Re-writing language in Taiwan

2025

For Ordinary people , dialect is local , non-prestigious and informal variety of a real language , However , for scholars , the distinction is much more difficult as different criteria may play a role to distinguish a language from a dialect. Scholars often rely on the linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibility which is the extent to which speakers from two or more speech communities can understand each other, then they speak two dialect with the same language E.g. Algerian vs Tunisian vs Lebanese are dialect of Arabic, if they cannot understand one another then they speak two different languages. Arabic, French and English are different languages. But in some cases this criterion doesn"t work well, there are different languages that are mutually intelligible, like Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, they are different dialects of the same language but they are mutually intelligible. The case of Chinese and its numerous dialects Mandarin and Cantonese because they have cohesive cultural history, a common writing system and traditions they are said to be dialects of Chinese.

Language Policy, 2020

Over 50 years ago, the Norwegian-American linguist Einar Haugen published a seminal paper entitled 'Dialect, language and nation' (Am Anthropol 68:922-935, 1966b), in which he expounds his four-step model of standardization, explaining the development from dialect to standard following a process of norm selection, codification, acceptance and elaboration. In this article, we start by discussing the life and work of Einar Haugen, situating him within the history of linguistic thought throughout his career. Next, we zoom in on his standardization framework more specifically, discussing the relevant aspects of his four-box matrix, but also comparing his initial proposals to later influential publications on the subject expanding on his ideas, most notably by Milroy and Milroy (Authority in language. Investigating language prescription and standardisation, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1985) and Joseph (The rise of language standards and standard languages, Frances Pinter, London, 1987b). Finally, we will proceed to give an overview of what we perceive to be major lacunae or shortcomings in Haugen's standardization framework, focusing on specific elements missing, unclear or in need of refinement in one of the four originally defined steps, but also discussing Haugen's fairly restrictive understanding of the directionality of language change, the narrow empirical scope of traditional standardization research, the crucial role played by ideology in the development of a standard variety, and the strong monolingual bias and relative absence of language contact in traditional accounts of standardization.

2017

The purpose of human life is to serve, and to show compassion and the will to help others. Language is one of the most important features that separate humanbeings from the animal world. Language is directly connected withthought. Whereas dialect refers to a variation of a language that is characteristic of the users of that language, register refers to a variation of a language that is determined by use a situation or context. Dialects are different ways of saying the same thing; they reflect social structure (e.g., class, gender, and origin). Registers are ways of saying different things; they reflect social processes. Dialects are associated with the linguistic and cultural characteristics of the students who belong to the same broad linguistic group; registers are associated with the characteristics of the language (especially academic language) used in tests. Language as a source of measurement error addresses the fact that bilingual individuals do not typically replicate their...

Language & Communication, 1986

Trudgill's book is of wide interdisciplinary interest, since Trudgill is one of the most articulate scholars in the field today: his prose is clear, and his arguments are generally self-contained and eloquent. Although one might want a more thorough discussion of his methodological infrastructure, almost every chapter reveals a new methodological technique to extend the horizons of a field already charted by Labov's ingenious ploys. For this book Trudgill has 'revised, updated and edited' carefully chosen articles to present them as 'a coherent text.' While some such texts focus on 'secular' linguistic topics, and others focus on specific communicative aspects of linguistics, Trudgill has chosen a broad cross-section of papers which run the entire gamut of foci. The first papers are of primary concern to the linguist who realizes that the inclusion of sociological parameters can extend a purely linguistic analysis, and as the book progresses, the articles increasingly emphasize the social variables. Given that the intention was for the book to be read as a coherent text, in a couple of instances more work should have been done to integrate and update the papers. However, on the whole, the volume flows well. While Trudgill has clearly read all the American literature, he uses a primarily British or European data base, and draws conclusions which appear to imply that influences on speech in the U.K. are universal. Since the organization of British society is quite different from that in many other parts of the world, not surprisingly, the hypotheses which Trudgill presents as sociolinguistic 'universals' frequently are contradicted by sociolinguistic data gathered elsewhere. Consequently, students must be especially skeptical of Trudgill's theoretical positions when they appear to contradict the data. Thus, articles cannot be accepted at face value, but can motivate students to compare Trudgill's data with other published data. If students are careful, studying work like this can lead to new breakthroughs. Since an introduction places a book's chapters in a specific perspective, this reviewer felt the introduction called for a special comment, in light of the fact that it appears to propose a frame which Trudgill himself would clearly reject. The 'Introduction' (pp. l-7) outlines the range of interests which have been considered sociolinguistic, and moves from this to focus attention on dialect from a sociolinguistic perspective. Trudgill demonstrates language teaching us about language and about society. Trudgill has presented a framework for such a 'cross-disciplinary' understanding before (1978, pp. 1-18); however, Trudgill's condensation of that discussion here maintains that work which is transparently concerned with 'improving linguistic theory and. .. developing our understanding of the nature of

