I intuitively know this, kind of like I intuitively know what a species is. I also accept that language is imperfect and there’s gonna be messy bits where things don’t fit right (again, like a definition of a biological species).
But if linguists and other languagey folks were to put a group of English speakers on another planet and let them live there for x amount of time, going back to study their language from time to time, what markers would they look for to say “this is now not a group with new slang, this is a group with a new dialect”? And “this is not the same language as the English spoken on Earth”?
In: 41
There is a Yiddish saying linguists have taken a liking to: A language is a dialect with an army and a navy. That is, what defines a language vs dialect is just as much about political power and nation-building as it is true linguistic criteria.
Because “language” and “dialect” are both loaded words, especially in colloquial speech, let’s use something else neutrally to refer to both of them: variety. Two varieties that belong to populations who wish to distance themselves from each other will be less likely to decide they speak the same language, while two varieties belonging to people who wish to ally themselves with each other ethnically or nationally might be considered the same, in both cases without much thought paid to mutual intelligibility.
There are some standard, stock examples people use to talk about these.
Norwegian and Swedish exist on a dialect continuum; people geographically close to each other speak more similarly; while those further speak more differently. It’s a gradient. We could call it all one thing, or divide it up into many smaller varieties. The reason we have it divided into two is based in the Norwegian and Swedish ethnic and national identities.
Arabic is another stock example; there are varieties of Arabic that are absolutely not mutually intelligible. However, it is extremely common in the Arab world to also use a standardized, prestigious form of the language, creating a situation called *diglossia*, where two varieties are used by the same community. The “high” form is shared by many distinct populations whose local varieties are quite different. The combination of shared Arab cultural identity and the ability to use the standardized form means people generally consider Arabic one language, even though it can be difficult to go from some varieties to some others and be understood.
Meanwhile, Hindi and Urdu are very similar varieties; they do have some differences, and they are written with different scripts, but they are very much mutually intelligible. They are instead different languages because of India and Pakistan’s relations and desire to disassociate from one another.
We even have this in English. Shared history and anglophone ties make us consider it all the same, but mutual intelligibility might be pretty difficult between a Scot and an American Southerner, particular if both are from rural areas. And it’s not just pronunciation, either; various varieties currently called English have notable grammatical differences. African American English has a rich tense-aspect system that is foreign and opaque to mainstream American English speakers. Southern American English often makes use of double modals (e.g. “might could”). And that’s to say nothing of differing vocabulary.
Labeling of language vs dialect *can* be based on linguistic criteria, but these are clearly not the sole factors. We have to pay attention to who gains something, and what they gain, by deciding that two things are separate languages or dialects of the same language.
Latest Answers