The fascinating thing about the difference between language and dialect is that it has been object of intensive studies for a long time but even though, no-one has come up with a universally valid distinction between both terms that covers up all aspects that have been traditionally used to draw the distinction between both, such as mutual intelligibility, local language features, a common grammar, written standard, oral traditions, national identities etc. Not a single aspect of all these gives a clear answer. In some cases language varieties that are quite far apart from the standard language are commonly considered dialects (Swiss- German compared to German) whereas others that are nearer are considered different languages (Dutch - Low German - High German). A common grammar has been taken as a reference but then it turns out that catalan and valencian belong to the same language even though there are slight differences in verb conjugations between the Western and Eastern branches of the same language. A written standard language has been taken as a reference to make the distinction whether the language variety deserves to be called a proper language but then it turns out that loads of languages are lacking a written standard that are or were undoubtedly proper languages for other reasons. Oral traditions of proper cultural features in form of songs may be another criterion but these have often disappeared and noboby would doubt that for this reason these can't have been languages in their own right. National borders often define the corresponding territory by a proper national language, such as the Netherlands or Luxemburg but even in these cases there may be more than only one language or dialect in that territory ( Dutch, Frisian Nedersaksisch, Limburgs) or the same language may be considered a dialect on the other side of the border (Luxemburgish, Moselfranconian as a German dialect). Whatever criterion you take, you may find a reason to hold up one or another definition.
I think it's more complicated than what was said here, but maybe you go more into it in another video. Two people can both be speaking English, but not understand each other very well, or even at all. Or the understanding can go one way, but not the other.
I'm from tanzania, my thinking is different I use a lot of time to different the dialect and language, final agree that language and dialect are the same thing no any different because each one have the same function in the society and both are abitrary vocal symbols that operate in society
I would remove the “mutually intelligible” from the definition of dialects. Cause I speak Swiss German (which differs in both grammar and vocabulary from the standard variety) and I know a lot of Germans who would not understand me, when I speak my dialect. Probably the best definition in my opinion would be: Dialects are to varieties within the same dialect continuum, that use the same variety as standard variety. The definition is still not perfect, cause also here there are exceptions (one would be another Swiss language: Romansh, which has 5 idioms and each idiom uses its own standard, but they are still considered one language), but I think it’s generally the better definition.
@@AzeLinguistics As far as I know they mostly are, but not 100%. With Romansh Grischun they did actually attempt to create a single standard, but it’s not really successful and most people continue to use the local varieties.
the dialects in the new word and old world developed in different ways, while in europe it was usualy by tribes who spoke similar dialects uniting in one country and developing one unified standart language(germany, poland)which became the official one, at the same time most people being illiterate, in america it was the other way around, people brought allready a codyfied standart language with them and spread it.Thats why for example speakers of german dialects cant ofted uderstand each other allthough they speak technicaly only dialects while speakers of american dialects have not this problem.
I think this definition of dialect has some problems. May be it is suitable for languages which are official language of a country.Because of being official language their dialects have more common words at the same time they are familiar to their pronunciations. But some languages are not official language of any country. Their accent speakers have less relationship and they don't understand each other because of pronunciation.
The fascinating thing about the difference between language and dialect is that it has been object of intensive studies for a long time but even though, no-one has come up with a universally valid distinction between both terms that covers up all aspects that have been traditionally used to draw the distinction between both, such as mutual intelligibility, local language features, a common grammar, written standard, oral traditions, national identities etc. Not a single aspect of all these gives a clear answer. In some cases language varieties that are quite far apart from the standard language are commonly considered dialects (Swiss- German compared to German) whereas others that are nearer are considered different languages (Dutch - Low German - High German). A common grammar has been taken as a reference but then it turns out that catalan and valencian belong to the same language even though there are slight differences in verb conjugations between the Western and Eastern branches of the same language. A written standard language has been taken as a reference to make the distinction whether the language variety deserves to be called a proper language but then it turns out that loads of languages are lacking a written standard that are or were undoubtedly proper languages for other reasons. Oral traditions of proper cultural features in form of songs may be another criterion but these have often disappeared and noboby would doubt that for this reason these can't have been languages in their own right. National borders often define the corresponding territory by a proper national language, such as the Netherlands or Luxemburg but even in these cases there may be more than only one language or dialect in that territory ( Dutch, Frisian Nedersaksisch, Limburgs) or the same language may be considered a dialect on the other side of the border (Luxemburgish, Moselfranconian as a German dialect). Whatever criterion you take, you may find a reason to hold up one or another definition.
I think it's more complicated than what was said here, but maybe you go more into it in another video. Two people can both be speaking English, but not understand each other very well, or even at all. Or the understanding can go one way, but not the other.
I'm from tanzania, my thinking is different I use a lot of time to different the dialect and language, final agree that language and dialect are the same thing no any different because each one have the same function in the society and both are abitrary vocal symbols that operate in society
Underrated.. Fantastic
Very helpful video....thank you
i somehow knew scandinavia would make an appearance in a video about the difference between dialect and languages.
I would remove the “mutually intelligible” from the definition of dialects.
Cause I speak Swiss German (which differs in both grammar and vocabulary from the standard variety) and I know a lot of Germans who would not understand me, when I speak my dialect.
Probably the best definition in my opinion would be: Dialects are to varieties within the same dialect continuum, that use the same variety as standard variety.
The definition is still not perfect, cause also here there are exceptions (one would be another Swiss language: Romansh, which has 5 idioms and each idiom uses its own standard, but they are still considered one language), but I think it’s generally the better definition.
Thanks for shedding more light on this. Are the 5 varieties of Romansh mutually intelligible?
@@AzeLinguistics As far as I know they mostly are, but not 100%.
With Romansh Grischun they did actually attempt to create a single standard, but it’s not really successful and most people continue to use the local varieties.
the dialects in the new word and old world developed in different ways, while in europe it was usualy by tribes who spoke similar dialects uniting in one country and developing one unified standart language(germany, poland)which became the official one, at the same time most people being illiterate, in america it was the other way around, people brought allready a codyfied standart language with them and spread it.Thats why for example speakers of german dialects cant ofted uderstand each other allthough they speak technicaly only dialects while speakers of american dialects have not this problem.
0:28 0:29 0:29 0:30 0:30
5:11 I call BS.
It's not about power, is about mass use.
Don't believe me? Ask a Neapolitan singer
Hi I'm from tamilnadu India studying British literature.... i need a guider anyone help me to find out please...
You guys awsome
I think this definition of dialect has some problems. May be it is suitable for languages which are official language of a country.Because of being official language their dialects have more common words at the same time they are familiar to their pronunciations. But some languages are not official language of any country. Their accent speakers have less relationship and they don't understand each other because of pronunciation.
Great, 😍 thx
Language: I speak English
Dialect: I speak X English
Thanks🥰
Norwegan swedish and danish are not easily and clearly mutually intellible, you have to talk real slow.