents and for "Systemic Bias".

Tags do not improve articles, editors do. For that reason, I'm not a big fan of tag and run editing except where there is a clear need and a distinct deficiency. In this case I see neither a clear need nor a distinct deficiency and I believe the tags falsely create the impression that the article is unreliable. I therefore think they should be removed.

So I'm hoping Synchronism can come back and clarify for us why he believes the lead does not adequately summarize the contents, and also how he perceives that the article contains a "Systemic Bias."

Otherwise, provided there are no objections, I will remove them. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This does seem like a tag and run. While it's entirely likely that this article has an Anglophone-centric bias, we need to know how to address it. What other languages use eye dialect? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I found this interesting link: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/j/m/jml34/Andalusia.pdf. But I don't think we need to be wringing our hands over this. Eye dialect is a general term that applies to any language that has regional variation in pronunciation and employs a phonemic orthography. The worldwide view tag is intended for socio-religio-political articles, not technical ones. It's not "Systemic bias" to explain eye-dialect with English language examples on the English language version of Wikipedia, it's common sense. If an editor knows where he or she can find examples from other languages, then by all means, they should add them. That's the kind of volunteerism that makes wikipedia the great resource that it is. But to people who are unfamiliar with the subject the worldwide view tag suggests that there might be "foreign" perspectives on the subject that are missing, which is utterly ridiculous. The tag should therefore be removed. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the greater problem is that the article doesn't at all reflect that eye dialect, at least according to scholarly sources I've looked at, reflects non-standard spelling of standardlike pronunciation. That's a nice resource on Anadlusian BTW. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the article. I made a change to the first and 1ly sentence of the introduction to a multi-section article which helped summarize the text given the content in the article. It was reverted by Mmyotis stating "eye dialect" is not limited to English. I added maintenance tags, not disclaimers, to the article in the hopes that constructive editting will follow.

The lead is too short; the introductory section of an article is to provide a summary of the content of the article. As for accusations of drive-by-tagging: I will write a longer introduction if no editor steps forth, one without alluding to what I perceive to be phenomena enabled by English orthography. I don't think the intro tag really requires that much explanation.

The article gives the impression that this is limited to English by only using only English examples. Again with regards accusations of drive-by-tagging: I will help to rectify the problem—by investigation and content editting if no better abled editor does so. I never alluded to systemic bias in my detailed edit summaries.[2][3] I suspect that, like spelling bees, eye dialects are driven by the variability possible in English spelling, a defective orthography. Orthographies which are more phonetic, like those of Czech or the many languages written for first time in Latin characters are unlikely to have very many possible alternate spellings. Nonetheless I do see that it is possible; a hypothetical example in Czech would be 3cet for Třicet, 'thirty'. That's probably not the best hypothetical example though. A real example: in Spanish text messaging ke is often used instead of que Whether this is an eye dialect or not I am not fully sure, as it is not phonetically incorrect and seems more like a simple shortening than a strong assertion of social identity. I don't suspect that abugidas, syllabaries or morphemic writing systems encourage the use of eye dialects, but if they do, that is entirely within the comprehensive scope of an encyclopedia and I would love to learn about the idiosyncracies. I imagine that if eye dialects are used in Japanese it might constitute an article by itself given its complex orthography. Eye dialects are in the domain of sociolinguistics. They indeed are in the category of "socio-religio-political articles. —Synchronism (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the discussion Synchronism. I did some research and elaborated the two competing definitions in the lead. I really suspect that the first definition is the more academic one, and have found one source (Nuessel) that uses "eye dialect" to refer to phonetic transcription via orthography (but only for Spanish language literature). If we're really going to find English language examples, they should be real eye dialect and not simple phonetic spelling. I've also removed a lot of unreferenced stuff.

