Accent or Dialect?

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

dduck
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:11 pm
Contact:

Post by dduck » Sat Aug 23, 2003 6:30 pm

I wasn't taking issue with Stephen's remark about "mutual comprehensibility"; he continues...
Stephen Jones wrote:I can understand Scots and Scots speakers can understand BBC English, so they are separate dialects, not separate languages.
I have a background in Science, so Stephen's statistical poll of one person, which he uses as the basis for his conclusion, still seems ridiculous to me. You're right it is harsh, but deservedly so in my opinion - no offence intended.

Furthermore, I've also met Spanish speakers who were able to communicate with Portuguese speakers, and I've heard that Spanish and Italian speakers can communicate too. Now, I have concerns about this "mutual comprehensibility" definition. But I'm prepared to keep and open mind and hear more.

Iain

Roger
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:58 am

Post by Roger » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:55 am

This is a slippery road, and we all may need to seek cover from flying flak. The reason is, to put it drastically, that linguistics is not rocket science. The definitions are unsteady handles. The differences between 'language' and 'dialect' are in constant flux.
I think, the only common ground we have is agrement on what constitutes 'accent' and what is 'language' or 'dialect'. Accent, we have agreed, is what you can hear in someone's oral production.
I would agree that some 'languages' such as Spanish and Italian, are mutually intelligible if spoken with extra care. I can read and understand spoken Italian, and I know Spaniards that claim to understand spoken Italian; since I also speak French, I can easily read Spanish, but I can't understand oral Spanish due to its different pronunciation and accent. Note that the grammar of Italian, French and Spanish have a lot in common; if you know the rules for their different spellings and verb conjugations, you can probably read any one of them although the vocabularies do differ somewhat.
Stephen said in another post he is proficient at Spanish and/or some other Spanish 'language'. For him, and for Barcelona natives, Catalan IS a 'language', for native Spanish speakers, it may be a 'dialect'. There cetainly is mututal intelligibility. We can guess why the central authorities in Spain do not like to see Catalan raised to the status of a full-fledged 'language'. Same scenario in China. Here, the written form is almost identical anywhere you go, local vernaculars only adding some local specialties that outsiders do not always understand. Far greater differences appear between the official mainland variety and the Taiwanese and Hong Kong varieties because the mainland variety has been the subject of special GOvernment attention which resulted in a simplified product that's called 'common Chinese'. Mainlanders learning Hong Kong-Cantonese face problems similar to foreigners learning Chinese - it is a different variety that's derived from the common Chinese variety.

Maybe the term 'dialect' is unscientific; in anglophone countries, linguists tend to blur the line between it and language, whereas in in other Western countries, the term 'dialect' is routinely defined as a subvariety of a language. Perhaps the spread of English being wider in geographical scope may help blur the line; French and German are easier to categorise as standard or national languages, and dialects are easier to identify in these language communities.

lolwhites
Posts: 1321
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Post by lolwhites » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:37 pm

I've been away for a while but it was good to see how the debate developed. I agree my definition of dialect was loose, but there's no easy way out of that. Even "Standard" English speakers are speaking a dialect and RP hasn't been spoken on the BBC since the 60's. My "good" (according to my students) English still contains "nonstandard" features depending on whom I'm talking to. As regards what constitutes a "language", the criteria tend to be political rather than linguistic. The Chinese example has been cited; conversely, Swedish, Norweigan and Danish are mutually intelligible yet they are considered different languages. It seems that for something to be considered a language requires some cohesive cultural community (often a country). I'm glad noone went down the path of considering "dialects" as some "deviation" from a "norm". Historically, languages evolve until someone in authority decides which dialect constitutes the "standard"; coincidentally, this is often the dialect spoken by said people in authority! Hmmm....

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:01 pm

Well, I, for one, am impressed by the authority with which some of you speak on this issue. You're clearly beyond my level of expertise here. Where I end up is that the dividing line between language and dialect is often quite fuzzy. Moreover, it may be the political authorities rather than the linguistic authorities who apply the labels. Accent is a little easier to grip. One may speak either a language or a dialect with an accent.

Is that about right?

