Hubbry Logo
DialectDialectMain
Open search
Dialect
Community hub
Dialect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Dialect
Dialect
from Wikipedia

A dialect[i] is a variety of language spoken by a particular group of people. This may include dominant and standardized varieties as well as vernacular, unwritten, or non-standardized varieties, such as those used in developing countries or isolated areas.[2][3][4]

The non-standard dialects of a language with a writing system will operate at different degrees of distance from the standardized written form.

Standard and nonstandard dialects

[edit]

A standard dialect, also known as a "standardized language", is supported by institutions. Such institutional support may include any or all of the following: government recognition or designation; formal presentation in schooling as the "correct" form of a language; informal monitoring of everyday usage; published grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks that set forth a normative spoken and written form; and an extensive formal literature (be it prose, poetry, non-fiction, etc.) that uses it. An example of a standardized language is the French language which is supported by the Académie Française institution. A nonstandard dialect also has a complete grammar and vocabulary, but is usually not the beneficiary of institutional support.

The distinction between the "standard" dialect and the "nonstandard" (vernacular) dialects of the same language is often arbitrary and based on social, political, cultural, or historical considerations or prevalence and prominence.[5][6][7] In a similar way, the definitions of the terms "language" and "dialect" may overlap and are often subject to debate, with the differentiation between the two classifications often grounded in arbitrary or sociopolitical motives,[8] and the term "dialect" is sometimes restricted to mean "non-standard variety", particularly in non-specialist settings and non-English linguistic traditions.[9][10][11][12]

Dialect as linguistic variety of a language

[edit]

The term dialect is applied mostly to speech patterns that are unique to an area, which is sometimes called a regiolect[13], but a dialect may also be defined in other ways such as social class, a sociolect, or ethnicity, a ethnolect.[14]

According to this definition, any variety of a given language can be classified as "a dialect", including any standardized varieties. In this case, the distinction between the "standard language" (i.e. the "standard" dialect of a particular language) and the "nonstandard" (vernacular) dialects of the same language is often arbitrary and based on social, political, cultural, or historical considerations or prevalence and prominence.[5][6][7] In a similar way, the definitions of the terms "language" and "dialect" may overlap and are often subject to debate, with the differentiation between the two classifications often grounded in arbitrary or sociopolitical motives.[8] The term "dialect" is however sometimes restricted to mean "non-standard variety", particularly in non-specialist settings and non-English linguistic traditions.[15][10][16][17] Conversely, some dialectologists have reserved the term "dialect" for forms that they believed (sometimes wrongly) to be purer forms of the older languages, as in how early dialectologists of English did not consider the Brummie of Birmingham or the Scouse of Liverpool to be real dialects, as they had arisen fairly recently in time and partly as a result of influences from Irish migrants.[18]

Difference between dialects and languages

[edit]

There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language.[19] A number of rough measures exist, sometimes leading to contradictory results. The distinction between dialect and language is therefore subjective[how?] and depends upon the user's preferred frame of reference.[20] For example, there has been discussion about whether or not the Limón Creole English should be considered "a kind" of English or a different language. This creole is spoken in the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica (Central America) by descendants of Jamaican people. The position that Costa Rican linguists support depends upon which university they represent. Another example is Scanian, which even, for a time, had its own ISO code.[21][22][23][24]

Linguistic distance

[edit]

An important criterion for categorizing varieties of language is linguistic distance. For a variety to be considered a dialect, the linguistic distance between the two varieties must be low. Linguistic distance between spoken or written forms of language increases as the differences between the forms are characterized.[25] For example, two languages with completely different syntactical structures would have a high linguistic distance, while a language with very few differences from another may be considered a dialect or a sibling of that language. Linguistic distance may be used to determine language families and language siblings. For example, languages with little linguistic distance, like Dutch and German, are considered siblings. Dutch and German are siblings in the West-Germanic language group. Some language siblings are closer to each other in terms of linguistic distance than to other linguistic siblings. French and Spanish, siblings in the Romance Branch of the Indo-European group, are closer to each other than they are to any of the languages of the West-Germanic group.[25] When languages are close in terms of linguistic distance, they resemble one another, hence why dialects are not considered linguistically distant to their parent language.

Mutual intelligibility

[edit]

One criterion, which is often considered to be purely linguistic, is that of mutual intelligibility: two varieties are said to be dialects of the same language if being a speaker of one variety has sufficient knowledge to understand and be understood by a speaker of the other dialect; otherwise, they are said to be different languages.[26] However, this definition has often been criticized, especially in the case of a dialect continuum (or dialect chain), which contains a sequence of varieties, where each mutually intelligible with the next, but may not be mutually intelligible with distant varieties.[26]

Others have argued that mutual intelligibility occurs in varying degrees, and the potential difficulty in distinguishing between intelligibility and prior familiarity with the other variety. However, recent research suggests that there is some empirical evidence in favor of using some form of the intelligibility criterion to distinguish between languages and dialects,[27] though mutuality may not be as relevant as initially thought. The requirement for mutuality is abandoned by the Language Survey Reference Guide of SIL International, publishers of the Ethnologue and the registration authority for the ISO 639-3 standard for language codes. They define a dialect cluster as a central variety together with all those varieties whose speakers understand the central variety at a specified threshold level or higher. If the threshold level is high, usually between 70% and 85%, the cluster is designated as a language.[28][clarification needed]

Sociolinguistic definitions

[edit]
Local varieties in the West Germanic dialect continuum are oriented towards either Standard Dutch or Standard German depending on which side of the border they are spoken.[29]

Another occasionally used criterion for discriminating dialects from languages is the sociolinguistic notion of linguistic authority. According to this definition, two varieties are considered dialects of the same language if (under at least some circumstances) they would defer to the same authority regarding some questions about their language. For instance, to learn the name of a new invention, or an obscure foreign species of plant, speakers of Westphalian and East Franconian German might each consult a German dictionary or ask a German-speaking expert in the subject. Thus these varieties are said to be dependent on, or heteronomous with respect to, Standard German, which is said to be autonomous.[29]

In contrast, speakers in the Netherlands of Low Saxon varieties similar to Westphalian would instead consult a dictionary of Standard Dutch, and hence is categorized as a dialect of Dutch instead. Similarly, although Yiddish is classified by linguists as a language in the High German group of languages and has some degree of mutual intelligibility with German, a Yiddish speaker would consult a Yiddish dictionary rather than a German dictionary in such a case, and is classified as its own language.

Within this framework, W. A. Stewart defined a language as an autonomous variety in addition to all the varieties that are heteronomous with respect to it, noting that an essentially equivalent definition had been stated by Charles A. Ferguson and John J. Gumperz in 1960.[30][31] A heteronomous variety may be considered a dialect of a language defined in this way.[30] In these terms, Danish and Norwegian, though mutually intelligible to a large degree, are considered separate languages.[32] In the framework of Heinz Kloss, these are described as languages by ausbau (development) rather than by abstand (separation).[33]

Dialect and language clusters

[edit]

In other situations, a closely related group of varieties possess considerable (though incomplete) mutual intelligibility, but none dominates the others. To describe this situation, the editors of the Handbook of African Languages introduced the term dialect cluster as a classificatory unit at the same level as a language.[34] A similar situation, but with a greater degree of mutual unintelligibility, has been termed a language cluster.[35]

In the Language Survey Reference Guide issued by SIL International, who produce Ethnologue, a dialect cluster is defined as a central variety together with a collection of varieties whose speakers can understand the central variety at a specified threshold level (usually between 70% and 85%) or higher. It is not required that peripheral varieties be understood by speakers of the central variety or of other peripheral varieties. A minimal set of central varieties providing coverage of a dialect continuum may be selected algorithmically from intelligibility data.[36]

Political factors

[edit]

In many societies, however, a particular dialect, often the sociolect of the elite class, comes to be identified as the "standard" or "proper" version of a language by those seeking to make a social distinction and is contrasted with other varieties. As a result of this, in some contexts, the term "dialect" refers specifically to varieties with low social status. In this secondary sense of "dialect", language varieties are often called dialects rather than languages:

  • if they have no standard or codified form,
  • if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech),
  • if the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own,
  • if they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety.

The status of "language" is not solely determined by linguistic criteria, but it is also the result of a historical and political development. Romansh came to be a written language, and therefore it is recognized as a language, even though it is very close to the Lombardic alpine dialects and classical Latin. An opposite example is Chinese, whose variations such as Mandarin and Cantonese are often called dialects and not languages in China, despite their mutual unintelligibility.

National boundaries sometimes make the distinction between "language" and "dialect" an issue of political importance. A group speaking a separate "language" may be seen as having a greater claim to being a separate "people", and thus to be more deserving of its own independent state, while a group speaking a "dialect" may be seen as a sub-group, part of a bigger people, which must content itself with regional autonomy.[37][citation needed]

The Yiddish linguist Max Weinreich published the expression, A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot ("אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט": "A language is a dialect with an army and navy") in YIVO Bleter 25.1, 1945, p. 13. The significance of the political factors in any attempt at answering the question "what is a language?" is great enough to cast doubt on whether any strictly linguistic definition, without a socio-cultural approach, is possible. This is illustrated by the frequency with which the army-navy aphorism is cited.