Currently, the "use" section is primarily devoted to criticism, but we should expand on how it's used and who uses it. That would be the place to talk about actual (not supposed) eye dialect used in other languages. If it's not used in other languages, then we should say so. We may even be able to put examples in that section instead of having an "examples" section. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 09:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Does leet qualify as eye dialect?Synchronism (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For now, I want to say no. It seems that the term is restricted to use in literary contexts like books and comic strips. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalisation required

I added the globalize template because I see no reason why the list of authors in the 'use' section are purely American. The article makes no mention that this is a specifically American trait, and it's certainly not confined to American authors.

I suggest revising the list to include Non-American authors before removing the template tag. --59.167.212.218 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard. Do you know of any British writers who use eye dialect? I can only think of Shaw, though I didn't include it because I like to stick to sourcing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. A few examples in other languages have been added since the section was tagged almost 3½ years ago. Since this is the English WP, it's not surprising that most of the examples are from that language; including a few examples from other languages may make this article as global as it reasonably can be.--Jim10701 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I added three paragraphs to the beginning to explain the different kinds of eye dialect, the disagreement on the term's scope, and non-English usage. I borrowed Ruakh's paragraph about OED vs Krapp vs "American Speech", edited only slightly.

I left the rest of the article intact because there's no agreement yet which parts to keep and which to cut. I would delete the "in English language literature" emphasis because the basic international phenomenon should be described first. There are two unsubstantiated claims, that English has more eye dialect than other languages, and that other languages have more eye dialect than English. In either case, examples are needed.

If some find my definition of eye dialect overly broad, please keep in mind that the phenomenon of phonetic spelling is real and needs to be described in its entirety in a single article, and I couldn't find any other article more suitable. Perhaps this article can be split into a general article and a more specific article later, but first it needs more cleaning up to make it consistent, clear, and not self contradictory. Sluggoster (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for devoting some attention to the article, but I don't see any edits by you so I can't really react or respond properly. Did you accidently lose your edit? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Darn it, I guess so. OK, I put back in as much as I remember. I also changed the "Examples" section to "Examples in English" and added an "Examples in other languages". Sluggoster (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That happens sometimes. Okay, I've taken out most of what you put in. A lot of it was already in the article and the second paragraph doesn't demonstrate what it purports. That is, all three quotes pretty much back up the definition that was already in the article.

It seems like the Jiménez example is, as it says in the article, an instance of a one man spelling reform which makes it not an example of eye dialect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 02:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just dipping in a toe here

-Just dipping in a toe here, "Eye dialect is the deliberate use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation."

Could the replacement of the word "pronunciation", with the word "connotation" allow for a more comprehensive understanding of this term? I am an autodidact who hails from the northeastern Ozarks. When I write in my own voice I make free use of this mechanism. e.g., "I been waitin' all mornin' for them kidz to show up, and they ain't called or nuthin'!

I acknowledge that this is an example of colloquialism, but by spelling kidz with the "z" is nonstandard spelling and the pronunciation is exactly the same. What I understand the purpose of "Eye dialect" to be, is to create an impression or make a connotation of character by use of misspelling(s) within a colloquialism. Am I wrong?

An additional question that occurs to me is this: Frequently, in any media that is suggestive of the hillbilly, mirror images of certain letters are common. For example, the "s" in fishing or fishin' is often reversed, the "r" in for or fer, or the "n" in rent, are common. This is seen on postcards, in movies, and advertisements using hillbillies. This is because people who are of this region tend to do that kind of thing on their hand made signs. This is a fact.

It seems to me that the "Eye dialect" used in visual media, is to not about pronunciation, but rather connotation, Italic textfor imagery of a given stereotype, in this case, the hillbilly. My question then is this: does mirroring a letter within a word, fall into the definition of "Eye dialect"? Thank you Mykalbarton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)mykalbarton--Mykalbarton (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for name

What is the origin of the phrase "eye dialect"? Neither Wikipedia nor Wiktionary give this. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. If I remember right, it basically has to do with the idea that since it's a spelling difference to indicate pronunciation that isn't different from the standard, it's a visual rather than auditory cue of dialect. At some point, I'll have to find the source for that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, women and wimmin are pronounced exactly alike. The use of wimmin intends to tell the eye (and not the ear) that the speaker is uneducated. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

JR Jiménez?