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Tue Aug 26, 2003 5:43 am

If Scots were a different language, then we would have English translations of Burns and Macdiarmid, like we have English translations of Victor Hugo and Goethe.

Are you telling me all Scots speakers understand Glaswegian. I suspect there are plenty of people in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen who appreciate sub-titles when listening to Billy Connolly or Rab C Nesbitt. And they probably find the "English" sub-titles easier to understand than the "Scots" original.

I find it easy to understand "Scots" speakers from Edinburgh and impossible to understand "English" Geordies. I suspect most "English" speakers are in the same situation.

It might be easier if you explained what you are proposing. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots is a different language from English, in the same way say German or Gaelic is? Plenty of people would like descriptive linguistics to follow their political agendas (Webster even hoped that "American" would, with his help, become a separate language from English).

You could argue that Spanish, Portuguese, French and Romanian are all dialects of a language called Romance. That theory was given up some hundreds of years ago however. With regard to Spanish and Portuguese, or Spanish and Italians understanding each other, the answer is only partially. I lived in Spain for fifteen years and knew many Portuguese; the possiblities for misunderstanding where endless. Again, a useful guide is to look at translations. Portuguese and Italian books are routinely translated into Spanish and vice-versa. You don't get Garcia Marquez translated from Colombian Spanish into Valladoilid Spanish, or vice-versa. (Incidentally Galician and Portuguese are dialects of the same language, which is why Rosalia do Castro is not translated into Portuguese, and I suspect some of the Spaniards you know who speak Portuguese are in fact Galicians).

Possibly my point about German and Dutch was not clear. When speaking of German one considers "High German", which is the register or supra-dialect used by Germans from different parts of Germany to speak to each other, and "Low German", which is the combination of different dialects which people spoke at home and within their own language group. Now Dutch was not significantly different from other versions of Low German, and you had a continuum of dialects (as indeed you had a continuum of dialects from Valencia up until the North of Provence). Now the nation state caused an artificial split in this continuum of dialects, and as more and more people (because of geographical mobility, intermingling, education and the effect of radio and television) began to take High German as their natural dialect instead of Low German, than a clear dichotomy between Dutch and German arose where there was none before.

The differences between dialects and languages are fuzzy, but if two speakers can carry out a reasonable conversation each using his own speech type (as is true of Valencians and Catalans) , then they are obviously speaking the same language, and if they can scarcely understand each other at all, as appears to be true of speakers of different "dialects" of "Chinese". then it is equally clear that they are speaking different languages.

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:32 am

I think "fuzzy" is an ideal term for how to describe distinctions between languages and dialects.

Hindi - Urdu, Flemish - Dutch, Serbian-Croatian : languages that are mutually comprehensible which we don't call "dialects of the same language" for political, ethnic or religious reasons. Sometimes we distinguish them from each other because they each use a different writing system.

Wu - Cantonese - Min - Hsiang - Hakka - Mandarin : languages that we call "dialects of Chinese" because they share the same written system and are found in the same country, even though they're not mutually comprehensible.

Arabic : a language spoken in many different countries from Lebanon to Morocco to Yemen, but the regional "dialects" aren't mutually comprehensible. A Saudi Arabian speaking his mother tongue to a Moroccan will not be able to comprehend most of what is said. "Modern Standard Arabic" becomes the lingua franca.

With all these monumental examples (some already mentioned previously) it's hard to come to a definition of "language" and "dialect" that matches ALL sociolinguistic situations. Until then, the "mutually comprehension" concept satisfies most of us because nothing better can really be found as of yet.

dduck
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:11 pm
Contact:

