LANGUAGE AND DIALECT: CRITERIA AND HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (original) (raw)
Related papers
The article was scheduled for publication in Multilingua. It was, however, rejected by an anonymous reviewer who was not at all happy with it. This is the rejection note: Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author "This article argues for the need for a more structured sociolinguistic comparison for regional and minority languages, by proposing that Western European Regional Languages should be treated as a distinct 'Areal Type' to facilitate large scale comparisons. While the article is well written, the content of the article has a number of major shortcomings, as detailed below: - Throughout the article, the author makes sweeping generalisations and oversimplifications of highly divergent contexts and histories across Western and Central Europe in order to justify his central argument, while also failing to include appropriate references to either contemporary or historical research to support these claims. For example, on p. 8 the author vastly oversimplifies over 1000 years of European linguistic, social and cultural history, suggesting a uniformity and homogeneity which does not reflect the hugely divergent role of Latin and the Roman Church across Western and Central Europe. Equally, the author's emphasis on the presence of the Roman Church and Medieval Latin as the predominant literary language in the Middle Ages as the defining event in history to explain the current sociolinguistic situation of all Western European State and Regional Languages, almost entirely neglects the hugely divergent histories and sociolinguistic contexts which developed in more recent centuries. To claim that 'all Regional Languages dealt with here have been exposed to the same political, cultural, religious, economic and technological developments that have surfaced over the past one thousand years' (p. 8, lines 38-40) is patently untrue, as highlighted by the list of languages the author places in this category on p. 9 (lines 19-22). This list illustrates how this categorisation fails to reflect or offer insight into the hugely varied sociolinguistic, cultural and political contexts in which these languages exist. The reference to 'possibly Sardinian', for example, highlights the challenges of applying clear cut boundaries and definitions in contexts where speakers have divergent views on the status of their respective variety. Equally, the official statuses of Catalan and Welsh, and significant linguistic nationalist movements connected to them, are dramatically distinct to the context and discourses surrounding Asturian and Aragonese, where the languages play a more ambiguous role in relation to speakers' sense of having a distinct national identity. Equally, in referring to the cases of what the author describes as 'ethnic languages' (pp. 4-5), the author treats speakers as a unified and homogenous category who all 'happily accept' diglossia and do not consider their varieties to be languages, when research in such contexts highlights significant variation in speakers' views and perspectives on their languages, illustrating how the broad categories the author proposes ignore the nuances and complexities of such cases. - There are a number of contradictory or inaccurate claims throughout the article. For example, on p.5 (line 51) the author describes ethnic languages as existing in 'a stable diglossic situation' which contradicts the claim on the previous page that in these contexts the state language is encroaching on all levels and they are not passed on to the next generation. On p. 12, in describing the 'phase of degeneration' of Regional Languages the author states that State Language took over the formal and written domains of the Regional Language, which is an inaccurate representation of the extent to which these languages were previously used as public written languages and which again diverged significantly across contexts. Equally, fragmentation into dialects is not necessarily a sign of decline but occurs even for established and standardised state languages. Lastly, on p.5 (lines 3-4) the reference to 'Valencian' as 'Catalan spoken by illiterate native speakers' is inappropriate. There are important debates surrounding whether Valencian is a variety of Catalan or a distinct language but this description is inaccurate and does not reflect the nuances and complexities of this debate. - The author's use of appropriate terminology requires further clarification throughout the article. For example, the use of the term 'Ethnic Languages' to refer to those varieties not considered languages by their speakers is confusing since the reference to 'ethnic' suggests speakers have a strong identitarian connection with the language while the author argues the precise opposite. Equally, the author argues that what he terms 'Regional Languages' are generally considered 'national languages' by their speakers, yet fails to fully explain why they believe 'regional language' is the more appropriate term. In this sense, the author should acknowledge the important distinctions between regionalist and nationalist linguistic movements, and address more clearly what they mean by terms such as 'linguistic nation'. Furthermore, on pp. 5-6, the author should clarify what they mean by 'obligatoriness' in relation to state and regional languages. The extent to which the state language is 'obligatory' inevitably varies between states (i.e. the extent to which migrants are 'required' to learn the state language), while in contexts such as Catalonia the so-called 'regional language' is the obligatory language of public education and is also a requirement for employment in many public positions. In this sense, obligatoriness is not as clear cut a category as the author implies and needs further clarification. - The article shows an extremely limited awareness of or reference to contemporary sociolinguistic debates and research on regional and minority languages across Europe. For example, throughout the author assumes 'standardisation' is an unquestioned and natural development for regional languages, neglecting the significant debates and disputes on this subject (see e.g. Gal, S. 2006. Contradictions of standard language in Europe: implications for the study of publics and practices. Social Anthropology. 