This paper provides an analysis of how processes of categorisation of languages and varieties through strategies of designation would involve minoritisation and linguistic inequality. In our analysis we will focus specifically in the case of Morocco. Our aim is: a) to look at the complexity that exists when we come to define the concept of dialect and language, b) to observe how the representations held by society with regard to linguistic diversity can influence the categorisation of linguistic varieties and c) to propose a theoretical framework for a definition of the abovementioned concepts, which is based on a critical sociolinguistic approach to the analysis of linguistic variation. Finally, we will present some conclusions related with linguistic variation and the process of categorisation of languages as ideological phenomenon

Anglisticum Journal (IJLLIS), 2021

Language has been defined from phonology, morphology and syntactic aspect. But this short communique explores to defend the sociological aspect (communicative aspect) of a language. 'Language as a means of communication' superimposes over any other definition if it can be believed two people can draw a language to exist along with other prominent languages and a language is dead when no speaker exists. However, this precise article tends to show minutely what the position of a language is if one knows this language but does not have a second one to interact with that person. Here, the bottom line is that the man cannot utilize this language to serve his communicative purpose. Hence, his language does not serve the purpose of communication. Therefore, the placement of that language is to the category of dying language in which only one person is left for that language to be characterized as a dead language.

The article was scheduled for publication in Multilingua. It was, however, rejected by an anonymous reviewer who was not at all happy with it. This is the rejection note: Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author "This article argues for the need for a more structured sociolinguistic comparison for regional and minority languages, by proposing that Western European Regional Languages should be treated as a distinct 'Areal Type' to facilitate large scale comparisons. While the article is well written, the content of the article has a number of major shortcomings, as detailed below: - Throughout the article, the author makes sweeping generalisations and oversimplifications of highly divergent contexts and histories across Western and Central Europe in order to justify his central argument, while also failing to include appropriate references to either contemporary or historical research to support these claims. For example, on p. 8 the author vastly oversimplifies over 1000 years of European linguistic, social and cultural history, suggesting a uniformity and homogeneity which does not reflect the hugely divergent role of Latin and the Roman Church across Western and Central Europe. Equally, the author's emphasis on the presence of the Roman Church and Medieval Latin as the predominant literary language in the Middle Ages as the defining event in history to explain the current sociolinguistic situation of all Western European State and Regional Languages, almost entirely neglects the hugely divergent histories and sociolinguistic contexts which developed in more recent centuries. To claim that 'all Regional Languages dealt with here have been exposed to the same political, cultural, religious, economic and technological developments that have surfaced over the past one thousand years' (p. 8, lines 38-40) is patently untrue, as highlighted by the list of languages the author places in this category on p. 9 (lines 19-22). This list illustrates how this categorisation fails to reflect or offer insight into the hugely varied sociolinguistic, cultural and political contexts in which these languages exist. The reference to 'possibly Sardinian', for example, highlights the challenges of applying clear cut boundaries and definitions in contexts where speakers have divergent views on the status of their respective variety. Equally, the official statuses of Catalan and Welsh, and significant linguistic nationalist movements connected to them, are dramatically distinct to the context and discourses surrounding Asturian and Aragonese, where the languages play a more ambiguous role in relation to speakers' sense of having a distinct national identity. Equally, in referring to the cases of what the author describes as 'ethnic languages' (pp. 4-5), the author treats speakers as a unified and homogenous category who all 'happily accept' diglossia and do not consider their varieties to be languages, when research in such contexts highlights significant variation in speakers' views and perspectives on their languages, illustrating how the broad categories the author proposes ignore the nuances and complexities of such cases. - There are a number of contradictory or inaccurate claims throughout the article. For example, on p.5 (line 51) the author describes ethnic languages as existing in 'a stable diglossic situation' which contradicts the claim on the previous page that in these contexts the state language