Like any dialect, a nonstandard dialect has an internally coherent system of grammar. It may be associated with a particular set of vocabulary, and spoken using a variety of accents, styles, and registers. As American linguist John McWhorter describes about a number of dialects spoken in the American South in earlier U.S. history, including older African-American Vernacular English, \"the often nonstandard speech of Southern white planters, nonstandard British dialects of indentured servants, and West Indian patois, [...] were nonstandard but not substandard.\" In other words, the adjective \"nonstandard\" should not be taken to mean that the dialect is intrinsically incorrect, less logical, or otherwise inferior, only that it is not the socially perceived norm or mainstream for public speech (though it is often stigmatized as such as a result of socially-induced post-hoc rationalization). In fact, linguists consider all nonstandard dialects to be grammatically full-fledged varieties of a language. Conversely, even some prestige dialects may be regarded as nonstandard.
As a border case, a nonstandard dialect may even have its own written form, though it could then be assumed that the orthography is unstable and/or unsanctioned, and that it is not consistently and/or officially supported by government or educational institutions. The most salient instance of nonstandard dialects in writing would likely be nonstandard phonemic spelling of reported speech in literature or poetry (e.g., the publications of Jamaican poet Linton Kwesi Johnson) where it is sometimes described as eye dialect.
Dialectal variations are present in all languages, originating from cultural, geographic and socioeconomic diversity. This study investigates speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) linguistic bias towards non-standard language forms and dialects, and factors that may impact on these attitudes. Language attitude studies reveal that negative attitudes towards variation can lead to bias against speakers of non-standard dialects. If SLPs hold linguistic bias towards speakers of non-standard dialects, this has the potential to impact upon their clinical judgement of difference vs. disorder and lead to inequality of service provision. A total of 129 Australian SLPs completed an online survey, which involved ranking 28 attitudinal statements regarding language variation on a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The survey data were analysed using a factor analysis in SPSS to identify latent factors that identified attitudes towards non-standard dialects followed by inferential analyses to investigate how attitudes were related to the demographic data of participants. Results identified five key factors from the survey, these were (1) Use of non-standard English, (2) Language impurity, (3) Diversity in form, (4) Social acceptability, and (5) Prescriptive language rules. SLPs held generally positive attitudes towards the use of non-standard forms and the socially determined acceptability of language. SLPs were more neutral in their attitudes towards diversity in form and the need for prescriptive rules and generally held negative views towards language purity (e.g., the use of \"youse\" as a plural form of you). A significantly positive association was found between professional development (PD) on cultural and linguistic diversity and positive attitudes towards Factors 1 and 3. Years of practice were significantly related to Factor 2, with less experienced SLPs holding more negative views relating to language purity. While many SLPs identify the value of language variation and its reflection of a person's cultural and linguistic diversity, negative attitudes towards non-standard forms and variation in school and occupational settings have the potential to negatively impact differential diagnosis, goal setting and the delivery of culturally responsive speech-language pathology services to speakers of non-standard dialects.
Speech recognition company Voiceitt is making it easier for people with non-standard speech to communicate with those around them and to use voice command devices with the release of its app on the Apple Store.
Monetary policy has had a powerful impact on financial markets in recent years. There is compelling international evidence that non-standard policy measures, such as asset purchases, forward guidance and negative interest rates, have been successful in altering relative asset prices in a way that is consistent with the predictions of portfolio rebalancing theory and the signalling channel of monetary policy. Few therefore dispute that the first stage of transmission of non-standard policy measures to the financing conditions of the private sector has been effective. Since the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates is expected to prevail more often in the future, this is undoubtedly good news.
While this cannot be ruled out in the absence of a reliable counterfactual, it at least invites suspicion, not least as producer price inflation proved equally resilient lately. Recent price developments therefore raise two important questions. First, has the exchange rate pass-through declined over time and, if so, is it a temporary or a more permanent phenomenon. And, second, if it has declined, is this related to the use of non-standard monetary policy measures
But its strength will critically depend on the overall state of the economy, and not on the type of policy measure, standard or non-standard. This is my answer to the second question and can best be seen by looking at two concrete examples.
Some observers have interpreted the lack of stronger price pressures as a failure of monetary policy to stimulate the economy. They argue that persistently low inflation is testimony to the ineffectiveness of non-standard policy measures. If this were true, then also the reasoning behind the shock-based exchange rate pass-through would in part be misguided.
As in previous findings in the literature, output appears to be strongly forward-looking. But the thing to note is that the real interest rate gap is now significant at the 1% level, suggesting an increase in output by 0.3 percentage point following a 1 percentage point drop in the real rate gap. There is also no evidence that output might have become less sensitive to changes in real bank lending rates with the advent of non-standard measures: although the sample is naturally small, and estimates might therefore be biased, specification 8 illustrates that the coefficients remain unchanged when we estimate the same forward-looking IS curve for a sample starting with the outbreak of the sovereign debt crisis in 2010.
One way to summarise these factors is to use financial conditions indexes (FCIs). My colleague Peter Praet gave a detailed speech on such indices earlier this year, which I strongly recommend reading. Here I would like to focus on the relevance of these broad measures for economic activity.
At the ECB, we have a different view of our non-standard measures. We set our key interest rates at levels we consider appropriate to maintain price stability, drawing on our regular comprehensive assessment of economic and monetary conditions. In other words, we have followed our standard practice in this regard.
Staying with the image of the road, I would say that we sought to remove the major roadblocks in front of us, so that our policy stance could be transmitted to the economy in the intended way. The logic of this approach is therefore parallel and supportive: if the transmission of the standard measures is impeded in a very significant way, non-standard measures can offer support. This logic has potentially very clear implications for the exit: we consider that we can determine standard and non-standard measures largely independently. We consider that we are not bound to unwind non-standard measures before considering interest rate increases; we could do one or the other or both. One set of measures depends on the outlook for price stability, the other depends on the degree of functioning of the monetary policy transmission through the financial system and financial markets.
With this overview of guiding principles in mind, I would like to discuss the three crucial elements of our monetary policy discussions during the financial crisis in more detail: the unwavering pursuit of price stability, our primary objective; the role of standard policy measures in pursuing that goal; and the support provided by the non-standard measures that we have introduced in recent years.
But, in the challenging context of financial crisis, standard monetary policy proved insufficient. Standard measures have been complemented by a variety of non-standard measures, which have aimed to support the effectiveness and transmission of interest rate decisions.
Rather, our view was that non-standard measures were required to ensure that the stance of monetary policy was effectively transmitted to the broader economy, notwithstanding the dysfunctional situation in some financial markets.
Fourth, the non-standard measures, by their nature, are temporary to the extent that they have to be strictly commensurate to the degree of dysfunctionality of markets that is hampering the transmission mechanism. The central bank must guard against the danger that the necessary measures in a crisis period would evolve into a dependency as conditions normalise.
This naturally leads to the fifth principle: non-standard measures must be fully accompanied by an environment aiming at reactivating the private markets. In particular, the private sector, regulators and supervisors, and the fiscal authorities must face the right incentives to address the major underlying problems, such as distressed banks or fiscal weaknesses.
The way Voiceitt works is the person with speech impediments uses the app to create their own personal dictionary, which is then translated into standard speech to control other voice-enabled devices. 59ce067264