Introduction
Introduction (short!)
Where do these terms come from?
According to Einar Haugen (1966), quoted in Hudson (1996) English made no distinction
between language and dialect until the Renaissance period when the term 'dialect' was
borrowed from Greek. Haugen suggests that the distinction was made in Greek as a result of
a 'number of clearly distinct written varieties in use in Clasical Greek, each associated with a
different area and kind of literature'. It would appear that the original Greek meaning of the
term is quite different to what it means in English today.
The distinctions made also differ between different cultures, making the question even more
complex. In France, for example, the French word 'dialecte' is used to refer to regional
varieties which are written; and the term 'patois' is used to refer to regional varieties which
are not written.
How do we define a language?
Terralingua
Structural similarity or dissimilarity can only tell apart very dissimilar languages. It is easy to
confirm that, for instance, Chinese and English, or Kurdish and Turkish are clearly different
languages because their linguistic structures are so dissimilar. But despite being structurally
very close to each other, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are called different languages.
Serbian and Croatian may be even closer to each other but they are now (again) called two
different languages. Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi are both structurally and lexically very similar,
Kannada and Marathi are structurally almost the same but lexically dissimilar -- all are called
different languages. Structural similarity can thus mainly be used to differentiate between two
languages in cases which are so clear that no linguists would be needed anyway to solve the
problem. In other cases, linguistic criteria are not of much help.
What are the differences between a language and a
dialect?
SIZE
A language is bigger (has more speakers)than a dialect, since a language is considered to be
the sum of its dialects. Dialects are therefore considered to be subcategories of a language.
So, if we take English as a language, we might consider varieties such as Cockney, Yorkshire
English , Australian English, etc as dialects of the language 'English'.
What are the differences between a language and a
dialect?
PRESTIGE
A language is more prestigious than a dialect.
A dialect is popularly considered to be "a substandard, low status, often rustic form of a
language, lacking in prestige. Dialects are often being thought of as being some kind of
erroneous deviation from the norm - an aberration of the 'proper' or standard form of
language." (Chambers and Trudgill 1998).
For most people (at least in Britain), the level of prestige a variety has is dependent on
whether it is used in formal writing. Varieties which are unwritten are commonly referred to
as dialects, whereas those used in writing are considered to be the 'proper language'.
Standard English - language or dialect?
What is Standard English?
Hudson suggests that the variety of a language that we refer to as a 'proper language' rather
than a dialect is a Standard Language. Standard English, for example the kind of English used
in textbooks, official documents, etc, is simply another dialect of English among many
(Yorkshire English, Indian English, etc%u2026). It is the English that would be taught to
foreign learners, or used in education systems. It is important to note that this variety has no
linguistic prestige over others - the selection of a given variety depends on social, not
linguistic factors (Milroy and Milroy, 1993).
There are four processes a variety goes through to become standardized (Haugen 1966)
1)Selection - The variety must be chosen out of a group of competing varieties as the one to
be developped into the standard form. The selected variety is not, as I said earlier, any more
linguistically 'correct' than other varieties. The decision is one of great social importance,
since those who speak this variety of the language will automatically gain prestige as the
variety does.Therefore, what is most important is the varieties aceptability amoungst the most
powerful sectors of society.
2) Codification - the standard variety is codified (written down) so that it is some way fixed
as the standard. Codification of modern Standard English took place in the 18th century,
when Dr Samuel Johnson's Dictionary along with many grammar books, first appeared. Once
a variety had been codified, it is possible for members of the community to learn and use the
'correct' forms that they believe will give them social advancement (Milroy)
3) Elaboration of Function - As the standard language is diffused socially and geographically
(often through writing or education systems)it becomes necessary for it to be used in a wider
variety of functions, such as administrative functions associated with central government, in
parliament, in education and of course in literature. As a result, a wider vocabulary for this
variety needs to be developped and new linguistic items added so that the variety can be used
in all these domains.
4) Acceptance - the variety must be accepted as the standard variety by an influential group
of society. It will then spread to other groups, and other forms will become non-standard.
Hudson comments that a standard language, once accepted, serves as a 'strong unifying force
for the state'. It becomes a symbol of independence.
Standard English - language or dialect?
SE as a dialect
Chambers and Trudgill argue that all speakers of English are speakers of a particular dialect
of English, dependent on their geographical and social backgrounds. No dialect of English is
linguistically superior to any other, but certain dialects have more prestige associated with
them - for example, Standard English.
