Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2020-04/Use of "eye dialect" label

Background

The labels "pronunciation spelling" and "eye dialect" are applied within Wiktionary to nonstandard spellings that are used deliberately to represent a particular kind of pronunciation (e.g. fink for think) or to make some kind of comment on a speaker or a topic (e.g. wimmin for women, or educashun for education). Presently the use of these labels overlaps, seemingly at random.

There is a long-standing lack of clarity or agreement about whether the label "eye dialect" should be restricted to nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations (such as wimmin for women, the original or "narrow" meaning), or should also include nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations (such as Fursday for Thursday, the "broad" meaning). Presently the label is used for both kinds — the latter kind dominates numerically — but not everyone agrees with the "broad" usage. My feeling is that the term "eye dialect" is not widely known or understood among the general population.

The label "pronunciation spelling" is presently used almost exclusively for nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations. I cannot detect any reason why some such spellings (e.g. fixin') are labelled "pronunciation spelling", while others (e.g. borrowin') are labelled "eye dialect". It seems random. At the moment, the Wiktionary definition of "pronunciation spelling" reads "Spelling intended to represent a pronunciation not corresponding to a standard spelling". While this definition has been thought unclear, in my interpretation it is meant to exclude nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations, and the original intention may have been for it to cover the "broad" meaning of "eye dialect", leaving "eye dialect" restricted to the "narrow" meaning only. However, the Wiktionary definition of "pronunciation spelling" does not accord with others that I have been able to find ([1] and [2]), which define the term as including nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations, or even as restricted to these. At the time of writing, the Wiktionary definition is at RFV, but no evidence that it is correct has so far been forthcoming.

At one time, a "pronunciation respelling" label existed (or, at least, a template to create it did), but the template was deleted in September 2019 as "Obsolete and orphaned template". Whatever the original intention, I would interpret "pronunciation respelling" to mean a sort of pronunciation guide, like IPA but simpler, so a different kind of thing to what we are talking about here.

For the vote, I have initially chosen what seem to me to be the three most obvious options to resolve the present muddle. If you have another sensible option, please suggest it and it can be added. Mihia (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

We should definitely have a consistent meaning for this. I think it's sometimes been used like a wastebasket taxon for stuff that is really just "nonstandard" (whether that's dialect, counterculture/sensational spelling, or whatever). Equinox ◑ 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reconsideration of voting options

[Vote moved here from original "Option 3 support", pending resolution of issues arising]

1. Support Pronunciation spelling and eye dialect are two different things, and we should use the terms correctly. However, a nonstandard spelling reflecting a nonstandard pronunciation is simply a {{nonstandard form of}}. A pronunciation spelling does not necessarily reflect a nonstandard pronunciation. Things like lite, tonite, and donut represent standard pronunciations, but they're not eye dialect because they aren't used to imply that the speaker uses a nonstandard dialect. They are simply pronunciation spellings. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

   You've just said and voted that lite is a 'pronunciation spelling' but should not be labelled as such. Was this your intention? --RichardW57 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   @Mihia: I think there's an issue here. PUC – 09:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   @PUC: Thanks, yes, let me get back about this when I can. In the meantime, we shouldn't start the vote. Mihia (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   @RichardW57: lite is a pronunciation spelling but not eye dialect and should be labeled accordingly. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Mahagaja (cc @PUC and @RichardW57), I've taken the liberty of moving your vote off the main page, until the issues that it raises are resolved. As I understand it, your precise preferences in respect of both "eye dialect" labelling and "pronunciation spelling" labelling are not presently catered for by the voting options. Having considered the proliferation of permutations and the general complexity that could arise from incorporating your preferences into the voting scheme, I have now decided in the first instance to limit the vote to the usage of the "eye dialect" label only. If this can be resolved then "pronunciation spelling" can be dealt with at a later date. I will make the necessary changes to the voting options in due course. Meanwhile, since you seem to have a handle on the "strict" use of the term "eye dialect", perhaps you could help in the formulation of more precise wording to describe this use. It seems to me that the following relevant categories, at least, exist:

1. Nonstandard spellings that represent nonstandard pronunciations, such as borrowin' for borrowing and fink for think.

2. Nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations, but imply that the speaker generally uses a nonstandard dialect, such as sed for said.

3. Nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations and imply some comment on a topic, such as, in certain contexts, wimmin for women, or educashun for education.

4. Nonstandard spellings that represent standard pronunciations, but have no especial connotations w.r.t. speaker or topic, such as lite for light.

Would you wish to restrict "eye dialect" to (2)? Or to (2) and (3)? Would you (or anyone) wish to add to or change or further clarify the above categories?

Mihia (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia I didn't get your ping, so @Mahagaja and @RichardW57 probably didn't either. PUC – 09:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I for one would restrict "eye dialect" to no. 2. --RichardW57 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd also restrict "eye dialect" to 2, although I think there is probably a lot of overlap between 2 and 3. For example, sense 1 of wimmin corresponds to category 2, while sense 2 corresponds to category 3. educashun doesn't have any citations, but I suspect it's also used in both ways, and sometimes it might not be easy to tell which usage is intended in a given citation. (If an author has an uneducated character use the word educashun, is the author telling us that the character is contemptuous of education, or merely that the character speaks in a nonstandard dialect?) —Mahāgaja · talk 11:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Mahagaja, @RichardW57 and @PUC. I wonder why the earlier pings did not work. Thanks for alerting me. I hope these will work. I have reduced the vote to deal with only "eye dialect" and redone the options. Please let me have any further comments. Thanks for your help with this. Mihia (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mihia: The ping didn't work because the {{ping}} template was not in the same paragraph as your signature. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I didn't know that was necessary. Mihia (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am confused by the wording of option 1. Take the nonstandard spelling rayther, seen here to indicate the nonstandard pronunciation /ˈɹeːðə(ɹ)/ of, e.g., the Yorkshire dialect. (This is not a random occurrence; this spelling is attestable.) Option 1 would allow one to label this “eye dialect”, which is most unreasonable.  --Lambiam 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• The wording of all options does not exclude misspellings, whether out of ignorance or as common typos. This would allow one to declare accomodate eye dialect.  --Lambiam 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• In line with the two points above, I think we should limit the application of the label to intentionally nonstandard spellings of standard pronunciations. In that case, a reasonable option (although not one I am in favour of) – in fact the broadest possible within that constraint – is to allow application to all intentionally nonstandard spellings of standard pronunciations, regardless of the point (if any) being made.  --Lambiam 19:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

