Dialect

The term dialect (from Latin dialectus, dialectos, from the Ancient Greek word
διάλεκτος, diálektos, "discourse", from διά, diá, "through" and λέγω, légō, "I speak")
is used in two distinct ways to refer to two different types of linguistic phenomena:

One usage refers to a variety of a language that is a characteristic of a particular

group of the language's speakers.[1] Under this definition, the dialects or varieties
of a particular language are closely related and, despite their differences, are most
often largely mutually intelligible, especially if close to one another on the dialect
continuum. The term is applied most often to regional speech patterns, but a
dialect may also be defined by other factors, such as social class or ethnicity.[2] A
dialect that is associated with a particular social class can be termed a sociolect, a
dialect that is associated with a particular ethnic group can be termed an
ethnolect, and a geographical/regional dialect may be termed a regiolect[3]
(alternative terms include 'regionalect',[4] 'geolect',[5] and 'topolect'[6]). According
to this definition, any variety of a given language can be classified as "a dialect",
including any standardized varieties. In this case, the distinction between the
"standard language" (i.e. the "standard" dialect of a particular language) and the
"nonstandard" (vernacular) dialects of the same language is often arbitrary and
based on social, political, cultural, or historical considerations or prevalence and
prominence.[7][8][9] In a similar way, the definitions of the terms "language" and
"dialect" may overlap and are often subject to debate, with the differentiation
between the two classifications often grounded in arbitrary or sociopolitical
motives.[10] The term "dialect" is however sometimes restricted to mean "non-
standard variety", particularly in non-specialist settings and non-English linguistic
traditions.[11][12][13][14]

The other usage of the term "dialect", specific to colloquial settings in a few
countries like Italy[15] (see dialetto[16]), France (see patois) and the
Philippines,[17][18] carries a pejorative undertone and underlines the politically and
socially subordinated status of a non-national language to the single official
language. In other words, it does not actually derive from the politically dominant
language and is therefore not one of its varieties, but it is rather a separate and
independently evolved language, albeit often historically cognate and/or
genetically related. In this sense, unlike in the first usage, the standardized
language would not itself be considered a "dialect", as it is the dominant language
in a particular state or region, be it in terms of linguistic prestige, social or political
(e.g. official) status, predominance or prevalence, or all of the above. Thus, these
"dialects" are not dialects or varieties of a particular language in the same sense
as in the first usage; though they may share roots in the same subfamily as the
dominant language and may even, to a varying degree, share some mutual
intelligibility with the standardized language, they often did not evolve closely with
the standard language or within the same linguistic subgroup or speech
community as the standardized language and instead may better fit various
parties’ criteria for a separate language. The term "dialect" used this way implies a
political connotation, being mostly used to refer to low-prestige languages
(regardless of their actual degree of distance from the national language),
languages lacking institutional support, or those perceived as unsuitable for
 writing.[19] The designation "dialect" is also used popularly to refer to the unwritten
or non-codified languages of developing countries or isolated areas,[20][21] where
the term "vernacular language" would be preferred by linguists.[22]

Features that distinguish dialects from each other can be found in lexicon
(vocabulary) and grammar, as well as in pronunciation (phonology, including
prosody). Where the salient distinctions are only or mostly to be observed in
pronunciation, the more specific term accent may be used instead of dialect. Other
types of speech varieties include jargons, which are characterized by differences in
lexicon; slang; patois; pidgins; and argots. The particular speech patterns used by an
individual are termed an idiolect.

Contents
Standard and non-standard dialect
Dialect or language
Mutual intelligibility
Sociolinguistic definitions
Political factors
Terminology
Dialect and accent
Examples
German
Italy
The Balkans
Lebanon
North Africa
Ukraine
Moldova
Greater China
Historical linguistics
Interlingua
Selected list of articles on dialects
See also
References
External links

Standard and non-standard dialect

A standard dialect (also known as a "standardized dialect" or "standard language") is
a dialect that is supported by institutions. Such institutional support may include any
or all of the following: government recognition or designation; formal presentation in
schooling as the "correct" form of a language; informal monitoring and policing of
everyday usage; published grammars, dictionaries, and textbooks that set forth a
normative spoken and written form; and/or an extensive formal literature that
employs that variety (prose, poetry, non-fiction, etc.). There may be multiple
standard dialects associated with a single language. For example, Standard
American English, Standard British English, Standard Canadian English, Standard
Indian English, Standard Australian English, and Standard Philippine English may all
be said to be standard dialects of the English language.

