A language is different from a dialect!?

Question

I have a real pet hate! People (especially English speakers) have a tendancy to refere to regional languages as dialects. this is especially prevalent when refering to languages from areas such as Asia Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa where the Linguistic diversity can be very high! Geordie is a dialect of English, whereas Yoruba is certainly not a dialect of Hausa! or Illocano a dialect of Tagalog. I believe this mix-up began with the racist dis-regard shown by collonial powers for the ethnic diversities of 'their' colonies and for this reason, I find the mix up offensive! Anyone else agree with me, any fellow pedants out there?

Answer 1

Here's the problem, linguists have argued for years on whether something can be called a standalone language or a dialect of another language; they've tried to use a few criteria to decide the status of linguistical variations - for example,
1. A language must be contained within a geographical area
2. A dialect must have similar, yet non-identical, vocabulary
3. There is only dialectical variation between social classes, not language variation
4. This certain ethnic group speaks this language

None of these however are criteria that can be used 100% of the time to separate a language from a dialect. The only consensus in the language science community is that a language can only be defined by its own speakers; therefore, we come to conclusions like the following: The Han ethnic majority in China speaks a huge variety of dialects, to the point where some are intelligible with each other, but they share certain features (one syllable words, tones, etc.) The majority of people in China though, if you ask them what language they speak, will say, "Chinese", so internationally we say they speak a single language with many dialects, because they themselves define it that way.

There is no racism basis to your argument, but there is often disagreement due to personal opinion; Often a certain dialect will have some that say it is a dialect of another language, and some that say it is it's own language, like with Scots English. There is no geographical or grammatical criteria that says a language is a dialect or not; it just depends on what those who speak it say it is, and we all follow suit.

Answer 2

Good question, however, with very politically varied answers. I myself choose to look at the issue from a linguistic point of view. The general understanding is that a language can have many variations or dialects. This means that when defining a language we look at the common features of these variations - type of word formation, structure of the sentence, alphabet, word store. These common features define the language as a concept beyond its regional variations, the major quality being, however, that speakers of this language can understand or start to understand each other without any prior preparation.
The concept of language, although deeply related to the concept of common origin, is not directly tied to political boundaries - therefore regional variations of English are spoken in the USA, UK and Australia, but its still considered one language. The same goes for German being spoken in Austria and Germany. There are many examples.
A language is also historically defined through the texts written in it throughout the centuries. That is why Shakespeare's English for instance is so different from modern one. However, it is considered English (not Avonian) as it was the accepted spoken and written language of Elizabethan England.
When a dialect is codified (made literary), however, and used consistently by a group of people, it is on its way to becoming a language. This is how the French, Italian, Romanian languages emerged as languages. This seems to be the case with Moldavian and Romanian, although I've heard they are variations of the same language.
So, how close or different are Yoruba and Hausa? If one language is not understood by speakers of the other and they were never even close historically - they are certainly diffrenet languages. If they are close, they must have a common root and might be on their way to becoming separate languages. Think of it in this way - the colonisers saw the indigenous ethnic groups as closer to each other than to themselves. Isn't this a reason and a good basis for cooperation?

Answer 3

Hi! Well, I can understand it a bit. Sometimes I am getting quite confused about it as well. My mother tongue is actually still considered as being a dialect although it has been officially recognised (even if only) two decades ago. Think that bigger countries are keen on saying that one country speaks a dialect of another bigger country. It is as if the smaller country was even denied of its existence. Especially when you live in a smaller country, one gets quite upset by it since, often, people identify their nation and belonging with its language... as it is the only thing that is really ours through years of occupation or dominion by other countries. You might find the links below interesting. Mine almost never appears on official lists, while Esperanto does... not even belonging to a nation LOL! The third link is on when a dialect becomes a language. I think that a language might also be a try to unoformise and standardise dialects and regional accents into one entity. Hmmm, not sure... Have a nice day!

Answer 4

There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference.

Language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages solely because they are not literary languages, because the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own, or because their language lacks prestige.

The Yiddish linguist Max Weinreich said, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy" which pretty much sums it up.

Answer 5

I get very angry with people who speak of the Celtic languages as dialects, for reasons which it is not necessary to mention, in that these have all been given due recognition. However, there are dialects within those languages, just as there are dialects of English. However, there are some distinct ways of speaking which possibly go beyond the notion of dialect and could constitute a language apart -- Auld Scots, for example. On one level, all the Latin based languages are dialects of Latin. What set them apart and established them as languages was a mixture of geography and politics. Now with the intrusion of the media into every home in Britain and the theoretical ability of everyone to understand standard English, it is probably too late to establish the bona fides of these separate branches of language.

Answer 6

I've never heard anybody referring to Yoruba as a dialect of Hausa. But these languages are not official, as far as I know the official language in Nigeria is English and its citizens learn English at school. They speak Yoruba, but use English when writing to each other (text messages, letters, etc). So I don't see why it matters.

Answer 7

This really pisses me off

Linguistically speaking a two languages are two ways of communicating where the speaker of one language doesn't understand the speaker of the other language, without any information of the speech.

Two dialects are where the opposite is true.

However, Moldavian and Romanian are considered two languages, apparently for political reasons, whereas they are in fact dialects.

Mandarin and Cantonese are called dialects, but they are mutually unintelligible. Apparently because the are within the same borders, they are considered as dialects.

Arabic with all its "varieties." Different varieties are as close as Romanian is to Spanish (Moroccan and Iraqi Arabic, for example).

Answer 8

hay, illocano is not a dialect of tagalog, both are dialects of philipino from the island of Luzon illocano is prevalent of northern provinces below Baguio and to the north. Tagalog is from iliocasur (pangasanong) area to the south including manila. I must also remind you that philipino is a dialect of Spanish. ha, maybe you may want to take a look at the history of language it may surprise you :):)

Answer 9

Why don't you take a look at Ulster Scots? Its supporters claim that this is a language (and have European recognition for same) when in fact it is, at best, a rural dialect Of English as spoken in parts of Northern Ireland. In reality, the promotion of Ulster-Scots culture has been damaged by the insistence that a separate language exists. Do a search on Ulster-Scots and see what you think.

Answer 10

though you may be right about the 'mix up' and even about racist dis-regard,

there is never a good excuse to be offended and irritated by the shortcomings of other people. because from an offended and irritated stance, you will not change the world positively.