Does his idiosyncratic spelling really count as eye dialect? AFAIK he didn't use simplified spelling as a literary technique or to convey anything about a speaker, he used it indiscriminately throughout his work. I don't think he even intended to "draw attention to pronunciation". He just spelled words the way they are spoken. Calling that eye dialect makes the term overbroad, to include most informal written communication.--87.162.5.253 (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, though you could be missing something in your reading of his works. If anything, we can look for sources that back this up and if we find nothing we can remove mention him on concerns of original research. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the full paragraph, including the correct sentence "a one-man spelling reform", which clearly shows this has nothing to do with eye dialect. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

waz?

I want to change "waz" to "wuz" for the eye dialect version of "was" -- regionalism? I'm in U.S. Midwest, fer yer global speetsh mappin purpusses. That's strange, "fer" and "yer" are not flagged as misspellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.135.149 (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples in other languages

Actually, «что» is always pronounced as «што» in modern Russian, at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.138.81.124 (talk • contribs)

Right. That's what the article says (I just added "normally" to make it clearer). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

non-deliberate eye dialect

Yes, eye dialect is deliberate, but not to the exclution-non-deliberate eye dialect. Non-deliberate eye dialect is still eye dialect.

What is the purpose of saying it is only the deliberate "use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation" that is an eye dialect? Should we also change...

• Jim Crow laws to say "The Jim Crow laws were deliberate state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965." ?
• Holiness movement to say "In this some deliberately hold to the doctrine of entire sanctification." ?
• Pole-sitting to say "Pole-sitting is the deliberate practice of sitting on a pole for extended lengths of time, generally used as a test of endurance." ?
• Auto racing to say "Auto racing is a motorsport involving the deliberate racing of cars." ?
• Archery to say "Archery is the art, practice, or skill of deliberately propelling arrows with the use of a bow." ?

What would be the purpose?

You also have no WP:consensus for this change; please discuss rather than revert per WP:BRD.

Also it is always speech (monologues or dialogue). I don't even know what you would be getting at by saying it is "not always dialogue." Share a counter-example if you have one. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Deliberateness differs from accidental or incidental non-standard spelling (with your speech/speach example being illustrative of the latter) and an example of non-dialogue eye dialect comes from Huck Finn:

"I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and sivilize me, and I can’t stand it. I been there before."

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree misspelling of speech as "speach" was not deliberate, it wasn't "to draw attention to pronunciation"-- in fact the misspelling was originated in the multiple ways of writing the same pronunciation in English, and hence it isn't an example of non-deliberate eye dialect.

Your example from Huck Finn would be the protagonist speaking to the reader-- that is a monologue. While this could be an internal monologue, and thus not written, it seems do not really know. Maybe it can be changed to "non written" or the like. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

“ Eye dialect is the use of non-standard spelling for non written language to draw attention to pronunciation,... ”

The problem with your interpretation is that Huck isn't speaking to the readers, he's writing to them. Calling this monologue is a redefinition of the term. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See now that the book is, or can be seen as, a fictional memoir penned by Huck, with Huck's spellings. But then the book's monologues do not tell us about pronunciation. Words can be spelled differently with the same pronunciation, or vice-versa. "Sivilize" is just a misseplling. Now a misspelling could still be used to communcate Huck's lack of education, etc., but it doesn't "draw attention to pronunciation" and then (the monologues) wouldn't be in an "eye dialect." ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you even paying attention to what you're writing? What do you mean by "monologues"? The non-standard spelling of civilize as sivilize is used deliberately (by Twain) to show Huck as uneducated or semi-literate. It seems fairly obvious to me that any non-standard spelling would draw attention to pronunciation; if you disagree, then that phrase is contested (since I only added it though I see it as inferred in the sources) and can be removed or altered. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 05:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is dependant on the fiction being meant to be imagined as either a penned memoir text or not such a text (perhaps dictaced), but your argument fails either way.

