Talk:Dialect continuum

'Serbo-Croat'

Would the languages of the former Yugoslavia (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin etc.) form a dialect continuum? I am aware that the other two Macedonian and Slovenian are slightly more divorced from the main four. Macedonian being closer to Bulgarian. - FrancisTyers 12:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, they might even be considered a single language. Allegedly, the differences between the languages are minimal, and they were classified as a single language before the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.72.148 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Most definitely Slovene, BCSM, and Macedonian and Bulgarian are at least four very different languages. There are huge syntactical differences between Slovene, Croatian/Serbian and Macedonian, and Bulgarian. But they do form a language continuum, true. Dialects exist dialects on both sides of linguistic borders (Slovene-Croatian, and Serbian-Macedonian, see Kajkavian, Torlakian), that are closer than the respective standardized languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.150.213 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes they most definately would. Not only just BCSM but dialectal continuum spreads from Slovenia down to Bulgaria. You have obvious transitional dialects from Slovenia through Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia and all the way to Bulgaria. BCSM only present even tighter dialectal continuum within that group as are Bulgarian-Macedonian.--Factanista 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a dialect continuum from Slovenia to Bulgaria, with all the intermediate dialects alive and well. Zocky | picture popups 22:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, its wierd coming back to things you wrote before. For those who didn't know, that above was me before starting a degree in Linguistics, before I'd even applied in fact :) And now I can answer myself — yes, undoubtedly they do. BCSM are part of the Western South Slavic dialect continuum (along with Slovenian) and Macedonian and Bulgarian with attendant dialects form the Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum. - FrancisTyers · 22:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

... and, there isn't much of a break between eastern and western groups either. Zocky | picture popups 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're split into East and West for various reasons, but you're right, there are always dialects that are a bit of both :) viz. Torlakian - FrancisTyers · 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, how about adding the new-found linguistic knowledge to the article? :) Zocky | picture popups 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong example

I am going to remove the following:

"A more or less similar interaction takes place between a creole language which lacks prestige, and its more prestigious relative. The relationship between Gullah and African American Vernacular English on the one hand, and standard American English on the other, is a good example of this. Some speakers can glide throughout the continuum depending on the subject and the context. There are many other examples throughout the world."

This was added by anon. contributor from 80.224.97.8 (12:02, 29 January 2004) who apparently did not understand the notion of dialect continuum ("gliding throughout the continuum" ?! clearly the author intended to say something about switching between 2 languages and that has nothing to do with our topic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.22.70 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please get a consensus before deleting chunks of text. Thank you. David Cannon 22:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking! This is pure editing, no consensus required if changes are explained. I have clearly stated my reasons and preserved the text on the talk page. You instead have reverted the text only because there was no discussion and no consensus... David, for your information, most edits in Wikipedia are done without lengthy discussions and voting. I am deleting the erroneous section again; I have stated my reasons; if you wish you can revert, but tell us why the text in question is right and I am wrong. 212.199.22.38 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Istro-Romanian

I think someone made a mistake here. Istro-Romanian isn't the closest surviving language related to Dalmatian, that is Istriot. Istro-Romanian and Istriot are two different languages.--Factanista 10:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Coordinate with Sprachraum Article

Cross-reference or merge with Sprachraum article. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.254.191 (talk o contribs) 12:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The textbook Contemporary Liguistics: An Introduction, 4th Ed., by William O'Grady et al. (Bedford/St. Martin's: 2001), p. 348, mentions that "complications also arise when we try to divide a continuum of mutually intelligible dialects whose two end points are not inteligible." But it does not define a formal term for either that continuum, or one more generally, or the geographical area in which those dialects are spoken. Is the suggesestion to combine both Sprachraum and Dialect continuum into one article, or just to coordinate their ledes and otherwise freely cross-refence between them? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the term "Sprachraum" is very widely known among English-speaking linguists -- it's not in any of my linguistics dictionaries, while Sprachbund is. In any case, it's certainly not synonymous with "Dialect continuum" -- article Sprachraum is all about standardized national languages, while Dialect continuum is not. AnonMoos (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

are you cree?

