Amateur Hour

This week, we looked at William Labov’s article “How I Got Into Linguistics, and What I Got Out of It." Labov explains how, on the basis of linguistics alone, he saved a man from a prison sentence. Paul Prinzivalli was thought to be behind bomb threats made to the LA airport. The police had tape recordings of calls made by the suspect, and they claimed that the voice on the recordings sounded like Prinzivalli. However, Prinzivalli had a New York City accent, and Labov recognized that the voice on the recording had a Boston accent. Labov presented linguistic evidence in court, and thereafter it was ruled that Prinzivalli was innocent.
I found this case study to be fascinating. Something as seemingly simple as an accent made the difference between this man keeping his freedom and being wrongfully imprisoned. I looked up videos on YouTube of people speaking in NYC and Boston accents. Having done this, I can vouch for the fact that, to the untrained ear, these two accents do sound somewhat similar. To a linguist, it's probably quite simple to distinguish between the two. Indeed, Labov said “the moment I heard the recordings I was sure that he was innocent.” Labov picked up on this immediately. However, I was much less certain, and apparently I am not alone in this. According to Labov, prior to his testimony, the judge heard "no difference" between NYC and Boston accents.
This case is definitely interesting, but it’s also thought-provoking. Do you pick up on any major differences between the two accents? What might account for the two sounding similar to "regular" people, yet being so distinct to Labov? Interested to hear your thoughts! :)

Good ol' Bill, linguistic royalty.

Image courtesy of Alchetron.

A Linguistic Cry for Help

For my blog post this week, I decided to look into Lapgaliski, which I had learned about when I interviewed my friend Marija for the linguistic biography. Before we get down to business, let me just establish that I, apparently, have been spelling it wrong this whole time. It is, in truth, spelled Latgaliski. Oops. Also, it appears to also be referred to under the alias of Latgalian. This language thing is a whole new level of mess. 

From what Marija told me, there is debate in Latvia over whether it is simply a dialect of the Latvian language, or whether it qualifies as its own distinct language. I was curious to see where this confusion lies, so I did some digging. 

It is said to be used primarily in an eastern region of Latvia called Latgale, although there is a small fraction of speakers also in Russia, Germany, Canada, and the United States. There are 150,000 - 200,000 speakers of the language; compare that to 1.5 million Latvian speakers and 265 million Russian speakers. Most Latgalian speakers are trilingual in Latgalian, Latvian, and Russian, and although it is not acknowledged legally, it is optionally taught at some preschools and is used in some primary and secondary schools for studies in local history. It additionally has a written component, leading to the establishment of its own canon of literature and folklore. Its cultural contributions expand also to theatre, music, newspapers, and radio broadcasts. More simply, Latgalian exists as the primary mode of communication within the Latgale region and within families, such that there are some elders who have practical familiarity with Latgalian but not its parent language, Latvian.

So, based on these new bits of information, do you think Latgalian is classified better as a dialect or a minor language? What qualifications exist to decide what makes a form of communication its own language? Let me know what you think! :)

Latgale, the land of beautiful scenery and confusingly spelled words.

Source

https://iso639-3.sil.org/sites/iso639-3/files/change_requests/2009/2009-048_ltg.pdf

Image

https://www.lolaakinmade.com/europe/latvia-files-a-cultural-tour-through-latgale/