Many things can show a lack of education, but if spelling is wrong it is just a misspelling. I am a poor speller, and have been my whole life, but no one has ever claimed that it either does or should effect my pronunciation. A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (phonology, including prosody)-- but not misspellings! I don't see any meanings anywhere for eye dialect[4] that it is about misspellings. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what you're talking about as what you're saying contradicts sourcing. The very link you provide says "the literary use of misspellings..." These misspellings can, and in literary texts most often are, either eye dialect or spelling pronunciation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 12:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems you don't know what you're talking about as you contradict your own argument. The source is talking about incorrect spelling deliberately made by the author-- not the nondeliberate misspelling of the a character. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into a rabid and self-defeating contradiction of who's more confused. It seems now that we both agree that eye dialect refers to deliberate misspellings and that it can occur outside of dialogue. If you disagree with this, then you haven't made a clear case for why. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• No-- I can and will make the arguments more clear if you will just commit to one view-- and tell us what that view is-- and not mix your unstated views as you choose.
• So, to you, are the wrong spellings in the monologues to the reader in Huck Finn merely spelled incorrect deliberately by the Twain to indicate something about Huck's pronunciation, as if Huck dictated the work-- or are the misspelling in the monologues to the reader (also) non-deliberately made by Huck Finn himself as he himself wrote to the reader-- that show his poor spelling skills?
• Futher, is there any such thing to you as a non-deliberate eye dialect (or a non-deliberate ocurrence of what would otherwise be an eye dialect), that you are trying to distinguish from the "deliberate use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation", or do you think there is no such thing as non-deliberate "use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation"-- but you still want to use the work "deliberate" in the lead for a reason that you just havn't told us? If there is any such thing to you as a non-deliberate ocurrence of what would otherwise be an eye dialect, what would be an example of it? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 19:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what I've said that has made you believe that I've contradicted myself. The answer to your question about Huck Finn is neither. Civilize and sivilize are pronounced the same, so it doesn't say anything about Huck's pronunciation. I would be speculating to give a definitive answer as to why this was done, but there are a number of possible reasons that have to do with Huck's character.

As for deliberateness, there is no non-deliberate eye dialect. If it's not deliberate, it's a typo.

You seem really hung on this phrase "draw attention to pronunciation." To me, it makes sense because there are two different meanings given for eye dialect; what I've described above and what I would call "pronunciation respellings." What they have in common is that they often are used to mark a character's language as non-standard and this implicitly draws attention to pronunciation. However, if you really feel like this isn't the case, it's technically WP:SYNTH and we can alter it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• So to you, (1) the wrong spellings in the monologues to the reader were not deliberately spelled incorrect by the Twain to indicate something about Huck's pronunciation.
• And (2) you are also saying that the misspelling in the monologues to the reader are not non-deliberately made by Huck Finn himself as he himself wrote to the reader. Yes? So to put to more clearly, your POV is that the misspelling in the monologues to the reader are deliberately made by Huck himself as he himself wrote to the reader-- that he knew the right spelling but that he spelled it wrong himself-- and "there are a number of possible reasons". Let know if I have this all straight.
• Let's say that "draw attention to pronunciation" is the trouble. What can we change it to? If even if we do not change it-- it will help me to know what else you think it can say.
• As for the deliberateness question-- you technically haven't answered it-- but I will assume for now what you mean by "there is no non-deliberate eye dialect" is that there is no such thing as non-deliberate use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation. If so, there is no reason to put in there modifer "deliberate." This is just like having "no such thing as non-deliberately propelling arrows" means we don't need to say "deliberately propelling arrows" or having "no such thing as non-deliberate X" means we don't need to say "deliberate X" --^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that Twain is deliberately using misspellings; I'm assuming that that they're not deliberate for the character though whether character is deliberate in doing so is not relevant.