One of our tasks as lexicographers is to record the meaning of words. To use the tag "eye dialect", we need to understand why the aberrant spelling is used. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Suppose that we understand why the author chose to use a nonstandard spelling. How should we, in your opinion, then use that understanding to decide whether the use of the tag “eye dialect” is warranted?  --Lambiam 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It is "eye dialect" if and only if it is intended to imply that the speaker in whose mouth the words are put did not speak the standard dialect. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My contribution above was meant to be in response to the request at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/June#Um, Eye Dialect anyone?, specifically with the intention of contributing to the effort of reaching the desired precision of the voting options, particularly with a view to clarifying what “broad” supporters may actually want. You appear to be arguing against one possible broad option because you disagree with it, but for a meaningful vote we must also include options that you may disagree with.  --Lambiam 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions

See [3]

• Talk:eye dialect
• Category talk:English pronunciation spellings
• Wiktionary:Tea room/2012/August § biz(n)atch
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January § spelling pronunciations
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/April § Eye dialect
• Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/January § gub'mint
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/March § Eye dialect
• Wiktionary:Tea room/2016/October § eye dialect
• Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/March § eye dialect
• Wiktionary:Information desk/2018/June § Not “eye dialect”, but rather...
• Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/November § Eye dialect/pronunciation spelling
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/April § Eye dialect (again)
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/March § "Eye dialect" label

PUC – 17:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"Status quo"

The current text of the vote calls option 1 the status quo, but that's not really true—the status quo is an unclear situation in which different editors use the eye dialect template in different ways. I tried to fix this but was reverted by User:Mihia, who said "I don't necessarily disagree with the thinking behind your edit, but please raise it on the talk page first, rather than making unilateral changes". —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and support your change. Status quo should be a fourth option (which I hope nobody will support). PUC – 23:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with PUC. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the edit, but I don't think the chaotic status quo should be an option people are allowed to vote in favor of. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• As far as the use of "eye dialect" label is concerned, Option 1 is to continue doing what we are doing at the moment. If this option were to pass, we could (potentially, if anyone can be bothered) change all the applicable "pronunciation spelling" labels to "eye dialect", as the note mentions, so in a sense it wouldn't be "chaos" any more, albeit we would be using "eye dialect" (consistently) wrongly according to some people (though not according to the "broad" definition previously at eye dialect that has now been removed). I need to make it clear in the wording that this is continuing what we are presently doing with "eye dialect" (whether by design or accident). Since the phrase "status quo" has been objected to, I have changed that. Please let me know if you have any better wording suggestions that will achieve the desired aim. Mihia (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Option 1 is to continue what some users are doing at the moment; option 3 is to continue what other users are doing at the moment. We don't really have a solid status quo, because the current situation is that different users use the label in different ways. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

My impression is that the present "dual" use is the norm, indeed the status quo, and that some people object to this and want to change it. However, if other people don't see it that way, then OK, we'll go with your wording. However, I would be most grateful if in future you do NOT make changes to the wording of this vote yourself, as you once again did.* The vote has my name on it as creator, and ultimately it is for me to decide what the wording should be, obviously with input and comments from other people, as has happened so far. Mihia (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

* Unless I am absent / not responding within a reasonable period. Mihia (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, reading it through again has reminded me of another reason why I wanted to include the idea of "continuing to do what presently happens" -- because it relieves me of the necessity to determine or explain what "certain" means later in that paragraph. As it was, I could just say, well, "certain" means "whatever presently happens", whereas now it seems that I may have to spell it out. Mihia (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Vote pages don't belong to any one person, they belong to the community. I agree that "certain" is not particularly clear, but the "status quo" claim doesn't seem to help. I think the second paragraph clarifies what the point of option 1 is. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your apparent implication that other people should be free to go and edit the wording of a vote that someone else has created, in order to make it read how they want, while discussion with the creator is still clearly ongoing. I certainly would not do that. Anyway, moving on, to clarify "certain", it seems to me that we require one or more supporters of Option 1 to tell us which of categories (2), (3) and (4) above, or others that they can identify, they wish "eye dialect" to apply to. I think the people who have commented so far would all oppose Option 1? If anyone is following this who supports Option 1, please chip in, or do we know anyone we can invite? Mihia (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Eye dialect is used to indicate that a speaker cannot spell properly

In at least some situations. Wikipedia mentions a comic strip called Li´l Abner, in which a young boy (and maybe children generally) speaks with misspelled words while the adults speak normally. Family Circus does something similar. But these children are clearly not speaking a different dialect from their parents. That's what I think, anyway. Though this is a side issue, not really relevant to this vote, .... my votes on the posts of the main page are the same regarldess of if Im right or wrong about this, because I agree with our current definition that it refers to a word that is misspelled but properly pronounced. —Soap— 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay Li´l Abner is 19 years old, not really a young boy in the sense I was imagining .... but my point is again still the same ... he's not speaking a different dialect, he just isnt a very good speller. —Soap— 14:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)