Terminology

[edit]

By the definition most commonly used by linguists, any linguistic variety can be considered a "dialect" of some language—"everybody speaks a dialect". According to that interpretation, the criteria above merely serve to distinguish whether two varieties are dialects of the same language or dialects of different languages.

The terms "language" and "dialect" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although they are often perceived to be.[38] Thus there is nothing contradictory in the statement "the language of the Pennsylvania Dutch is a dialect of German".

There are various terms that linguists may use to avoid taking a position on whether the speech of a community is an independent language in its own right or a dialect of another language. Perhaps the most common is "variety";[39] "lect" is another. A more general term is "languoid", which does not distinguish between dialects, languages, and groups of languages, whether genealogically related or not.[40]

Colloquial meaning of dialect

[edit]

The colloquial meaning of dialect can be understood by example, e.g. in Italy[41] (see dialetto[42]), France (see patois) and the Philippines,[43][44] carries a pejorative undertone and underlines the politically and socially subordinated status of a non-national language to the country's single official language. In other words, these "dialects" are not actual dialects in the same sense as in the first usage, as they do not derive from the politically dominant language and are therefore not one of its varieties, but instead they evolved in a separate and parallel way and may thus better fit various parties' criteria for a separate language.

Despite this, these "dialects" may often be historically cognate and share genetic roots in the same subfamily as the dominant national language and may even, to a varying degree, share some mutual intelligibility with the latter. In this sense, unlike in the first usage, the national language would not itself be considered a "dialect", as it is the dominant language in a particular state, be it in terms of linguistic prestige, social or political (e.g. official) status, predominance or prevalence, or all of the above. The term "dialect" used this way implies a political connotation, being mostly used to refer to low-prestige languages (regardless of their actual degree of distance from the national language), languages lacking institutional support, or those perceived as "unsuitable for writing".[45] The designation "dialect" is also used popularly to refer to the unwritten or non-codified languages of developing countries or isolated areas,[2][3] where the term "vernacular language" would be preferred by linguists.[46]

Dialect and accent

[edit]

John Lyons writes that "Many linguists [...] subsume differences of accent under differences of dialect."[6] In general, accent refers to variations in pronunciation, while dialect also encompasses specific variations in grammar and vocabulary.[47]

Examples

[edit]

Arabic

[edit]

There are three geographical zones in which Arabic is spoken (Jastrow 2002).[48] Zone I is categorized as the area in which Arabic was spoken before the rise of Islam. It is the Arabian Peninsula, excluding the areas where southern Arabian was spoken. Zone II is categorized as the areas to which Arabic speaking peoples moved as a result of the conquests of Islam. Included in Zone II are the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, Iraq, and some parts of Iran. The Egyptian, Sudanese, and Levantine dialects (including the Syrian dialect) are well documented, and widely spoken and studied. Zone III comprises the areas in which Arabic is spoken outside of the continuous Arabic Language area.

Spoken dialects of the Arabic language share the same writing system and share Modern Standard Arabic as their common prestige dialect used in writing.

German

[edit]

When talking about the German language, the term German dialects is only used for the traditional regional varieties. That allows them to be distinguished from the regional varieties of modern standard German. The German dialects show a wide spectrum of variation. Some of them are not mutually intelligible. German dialectology traditionally names the major dialect groups after Germanic tribes from which they were assumed to have descended.[49]

The extent to which the dialects are spoken varies according to a number of factors: In Northern Germany, dialects are less common than in the South. In cities, dialects are less common than in the countryside. In a public environment, dialects are less common than in a familiar environment.

The situation in Switzerland and Liechtenstein is different from the rest of the German-speaking countries. The Swiss German dialects are the default everyday language in virtually every situation, whereas standard German is only spoken in education, partially in media, and with foreigners not possessing knowledge of Swiss German. Most Swiss German speakers perceive standard German to be a foreign language.

The Low German and Low Franconian varieties spoken in Germany are often counted among the German dialects. This reflects the modern situation where they are roofed by standard German. This is different from the situation in the Middle Ages when Low German had strong tendencies towards an ausbau language.

The Frisian languages spoken in Germany and the Netherlands are excluded from the German dialects.

Italy

[edit]

Italy is an often quoted example of a country where the second definition of the word "dialect" (dialetto[42]) is most prevalent. Italy is in fact home to a vast array of separate languages, most of which lack mutual intelligibility with one another and have their own local varieties; twelve of them (Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek, Slovene, Croatian, French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian) underwent Italianization to a varying degree (ranging from the currently endangered state displayed by Sardinian and southern Italian Greek to the vigorous promotion of Germanic Tyrolean), but have been officially recognized as minority languages (minoranze linguistiche storiche), in light of their distinctive historical development. Yet, most of the regional languages spoken across the peninsula are often colloquially referred to in non-linguistic circles as Italian dialetti, since most of them, including the prestigious Neapolitan, Sicilian and Venetian, have adopted vulgar Tuscan as their reference language since the Middle Ages. However, all these languages evolved from Vulgar Latin in parallel with Italian, long prior to the popular diffusion of the latter throughout what is now Italy.[50]

During the Risorgimento, Italian still existed mainly as a literary language, and only 2.5% of Italy's population could speak Italian.[51] Proponents of Italian nationalism, like the Lombard Alessandro Manzoni, stressed the importance of establishing a uniform national language in order to better create an Italian national identity.[52] With the unification of Italy in the 1860s, Italian became the official national language of the new Italian state, while the other ones came to be institutionally regarded as "dialects" subordinate to Italian, and negatively associated with a lack of education.

In the early 20th century, the conscription of Italian men from all throughout Italy during World War I is credited with having facilitated the diffusion of Italian among the less educated conscripted soldiers, as these men, who had been speaking various regional languages up until then, found themselves forced to communicate with each other in a common tongue while serving in the Italian military. With the popular spread of Italian out of the intellectual circles, because of the mass-media and the establishment of public education, Italians from all regions were increasingly exposed to Italian.[50] While dialect levelling has increased the number of Italian speakers and decreased the number of speakers of other languages native to Italy, Italians in different regions have developed variations of standard Italian specific to their region. These variations of standard Italian, known as "regional Italian", would thus more appropriately be called dialects in accordance with the first linguistic definition of the term, as they are in fact derived from Italian,[53][44][54] with some degree of influence from the local or regional native languages and accents.[50]

The most widely spoken languages of Italy, which are not to be confused with regional Italian, fall within a family of which even Italian is part, the Italo-Dalmatian group. This wide category includes:

Modern Italian is heavily based on the Florentine dialect of Tuscan.[50] The Tuscan-based language that would eventually become modern Italian had been used in poetry and literature since at least the 12th century, and it first spread outside the Tuscan linguistic borders through the works of the so-called tre corone ("three crowns"): Dante Alighieri, Petrarch, and Giovanni Boccaccio. Florentine thus gradually rose to prominence as the volgare of the literate and upper class in Italy, and it spread throughout the peninsula and Sicily as the lingua franca among the Italian educated class as well as Italian travelling merchants. The economic prowess and cultural and artistic importance of Tuscany in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance further encouraged the diffusion of the Florentine-Tuscan Italian throughout Italy and among the educated and powerful, though local and regional languages remained the main languages of the common people.

Aside from the Italo-Dalmatian languages, the second most widespread family in Italy is the Gallo-Italic group, spanning throughout much of Northern Italy's languages and dialects (such as Piedmontese, Emilian-Romagnol, Ligurian, Lombard, Venetian, Sicily's and Basilicata's Gallo-Italic in southern Italy, etc.).

Finally, other languages from a number of different families follow the last two major groups: the Gallo-Romance languages (French, Occitan and its Vivaro-Alpine dialect, Franco-Provençal); the Rhaeto-Romance languages (Friulian and Ladin); the Ibero-Romance languages (Sardinia's Algherese); the Germanic Cimbrian, Southern Bavarian, Walser German and the Mòcheno language; the Albanian Arbëresh language; the Hellenic Griko language and Calabrian Greek; the Serbo-Croatian Slavomolisano dialect; and the various Slovene languages, including the Gail Valley dialect and Istrian dialect. The language indigenous to Sardinia, while being Romance in nature, is considered to be a specific linguistic family of its own, separate from the other Neo-Latin groups; it is often subdivided into the Centro-Southern and Centro-Northern dialects.

Though mostly mutually unintelligible, the exact degree to which all the Italian languages are mutually unintelligible varies, often correlating with geographical distance or geographical barriers between the languages; some regional Italian languages that are closer in geographical proximity to each other or closer to each other on the dialect continuum are more or less mutually intelligible. For instance, a speaker of purely Eastern Lombard, a language in Northern Italy's Lombardy region that includes the Bergamasque dialect, would have severely limited mutual intelligibility with a purely Italian speaker and would be nearly completely unintelligible to a Sicilian-speaking individual. Due to Eastern Lombard's status as a Gallo-Italic language, an Eastern Lombard speaker may, in fact, have more mutual intelligibility with an Occitan, Catalan, or French speaker than with an Italian or Sicilian speaker. Meanwhile, a Sicilian-speaking person would have a greater degree of mutual intelligibility with a speaker of the more closely related Neapolitan language, but far less mutual intelligibility with a person speaking Sicilian Gallo-Italic, a language that developed in isolated Lombard emigrant communities on the same island as the Sicilian language.

