Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!ncar!uchinews!not-for-mail
From: deb5@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel von Brighoff)
Subject: Mutual intelligibility (again) [was: Re: Ebonics?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: ellis-nfs.uchicago.edu
Message-ID: <E3qA7E.HJF@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
Organization: The University of Chicago
References: <01bbeec7$1dddd340$af8faec7@festus.inhouse.compuserve.com> <59vjge$b4i@news.enterprise.net> <E37LoF.I9C@midway.uchicago.edu> <5atl0c$3u9@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 06:33:14 GMT
Lines: 98

In article <5atl0c$3u9@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>,
Donald Fisk <donald@srd.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>Daniel von Brighoff (deb5@midway.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: No it isn't, either.  I don't know a single linguist who bothers himself
>: with such trivialities.  The distinction between "dialect" and "language"
>: is a social and political one, not a linguistic and scientific one.  The
>: best a linguist can do is say, "Variety X has features a, c, g, and h.
>: According to your definition, a "language" has features a and g but not h.
>: Your call."
>
>Mutual intelligibility is often used by linguists.   

Plenty of descriptive linguists discuss the relative "mutual
intelligibility" of various speech varieties.  No professional linguist
that I know of uses this as an absolute standard for dividing speech
varieties into "languages" and "dialects".  "language" is most often
shorthand for "a speech variety, often based on a local dialect, with a
normative grammar, a standard orthography, and, often, a formal standard
of pronunication".  Related speech varieties are often classified as
"dialects" of this "language" even when mutual intelligibility is clearly
very low.  "Schwyzer-T"u"utsch" is a classic case.  Nine out of ten
reference books will call the Hoechstalemannisch dialects of Switzerland
"dialects of German", largely because they are in a diglossic relationship
with Standard German.  Now all you German speakers out there tell me what
this sentence of basic "B"arnt"u"utsch" means:

['gO:nmI@'mOlAjs'hoj'tsi:@]

>If there are
>two dialects which are mutually unintelligible, you are dealing with
>two languages.   This is the case for Dutch and German.   Where
>you draw the line between the two has been made on political grounds
>(the German/Dutch border), but there's no argument that Dutch and
>German are distinct languages.   

No one argues that there are widely-disseminated official normative
standards for German and Dutch.  At the same time, no one argues that
there is not a large degree of mutual intelligibility between the two
varieties.  I am a native speaker of English who is fluent in German but
has never seriously studied Dutch.  Yet, when I was in Holland, I found it
no trouble at all to pick up a newspaper and read and article--not just
for the gist, but with good comprehension.

Now I'm sure someone's going to say, "But how well do you understand
*spoken* Dutch"?  The answer is, not well at all.  But that's the trouble
with using "mutual intellibilty":  How much of what kind of
intelligibililty is enough?  When Dutch is spoken slowly, clearly, and
simply to me, I can understand what it being said.  I can't understand
usual Dutch conversation--but I also can't understand the rapidly-spoken
BEV of the youth in my neighborhood, even if I listen carefully.  My
British friend, who have difficulty understanding even some of the milder 
Southern dialects, would have no chance.  Several of my American friends
cannot understand Cockney movie dialogue without subtitles.  (I attribute
the fact that I can make out most of it to years of watching PBS.)  Yet
you are obviously unwilling to call BEV and Cockney distinct "languages". 

>The same applies to Scots and English:
>Doric (spoken in Aberdeenshire) and Standard English are mutually
>unintelligible, ergo we are dealing with two languages, even though most
>of what passes for Scots is quite easy for English or Americans to
>understand.   Further confirmatory evidence is that until relatively
>recently, Scots and Standard English evolved separately.

As far as I can tell, even if I do accept your nebulous standard of
"mutual intelligibility", this only proves that Doric and Standard English
are "separate languages".  What justifies lumping some dialects with
one "language" and some with another, especially when some of those are
mutually intelligible with both "languages"?

>Mutual intelligibility should apply *in general*, and not just to
>specific examples.   The criterion should apply only after repeated exposure.

What criterion?  Provide me with a straightforward definition of "mutual
intelligibility", one that is unambiguous in its application and will
account for all the lines you have attempted to draw.  (If I remember
correctly, in an earlier post you called the major Chinese dialects
"dialects" as opposed to "languages".  If you can come up with a
definition that allows you to call Scots and English separate languages
and yet lump Northwestern Mandarin together with Teochiu, than I will
readily concede the point.)

>: >Could anyone write a paragraph or two in 'Ebonics' so that we could
>: >all make up our minds that it's a dialect?
>
>: Would a paragraph be enough?  Like any dialect, BEV has many
>: geographic variants and social registers.  Which one(s) would be germane
>: to your decision?
>
>It would give us some idea.   If it were a separate language, there
>would be at least one variant which was, in general, mutually unintelligible
>with Standard English.   I don't think this is the case.

How am I suppose to present this data?  In IPA?  What about context?  Can
you really draw meaningful conclusions from a paragraph in isolation?
-- 
	 Daniel "Da" von Brighoff    /\          Dilettanten
	(deb5@midway.uchicago.edu)  /__\         erhebt Euch
				   /____\      gegen die Kunst!