if smoebody is cree talk back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.128.81.68 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Low Saxon and High Alemannic

I have deleted the following sentence as an unsourced claim, even though the whole article consists of nothing more but unsourced claims: Although part of the same dialect continuum, the northernmost Low Saxon dialects are actually farther from High Alemannic/ Swiss German than from English. My personal and equally unsourced view is that a conversation between a (monolingual) speaker from, say Aurich and a (monolingual) speaker from Zurich will be utterly and completely impossible. I have personally witnessed occassions where dialect speakers from rural Hesse were unable to converse with dialect speakers from rural Suabia. But the English language has been separated from continental West Germanic for some 1600 (sixteen hundred) years. Moreover, both grammar and vocabulary of the English language have changed dramatically since 400 A.D., mainly through the influence of Norman French, which has not exerted any influence at all on any of the continental dialects. On the other hand, continental West Germanic dialects have continually been influencing each other without having much contact with the English language (up to the beginning of the 20th century). So, if you can source your claim, I will gladly accept it. But otherwise I cannot let it stand like that. Unoffensive text or character 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Although part of the same dialect continuum, the northernmost Low Saxon dialects are in many ways actually farther from High Alemannic/ Swiss German than from English."? Not only is this true "genetically" (see North Sea Germanic) but also in terms of grammatical innovations. Although as you point out English grammar has simplified, so has that of Low German in many ways not seen in High German. These include a trend toward analytic grammar, loss of inflectional endings, and word order. Concerning sound changes, there is the Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law, and of course the absence of the High German consonant shift, whose effects become greater and greater the farther south one goes. It further acts to remove the Upper German varieties away from Low Saxon, which is untouched like English. There are also many cases where High German uses entirely different words from Low German/Frisian/English/Dutch, and yet others where the sounds are shifted in other ways in Upper German.

Added to that, there are varieties of Swiss German that are so isolated and surrounded by mountains that they are mutually unintelligible with even the other Swiss German dialects. Also see South Germanic.

Compare:

English	Low German / Low Saxon	High German
late	laat	spät
to fight	vechten (Dutch)	kämpfen
heaven	heven	Himmel
many	mennig	viel
brain	brägen	Gehirn
busy	besig	beschäftigt
he is	he is	er ist
simple past tense (preterite) used commonly	simple past tense (preterite) used commonly	no simple past tense (preterite) in Swiss German, restricted to written language in the southern and central dialects of Germany
No prefix used on past participles	No prefix used on past participles	Prefix ge- on past participles of verbs

-User: Nightvid

Even though some may argue that "in many ways" is a weasel phrase, I agree.

Kind regards Unoffensive text or character 07:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkic language dialect continuum

I added this section based on the information in

Language Policy in the Soviet Union By Lenore A. Grenoble

Language Policy in the Soviet Union Series: Language Policy , Vol. 3 Grenoble, L.A. 2003, 248 p., Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4020-1298-3 AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable clarify the sentence: "There are four varieties of Turkic which are geographically outside this continuum: Chuvash, Yakut and Dolgan.", which makes sense only partially. I wonder whether there is indeed a fourth variety that was not mentioned, or whether only three (rather than four) varieties were intended to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redav (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Continental West Germanic

Surely Afrikaans cannot be considered part of the Continental West Germanic language continuum for the simple reason that it is geographically isolated from the related languages of Europe? Due to geographical isolation there are no surviving intermediates between Afrikaans and Dutch and therefore a "continuum" cannot exist in any meaningful sense of the term, though of course the two languages are still closely related. Booshank (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Afrikaans can be considered part of the continuum, as for example Latin American Spanish is part of the Romance continuum, because it's mutually understandable with varieties of Spanish in the continuum in Europe. Anyway, it's true that the mention of Afrikaans can be a bit confusing, so removing it won't really make the page any bad. --Jotamar (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed Afrikaans and Yiddish: both are languages in their own right and not part of a geographical continuum. Also removed "Nevertheless, Frisian does form a part of the continental West Germanic continuum (via Town Frisian and Dutch)", as Town Frisian is essentially a creole of Dutch and Frisian, and creoles don't count for continuums. Jalwikip (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I count no fewer than three egregious linguistic misconceptions in the last comment. - David, Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.24.165 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian

Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian are closely related and there is mutual intelligibility. But it is important to know that the level of intelligibility varies.

