Re: The whole dialect business

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:31:50 -0800, RadgeGadge <jcmullen999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
(in article <1132950710.073446.210430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

> skrossa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> RadgeGadge wrote:
>>> skrossa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> So you [RadgeGadge] would consider New Zealandish and Australian to be
>>>> two different languages, but consider Welsh to be a dialect rather than
>>>> a language?
>>>
>>> According to Weinreich's definition, yes.
>>
>> Only someone unfamiliar with the basics of linguistics would mistake
>> the "definition" quoted (not originated) by Weinreich as an absolute,
>> literal definition of the distinction between dialect and language.
>> Certainly no reputable linguist uses it thusly.
>>
>> At best, the army and navy "rule" explains why certain specific tongues
>> that differ minimally (such as Swedish and Norwegian) are none-the-less
>> called seperate languages while certain other specific tongues that
>> differ much, much more (such as the various dialects of Chinese) are
>> none-the-less called dialects of the same language. However, the army
>> and navy "rule" only works for the specific cases where it works, but
>> it does not work in many more cases -- such as that of the various
>> national forms of English (e.g., American, Canadian, Australian, New
>> Zealand, RP English, etc.) which are called dialects of English despite
>> each nation having its own army and navy, or all the different American
>> Indian languages which are called different languages despite not
>> having their own independent armies and navies.
>
> You are quite right to make this point, and indeed I expected you to.
>
> Weinreich's rule obviously veers into politics. The trouble is (and the
> point I was trying, albeit rather elliptically, to make) that without
> bringing in considerations of politics, the debate about language vs
> dialect just becomes Yes it is vs no it isn't.

And the point I was making was that even with bringing in the
consideration of politics, the debate about dialect and language is
_always_ "Yes it is vs no it isn't" (at least for languages from the same
language family).

There is no rule or set of rules -- linguistic, political, cultural, or
anything else -- that consistently indicates precisely where the dividing
lines between languages should be or will be drawn. The divisions are by
their very nature subjective and essentially arbitrary. Language is messy
and you can't make it neat and tidy by wishing -- or, for that matter,
any other method.

And so it is neither surprising nor even a problem needing to be solved
when people disagree about whether to draw the line to this side or that
side of a particular dialect or even grouping of dialects, such as Scots.
It really doesn't matter, linguistically -- and it wouldn't matter
culturally, either, if only more people understood more about how human
language really works.

> If I got to know you and we developed a secret system for communicating
> that no-one else could understand, just you and me, we could call that
> a language.

If we developed our own tongue that only the two of us could understand,
it would indeed be a language, and even linguists would agree it was a
language (specifically a language with only one dialect) rather than a
dialect of some existing language. (Keep in mind that you can't have a
dialect without a language -- dialects are dialects _of a language_, as
dialects are the specific forms of a language. And while it is possible
to have a language with only one dialect, it is impossible to have a
dialect without a language.)

BTW, note that there are pairs of people in the world who have, in fact,
developed their own private tongues that no one else can understand, and
that linguists routinely call these tongues "languages", specifically,
"twin languages", as twins are the ones who naturally develop such two
people tongues.

There are also others who consciously invent new tongues, though they
usually share them with more than just one person -- these are likewise
called "languages" by linguists. Famous examples include Esperanto,
Klingon, and the languages Tolkein invented for Middle Earth.

> Obviously it would be a less important langage than say
> English. I would call that a dialect, or in fact just a silly game.

"Less important language"? A dialect is not a less important anything,
and especially a dialect is not inferior to or less important than a
language, since a language is simply a grouping of similar dialects. It
is a common misconception that some people speak a language while others
"merely" speak a dialect, but in fact everyone speaks a dialect, even
those who speak one of the socially prestigious "standard" dialects (such
as RP English, Standard Scottish English, etc.).

> Weinreich's rule at least places objective criteria in the field of
> this rather sterile and passe debate, for all its obvious flaws.

The problem with this debate is not that it is sterile and passe, but
rather that most of those involved in it don't know what a dialect is nor
how it relates to a language, and are misusing and/or confusing various
fundamental terms and concepts. (E.g., you and Iain and most others
routinely use "language" when you're really talking about a "prestige
dialect", Iain and some others are using "Scots" when they're really
talking about "Scottish English", etc.)

As for the "rule" Weinreich quoted, if it were applied consistently as
you seem to be advocating, it would result in a completely useless
categorization of the tongues of the world. Consider, what point is there
in calling Welsh a dialect of English? And if you don't mean to call
Welsh a dialect of English, then of what language are you calling it a
dialect? For a dialect that stands on its own is, by definition, a
language, so if Welsh isn't a language because it doesn't have it's own
army and navy, there must be another language it is a dialect of...

It isn't enough for a criterion to be objective -- it must also work. A
rule that all tongues whose English names started with one of the first
13 letters of the English alphabet (A-M) were languages and all the
tongues whose English names started with one of the last 13 letters (N-Z)
were dialects would be an objective criterion, and it would even
sometimes match how real world tongues are actually categorized by
linguists. But it wouldn't solve the dialect and language debate or even
improve it any -- it would just be ridiculous. Just as a rigid
application of the army & navy rule is.

For the usefulness of the army & navy rule is not as an objective
criterion -- especially not one to be rigidly applied -- but rather as an
amusing allusion of one of the _subjective_ issues that comes into play
when the fundamental, linguistic criterion (mutual intelligibility) is
not sufficient. That is, that political considerations are often
involved. But even so, the army & navy rule isn't a very good
articulation of the real dynamics at play.

For while politics is often a consideration in drawing the language
lines, the real dynamic isn't who currently has their own army & navy,
but rather who doesn't but wants to, who does but fears losing them, who
does but doesn't get on with others who do, who used to but no longer
does, who does but only recently acquired them, etc., -- contrasted with
who doesn't but doesn't want them, who does but is closely allied with
others who do, etc.

For example, currently American, Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and
British Englishes are all happily and uncontroversially considered
dialects of the same language. But if the US, Canada, New Zealand, and
Australia were all still colonies of the UK, chances are the independence
minded "colonists" would be insisting their tongues were different
languages from English, while the British and unionist "colonists" would
be insisting that they were just dialects of English. In contrast, if the
US had invaded the UK and absorbed it into the US, it would be the
British insisting that British was a separate language from (American)
English, and the Americans insisting British was just another dialect.

For the current contentment with American, Australian, etc., being
dialects of English is largely precisely because all these nations do
have their own armies and navies, while at the same time remaining very
close allies of one another, so they don't feel any need to try distance
themselves from the UK (or justify their political independence) by an
independent status for for their national tongues. (The other major
consideration is, of course, that the standard formal dialects in each of
these nations are indeed very similar to one another linguistically, with
mainly phonological differences.)

> I think some linguists use the term 'idiom' to avoid this debate
> entirely.

They more often simply talk of "(language/speech/etc.) varieties" if they
wish to avoid classifying dialects into languages, (e.g., RP English is
one variety, Cockney is another variety, Scottish English is yet another
variety, Doric is still another variety, and they simply don't bother to
lump them into discrete language piles), but most linguists really don't
worry about the supposed "problem" because they understand that it really
doesn't matter, linguistically, whether, for example, Scots is called a
separate language from English or a grouping of dialects of English.

The only arenas where it makes any difference what it is called is
politically, socially, culturally, etc. -- but not linguistically. And
the only reason why it matters politically, socially, culturally, etc.,
is because the general public has some very mistaken notions about
dialect and language...

Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa "No Nonsense" skrossa-unn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Medieval Scotland: http://MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names:
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.s-gabriel.org/names/

.