31 replies to this topic

[Hobbesy]

A little bit of a debate between me and Dauth this morning spawned this argument: Is American English a dialect or a whole new language?

Dauth's argument is that US English as it uses a different dictionary is a different language and not a dialect. Since all dialects within the UK use the same dictionary.

My argument is that US English is a dialect, do to the fact that a dialect is defined as being a change in a language defined by it's region, change in grammar, and pronunciation. With such in mind, I bring you attention to this quote taken from Wikipedia's article on dialects.

"A dialect is distinguished by its vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (phonology, including prosody). Where a distinction can be made only in terms of pronunciation, the term accent is appropriate, not dialect (although in common usage, "dialect" and "accent" are usually synonymous)."

So Fallout Studios, what do you think American English should be defined as?

Edited by Høbbesy, 16 January 2009 - 12:25.

[Dauth]

English has thousands of little dialects, from one estate to another they vary, and these form larger semi cohesive dialects such as the Black Country one I speak. Wiz will speak with a distressing amount of Cockney Rhyming slang, but if you ask us to find a definition we both use the same dictionary.

That being said if I get Hobbesy to look a word up, he will use a different dictionary and therefore is using another language, it just happens to be close to the original English as a result of history.

[Hobbesy]

However, the quote I pulled was referenced from the Oxford Dictionary, which is English.

[Dauth]

That is as may be, but the OED is designed for academics and lawyers, in the practical sense which matters far more, you are speaking a different language.

[CommanderJB]

I'd tend to think of it as a dialect (one I find personally a bit annoying; why did a country decide 'hey, let's go change how we spell things' with no particular reason - was it out of spite, or what? - and one that has more changes than most dialects) but not a separate language. Most of those you've listed, Dauth, seem to me more like accents in that they differ mostly in pronunciation and emphasis rather than actual language content. I would consider a dialect something that uses the same language basis for a slightly different content, and an accent something that interprets exactly the same content differently, with perhaps a few small idiosyncrasies. Black Country English, for instance, is written the same as any other form, whereas American English is not.

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 January 2009 - 12:18.

[Wizard]

I'd define it as another language. The simple fact that words are spelt differently means it's another language. Otherwise everything would be the same language whether you were English or Russian.

[Chyros]

Hmm, interesting question.

I myself see it as a different language; for example, spelling is very different, and this can be especially frustrating to outsiders ("armor" should be "armour" and "defense" should be "defence" etc. etc. or vice versa but at least consistently British or American - the differences took me a while to figure out).

Of course there's a noticeable change in vocab too, Americans use "ass", "lar(rrr)ge" and "film" while Brits seem to use "arse", "big" and "movie" more often. And of course "lift" and "elevator" and hundreds of other examples.

And that's not counting slang (of which both languages got plenty and then some) or the rather extremely huge differences in accents.

Edited by Chyros, 16 January 2009 - 12:42.

[Rayburn]

That's actually a tough question and there are points which speak for either of the two options. I would probably say it's something in between. Not just a dialect because there are differences in vocabulary, pronunciation and also grammar here and there but also not a whole new language because the basics are still similar. Maybe it is the current state of an ongoing development. American English might have BEEN a dialect some time ago and it could - due to more and more changes - BECOME an independent language, although that would certainly take quite a while. Quite frankly, I can't decide which of the two terms is more appropriate.

Being an outsider to this whole debate, I reckon I might be entirely unable to decide, especially since I've never talked to a native Brit OR American in person (that is not via IMs). I'm not even sure which of the two types of English I use although I tend to prefer British words as well as British spelling. I do, however, prefer the word 'film' over 'movie' because the German word is 'Film'. On the other hand, I rather say 'lift' than 'elevator' because the former is also common here besides the German word 'Fahrstuhl'. Then again, I rather say 'spelled' than 'spelt' because the latter seems to be an exception from the rules I learned. So there we go: My English is probably an 80/20 or 90/10 mixture of British AND US English. Would that be a dialect? German English? Or is that merely an accent? A bunch of habits because I learned most of my casual English from video games?