Swedish and the Norwegian that is spoken in the eastern part of Norway (compare with Bokmål) is very similar. There is for instance no problem for a person from Stockholm to talk with a person from Oslo. On the other hand it is a little more complicated for a Swede to understand a person from the western part of Norway (e.g. from Bergen). At the same time Norwegians sometimes have difficulties understanding people from Skåne in the southern part of Sweden.

It is not so easy for Swedes to understand Danish, because the pronunciation is so different. It is somewhat easier for Danes to understand Swedish though. Swedes and Danes are however able to talk to each other. It is not common, but it sometimes happens though that Swedes and Danes speak English with each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.237.203.154 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese

This section needs some work, work that I'm not really qualified to do. Describing the written standard of Chinese prior to baihua as "Classical Chinese" is questionable, the descriptions of baihua, putonghua, and Mandarin are confusing (putonghua is based on baihua??), and it's only true to a limited degree that Chinese writing obscures the differences between different Chinese languages. Excalibre (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This:

the development of the divergent Chinese languages was made much easier because the characters used for writing Chinese are not tied closely to pronunciation as alphabetic or syllabic scripts are

needs a citation at least. Chinese characters do give phonetic hints, but what they hint at varies between Mandarin and Cantonese for example. To me it's not obvious that using characters rather than an alphabet has freed the languages to drift to some unusual degree. 71.4.124.241 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Chinese really form a true continuum throughout? Are there no language boundaries separating the larger dialect groups anywhere? Are there really transitional dialects to be found within any two adjacent dialect groups (even with Min)? I find that hard to believe. Mandarin is certainly a continuum, so are probably the other primary subgroups of Chinese, but I suspect that the Chinese/Sinitic-speaking territory is criss-crossed by boundaries, and has been for quite some time. Sometimes there may be transitional (and thus ambiguous for the classification endeavour) dialects, but in many other cases, or at least some cases, there may well be not. Contrast Sami, which is of a similar age: its western portion (from South to North Sami) used to be a true continuum (at least in the 19th and perhaps early 20th century) as far as I know, but between North Sami and Skolt/Inari/Kemi Sami, there was a clear break (perhaps a result of a spread of North Sami eastwards from northernmost Sweden/Norway into Finland, which eradicated transitional dialects between Western and Eastern Sami formerly spoken in Finnish Lapland, without new transitional dialects arising). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

East and West Slavic

This article had grouped East and West Slavic together into a single dialect continuum, as if simply because Poland borders Belarus, a dialect continuum must necessarily exist. I thought that, without any evidence, this could not remain. On the one hand, most linguists consider Proto-West Slavic to have diverged from the other dialects prior to Proto-South Slavic (meaning that South Slavic is actually genetically closer to Russian than is Polish, even given the geographic division. Linguistically speaking, this is entirely possible.) Belarussians, as I understand it, cannot understand Poles, and vice versa, with out training. On the other hand, it is true that East and West Slavic have shared features/words as a result of areal contact. This would be analogous to the the phenomenon of Danish showing shared features with Low German in Schleswig due to contact. This is NOT, however, evidence of dialect continua - a genetic phenomenon - but of dialect convergence, a sociolinguistic phenomenon. My question is: is it even accurate to say that Polish and Czech/Slovak exist in the same dialect continuum? More specifically, are the isoglosses of West Slavic isomorphic, such as between Finnish and Estonian (in which case I would argue a dialect continuum either doesn't exist, or our definition of "dialect continuum" is only trivially distinct from language family), or not isomorphic, such as among the South Slavic dialects (a true dialect continuum)? David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.24.165 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What does isomorphic mean here? —Tamfang (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Continental West Germanic continuum

