'Language' vs. 'Dialect'

'Language' vs. 'Dialect'
I was wondering what the exact difference between a language and a dialect is. It seems odd to me that there are mutually unintelligible dialects and yet mutually intelligible languages. Thoughts? http://www.zompist.com/lang9.html#12 ~the sci.lang FAQ. What prompts people to classify them can also be political, too; having your own language, as opposed to speaking a dialect of someone else's, can sound pretty attractive. GAH! Why can't we all just say that THIS is a language and THAT is a dialect, and leave it at that? We don't have to get all this political and emotional and religious boop mixed up in a purely linguistic problem. Somehow I'm really starting to like the whole 'different varieties' theory, since whether something is a 'dialect' or a 'language' doesn't really say anything valuable at all in the end. GAH! Why can't we all just say that THIS is a language and THAT is a dialect, and leave it at that? We don't have to get all this political and emotional and religious boop mixed up in a purely linguistic problem. Such is the nature of man. Somehow I'm really starting to like the whole 'different varieties' theory, since whether something is a 'dialect' or a 'language' doesn't really say anything valuable at all in the end. I agree, there is a gradient scale of everything. Y'know, thinking about it, it would be really neat to see a genus-species chart of all the languages and dialects in the world, from 'language' down to 'North Midwestern English' (the... um, thing... spoken in places like Minnesota). I would do it, but I don't think I have access to enough materials. Something like this? http://unicode.org/charts/ Not exactly, I meant like the charts where (gotta verbally describe it) there's a big category at the top, then a couple of diagonal lines going to two smaller categories within that category, etc. (in Logic it's called a genus-and-species chart.)

Like this, only with languages? Edit: here's what I found, http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/language.gif http://www.inext.cz/siouan/pictures/Siouan%20Family%20Tree.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/language/images/language_family_tree.gif http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/images/v14n2_languages.gif http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/images/groups.gif http://www.ling.unt.edu/~montler/Klallam/WordList/SalishanFamilyTree.jpg http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~tojan/rlang/uralic.gif http://static.unilang.org/resources/other/languagefamily_st.jpg http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/xzMisc/Language/media/IndoEuropeanTree.PNG And ther's more out there, just search for Languge family tree or something close to that. That's exactly what I was thinking of. I like the first and last ones particularly, that's the idea I was going for. If only we could do that with ALL languages! If only we could do that with ALL languages! You could start a compilation, of sorts...if you wanted to.

to quote from old Max "a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot!" peace!

to quote from old Max "a shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot!" peace! "old Max" didn't really say that, it has been debated that it was said during one of his lectures, sometime between 1943 and 1944. And it was mainly dealing with the debate over Yiddish, not languages in general.

Differenciating languages and dialects is almost impossible. Some would define languages as being the main branch, while dialects are just variants to it (often mutually intelligible both ways). More specifically, I would say it's very politically defined. Take Japanese for example, it's the official language of Japan, yet the Ryukyuan 'languages' are just dialects to it, despite not being mutually intelligible. In other instances, such as Inuktitut, it's not quite one language, but a whole set of dialects/languages. From group or tribe to another, the language is still intelligible, but if you skip from East to West, the Inuktitut language might be completely different. To further my point that politics win over linguistics; There are two tribes somewhere in Western Canada that speak basically the same language, except for a few variants, which thus make them related to eachother, if not the same language. But because they refuse to associate to eachother, they're both independant languages political-wise. Determining who's the "language", and who speaks the "dialect" is basically impossible. Language is constantly changing, evolving, merging, etc. While being mutually intelligible, or even historically related, are not alone strong enough factors to decide.

Hakaku, I agree with much of what you said. However, to call something impossible is quite dismissive and I would conclude that it is indeed possible to call something a 'dialect'...if nothing else, because it is born from another existing language.

I can help settle this argument easily The difference between a language and a dialect is... an army! :lol: I hope y'all enjoyed that one. => But seriously...I believe that the difference between language and dialect has a lot to do with mutual intelligibility as well as cultural perspective. Personally I would think Ukrainian and Russian to be dialects if I heard them randomly, but they are considered separate languages. It is, of course, not as simple as one may think, but I do believe that these two areas are of major interest in this debate.

I can help settle this argument easily It's more of a discussion than an arguement...I hope you see that. The difference between a language and a dialect is... an army! In all seriousness, I was in the US Army for 6 years, and I have to say, that analogy is extremely flawed. Any large group of people are going to vary their speach patterns, vocabulary and general pronunnciation. I believe that the difference between language and dialect has a lot to do with mutual intelligibility as well as ural perspective. What I believe is that there is a gradient scale of intelligibility, even in the same dialect. Language can be an extremely personal experience. There is just as much gradient difference in dialects as there are in related languages, I would call it the "linguistic law of relativity", but I don't want to sound like I'm an expert because I don't think it truly matters.

The difference between a language and a dialect is... an army! In all seriousness, I was in the US Army for 6 years, and I have to say, that analogy is extremely flawed. Any large group of people are going to vary their speach patterns, vocabulary and general pronunnciation. Actually, you can look at it as the people in power (with the army) are the ones who decide what is the standard language and what is the dialect. But, I'm not saying its universal, just logical.

I can help settle this argument easily It's more of a discussion than an arguement...I hope you see that. The difference between a language and a dialect is... an army! In all seriousness, I was in the US Army for 6 years, and I have to say, that analogy is extremely flawed. Any large group of people are going to vary their speach patterns, vocabulary and general pronunnciation. I believe that the difference between language and dialect has a lot to do with mutual intelligibility as well as ural perspective. What I believe is that there is a gradient scale of intelligibility, even in the same dialect. Language can be an extremely personal experience. There is just as much gradient difference in dialects as there are in related languages, I would call it the "linguistic law of relativity", but I don't want to sound like I'm an expert because I don't think it truly matters. By "this argument" I wasn't referring to your discussion (and yes I do see that is a discussion), I was referring to a general discussion and argument between many people (including many of my classmates) over this. It was part of my joke, simply humor. Yes, language is a personal experience, and of course pronunciation and lexicon will vary from region to region, especially when that language's speakers are spread further and further apart (or kept apart by geographical obstacles), but there is a line (albeit a somewhat grey one) where one crosses from being mutually understood and not.

Yes, language is a personal experience, and of course pronunciation and lexicon will vary from region to region, especially when that language's speakers are spread further and further apart (or kept apart by geographical obstacles), but there is a line (albeit a somewhat grey one) where one crosses from being mutually understood and not. The "grey line" you speak of, is to me, quite indefinable and mobile.

View Full Version: 'Language' vs. 'Dialect'