A nonstandard dialect, like a standard dialect, has a complete grammar and

vocabulary, but is usually not the beneficiary of institutional support. Examples of a
nonstandard English dialect are Southern American English, Western Australian
English, New York English, New England English, Mid-Atlantic American or
Philadelphia / Baltimore English, Scouse, Brummie, Cockney, and Tyke. The Dialect
Test was designed by Joseph Wright to compare different English dialects with each
other.

Dialect or language
There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages
from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language.[23] A number of rough
measures exist, sometimes leading to contradictory results. The distinction
(dichotomy) between dialect and language is therefore subjective (arbitrary) and
depends upon the user's preferred frame of reference.[24] For example, there has
been discussion about whether or not the Limón Creole English should be considered
"a kind" of English or a different language. This creole is spoken in the Caribbean
coast of Costa Rica (Central America) by descendants of Jamaican people. The
position that Costa Rican linguists support depends upon which university they
represent. Another example is Scanian, which even, for a time, had its own ISO code.

Mutual intelligibility

One criterion, which is often considered to be purely linguistic, is that of mutual

intelligibility: two varieties are said to be dialects of the same language if being a
speaker of one variety confers sufficient knowledge to understand and be understood
by a speaker of the other; otherwise, they are said to be different languages.[25]
However, this definition cannot consistently delimit languages in the case of a dialect
continuum (or dialect chain), containing a sequence of varieties, each mutually
intelligible with the next, but where widely separated varieties may not be mutually
intelligible.[25] Further problems with this criterion are that mutual intelligibility
occurs in varying degrees, and that it is difficult to distinguish from prior familiarity
with the other variety. Reported mutual intelligibility may also be affected by
speakers' attitudes to the other speech community.[26]

Sociolinguistic definitions

Another occasionally used criterion for discriminating dialects from languages is the
sociolinguistic notion of linguistic authority. According to this definition, two
varieties are considered dialects of the same language if (under at least some
circumstances) they would defer to the same authority regarding some questions
about their language. For instance, to learn the name of a new invention, or an
obscure foreign species of
plant, speakers of
Westphalian and East
Franconian German might
each consult a German
dictionary or ask a
German-speaking expert in
the subject. Thus these
varieties are said to be
Local varieties in the West Germanic dialect continuum are
dependent on, or
oriented towards either Standard Dutch or Standard German
heteronomous with respect depending on which side of the border they are spoken.[27]
to, Standard German,
which is said to be
autonomous.[27] In contrast, speakers in the Netherlands of Low Saxon varieties
similar to Westphalian would instead consult a dictionary of Standard Dutch.
Similarly, although Yiddish is classified by linguists as a language in the Middle High
German group of languages, a Yiddish speaker would consult a different dictionary in
such a case.

Within this framework, W. A. Stewart defined a language as an autonomous variety

together with all the varieties that are heteronomous with respect to it, noting that
an essentially equivalent definition had been stated by Charles A. Ferguson and John
J. Gumperz in 1960.[28][29] Similarly, a heteronomous variety may be considered a
dialect of a language defined in this way.[28] In these terms, Danish and Norwegian,
though mutually intelligible to a large degree, are considered separate languages.[30]
In the framework of Heinz Kloss, these are described as languages by ausbau
(development) rather than by abstand (separation).[31]

In other situations, a closely related group of varieties possess considerable (though

incomplete) mutual intelligibility, but none dominates the others. To describe this
situation, the editors of the Handbook of African Languages introduced the term
dialect cluster as a classificatory unit at the same level as a language.[32] A similar
situation, but with a greater degree of mutual unintelligibility, has been termed a
language cluster.[33]

Political factors

In many societies, however, a particular dialect, often the sociolect of the elite class,
comes to be identified as the "standard" or "proper" version of a language by those
seeking to make a social distinction and is contrasted with other varieties. As a result
of this, in some contexts, the term "dialect" refers specifically to varieties with low
social status. In this secondary sense of "dialect", language varieties are often called
dialects rather than languages:

if they have no standard or codified form,

if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech),
if the speakers of the given language do not have a state of their own,
if they lack prestige with respect to some other, often standardised, variety.
The status of "language" is not solely determined by linguistic criteria, but it is also
the result of a historical and political development. Romansh came to be a written
language, and therefore it is recognized as a language, even though it is very close to
the Lombardic alpine dialects. An opposite example is the case of Chinese, whose
variations such as Mandarin and Cantonese are often called dialects and not
languages in China, despite their mutual unintelligibility.