Frisian is generally included in the Dutch-Low Saxon-Middle/High German dialect continuum? That's news to me. Frisian and Danish linguistic areas are where the German continuum abruptly breaks off. Should Frisian be taken out? Leasnam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.178.215 (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that is nonsense for all I know, at least historically (in the 19th century) and probably still today (wherever the influence of the standard languages has not been too strong, at least). Dutch (i. e., Low Franconian as opposed to Low Saxon, which is also spoken in the territory of Netherlands with Dutch as Dachsprache) is clearly part of the continuum, while Frisian is not, having been surrounded by language boundaries on all sides for a long time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I also question the research concerning Dutch/German border dialects cited there; it seems to be misleading. At least historically, there was a true continuum, without a noticeable break: this is the accepted result of 19th century dialect research. The isoglosses running between Low Franconian and Low Saxon (more precisely, taken as defining that distinction) have never corresponded to the state borders in the least: As mentioned, there are Low Saxon dialects spoken in a large part of the Netherlands, and analogously there are Low Franconian dialects spoken in a part of Germany.

Contemporary dialects, however, are a quite different beast: They are heavily influenced by the standard languages, which does create new boundaries along the state borders, but the entire notion of dialect continuum is probably mostly not applicable anymore anywhere in the world in the modern age (as opposed to the 19th century), with radically increased education and mobility, as strongly localised rural dialects are disappearing everywhere in favour of colloquial "regiolects" spanning larger areas, as well as standard languages. Except perhaps parts of India or China, and a few developping countries (Spanish and Portuguese in Latin America?). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

'Indo-Aryan '

Why not somebody add a chapter on the continuum spanning form Sindhi and Kashmiri in the west all the way to Assamese and Oriya/Odia in the east. This may well be one of the largest areas of dialect continua within the Indo-European language family. GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.59.102 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Should add something on evolutionary linguistics

This would be very important to language evolution.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The present article seems to be written mainly from a synchronic perspective; and some contributors seem to take a conceptual tree-like hierarchy of languages and dialects for granted, and thereby miss a major part of the point. JoergenB (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a link to wave model, but maybe that ought to be developed more? —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

kashmir

Kashmiris generally speak Kashmiri at home. It's just that Muslims and some Hindus use the Perso-Arabic script while other Hindus use the devanagiri script. And all Sikhs are originally from Punjab, so they speak Punjabi at home. Those who have settled for many years in Kashmir also speak Kasmiri or Hindi/Urdu (to communicate with others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.247.56 (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility

The definition attributed to Bloomfield, viz.: "A dialect continuum, or dialect area, was defined by Leonard Bloomfield as a range of dialects spoken across some geographical area that differ only slightly between neighboring areas, but as one travels in any direction, these differences accumulate such that speakers from opposite ends of the continuum are no longer mutually intelligible" has, I think, a problem.

There may be "a range of dialects spoken across some geographical area" that exhibit cumulative differences, without the extremes necessarily being mutually unintelligible. For example, take the Western Desert Language (WDL) or "Wangka Yuti" ("clear speech") of the central and western Australian deserts. According to the Wikipedia article: "For native speakers this language is mutually intelligible across its entire range".

Importantly, the notion of a dialect continuum presents the idea that language may change gradually and progressively over a wide geographic area. This is the core of the phenomenon that Bloomfield pointed out. Only in extreme cases are the geographically extreme variants no longer mutually intelligible.

It's generally more informative to measure the degree of mutual intelligibility, e.g. by comparing the lexicons of two variants.

yoyo (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Although your reasoning sounds basicly correct, in practice I think that dialect continuum is typically used for an area where there is no intelligibility for some of the linguistic varieties. Most of the examples in the article are like that. Otherwise, you wouldn't typically speak about a dialect continuum, but about a language with dialects. Anyway, if you have a source where the expression is used for an area with intelligibility, just add a clarification in the heading. --Jotamar (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Unclear on concept.