Today, the majority of Italian nationals are able to speak Italian, though many Italians still speak their regional language regularly or as their primary day-to-day language, especially at home with family or when communicating with Italians from the same town or region.

The Balkans

[edit]

The classification of speech varieties as dialects or languages and their relationship to other varieties of speech can be controversial and the verdicts inconsistent. Serbo-Croatian illustrates this point. Serbo-Croatian has two major formal variants (Serbian and Croatian). Both are based on the Shtokavian dialect and therefore mutually intelligible with differences found mostly in their respective local vocabularies and minor grammatical differences. Certain dialects of Serbia (Torlakian) and Croatia (Kajkavian and Chakavian), however, are not mutually intelligible even though they are usually subsumed under Serbo-Croatian. How these dialects should be classified in relation to Shtokavian remains a matter of dispute.

Macedonian, which is largely mutually intelligible with Bulgarian and certain dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Torlakian), is considered by Bulgarian linguists to be a Bulgarian dialect, while in North Macedonia, it is regarded as a language in its own right. Before the establishment of a literary standard of Macedonian in 1944, in most sources in and out of Bulgaria before the Second World War, the South Slavic dialect continuum covering the area of today's North Macedonia were referred to as Bulgarian dialects. Sociolinguists agree that the question of whether Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian or a language is a political one and cannot be resolved on a purely linguistic basis.[55][56]

Lebanon

[edit]

In Lebanon, a part of the Christian population considers "Lebanese" to be in some sense a distinct language from Arabic and not merely a dialect thereof. During the civil war, Christians often used Lebanese Arabic officially, and sporadically used the Latin script to write Lebanese, thus further distinguishing it from Arabic. All Lebanese laws are written in the standard literary form of Arabic, though parliamentary debate may be conducted in Lebanese Arabic.

Malay

[edit]

Malay has a long history as a lingua franca (Indonesian and Malay: basantara) in the Malay Archipelago which currently includes Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, East Timor, and the southern part of Thailand. This geographical variation, which then spread widely even to South Africa, finally led to the formation of a Malay language cluster which spread and had differences due to geographical conditions.[57]

The Malay language is pluricentric and a macrolanguage, i.e., several varieties of it are standardized as the national language (bahasa kebangsaan or bahasa nasional) of several nation states with various official names: in Malaysia, it is designated as either bahasa Malaysia ("Malaysian") or also bahasa Melayu ("Malay language"); in Singapore and Brunei, it is called bahasa Melayu ("Malay language"); in Indonesia, an autonomous normative variety called bahasa Indonesia ("Indonesian language") is designated the bahasa persatuan/pemersatu ("unifying language" or lingua franca) whereas the term "Malay" (bahasa Melayu) is domestically restricted to vernacular varieties of Malay indigenous to areas of Central to Southern Sumatra and West Kalimantan.[58][ii]

North Africa

[edit]

In Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, the Darijas translated as literally meaning Dialect in Arabic (spoken North African languages) are sometimes considered more different from other Arabic dialects. Officially, North African countries prefer to give preference to the Literary Arabic and conduct much of their political and religious life in it (adherence to Islam), and refrain from declaring each country's specific variety to be a separate language, because Literary Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam and the language of the Islamic sacred book, the Qur'an. Although, especially since the 1960s, the Darijas are occupying an increasing use and influence in the cultural life of these countries. Examples of cultural elements where Darijas' use became dominant include: theatre, film, music, television, advertisement, social media, folk-tale books and companies' names.

Ukraine

[edit]
The Books of Genesis of the Ukrainian Nation by Mykola Kostomarov

The Modern Ukrainian language has been in common use since the late 17th century, associated with the establishment of the Cossack Hetmanate. In the 19th century, the Tsarist Government of the Russian Empire claimed that Ukrainian (or Little Russian, per official name) was merely a dialect of Russian (or Polonized dialect) and not a language on its own (same concept as for Belarusian language). That concepted was enrooted soon after the partitions of Poland. According to these claims, the differences were few and caused by the conquest of western Ukraine by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, in reality the dialects in Ukraine were developing independently from the dialects in the modern Russia for several centuries, and as a result they differed substantially.

Following the Spring of Nations in Europe and efforts of the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, across the so-called "Southwestern Krai" of Russian Empire started to spread cultural societies of Hromada and their Sunday schools. Themselves "hromadas" acted in same manner as Orthodox fraternities of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth back in 15th century. Around that time in Ukraine becoming popular political movements Narodnichestvo (Narodniks) and Khlopomanstvo.

Moldova

[edit]

There have been cases of a variety of speech being deliberately reclassified to serve political purposes. One example is Moldovan. In 1996, the Moldovan Parliament, citing fears of "Romanian expansionism", rejected a proposal from President Mircea Snegur to change the name of the language to Romanian, and in 2003 a Moldovan–Romanian dictionary was published, purporting to show that the two countries speak different languages. Linguists of the Romanian Academy reacted by declaring that all the Moldovan words were also Romanian words; while in Moldova, the head of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Ion Bărbuţă, described the dictionary as a politically motivated "absurdity". On 22 March 2023, the president of Moldova, Maia Sandu, promulgated a law passed by Parliament that named the national language as Romanian in all legislative texts and the constitution.[61]

Greater China

[edit]

The hundreds of mutually unintelligible Chinese languages contain thousands of dialects. All are commonly referred to indiscriminately as 'dialects' in English. In the north and southwest of China the varieties are largely homogeneous, with about 50% intelligibility between Beijing and Sichuan. In the southeast the varieties are much more diverse. The main language groups in the south – Gan, Xiang, Wu, Min, Yue and Hakka – each consist of numerous mutually unintelligible languages and even more regional dialects.

From the Ming dynasty onward, Beijing has been the capital of China and the Beijing dialect of Mandarin has had the most prestige. With the founding of the Republic of China, Standard Mandarin, based on Beijing dialect with some of its more idiosyncratic elements removed, was designated the official language of the country, replacing Classical Chinese. Other Chinese languages and dialects are referred to as fangyan (regional speech). Cantonese, one of the Yue languages, is the most commonly spoken language in Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Macau and among some overseas Chinese communities, whereas Shanghainese is dominant among the Wu languages.Hokkien, one of the Min languages, has been accepted in Taiwan as an important local language alongside Mandarin.

Chinese languages other than Classical Chinese and Standard Mandarin are for the most part unwritten. Several regional languages, most notably Cantonese, have a limited literary tradition. Some of these use the Latin script, with orthographies dating from the British missionary era, and Dungan in Kazakhstan uses Cyrillic, but for the most part Chinese languages are written in logographic Chinese characters, most of which they have in common, making the gist of them intelligible to each other in writing, though many grammatical words and much vocabulary differs. However, in the 1950s the written language diverged even for Mandarin when the People's Republic of China introduced simplified characters, which are now used throughout the country. Traditional characters remain the norm in Taiwan and some overseas communities.

Hindi and Urdu

[edit]

Hindi is one of the official languages of India, alongside English, and an official language in nine states (including Gujarat, where Gujarati is the most spoken language). Urdu is the national and official language of Pakistan, as well as being an additional official language in 5 states of India (3 of the 8 Hindi speaking states plus Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). While it is the second language for most Pakistanis (outside of muhajirs who immigrated during partition and their descendants) in favor of languages like Punjabi and Sindhi, it is the first language of most Indian Muslims in North India and the Deccan Plateau.

The two languages in their colloquially spoken form are mutually intelligible, but in written form, Hindi uses the Devanagari script while Urdu uses the Perso-Arabic script. For formal vocabulary, the two languages diverge, with Hindi drawing more from Sanskrit and Urdu more from Persian or Arabic.

In addition, several other dialects or languages are classified under Hindi that did not descend from it. Standard Hindi and Urdu are based on Khari Boli, the dialect spoken around Delhi. Other dialects with high mutual intelligibility spoken in surrounding areas include Haryanvi and languages from Western Uttar Pradesh, like Braj Bhasha. But many languages less similar to Standard Hindi do not have official status under the 8th Schedule to the Constitution of India and are instead classified as dialects of Hindi.[62] This includes Bhojpuri, spoken in Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which does not have official status in either state or in the 8th Schedule, despite being spoken by over 50 million people.[63] But over time, more languages have been recognized as distinct from Hindi. Maithili was made a scheduled language of India in 2003, and Chhattisgarhi was made official in Chhattisgarh.[64]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A dialect is a regional or social variety of a language distinguished by systematic differences in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and syntax from other varieties of the same language, while typically maintaining mutual intelligibility. Dialects emerge from geographic isolation, social stratification, or historical divergence, reflecting the inherent variability in human speech patterns. The distinction between a dialect and a full language lacks a strict linguistic criterion, often hinging instead on factors such as standardization, political boundaries, and cultural prestige, as evidenced by cases where mutually intelligible varieties are classified differently based on non-linguistic considerations. Dialect continua, where adjacent varieties blend gradually without clear breaks, illustrate the fluid nature of these divisions, challenging simplistic binary categorizations. In sociolinguistics, dialects serve as markers of identity and community, influencing comprehension, social perceptions, and language policy, though they frequently face stigma relative to prestige standards despite equivalent expressive capacity. Their study reveals causal mechanisms of linguistic change, including sound shifts and lexical innovations driven by migration, trade, and contact.