Modern nationalism, as developed especially since the French Revolution, has made
the distinction between "language" and "dialect" an issue of great political
importance. A group speaking a separate "language" is often seen as having a
greater claim to being a separate "people", and thus to be more deserving of its own
independent state, while a group speaking a "dialect" tends to be seen not as "a
people" in its own right, but as a sub-group, part of a bigger people, which must
content itself with regional autonomy. The distinction between language and dialect
is thus inevitably made at least as much on a political basis as on a linguistic one,
and can lead to great political controversy or even armed conflict.

The Yiddish linguist Max Weinreich published the expression, A shprakh iz a dialekt
mit an armey un flot ("‫א דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט‬
ַ ‫א שפּראַך איז‬
ַ ": "A language is a
dialect with an army and navy") in YIVO Bleter 25.1, 1945, p. 13. The significance of
the political factors in any attempt at answering the question "what is a language?"
is great enough to cast doubt on whether any strictly linguistic definition, without a
socio-cultural approach, is possible. This is illustrated by the frequency with which
the army-navy aphorism is cited.

Terminology

By the definition most commonly used by linguists, any linguistic variety can be
considered a "dialect" of some language—"everybody speaks a dialect". According to
that interpretation, the criteria above merely serve to distinguish whether two
varieties are dialects of the same language or dialects of different languages.

The terms "language" and "dialect" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, although
it is often perceived to be.[34] Thus there is nothing contradictory in the statement
"the language of the Pennsylvania Dutch is a dialect of German".

There are various terms that linguists may use to avoid taking a position on whether
the speech of a community is an independent language in its own right or a dialect of
another language. Perhaps the most common is "variety";[35] "lect" is another. A
more general term is "languoid", which does not distinguish between dialects,
languages, and groups of languages, whether genealogically related or not.[36]

Dialect and accent

John Lyons writes that "Many linguists [...] subsume differences of accent under
differences of dialect."[8] In general, accent refers to variations in pronunciation,
while dialect also encompasses specific variations in grammar and vocabulary.[37]

Examples
German

When talking about the German language, the term German dialects is only used for
the traditional regional varieties. That allows them to be distinguished from the
regional varieties of modern standard German.

The German dialects show a wide spectrum of variation. Some of them are not
mutually intelligible. German dialectology traditionally names the major dialect
groups after Germanic tribes from which they were assumed to have descended.[38]

The extent to which the dialects are spoken varies according to a number of factors:
In Northern Germany, dialects are less common than in the South. In cities, dialects
are less common than in the countryside. In a public environment, dialects are less
common than in a familiar environment.

The situation in Switzerland and Liechtenstein is different from the rest of the
German-speaking countries. The Swiss German dialects are the default everyday
language in virtually every situation, whereas standard German is only spoken in
education, partially in media, and with foreigners not possessing knowledge of Swiss
German. Most Swiss German speakers perceive standard German to be a foreign
language.

The Low German and Low Franconian varieties spoken in Germany are often
counted among the German dialects. This reflects the modern situation where they
are roofed by standard German. This is different from the situation in the Middle
Ages when Low German had strong tendencies towards an ausbau language.

The Frisian languages spoken in Germany are excluded from the German dialects.

Italy

Italy is an often quoted example of a country where the second definition of the word
"dialect" (dialetto[16]) is most prevalent. Italy is in fact home to a vast array of
separate languages, most of which lack mutual intelligibility with one another and
have their own local varieties; twelve of them (Albanian, Catalan, German, Greek,
Slovene, Croatian, French, Franco-Provençal, Friulian, Ladin, Occitan and Sardinian)
underwent Italianization to a varying degree (ranging from the currently endangered
state displayed by Sardinian and Southern Italian Greek to the vigorous promotion of
Tyrolean), but have been officially recognized as minority languages (minoranze
linguistiche storiche), in light of their distinctive historical development. Yet, most of
the regional languages spoken across the peninsula are often colloquially referred to
in non-linguistic circles as Italian dialetti, since even the prestigious Neapolitan,
Sicilian and Venetian have had vulgar Tuscan as their reference language since the
Middle Ages. However, all these languages evolved from Vulgar Latin in parallel with
Italian, long prior to the popular diffusion of the latter throughout what is now
Italy.[39]

During the Risorgimento, Italian still existed mainly as a literary language, and only
2.5% of Italy's population could speak Italian.[40] Proponents of Italian nationalism,
like the Lombard Alessandro Manzoni, stressed the importance of establishing a
uniform national language in order to better create an Italian national identity.[41]
With the unification of Italy in the 1860s, Italian became the official national
language of the new Italian state, while the other ones came to be institutionally
regarded as "dialects" subordinate to Italian, and negatively associated with a lack of
education.

