language’. There are different forms between people in Bradford and people nearby rural area around Haworth, England. In Bradford, she is pronounced as
[ ʃ i:] and house is pronounced [ a
ʊ
s], while in Haworth, they are [ ʃu:] and
[
Ө
a:s]. Then it is distinguished a virtually infinite number of ‘different forms’ of any language, depending on what linguistic features that is focused on, and in how
much detail J.K. Chambers and Peter Trudgill : 1980 . To take a further example, in British English, some groups of people pronounce look with a long
vowel, while others with a short. But among the long-vowel forms we can certainly distinguish [lu:k] from [l
ɪə k] – and among those with [u:]-like vowels we could distinguish [lu:k], [liu:k], [liuk], [l
ʊ
u:k] etc. And the various groups who say [l
ʊ
u:k] will differ among themselves in the way thay pronounce other words; and so on.
This process leads to the speech of smaller and smaller groups, until it ultimately reaches the speech of an individual. This is called the idiolect, and in
fact each idiolect differs in some details from every other. But somewhere it is called that a halt to this concentration on differences, and decide that among a
certain group there is an important degree of linguistic unity – that its members speak the same dialect. This term then implies both difference from other groups
speaking the same language and unity with other individuals.
2.3. The Distinction between Dialect and Accent
There is another term which is slightly different from dialect; the term is ‘accent’. As with ‘dialect’ and ‘language’, the distinction between ‘dialect’ and
Universitas Sumatera Utara
‘accent’ is not obvious as might at first appear. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably. For example, an eye witness referred on a private television to
his having ‘a local dialect or accent’. But many people would probably feel that ‘accent’ is a little more restricted term than ‘dialect’; in fact they would almost
certainly accept a distinction made by linguists. ‘Accent’ refers to the way in which a speaker pronounces, and therefore refers to variety which is different
from other varieties. On the other hand, ‘dialect’ refers to varieties which are grammatically different from other varieties K.M Petyt. So if two speakers say,
respectively, I gone there yesterday, and another speaker says I went there yesterday, we can say that they are speaking different dialects.
It can be concluded that all matter of pronunciation are matters of accent, whereas grammar and vocabulary must be also involved before we speak of
dialect. The distinction between dialect and accent is just like the distinction between Standard English and RP Received Pronunciation. Standard English
involves vocabulary, grammar, some phonology. RP is a prestige way of speaking, based on the same upper-class dialect. RP now typifies the speech of
educated people. RP has been the form of English taught to foreigners wherever British influences have been strong. For that all, less than 5 percent of the English
population speak it. So, the dialect could as the Standard English and accent stands as the RP.
Dialect differences are being continually observed from the day to the day. Observations of dialect differences are so common that it is perhaps
Universitas Sumatera Utara
surprising to find that the major thrust toward studying dialects systematically begins only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Dialect is closely related to the vowels in English. Speakers of English may have differences in specific words. It can be seen easily, for example, people
commonly failed to cite half, won’t, tomato correctly. What is probably failed to recognize is that the differences are almost always in vowels. When considering
English vowels, it will be found that different dialects differ one and another. But it is also possible that speakers of a language do not all make the same vowel
differences. Language is always changing and a change may happen in some places, or among some groups of people, but may not happen everywhere
Charles W. Kreidler.
2.4. Mutual Intelligibility