is encroaching on all levels and they are not passed on to the next generation. On p. 12, in describing the 'phase of degeneration' of Regional Languages the author states that State Language took over the formal and written domains of the Regional Language, which is an inaccurate representation of the extent to which these languages were previously used as public written languages and which again diverged significantly across contexts. Equally, fragmentation into dialects is not necessarily a sign of decline but occurs even for established and standardised state languages. Lastly, on p.5 (lines 3-4) the reference to 'Valencian' as 'Catalan spoken by illiterate native speakers' is inappropriate. There are important debates surrounding whether Valencian is a variety of Catalan or a distinct language but this description is inaccurate and does not reflect the nuances and complexities of this debate. - The author's use of appropriate terminology requires further clarification throughout the article. For example, the use of the term 'Ethnic Languages' to refer to those varieties not considered languages by their speakers is confusing since the reference to 'ethnic' suggests speakers have a strong identitarian connection with the language while the author argues the precise opposite. Equally, the author argues that what he terms 'Regional Languages' are generally considered 'national languages' by their speakers, yet fails to fully explain why they believe 'regional language' is the more appropriate term. In this sense, the author should acknowledge the important distinctions between regionalist and nationalist linguistic movements, and address more clearly what they mean by terms such as 'linguistic nation'. Furthermore, on pp. 5-6, the author should clarify what they mean by 'obligatoriness' in relation to state and regional languages. The extent to which the state language is 'obligatory' inevitably varies between states (i.e. the extent to which migrants are 'required' to learn the state language), while in contexts such as Catalonia the so-called 'regional language' is the obligatory language of public education and is also a requirement for employment in many public positions. In this sense, obligatoriness is not as clear cut a category as the author implies and needs further clarification. - The article shows an extremely limited awareness of or reference to contemporary sociolinguistic debates and research on regional and minority languages across Europe. For example, throughout the author assumes 'standardisation' is an unquestioned and natural development for regional languages, neglecting the significant debates and disputes on this subject (see e.g. Gal, S. 2006. Contradictions of standard language in Europe: implications for the study of publics and practices. Social Anthropology. 14(2), 163-81). Equally, the reference to the effects of 'the global tendency of simplifying globalized communication' does not accurately portray the complex effects of globalisation in relation to contemporary language use, as is also reflected by the absence of references to the effects of migration on minority language use. The extent to which the author overlooks the complex multilingual realities (and histories) of contemporary states and regions is highlighted, for example, when the author claims all speakers of Regional Languages are bilingual while the rest of the state's citizens are all 'monolingual speakers of the State Language' (p. 6, line 56), thus entirely ignoring the existence of any other languages within the state with which both regional and state languages coexist and interact. In sum, the oversimplifications and lack of attention paid to the divergent sociolinguistic contexts in which Western European Regional Languages exist highlight precisely the limitations and risks of attempting to impose clearly drawn boundaries and definitions which intentionally overlook or obscure the complex realities in which such languages exist. By exaggerating the similarities between these cases, such categorisations provide no insight into why powerful linguistic nationalist movements developed in some regions and are largely absent in others. While in the Conclusion the author recognises differences in the social vitality and varying degrees of success at revitilisation, they fail to explain how their proposed framework may provide insight into such differences and consequently what the purpose of the identification of this 'Areal Type' may be. Equally, the author's attempts to reinforce ideas of 'Western' European exceptionalism, as well as the need to exclude 'non-autochthonous' varieties, illustrates how such categories serve primarily to exclude those languages and speakers who do not belong. The idea that the 'former Latin cultural province' is a 'natural framework' (p. 10) neglects the huge linguistic, social and cultural diversity within this region. While I agree terms such as 'minority language' and 'regional language' are very broadly applied and often loosely defined, the author's proposed categorisations are founded upon often inaccurate or oversimplified generalisations which offer little insight into contemporary societal multilingualism in Western and Central Europe."

