Re: The whole dialect business


"MacP" <micheil@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:43886987.1897508@xxxxxxx
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:38:38 -0000, "Nebulous"
> <nebulous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>><skrossa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:1132974356.969383.213550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Custos Custodum wrote:
>>> > In what respects does a dialect differ from 'a fully developed and
>>> > competent language in its own right'?
>>>
>>> Well, first, lets define dialect and language. According to _The
>>> Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics_ by Peter Matthews (Oxford
>>> University Press, 1997) a dialect is "Any distinct variety of a
>>> language, especially one spoken in a specific part of a country or
>>> other geographical area."
>>>
>>> A language is simply is a grouping of dialects. Thus, the English
>>> language is the grouping of all the dialects of English. The French
>>> language is the grouping of all the dialects of French. And so on.
>>> (Note in particular that Scottish English is a dialect of English, RP
>>> English is a dialect of English, Cockney is a dialect of English, etc..
>>> It is not the case that RP English is the language while Cockney is a
>>> dialect, but rather that RP English and Cockney are both dialects of
>>> English.)
>>>
>>> The characteristics that distinguish one dialect from another are
>>> differences in grammar, lexicon (vocabulary & such), and phonology
>>> (sound system). Therefore, since languages are groupings of dialects,
>>> what distinguishes one language from another are also differences in
>>> grammar, lexicon, and phonology.
>>>
>>> Note that both for different dialects and different languages, these
>>> differences do not have to be total -- there is often overlap. In
>>> general, the more closely related two dialects or languages are, the
>>> more they will overlap in grammar, lexicon, and phonology. Thus the
>>> grammar, lexicon, and phonology of Italian overlap more with those of
>>> Spanish than they do with those of English, and so on.
>>>
>>> The primary linguistic (rather than cultural) criteria used by
>>> linguists to determine where to put the dividing lines between
>>> languages is mutual comprehensibility. That is, if two dialects are
>>> considered mutually intelligible with one another, they're more likely
>>> to be considered dialects of the same language, while if they aren't
>>> mutually comprehensible (enough) with one another, then they are more
>>> likely to be considered dialects of different languages.
>>>
>>> But before folks get too excited about such an easy, "objective" way to
>>> "clearly" judge dialect and language, note two things:
>>>
>>> How mutually comprehensible two dialects are is a subjective judgment.
>>> Further, even if we could easily numerically quantify mutual
>>> comprehensibility, we're still left with the question of how mutually
>>> comprehensible is enough -- 95%? 90%? 80%? 50%? 49%? 48%?
>>>
>>> Even more problematic, dialects are frequently distributed in dialect
>>> continuums, whereby neighboring dialects are highly mutually
>>> comprehensible, but are connected by a long string of mutually
>>> comprehensible neighboring dialects to more distant dialects with which
>>> they are not mutually comprehensible. E.g., there is a string of
>>> dialects in a row -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 -- each of which is
>>> highly mutually comprehensible with its neighboring dialect, but less
>>> so the further away two dialects are from one another, with dialect 1
>>> and dialect 10 not mutually comprehensible. By the mutual
>>> intelligibility criteria, dialects 1 and 5 should be considered the
>>> same language (since they're mutually comprehensible) and dialects 5
>>> and 10 should be considered the same language (since they're mutually
>>> comprehensible), but dialects 1 and 10 should be considered dialects of
>>> different languages (since they are not mutually comprehensible).
>>>
>>> So much for linguistic criteria solving the dialect and language
>>> categorization question "clearly". (BTW, one such real world language
>>> continuum runs through the Iberian peninsula, France, and Italy to
>>> Romania. Another runs through Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands
>>> to South Africa [Afrikaans] -- and I've even seen a few argue that it
>>> branches off via Frisian & Scots to Scotland and then England.)
>>>
>>> Which is where subjective non-linguistic, cultural criteria comes in --
>>> politics, social prestige, popular attitudes, etc. All of which
>>> criteria have just as many ambiguities and inconsistencies as mutual
>>> intelligibility, and none of which is consistently applied. For
>>> example, political independence (having an army and navy) sometimes
>>> results in mutually intelligible dialects (such as Norwegian and
>>> Swedish or Spanish and Portuguese) being grouped as different
>>> languages, while in other cases (American, British, Irish, New Zealand,
>>> Australian English) political independence does not prevent mutually
>>> intelligible dialects being grouped as the same language. Likewise,
>>> political unity sometimes results in dialects that are not mutually
>>> intelligible (such as the various Chinese dialects) being grouped as
>>> the same language, while in other cases political unity does not
>>> prevent dialects that are not mutually intelligible (such as Swiss
>>> French and Swiss Italian) being grouped as different languages.