In the early 20th century, the vast conscription of Italian men from all throughout
Italy during World War I is credited with having facilitated the diffusion of Italian
among the less educated conscripted soldiers, as these men, who had been speaking
various regional languages up until then, found themselves forced to communicate
with each other in a common tongue while serving in the Italian military. With the
popular spread of Italian out of the intellectual circles, because of the mass-media
and the establishment of public education, Italians from all regions were increasingly
exposed to Italian.[39] While dialect levelling has increased the number of Italian
speakers and decreased the number of speakers of other languages native to Italy,
Italians in different regions have developed variations of standard Italian specific to
their region. These variations of standard Italian, known as "regional Italian", would
thus more appropriately be called dialects in accordance with the first linguistic
definition of the term, as they are in fact derived from Italian,[42][18][43] with some
degree of influence from the local or regional native languages and accents.[39]

The most widely spoken languages of Italy, which are not to be confused with
regional Italian, fall within a family of which even Italian is part, the Italo-Dalmatian
group. This wide category includes:

the complex of the Tuscan and Central Italian dialects, such as Romanesco in
Rome, with the addition of some distantly Corsican-derived varieties (Gallurese
and Sassarese) spoken in Northern Sardinia;
the Neapolitan group (also known as "Intermediate Meridional Italian"), which
encompasses not only Naples' and Campania's speech but also a variety of related
neighboring varieties like the Irpinian dialect, Abruzzese and Southern
Marchegiano, Molisan, Northern Calabrian or Cosentino, and the Bari dialect. The
Cilentan dialect of Salerno, in Campania, is considered significantly influenced by
the Neapolitan and the below-mentioned language groups;
the Sicilian group (also known as "Extreme Meridional Italian"), including Salentino
and centro-southern Calabrian.

Modern Italian is heavily based on the Florentine dialect of Tuscan.[39] The Tuscan-
based language that would eventually become modern Italian had been used in
poetry and literature since at least the 12th century, and it first spread outside the
Tuscan linguistic borders through the works of the so-called tre corone ("three
crowns"): Dante Alighieri, Petrarch, and Giovanni Boccaccio. Florentine thus
gradually rose to prominence as the volgare of the literate and upper class in Italy,
and it spread throughout the peninsula and Sicily as the lingua franca among the
Italian educated class as well as Italian travelling merchants. The economic prowess
and cultural and artistic importance of Tuscany in the Late Middle Ages and the
Renaissance further encouraged the diffusion of the Florentine-Tuscan Italian
throughout Italy and among the educated and powerful, though local and regional
languages remained the main languages of the common people.

Aside from the Italo-Dalmatian languages, the second most widespread family in
Italy is the Gallo-Italic group, spanning throughout much of Northern Italy's
languages and dialects (such as Piedmontese, Emilian-Romagnol, Ligurian, Lombard,
Venetian, Sicily's and Basilicata's Gallo-Italic in southern Italy, etc.).
Finally, other languages from a number of different families follow the last two major
groups: the Gallo-Romance languages (French, Occitan and its Vivaro-Alpine dialect,
Franco-Provençal); the Rhaeto-Romance languages (Friulian and Ladin); the Ibero-
Romance languages (Sardinia's Algherese); the Germanic Cimbrian, Southern
Bavarian, Walser German and the Mòcheno language; the Albanian Arbëresh
language; the Hellenic Griko language and Calabrian Greek; the Serbo-Croatian
Slavomolisano dialect; and the various Slovene languages, including the Gail Valley
dialect and Istrian dialect. The language indigenous to Sardinia, while being
Romance in nature, is considered to be a specific linguistic family of its own,
separate from the other Neo-Latin groups; it is often subdivided into the Centro-
Southern and Centro-Northern dialects.