Post by dduck » Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:35 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:If Scots were a different language, then we would have English translations of Burns and Macdiarmid, like we have English translations of Victor Hugo and Goethe.
Burns Country wrote:This official site has a family tree feature where you can check if you are a descendant of the famous Bard. There are links to a discussion board, where you can post messages for other Burns enthusiasts, and an online version of The Burns Encyclopaedia - a reference guide to his life and works. There is also a translation facility, Burns in English: 'The Best of Robert Burns, translated into the de'il's tongue!' The official site also has a Complete Works of Robert Burns.
MacDiarmid used dialect words, many of them obscure and discovered in Jamieson's Dictionary of the Scottish Language, to create a poetic language which came to be known by the forties as Lallans (this term, meaning Lowland Scots, already existed, having been used by Burns to describe his own poetic language)
Are you telling me all Scots speakers understand Glaswegian. I suspect there are plenty of people in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen who appreciate sub-titles when listening to Billy Connolly or Rab C Nesbitt. And they probably find the "English" sub-titles easier to understand than the "Scots" original.
Of course all Scots can understand Glaswegians, it's not like it's another country. As I said before subtitles were added for the benefit of English people. Scottish made programmes are typically aired on BBC Scotland, Grampian or STV before they cross the border.
I find it easy to understand "Scots" speakers from Edinburgh and impossible to understand "English" Geordies. I suspect most "English" speakers are in the same situation.
When I did my teacher training in Edinburgh the students said that they could communicate with the locals, but when the locals spoke amongst themselves the students could hardly follow a word. There are a number of possible reasons, one being that the locals answered the foreign student in English, and then reverted to their mother tongue, Scots, when talking to each other. Just because you can understand someone doesn't mean they only speak English.
It might be easier if you explained what you are proposing. Are you seriously suggesting that Scots is a different language from English, in the same way say German or Gaelic is?
Yes. The are similarities between German and Scots and Scots and Dutch that don't exist between Scots and English. Gaelic is completely unrelated to German, Dutch, English, or Scots.
Possibly my point about German and Dutch was not clear. When speaking of German one considers "High German", which is the register or supra-dialect used by Germans from different parts of Germany to speak to each other, and "Low German", which is the combination of different dialects which people spoke at home and within their own language group.
As I understood it High German was spoken by the Germans in the South near the mountains, and Low German by the northerns who lived in the lowlands.
The differences between dialects and languages are fuzzy, but if two speakers can carry out a reasonable conversation each using his own speech type (as is true of Valencians and Catalans) , then they are obviously speaking the same language, ...
There is a famous story (in Scotland at least) where during World War I, around Christmas the soldiers in the trench climbed out and celebrated by playing a game of football. At that time the Scots could converse with the Germans because the two languages are similar enough.

Iain

Roger
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:58 am

Post by Roger » Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:15 am

Here is a rough categorisation of languages and dialects we have been discussing:

- English: National accents and dialects (American English: Spelling
differences; vocabulary differences; pronunciation differing
locally); a variety of English as it and other Englishes are
almost perfectly mutually intellitgible.
2) Australian English: MIxed British/American spelling; local
pronunciation; admixture of home-grown vocabulary
(boomerang, kangaroo, etc.);
3) South African English: British English dominates; admixture
of vocabulary from Afrikaans (haartebeest, bok,
highveld) and African languages);
4) Singaporean English: British English, heavily accented and
modified by locals (Chinese ending -la added to verbs, many
admixtures from Asian languages); variety is called
'Singlish', and widely held to be substandard;
5) There are many other varieties, national, regional,
dialectal, impssible to enumerate and quantify.
They all share the same basis, but have some local features
- Canadian, New Zealand, etc. English.
Scottish and Irish English: Heavily accented variants.
FOR LEARNERS OF ENGLISH FROM OUTSIDE THE ANGLOPHONE
WORLD, BRITISH AND AMERICAN ENGLISH ARE THE TWO
REFERENCE MODEL LANGUAGE SYSTEMS.
Romance languages: For histori8c reasons, there are 'languages'
such as
1) FRENCH: natively spoken by French, Belgians, Quebeckers,
Swiss, Monegassses (Monte Carlo), Andorreans.
There is but one authoritiy that acts as a kind of "police",
and that's French-based Academie francaise. Although
pronunciation differs somewhat between the various
national variants, they are all mutually intelligible as
they are written and spoken in an almost identical way.
Vocabularies differ but slightly. One example is the
numbers: Standard French has 70 (soixante-dix,
literally 'sixty-and-ten', 4 20, or 'quatre vingt for 80 ),
4 20 10, that is, quatre vingt et dix, for ninety), whereas
some dialects use septante (70), ottante (80) and
nonante (ninety);
2) Spanish: National language in SPain and Ibero-America;
many dialects mutually intelligible; some have their own
written tradition but are intelligible and comprehensible
to standard Spanish speakers and even to speakers
of other Romance national languages;
Some variants, such as Catalan, have developed
their own writing traditions and are considered separate
languages.
3) Portuguese: Written form decypherable for speakers
of other Romance languages, especially Spanish; Bra-
zilian Portuguese is now dominant.
4) Italian: One standard (written) form, fragmented into
dozens upon dozens of highly differentiated local
dialects not readily intelligible to the untrained ear;
the standard Italian (in writing) is national norm in
Italy, Switzerland.
German: There is but one standard form, administered by the German Culture Foundation, or Goethe Institut. It is the national and official language in the united Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and it is spoken by minorities in France (Alsace), and Italy (South Tyrolia), Belgium (an area adjacent to the border with Germany); it also is widely spoken in Eastern Europe by German settlers that moved there 400 to 300 years ago.
There are many dialects, usually mutually intelligible but without writing traditions. The Eastern European Germans (including tens of thousands living in Kazakhstan) adhere to so-called 'High German'. "Low German" refers to dialects spoken in the "lower" (downriver on the river Rhine) varieties, including Dutch, Friesian etc., but these are unintelligible to 'HIgh German" speakers. Only Dutch has developed its own written standards, and it has further split up into Afrikaans and Flemish.
There are some interesting variants such as Pensylvania Dutch ('Dutch' being the corrupted form of the German word for "German', which is a dialect preserved in a very old form and thus unintelligible to speakers of any other German dialect, and Yiddish. Yiddish is a German dialect with many loanwords from other languages such as Gypsie dialects and Hebrew, and it is written in Hebrew characters.
Chinese: Chinese has at least three standard forms of writing, namely
the mainland 'Common Language", or Putonghua form using
simplified characters and a language simplified by central
government fiat. It is more prosaic, almost rustic in comparison
with the more traditional CHinese as still used in the Chinese
diaspora and in Taiwan.
Taiwan uses virtually the same vocabulary but has not simplified
it. It also uses the old, or standard (not simplified) characters.
For day-to-day things, people on both sides of the Taiwan
Strait use virtually the same oral Chinese, but in more com-
plicated situations you become aware of differences that
have been brought about by different political powers.
The Overseas Chinese are native speakers of dialects
spoken in their ancestral coastal home places, normally
Fujian and Guangdong; the pronunciation and vocabulary
differences set them apart from speakers of other dialects.
They would also use the old Chinese characteers in writing.
In China, local dialects are so numerous it is impossible to
give a rundown here. CLearly, speakers of dialects have one
common feature - they are often illiterate (also true of Italian
dialect speakers), and they tend to have communication
problems in social intercourse with speakers of other
Chinese dialects.
FOr instance, the very common name of WANG (Mandarin,
that is 'PUtonghua'), becomes 'Wong' in Cantonese, and
'Wee' in Fujianese (*beep*).
ALso, note differences in place-names: 'Amoy' (local dialect)
and 'Xiamen' (Mandarin); Heunggong (Hong Kong) and 'Xiang-
gang' in Mandarin).
However, the script unites most Chinese, and it even unites them with speakers of Korean (place-names in Korea are in Chinese script!) and in Japan!

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:09 am

Very impressive, Roger! 8) I certainly could not have done that.

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:16 am

Dear Roger,
You have completely missed out Indian English, which is much more impprtant than Singaporean English, and probably has as many speakers as Australian or South African English. There are certain aspects of vocabulary (such as counting in lakhs or crores) that are a definite fixture of the language, and at a colloquial level the use of "no" instead of tag questions, and the use of words such as "bugger" is almost universal. To what extent features such as the missing out of articles are to be considered part of the dialect's grammar, or simply errors caused by interference from other languages is another matter.

Also Catalan is not a variant of Spanish. It existed earlier than Spanish, which is the result of a push from the North West through the centre of Spain, causing the two disticnctive features of a very guttural pronucuncaiton, coming from areas near the Basque region where the Reconquista set out from , and a large amount of Arabic lexis. Basicaly the Reconquista drove a linguistic wedge between what was a gentle contimuum in dialect variation. Incidentally the first scientific book to be wiitten in a Romance language, as opposed to Latin, was written in Catalan by the Mallorquin Ramon Llull in 1256. And Catalan has its own dialect variations, and a collection of political extremists, called blaveros, who try and pretend that Valencian is a separate language from Catalan even though you would be hard pushed to tell which variant a text is written in.