Core Definitions and Distinctions

Linguistic Definition of Dialect

In linguistics, a dialect is a regional or social variety of a language characterized by systematic differences in phonology, lexicon, morphology, and syntax from other varieties of the same language, while maintaining mutual intelligibility among speakers. These variations arise from historical divergence within speech communities, often tied to geographic isolation or social stratification, but dialects share a common ancestral form and core grammatical structure that distinguishes them from separate languages. For instance, phonological differences might include distinct vowel shifts or consonant substitutions, such as the merger of certain sounds in some American English dialects absent in others. Linguists emphasize that dialects are not inherently inferior or non-standard forms; the notion of a "standard dialect" emerges from sociolinguistic processes like codification and institutional promotion, but all speech varieties, including those labeled standard, function as dialects with equivalent structural complexity. serves as a primary empirical criterion for classifying varieties as dialects rather than s, though thresholds vary and can be asymmetric (e.g., one dialect comprehensible to speakers of another but not vice versa). Empirical studies, such as those analyzing comprehension rates between regional varieties, confirm that dialects exhibit graded rather than binary distinctions, challenging arbitrary boundaries. This definition prioritizes observable linguistic features over prescriptive norms, reflecting dialects' role as natural outcomes of evolution driven by communicative needs and transmission fidelity.

Dialect Versus Language: Empirical Criteria

The distinction between dialects and languages hinges on empirical measures of linguistic divergence rather than arbitrary sociopolitical designations. Linguists primarily employ as a core criterion, evaluating the degree to which speakers of one variety can comprehend the speech of another without prior exposure or instruction. This is quantified through controlled psycholinguistic experiments, such as cloze tests or word/sentence recognition tasks, where comprehension scores above approximately 70-80% often indicate dialectal status, while lower thresholds suggest separate languages. For instance, experimental tests on Chinese varieties like and Mandarin reveal near-zero mutual intelligibility, supporting their classification as distinct languages despite political labeling as dialects. Lexicostatistical methods provide a complementary objective metric by comparing cognate retention in core vocabulary lists, such as the 100- or 200-item , which targets semantically stable words least prone to borrowing. Varieties sharing over 80-85% of basic are typically deemed dialects, reflecting insufficient divergence for independent evolution, whereas rates below 60% align with language-level separation, calibrated against known divergence timelines via . These thresholds derive from cross-linguistic data, including Indo-European and Austronesian families, where correlates with genealogical closeness but must be weighed against borrowing effects in contact zones. Phonological and grammatical divergence offers additional empirical tests, often via computational metrics like Levenshtein (edit) distance, which quantifies sound string differences normalized by utterance length. High similarity (e.g., distances under 20-30%) in these features reinforces dialectal unity, as seen in Scandinavian varieties where Norwegian and Swedish exhibit substantial intelligibility despite nominal language status. Dialectometry extends this by mapping isogloss bundles—boundaries of shared innovations—across continua, where dense overlap signifies dialects within a single system, whereas sparse, stable splits indicate languages. These criteria, while robust, reveal continua rather than binaries; asymmetric intelligibility (e.g., receptive but not productive) complicates thresholds, necessitating multi-method validation over single tests. Empirical application underscores that politically unified "dialects" like Arabic vernaculars often fail intelligibility tests across regions, functioning as abstand languages by distance alone.

Sociopolitical Dimensions of Dialect Classification

The classification of linguistic varieties as dialects or distinct frequently transcends empirical linguistic criteria such as , incorporating sociopolitical considerations like , state power, and historical power dynamics. This interplay is encapsulated in sociolinguist Max Weinreich's observation from , in the context of vis-à-vis German: "A is a dialect with an and a navy," highlighting how political authority elevates variants to status irrespective of structural proximity. Empirical assessments of , which measure comprehension between speakers without prior exposure, reveal gradients rather than sharp boundaries, yet political entities often impose categorical distinctions to align with territorial or ethnic agendas. For instance, asymmetrical intelligibility—where speakers of one variety understand another more readily—can be amplified or downplayed based on prestige and institutional support, as seen in standardized forms backed by education systems and media. In the , the disintegration of in the 1990s exemplifies how geopolitical rupture drives reclassification: the continuum, characterized by high (often exceeding 90% lexical overlap and functional comprehension), fragmented into Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, each codified with distinct orthographies, terminologies, and national academies to reinforce post-conflict identities. Prior to , dialectal maps emphasized geographic continuity across ethnic groups, but subsequent purist movements emphasized minor phonological and lexical differences—such as the ekavian vs. ijekavian pronunciations—to justify separation, with state policies mandating separate curricula and broadcasting standards by 2003. This shift, while rooted in partial linguistic variation, primarily served nationalist consolidation, as evidenced by the Croatian Sabor's 1990 declarations promoting "Croatian" as autonomous despite shared grammar and core vocabulary with Serbian. Conversely, during the Yugoslav era (1945–), enforced unity suppressed such divisions to foster federal cohesion, illustrating how regime ideology dictates taxonomic outcomes over consistent linguistic metrics. Similar dynamics appear in the Scandinavian dialect continuum, where Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish exhibit substantial —speakers often achieve 60–80% comprehension in casual speech—yet are designated separate languages due to sovereign states established by the 19th century, each with independent literary traditions and Lutheran Bible translations dating to the 1500s. Political boundaries, rather than intelligibility thresholds, sustain this separation; for example, Norwegian draws heavily from Danish influences post-1814 union dissolution, while preserves rural dialects, but cross-border communication remains viable without formal training. In Arabic-speaking regions, sociopolitical unity under since the 1950s has subsumed diverse varieties (e.g., Egyptian vs. Levantine, with 70–90% lexical similarity but reduced spoken intelligibility) as "dialects" of , prioritizing Quranic and Nasser-era ideological cohesion over proposals to recognize them as distinct languages, as advocated by some Levantine scholars in the . These cases underscore that often reflects power asymmetries, where dominant variants gain prestige through state apparatus, marginalizing others as mere dialects. Such sociopolitical influences extend to colonial legacies and modern identity movements, where imperial standards (e.g., Parisian French over regional by the Revolutionary decrees) imposed hierarchies, classifying non-prestige forms as dialects to centralize authority. In postcolonial contexts, independence movements may elevate local variants to counter , as with Hindi-Urdu's partition into ( script, Sanskritized lexicon post-1947) and (Perso-Arabic script, Arabic-Persian loans), driven by India-Pakistan partition despite near-complete in spoken form. This pattern reveals causal realism in : while genetic and contact-induced divergence provides the substrate, institutional endorsement—via armies, navies, or bureaucracies—determines perceptual and classificatory boundaries, often overriding empirical continua.

Historical and Evolutionary Foundations

Origins of Dialect Divergence

Dialect divergence arises primarily from the geographic or social separation of speech communities, which interrupts regular linguistic exchange and permits independent evolution of phonological, lexical, and grammatical features. When populations migrate or become isolated by barriers such as mountains, rivers, or political boundaries, speakers no longer share innovations uniformly, leading to cumulative differences over generations. This process aligns with principles of , where —driven by mechanisms like shifts and —proceeds at varying rates in isolated groups. Empirical reconstruction via the reveals such splits, as seen in the diversification of Proto-Indo-European into distinct branches around 4500–2500 BCE, evidenced by shared cognates and regular correspondences across descendant languages. Phonological divergence often initiates the process, with sound changes propagating differently in separated communities. For instance, chain shifts, where one phoneme's alteration triggers adjustments in neighboring sounds, can create stark contrasts; the around the 6th–8th centuries CE distinguished dialects from ones by altering stops like /p/ to /pf/ in words such as appel becoming Apfel. Lexical divergence follows through regional innovations or substrate influences from pre-existing languages, as migrating groups adopt or adapt vocabulary from contact languages. Grammatical structures may also drift, with isolated varieties retaining archaic forms or developing novel , though these changes typically lag behind due to greater stability in morphology. Studies of dialect continua, such as those in the Germanic family, demonstrate how proximity fosters similarity while distance amplifies divergence, quantifiable through metrics like lexical distance and phonetic dissimilarity. Social and cultural factors accelerate divergence beyond mere isolation, including identity reinforcement through linguistic markers. In cases like the study by in the 1960s, peripheral communities diverged phonetically—centralizing diphthongs in words like "right" and "house"—as a response to seasonal and toward mainland influences, illustrating how and prestige dynamics foster distinct varieties. Empirical models in , such as tree-based phylogenies, estimate divergence timelines by assuming constant rates of change, though wave models incorporating diffusion better capture gradual boundaries in continua. Evidence from ancient migrations, like the Indo-European expansions circa 3000 BCE, supports causal links between population movements—tracked via and genetics—and linguistic splits, with proto-languages fragmenting into dialects that eventually become mutually unintelligible.