But do we want to consider Standard English as a language? Or is it just another dialect of the
overall concept - English? It certainly has more prestige than other dialects, yet it is spoken
by a remarkably small percentage of English speakers.
Mutual Intelligibility
Problems with this theory
Another criteria used for distinguishing language from dialect is mutual intelligibility. If two
speakers are able to understand one another, we can assume that they are speaking different
varieties of the same language.
Although this defintion seems clear-cut, there are many problems with it's application.
Firstly, let us consider the Scandanavian languages of Norwegian, Swedish and Danish,
which are usually considered to be three seperate languages (especially by their speakers).
However, speakers of these three languages can readily communicate and understand each
other (C&T). Another example of this is Serbian and Croation - speakers have no problem
understanding one another, yet they are referred to as different languages.
Furthermore, whilst we would normally consider German to be one language, some varieties
(such as Swiss German and Standard German) are not mutually intelligible.
Another problem with this definition is that mutual intelligibility is a matter of degree,
ranging from totally intelligible to totally unintelligible (Hudson). How far down this scale
must two varieties be in order for us to class them as different languages? Where is the cut off
point?
A third problem is that a person's ability to understand another person is dependant on
various factors. For example, the speakers past experience or exposure to the particular
variety. For example, a speaker of Cockney English may have difficulty understanding a
speaker of Irish English - however, if the speaker of Cockney English has, let's say, Irish
parents - he or she might have no problems at all understanding.
We can also note that mutual intelligiblity is not always mutual. For example, Danes
understand Norwegians better than Norwegians understand Danes. This is probably due in
part to the suggestion that "Norwegian is pronounced like Danish is spelt."
Dialect Continuum
How do we draw boundaries between langs?
Another problem with using mutual intelligiblity as a criteria is that we can arange varieties
in a chain, known as a dialect continuum. In this chain, each pair of adjacent varieties are
mutually intelligible,but pairs that are not directly adjacent in the chain are not (Hudson).
One such chain is said to stretch from Amsterdam through Germany to Vienna, and another
from Calais to the South of Italy.
This leaves us with a problem - how do we draw boundaries between languages? How do we
decide where one language ends and another begins?
Language as a Political and Social Factor
The answer appears to be due to social and political, rather than linguistic factors. Since a
'standard language' can act as a symbol of independence, many groups are keen to keep their
language seperate from others, despite being practically identical (e.g. Serbian and Croation).
A language is a political or socially created concept, not based on linguistic differences.
Conclusion
Brief summary
Dialects
What They Are
Different language communities have certain ways of talking that set them apart from others.
Those differences may be thought of as dialects —not just accents (the way words are
pronounced) but also grammar, vocabulary, syntax and common expressions. Often a group
that is somewhat isolated regionally or socially from other groups will develop a
characteristic dialect.
Many people wonder, "What’s the difference between a language and a dialect?" There are
no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing them, and the difference is often a matter
of degree rather than of kind. The Dictionary of Linguistics defines dialect as a variety of a
language used by people from a particular geographic area. Many historical linguists view
every speech form as a dialect of the older medium from which it was developed; for
example, modern Romance languages such as French and Italian developed from dialects of
Latin. Other linguists point out the role of historical and political developments in the
formation of a dialect
Regardless how one defines them, dialects are fascinating and relevant to the general study of
language differences.
Why They Matter
Research in dialects helps scientists understand the fundamental principles that underlie
language differences, language innovation and language variation in time and space. The
research also helps the public understand language diversity and offers a new perspective on
national debates associated with various dialects – for example, should people be encouraged
to eliminate “nonstandard” ways of speaking?
Walt Wolfram of North Carolina State University helped launch the national awareness about
the role of dialects in American society and education. Now he is conducting research on
several dialects in North Carolina, including the Ocracoke brogue and African American
Appalachian dialects.
LANGUAGE OR DIALECT: - Language or dialect?:
Short definition: a language is a dialect promoted by élites.
Discussion
Sometimes one can hear people speaking about "those tribes in Africa with all their dialects" while the same people
speak about "European nations with their languages". Without necessarily intending to do so, one can in this way
hierarchise people and what they speak. In Debi Prasanna Pattanayak's view (1991: 27-28), "the developed countries
treat their respective dominant languages as resources, call them world languages, and use them to further their
national interest', while those of the 'third world élites' who follow the West 'deride the mother tongues' in their own
countries 'as dialect, slang, patois, vernacular, and condemn them to marginal use, or completely ignore them" (ibid.,
28). But we can also hear a genuine question: is what XX speak a "language", or is it a "dialect"? Can the question be
answered? What is the difference between a language and a dialect?