2016

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2006

The assertion that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy" draws attention to the fact that the distinction between the two is more likely to be based on political imperatives rather than linguistic features. The aim of this article is to examine a specific example of a form of language, Ulster-Scots, whose status varies between dialect and language. It will be argued that in the context of contemporary Northern Ireland, the distinction has serious political consequences in relation to identity, rights, and the possibilities for a settlement to a deep and extended conflict. [dialect, language, Ulster-Scots, politics, Northern Ireland] Introduction: Dialect, Language, Cultural Capital I t is unclear precisely who coined the pithy phrase "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." It appears to have been either the linguist Max Weinreich or his student, the sociolinguist Joshua Fishman. 1 Whatever the origin, the point is well made: There is nothing intrinsic to a set of linguistic practices which makes them either a language or a dialect. Indeed, as Rumsey (1990:346) has suggested, linguistic categorization and linguistic ideologies (defined as "shared bodies of commonsense notions about the nature of language in the world") are often closely related. With regard to particular forms of language-making, the conferral of the status of 'language' or 'dialect' is rendered by social forces that are external to the practices themselves (Gal and Irvine 1995). These are sometimes overtly political, as is implied by the identification of military strength as a significant factor in the categorical distinction, and sometimes they are less openly political and operate discursively. Bakhtin makes the general argument: Unitary language constitutes the theoretical expression of the historical processes of linguistic unification and centralization, an expression of the centripetal forces of language. A unitary language is not something given [dan] but is always in essence posited [zadan]-and at every moment of its linguistic life it is opposed to the realities of heteroglossia. [1981:270] In practice, of course, political and discursive forces tend to operate independently of each other in their creation of unitary languages, and the connections can often be difficult to trace. For example, in the Renaissance "triumph of the English language," that is to say, the production of English as a modern vernacular to equal its classical rivals, different types of centripetalizing forces were at work. It may at first sight seem strained to link the first major legislative act of linguistic colonialism

A dialect is a distinct manner of speech that differs in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar from other regional dialects nearby (Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). For instance, a person from eastern Massachusetts may add the [r] sound to the word “idea” and pronounce it as “idear.” The same person may go to a store to purchase a sandwich that she calls a “grinder” and others call a “sub” or “hoagie.”Or, as we see in this sample of quoted speech coming from the character Tom Joad in John Steinbeck’s famous novel The Grapes of Wrath, there is a distinct grammar displayed in the “Oklahoma dialect”: “‘They was too old,’ he said. ‘They wouldn’t of saw nothin’ that’s here.’” Finally, a feature of most dialects that are considered members of a given language (e.g., dialects of German, or dialects of English) is that they are mutually intelligible, meaning that native speakers of different dialects of X language can understand each other for the most part. Yet, as will be explained later, some dialects, such as Chinese, are not mutually intelligible.

Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2014

Sociolinguist reflections on the balance language/dialect relying as a point of reference on the book: "The tongue goes where the tooth aches" Tullio de Mauro, the Italian linguist well known in Europe, in an unusual but interesting book published in Italy in November 2013, discusses on the famed issue language/dialect with the other contemporary Sicilian writer, also internationally known, Andrea Camilleri. The free standings of both interlocutors, each one in its position, respectively as an academic linguist and writer, brings a sum of very important conclusions regarding the argument mentioned above. In the light and optics of some of these conclusions, we will try to look more closely at how the current situation in Albania appears on this report. The heated debate in academic and non-academic districts on the possibility of reviewing the standard Albanian language, has brought an unprecedented cacophony of opinions. This debate has brought the need to really understand what the language is and what the dialect is. What is our approach to one or another? Till what point is it permissible to include in this debate the media or the massive non-specialized population in this field? Is there a risk that the "politicized" or even simply passionate treatment of this issue will have consequences on the future of the Albanian standard language or its dialects? Thus, we will try to see all this report through the clear sociolinguistic optics. This will constitute the focus of this study venture.

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 1998

The concept of " a language " (Einzelsprache, that is, one of many extant languages) and its opposition to " dialect " (considered as a " non-language, " and thus subjugable to an already recognized language merely as " its " dialect) is the way people tend to think about languages in the West today. It appears to be a value-free, self-evident conception of the linguistic position. So much so that the concept of " language " was included neither in Immanuel Kant's system of categories, nor in the authoritative Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. This paper sketches the rise of the " dialect vs language " opposition in classical Greek, its transposition onto classical Latin, and its transfer, through medieval and renaissance Latin, to the early modern period. On the way, the Greek and Latin terms for " language " (and also for " dialect ") sometimes functioned as synonyms for peoples (that is, ethnic groups), which – importantly – contributed to the rise of the normative equation of language with 1 I thank Michael O Gorman for his wise advice, ideas, useful references, and for help with polishing the prose of this article.