If you have enough borrowing of words between languages, it becomes fairly simple for a listener to understand across. Nevertheless a speaker may have to choose the syntax of one language or the other. For example English is fundamentally Germanic, with a huge admixture of French vocabulary. By choosing French vocabulary over German, I suppose I could make it much easier for a French speaker to follow what I'm saying, but I still have to choose between English and French pronouns, word order and conjugation schemes so to me it seems that a continuum doesn't quite exist.

Perhaps nobody is claiming a continuum between French and English, but in Wikipedia I am seeing claims of a continuum in Indic languages, yet from personal experience I know that Hindi and Nepali have different pronouns and different conjugation systems. Although Nepali borrows a lot of words from Hindi, and Hindi words not found in a Nepali dictionary are nevertheless readily understood, ultimately a speaker has to choose a Hindi or Nepali framework for each sentence. To me, this also suggests a continuum doesn't quite exist. LADave (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A dialect continuum is not about standard languages, but rather about rural vernaculars, often including varieties on the brink of disappearing. Jotamar (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Language cluster

Why does Language cluster redirect here? If it is a related concept or a synonym, it should be mentioned in the article, right?--90.182.150.54 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The same should be said about Transitional dialect which redirects here (arguably very rightly) but is never defined or explained in the article (though a couple of mentions to some dialect being transional are made. Wenceslao Grillo 10:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WenceslaoGrillo (talk • contribs)

Italian language varieties -- edit war

There has been a recent cycle of reverts regarding Lombardi and other northern forms of speech. I suspect that that Jotamar is right, but the claims need sources cited. Pete unseth (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. That sentence is a POV linked to political purposes. The attitude of the first Italian governament was similar to the French one in the way it helped the diffusion of the Italian language but on the contrary there has never been a plan of suppression of the regional languages of Italy. Moreover all the Italian states before the unification had already adopted Italian as official language. It is not my will to start an edit war but it would be better to tell the truth. If you need sources for what I wrote, I will be able to provide them.--93.32.182.72 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Two sources have been provided for the language policy in Italy since 1861: 1.Italy/ 5.1 General legislation. Language laws (today)., 2.Languages of Italy: History. Treccani.it. Moreover, it's also a matter of fact that the regional languages of Italy have never been fought by the Italian government; today about half of the Italian population is able to speek also its regional language while in France less than one quarter is able to speak the local language. This difference is due to the fact that French government stopped with hard measures the regional languages; this didn't happen in Italy. Greetings.--93.32.182.72 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, as English is not my mother tongue and I am not particularly good at reading Italian, but you claim that in the 19th century Italian language policy was more or less the same as in France (the above attitude of the French government was reflected in Rome by the Italian government). I do not find that the sources support the claim, i.e. that the sources show that there was a repressive language policy in Italy. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You are right. the above attitude of the French government was reflected in Rome by the Italian government means that Italy helped the spread of the Italian language (national language) by using similar measures with one big difference that in Italy the regional languages were allowed to be spoken while in France there was also a repressive policy against its regional languages.--93.32.182.72 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So at the moment we have a sentence and two footnotes that seem to support it but really contradict it. We should delete the claim and replace it by something that makes sense and is well sourced. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My reasons to revert the IP were just that the shortened text was kind of ambiguous and less understandable than the original one. Anyway, the question of language policy in Italy is only marginally relevant to the page. On the other hand, I'm not sure of the meaning of A less arguable example .... Does it refer to the La Spezia-Rimini isogloss, breaking the continuum? This should be clarified. --Jotamar (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Map of Europe