Though mostly mutually unintelligible, the exact degree to which all the Italian
languages are mutually unintelligible varies, often correlating with geographical
distance or geographical barriers between the languages; some regional Italian
languages that are closer in geographical proximity to each other or closer to each
other on the dialect continuum are more or less mutually intelligible. For instance, a
speaker of purely Eastern Lombard, a language in Northern Italy's Lombardy region
that includes the Bergamasque dialect, would have severely limited mutual
intelligibility with a purely Italian speaker and would be nearly completely
unintelligible to a Sicilian-speaking individual. Due to Eastern Lombard's status as a
Gallo-Italic language, an Eastern Lombard speaker may, in fact, have more mutual
intelligibility with an Occitan, Catalan, or French speaker than with an Italian or
Sicilian speaker. Meanwhile, a Sicilian-speaking person would have a greater degree
of mutual intelligibility with a speaker of the more closely related Neapolitan
language, but far less mutual intelligibility with a person speaking Sicilian Gallo-
Italic, a language that developed in isolated Lombard emigrant communities on the
same island as the Sicilian language.

Today, the majority of Italian nationals are able to speak Italian, though many Italians
still speak their regional language regularly or as their primary day-to-day language,
especially at home with family or when communicating with Italians from the same
town or region.

The Balkans

The classification of speech varieties as dialects or languages and their relationship

to other varieties of speech can be controversial and the verdicts inconsistent. Serbo-
Croatian illustrates this point. Serbo-Croatian has two major formal variants (Serbian
and Croatian). Both are based on the Shtokavian dialect and therefore mutually
intelligible with differences found mostly in their respective local vocabularies and
minor grammatical differences. Certain dialects of Serbia (Torlakian) and Croatia
(Kajkavian and Chakavian), however, are not mutually intelligible even though they
are usually subsumed under Serbo-Croatian. How these dialects should be classified
in relation to Shtokavian remains a matter of dispute.

Macedonian, although largely mutually intelligible with Bulgarian and certain

dialects of Serbo-Croatian (Torlakian), is considered by Bulgarian linguists to be a
Bulgarian dialect, in contrast with the contemporary international view and the view
in North Macedonia, which regards it as a language in its own right. Nevertheless,
before the establishment of a literary standard of Macedonian in 1944, in most
sources in and out of Bulgaria before the Second World War, the southern Slavonic
dialect continuum covering the area of today's North Macedonia were referred to as
Bulgarian dialects.

Lebanon

In Lebanon, a part of the Christian population considers "Lebanese" to be in some

sense a distinct language from Arabic and not merely a dialect thereof. During the
civil war, Christians often used Lebanese Arabic officially, and sporadically used the
Latin script to write Lebanese, thus further distinguishing it from Arabic. All
Lebanese laws are written in the standard literary form of Arabic, though
parliamentary debate may be conducted in Lebanese Arabic.

North Africa

In Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, the Darijas (spoken North African languages) are
sometimes considered more different from other Arabic dialects. Officially, North
African countries prefer to give preference to the Literary Arabic and conduct much
of their political and religious life in it (adherence to Islam), and refrain from
declaring each country's specific variety to be a separate language, because Literary
Arabic is the liturgical language of Islam and the language of the Islamic sacred
book, the Qur'an. Although, especially since the 1960s, the Darijas are occupying an
increasing use and influence in the cultural life of these countries. Examples of
cultural elements where Darijas' use became dominant include: theatre, film, music,
television, advertisement, social media, folk-tale books and companies' names.

Ukraine

The Modern Ukrainian language has been in common use since the late 17th century,
associated with the establishment of the Cossack Hetmanate. In the 19th century,
the Tsarist Government of the Russian Empire claimed that Ukrainian was merely a
dialect of Russian and not a language on its own. According to these claims, the
differences were few and caused by the conquest of western Ukraine by the Polish-
Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, in reality the dialects in Ukraine were
developing independently from the dialects in the modern Russia for several
centuries, and as a result they differed substantially.

Following the signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the German Empire briefly gained
control over Ukraine during World War I, but was eventually defeated by the
Entente, with major involvement by Russian Bolsheviks. After Bolsheviks managed to
conquer the rest of Ukraine from the Ukrainian People's Republic and the Whites,
Ukraine became part of the USSR, whence a process of Ukrainization was begun,
with encouragement from Moscow. However, in the late 1920s - early 1930s, the
process started to reverse. Witnessing the Ukrainian cultural revival spurred by the
Ukrainization in the early 1920s, and fearing that it might lead to an independence
movement, Moscow started to remove from power and in some cases physically
eliminate the public proponents of Ukrainization. The appointment of Pavel
Postyshev as the secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine marked the end of
Ukrainization, and the opposite process of Russification started. After World War II,
citing Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany in an attempt to gain
independence as the reason, Moscow changed its policy towards increasing
repression of the Ukrainian language.

