What is the difference between a dialect and a language? 

Max Weinreich defined language as a ‘dialect with an army and a navy’. This a short pithy instructive statement which points out the influence that political condition can have over a community’s perception of the status of a language or dialect. There are many different definitions of language but I find the Harrap’s definition very apt at this instance. Harrap’s defines language as the ‘mental faculty or power of vocal communication’. With this in mind, my résumé will commence in establishing what a language is, and then move on to show that language varies systematically according to context, moment and with the speakers. It is complex to try to distinguish between a language and a dialect as these terms are often regarded as a simple dichotomy in a situation that is almost infinitely complex by sociolinguists. Thus my desire in seeking to point out that a dialect does share some similarities with a language or is a language variety, depending on criteria and perception. And I will conclude after using some authors’ empirical evidence and references based on a linguistic stand point that the two are both tied in distinctive ways by sociolinguists.

 More so, to fully understand the difference a dialect may have to a language and if at all it does, what other similarities are shared, I will have to look at what a dialect is as well. Harrap’s defines a dialect as ‘the usage of vocabulary that is characteristic of a particular or specific group of people’. This can be referred to a language socially subordinate to a regional or national standard language often historically cognate to the standard, but not a variety of it or in any other sense derived from it. With this in mind, I will seek to establish in my résumé that, some differences do exist to an extent, between what is commonly termed a language and a dialect and how these differences compliment their commonness. According to Ronald Wardhaugh (2010, p.24), people may often experience difficulty in deciding whether what they speak should be called a language or merely a dialect of some language. Thus highlighting the desire to comprehend if the language they speak is a bona fide language or considered inferior.

It is apparently complex to determine what differences really exist between a language and a dialect. The distinction I will raise will be very subjective because of this complexity. A language can have a number of dialects where the words, the way they are pronounced, or the grammar may be slightly different. It can also have a number of accents, which we all have despite the popular believes that accents only belong to a specific class. An accent is a reference to the differences in sound patterns within a particular dialect. People speaking the same language but different dialects would normally be considered to have the ability of understanding each other. However, this aspect varies depending on what is considered a dialect and why it is considered that way. An English speaker from Newcastle will not use the same accent as some one from East London but would understand if spoken to. A regional grammatical construction of past tenses and reflexive pronouns common with Geordie speakers can be said to be a dialect within the Standard English language. This difference in the vocabulary and grammar within the same English language is variable. It is a variation in language which is commonly called ‘dialect’ because it is not often written.  

Then again, Ronald Wardhaugh (2010, p.29) quoted Gomperz’s Scandinavian example. According to Gomperz, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are recognized as different languages yet if you speak any one of them, you will experience little difficulty in communicating while travelling in Scandinavia excluding of course Finland or at least the non-Swedish-speaking parts of that country. Incidentally, Norwegian and Danish have common vocabulary but differ in their pronunciation meanwhile Swedish and Norwegian are miles apart in their pronunciation but happen to share similarities in their vocabulary. Here again is a difference in mutual intelligibility which appears to reflect power relationships. Denmark had long dominated the Norwegians and today Sweden is the most influential in the region. So, can it be assumed that these countries all possess different dialects within the same language? The existence of mutual intelligibility in this instance does not enhance the argument of a common dialect within a language as opposed to a bona fide dialect.

 Although a language can differ as well as well as its usage, it does not really need to be accentuated but sometimes can be seen as a dialect. We can acknowledge different kinds of languages and an attempt to discover how languages can differ from one another and yet still be a variable within a language that most of us may call language rather than a dialect. For example, geographical origins can actually have a very strong influence on the way a language is spoken. Take Germany, where two speakers from Bavaria and Munich would barely understand each other although they are both speakers of the same bona fide language. It cannot be said that a difference in dialects or incomprehension constitutes language difference. Take this example of the Bavarians and speakers from Munich; why are they not considered speakers of different language? This just comes to highlight the complexity which exists in trying to differentiate between a language and a dialect. This also highlights the fact that dialects can differ a lot from each other within the same language.           

On a linguistic stand point, the difference between a language and a dialect is not usually based on linguistic criteria but on politics, power, geography and identity. Take for example, China where Chinese is often referred to as a language with hundreds of dialects whereas there are dialects in Chinese that are way apart from each other as Basque and English. A Cantonese and a Mandarin would project the opinion that they speak the same language because of the socio-politico drill and common writing system imposed on that society. They would strongly insist that they speak same language with different dialects instead of difference in languages. For political reasons though, a common language has been upheld through literacy by the projection of a common writing system. This shared writing system and strong tradition of political, cultural and social unity, have come to form an essential part of their definition of what a language is.

Judging by what I have been trying to portray, the difference between a language and a dialect is a hugely emotive issue. Describing a dialect, would lack precision and coherence, according to Ermlich, because there is impossibility in defining a dialect. For instance, try attending a football game between Barcelona FC and Real Madrid and tell any fan from Barcelona that Catalan is a dialect in Spanish, and then measure the reaction with telling an individual from Essex that the English they use is a dialect within the English in London. The importance of a language cannot be invaluable in nation-building previously reiterated by the Chinese example. Accurately, Catalan which is widely recognised in Spain and used within that autonomy, for the political reasons, is not classified as a language but a dialect within Spain.  In the interest of national unity, Catalan is viewed just like Basque as a language of regional pride.  In countries like Spain, language and dialect differences have become much obscured particularly as many speakers are likely to be multilingual.