@Kanguole: The map shows Carpathian Ruthenia as excluded from North Slavic, and presumably Hungarian-speaking. In reality, Slavic languages predominate in the region: listed by population, the most spoken languages there are Ukrainian (including the Rusyn dialects), Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, German and Romani. At least since the late 19th century, and probably much longer, Ukrainian/Rusyn has been the most widespread language in Transcarpathia, while Hungarian-speakers have never formed more than a quarter of the population, and stand at 12% now. Rusyn, the native Slavic dialect group of Transcarpathia, is clearly part of the North Slavic dialect continuum, bridging East Slavic Ukrainian and West Slavic Slovak (in fact, the Zemplín dialects of Eastern Slovak are transitional to Rusyn). Does the source really exclude Transcarpathia from North Slavic? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It doesn't identify it as anything – there's just an unmarked area between North and South Slavic. Kanguole 01:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That's completely weird, and in fact a grave blunder, in light of what I've said above. Transcarpathia is, in fact, a vital part of the North Slavic dialect continuum, as it forms part of the West–East Slavic transition, and as such a key example for what dialect continuum means. It's a monumental screwup roughly on the order of drawing a map of the languages of Europe and leaving Basque out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The original can be seen in the "Marketing sample" (under the Contents tab) on the publisher's page. Kanguole 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Still very strange, and a clear (it's evident that Transcarpathia is intentionally left out, and there is no ambiguity about the way the map is drawn at this point) and serious mistake, next to Budjak not marked as (North-)Slavic-speaking. Interestingly, the way you've drawn the map implies that Budjak is neither Eastern-Romance- nor (North-)Slavic-speaking, but could be interpreted as implying that it is Bulgarian- or Turkic-speaking in the main, which is not the case (see Budjak#Ethnic groups and demographics). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, following the source, which clearly excludes this area from the North Slavic continuum. Kanguole 10:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Diagram from Chambers and Trudgill

Local dialects of the West Germanic continuum are oriented towards either Standard Dutch or Standard German, depending on which side of the border they are spoken.

@AKAKIOS: What do you believe is wrong about this diagram[1]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanguole (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What is incorrect about it, is that it makes it seem as if there is one big pool of random Germanic dialects, which can either be Dutch by falling having Standard Dutch as its standard form; or or German when having German as its standard language. This isn't the case, which is why I removed it. AKAKIOS (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the caption is unclear, but the accompanying text in that section ought to explain the matter. The diagram comes from page 10 of Chambers and Trudgill's Dialectology. It depicts a continuum of dialects, with those in the Netherlands treating Standard Dutch as their standard form, and thus considered dialects of Dutch, and those in Germany similarly oriented towards Standard German, even those that are almost identical with dialects spoken just across the border. As Chambers and Trudgill's text is a reliable source on this subject, unless there are equally reliable sources contradicting them the diagram should be re-instated. Kanguole 22:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all the primary subject of this article is not the influence of standard languages on dialects, but dialect continua. Secondly, I always hold my breath when a general book on dialectology goes into specific dialects; it's almost always inadequate and overly simplified. The book by Chambers and Trudgill (which, mind you, is an introductory book to dialectology) is from 1980 and I would consider it outdated, as it's 37 years old discounting a minor revision in 1998.

Within a dialect continuum, the rationale with which transitory dialects (Ω) are viewed as dialects belonging to either standard forms is often sociol-culturally determined, but linguistically arbitrary.

If it states that is the standard language which defines whether a dialect is Dutch or German, then it is most definitely mistaken. In any case, the diagram makes it look as if the dialects themselves are completely random with regard to the standard form, which is of course not true. An Austrian German dialect might be very different from Standard German, but it is still lightyears closer to Standard German than it is to Standard Dutch. I propose to replace the diagram with the on to the left. Not only is it anonymous with regard to the languages involved (which better suits this article) it also makes the intended point (that it can be hard to tell to which language a dialect 'belongs' within a true dialect continuum) more clear visually. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@AKAKIOS: I have been following this discussion and by and large agree with you. I am happy to go along with your diagram, with the proviso that I was uncomfortable with the caption, and so I have altered it slightly in the article. In particular, the word transitory is inappropriate – transitional is better. LynwoodF (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The article as a whole is about dialect continua, but the section we are discussing is about the relationship between standard varieties and dialect continua.

You have not provided any sources, but merely repeatedly asserted that C&T are wrong. As you say, the assignment of dialects to "languages" is often determined by non-linguistic social factors. C&T are pointing out that the deciding factor is often a political border. For example, speakers in the Netherlands attend schools that teach Standard Dutch, read newspapers and books, consume media and transact official business, all in Standard Dutch. For this reason they view their speech as a form of Dutch, and consult Dutch dictionaries, etc. Across the border, the corresponding thing happens with German. That is what C&T are depicting with this diagram.