Here's another thing I should probably mention. If you look at some of my earliest posts, you'll see that I used American spelling back then and that my style was crude and lacklustre at best. When I started learning English at school, we were originally taught neutrally spoken British English. After a few years, we got a new teacher who didn't really care whether we spoke British or American English. We also read lots of American texts and novels at that time. After that, I tried to make my way back to British English. Shortly thereafter, I reached year 12 in which our regular English courses were put together with the bilingual learners. Interestingly, many of the bilinguals either preferred American English or the way they spoke was distinctively German whereas I was pretty much the only one who actually tried to sound at least 'neutral' or (what I associated as) British. Basically, I completely changed my spelling habits TWICE, from British to American and back.

Edited by Rayburn, 16 January 2009 - 13:29.

[CodeCat]

As an (amateur) linguist, I don't distinguish between language and dialect at all. A commonly heard phrase is 'a language is a dialect with an army and a navy'. In other words, the only real distinction is between varieties of speech, not between languages and dialects. It is in fact common to call English and German dialects - of Germanic. Similarly, Germanic itself is a dialect of Indo-European, which also includes Latin (and hence French, Spanish, Romanian etc), Greek and Russian.

The real point that linguists concern themselves with when comparing languages is that of mutual intelligibility. Two languages are considered to be mutually intelligible if speakers of both can understand speakers of the other without too much trouble. In that sense, American English and Standard English (to avoid the term 'English English' which I think is rediculous) are still mostly mutually intelligible, but they are most certainly not the same language, as there are plenty of differences in both pronunciation and vocabulary. Other varieties of English, such as Irish English, Scots, Australian English and South African English, all differ similarly, but each has its own unique features.

Another thing to look at is the so-called dialect continuum. A dialect continuum is a series of dialects (or languages) that are adjacent to each other, where the changes between adjacent dialects are gradual and progressive. A nice example would be the dialect continuum that exists between south England and Scotland. The further you go north, the more features of Scots the dialects get, but there is no clear line to draw where one says 'this is now Scots' other than the rather artificial concept of a country border. Likewise, there are also dialect continuums between various areas in the US and Canada (just go to the northern US, they have a lot of Canadian traits in their language there!), and even between Dutch and German.

That last one is interesting because both languages have been standardised, yet as I said just now, there isn't really a concept of a 'border' in a dialect continuum. As a result, there isn't actually a real language border between the two countries, which is something you can quite clearly hear when you go to the southeastern Netherlands: the dialects there have quite a few German-sounding traits, yet are still mostly mutually intelligible with Dutch though not much at all with German. There are even some dialects sort of half-way in the middle (Luxembourgish as a nice example), which are not really mutually intelligible with either Dutch or German.

Now the issue of spelling. Personally I don't consider it an issue at all, because it stands entirely separate from language. Djust bikoz ai rait inglish laik dhis duz not meik it anudher langwedzh. It's still the same language, just represented in writing in a different way. I could write it in Cyrillic and it would still be English.

[Chyros]

CodeCat, on 16 Jan 2009, 15:20, said:

Now the issue of spelling. Personally I don't consider it an issue at all, because it stands entirely separate from language. Djust bikoz ai rait inglish laik dhis duz not meik it anudher langwedzh. It's still the same language, just represented in writing in a different way. I could write it in Cyrillic and it would still be English.

It is an issue if you're trying to write it correctly .

[Mr. Mylo]

If american english and british english would be different languages than we would have atleast 3 different languages in germany... the bavarian german and especcialy their dialekt is in fact more different than BE and AE.

In my opinion they are the same language just with some small differences.

Mr. Mylo

[Rayburn]

``If american english and british english would be different languages than we would have atleast 3 different languages in germany... the bavarian german and especcialy their dialekt is in fact more different than BE and AE.´´

Good point. I can confirm that. Bavarian is also more different from standard German than for example Austrian German. Even I as someone who's more than fluent in regular German have MASSIVE trouble understanding certain Bavarians. Perhaps this dialect is already further developed into the direction of an actual language than American English is compared to standard English.