Today the boundaries of the Ukrainian language to the Russian language are still not
drawn clearly, with an intermediate dialect between them, called Surzhyk,
developing in Ukraine, also known as balachka in Ukrainian ethnic territories
controlled by Russia.

Moldova

There have been cases of a variety of speech being deliberately reclassified to serve
political purposes. One example is Moldovan. In 1996, the Moldovan parliament,
citing fears of "Romanian expansionism", rejected a proposal from President Mircea
Snegur to change the name of the language to Romanian, and in 2003 a Moldovan–
Romanian dictionary was published, purporting to show that the two countries speak
different languages. Linguists of the Romanian Academy reacted by declaring that all
the Moldovan words were also Romanian words; while in Moldova, the head of the
Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Ion Bărbuţă, described the dictionary as a
politically motivated "absurdity".

Greater China

Unlike languages that use alphabets to indicate their pronunciation, Chinese

characters have developed from logograms that do not always give hints to their
pronunciation. Although the written characters have remained relatively consistent
for the last two thousand years, the pronunciation and grammar in different regions
have developed to an extent that the varieties of the spoken language are often
mutually unintelligible. As a series of migration to the south throughout the history,
the regional languages of the south, including Gan, Xiang, Wu, Min, Yue and Hakka
often show traces of Old Chinese or Middle Chinese. From the Ming dynasty onward,
Beijing has been the capital of China and the dialect spoken in Beijing has had the
most prestige among other varieties. With the founding of the Republic of China,
Standard Mandarin was designated as the official language, based on the spoken
language of Beijing. Since then, other spoken varieties are regarded as fangyan
(regional speech). Cantonese is still the most commonly-used language in
Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Macau and among some overseas Chinese communities,
whereas Hokkien has been accepted in Taiwan as an important local language
alongside Mandarin.

Historical linguistics

Interlingua
One language, Interlingua, was developed so that the languages of Western
civilization would act as its dialects.[44] Drawing from such concepts as the
international scientific vocabulary and Standard Average European, linguists
developed a theory that the modern Western languages were actually dialects of a
hidden or latent language. Researchers at the International Auxiliary Language
Association extracted words and affixes that they considered to be part of
Interlingua's vocabulary.[45] In theory, speakers of the Western languages would
understand written or spoken Interlingua immediately, without prior study, since
their own languages were its dialects.[44] This has often turned out to be true,
especially, but not solely, for speakers of the Romance languages and educated
speakers of English. Interlingua has also been found to assist in the learning of other
languages. In one study, Swedish high school students learning Interlingua were able
to translate passages from Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian that students of those
languages found too difficult to understand.[46] The vocabulary of Interlingua
extends beyond the Western language families.[45]

Selected list of articles on dialects

Varieties of Arabic Connacht Irish, Munster Irish, Ulster
Bengali dialects Irish
Catalan dialects Italian dialects
Varieties of Chinese Japanese dialects
Cypriot Greek Korean dialects
Cypriot Turkish Norwegian dialects
Danish dialects Dialects of Polish
Dutch dialects Portuguese dialects
English dialects Romanian dialects
Finnish dialects Russian dialects
Varieties of French Slavic microlanguages
Georgian dialects Slovenian dialects
German dialects Spanish dialects
Malayalam languages Swedish dialects
Varieties of Malay Sri Lankan Tamil dialects
Yiddish dialects

See also
Accent perception
Chronolect
Colloquialism
Creole language
Dialect levelling
Dialectology
Dialectometry
Ethnolect
Eye dialect
Idiolect
Isogloss
Koiné language
 Register (sociolinguistics)
Literary language
Nation language
Regional language
Sprachbund

