Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

[Peter Constable <[e-mail]>]

I think in a context that pertains to linguistic variation, I think the sociolinguistic usage of “register” will generally be understood, not the phonological usage. (The latter perhaps might be assumed by default if the context were specifically speech resources, but the former would be relevant to all types of language resources.) And it would be trivially easy to clarify in a spec that that is meant. Moreover, there isn’t any more widely-used term for that meaning. It’s relevant enough to the domain of language resources that ISO TC37/SC1 has published a technical report on sociolinguistic register, and referring to it as “register”: ISO/TR 20694:2018 A typology of language registers<https://www.iso.org/standard/68852.html>.

As for the first usage you mentioned, I think “code switching” or “diglossia” are more widely used than “register”. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered this being referred to as “register”, though I admit it’s not an area I’ve studied much. And I guess there might be cases in which it might not be obvious at first glance whether two distinct varieties should be considered distinct languages or distinct registers of a single language. (In fact, TR 20694 has a section discussing the distinction.) But I don’t think this argues against use of “register” in the sociolinguistic sense: if it’s determined that what was observed are two distinct languages, then from then on I would expect “diglossia” or “code switching” would be the terminology used, being more conventional for that sense and less ambiguous.


My 2 cents.

Peter

From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Hugh Paterson III
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 11:52 PM
To: Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Ben Scarborough <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language subtag registration form

FYI: register is a problematic term from a linguistic perspective. There are at least three senses of the term. The first as it is used here is a social register in which language a or language b is chosen, the second is in southEast Asian languages where word forms differ based on register - which may also have social applications of use, and third in register tier theory, a phonological theory of tone analysis. So in general, the word seems to be over loaded, and should IMO be avoided.

- Hugh Paterson III

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 5:53 AM Doug Ewell <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Ben Scarborough wrote:

> I will gladly amend my form if the opinion is that "sociolect" is not
> a suitable term to use here.

Just for the record, we aren't absolutely required to wrap ourselves
around this axle. For example, the line could simply read:

Comments: "Archaic" Esperanto variety defined by Manuel Halvelik

It's just a comment, after all.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewellic.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BuxrCeYz%2BwsAGQFKqX%2FrFFNQdI7v9cjNOUT5hG0uN7w%3D&reserved=0>


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&data=04%7C01%7C%7C87e491a522614bcff81c08d891171769%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637418875651855487%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=gCaK4Pu0CpsBCpOhQo%2FoUR8z%2FeETHrpIoqUUfVxr3AY%3D&reserved=0>
--
All the best,
-Hugh

Sent from my iPhone
Paris, France