The diagram does not depict any random arrangement. Indeed it suggests that Standard Dutch is closest to certain dialects spoken in the Netherlands, and Standard German to some dialects spoken in Germany. Kanguole 00:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I would add that illustrating general ideas with specific examples is reasonable, and indeed sound practice.

Your diagram suggests that there are areas of fairly homogeneous speech, which you call standard languages, with gradation between these. But that's not how it works. By definition, dialect continua consist of rural varieties varying continuously across a geographic range. Urban varieties and standard varieties are derived from these, but separate from them. That is what C&T are depicting.

If you find colour more modern, perhaps the above shaded version of C&T's diagram might suit. Kanguole 12:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, the diagram is too simple to portray actual language relations between Dutch and German. Not only does it use "Germany" and "the Netherlands" when German and Dutch are spoken well beyond these two countries (thereby automatically disproving the decisiveness of political borders), it also portrays the German dialects as larger. Why, though? Numerical superiority doesn't automatically equal more diversity. It also shows Standard German being 'in the middle' of its respective dialects, which it doesn't linguistically. It is a mix between Central German and High German dialects. In short, the diagram or an updated version works when speaking generally, but does not when going into specifics. Which is to be expected of a general introductory book on dialectology. AKAKIOS (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

C&T's diagram uses the Netherlands-Germany border to illustrate the general point, and that representation is correct. (I assume you now accept the validity of this example, as you have created a similar diagram depicting it.) They do not claim that all borders are linguistic borders, and are well aware of Belgium, Switzerland and Austria, but have omitted them to focus on their point. The diagram is not intended as a complete representation of the West Germanic dialect continuum, but rather to illustrate how borders sometimes determine which standard a local variety is oriented towards, using an actual example. Presumably German dialects were assigned a larger shape because they also include Middle and High German dialects. You persist in replacing a sourced diagram with your own invention. What does the flat bit in the middle mean? Are you asserting that there are dialects that are oriented toward neither standard? Kanguole 18:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that the representation of the diagram from the 1980 book it not accurate when it comes in representing the situation between Dutch and German and why a general image describing the phenomenon of heteronomy is better suited to this article. You claim to know a lot about what's intended with the diagram from the 1980 book, such as that Belgium, Austria and Switzerland are willfully omitted, but the authors themselves do not state this anywhere on p9 of their book. Where do you base this on? In any case, the choice here is between a diagramwhich depicts heteronomy between Dutch and German much too coarsely or a generalized diagram which shows the phenomenon in the same but non-specific way leaving room for the text itself to go into specifics if it wants. I wonder what your objection to this could objectively be? AKAKIOS (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You have conceded that the diagram is an accurate schematic representation of the situation by producing and using your own version of it. An actual example is better than an abstraction that is often false. It is true that varieties spoken on one side of the Netherlands-Germany border are oriented towards Standard Dutch, while those on the other side are oriented towards Standard German. Similar things cannot be said of all borders. As for C&T's awareness of other countries, this is clear from the map on page 6.

I also object to you replacing a cited diagram with your own creation. Again, what does the flat bit in the middle mean? Are you asserting that there are dialects that are oriented toward neither standard? Kanguole 21:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

First of all, your point of it being unsourced is nonsensical as the diagram comes from the same source (in which it is also used as a base for the North Germanic languages) it is merely abstracted to illustrate heteronomy in a generalized sense befitting the generalized content of the section in which it is placed. Once again (3rd time) I tell you that the diagram you propose to use is inaccurate with respect the actual linguistic relation between Dutch-German; which is much more complicated that this diagram would suggest. For one thing, many speakers of Low Saxon do not consider their dialect to be a form of German or Dutch even though they use Dutch or German as their standard language. I could go on and on about the overly simplistic representation, instead it would be very much easier if you could list any objective objections to the generalized version to illustrate the article; you seem to avoid this. You also seem to ignore my questions about how you supposedly knew the intentions of the authors with respect to national borders (as they do not mention this at all). AKAKIOS (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of going on and on you could supply some citations that support your assertions. I have given objections, which you have ignored. I have also addressed the point about other countries. Kanguole 22:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm done with this. Your main 'objection' seems to be about "the flat bit in the middle" which to me (and I suppose many more) is just plain insignificant. If you truly think it makes a huge difference to to the diagram, then by all means: change it. If already said to you that the new diagram is just as sourced as the old, only it abstracts the languages involved. It does this for two reasons, which I have told you many times now, namely to avoid the oversimplification of intricate and complicated real language relations and to better fit the section in question which generalizes and hence should use broad strokes to explain its subject matter, not go into specifics. Now, for the 3rd time: what are your objective objections to this? AKAKIOS (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

