Lesson 07

SOME CONCEPTS RELATED TO LANGUAGE VARIETIES

Topic- 031: Difference Between a Language and a Dialect
It is a part of our culture to make a distinction between 'languages' and 'dialects'. In fact, we make
two separate, distinctions using these terms, and we may draw conclusions from this fact about
our culturally inherited view of language. We may contrast our culture in this respect with others
where no distinction is made. For example, Haugen (1966) states that this was the case in England
until the term dialect was borrowed in the Renaissance, as a learned word from Greek.
In fact, distinction between `language' and 'dialect' is an influence of Greek culture. There were a
number of clearly distinct written varieties in use in Classical Greece, each associated with a
different area and used for a different kind of literature. Thus the meanings of the Greek terms
which were translated as 'language' and 'dialect' were in fact quite different from the meanings
these words have in English now. Their equivalents in French are perhaps more similar, since the
French word ‘dialecte’ refers only to regional varieties which are written and have a literature in
contrast with regional varieties which are not written are called ‘patois’.
There is nothing absolute about the distinction which English happens to make between 'languages'
and 'dialects‘. What then is the difference, for English speakers, between a language and a dialect?
There are two separate ways of distinguishing them, and this ambiguity is a source of great
confusion. Haugen (1966), argues that the reason for the ambiguity, and the resulting confusion,
is precisely the fact that 'dialect' was borrowed from Greek, where the same ambiguity existed.
Sometimes, there is a difference of size, because a language is larger than a dialect, a variety called
a language contains more items than one called a dialect. In this sense we may refer to English as
a language, containing the sum total of all the terms in all its dialects, with 'Standard English' as
one dialect among many others. e.g. Yorkshire English, Indian English, etc. Hence the greater
`size' of the language English. The other contrast between 'language' and 'dialect' is a question of
prestige, a language having prestige which a dialect lacks.
Whether some variety is called a language or a dialect depends on how much prestige one thinks
it has for most of the people. For example, people in Britain habitually refer to languages which
are unwritten (or which they think are unwritten) as dialects, or 'mere dialects', irrespective of
whether it is a proper language to which they are related.

Topic – 032: Some Examples of Dialects

A dialect is the language used by the people of a specific area, class, district, or any other group
of people. The term ‘dialect’ is a very powerful and common way of characterization, which
elaborates the geographic and social background of any character. George Bernard Shaw’s
Pygmalion is a very easy way to explain the idea. In this play a Cockney girl is adopted by a well-
to-do gentleman. This play is difficult to read because of Cockney otherwise it will not be effective.
Another example is of Huckleberry Finn (By Mark Twain). Look at the language of two characters
here:
Jim: “We’s safe, Huck, we’s safe! Jump up and crack yo’ heels. Dat’s de good ole Cairo at las’, I
jis knows it.”
Huck: “I’ll take the canoe and go see, Jim. It mightn’t be, you know.”
Here, Twain uses exaggerated dialect to distinguish between the characters. Another example that
we can share in this regard is of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ (By Harper Lee). The characters that are
less educated and less sophisticated are usually shown to be speaking with a much stronger dialect.
We may even need translation to understand what they say. Look at the following text:
Walter: “Reckon I have. Almost died first year I come to school and et them pecans — folks say
he pizened ’em and put ’em over on the school side of the fence.”
Translation:
I suppose I have. The first year I came to school and ate those pecans, I almost died. Some people
accuse him [Mr. Radley] of poisoning them, and keeping them over on the school side of the fence.
Another example from ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is given here:
Lula: “I wants to know why you bringing’ white chillun to nigger church.”
Translation:
I want to know why you are bringing white children to a church for Negroes.
Here is an examples of a dialect:
A Northern American might say, “hello.”
A Southern American might say, “howdy.”
American English Dialects:
Different dialects exist in American English, and in all areas of spoken English. There are dialects
for each region, in fact. Some of the more pronounced American regional dialects are the
Northeastern (East Coast) and Southern dialects. Someone from the East Coast might say, “What’s
poppin’?” A Southern American would understand this, but would probably never say it. Someone
from the South might say,” How’r y’ll?” A Northeastern American would understand this, but
probably never speak it.