Evolution of Dialectology as a Discipline

Dialectology emerged as a systematic discipline in the mid-19th century amid the rise of historical-comparative in , initially focusing on mapping areal variations in speech to reconstruct linguistic . Early efforts emphasized geographical distribution over social factors, employing questionnaires to document phonetic and lexical differences among rural speakers. This approach stemmed from philological traditions that viewed dialects as relics of older language stages, enabling inferences about sound changes and migrations. A foundational milestone occurred in 1876 when Georg Wenker initiated the first large-scale dialect survey in , distributing questionnaires to over 50,000 schoolteachers across 45,000 localities to elicit translations of 40 sentences into local vernaculars. Wenker's method prioritized to reveal isoglosses—boundaries of linguistic features—resulting in the Deutsche Sprachkarte published in , which visualized dialect continua and substrate influences. This questionnaire-based areal became the model for subsequent national projects, though it relied on indirect reporting, introducing potential inaccuracies from non-native transcribers. In , Jules Gilliéron advanced the field through direct fieldwork, commissioning Edmond Edmont to interview 639 informants at predefined rural points using a 1,520-item on , , and morphology. The resulting Atlas linguistique de la France (1902–1910), comprising 30 fascicles with 1,421 maps, pioneered point-method surveys for precision in Romance dialect mapping, highlighting lexical diffusion and relic areas resistant to standardization. Gilliéron's work critiqued uniformitarian assumptions by demonstrating irregular sound changes driven by local analogies and borrowings, influencing neogrammarian debates on exceptionless laws. The early 20th century saw dialectology expand globally, with projects like Hans Kurath's Linguistic Atlas of (1939–1943) adapting European methods to , surveying 416 communities for phonological and lexical traits. Traditional dialectology, however, faced limitations for neglecting urban varieties and speaker demographics, prompting a mid-century shift toward sociolinguistic integration. William Labov's 1963 study introduced quantitative analysis of variation, correlating phonetic shifts with social identity and challenging the rural bias of prior atlases. By the late , dialectology evolved into a computationally aided subfield, incorporating dialectometry—numerical measures of linguistic distances—and perceptual studies assessing folk boundaries via surveys. Modern approaches blend geospatial modeling with corpus data, addressing mobility-induced leveling while scrutinizing traditional methods' underemphasis on contact-induced change. This progression reflects causal drivers like migration and media, prioritizing empirical validation over ideological narratives of uniformity.

Linguistic Features of Dialects

Phonological and Lexical Variations

Phonological variations in dialects manifest as differences in sound systems, including phoneme inventories, distributional rules, and phonetic realizations, often resulting from historical sound changes diverging across regions. These variations can affect intelligibility, such as through vowel mergers where distinct sounds become homophonous; for instance, the , pronouncing /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ identically as [ɑ], prevails in many North American dialects but remains absent in conservative British varieties. In , monophthongization of the /aɪ/ to [aə] or [a:] occurs in words like "time" and "ride," distinguishing it from General American. Consonant variations include processes like /r/-vocalization in non-rhotic dialects, where post-vocalic /r/ is realized as [ɹ] or dropped, as in British Received Pronunciation's rendering of "car" as [kɑː], versus rhotic American [kɑɹ]. Lexical variations entail distinct vocabulary choices or semantic shifts for equivalent concepts, shaped by local innovations, borrowings, or retentions from substrate languages. British English employs "lift" for an elevator and "boot" for a car's trunk compartment, contrasting with American "elevator" and "trunk," reflecting post-colonial divergence. Regional dialects within languages exhibit synonyms like "bubbler" in eastern versus "drinking fountain" elsewhere in the U.S. for a , or "poke" in the American South for a . Such differences often correlate with phonological ones, as in dialect continua where lexical items adapt to local phonologies, enhancing intragroup cohesion while potentially hindering inter-dialectal comprehension. Empirical studies confirm that lexical encoding strength varies by dialect familiarity, with native speakers processing local terms more efficiently.

Syntactic and Morphological Differences

Morphological differences between dialects often manifest in irregular formations, where non-standard varieties retain archaic patterns or apply analogical leveling to paradigms. For example, in many British and dialects, strong verbs like "know" form the as "knowed" through extension of weak verb -ed suffixation, rather than the standard ablaut "knew," a documented across over 15,000 tokens in the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects analyzed by Anderwald. Similarly, distinction between and past participle may collapse, with forms such as "done" serving both functions (e.g., "I done it" and "I have done it") in Southern U.S. dialects, or "seen" used interchangeably for "saw" and "have seen" in , reflecting paradigm simplification not found in standard morphology. These variations preserve pre-19th-century forms resilient to pressures, as evidenced by consistent usage in dialect corpora spanning rural and urban non-standard speech. Syntactic variations frequently involve negation and question structures, diverging from standard auxiliary inversion and polarity rules. In African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Appalachian English, negative inversion is optional or absent, yielding constructions like "Can't nobody tell you nothing" without subject-auxiliary swap, unlike standard "Nobody can tell you anything," a pattern observed in elicitation data from multiple U.S. dialects. Negative concord, where multiple negatives reinforce rather than cancel negation (e.g., "I ain't got no money"), occurs systematically in AAVE, Southern white vernaculars, and some British dialects, contrasting with standard English's logical negation and supported by distributional evidence across North American varieties. Question formation also varies, with reduced yes-no questions in AAVE omitting auxiliaries (e.g., "You want this?") and wh-questions lacking inversion (e.g., "What he want?"), features absent in mainstream American English but prevalent in informal dialect speech. Auxiliary and modal systems exhibit further dialectal divergence, including periphrastic do for emphasis in affirmatives and multiple modals. Periphrastic do persists in Creole and regional English dialects for habitual or emphatic statements (e.g., "He do work hard"), paralleling 19th-century dialect literature examples and differing from standard limited to questions and negations. Multiple modals, such as "might could" or "used to could," stack modals in Southern U.S. and Scottish varieties to express nuanced possibility or ability (e.g., "You might could try that"), prohibited in standard syntax and mapped across 12 North American dialects via surveys confirming regional embedding. Leveling in copula/be auxiliaries, like invariant "was" for plural subjects (e.g., "They was there" in Scots or AAVE), further illustrates syntactic flexibility tied to morphological underspecification in non-standard forms.

Dialect Continua and Boundaries

A comprises a chain of dialects distributed across a geographical area, where adjacent varieties exhibit minor differences and remain , yet cumulative variations render dialects at opposite ends unintelligible to one another. This gradual transition arises from limited across space, with linguistic change occurring incrementally rather than abruptly. In continua, decreases proportionally with distance, challenging binary distinctions between dialects and languages. Dialect boundaries within or at the edges of continua are often ill-defined, lacking sharp demarcations due to the fluid nature of variation. Isoglosses—geographic lines mapping the distribution of specific linguistic features such as phonological shifts, lexical items, or syntactic patterns—serve to outline zones of similarity, but single isoglosses rarely coincide to form precise borders. Bundles of converging isoglosses, however, can approximate more substantial dialect frontiers, particularly where geographical barriers like rivers or mountains impede contact. For instance, in the Continental West Germanic continuum, isoglosses cluster along the , separating influences from High German, though intelligibility persists across much of the region. Prominent examples include the dialect spanning from to , where neighboring urban and varieties share high , but extremes like Moroccan Darija and Iraqi Arabic exhibit significant divergence in , morphology, and lexicon. Similarly, the West Germanic continuum historically linked Dutch, , and High German dialects, with seamless transitions disrupted only by modern efforts. Political boundaries exacerbate divisions; the Dutch-German border, for example, has reinforced separate standard languages, fragmenting what was once a unified continuum through institutionalized and media. Such interventions impose artificial boundaries, contrasting with the organic, gradient driven by migration, , and isolation. In empirical terms, dialect continua underscore that linguistic boundaries are probabilistic rather than absolute, shaped by historical contact and divergence rates measurable via lexicostatistical methods or intelligibility testing. Where continua meet discrete boundaries, hybrid zones or transitional lects may emerge, as seen in relic areas preserving archaic features amid encroaching standardization. This dynamic highlights causal factors like reduced —analogous to —limiting feature propagation and fostering localized .