An example of an actual situation is a more useful illustration than an invalid generalization. The diagram in C&T depicts varieties spoken on one side of the Netherlands-Germany border being oriented towards Standard Dutch while those on the other are oriented towards Standard German. C&T is a reliable source, but if you have any source that says these varieties are not so oriented, please produce it. So this border is a valid example of the nonlinguistic factors that determine such orientation, but of course the same does not hold for all state borders. Kanguole 23:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not repeat this anymore, as I've now explained numerous times why this is so, but the diagram from the 1980s book shows a simplified version of the Dutch-German dialect border as it seeks to explain their model with real existing languages. Therefore an abstraction of the model (omitting existing languages, as none will ever completely fit the diagram) is better. I fail to see entirely how omitting the languages makes the illustration invalid. Care to explain how an illustration meant to visualize a general hypothesis becomes invalid after making its visualization conform more to this general hypothesis ? AKAKIOS (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your earliest objections appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the diagram. Of the later ones, there's the complaint that the German part is bigger (which I've responded to), and a general complaint that it doesn't reflect all aspects of a complex continuum. The latter is true, but the diagram doesn't pretend to – it's a schematic diagram focussed on one aspect. That is that the West Germanic dialect continuum crosses the border between the Netherlands and Germany, and that varieties spoken on one side of the Netherlands-Germany border are oriented towards Standard Dutch while those on the other are oriented towards Standard German. I'm not sure whether you're disputing the latter, but it is reliably sourced, and no sources have been produced that cast doubt on it. The diagram is thus a valid illustration of this example situation.

There is no general hypothesis. This border exhibits such a division, while others do not. This division occurs on a border, but others do not. Kanguole 16:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The general complaint is indeed that this diagram does not represent the intricacies of a former/dying continuum. It is indeed a schematic diagram focused on one aspect, and hence that's why it has been replaced by the same diagram, focusing on the same aspect only without representing any real dialect continuum inaccurately in the process of doing so.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is entirely reasonable that a schematic diagram focused on one aspect should omits details of other aspects. However, the diagram does accurately reflect that aspect, and is a valid example. (If not, sources, please.) The generalized statement, on the other hand, is invalid. Kanguole 19:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Do explain how that is.AKAKIOS (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

To repeat: the Netherlands-Germany border exhibits such a division, but not all do. The Dutch-German division occurs on a state border, but not all do. Kanguole 23:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does the generalized diagram claim that it speaks for all borders everywhere? AKAKIOS (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Dialect cluster

It is common for textbooks and linguistic encyclopedias to call the topic of this article a (geographical) dialect continuum or a dialect chain, but not a "dialect cluster". I have seen two definitions for the latter term:

• In the Handbook of African languages, it is used as a basic unit of classification at the level of a language but consisting of "a number of dialects no one of which appears to dominate", contrasted with a "language", in which there is a dominant dialect. This usage seems common in descriptions of African languages.
• In the SIL literature, it refers to a collection of dialects whose speakers can understand a selected reference dialect at a specified threshold level.

Neither of these is the topic of this article. Indeed the SIL definition is presented as a method for subdividing a dialect continuum. In any case, per MOS:BOLDSYN, only the most significant names for the topic should be included in the opening sentence, and in this case those are "dialect continuum" and "dialect chain". Kanguole 09:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)