Also dealing with Portuguese, you forgot to mentiion Gallego, which is a dialect of Portuguese, although for political reasons again there are Spanish nationalists who prefer to claim it is a separate language.

With French you have forgotten the linguistic genocide against Occidental which started with the French Revolution; many of the dialects of the Midi are in fact the result of the fact that the native language of the area was not French but Occidental.

With Spanish you have failed to mention the fact that each country has its own Language Academy, and although the Spanish one is considered primus entre pares, each country has its own authority.

Roger
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:58 am

Post by Roger » Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:51 pm

Thanks, Stephen, for your gentle mise au point, which you delivered with accustomed erudtion and fact-based knowledge. I am sorry for my ignorant treating of the Catalan language.
I knew from the outset that I would be guilty of many important oversights. The Indian English is but one major one, which no one should ignore. There are many others - Nigerian English, to mention but one that has produced world-class literati.
I did not deal with the Slav languages, as I am not familiar with ano one of them. Arabic is another family of dialects of which I know that they are widely differing from each other but can be read by any Arabic reader.
I hope the original poster now sees a clearing in the forest of dialects, sociolects, languages and accents.

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:49 pm

Stephen, when you are referring to "Occidental" are you referring to the "artificial language" (artficially constructed, in the hope that it might eventually become a universal tongue) like Esperanto and Interlingua? Occidental was primarely used for scientific and technical reasons. It always suffered from a lack of native speakers so to call its decline a "genocide" would be a little strong.

Are you referring "Occitant" (also known as Provencal, or langue d'oc historically) spoken today in the southeastern part of France bordering Italy?

wjserson

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:51 pm

Sorry, typo : no final 't' in Occitan.

costas
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 9:59 am

Post by costas » Mon Sep 15, 2003 10:00 am

wjserson wrote:
Are you referring "Occitant" (also known as Provencal, or langue d'oc historically) spoken today in the southeastern part of France bordering Italy?

wjserson
Hi wjserson

Although it is late, I'll try to answer your question,

I suppose that Stephen was effectively referring to Occitan or Provençal language, although there are other places, as here in the Vall d'Aran in Catalonia. There it is called Aranes.Unfortunately, there are less people who speak it.

Cheers

costas

Casiopea
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Japan

accent(uate), dialect(ology)

Post by Casiopea » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:29 pm

What a great read!

By the way, I don't think I have an accent, yet when I travel abroad, people comment on my "Canadian accent"; when I travel around the Eastern shores of Canada, people comment on my Western accent, and after I had spent a summer in Quebec, people in the West of Canada commented on my "French accent". While teaching in Japan, I have had opportunity to meet many foreigners who speak English with a Japanese accent and, also, Japanese with an English accent. To me, accent refers to the sounds of a language. Now, sounds of a language can also be dialectal, or part of a given dialect. Consider, for example, "Osaka bend", which is a dialect of Japanese spoken in the city of Osaka. Osakians, if I can use that term, say "Take!", meaning "expensive", whereas speakers in other parts of Japan say "Takai!". The difference between the two pronunciations is sound based. So, in this way, accent can be a part of dialect. "Dialect" by the way refers to what you mentioned, something about morphing and grammar. When enough words change form and function, dialects arise. At what point a dialect is deemed a language is based on comparisons and determined by the degree of change between them. In the past, I studied two dialects of the same language: A northern variety and a Southern variety. Although both languages shared a number of differences in their respective sounds systems, morphology, syntax and sematics, there just wasn't enough change to admit they had split into two full fledge languages. That is, speakers of each dialect could make out, albeit with a degree of difficulty, what each other was saying.

In short, accent is very different from dialect. But, having said that, the definitions you found both seem to be correct. Dialect may or may not include accent, and accent isn't always associated with Dialect. That is, I can speak Japanese with an English accent by ignoring the rules of Japanese phonology and using the sounds of English instead.

All the best,

Casiopea

Post Reply