dialects and languages
Wilson Gray
hwgray at GMAIL.COM
Mon Feb 25 02:59:50 UTC 2008
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 Skåne, 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
> >>>AcadÈmie franÁaise 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
More information about the Ads-l
mailing list