Edited by Rayburn, 16 January 2009 - 14:15.

[Shirou]

Codecat summed up the spirit of discussion quite nicely. There is no clear line to draw between what is a Dialect and what is a true new language. For example in the Netherlands, the dialects codecat described are all derived mainly off dutch, and have their dialect traits partly from their close relation to germany.

I however go with dauth here that it is a different language. This I say because of History reasons. The dialects in eastern Netherlands and western Germany for example. are all developments of intertwining languages. They have not developed on their own, but have developed by influence of others.

America does not lie near to the homeland of the language, England. It developed on its own with perhaps some little influence of indian languages (but I wouldn't know what they would be). Because of this independence to the mother tongue, I consider it a self-developed self-righteous language. That is where I would draw the line.

[Mr. Mylo]

Rayburn, on 16 Jan 2009, 15:10, said:

Even I as someone who's more than fluent in regular German have MASSIVE trouble understanding certain Bavarians. Perhaps this dialect is already further developed into the direction of an actual language than American English is compared to standard English.

^This

I learned regular British English at school and visited already some native Brits, also I learned some American English due to the internet. And like Rayburn, I mixed them up a bit.
About one month ago I talked the first time to a native American and I didn't have really problems to understand him. So I am able to understand BE and AE without major problems.

In contrast to this I am not able to understand a native bavarian. The Bavarian have really a massive dialekt and even use other words than the common germans. Furthermore they gave some things like fruits, meals, tools and others things completly different names.

Though, we have in Germany just one dictionary and those weird words have a little note like: "used in the bavarian region".

I think that is because we Germans want to have just one language in our country whereas the Americans want to seperate themselves from Britain. (... Bavaria tried the same once if I remember right, but that's an other story)

Moral of the story there is not really a line which decides between other language or just a dialekt it's more a certain amount of people who decide if they call it just dialekt or an other language.

Mr. Mylo

[Libains]

It's certainly a dialect for me, no matter how much I dislike the ways that Americans spell words.

When the first American Dictionary was put into print, it was put in as 'An American Dictionary of the English Language'. Noah Webster, in writing the dictionary, never intended for it to be a new language, because of the consistent roots within the English language - furthermore pronunciations are very much the same between both dictionaries, with just the grammar being the defining difference. He, and he alone, was responsible for the new American English that people speak today - it wasn't down to competitiveness - his main goal was to unite the many dialects that the Americans used across the country, and he went as far to being in debt for the rest of his life to get the dictionary published (only about 2500 copies ever sold). As such, why should we see this as a new language, even though it was never intended to be one in the first place. It was intended to reform the ways that Americans spoke, and to unify their many different dialects of their own.
Further, to quote wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:

* American English (AmE) is the form of English used in the United States. It includes all English dialects used within the United States of America.
* British English (BrE) is the form of English used in the United Kingdom. It includes all English dialects used within the United Kingdom.

Note how they're dialects of one common language.

Now take into consideration South America. You would say that the majority of South America speaks Spanish, and Brazil Portuguese. If you say that American English is a different language, then you have to define a new language for each and every country in South America. Every one of them speaks a dialect of their own, yet are understandable across South America, and in the country of their native language (Spain/Portugal). Hence is South America talking a dozen different languages, or dialects? For me, it's dialects - I can be understood by anyone in Spain if I speak the Spanish I learned in Bolivia, I can be understood in Portugal if I speak the Portuguese I learned in Brazil, and I can certainly be understood by any American when speaking English.

Code - you talk of mutual intelligibility - sadly the way a linguist looks at this is that if people can understand each other beyond a 'brute force' approach when talking in their own different languages/dialects, then in fact they are speaking the same language, just different dialects. Take Spanish and Portuguese again - the two languages can be understood about 90% in the opposite language. However, you might get a rebellion if you try to class them both as the same language. While the principles of mutual intelligibility are sound, its application is less so as it fails at human cultures, and their social interactions. To quote Wikipedia again:

Wikipedia said:

Two or more languages that demonstrate a sufficiently high degree of mutual intelligibility should properly not be considered two distinct languages but, in fact, multiple varieties of the same language.

