"Language is a dialect with an army and a navy." - Discuss

Right, before you start reading this, I warm you now: This is my first essay for university, it is not my usual blog post and so if you don't like it, tough. Anyone remotely interested in language might appreciate it though - (So that'll be you Alasdair.) The essay question was the title of the blog post. Have fun.

This much used metaphor was said by, Yiddish Linguist, Max Weinreich in 1945. With this quote, he was making the point that a language is only so because of social factors, not linguistic factors. With this essay I will look at the basis for this and try to determine whether things such as politics are the driving forces behind what sets aside a language from a dialect.

The OED defines dialect as – ‘One of the subordinate forms or varieties of a language arising from local peculiarities of vocabulary, pronunciation, and idiom.’ And a language as – ‘The system of spoken or written communication used by a particular country, people, community, etc.’ So, going merely from this, it would suggest that a language is a specific communication used by a specific group of people and that a dialect is a subordinate form of this. But, take for example Scots. Many disagree as to whether it is its own language, or just a dialect of English due to its history and the fact the two are mutually intelligible, but either way it has now been accepted by the UK Government as a ‘regional language’ and is a part of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The point I make here is that; if Scotland had retained its independence as a country, and was not a part of the United Kingdom, would Scots have ever have been in question as to whether it was in fact a language? Is it only because of the close ties of Scotland and England that it was at all ever considered to be just a dialect?

Some would argue that the fact English speakers can understand Scots, means that it is therefore a dialect and not another language all together. They would accept Welsh as another Language because it is not understandable by English speakers. However, if we look at Danish and Norwegian, these two languages are comparable to the relationship between English and Scots as each is widely understood by speakers of the other. However, there is no argument as to whether they are distinct languages or not. Why is this? It is here we come back to our quote, Norwegian and Danish both hold ‘an army and a navy’. That is to say, each of the languages is spoken by an independent country, with native speakers who know each language as their own and it is recognised by the government as being an official language. We can take from this then that distinct and independent countries, where the lines are not blurred, have specific languages despite holding mutual intelligibility with another which would usually suggest dialects of the same language.

Therefore we see that politics has its hand heavily in what defines a language aside from a dialect with regards to separate countries, but what about different languages within one country? New Zealand for example has three (politically) recognised official languages, English, NZ Sign Language, and Maori. Maori comprises a mere 4.2% of the overall spoken languages, and yet there is no dispute as to whether this is a language or not. The reason for this is due to social factors rather than the more political ones I previously outlined. Maori is a distinct and proud culture with a strong historical grounding in the country, if the government was to decide to not have it as an official language, there would be outcry of discrimination and unjustness, and so we see that some languages have power for entirely different reasons. Another language that is not as much a political language is Yiddish. Here we see a language that has developed from a religious community, rather than a geographical one, with such we would struggle to hold it as a dialect due to its worldwide presence.

A final are that I will look at, are variations of the same language, but which are recognised as separate ones. Why is it that American English, a direct result of British English, is not considered to be a dialect, but is instead very definitely its own language? We (speakers of British English) have no problem, accent aside, understanding those who speak American English, and vice versa. However, differences lie not just in the spoken language, but also in written language. Spelling, orthography, grammar. All of these have a bearing on a language setting its self aside from another, regardless of similarity in spoken form. Again though, if America weren’t such a powerful country as it is, would it still be known as American English? Or would it have retained more of its original form? Of course, there is an exception to every rule. If we look at China, the main language of the country is Mandarin Chinese. There are however, numerous other languages and variation recognised by the country, a big one of which is Cantonese. These two languages in spoken form are not mutually intelligible, however, they share a writing system with Mandarin which has only few differences and so the written form can be understood, even thought the spoken form cannot.

In conclusion, it would seem that, yes, having political influence and power can make a language and set it aside from what might otherwise just be a dialect, and that it is as much to do with borders and specific countries as anything else. Also cultural and social factors play a huge part in the distinction between language and dialect, such as heritage and religion, and these bend the lines that might normally be used to define, ‘what is a language?’. Looking at this, we have placed the army with political factors, and we have placed the navy with more social aspects. The point made about differences and similarities in written language defining a language instead of being a dialect then, I can only assume, must be the elusive air force.