14(2), 163-81). Equally, the reference to the effects of 'the global tendency of simplifying globalized communication' does not accurately portray the complex effects of globalisation in relation to contemporary language use, as is also reflected by the absence of references to the effects of migration on minority language use. The extent to which the author overlooks the complex multilingual realities (and histories) of contemporary states and regions is highlighted, for example, when the author claims all speakers of Regional Languages are bilingual while the rest of the state's citizens are all 'monolingual speakers of the State Language' (p. 6, line 56), thus entirely ignoring the existence of any other languages within the state with which both regional and state languages coexist and interact. In sum, the oversimplifications and lack of attention paid to the divergent sociolinguistic contexts in which Western European Regional Languages exist highlight precisely the limitations and risks of attempting to impose clearly drawn boundaries and definitions which intentionally overlook or obscure the complex realities in which such languages exist. By exaggerating the similarities between these cases, such categorisations provide no insight into why powerful linguistic nationalist movements developed in some regions and are largely absent in others. While in the Conclusion the author recognises differences in the social vitality and varying degrees of success at revitilisation, they fail to explain how their proposed framework may provide insight into such differences and consequently what the purpose of the identification of this 'Areal Type' may be. Equally, the author's attempts to reinforce ideas of 'Western' European exceptionalism, as well as the need to exclude 'non-autochthonous' varieties, illustrates how such categories serve primarily to exclude those languages and speakers who do not belong. The idea that the 'former Latin cultural province' is a 'natural framework' (p. 10) neglects the huge linguistic, social and cultural diversity within this region. While I agree terms such as 'minority language' and 'regional language' are very broadly applied and often loosely defined, the author's proposed categorisations are founded upon often inaccurate or oversimplified generalisations which offer little insight into contemporary societal multilingualism in Western and Central Europe."
The concept of " a language " (Einzelsprache, that is, one of many extant languages) and its opposition to " dialect " (considered as a " non-language, " and thus subjugable to an already recognized language merely as " its " dialect) is the way people tend to think about languages in the West today. It appears to be a value-free, self-evident conception of the linguistic position. So much so that the concept of " language " was included neither in Immanuel Kant's system of categories, nor in the authoritative Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. This paper sketches the rise of the " dialect vs language " opposition in classical Greek, its transposition onto classical Latin, and its transfer, through medieval and renaissance Latin, to the early modern period. On the way, the Greek and Latin terms for " language " (and also for " dialect ") sometimes functioned as synonyms for peoples (that is, ethnic groups), which – importantly – contributed to the rise of the normative equation of language with 1 I thank Michael O Gorman for his wise advice, ideas, useful references, and for help with polishing the prose of this article.
This paper provides an analysis of how processes of categorisation of languages and varieties through strategies of designation would involve minoritisation and linguistic inequality. In our analysis we will focus specifically in the case of Morocco. Our aim is: a) to look at the complexity that exists when we come to define the concept of dialect and language, b) to observe how the representations held by society with regard to linguistic diversity can influence the categorisation of linguistic varieties and c) to propose a theoretical framework for a definition of the abovementioned concepts, which is based on a critical sociolinguistic approach to the analysis of linguistic variation. Finally, we will present some conclusions related with linguistic variation and the process of categorisation of languages as ideological phenomenon
Dialectology, Philology, and Historical Linguistics
The Handbook of Dialectology, 2018