And that, in my opinion, is not always right, and never will be, as languages are defined as more than just their mutual intelligibility, also utilising social factors, from the government to the people. As such, the American Government has no main language, instead relying on states to choose their language. Therefore, the prevalence in America is to use English, but there are other states, that like the government, just don't bother. Due to the size of America, it is actually becoming increasingly difficult to define American English as variants of the dialect exist across he country. Using mutual intelligibility, all variants of American English, and all other forms of English, are one language, which I agree with. However, trying to take languages that are otherwise defined by culture and society and apply mutual intelligibility to them is pointless, such as trying to make Spanish and Portuguese one language. If the Federal Government said that the official language of the USA was American - overnight it would become a new language. However, as it currently stands, the prevailing language is English, and as such is still only a dialect.

Finally: While the country's language may differ in terms of what words they use for certain things eg. Lift/Elevator, both the words exist in both languages, hence why the language is the same, with just the nature of speaking it - the dialect - being changed.

[Whitey]

Dauth, on 16 Jan 2009, 6:28, said:

That is as may be, but the OED is designed for academics and lawyers, in the practical sense which matters far more, you are speaking a different language.

Wait, why is that practical? It's like saying a human who receives gene therapy isn't a human in a practical, every-day sense.

They are both by definition, and in all practicality, the same language.

-Rorschach

[CodeCat]

Aftershock, on 16 Jan 2009, 15:22, said:

Codecat summed up the spirit of discussion quite nicely. There is no clear line to draw between what is a Dialect and what is a true new language. For example in the Netherlands, the dialects codecat described are all derived mainly off dutch, and have their dialect traits partly from their close relation to germany.

I however go with dauth here that it is a different language. This I say because of History reasons. The dialects in eastern Netherlands and western Germany for example. are all developments of intertwining languages. They have not developed on their own, but have developed by influence of others.

Wrong. These languages I described existed as such long before the Netherlands and Germany existed as nations. Even the earliest writings of that area already show the characteristics of both language groups. The border wasn't created as it is now until much later.

Furthermore, you're forgetting the fact that there is still a large area covering all of northern Germany (yes, right up to the Polish border), where German was not originally spoken, and the languages there are still closer to Dutch than they are to German. This area is where the Saxons lived. Old Saxon was very similar to Old Low Franconian (which was spoken where the Franks lived, in what is now the southern Netherlands and parts of central Germany), but Old Low Franconian also showed some characteristics shared with Old High German (spoken further south) that Old Saxon did not have.

AJ, on 16 Jan 2009, 16:58, said:

Code - you talk of mutual intelligibility - sadly the way a linguist looks at this is that if people can understand each other beyond a 'brute force' approach when talking in their own different languages/dialects, then in fact they are speaking the same language, just different dialects.

No, I said that there is no difference between language and dialect, only between varieties of language. Mutual intelligibility is not transitive. Consider this example:

Imagine there are three groups with their own language: A, B and C. A and B understand each other, and B and C understand each other. But A and C do not. Which is the dialect of which? If you consider all three to be the same language (with the argument that B can understand both A and C) then you're forgetting the fact that not all varieties are mutually intelligible, since A can't understand C and vice versa. Grouping A and B together and keeping C separate is not an option either, because this discards the mutual intelligibility between B and C. The same applies for grouping B and C together. The conclusion is therefore that it is essentially arbitrary how languages are grouped, because no grouping other than taking each language separately in its own group will satisfy the mutual intelligibility requirement.

AJ, on 16 Jan 2009, 16:58, said:

Take Spanish and Portuguese again - the two languages can be understood about 90% in the opposite language. However, you might get a rebellion if you try to class them both as the same language.