 Differences in language and dialect can be almost infinite as language is so complex. At one extreme is the idiolect or the unique form of language used by some individuals while at the other extreme is the sociolect or aptly put a “social dialect”, which is the language used by a particular social group. Therefore, it can be said, an idiolect aids the possibility of identifying differences in a language when it is broken down. By breaking it into vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar and the areas it covers within the society. In the example below, I seek to demonstrate the uniqueness of any format of a language used by individuals. It highlights the different forms of language usage which conveys a similar message be it through a differentiation in accents or class. In the example below, I will use these differences taken from the English English and the American English.

Ex. Table 1

Vocabulary	Pronunciation	Grammar	Subject areas
Hood Bonnet	Car /kah/ /karr/	‘Did you do it already?’ ‘Have you done it yet?’	Religious or scientific language

         

From the above table, I have tried to distinguish a dialect from a language by its vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. The particularity in any language varies because we all have a dialect hence the tendency to have an accent in the phonology of any given dialect. Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation, then that becomes an accent. It becomes easy to confuse the speech pattern of a spoken dialect as another language. An accent is about the pronunciation, the way a dialect is spoken whilst a dialect would be broader because it would encompass the semantic and morphological properties also. For example, when talking about the East London English (cogney), we talk about the generalization of a variant property of English pronunciation in that part of London. This raises the issue; – is a dialect a variant of a language? This is a pertinent but very separate issue that I choose not to discuss at this instance.

Also, we can only understand what difference there maybe between a language and a dialect, if we actually know what a dialect is. As aforementioned, some sociolinguists believe a dialect refers to a variety of a language that is characteristic of a particular group of that language’s speakers. It does vary though, with the regional speech patterns of a language and the social stratification which has been the theme running through my résumé and as also shown in the table above (Ex. Table 1). A dialect that is associated with a social class or spoken with a particular speech pattern or better known as a ‘sociolect’ can be synonymous with an ethnic group or upper class. In most cases it is then considered, a language by the political machinery. In a case like the France, it is a country made up of many regional ‘languages’, but the Parisian language that was used in the royal courts by early kings, became imposed as the official language. It made it easy for royalty to govern the ‘Hexagon’ as one entity thus reducing the status of the other regional languages to dialects. Usually, this choice of a court language often is regarded as an important means of identification because it strengthens the feeling of belonging.

A dialect is also often used as a derogative or is pejorative, in describing particular persons who speak a non-standard variety of a language. Most speakers do give a name to whatever they speak, according to a research by Ronald Wardhaugh (p.24) but some of these names on occasion, may be strange to linguists because these methods have a very large untested component in the naming process. In a linguistic context, speech style and social class cannot alone be the determining factor, whether a language is inferior or superior.  All language as is the bona fide language of any nation can be said to be a dialect. These national languages were regional dialects but later became languages of prestige favoured by the courts and even governments. In accordance with my course work, the status and prestige of standard spoken and written languages have been formalised by a prescriptive tradition in education and broadcasting. A dialect would often refer to any variety of a language thus by definition, we all speak a dialect of our native language.

A dialect is a complex and often misunderstood concept. To linguists, a dialect is a collection of attributes which can be phonetics, phonological, syntactic, morphological and even semantic, that makes one group of speakers of a particular language, noticeably different from another group of speakers of that same language. Take Cameroon for instance; French and English are the two official languages. French is widely used by more than 80% of the indigenous population however, the difference it possesses from the Parisian French due to the above-mentioned attributes, does not conclusively render it a dialect as may commonly be called. Same can be said with ‘Québécois’ and Parisian which have got enormous differences in both their vocabulary and pronunciation but Canadians would think it pejorative if theirs is referred to as dialect. The terminology dialect is nothing more than a label of convenience in these contexts.

The study of dialects has been an interest of many sociolinguists over the time due to the systematic and irregularity of this form of informal speech. It has and will continue to have its twists and turns because this study has been inconclusive due to the superfluity of data. If I quote William Kretzschmar, Schneider & Johnson (1989): “the development of dialect studies, whether geographical or sociolinguistic, has always been hampered by a superfluity of data . . . Even smaller surveys have had to settle for selective analysis of their data because the wealth of possibilities for analysis overran the editors’ time and human capacity for holding in mind only so much information at once. Computers can help overcome these problems: they are wonderful tools for quickly sorting and matching pieces of information and for performing complex calculations on the results, and these days they are practically unlimited in their ability to store data” However, Mesthrie used Labov’s case studies of successful empirical analysis he carried out on speakers from different works of the society to highlight the effects and drastic changes in the study of dialects. A quantitative study in sociolinguistics on the differences or speech variations and its effectiveness is not obvious because of the never ending subject matter.

I have demonstrated all through this résumé that, there is a very fine line between a language and a dialect. Although these differences can be said to exist, the notion of a difference in their classification, boils down to socio-politico stratification. The issue raised here, obviously tantamount to the ambiguity of the terms. A dialect or a particular dialect, only seeks to develop the role of a language for a wider communication in a multilingual area. A dialect is, as many sociolinguists hold, a language that has been considered so because it lacks political grandeur and it is the language spoken by an inferior class, hence lacks prestige. There is no fixed criterion in determining what is a dialect or a language. As already mentioned, the difference cannot be determined by ascertaining that the variable spoken by a particular group of persons is a dialect of a language whereas that spoken by another is a language. I strongly hold the view that, the difference between what is a language and what can be termed a dialect can be contestable. I have put together the extent of societal classification and to another extent how that which is commonly regarded as the standard form of a language can be regarded as a dialect.