Standardization and Its Implications

Processes of Dialect Standardization

Dialect standardization involves the systematic elevation of a particular dialect variety to serve as the normative form of a , typically through institutional, educational, and technological mechanisms that promote uniformity in usage, particularly in writing and formal contexts. This process, often termed standardization, minimizes variation across dialects by prioritizing one as prestigious, often tied to political or economic centers. Empirical studies identify four primary stages, originally outlined by sociolinguist Einar Haugen in 1966: selection of a norm, codification of its features, implementation in domains like administration and education, and elaboration to expand its functional range. Selection begins with identifying a dialect variety for elevation, frequently the one spoken in a or by elites, due to its association with power and commerce; for instance, the dialect of and the southeast became the basis for by the , as it was used in the royal court and Chancery administrative documents. This choice reflects causal factors like geographical centrality and socioeconomic prestige rather than inherent linguistic superiority, with data from historical corpora showing early preference for southeastern forms in official records from the 1370s onward. Codification follows, standardizing , , and through prescriptive works; William Caxton's introduction of in in 1476 accelerated this by fixing spellings in widespread texts, while Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language in 1755 codified vocabulary for over 42,000 words, drawing from literary sources to enforce consistency. Implementation entails institutional enforcement, such as mandatory use in schools and government; France's Académie Française, established in 1635, regulated grammar and vocabulary to promote the Île-de-France dialect as standard, with policies extending to compulsory education by the 1880s under Jules Ferry laws, reducing regional dialectal variation in formal registers by over 50% in subsequent generations per sociolinguistic surveys. Elaboration expands the standard's lexicon and syntax for modern needs, like scientific or legal terminology, often via state academies or media; in Italian, post-unification efforts from 1861 codified Tuscan Florentine dialect through Manzoni's advocacy and school curricula, incorporating loanwords while suppressing southern dialect features, as evidenced by lexical convergence in national newspapers by the early 20th century. These stages are not always linear, with resistance from peripheral dialects persisting due to social inertia, but printing technology and centralized governance have historically driven acceptance rates, as seen in the 80% alignment of modern English spelling to 18th-century norms. State-driven policies often intersect with these processes, prioritizing administrative efficiency over dialectal diversity; Norway's 19th-century shift from Danish-influenced to , based on rural dialects, illustrates deliberate selection for , though it achieved only partial acceptance with dominating 85-90% of usage by 2020 per official statistics. Media and literacy campaigns further reinforce , with broadcast standards in the , such as the BBC's mandate from 1922, marginalizing regional accents in favor of southeastern norms until policy shifts in the 1970s. While effective for inter-dialectal communication, these mechanisms can causally link to dialect attrition, as quantitative analyses show a 20-30% decline in non-standard feature retention among younger speakers in standardized education systems.

Benefits of Standard Languages

Standard languages facilitate communication across geographically and socially diverse groups by minimizing phonological, lexical, and syntactic variations inherent in dialects, thereby reducing misunderstandings in interpersonal, commercial, and administrative interactions. This uniformity supports efficient governance, as seen in the codification of legal documents, bureaucratic procedures, and national media, where a shared linguistic framework ensures clarity and enforceability without the need for constant translation between variants. For instance, the selection of a prestige variety, such as Midwestern English in early 20th-century U.S. broadcasting, promoted widespread intelligibility and institutional cohesion. In , standard languages provide a consistent reference for curricula, textbooks, and assessments, enabling scalable instruction and evaluation independent of regional dialects. This structure advantages learners proficient in the standard form, who achieve higher outcomes in and , as dialectal deviations can impede decoding and standardized testing performance. Empirical studies indicate that bridging dialect use to standard forms correlates with improved early reading skills, underscoring the practical utility in formal schooling systems. Economically, mastery of a standard language enhances labor market integration and productivity by signaling competence in professional settings and enabling seamless coordination in trade and industry. Research on language skills shows that fluency in a dominant standard yields wage premiums of 10-20%, as it lowers transaction costs in diverse workforces and supports human capital development. On a societal level, standardization fosters national identity and social mobility, conferring prestige on adherents while streamlining public services and cultural dissemination.

Criticisms and Drawbacks of Standardization

Standardization of languages often establishes a that subordinates non-standard dialects, portraying them as inferior despite their equal grammatical capacity, which fosters linguistic and marginalizes speakers of regional varieties. This process, rooted in standard language ideology, influences societal attitudes by associating dialects with lower or , leading to stigma that discourages their use in formal contexts. Empirical evidence from historical cases, such as the French Revolution's promotion of Parisian French, shows how enforced accelerated the decline of regional dialects like Occitan, with speakers facing penalties for non-compliance until the 20th century. A primary drawback is the erosion of linguistic diversity, as standardized forms dominate , media, and administration, causing dialects to recede into informal domains or face . In multilingual settings, this can result in the loss of vernaculars, with UNESCO data indicating that over 40% of the world's approximately 7,000 languages are at risk of partly due to the dominance of standardized national languages. Dialect speakers, particularly from minority groups, encounter barriers in acquiring the standard, exacerbating educational inequalities; studies in creole-speaking regions like reveal that standardization efforts prioritize anonymity over authenticity, alienating communities and hindering cultural transmission. Critics argue that standardization imposes a monolithic model ill-suited to diverse speech communities, potentially stifling in expression and reinforcing power imbalances where varieties prevail. While proponents emphasize unity, the causal link between policies and dialect suppression is evident in post-colonial contexts, where imposed standards have contributed to the vitality decline of indigenous , as documented in global endangerment assessments projecting the loss of at least one monthly without reversal efforts. This underscores a trade-off wherein short-term administrative efficiency may yield long-term .

Distinction from Accent

In , an accent refers specifically to systematic variations in the of a , involving differences in , , stress patterns, intonation, and rhythm, while maintaining the core and vocabulary of the standard form. These variations typically do not impede among speakers of the same variety. For instance, the Scottish accent differs markedly from the English accent in vowel quality and rhoticity, yet both adhere to and lexicon. A dialect, by contrast, encompasses a wider array of linguistic differences, including not only pronunciation (thus incorporating accents) but also distinct vocabulary, grammatical structures, and morphological features that can sometimes reduce mutual intelligibility. Dialects emerge from historical, geographical, or social divergence within a language, often reflecting deeper cultural or regional identities. Examples include the grammatical double negatives in African American Vernacular English ("I ain't got none") or lexical items like "bainne" for milk in Irish English dialects versus standard "milk," alongside unique phonological traits. While accents are a subset of dialectal features, isolated accent differences alone—such as those acquired through migration or education—do not constitute a full dialect unless accompanied by lexical or syntactic shifts. This distinction is crucial in sociolinguistic analysis, as dialects signal broader community affiliations and historical separations, potentially affecting social perceptions of prestige or authenticity, whereas accents primarily convey speaker origin or exposure without implying systemic linguistic divergence. Misconstruing the two can lead to oversimplifications, such as equating regional alone with cultural dialectal depth, which overlooks evidence from showing that phonological variation often correlates with but does not exhaust grammatical innovation. Empirical studies of variation, such as those mapping isoglosses in dialect continua, reinforce that accents bundle within dialects but rarely define them independently.

Relation to Idiolect and Register

A dialect represents a collective variety of a language shared among speakers of a particular geographic, social, or ethnic group, whereas an constitutes the unique linguistic repertoire of an individual speaker, encompassing personal phonological, lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic features that deviate from communal norms. Idiolects within a single dialect exhibit convergence on core dialectal markers—such as regional vocabulary or phonetic shifts—due to shared exposure during , but diverge through idiosyncratic habits like habitual word choices or intonation patterns acquired over a lifetime. Empirical studies of speech corpora confirm that idiolectal variation persists even among monolingual speakers of the same dialect, with leveraging these differences for speaker identification, as individual acoustic signatures and syntactic preferences remain stable across recordings spanning years. The relation between dialect and idiolect underscores a hierarchical structure: dialects form the meso-level aggregation of s, where arises from overlapping idiolectal features reinforced by social interaction, yet no two idiolects are identical, reflecting cumulative personal experiences like migration or occupational . For instance, in quantitative analyses of large corpora, idiolects of dialect speakers show 70-90% overlap in lexical and grammatical usage with the broader dialect, with the remainder attributable to individual factors such as age or education. Registers, by contrast, denote situational varieties of selected based on , including formality, , and purpose—such as formal writing versus casual —independent of the underlying dialect. Dialect speakers command multiple registers within their , adapting dialectal elements to situational demands; for example, a dialect speaker might elevate register in professional settings by reducing dialect-specific contractions while retaining phonological traits like rhoticity. This allows registers to overlay dialects without altering core group identity, though dialectal substrates can influence register-specific forms, as seen in how regional dialects embed distinct strategies in high-register speech. Sociolinguistic research distinguishes registers as user-independent adaptations to communicative function, unlike dialects tied to speaker communities, enabling between registers without dialect shift.

Causal Factors in Dialect Formation

Geographical Isolation and Migration

Geographical isolation reduces inter-community linguistic contact, permitting dialects to evolve independently through processes like phonetic drift and lexical replacement without external leveling influences. Studies of demonstrate that such isolation accelerates word loss and semantic shifts, with isolated varieties exhibiting up to 20% higher rates of lexical change compared to connected ones over comparable periods. Physical barriers, including mountain ranges and large waterways, exacerbate this by limiting mobility and ; for instance, the have preserved archaic features in , diverging from surrounding Midland dialects since the 18th-century settlements. Similarly, river systems like the align with isoglosses separating Northern and Southern U.S. dialects, where upstream isolation fostered distinct vowel shifts absent in downstream areas. Migration initiates dialect formation by relocating speaker groups to new environments, often resulting in founder effects where small, heterogeneous inputs undergo koineization—mutual accommodation yielding hybrid varieties. In isolated settler communities, such as those on remote islands, initial leveling among migrant dialects gives way to rapid stabilization and unique innovations due to and minimal external input; the English dialect, formed from 19th-century British nautical migrants, exemplifies this with stabilized features like non-rhoticity and syllable-timed rhythm distinct from parent varieties by the 20th century. Large-scale migrations can also seed regional dialects through chain migrations preserving source features amid partial assimilation, as observed in the Inland North dialect of , which emerged from 19th-century European inflows to industrial centers, incorporating nasalized vowels via contact isolation from Southern influences. These dynamics underscore how migration, followed by settlement in geographically bounded areas, amplifies divergence rather than convergence when contact with origins lapses.

