Editor for this issue: Annemarie Valdez <avaldez
emunix.emich.edu>
Benji Wald discussed further the popular vs technical use of "dialect". > > language, but there cannot only be ONE "dialect". It's only a dialect when > it can be compared to another one (whether the other one is considered a > "language", e.g., Danish, or a "dialect" e.g., Swiss-German -- which of > course Moulton has informed us has many dialects itself -- but that's what > we expect.) Anthea did not seem to take into account that the discussion > intended to create links between our technical use of the dichotomy and the > popular distinction, which is different. [useful analogy of history / prehistory] I had the impression that there were TWO competing technical definitions: 1) LANGUAGE + DIALECTS (ie. the (standard) language contrasts with non-standard dialects) 2) LANGUAGE = DIALECTS (the language is composed of several dialects) The original Philippines problems was an extension of definition (1), where an assumption had been made in a text that if there was no standard language, the thing was a dialect. This is what led (and leads) to 19C (and modern) writers talking about "European languages" vs. "Indian and African dialects". I've always agreed with the view that this is racist in essence. And this is what the (technical???) definition (1) leads to. Anthea _________________________________________________________________________ Anthea Fraser GUPTA English Language & Literature National University of Singapore Kent Ridge e-mail: ellguptaMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuenus.sg Singapore 0511 telephone: (65) 772 3933 ________________________________________________________________________
In response to Benji Wald's query, the OED is actively collecting neologisms in linguistic terminology for the next edition.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Ole Ravnholt makes an interesting point in his posting, viz. | I suspect that while the northern German dialect and the Swiss one may be | mutually unintelligible, Standard High German is intelligible to speakers | of both. Danish and German are not mutually intelligible, even though some | of us have learnt German in school, and on both sides of the border many | people understand and even speak the other language. But why? I'd say that the reason why Northern German dialect speakers as well as Swiss German speakers understand Standard German is exactly the same as the reason why quite a lot of Danes understand Standard High German: they have been exposed to it in school. (After all, most Standard German speakers do neither understand Low German nor Swiss German.) So there is no real difference in these terms anyway. And Ole should not underestimate the difference between Swiss and Standard German: it is greater than the difference between Danish a, say, _any_ kind of Norwegian. (I'm speaking from experience here.) And (:-)), why should it be disturbing for a Dane that Danish is claimed to be equidistant from German compared to another language (Swiss German) which is spoken in a sovereign state as well? Would be be disturbing to a Faroese if somebody said that Faroese and Icelandic (very roughly mutually intelligible, at least among consenting adults) are closer than Faroese and Danish? Hartmut Haberland (native speaker of (Northern) Standard German and somewhat fluent in Danish after 21 years of residence)Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
On the subject of the term "dialect", there is an interesting paper by Victor H. Mair, entitled "What is a Chinese 'Dialect/Topolect'? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic Terms." Sino-Platonic Papers 29(September, 1991). This paper treats the question in rather fine detail, with reference to Chinese terminology and some typological issues. David Prager Branner, Yuen Ren Society Asian L&L, University of Washington, Box 353521 Seattle, WA 98195-3521 USA <charmiiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueu.washington.edu> Web: http://weber.u.washington.edu/~yuenren/Circular.html