Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!deb5
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Re: Languages and dialects (was: Re: Significant differences between Indonesian and Malay?)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <DtA90u.Mvt@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <4pv5rj$ok7@easy1.worldaccess.nl> <4q1mfs$849@euas20.eua.ericsson.se> <31C69DE5.57FF@innet.be>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 05:10:06 GMT
Lines: 76

In article <31C69DE5.57FF@innet.be>, Herman De Wael  <hermandw@innet.be> wrote:
>Stefan Lundstrom wrote:
[snip]
>Linguists might argue for years if two separate speeches are dialects or 
>separate languages.  But only the peoples in question can settle the 
>issue, when they decide to adhere to a defining status.
>
>Nobody calls flemish a language, because the Flemish people have decided 
>they speak Nederlands, as defined by the Nederlandse Taalcommissie, an 
>institute set up after a treaty between the Netherlands and Belgium.
>
>The same could be said for other languages.  Doesnt the Goetheinstitut 
>do something similar for German, the Academie Franaise for French, 
>Oxford University for English ?

	No, no, no.  The Goethe-Institut exists to promote German 
language and culture; it promulgates norms established by other agencies
(primarily Duden).  I don't believe that the norms of the Acad/emie have
any official standing outside of France and her dependencies.  Oxford
may publish the definitive dictionary of the English language, but it
has no official normative role for British English, much less the
usage of a majority of English-speakers.

>If the Swiss decide that their official language is no longer German, 
>but Schwyzerdeutsch, then that will be a language.  

	Swiss programmes are often subtitled when shown in Germany, even
when they are not in Schwyzert"u"utsch at all, but rather Standard
German with heavy local colouring.  Is this not a tacit recognition of
the fact that the status of Swiss-German is not comparable to that of
other German dialects, like Mecklenburgisch or Bairisch?  Well-accepted
literary standards exist for certain forms of Swiss-German, like Bernese.
Doesn't that put them on a different footing than other German dialects
without such standardisation?  "Rhaeto-Romanic" was considered the fourth
"national" language of Switerzland for years before there was a unified
standard ("Rumantsch Grischun") defined for it; in this case, would you
side with the "official word" or the feelings of the "peoples in question"
who still largely consider themselves speakers of Surselvan, Puter, Vallader,
etc.?  If a speech variety must have official recognition to be called a 
language, does that mean that no other languages besides Turkish are spoken 
in Turkey?

>I doubt they will.  
>French-speaking Swiss have great difficulty in understanding Quebecois 
>when both speak their own dialect.  But if they both speak the French 
>they learn at school there is no problem.
>
>But it has happened.  Less than twenty years ago, the GD of Luxembourg 
>decided that schooling would be in Letzebuergisch, no longer in German. 
> A new language was born, where only a dialect existed.
>
>I have no problem with this definition of a Language.  It is the one 
>that would provide the least number of discussions.

	A major problem for me, as I happen to enjoy these discussions.
I think the assumption that there should be a unitary definition of the
term "language" is misguided.  Obviously, a prescriptive grammarian is
going to have different reasons for using this term than a descriptive
sociolinguist or a reactionary nationalist.  If you want to describe 
the current state of political affairs, it might make sense to speak of
"Serbian", "Croatian", and "Bosnian" as separate languages; if you are
a traveller interested in communicating with the locals on your holiday,
it might make an equal amount of sense to consider them all "varieties" 
("dialects" isn't even an appropriate term because the definitions of what 
comprises these varieties cut across widely-recognised dialectal divides) 
of a single language.

	In short, your definition of a "language" is perfectly acceptable--
in certain contexts.  By no means should it oust other, somewhat contra-
dictory definitions.


-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