Social and Economic Influences

Social structures profoundly influence dialect formation through the emergence of sociolects, varieties correlated with socioeconomic class, occupation, and ethnicity. William Labov's 1966 study of speech revealed systematic variation in the pronunciation of postvocalic /r/, with higher social strata exhibiting greater rhoticity in formal contexts, while lower-middle-class speakers showed patterns, underscoring how prestige norms drive linguistic differentiation along class lines. Such patterns arise because dialects function as identity markers within social networks; dense, multiplex ties in working-class communities reinforce non-standard features, limiting exposure to external varieties and preserving distinct sociolects. Economic dynamics further shape dialects by prompting migration and contact that either entrench or erode variations. Labor mobility during industrialization, for instance, concentrated diverse rural speakers in urban hubs, fostering koineization—simplified dialects blending source varieties—as seen in 19th-century British mill towns where northern rural forms mixed into emerging urban speech. Empirical analyses confirm that regions with higher exhibit reduced dialect divergence; in , prefecture-level data from 2000–2019 show dialect diversity inversely correlating with , as intensified trade and firm interactions diminish communication barriers through convergence. These influences interact causally: economic opportunities elevate prestige dialects among aspirational groups, accelerating shifts, while entrenched sustains conservative forms in isolated enclaves. Cross-regional studies indicate that dialect similarity historically boosts migration by 10–20% in economically linked areas, implying that prior economic ties precondition linguistic alignment, which in turn facilitates further exchange. Thus, dialects reflect not merely isolation but adaptive responses to stratified social and market pressures.

Language Contact and Borrowing

Language contact, involving sustained interaction between speakers of a primary dialect and those of another or distant variety, frequently drives borrowing that shapes dialectal features. This process is asymmetrical, with borrowings more likely from languages associated with higher social prestige, economic dominance, or demographic weight, as evidenced by quantitative analyses of contact intensity across diverse linguistic contexts. Lexical items are borrowed to denote concepts absent or underrepresented in the recipient dialect, such as innovations in , administration, or local , with adaptation to the dialect's phonological norms to ensure integrability. In specific cases, such as the spoken by Russian Germans in the Kirov region since the 18th-century German settlements, contact with Russian led to lexical borrowings exceeding 200 documented terms, primarily nouns for bureaucratic and agrarian referents (e.g., Russian sovkhoz adapted as farm collectives), reflecting assimilation under tsarist and Soviet policies without full replacement. Similarly, in Igikuria dialects of , English contact from British colonial rule (1895–1963) introduced over 150 nominal borrowings for modern goods and institutions, like skulu for , integrated via phonetic nativization and often retaining original semantics. These examples illustrate how borrowing fills pragmatic gaps, with retention rates higher for culturally salient items. Phonological influences from contact include the diffusion of sounds or prosodic patterns, as in dialects where Berber or Sub-Saharan substrates introduced pharyngealized consonants or tone-like features in varieties, altering inherited Semitic phonologies through convergence in multilingual trading hubs. Syntactic borrowing, though less common due to core grammar resistance, appears in calques or partial restructuring; for instance, in Hessian German dialects, prolonged Romance-Germanic contact in the yielded hybrid clause structures, such as verb-second adaptations influenced by neighboring French, quantifiable in dialect atlases showing 15–20% syntactic divergence from standard High German. Overall, such transfers enhance dialect adaptability but risk erosion of native structures if contact intensifies asymmetrically.

Illustrative Examples

European Dialect Continua

European dialect continua represent areas where speech varieties transition gradually across geographical space, with adjacent dialects exhibiting high mutual intelligibility while distant ones diverge significantly. In pre-standardization eras, such continua spanned linguistic boundaries now marked by national standards, illustrating how dialects formed interconnected chains rather than discrete languages. The continental West Germanic dialect continuum exemplifies this phenomenon, encompassing territories of modern Germany, Austria, German-speaking Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, and parts of France and Italy. It includes dialects transitioning from Low Franconian (Dutch and Flemish) through Low German to High German varieties, with isoglosses like the Uerdingen Line separating /y/ from /iː/ pronunciations. This continuum persisted into the 20th century despite standardization efforts, as rural dialects maintained gradual shifts; for instance, East Bergish dialects bridge Dutch and German features. In the North Germanic domain, dialects across , and Sweden form a classic continuum, rooted in divergence around the 8th-9th centuries. Adjacent varieties, such as those in and southwestern , remain mutually intelligible, while extremes like standard Danish and Swedish show asymmetries in comprehension—Swedes often understand Danish better than vice versa due to phonological differences. Norwegian and varieties further link eastern and western Scandinavian forms, preserving continuum traits amid national standards adopted in the 19th-20th centuries. Romance dialect continua in , particularly in southern regions, demonstrate similar gradual variation, with local varieties crossing modern borders from through , , and into the . For example, Occitan dialects bridge French and Catalan, while Italo-Dalmatian forms shade from Lombard to Venetian toward Slovenian contacts, though interrupted by non-Romance substrates like Germanic in the north. since the 19th century has eroded these links, yet rural pockets retain pre-national fluidity, as seen in Franco-Provençal's position between Oïl and Occitan groups. These continua highlight geography's role in fostering incremental linguistic divergence, with political unification accelerating dialect leveling.

Arabic and Semitic Dialects

Arabic dialects, spoken by over 400 million people across the Middle East and North Africa, exemplify a dialect continuum within the Semitic language family, characterized by gradual phonetic, morphological, and lexical shifts that render distant varieties mutually unintelligible without exposure or formal training. These varieties evolved from Common Arabic following the 7th-century Islamic conquests, which spread the language into diverse substrate environments, leading to substrate influences like Berber in Maghrebi dialects and Aramaic in Mesopotamian ones. Classification typically divides them into five to seven regional groups: Peninsular (e.g., Gulf and Najdi), Levantine (Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian), Egyptian (including Sudanese variants), Maghrebi (Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian), and Mesopotamian (Iraqi, Khuzestani), with subvarieties reflecting urban-rural divides and bedouin-sedentary distinctions. Mutual intelligibility decreases with geographical distance; for instance, speakers of Moroccan Arabic comprehend less than 20% of Iraqi Arabic utterances in controlled tests, while Levantine and Egyptian varieties show higher comprehension rates due to media exposure. This continuum persists despite the overlay of (MSA), used in , media, and writing, creating a diglossic situation where colloquial dialects handle everyday communication and MSA formal domains, though dialects increasingly infiltrate informal written forms via . Phonological innovations illustrate divergence: Maghrebi dialects often merge emphatic consonants and exhibit French integration from colonial periods (e.g., 1830–1962 in ), while Gulf dialects retain conservative features like the preservation of classical qaf as /g/. Lexical borrowing varies regionally; incorporates Turkish and Persian terms from Ottoman rule (1516–1918), and Egyptian dialects feature Coptic remnants alongside heavy English and French influences post-19th-century modernization. Empirical studies using acoustic analysis confirm rhythmic and intonational gradients across the continuum, with faster speech rates and vowel reductions in eastern varieties correlating with aridity and nomadic histories. Beyond Arabic, other Semitic languages exhibit dialectal variation shaped by isolation and contact, though on a smaller scale. Neo-Aramaic dialects, spoken by fewer than 500,000 primarily in , , and communities, form clusters like Northeastern (Assyrian, Chaldean) and Northwestern (Turoyo, Mandaic), with limited by Kurdish and Turkish substrates; for example, Hertevin differs from Bohtan Neo-Aramaic in verb morphology due to 19th-century migrations. In Ethiopian Semitic branches, dialects vary across provinces with Gurage influences, featuring tonal distinctions absent in North Semitic, while Tigrinya shows Axumite-era splits into highland and lowland forms, with intelligibility dropping below 70% between Eritrean and Ethiopian variants due to 1993 border divisions. These patterns underscore how Semitic dialect formation mirrors causal factors like conquest-driven dispersals and ecological barriers, contrasting with Arabic's broader continuum enabled by shared religious literacy in MSA.

