Campbell's def. of "language"

[Eduard Selleslagh]

-----Original Message-----
From: ECOLING at aol.com <ECOLING at aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:28 PM

>Yesterday I received the latest issue of the Journal "Language",
>in which there is a review by Doris Bartholomew of
>Lyle Campbell's book
>*American Indian Languages: The historical linguistics of Native America*
>Oxford University Press 1997

>Campbell defines these terms (and reviewer Bartholomew
>     does not comment, so presumably regards these definitions
>     as quite normal, unremarkable):

>'dialect' is a variety (regional or social) of a language,
>     mutually intelligible with other dialects

>'language' is a distinct linguistic entity that is
>     mutually unintelligible with other languages

>I simply do not believe that Larry Trask is unaware that this is
>     standard linguistic usage.  He is not forced to use it himself,
>     but he is obligated to treat this usage with respect,
>     not to evade discussions based upon it by ridiculing it.

[snip]
>Lloyd Anderson

[Ed Selleslagh]

Sorry for responding late, but I have spent two days in hospital and I am still
recovering.

My impression is that Campbell is envisaging languages with low-variance
dialects (like Spanish or even English).  Here in Flanders, the most extreme
(both geographically and linguistically) dialects of Dutch, in their lowest
registers, are mutually unintelligible.  Even 'softer' registers are, at times,
very hard to understand (Flemish TV provides Dutch subtitles (only) in these
cases, like interviewing a peasant, Dutch TV always does).

On the other hand, my Spanish speaking (Peruvian) wife understands most of an
Italian newscast, and she has no Italian friends, never learned Italian or
whatever. But she has a lot of trouble with Catalan, especially the Barcelona
(not Valencia) variety. Another example: The Portuguese understand most of what
Spaniards say (if correctly articulated), but Spaniards hardly understand
anything of what the Portuguese SAY (but do understand most of what they
WRITE). Most Flemings that never learned German can easily understand 70-80% of
German speech and writing.

So, according to Campbell: Spanish = Italian, and West-Flemish or Limburgish do
not belong to the same language as Holland Dutch.

And 'mutual intelligibility' is a multi-faceted concept.

I guess C. intended something else, or was limiting the study to some aspects
where the definitions used make sense.  I wonder if a general definition is
possible at all. At least, we should first have a look at the existing
'variance' within the language as commonly accepted.

Ed.

Dr. Ir. Eduard Selleslagh edsel at glo.be
B-9120 Haasdonk
Belgium