14

I was wondering what's the difference between a form of a language and a dialect of a language?

For example, Wikipedia states that British English is a form of English and not a dialect of English.

Another page states that "Standard Singapore English" is not a dialect, but a form of English. It also states that "Singapore Colloquial English" is a form of English.

What's the difference between a form of a language and a dialect of a language?

hippietrail
  • 14,687
  • 7
  • 61
  • 146
Pacerier
  • 621
  • 1
  • 6
  • 12

2 Answers2

11

Answering this question requires defining "language" and "dialect". It's easier to do this by using the non-technical word "variety".

Language: speech varieties are different languages if they are not mutually intelligible.

Dialect: speech varieties are dialects of a language if they are mutually intelligible but differ in systematic ways.

Some examples of dialects of English
Britain: Received Pronunciation (or RP), Yorkshire English, Estuary English, Scouse, Norfolk English, etc. Through various historical accidents RP came to be the most prestigious dialect. The USA: General American, North-Central, Midland, Greater New York City, etc. General American is the variety with the fewest obvious regional features, and is used especially in the media. Rick Aschmann has an excellent and detailed introduction to North American English dialectology.

The Wikipedia article that says: "British English is the form of English used in the United Kingdom. It includes all English dialects used within the United Kingdom." is simply using the non-technical term "form" to refer to the grouping of all dialects of English found in the United Kingdom.

As for the Wikipedia article on Singapore English, I can't see where it says that "'Standard Singapore English' is not a dialect, but a form of English". It does say that Singapore Standard English is very similar to standard British English (which I assume refers to RP). Singapore Colloquial English (aka Singlish) on the other hand, while based largely on English (as well as on the other languages of Singapore) is so different from English that it is not usually considered a dialect of English (ie it is not mutually intelligible with any other dialect of English) but a creole.

So in short, referring to a "form" of a language is a non-technical usage that could cover any variety, or grouping of varieties, of a language (ie dialects, idiolects, registers, genres, jargons, etc). But the term "dialect" is a technical term within linguistics.

Community
  • 1
Gaston Ümlaut
  • 6,697
  • 30
  • 46
  • Btw regarding your definition of language and dialect.. Since "Hokkien" and "Chinese" are not mutually intelligible, are you saying that "Hokkien" is considered a language and not considered a dialect of Chinese? – Pacerier May 13 '12 at 13:30
  • @Pacerier I'm not sure what you mean by "Chinese", perhaps Mandarin? If so, yes, Hokkien and Mandarin are not mutually intelligible and so are different "languages", in the technical, linguistic sense of the word. – Gaston Ümlaut May 13 '12 at 14:10
  • Ok, just to confirm, you are saying that "British English" is a group of dialects, and it is not a dialect, for the same reason a group of animals is not an animal right? – Pacerier May 13 '12 at 15:53
  • @Pacerier Yes, there is no UK English dialect called "British English", the term refers collectively to all of the dialects of English found in Britain. – Gaston Ümlaut May 13 '12 at 23:14
  • Ic, so blunders http://bit.ly/KD51Xz is wrong then. – Pacerier May 13 '12 at 23:40
  • 2
    No, it isn't wrong. It is using "dialect" in a less finely-grained sense than you are in this question. Your assumption that a particular set of criteria distinguishes the meanings of a set of words for all contexts in which they might be used is what is wrong. – Colin Fine May 16 '12 at 23:29
  • 1
    @ColinFine What do you mean by "less finely-grained"? Re your second comment, perhaps I misunderstand you, but technical terminology has to retain a core meaning across all usages or else it is of no use. – Gaston Ümlaut May 17 '12 at 06:13
  • 1
    @GastonÜmlaut: I don't agree. Some technical words do have one or more precise meanings, but many technical terms, particularly in a "soft" science like linguistics, are subject to endless discussion about their precise meaning, with a result that different writers end up using them in slightly different ways. This is a problem when somebody asks a general question like this, but for most purposes it's enough that the meaning is clear enough in the context in which it is used. So for some purposes it can be useful to describe "British English" as a dialect, and for other purposes not. – Colin Fine May 17 '12 at 08:43
  • @ColinFine While it's reasonable in a non-technical context to talk about people as speaking "British English", in fact there is no speech community (or individual) that speaks "British English". The speech communities in Britain have many dialects which, taken together, can be referred to as "British English", but they each have their own dialect. If I wanted to find a speaker of "British English" where would I go? And if I got any two speakers of "British English" together, would they agree that they speak the same way? – Gaston Ümlaut May 17 '12 at 13:18
  • 2
    @ColinFine I should add, my view is that the definition of "dialect" in linguistics is reasonably settled and precise; I'm not aware of there being "endless discussion about their precise meaning". The fuzziness (and there is plenty) comes from the difficulties in applying the definition to particular circumstances. – Gaston Ümlaut May 18 '12 at 03:25
4