Asian Dialect Complexes

In , the , commonly referred to as Chinese dialects, form one of the most extensive dialect complexes, encompassing varieties spoken by over 1.3 billion people across and diaspora communities. These include major groups such as Mandarin (northern varieties), Wu (e.g., ), Yue (e.g., ), Min (e.g., ), Xiang, Gan, and Hakka, with linguists estimating between seven and ten primary branches, each containing numerous subdialects that can number in the hundreds overall. Despite shared writing systems and historical ties to , mutual intelligibility between non-adjacent varieties is often negligible; for instance, a monolingual speaker and a monolingual Mandarin speaker exhibit zero spoken comprehension without prior exposure. Experimental tests confirm asymmetric and low intelligibility rates across branches, with phonological differences (e.g., tone systems varying from four in Mandarin to six or more in ) and lexical divergence exceeding 30-50% in many cases, leading dialectologists like Jerry Norman to classify hundreds of these as mutually unintelligible languages forming a loose continuum only within subgroups. This classification persists politically as "dialects" to emphasize national unity, though structural divergence—rooted in substrate influences from non-Sinitic languages and regional isolation—mirrors the ' spread from Latin. In , the of the constitute another prominent dialect complex, particularly the Central Indo-Aryan varieties in the , spanning northern and . This continuum includes transitional forms such as , Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Magahi, , and Rajasthani, spoken by over 500 million people, where adjacent varieties exhibit high (often >80%) but distant ones drop below 50%, creating a chain-like gradient influenced by geography and migration. Historical descent from Middle Prakrits, combined with and Perso-Arabic loanwords, fosters gradual shifts in (e.g., retroflex consonants) and syntax, with no sharp boundaries; for example, rural dialects around blend into Haryanvi and further into Punjabi-influenced forms. Computational analyses of sets across 26 such varieties reveal clustering patterns that model this continuum empirically, highlighting how efforts (e.g., promoting as a link ) disrupt natural leveling while urban mobility reinforces hybrid forms. Unlike the Sinitic complex, intelligibility here aligns more closely with a classic dialect chain, though political incentives often reframe peripheral varieties (e.g., Maithili) as distinct s to accommodate ethnic identities. Southeast Asian complexes, such as the , exemplify maritime and trade-driven divergence across island chains. Varieties from Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), (Bahasa Malaysia), and form a prestige dialect cluster derived from Classical Malay, with core around 80-90% but fading to 60% or less in peripheral forms like those in eastern or the (e.g., Tausug influences). Austronesian substrates and colonial (Dutch, British) have standardized urban registers, yet rural isolates retain archaic features from pre-15th-century trade routes. In , areal features like monosyllabism and link Tai-Kadai, Mon-Khmer, and Vietic varieties into a rather than strict continua, with Thai and Lao showing 70-85% lexical overlap but phonological barriers reducing comprehension. These complexes underscore Asia's linguistic diversity, where isolation by mountains, rivers, and seas—coupled with empire-building—has produced mosaics of partial intelligibility, often quantified through asymmetric testing that favors urban standards.

Modern Challenges and Developments

Dialect Levelling Under Globalization

Dialect levelling under globalization manifests as the progressive reduction in linguistic differences between regional dialects, often converging toward supralocal or standardized forms, driven primarily by heightened geographical mobility, dissemination, and socioeconomic integration that facilitate dialect contact. This process operates on two dimensions: cross-dialectal homogenization, where adjacent varieties align, and convergence with prestige standards, though the former can proceed independently of the latter. Empirical analyses attribute since the mid-20th century to factors like postwar industrialization and , which spurred migration and eroded isolation, alongside uniform norms. In causal terms, repeated exposure to external variants during mobility weakens local marked features, favoring unmarked or salient alternatives via accommodation mechanisms observed in contact . Quantitative evidence from dialects, analyzed via the Linguistic Mobility Index (LMI)—a metric aggregating lifetime exposure to dialectal variation weighted by intensity and relational ties—demonstrates that higher mobility predicts greater , with statistical models showing significant effects (z = 5.9714, p < 0.001). For instance, in a corpus of 500 speakers across 125 localities, younger cohorts (aged 20–35) exhibited 47.03% dialect change rates compared to 30.8% in those over 65, particularly in lexical items like terms for "" (72.8% shift) and "butterfly" (48.4% shift), aligning rural varieties with urban norms. Similar patterns emerge in urban , where salience-driven reduces phonetic distinctions through migration-fueled contact, and in the Dutch-German border region of Limburg, where 19th-century coalmining prompted cross-dialectal convergence in features like γ'-weakening, independent of Standard Dutch influence in 4 of 14 cases examined. While intensifies —evident in Pittsburgh's erosion of localisms toward regional standards amid outbound migration—complete homogenization remains limited, as localized adaptations of global variants () sustain differentiation, such as identity-linked retention of Pittsburghese markers. Studies caution against overemphasizing uniformity, noting that economic pressures for neutral accents in global sectors (e.g., call centers) coexist with resistance via dialect revival, as in Catalan contexts where standardization efforts yield partial convergence but preserve symbolic variation. Overall, correlates with reduced linguistic diversity, with projections indicating few minority varieties will endure into the 22nd century under sustained global pressures, though empirical variability underscores context-specific trajectories rather than deterministic erasure.

Emergence of New Varieties

New dialect varieties emerge primarily through processes of dialect contact and koineization, where speakers of mutually intelligible but distinct dialects migrate to shared urban or settlement areas, leading to linguistic mixing, leveling of redundant features, and the innovation of novel forms by younger generations. This phenomenon, termed new-dialect formation, follows predictable stages: initial accommodation and variability in adult speakers, followed by simplification and reallocation of surviving variants into new sociolinguistic functions, with children acting as key agents in stabilizing the emergent variety. Empirical studies, such as those on colonial Englishes and modern planned communities, demonstrate that social networks and demographic shifts, rather than deliberate planning, drive these outcomes, often resulting in simplified grammars and phonologies that diverge from input dialects. In contemporary settings, rapid and have accelerated this formation, particularly in developing regions where rural dialects converge in expanding cities. For instance, the Amman Arabic dialect arose in the from an influx of Palestinian, Transjordanian, and Syrian rural speakers into the previously small town of , which grew from 30,000 residents in 1920 to over 1 million by 1980; this contact produced a new urban vernacular blending Levantine features with innovations like simplified case endings and unique vowel shifts, distinct from parent rural varieties. Similarly, in planned new towns like , (established 1967 with migrants from diverse regions), koineization yielded a leveled dialect by the , incorporating southeastern English prestige forms while retaining some northern phonological traits, as evidenced by longitudinal sociolinguistic surveys tracking children's speech acquisition. Global migration patterns have also fostered hybrid varieties in diaspora contexts, countering expectations of homogenization. In the American South, Hispanic English emerged post-1990s from Spanish-English bilingual contact among Mexican and Central American migrants, featuring innovations like monophthongized diphthongs (e.g., /aɪ/ as /a/) and substrate-influenced syntax, documented in communities from to Georgia where over 10 million Spanish speakers settled by 2010, creating stable adolescent norms divergent from both standard American English and local Anglo dialects. In , Multicultural London English (MLE), observed since the 2000s, integrates Caribbean, African, and South Asian influences into inner-city youth speech, with features such as non-rhoticity, (/θ/ to /f/), and multicultural , arising from high-immigration boroughs where non-native English speakers comprised 40-60% of schoolchildren by 2011; acoustic analyses confirm its rapid stabilization among second-generation speakers. These cases illustrate that while promotes contact, it paradoxically generates novelty through demographic churn, with empirical data from corpus studies underscoring the role of peer-group accommodation over adult prestige norms.

Technological Advances in Dialect Study

The integration of computational tools since the late has transformed by enabling efficient handling and analysis of large linguistic datasets, shifting from manual surveys to quantitative dialectometry that measures aggregate linguistic distances across varieties. This approach operationalizes spatial and structural variation through algorithms that aggregate phonetic, lexical, and syntactic differences, revealing patterns invisible in traditional mapping. Dialectometry, formalized in the and refined with modern computing, uses string similarity metrics like to quantify dialect divergence, as demonstrated in European studies where edit distances correlate with geographic separation. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have further advanced dialect mapping by overlaying linguistic data on spatial layers, facilitating the visualization of dialect continua and boundaries. In a 2009 study of dialects, GIS models integrated survey responses with topographic variables to predict feature distributions, producing probabilistic maps that account for settlement patterns and migration routes. Similarly, GIS-based analyses of Southern U.S. spoken features in 2020 revealed spatial gradients in shifts, correlating acoustic data with socioeconomic demographics for causal insights into dialect spread. These tools enable dynamic querying of multilayered data, such as combining perceptual surveys with georeferenced audio, to test hypotheses about isolation and contact effects. Machine learning, particularly deep neural networks, has enabled automated dialect identification from speech and text, addressing challenges in low-resource varieties through from standard languages. A 2023 parameter-efficient approach using pre-trained transformers achieved high accuracy in Arabic dialect with limited data, by fine-tuning on tweet corpora spanning 18 regions and leveraging embeddings for phonological cues. Self-supervised representations from unlabeled audio, as in 2024 models, extract dialectal features without extensive annotation, outperforming supervised baselines in identifying subtle variations like those in . In diachronic studies, computational models track change over time and space, using on historical corpora to model diasystems in dialect continua. Specialized acoustic software supports fine-grained phonetic analysis essential for dialectal prosody and systems. Tools like , widely used since the 1990s, allow spectrographic visualization and tracking to quantify regional accents, such as rhoticity gradients in English dialects. Integrated platforms combining with GIS, developed in environments by 2019, process dialect recordings for of speaker similarities, aiding in boundary detection via acoustic distances. These advances, grounded in empirical , reveal causal mechanisms like substrate influence, though they require validation against fieldwork to counter biases in training data from urban-centric sources.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.