Topic – 033: Standard Languages

It is fair to say that the only kind of variety which would count as a 'proper language' is a standard
language. Standard languages are interesting in as they have a rather special relation to society. A
relationship which is quite abnormal when seen against the context of the tens (or hundreds?) of
thousands of years during which language has been used.
Standard languages are the result of a direct and deliberate intervention by society. This
intervention i.e. the process of standardization produces a standard language out of dialects or non-
standard varieties. The notion `standard language' is somewhat imprecise, but a typical standard
language will pass through the following processes:
1. Selection
2. Codification
3. Elaboration of function
4. Acceptance
1. Selection:
When a particular variety is selected as the one to be developed into a standard language, it may
be an existing variety. Such as the one used in an important political/commercial centre and it
could be an amalgam of various varieties. The choice is a matter of great social and political
importance. The chosen variety necessarily gains prestige and so do the speakers. However, in
some cases the chosen variety has been one with no native speakers at all. For instance, Classical
Hebrew in Israel and the two modern standards for Norwegian (Haugen, 1994).
2. Codification:
Some agency such as an academy does the process of codification. The production of written
dictionaries and grammar books plays an important role to 'fix' the variety, it makes everyone to
agrees on what is correct. Once codification is done, it becomes necessary for many ambitious
citizens to learn the correct forms and not to use in writing any 'incorrect' forms that may exist in
their native variety.
3. Elaboration of Function:
It must be possible to use the selected variety in all the functions associated with central
governmental institutes. For example, in parliament and law courts, in bureaucratic, educational
and scientific documents of all kinds and, of course, in various forms of literature. This may require
extra linguistic items to be added to the variety, especially technical words. It is also necessary to
develop new conventions for using existing forms, how to formulate examination Qs, how to write
formal letters etc.
4. Acceptance:
The variety has to be accepted by the relevant population as the variety of the community – usually
in fact as the national language. Once this has happened, the standard language serves as:
 a strong unifying force for the state
 a symbol of independence
 a marker of its difference from other states
These factors are quite widely accepted by sociolinguists. However, there is ample scope for debate
and disagreement about the desirability of certain aspects of standardization. For instance, it is not
essential either that standardization should involve matters of pronunciation as well as of writing
(Macaulay, 1973) or that the standard language should be presented as the only 'correct' variety (a
point argued by many linguists and sociolinguists). It is ironical that academic linguistics is likely
to arise only in a society with a standard language, such as Britain, the United States or France.

Topic – 034: The Delimitation of Languages

If the speakers of two varieties can understand each other, then the varieties concerned are
instances of the same language; otherwise they are not. This is a widely used criterion, but there
are serious problems in its application (Simpson,1994). Even popular usage does not correspond
consistently to this criterion. Varieties which we call different languages may be mutually
intelligible. For example, the Scandinavian languages, excluding Finnish and Lapp and other
varieties which we call instances of the same language may not, for example, be the so-called
'dialects' of Chinese.
Popular usage tends to reflect the other definition of language, based on prestige, so that if two
varieties are both standard languages, or are subordinate to different standards, they must be
different languages, or they must be the same language if they are both sub-ordinate to the same
standard. This explains the difference between our ideas on the varieties of Scandinavia and of
China: each Scandinavian country has a separate standard language. Mutual intelligibility is a
matter of degree ranging from total intelligibility down to total unintelligibility.
Varieties may be arranged in a DIALECT CONTINUUM, a chain of adjacent varieties in which
each pair of adjacent varieties are mutually intelligible, but pairs taken from opposite ends of the
chain are not. For example: One such continuum is said to stretch from Amsterdam through
Germany to Vienna, and another from Calais to the south of Italy. Mutual intelligibility is not
really a relation between varieties, it’s between people, since it is they, who understand one another
not the varieties. In conclusion, mutual intelligibility does not work as a criterion for delimiting
languages in the 'size' sense. There is no other criterion which is worth considering as an
alternative. So, we must conclude (as Matthews, 1979, p. 47) that there is no real distinction to be
drawn between 'language' and 'dialect' (except with reference to prestige, where it would be better
to use the term 'standard (language)', rather than just 'language).

Topic – 035: The Family Tree Model

A convenient way of representing the relationships among varieties is in terms of the family tree
model, which was developed in the 19th century as an aid in the historical study of languages. This
model allows one to show how closely a number of varieties are related to one another and how
far each has diverged from the others as a result of historical changes. For example: English,
German, Welsh, French and Hindi as varieties to be related.
By building a tree structure on top of these varieties, we can show that English is related most
closely to German and less closely to Welsh and French.
Here, Chinese has been added to show that it is not related at all to the other languages. If one
includes two varieties in the same tree there is an assumption that they are both 'descended',
through historical changes, from a common `ancestor' variety, which could be named on the
diagram. Thus we could add the name `Proto-Indo-European' to the node at the top of the tree,
showing that all the varieties named at the bottom (except Chinese) are descended from this one
variety. Similarly, we could label the node dominating English and German 'Proto-Germanic', to
give a name to the variety from which they are both descended.
The value of this model for historical linguistics is that it clarifies the historical relations among
the varieties concerned. And, it gives a clear idea of the relative chronology of the historical
changes by which these varieties have diverged. From the present point of view, the advantage is
that a family tree shows a hierarchical relation among varieties which makes no distinction
between 'languages' and 'dialects'. Indeed, it is common in historical linguistics to refer to the
varieties which are descended from Latin as 'dialects' of Latin (or 'the Romance dialects').
Although they include such obvious 'languages' (in the prestige sense) as Standard French. If we
had wished to add Yorkshire English and Cockney to our list of varieties, we would simply have
added them below English, without giving them a different status from the others.
Apart from the attraction which we have just noted, however, the family tree model has little to
recommend it to the sociolinguist, since it represents a gross simplification of the relations between
varieties. In particular, it makes no allowances for one variety influencing another, which can lead
in extreme cases to convergence - a single variety being descended from two separate varieties.