Types of Language Forms:

  • Idiolect: language form of the single speaker.
  • Standard Dialect: group dialect that is supported by institutions.
  • Non-Standard Dialect: dialect that is not supported by institutions, and is non-singular. One type of non-standard dialect is a sociolect, which is a dialect associated with a social group such as a socioeconomic class, an ethnic group, an age group, etc.

Though I might be wrong, my guess is that in the examples you provided, the author intended to mean that a dialect was standard or non-standard, and confused a language form as being a standard dialect.

blunders
  • 1,315
  • 1
  • 9
  • 24
  • Do you mean to say that British English is a standard dialect of English? – Pacerier May 12 '12 at 18:06
  • @Pacerier: Yes, I do, since British English is the dialect of English used by the Government of the United Kingdom, which would mean British English is a standard dialect of English. – blunders May 12 '12 at 18:26
  • Btw just to confirm, you are saying that American English is also a standard dialect of English, and we have many dialects of British English, and we also have many dialects of American English? – Pacerier May 12 '12 at 18:35
  • 2
    I think at this point we might have to clarify that standard does not imply standardized with regard to British English, American English, etc. – hippietrail May 12 '12 at 18:45
  • Yes, American English is the standard dialect of the Federal government of the United States. The key I believe to your last question is 'dialects of', which is to say none of those dialects would be as hippietrail says standardized form of the language, but the sum of those dialects form a standard dialect; meaning American English is not British English, or vice versa. – blunders May 12 '12 at 18:49
  • @blunders Ok, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English) states that American English is a set of dialects of the English language. Does it mean that "a set of dialects" can also be called (is equivalent to) "a dialect"? – Pacerier May 12 '12 at 20:13
  • 1
    It should also be pointed out that within British English there is another "standard" variety which would be Received Pronunciation. – Danger Fourpence May 12 '12 at 20:19
  • @Pacerier: Yes, a 'subdialect' is a subdivision of dialect. Subdialects can be divided further, ultimately down to idiolects. – blunders May 12 '12 at 20:20
  • +1 @Danger Fourpence: Agree, was going to point that out Received Pronunciation, but thought it might confuse the matter further. – blunders May 12 '12 at 20:22
  • @blunders Ok, as shown in http://goo.gl/CwmBM, what I was trying to say is that Shouldn't "American English" and "British English" be considered "groups of dialects" and not a "dialect"? In other words they are "groups" and not themselves considered "dialects" right? – Pacerier May 12 '12 at 23:37
  • @Pacerier: Any dialects is able to have subdialects, and I'm unaware of a name for a 'root dialect' other than 'Standard Dialect'; a 'root dialect' being a dialect that was not a subdialect of another dialect. – blunders May 12 '12 at 23:44
  • @blunders Hmm, maybe "British English" and "American English" aren't dialects at all, but collective names of dialects. – Pacerier May 13 '12 at 00:25
  • @Pacerier: No, they are standard dialects. – blunders May 13 '12 at 01:15
  • @blunders Gaston seems to disagree with you: http://goo.gl/4jIf5 – Pacerier May 13 '12 at 23:40
  • @Pacerier: bit.ly/BritishEnglish – blunders May 14 '12 at 01:00
  • @blunders Ok this is confusing =X So you are saying that Gaston is wrong? – Pacerier May 14 '12 at 01:30
  • @Pacerier: I'm saying figure it out for yourself. – blunders May 14 '12 at 01:59