Dialect, langauge and nation (original) (raw)
A dialect is a distinct manner of speech that differs in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar from other regional dialects nearby (Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). For instance, a person from eastern Massachusetts may add the [r] sound to the word “idea” and pronounce it as “idear.” The same person may go to a store to purchase a sandwich that she calls a “grinder” and others call a “sub” or “hoagie.”Or, as we see in this sample of quoted speech coming from the character Tom Joad in John Steinbeck’s famous novel The Grapes of Wrath, there is a distinct grammar displayed in the “Oklahoma dialect”: “‘They was too old,’ he said. ‘They wouldn’t of saw nothin’ that’s here.’” Finally, a feature of most dialects that are considered members of a given language (e.g., dialects of German, or dialects of English) is that they are mutually intelligible, meaning that native speakers of different dialects of X language can understand each other for the most part. Yet, as will be explained later, some dialects, such as Chinese, are not mutually intelligible.
Dialects and the Standard Varieties
Before I begin defining what dialect or Standard language is, let's take a step back and look into the real meaning of the term 'language' and what it relates to. Jeffries (2006) distinguishes between language as a system and language use. A language system is an idealised form of the language in question, which differs from the way in which it is actually used. Chapman looks at language through three different theories: 1) as a type of behaviour, 2) as a state of mind and 3) as a form of communication. Sociolinguists consider it as a type of behaviour in their study of language. Through behaviour it takes into account specifically the regional and social
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
The Social Meaning of Language and Dialect
2017
The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others. Language is one of the most important features that separate humanbeings from the animal world. Language is directly connected withthought. Whereas dialect refers to a variation of a language that is characteristic of the users of that language, register refers to a variation of a language that is determined by use a situation or context. Dialects are different ways of saying the same thing; they reflect social structure (e.g., class, gender, and origin). Registers are ways of saying different things; they reflect social processes. Dialects are associated with the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the students who belong to the same broad linguistic group; registers are associated with the characteristics of the language (especially academic language) used in tests. Language as a source of measurement error addresses the fact that bilingual individuals do not typically replicate their...
Language & Communication, 1986
Trudgill's book is of wide interdisciplinary interest, since Trudgill is one of the most articulate scholars in the field today: his prose is clear, and his arguments are generally self-contained and eloquent. Although one might want a more thorough discussion of his methodological infrastructure, almost every chapter reveals a new methodological technique to extend the horizons of a field already charted by Labov's ingenious ploys. For this book Trudgill has 'revised, updated and edited' carefully chosen articles to present them as 'a coherent text.' While some such texts focus on 'secular' linguistic topics, and others focus on specific communicative aspects of linguistics, Trudgill has chosen a broad cross-section of papers which run the entire gamut of foci. The first papers are of primary concern to the linguist who realizes that the inclusion of sociological parameters can extend a purely linguistic analysis, and as the book progresses, the articles increasingly emphasize the social variables. Given that the intention was for the book to be read as a coherent text, in a couple of instances more work should have been done to integrate and update the papers. However, on the whole, the volume flows well. While Trudgill has clearly read all the American literature, he uses a primarily British or European data base, and draws conclusions which appear to imply that influences on speech in the U.K. are universal. Since the organization of British society is quite different from that in many other parts of the world, not surprisingly, the hypotheses which Trudgill presents as sociolinguistic 'universals' frequently are contradicted by sociolinguistic data gathered elsewhere. Consequently, students must be especially skeptical of Trudgill's theoretical positions when they appear to contradict the data. Thus, articles cannot be accepted at face value, but can motivate students to compare Trudgill's data with other published data. If students are careful, studying work like this can lead to new breakthroughs. Since an introduction places a book's chapters in a specific perspective, this reviewer felt the introduction called for a special comment, in light of the fact that it appears to propose a frame which Trudgill himself would clearly reject. The 'Introduction' (pp. l-7) outlines the range of interests which have been considered sociolinguistic, and moves from this to focus attention on dialect from a sociolinguistic perspective. Trudgill demonstrates language teaching us about language and about society. Trudgill has presented a framework for such a 'cross-disciplinary' understanding before (1978, pp. 1-18); however, Trudgill's condensation of that discussion here maintains that work which is transparently concerned with 'improving linguistic theory and. .. developing our understanding of the nature of
Dialect, language, nation: 50 years on
Language Policy, 2020
Over 50 years ago, the Norwegian-American linguist Einar Haugen published a seminal paper entitled 'Dialect, language and nation' (Am Anthropol 68:922-935, 1966b), in which he expounds his four-step model of standardization, explaining the development from dialect to standard following a process of norm selection, codification, acceptance and elaboration. In this article, we start by discussing the life and work of Einar Haugen, situating him within the history of linguistic thought throughout his career. Next, we zoom in on his standardization framework more specifically, discussing the relevant aspects of his four-box matrix, but also comparing his initial proposals to later influential publications on the subject expanding on his ideas, most notably by Milroy and Milroy (Authority in language. Investigating language prescription and standardisation, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985) and Joseph (The rise of language standards and standard languages, Frances Pinter, London, 1987b). Finally, we will proceed to give an overview of what we perceive to be major lacunae or shortcomings in Haugen's standardization framework, focusing on specific elements missing, unclear or in need of refinement in one of the four originally defined steps, but also discussing Haugen's fairly restrictive understanding of the directionality of language change, the narrow empirical scope of traditional standardization research, the crucial role played by ideology in the development of a standard variety, and the strong monolingual bias and relative absence of language contact in traditional accounts of standardization.