The term "dialect" is understood today to refer to a geographically delimited form of language. The purpose of the present chapter is to trace the history of this meaning of the word and to outline the rise of dialectology, which is the historical study of dialects in this sense (Fisiak ed. 1988). Furthermore, this study seeks to set dialectology in relation to the disciplines of philology (Turner 2014; Momma 2015: 1-27) and historical linguistics. These latter two are closely related in that the former fed into the latter. Indeed, the modern discipline of linguistics arose at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries out of earlier concerns of philology, which is the study of the textual records of languages. The etymology of "dialect" can be traced back to Classical Greek, in which the word διαλεκτος originally referred to discourse, conversation, or way of speaking, and later came to mean a regional variety of a language. It is this last meaning that initiated the modern understanding of the word (the older meaning of "investigative discussion" can still be recognized in the term "dialectic"). However, one cannot say that once the meaning of "regional variety" was established one had a usage similar to that today. The essential difference is that nowadays "dialect" stands in a contrastive relationship to "standard," a form of language favored in the public domain and employed in compiling official documents in a country. The reference to "country" is important here: the modern sense of "standard," with all its prescriptive connotations, is essentially an artifact of modern nation states. Thus, the often negative connotations of dialect did not hold until the notion of a preferred form of language arose, a form that enjoyed preference in writing, education, and public speaking. How early this preference occurred historically is difficult to say with certainty. True, there were historical constellations of language varieties in which one was used more than others. This applied in the Hellenistic period of Greek (roughly three centuries before the beginning of the common era), when the dialect of Attica (including the city of Athens) was used widely as a koiné or common form of language in the eastern Mediterranean (Woodard 2008). In England, during the later Old English period, the language of the West Saxon region was employed in written documents (Gneuss 1972), such as religious or legal texts, and thus enjoyed a similar status to Attic Greek in ancient Greece. But in neither case did later attributes of standard forms of language apply, above all codification and prescriptivism, which involved the censure of dialect forms of the same language.
eHumanista/IVITRA 15, 2019
The article contemplates the possibility of a structured sociolinguistic comparison between various language based regionalist movements in Europe. An integrated terminological model for the categorization of various configurations of societal multilingualism is proposed for this purpose. More concretely, we postulate a configurational type of interaction between WESS (Western European State Languages) on the one hand and WERL (Western European Regional Languages) on the other. WERLs have the following characteristics: 1. They are autochthonous, rather than languages of immigrant minorities. 2. They are strictly stateless, rather than out-groups of neighbouring states. 3. They are spoken within the area of influence of the Latin Church during the middle ages, where Latin was the lingua franca of educated people. 4. They have developed a written Standard variety and a certain degree of status planning for this variety.
Colloquia Humanistica, 2016
The History of the Normative Opposition of “Language versus Dialect”: From Its Graeco-Latin Origin to Central Europe’s Ethnolinguistic Nation-StatesThe concept of “a language” (Einzelsprache, that is, one of many extant languages) and its opposition to “dialect” (considered as a “non-language,” and thus subjugable to an already recognized language merely as “its” dialect) is the way people tend to think about languages in the West today. It appears to be a value-free, self-evident conception of the linguistic position. So much so that the concept of “language” was included neither in Immanuel Kant’s system of categories, nor in the authoritative Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. This paper sketches the rise of the “dialect vs language” opposition in classical Greek, its transposition onto classical Latin, and its transfer, through medieval and renaissance Latin, to the early modern period. On the way, the Greek and Lati...
This paper explores the linguistic as well as sociolinguistic factors or criteria used by linguists and sociolinguists to help define both terms with examples of relevant language varieties and dialects in addition to the sociopolitical factors determining the difference between the standard variety, which is considered a language per se, and the related varieties, whether they are distinctive in their phonetic or syntactic form or similar.
The Language is the Tree, the Dialects are Its Lymph
Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2014
Sociolinguist reflections on the balance language/dialect relying as a point of reference on the book: "The tongue goes where the tooth aches" Tullio de Mauro, the Italian linguist well known in Europe, in an unusual but interesting book published in Italy in November 2013, discusses on the famed issue language/dialect with the other contemporary Sicilian writer, also internationally known, Andrea Camilleri. The free standings of both interlocutors, each one in its position, respectively as an academic linguist and writer, brings a sum of very important conclusions regarding the argument mentioned above. In the light and optics of some of these conclusions, we will try to look more closely at how the current situation in Albania appears on this report. The heated debate in academic and non-academic districts on the possibility of reviewing the standard Albanian language, has brought an unprecedented cacophony of opinions. This debate has brought the need to really understand what the language is and what the dialect is. What is our approach to one or another? Till what point is it permissible to include in this debate the media or the massive non-specialized population in this field? Is there a risk that the "politicized" or even simply passionate treatment of this issue will have consequences on the future of the Albanian standard language or its dialects? Thus, we will try to see all this report through the clear sociolinguistic optics. This will constitute the focus of this study venture.