Like I said: 'a language is a dialect with an army and a navy'. The only reason they're considered separate is because Portugal had the means to keep Spain from controlling its territory. But that's essentially a political argument, and linguists do not concern themselves with politics when describing languages. To a linguist who is studying language varieties, national borders do not exist, nor do standardised national languages.

AJ, on 16 Jan 2009, 16:58, said:

While the principles of mutual intelligibility are sound, its application is less so as it fails at human cultures, and their social interactions. To quote Wikipedia again:

Wikipedia said:

Two or more languages that demonstrate a sufficiently high degree of mutual intelligibility should properly not be considered two distinct languages but, in fact, multiple varieties of the same language.

And that, in my opinion, is not always right, and never will be, as languages are defined as more than just their mutual intelligibility, also utilising social factors, from the government to the people. As such, the American Government has no main language, instead relying on states to choose their language. Therefore, the prevalence in America is to use English, but there are other states, that like the government, just don't bother. Due to the size of America, it is actually becoming increasingly difficult to define American English as variants of the dialect exist across he country. Using mutual intelligibility, all variants of American English, and all other forms of English, are one language, which I agree with. However, trying to take languages that are otherwise defined by culture and society and apply mutual intelligibility to them is pointless, such as trying to make Spanish and Portuguese one language. If the Federal Government said that the official language of the USA was American - overnight it would become a new language. However, as it currently stands, the prevailing language is English, and as such is still only a dialect.

I define 'language' as being the combination of phonology, grammar and vocabulary. If any of those differs between speakers, then they are speaking different languages. Hence, northeastern US English is a different language from midwest US English, because they differ in all three aspects. The answer about whether US English and Standard English are different languages is therefore crystal clear to me: they are. But I also believe that there are many, many different (but all mutually intelligible) languages within the US itself, just as there are in the UK or even the Netherlands.

[partyzanpaulzy]

It's hard to tell when ends dialect and begin new language. Most of Czechs and Slovaks can understand each other (this is why we had one state) although we have 2 different languages which aren't very different (maybe even less than Portuguese from Spanish + Slavic languages are very similar), but they still seems to be more different than AE from BE, so I say: AE is a dialect. To pronunciation: it's just little difference.

[Chyros]

partyzanpaulzy, on 16 Jan 2009, 22:09, said:

To pronunciation: it's just little difference.

You have no idea how raging some British and American accents can be . Some are hardly incomprehensible to the rest of their country, let alone to another one.

And even basic pronunciation is completely different; one of the more striking differences for example is the pronunciation of the r, which in British often sounds like an h or nothing at all ("we ahh standing oveh hehe") and in American sounds like a gurgling pirate sound (as in "Harr!") ("we arr standing overr herr").

Edited by Chyros, 16 January 2009 - 20:31.

[Whitey]

I was arguing the r with this Brit at my school a couple weeks ago. It was regarding "Water". He claimed that unlike Americans, the British correctly pronounced every letter, as in, Americans say "Wadder" instead of "Water". So he said it with his Brit accent and it sounded like "Wouteh" to which I informed him that his "a" sounded like an "ou" and his "r" was not pronounced.

Yeah, both accentuate different letters, but that makes them accents, not totally separate languages.

EDIT: I is a pirrrrate?

-Rorschach

Edited by Rorschach, 16 January 2009 - 21:00.

[Nid]

I would, myself, consider it a dialect. A change in the English language brought on by accent and pronunciantion issues I would assume. To me, calling it a language would be like saying that Someone else's mobile phone was not a mobile phone because it didn't look like yours, or what you would imagine a mobile phone to look like. However, I do strongly believe that a language could develop from American English as it is now.

[Foxhound]

You could view in the context of the differences between Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese or Spanish Spanish and Latin American Spanish.

[WNxMastrefubu]

its a dialect. at heart there the same

[Whitey]

Does this mean that all Latin languages are dialects of Latin? D=

-Rorschach

[CodeCat]

Yes. The languages of today evolved from different varieties of vulgar Latin, and then grew further apart over time.