There are no linguistic criteria for differentiating between a language and a dialect (or vernacular or patois). Structural
similarity or dissimilarity can only tell apart very dissimilar languages. It is easy to confirm that, for instance, Chinese
and English, or Kurdish and Turkish are clearly different languages because their linguistic structures are so
dissimilar. But despite being structurally very close to each other, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are called
different languages. Serbian and Croatian may be even closer to each other but they are now (again) called two
different languages. Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi are both structurally and lexically very similar, Kannada and Marathi
are structurally almost the same but lexically dissimilar -- all are called different languages. Structural similarity can
thus mainly be used to differentiate between two languages in cases which are so clear that no linguists would be
needed anyway to solve the problem. In other cases, linguistic criteria are not of much help.
"Mutual intelligibility" has also been used as a criterion: if you understand a "language", A, without being taught that
"language", it is a dialect (or another variety) of your own "language", B. Or your own "language" B is a dialect of the
one you can understand, A. Or what both of you speak (A & B), are dialects of some third entity, C, which is then
called "a language". But if you don't understand A, it is a different language. But the criterion of mutual intelligibility
is also far from unambiguous. Let us say that speaker A understands B, and speaker B understands C, who in her turn
understands D. On the other hand, speaker A does not understand C, and speaker B does not understand D. Where is
the boundary then between language and dialect. Or if A understands B but B does not understand A (non-reciprocal
intelligibility), are A and B dialects of the same language for speaker A who understands both, but two different
languages for speaker B who does not understand both? In situations where languages are oral (spoken) languages
and have not been reduced to writing, people in neighbouring villages often understand each other, either well, or at
least to some extent, despite the differences, but they may not understand people from villages much further away.
These in turn understand their close neighbours, etc.
How well do the speakers need to understand each other? Is "semi-communication" enough (Haugen 1966: 102) or
must the understanding be "complete" (and is it ever complete even between speakers of the same language)? Should
the speakers who test the criteria be monolingual? It is, for instance, easy for me (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas), knowing
other Indo-European languages like Danish, English, German, Latin, Norwegian and Swedish, to understand some
Dutch, without having ever been taught Dutch. Would Dutch then be a separate language for a monolingual Swedish-
speaker who does not understand Dutch, but a dialect of Swedish, or German or English, for me?
Is oral understanding enough, or should we rather use understanding of writing as a criterion? Or the opposite: is
understanding writing enough, or should one also understand the oral mode? A Finn who has studied Swedish at
school, understands some written Danish, but does not understand spoken Danish at all. Is oral Danish then a separate
language from Swedish, while written Danish is a dialect of Swedish? And what about the deaf population?
Should the criterion be used only with language spoken by a native speaker, with normal speed, or can a second
language speaker who speaks slowly also be used? Age, amount of formal schooling, degree of metalinguistic
awareness, amount of exposure to the language or to other languages in general, learning styles, courage, motivation,
fatigue, etc, obviously also affect intelligibility, in many situations much more than the "same language/different
languages" question. Mutual intelligibility as a criterion thus discriminates well only in situations with structurally
unrelated languages, as was the case with the structural linguistic criterion too.
Neither similarity or dissimilarity of structure, nor mutual intelligibility or lack of it can therefore differentiate
between languages.
The social functions of languages, measured, for instance, by the speakers' own views on what are different
languages, are based partly on the two linguistic criteria (structural similarity, mutual intelligibility), but mainly on
extra-linguistic criteria. One possible criterion which has been suggested is standardization. Only dialects which have
been reduced to writing (a prerequisite for standardization) and been standardized are languages, everything else is
something else (dialect, vernacular, patois). Peter Trudgill's old definition (1983: 16) reflects this; for him "languages"
were "independent, standardized varieties ... with, as it were, a life of their own". This would drastically reduce the
number of "languages" in the world. Very few indigenous languages and only a handful of sign languages would
qualify as languages according to this definition. But it can be understood in the sense that it only becomes natural to
speak about a language as a specific, discrete unit, distinct from other similar units, when there is a written form of
that language, claims Tore Janson, earlier Professor of Latin, now Professor of African Languages, at the University
of Gothenburg, Sweden (1997: 125). The written forms of today's languages in Europe displaced and replaced other
ways of writing. In most cases, a written form came first and a name for the language only afterwards. One or some of
the dialects were chosen as the basis for the written form, and the choice was obviously made by those or to benefit
those who "needed" the written form in the first place: the élites, the state builders, the church representatives. These
choices were also decisive for inclusion and exclusion: the rulers decided where the borders would be placed in the
dialect continua between what was called one language and what another language.