>>>
>>> So, what does this all mean for Scots and English? Well, by the mutual
>>> intelligibility criterion, Scots can be classified either as a separate
>>> language from English or as a (group of) dialect(s) of English, because
>>> various dialects of Scots are _not_ mutually intelligible with various
>>> dialects of English, e.g., RP English and Doric are not mutually
>>> intelligible as someone who if familiar with only Doric and not
>>> Scottish English needs an interpreter to speak to someone who is
>>> familiar with only RP English and not Scots but at the same time there
>>> is a dialect continuum from the southernmost English dialects of
>>> English to the northernmost dialects of Scots. By the popular attitudes
>>> criterion, Scots can be classified as either a separate language from
>>> English or as a (group of) dialect(s) of English, because many people
>>> consider Scots to be a separate language but at the same time many
>>> others consider it to be a dialect of English. By the political
>>> independence criterion (army and navy), Scots can be classified as
>>> either a separate language from English or as a (group of) dialect(s)
>>> of English, because Scotland had its own army and navy until 1707 (and
>>> so is a separate language) but now does not (and so is not a separate
>>> language). And so on for all the various criteria involved in the
>>> highly subjective choice of where to draw the dividing lines between
>>> languages.
>>>
>>> And the lesson that is to be learned from this is not who is right and
>>> who is wrong, but rather that everybody is right, whether they consider
>>> Scots a separate language from English or a dialect of English -- that
>>> is, as long as they understand that whether considered separate
>>> language or dialect of English, it makes no difference to the
>>> linguistic value, validity, legitimacy, importance, etc. of Scots.
>>> Whether separate language or dialect of English, Scots is _not_ "broken
>>> English", but a tongue in its own right with its own systematic rules,
>>> just like all other dialects of English, whether RP or Cockney.
>>>
>>
>>Wow!
>>
>>I think I agree.
>>
>>What I've been trying to say all along is that our language (Doric from a
>>small fishing community) as spoken by locals amongst themselves is
>>inaccessible or impenetrable to many people not just from England, but
>>also
>>from other parts of Scotland. We use very few words thatr don't have a
>>direct translation into English (whatever that is) There are some words
>>that
>>are used slightly differently though, so I would probably argue that some
>>of
>>them have a high degree of overlap rather than being an exact match, even
>>though they come from the same root.
>>
>>Equally with sentence construction. We routinely use sentence
>>constructions
>>that would be clumsy at best if translated into English but there are
>>others
>>that would be relatively meaningless. Somewhere up thread I gave the
>>example
>>of 'falling down through yourself.' which makes perfect sense in Doric,
>>but
>>doesn't in English.
>>
>>With the argument about new words always following the English I have been
>>trying to think about times when that is not the case. The only one I can
>>come up with is around Wellington boots. The perceived wisdom is that they
>>were invented by the Duke of Wellington during the Crimean War. Yet we did
>>not until very recently use the word Wellingtons. For us they were Baltic
>>beets (Baltic boots) So we have some kind of parallel evolution of the two
>>names. I have often imagined a mannie from our village returning from the
>>Crimean War with a pair and calling them his Baltic Boots.
>>
>>I don't know where all that takes us though. I am proud of my culture and
>>that includes our language. I see it as somewhat distinct from not just
>>other countries, but even the next village (your dialects 1through 10)
>>You
>>probably go from one to ten between home and Aberdeen which is some 50
>>miles. Someone with a keen ear can tell which North East village someone
>>comes from within two minutes of first meeting them.
>>
>>Does that make it a language though? Well I'm not a linguist amd I don't
>>know if I really care. What does seem to come across though is that a
>>subtext for people who argue it is not a language seems to be that they
>>want
>>to denigrate its value. I'm not happy with that. I can accept that people
>>see us as different, but any suggestion that we are therefore lesser
>>raises
>>my hackles.
>>
>>Neb
>
> The very point that angers me. For centuries the smug, self-appointed
> collaborators in the drive to make Scotland an English province
> dismissed Gaelic as an Irish abomination, but now that Gaelic has been
> shoved in their faces by the EU and the Scots Parliament, they have
> done their best to present Scots as crude, aboriginal Teutonic
> grunting.
>
> Why? Because they worship the English class system and are desperate
> to belong to it. The same phenomenon amused the English in India; the
> insecure licking their boots, arses pointing skywards.
>
> Scotland, long a meritocracy, has been undermined by the fears of the
> secondrate. A pox on the English and their damnable class system!
>
> Murchadh
Well let's face it - Big Ronnie Barker could look down upon wee Ronnie
Corbett but there the class thing stopped dead. Anyone remember that Sketch?
I couldn't find it on line but here is a URL for the, "Four Candles",
sketch.
http://www.angelfire.com/me/tvcomedy/fourcandles.html

--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk


.