References
1. Oxford Living Dictionaries – English. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/di
alect) Retrieved 18 January 2019.
2. Merriam-Webster Online dictionary. (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dialect)
3. Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie. 2016. American English: Dialects and
Variation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, p. 184.
4. Daniel. W. Bruhn, Walls of the Tongue: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Ursula K. Le
Guin's The Dispossessed (http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~dwbruhn/dwbruhn_376_D
ispossessed.pdf) (PDF), p. 8
5. Christopher D. Land, "Varieties of the Greek language", in Stanley E. Porter,
Andrew Pitts (ed.), The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and
Development (https://books.google.com/books?id=i5N9VUT5Tl4C), p. 250
6. "topolect". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2010.
7. Chao, Yuen Ren (1968). Language and Symbolic Systems (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=Se87AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130&dq=language+standard+dialect). CUP
archive. p. 130.
8. Lyons, John (1981). Language and Linguistics (https://archive.org/details/languageli
nguist0000lyon). Cambridge University Press. p. 25 (https://archive.org/details/lang
uagelinguist0000lyon/page/25). "language standard dialect."
9. Johnson, David. How Myths about Language Affect Education: What Every Teacher
Should Know (https://books.google.com/books?id=nPsVxfVDXp0C&pg=PA75&dq=l
anguage+standard+dialect). p. 75.
10. McWhorter, John (Jan 19, 2016). "What's a Language, Anyway?" (https://www.theatl
antic.com/international/archive/2016/01/difference-between-language-dialect/4247
04/). The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
11. Benedikt Perak, Robert Trask, Milica Mihaljević (2005). Temeljni lingvistički pojmovi
(https://www.academia.edu/819390/Temeljni_lingvistički_pojmovi) (in Serbo-
Croatian). p. 81.
12. Schilling-Estes, Natalies. (2006) "Dialect variation." In R.W. Fasold and J. Connor-
Linton (eds) An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. pp. 311-341. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13. Sławomir Gala (1998). Teoretyczne, badawcze i dydaktyczne założenia dialektologii
(https://books.google.com/books?id=nWEZAQAAIAAJ) (in Polish). Łódzkie
Towarzystwo Naukowe. p. 24.
14. Małgorzata Dąbrowska-Kardas (2012). Analiza dyrektywalna przepisów części
ogólnej kodeksu karnego (https://books.google.com/books?id=DZVSAwAAQBAJ) (in
Polish). Wolters Kluwer. p. 32. ISBN 9788326446177.
15. «The often used term "Italian dialects" may create the false impression that the
dialects are varieties of the standard Italian language.» Martin Maiden, M. Mair
Parry (1997), The Dialects of Italy, Psychology Press, p.2
16. «Parlata propria di un ambiente geografico e culturale ristretto (come la regione, la
provincia, la città o anche il paese): contrapposta a un sistema linguistico affine
per origine e sviluppo, ma che, per diverse ragioni (politiche, letterarie,
geografiche, ecc.), si è imposto come lingua letteraria e ufficiale». Battaglia,
Salvatore (1961). Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, UTET, Torino, V. IV,
pp.321-322
17. Peter G. Gowing, William Henry Scott (1971). Acculturation in the Philippines:
Essays on Changing Societies. A Selection of Papers Presented at the Baguio
Religious Acculturation Conferences from 1958 to 1968 (https://books.google.com/
books?id=zfjZAAAAMAAJ). New Day Publishers. p. 157.
18. Maiden, Martin; Parry, Mair (1997). The Dialects of Italy (https://books.google.com/
books?id=9Dz_LyQF_eAC&q=dialects+of+italy). Routledge. p. 2.
19. Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago (2007). Filipino is Not
Our Language: Learn why it is Not and Find Out what it is (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=C3oLAQAAMAAJ). p. 26.
20. Fodde Melis, Luisanna (2002). Race, Ethnicity and Dialects: Language Policy and
Ethnic Minorities in the United States. FrancoAngeli. p. 35. ISBN 9788846439123.
21. Crystal, David (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (https://archive.org/
details/dictionarylingui00crys_715) (6 ed.). Blackwell Publishing. p. 142 (https://arc
hive.org/details/dictionarylingui00crys_715/page/n167)–144. ISBN 978-1-4051-
5296-9.
22. Haugen, Einar. Dialect, Language, Nation. American Anthropologist New Series,
Vol. 68, No. 4. p. 927. JSTOR 670407 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/670407).
23. Cysouw, Michael; Good, Jeff. (2013). "Languoid, Doculect, and Glossonym:
Formalizing the Notion 'Language'." Language Documentation and Conservation. 7.
331–359. hdl:10125/4606 (https://hdl.handle.net/10125%2F4606).
24. (http://ispan.waw.pl/journals/index.php/ch/article/download/ch.2016.011/2342)Toma
Kamusella. 2016. The History of the Normative Opposition of 'Language versus
Dialect:' From Its Graeco-Latin Origin to Central Europe’s Ethnolinguistic Nation-
