meaning that it had more than one codified form. After the country of Yugoslavia disintegrated in the 1990s, the different varieties ceased to identify with the previously imposed umbrella term Serbo‐Croatian, and the different centers have become recognized as languages: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, spoken in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, respectively (Jordan 2018). The varieties are written in different scripts; Croatian is written in Roman script, Serbian in Cyrillic, Bosnian in both writing systems, and in Montenegro ‘Montenegrin Latin’ (which has 32 instead of 30 symbols) and Cyrillic writing systems are both used. These differences are very much the result of sociopolitical, religious, and ethnic divides between these groups; the different varieties were not the source of the social differences but the result.
There are other, less dramatically politically charged examples of how mutually intelligible varieties are considered different languages. We have already mentioned German and Dutch; we can also add the situation in Scandinavia as further evidence. Danish, Norwegian (actually two varieties), and Swedish are recognized as different languages, yet it is common for speakers of these languages to each speak their own language to each other and still be able to communicate (Gooskens 2018; Schüppert and Gooskens 2012). Linguistic overlap between these three languages is clearly enough to make communication feasible for most speakers, but the social and political boundaries foster the continued distinction of these varieties as separate languages.
The fourth reason that mutual intelligibility cannot be used as the sole means of distinguishing dialect versus language status is that there are sometimes unintelligible dialects which are identified by their users as being the same language. As a user of English, you may be aware of varieties of English you cannot understand, for instance. A particularly interesting instance of unintelligibility of dialects occurs with what we call Chinese, which is generally accepted to include two main sub‐categories of varieties, Cantonese and Mandarin. Although they share a writing system, Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible in spoken discourse; written characters are pronounced differently in these varieties although they maintain the same meaning. Yet speakers of Mandarin and Cantonese consider themselves speakers of different dialects of the same language, for to the Chinese a shared writing system and a strong tradition of political, social, and cultural unity form essential parts of their definition of language (Kurpaska 2010).
Likewise, speakers of different regional varieties of Arabic often cannot understand one another’s dialects but are all oriented toward common standardized forms (Modern Standard Arabic, with its basis in Classical Arabic). Although some native speakers of some varieties of Arabic might not understand a radio broadcast in Modern Standard Arabic (Kaye 2001), no one questions the categorization of these disparate dialects as one language, because of the religious, social, historical, and political ties between the cultures in which they are spoken.
The role of social identity
Sociolinguists claim that the defining factor in determining whether two varieties are considered distinct languages or dialects of the same language is sociopolitical identity, not linguistic similarity or difference. Orientation toward a particular standardized language and, often, an associated national identity is what makes people identify as speakers of language X or Y.
In direct contrast to the above situation, we can observe that the loyalty of a group of people need not necessarily be determined by the language they speak. Although Alsatian, the dialect of German spoken in Alsace (France), is now in decline, for many generations the majority of the people in Alsace spoke their German tongue in the home and local community. However, they generally identified as French (Vajta 2013); speaking a Germanic dialect did not mean they identified with Germany. However, everyday use of Alsatian has been a strong marker of local identity, and for a long time was an important part of being Alsatian in France (Vassberg 1993; Gardner‐Chloros 2013).
The various relationships among languages and dialects discussed above illustrate how society is an important factor in how we view and use our languages. The standard is the most powerful dialect but it has become so because of non‐linguistic factors. ‘A language is a dialect with an army and a navy’ is a well‐known observation. The process through which a standardized language arises is primarily a sociopolitical process rather than a linguistic one; this is the topic of the next section of this chapter.
Exploration 2.1 Dialects
How would you describe the dialect(s) you speak? Do you speak more than one dialect of a language? If so, can you name specific features which distinguish the dialects?
If you don’t identify as a speaker of a particular dialect, are there features of your speech that allow you to be identified as coming from a certain region? If so, what are these features?
What intra‐speaker variation is there in your speech – that is, how do you choose to use different dialects or features? Give specific examples.
Standardization
One of the defining characteristics mentioned above about the distinction between ‘dialect’ and ‘language’ has to do with standardization. If you see yourself as a speaker of German, you orient to Standard German, not Standard Dutch, even if Standard Dutch might be linguistically more similar to your native dialect. Thus the process of standardization and the ideology involved in the recognition of a standard are key aspects of how we tend to think of language and languages in general. People tend to think of a language as a legitimate and fixed system which can be objectively described and regard dialects as deviations from this norm. This is the standard language ideology but, as we will see, it is only one way that we can think about a language and its varieties.
Standardization refers to the process by which a language has been codified in some way. That process usually involves the development of such things as grammars, spelling books, and dictionaries, and possibly literature (see chapter 13 for further discussion of language planning processes). We can often associate specific items or events with standardization, for example, Wycliffe’s and Luther’s translations of the Bible into English and German, respectively, Caxton’s establishment of printing in England, and Dr. Johnson’s dictionary of English published in 1755. Standardization requires that a measure of agreement be achieved about what is considered standard language and what is not.
The standard as an abstraction
We have noted that recent sociolinguistic scholarship challenges the idea of languages as clearly demarcated linguistic systems; the idea that standardized languages cannot be objectively defined has a much longer history. Lippi‐Green (2012) writes about ‘the standard language myth,’ and Crowley (2003) discussed the standard as an ‘idealized language.’ One of the points Lippi‐Green makes is that most people (i.e., non‐linguists) feel strongly that they know what the standard language is ‘much in the same way that most people could draw a unicorn, or describe a being from Star Trek’s planet Vulcan, or tell us who King Arthur was and why he needed a Round Table’ (Lippi‐Green 2012, 57).
Lippi‐Green also states that we see the standard as a uniform way of speaking; although some regional variation might be allowed (see below for further discussion), social variation is not considered acceptable within anything labeled as the standard. Furthermore, once we have such a codification of the language we tend to see standardization as the end result of a process. Change, therefore, should be resisted since it can only undo what has been done so laboriously. The standardized variety is also often regarded as the natural, proper, and fitting language of those who use – or should use – it. It is part of their heritage and identity, something to be protected, possibly even revered. Milroy (2001, 537) characterizes the resulting ideology as follows: ‘The