Thus, the main criterion for whether something is a dialect of another language or a separate language (and what is
being standardized, what not) is the relative political power of the speakers of that language/dialect. The decisions
about what are "languages" and what are not, are thus political decisions. Those with enough power can claim that
what they speak is a language and what less powerful groups speak are dialects. Political definitions of a language
would be: "a language is a dialect with an army (and a navy)" or "a language is a dialect with state borders" or "a
language is a dialect promoted by elites". (TSK)
kea Thursday 26th of May 2005 06:01:37 PM
- I can bring an example about languages and dialects around here. In Estonia we speak Estonian, which is called a
language but in South part of Estonian country they still speak võru keel, which is clearly related closely to standard
Estonian but still different enough that standard Estonian speakers don't understand the speakers of võru keel really.
But officially it is a dialect of Estonian.
But at the same time there are two very small languages (around 10 speakers left of each language) that are very
closely related to Estonian - Livish and Votjan. And the distance between Estonian and those two languages is no
bigger than the difference between Estonian and the South Estonian dialect Võru. But Livish and Votjan are called
languages. I think the reason is geographical, because when Võru dialect is spoken inside Estonian borders, where the
official language is closely related to this dialect then Livish speakers (the number of them is many, many times
smaller than the speakers of Võru dialect) live in Latvia and the Votjan speakers live in Russia. And Latvian and
Russian are not related to Livish and Votjan at all.
Ulven Saturday 28th of May 2005 02:45:10 PM
- If you haven't already Senator, see this thread--->
[url]http://phrasebase.c../../discuss/read.php?TID=6201[/url], called The Mis-use of the term 'Arabic', by Ashlee.
Myself and Ashlee have run into major dilemnas in our pursuit of the Lebanese language (aka Arabic). There is a
website link which shows the extreme shortcoming of the mis-labelling of all Arabic script languages as 'Arabic'.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Arabic tongues are languages, not dialects.
I also pursue the Scandinavian languages, and they're no voids compared to Arabic tongues. But, you do need
seperate learning material for each of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. But whether they're dialects or languages, I
could go either way. I'll wait till I'm better at them before I decide.
But as for Arabic tongues, that's a no-brainer, really. I'd say there are at least three seperate languages under the title
'Arabic'.
But when it cuts close, dialect vs language comes down to the difficulty level for the individual. I don't think the label
can ever be gospel,(as you yourself seem to have pointed out).
Teup Saturday 28th of May 2005 04:30:02 PM
- For those interested, there's been a topic on it in the Dutch discuss
[url=http://www.phrasebase.c../../discuss/read.php?TID=3121]here[/url]. Labeling is indeed rather arbitrary, in
reality there is no "language" or "dialect", everone speaks a littlebit different, it's all on a continuum. There are no
clear cut boundaries and it depends on your point of view. Many variants of Dutch could be considered different
languages for example, because they're as far apart as for example Swedish and Norwegian or Serbian and Croatian
(therefore generally Serbo-Croat is preferred). Afrikaans is considered a different language, although it's about just as
far away from Dutch as some dialect variants. It depends on politics, or rather social factors in general - here the goal
is preserving a unity (and Afrikaans is spoken in a different country anyway), in the Balkans it's about creating a
seperate group identity.
Ulven Sunday 29th of May 2005 01:01:34 AM
- You're right Teup. Naming something a language can represent a goal for the future of a community. Even if the
difference between two dialects now are small, if they intend to go their seperate ways, like Serbia and Croatia, and
form seperate identities, it makes sense for them to get the ball rolling and label their intent from the outset. Politics
certainly can polute the passion behind any drive for seperateness, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate
passion in forming one's own identity. It's exciting forming uniqueness, and it has to start somewhere.
I suppose the Arabic world hasn't strived to name their languages seperately because they have more concern
seperating themselves from western society. If things calmed down there, then we'd see a pusuit for Arabic's so-called
dialects to assert their seperateness. They'd have greater freedom to sit with their language and contemplate. But at the
moment, they have more pressing needs than thinking about what to name their speech patterns. There's quite some
complexities involved. Even I admit to missing alot of them.
