dialects and languages
Dennis Preston
preston at MSU.EDU
Mon Feb 25 11:32:40 UTC 2008
Hmmm. I think you missed my "at a certain latitude" proviso.
dInIs
>---------------------- Information from the mail
>header -----------------------
>Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster: Wilson Gray <hwgray at GMAIL.COM>
>Subject: Re: dialects and languages
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Isn't the easternmost variety of "Dutch" really Fries and the
>westernmost variety of "German" - again, taking latitude into
>consideration - really Low German? (I'm making do with the "atlas" in
>the appendix of a dictionary.)
>
>-Wilson
>
>On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at yale.edu> wrote:
>> ---------------------- Information from the
>>mail header -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster: Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>> Subject: Re: dialects and languages
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> At 10:32 AM -0500 2/22/08, Dennis R. Preston wrote:
>> >I don't understand why both aren't
>> >sociopolitical? Why would (at a certain latitude
>> >of course) the easternmost variety of Dutch, for
>> >example, be a "Dutch dialect" and the westernmost
>> >variety of German be a "German dialect"?
>>
>> A nice example is SkÂne, spoken in what is now
>> the south of Sweden; it used to be a dialect of
>> Danish (when the area belonged to Denmark) and
>> then magically became a dialect of Swedish,
>> without having undergone any appreciable changes
>> overnight.
>>
>> LH
>>
>> >They are
>> >"dialects of" a language for the same
>> >sociopolitical reasons that the languages are
>> >languages. No linguistic features would make them
>> >better members of the Dutch or German "set." If
>> >"dialect" means linguistically different variety
>> >of some historical family (i.e., West Germanic),
>> >this might be OK (as it is in many historical
>> >texts), although the metric of difference would
>> >also come into play.
>> >
>> >dInIs
>> >
>> >>---------------------- Information from the mail
>> >>header -----------------------
>> >>Sender: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> >>Poster: Dave Wilton <dave at WILTON.NET>
>> >>Subject: Re: dialects and languages
>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>But if we follow the mutual intelligibility criterion, then Danish and
>> >>Norwegian are the same language.
>> >>
>> >>I would say that "language" (in this sense)
>>is a socio-political-historical
>> >>distinction and "dialect" is a linguistic one. Any categorization of
>> >>dialects that groups them into "languages" is not doing so strictly on
>> >>linguistic terms.
>> >>
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: American Dialect Society
>>[mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
>> >>Laurence Horn
>> >>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 PM
>> >>To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>> >>Subject: Re: dialects and languages
>> >>
>> >>The only quarrel I might have with your
>> >>observations relates not to the relative status
>> >>of Cantonese and Mandarin, with which I am in
>> >>accord with what you say, but rather to the
>> >>assumption that Cantonese and Mandarin are
>> >>dialects of Chinese. While there is a good deal
>> >>of arbitrariness in where "dialect" (or
>> >>"variety") leaves off and where "language"
>> >>begins, one standard (if admittedly imperfect)
>> >>criterion is based on mutual intelligibility, and
>> >>that is absent between speakers of Cantonese and
>> >>Mandarin, from what I've read. The other
>> >>criterion is the old Max Weinreich "A language is
>> >>a dialect with an army and a navy" one, which
>> >>militates in the opposite direction here. But
>> >>even Ethnologue, which is conservative about such
> > >>matters, lists Cantonese and Mandarin as distinct
>> >>languages (see www.ethnologue.com). So I agree
> > >>that Mandarin isn't more of a language and less
>> >>of a dialect than Cantonese, but I think by most
>> >>standardly accepted criteria they are indeed two
>> >>languages that share a writing system (and a
>> >>fairly large army and navy).
>> >>
>> >>LH
>> >>
>> >>At 9:43 PM -0500 2/21/08, James Harbeck wrote:
>> >>>I've been having a discussion on another list
>> >>>with someone, and I seem to be having trouble
>> >>>persuading her, so I just wanted to make sure
>> >>>that what I was saying was agreed on by linguists
>> >>>with more standing than I. Here's what she said
>> >>>initially:
>> >>>
>> >>>----
>> >>>Mandarin is a language. Cantonese is a dialect.
>> >>>This is what I've been told by my husband, who is
>> >>>from the PRC & speaks both.
>> >>>----
>> >>>
>> >>>My response was as follows:
>> >>>
>> >>>----
>> >>>Um. Well, many a speaker of a hegemonic dialect
>> >>>is likely to make a similar insistence, and the
>> >>>frequent implication is that the "dialects" are
>> >>>degraded versions of the "language" (which could
>> >>>hardly work in this case, since Cantonese is
>> >>>actually less historically changed than
>> >>>Mandarin). Most commonly you will see it said
>> >>>that Chinese is a language and Mandarin and
>> >>>Cantonese are dialects. (All versions of a
>> >>>language are dialects. There is no version of any
>> >>>language that is not a dialect of that language,
>> >>>and this includes whatever standard version is
>> >>>taught as being the only right way to speak it.