I see what you're saying about the word deliberate. But the important difference is that it is common to accidentally make misspellings. This makes it less redundant than in the examples you've provided. I think the difference between your stance and mine in this regard is how we're reading that first sentence. While I see it as: "Eye dialect is the deliberate use of non-standard spelling [stop] to draw attention to pronunciation...", you have run it together. In my reading, it implies that deliberate misspellings can be done for a number of reasons and when it's done to draw attention to pronunciation, it's eye dialect. In your reading, the phrase "to draw attention to pronunciation" implies intent already, making the phrase "deliberate" redundant. Am I reading you right? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 14:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that it can be read as you describe; however, since it can very readily be read otherwise, that makes it unclear, and certainly the lead should be clear. What do you think of this:

“ Eye dialect is the use of non-standard spelling. This is done to draw attention to pronunciation. ”

BTW, I think "use" here (rather than "occurrence of misspellings") already implies deliberateness but we could also consider "purposeful". ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It feels weird to actually put a period where you suggest, as it makes it seem as though the full definition of eye dialect is "the use of non-standard spelling."

You've already made a strong case for keeping "deliberate" out and I suspect most readers wouldn't be confused if we do so. Are we also in agreement on taking out "speech"? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We can drop "speech" but we need to at least keep "pronunciation". I agree that it seems weird and I would like to see pronunciation more clearly tied to the meaning. Would any of these be okay? ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 23:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

“ Eye dialect is the use of non-standard spelling to draw attention to pronunciation. ”

“ Eye dialect is the use of non-standard spelling, to draw attention to pronunciation. ”

“ Eye dialect is the use of non-standard spelling to show pronunciation. ”

“ Eye dialect is the use of misspelling to show dialect pronunciation. ”

“ Eye dialect is the use of misspelling to show non-standard pronunciation. ”

“ Eye dialect is written representation of dialect speech using non-standard spelling. ”

“ Eye dialect is showing pronunciation with non-standard spelling. ”

Nonsense in the header

I realize I'm covering ground that's been gone over many times here but over all the years of discussion and for all that coverage the lead paragraph remains very confusing to lay readers. "...to approximate a pronunciation that is actually no different from the standard pronunciation but has the effect of dialectal, foreign, or uneducated speech" is nonsensical. I (and I assume most other listeners) identify spoken dialectal, foreign or uneducated dialog by its non-standard pronunciation or incorrect grammar. If the pronunciation is standard then what's dialectal, foreign or uneducated about it?? When I see misspelled words in dialog I assume the speaker is pronouncing them in a non-standard way and I can't imagine a writer expecting the reader to "hear" the speaker pronouncing misspelled words correctly.

I believe this article is conflating various dialog techniques that employ misspellings. If literary critics and writing experts participate in this confusion, then the lead should make it clear that there are multiple valid interpretations of the term and not try to be definitive or to pick a particular interpretation and I don't see how the interpretation whereby the reader is expected to "hear" correct pronunciation but understand the speaker to be dialectal, foreign or uneducated can be considered the mainstream interpretation. Jojalozzo 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A good example of what is being conveyed here is spelling of was as wuz; both indicate the same pronunciation (/wʌz/) because the non-standard spelling utilizes general rules and principles of English spelling, but the non-standard spelling of the latter hints to the reader that the character (assuming it appears in dialogue) is not speaking a standard dialect.

The use of eye dialect, by indicating to a reader that dialect is being portrayed, will be prompted to read entire phrases and sentences in a given dialect even when all the other words use standard spelling. For example, if a character says, "I wuz walking in the store" the reader may, understanding this as an African American character, also apply other dialectal features of African American Vernacular English like r-deletion and ing-simplification as well as subtle phonetic nuances of the vowels.

As for conflating multiple dialogue techniques, I was under the impression that the lead already made it clear "that there are multiple valid interpretations of the term." One meaning happens to be more common (in my experience anyway).