States (pp 189-198). Colloquia Humanistica. Vol 5.
25. Comrie, Bernard (2018). "Introduction". In Bernard Comrie (ed.). The World's Major
Languages (https://books.google.com/books?id=lR9WDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT24).
Routledge. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-1-317-29049-0.
26. Chambers, J. K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (https://archive.org/details/dial
ectology00cham_601) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 4 (https://archive.o
rg/details/dialectology00cham_601/page/n18). ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
27. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 10.
28. Stewart, William A. (1968). "A sociolinguistic typology for describing national
multilingualism". In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of
Language. De Gruyter. pp. 531–545. doi:10.1515/9783110805376.531 (https://doi.
org/10.1515%2F9783110805376.531). ISBN 978-3-11-080537-6. p. 535.
29. Ferguson, Charles A.; Gumperz, John J. (1960). "Introduction". In Ferguson, Charles
A.; Gumperz, John J. (eds.). Linguistic Diversity in South Asia: Studies in Regional,
Social, and Functional Variation. Indiana University, Research Center in
Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics. pp. 1–18. p. 5.
30. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 11.
31. Kloss, Heinz (1967). " 'Abstand languages' and 'ausbau languages' ".
Anthropological Linguistics. 9 (7): 29–41. JSTOR 30029461 (https://www.jstor.org/st
able/30029461).
32. Handbook Sub-committee Committee of the International African Institute. (1946).
"A Handbook of African Languages". Africa. 16 (3): 156–159. JSTOR 1156320 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/1156320).
33. Hansford, Keir; Bendor-Samuel, John; Stanford, Ron (1976). "A provisional language
map of Nigeria". Savanna. 5 (2): 115–124. p. 118.
34. McWhorter, John (2016-01-19). "There's No Such Thing as a 'Language' " (https://w
ww.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/difference-between-language-dia
lect/424704/). The Atlantic. Retrieved 2019-10-24.
35. Finegan, Edward (2007). Language: Its Structure and Use (5th ed.). Boston, MA,
USA: Thomson Wadsworth. p. 348. ISBN 978-1-4130-3055-6.
36. "Languoid" (http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Languoid) at Glottopedia.com
37. Lyons (1981), p. 268.
38. Danvas, Kegesa (2016). "From dialect to variation space" (http://www.cutewriters.c
om/german-language-dialect-variations/). Cutewriters. Cutewriters Inc. Retrieved
July 29, 2016.
39. Domenico Cerrato. "Che lingua parla un italiano?" (http://www.treccani.it/magazin
e/chiasmo/lettere_e_arti/1_identita_ssas_lingua_italiano.html). Treccani.it.
40. "Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition"
(http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=ita). Ethnologue.com.
Retrieved 2010-04-21.
41. An often quoted paradigm of Italian nationalism is the ode on the Piedmontese
revolution of 1821 (Marzo 1821 (https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Marzo_1821)),
wherein the Italian people are portrayed by Manzoni as "one by military prowess,
by language, by religion, by history, by blood, and by sentiment".
42. Loporcaro, Michele (2009). Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani (in Italian). Bari:
Laterza.; Marcato, Carla (2007). Dialetto, dialetti e italiano (in Italian). Bologna: Il
Mulino.; Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
43. Repetti, Lori (2000). Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=z1f5fIrtw58C&q=dialects+of+italy). John Benjamins
Publishing.
44. Morris, Alice Vanderbilt, General report (http://www.interlingua.fi/ialagr45.htm#ma
nyrepresented) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20060814204450/http://ww
w.interlingua.fi/ialagr45.htm) 2006-08-14 at the Wayback Machine. New York:
International Auxiliary Language Association, 1945.
45. Gode, Alexander, Interlingua-English Dictionary. New York: Storm Publishers, 1951.
46. Gopsill, F. P., International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield: British
Interlingua Society, 1990.

External links
Dialect (linguistics) (https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161156) at the
Encyclopædia Britannica
Sounds Familiar? (http://www.bl.uk/soundsfamiliar) – Listen to regional accents and
dialects of the UK on the British Library's 'Sounds Familiar' website
International Dialects of English Archive Since 1997 (http://web.ku.edu/idea/)
whoohoo.co.uk British Dialect Translator (http://www.whoohoo.co.uk)
thedialectdictionary.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20181224033902/http://ww
w.thedialectdictionary.com/) – Compilation of Dialects from around the globe
 A site for announcements and downloading the SEAL System (http://www.unii.ac.jp/
~chitsuko/english/index.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dialect&oldid=961214031"

This page was last edited on 7 June 2020, at 07:01 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.