>> >>>Likewise, all speakers of any language anywhere
>> >>>have accents; there is no such thing as a
>> >>>language speaker without an accent.) It happens
>> >>>that Mandarin is the officially enforced dialect,
>> >>>and so is the standard; it hasn't always been
>> >>>thus.
>> >>>
>> >>>So your husband's pronouncement is of
>> >> >sociological interest, in that it displays a
>> >>>certain set of attitudes (which might be objected
>> >>>to by Cantonese speakers), but you will find in
>> >>>general that Mandarin is referred to as a
>> >>>dialect. It _could_ be considered a separate
>> >>>language, but it isn't thought of as one, as a
>> >>>rule, and if it is one, so is Cantonese.
>> >>>----
>> >>>
>> >>>(I recognize that I overstated the case when I
>> >>>said all versions of a language are dialects, as
>> >>>I admitted later -- of course there are other
>> >>>levels of varieties, e.g., registers.)
>> >>>
>> >>>Her response was as follows:
>> >>>
>> >>>----
>> >>>In fact, my husband is Cantonese. His 2nd
>> >>>language is Mandarin. Other Cantonese speakers
>> >>>have said that same thing, that Cantonese is a
>> >>>dialect. Mandarin is what they call standard
>> >>>Chinese. My husband is also a linguist,
>> >>>translator & interpreter. Chinese grammar is
>> >>>based on Mandarin rather than on dialects such as
>> >>>Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc.
>> >>>----
>> >>>
>> >>>My response was this (I've trimmed bits to get to the point):
>> >>>
>> >>>----
>> >>>A standard dialect is still a standard _dialect_,
>> >>>though. ... The Queen speaks a dialect; the
>> >>>Acad»mie fran¡aise enforces a dialect. Cantonese
>> >>>isn't a dialect of Mandarin; it's a dialect of
>> >>>Chinese. It's not derived from Mandarin. Mandarin
>> >>>is the standard, but it's not the language; it's
>> >>>the standard dialect of the language. ...
>> >>>
>> >>>Also, I assume, when you're speaking of Chinese
>> >>>grammar, you're referring to what's taught in
>> >>>schools. The grammar of Cantonese as it's used by
>> >>>hundreds of millions or Cantonese speakers is, of
>> >>>course, Cantonese grammar, based on how Cantonese
>> >>>has evolved through history; it's not a mere
>> >>>derivative version of Mandarin grammar. ... Any
>> >>>given dialect might be grammatically different
>> >>>from the standard, but it has a grammar, and a
>> >>>consistent one at that. It couldn't be a
>> >>>coherent, viable form of communication otherwise.
>> >>>
>> >>>...
>> >>>----
>> >>>
>> >>>After another exchange, where we mainly repeated
> > >>>the same points in other words, her most recent
> > >>>missive is this:
>> >>>
>> >>>----
>> >>>Well. I also didn't mean to imply that dialects
>> >>>are inferior or that Cantonese is a dialect of
>> >>>Mandarin. Of course dialects aren't inferior. And
>> >>>by grammar, I'm not talking about "good grammar"
>> >>>but the forms & usages in a language. I once
>> >>>taught a course called varieties of English and
>> >>>had to set one student straight who thought that
>> >>>Canadian English was "just a dialect" because
>> >>>it's spoken in only one place - Canada. During
>> >>>the (20) years I taught ESL, English, & EFL, I
>> >>>had to explain to students that BrE isn't The
>> >>>English, that Parisian French isn't The French,
>> >>>etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>Anyway, I will send you, off list, an article my
>> >>>husband wrote for STIBC (Society of Translators
>> >>>and Interpreters of BC) on Chinese. It's called
>> >>>"It's All in the Sign." I hope it clarifies
>> >>>things. I think it's important to note that, for
>> >>>practical purposes, there's a standard language
>> >>>in the PRC, a result of the May 4th Movement in
>> >>>1919. It happens to be what we call Mandarin,
>> >>>although in Chinese it's /putonghua/, or common
>> >>>speech.
>> >>>----
>> >>>
>> >>>So I'm still not sure whether she quite gets that
>> >>>she can't say that Mandarin _is_ Chinese and not
>> >>>a dialect, and that Cantonese is a dialect. Am I
>> >>>not giving her enough credit? And, for that
>> >>>matter, am I wrong?
>> >>>
>> >>>Thanks,
>> >>>James Harbeck.
>> >>>
>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> >>
>> >>------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Dennis R. Preston
>> >University Distinguished Professor
>> >Department of English
>> >15C Morrill Hall
>> >Michigan State University
>> >East Lansing, MI 48824
>> >517-353-4736
>> >preston at msu.edu
>> >
>> >------------------------------------------------------------
>> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
>--
>All say, "How hard it is that we have to die"---a strange complaint to
>come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
>-----
> -Sam'l Clemens
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
--
Dennis R. Preston
University Distinguished Professor
Department of English
Morrill Hall 15-C
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48864 USA
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list