Since you didn't understand these two items from reading the article's lead, it seems that you are right that a reword is necessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I hear you say eye dialect is supposed to indicate a non-standard dialect. That reinforces my confusion around the statement that eye dialect is supposed to indicate that the pronunciation is "no different from standard." In any case when I see "wuz" I pronounce it differently (a little more like wouz) than "was" because I understand the misspelling to be a signal from the writer that it is being pronounced differently. I automatically seek a new pronunciation that will fit the new spelling and not sound like "was". I have never understood there to be a convention that misspelled words are being pronounced according to standard but other things in the speech are non-standard. This whole interpretation of misspelling is counter to my experience as a reader. Jojalozzo 14:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Although English spelling is pretty opaque, there are general rules and principles that words follow in their spelling and which guide readers when they encounter new words. These are the principles that guided you when you said "more like wouz" to indicate a pronunciation. The way eye dialect is supposed to work is a misspelling will, along these principles, still indicate a standard or standard-like pronunciation. Here's another example. In a phrase like "I think you're going home" most people don't pronounce you're as they would yore; instead, they reduce it to something that might be spelled yer. So, if a character says "I think yer going home" it is visibly marked (by the spelling) but if someone were reading it out loud, a listener wouldn't notice the difference.

That you are prompted to seek out a novel pronunciation rather than understand the character as having marked speech is interesting, but that simply indicates another reason why eye dialect is a poor choice for representing dialect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Geez, more terminology. What the heck is the difference between non-standard pronunciation and "marked speech"? This is not clarifying - just more gobbledygook. Is it your position that this article is saying what it needs to say but lay readers such as myself are incapable of understanding it? Jojalozzo 16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I find this quote from Vivian Cook, referenced in the article, equally opaque: "Writers often show that the character in a novel speaks a non-standard form of English by spelling certain words in a unusual way. This has been called 'eye-dialect' because it looks like dialect but doesn't sound like it." What is the difference between "non-standard pronunciation" and "a non-standard form of English" that "doesn't sound like" dialect? What is "a non-standard form of English" that "doesn't sound like" dialect?? I am surprised that people who write about writing are not better communicators. Jojalozzo 17:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my position. If you are having trouble understanding it, then it seems like we've got to make the wording clearer. At this point, I don't think you're having trouble understanding the concept, just believing that it's actually been used. It has. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I came to this article from Nigger which identified "nigga" as eye dialect. To me that spelling is intended to be interpreted as a vernacular pronunciation of nigger not a what is asserted here to be eye dialect. Is that statement/link on the Nigger article incorrect? Jojalozzo 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure I do understand the concept since so far no one has expressed it in a way that I can comprehend and no one has directly answered my questions. Here are some more: What exactly is a writer attempting to communicate when using eye dialect? I'll accept that there are writers who want the reader to "hear" a misspelled word pronounced in a standard way but what do they expect the reader to be experiencing and how do they expect the reader to know to do this?

And, I have asked around and several people agreed with me that "wuz" is pronounced differently than "was." The 'u' is pronounced like the 'u' in "wuss". Jojalozzo 00:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nigger had it wrong according to this meaning. You are right that nigga is an attempt at faithfully rendering dialectal speech through spelling and not eye dialect. I've removed reference to eye dialect from that article.

That other people agree with you on wuz simply makes it a bad example. This is why I brought up yer. Since you believe a "direct" answer to your questions might help clarify this concept for you, I'll try to answer the questions more directly:

• What exactly is a writer attempting to communicate when using eye dialect?
  • The writer is trying to indirectly evoke speech that is nonstandard, dialectal, or otherwise marked as being different.
• What do authors expect the reader to be experiencing and how do they expect the reader to know to do this?
  • What a reader typically expects with intentional misspellings is a more-or-less faithful attempt at rendering a dialect, accent, or speech that is otherwise marked. This is something I would rather call dialect spelling or phonetic spelling but which has, from time to time (including in Wikipedia's nigger article) been called "eye dialect" which is quite the confusing misnomer considering the original intention behind the coining of eye dialect as I understand it (see above). With real eye dialect, the writer is triggering this expectation through misspellings but, as I have already said, the pronunciation isn't a faithful attempt at accurately rendering a different pronunciation and is instead indirectly evoking marked speech. If that sounds like a lot to ask of the reader, I direct you to the use section that indicates some of the problems with invoking dialect (directly or indirectly) through spelling.
• What is the difference between "non-standard pronunciation" and "a non-standard form of English" that "doesn't sound like" dialect? What is "a non-standard form of English" that "doesn't sound like" dialect??
  • You are mashing different parts of Vivian Cook's quote to make her say something that she did not; it is not the "non-standard form of English" that "doesn't sound like" dialect, it is the act of "spelling certain words in an unusual way" that "doesn't sound like" dialect.
• If the pronunciation is standard then what's dialectal, foreign or uneducated about it?
  • Nothing. This is the wrong question, since the point isn't to faithfully render dialectal speech, but to evoke it indirectly through these misspellings.

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can give another shot to straightening out the two meanings of "eye dialect" in this article. I was noticing that all the examples are the "indicating a non-standard pronunciation" kind.

Jojalozzo, the classic example is when an author has a character say "sez". This indicates the standard pronunciation of "says", but is meant to indicate that the rest of the character's speech is uneducated or has a nonstandard accent or some such. It's certainly not logical, but some authors do it.

One problem with finding good examples is that people have different ideas of standard pronunciation. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks useful. The examples are from Dickens. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is very helpful. My understanding has improved 50%. I'm onboard and anticipating clarification and improvements in the article. Thanks! Jojalozzo 04:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Limiting scope of article

What do you say we add something like, "The rest of this article will focus on eye dialect in the sense of nonstandard spellings that indicate standard pronunciations. For the indication of nonstandard pronunciations, see Pronunciation spelling"? Then throw out most or all of the examples from English, or move them to pronunciation spelling. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, or "unless otherwise noted, this article will discuss the former definition. See pronunciation spelling for the latter." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 18:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yor both making my day, lifting the veil ov ignorance. Jojalozzo 18:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I left in the Pratchett and comic references because Pratchett may actually use eye dialect in the original sense (though I don't remember any), and I'm not sure whether we want the comic stuff. I doubt it though. Maybe Walt Kelly used some eye dialect? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed text

In accordance with the discussion above, I'm removing the following text and replacing it with some cited examples of eye dialect in the original sense:

From Joel Chandler Harris's tales of Uncle Remus, set in the U.S. in the post–Civil War South:

"You er stuck up, dat's w'at you is," says Brer Rabbit, sezee, "'en I'm gwine ter kyore you, dat's w'at I'm a gwine ter do," sezee.

— "The Wonderful Tar Baby Story"

Eye dialect is also found in representations of the speech of various Londoners in Sherlock Holmes stories. Some of Mark Twain's books are also full of eye dialect, as Simon Wheeler's narrative in "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County", which begins:

There was a feller here once by the name of Jim Smiley…

Other literary uses of eye dialect are to represent foreign accents, such as in Charles Godfrey Leland's Hans Breitmann's Ballads:

"D’VAS near de state of Nashfille,
   In de town of Tennessee,
Der Breitmann vonce vas quarderd
   Mit all his cavallrie.
Der Sheneral kept him glose in gamp,
   He vouldn’t let dem go;
Dey couldn’t shdeal de first plack hen,
   Or make de red cock crow."

— Breitmann Goes to Church

Zora Neale Hurston is also a writer well known for the use of eye dialect in her stories about the life of African Americans in the rural southern United States, a fact that has caused some controversy about her stories:

"Looka theah, folkses!" cried Elijah Mosley, slapping his leg gleefully, "Theah they go, big as life an' brassy as tacks."

— "Spunk"

One of the most famous instances of eye dialect in literature is in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion:

THE FLOWER GIRL: Ow, eez ye-ooa san, is e? Wal, fewd dan y' de-ooty bawmz a mather should, eed now bettern to spawl a pore gel's flahrzn than ran awy athaht pyin. Will ye-oo py me f'them?

(Oh, he's your son, is he? Well, if you'd done your duty by him as a mother should, he'd know better than to spoil a poor girl's flowers and then run away without paying. Will you pay me for them?)

An excellent example of the use of eye dialect in the representation of Australian English, for which the eye dialect spelling Strine is sometimes used, is in the book Let Stalk Strine, by Afferbeck Lauder (a pseudonym of Alastair Ardoch Morrison), itself eye dialect for alphabetical order.

The novel They're a Weird Mob uses eye dialect with Australian slang to illustrate the difficulty an Italian immigrant has understanding the Australian accent, for example "Ow yer going' mate orright?".

A further example of eye dialect as it applies to the particular pronunciation of a former English colony is the caricaturisation of the non Boer South African in the seminal book Ah Big Yaws?: A Guard to Sow Theffricun Innglissh by Rawbone Malong.

[...]

Another good example of eye dialect can be seen between Eugene and Pandora in Tiarni Allen's The Brilliant Team:

"Yew stay 'way from my chillun, ya hear? My hubbin'll sock the like 'f yew eenasecond, and I'm nat one tah step in th' way'f mah man."

—JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you recognise eye dialect?

If you see dialogue written using non-standard spellings, how do you know it is intended "to draw attention to an ironically standard pronunciation" rather than representing accent or non-standard pronunciation? Most of the examples given, were I to encounter them, I would assume represented particular pronunciations. And in the Prose section, there is a cite for Dickens using eye dialect, but none for any of the other examples - and a counter cite claiming that Bronte's usage accurately represents the particular dialect. Iapetus (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The main trick is to consider what pronunciation the altered spelling is indicating. If it's not a different pronunciation from the standard/typical pronunciation, then it's eye dialect. There are some ambiguous examples, like in Riddley Walker, when the narrator says agen suggesting the pronunciation of /əˈɡɛn/ for again. Since this is how again is normally pronounced, you could consider agen to be eye dialect; however, another pronunciation of again in even standard circles is /əˈɡeɪn/.

Regarding Brontë, people can get confused about what eye dialect actually is, occasionally, even sources misuse the term to mean a use of mispelling to represent dialect. I don't have access to the source, so I don't know if the author or the contributor was confused, but we should remove it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 13:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily help much, though, because the pronunciation implied by the mis-spelling could easily be different from how you would pronuonce the word normally. For example, a comment further up the page gave "yer" (for you're) as an example of eye dialect. But if I was trying to phonetically spell how I pronounce "you're", it wouldn't be "yer". It would be more like "yoor" (although I think that implies a slightly longer oo-sound than would be accurate). So if I saw "yer" used in written speach, I would see that as indicating pronunciation. And in general, a lot of the examples given seem to be assuming (without cited evidence) that an author was intending to imply "normal" pronunciation despite using a non-standard spelling, but it could just as much be a case of intending to represent a different pronunciation but failing to make that clear to a reader who interprets the letter sounds differently. 86.132.179.22 (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We can come up with ambiguous examples all day. But there are also clear-cut examples: wyld for "wild", sivilize for "civilize", sed for "sed", wuns for "ones." I suppose I could appeal to common sense and pronunciations listed in dictionaries but, because this is Wikipedia, our standards of proper citation would involve sources that explicitly identify examples as eye dialect. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

BS DEF

nonstandard spelling for speech to draw attention to an ironically standard pronunciation. CMON..HUGETSDAD:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.135.18 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a better definition? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eye dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023154323/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SpellingNovel/EyeDialect.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SpellingNovel/EyeDialect.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)