Language and dialect between past and future

Chapter 24 surveys the book’s main arguments, which include especially the emergence of the modern language / dialect distinction during the early sixteenth century and the subsequent formulation of its main interpretations. Above all, however, this chapter emphasizes that the language / dialect distinction unmistakably has a history, for too long neglected, and that it is not a timeless and self-evident given. Having established its historicity, Chapter 24 fields the question of whether the conceptual pair has a future, to which an answer, both tentative and brief, is offered. On the one hand, it is suggested that a reconceptualization of the distinction can be a viable option. On the other hand, the fact that the conceptual pair has become common knowledge gives linguists not only the opportunity but also, and especially, the responsibility to take on a more prominent societal role in language / dialect disputes.

Classes of variation

Chapter 15 outlines the linguistic respects in which related dialects were believed to vary, in contrast to distinct languages, during the early modern era. Initially, a Byzantine author was the main source of inspiration in describing dialect-level differences, primarily in Greek handbooks. It was only after 1650 that the levels of variation were treated in a more systematic fashion by non-Hellenists, too. The focus of attention was on the ways in which related dialects varied. The differences were, most scholars agreed, superficial, and mainly situated in pronunciation, letters, and the lexicon. There was, however, no linguistic domain in which related dialects were claimed to never demonstrate variation. Overall, the differences required for qualification as distinct languages attracted less attention. Yet many scholars agreed that substantial differences were needed, principally in the roots of words. Sometimes, unusual linguistic criteria were put forward, e.g. by Johann Georg Wachter and Ferdinando Galiani.

A subjective touch

From the late sixteenth century onwards, dialect was conceptualized as an anomalous deviation from the analogical language under which it resorted. Chapter 9 suggests that this interpretation may have had its roots in Greek ideas. The analogy / anomaly conception was additionally grounded in early modern linguistic realities, since the advancing standardization led to a stronger contrast between the prescribed norm and everything deviating from it. Out of this normative interpretation, the highly subjective idea that language was superior to dialect developed almost naturally during the seventeenth century. Whereas theorizing on dialect had remained neutral in the sixteenth century because of the close link it had with the esteemed Ancient Greek dialects, it was detached from it during the seventeenth century. In addition, local elites gradually turned their back on their native dialects, embracing the upcoming standard languages. This social evolution likewise enhanced the severe degradation of the dialect concept.

Between two extremes

Chapter 21 confronts two opposite perspectives on language and the language / dialect pair with roots in the 1950s and 1960s. On the one hand, it treats generative approaches to linguistic diversity. In general, generative linguists have assumed that dialect-level variation is produced by minor differences in rules, parameters, or constraints and their ordering or ranking, depending on the generative framework which they follow, whereas distinct languages are characterized by major divergences in the same. On the other hand, sociolinguists have focused on linguistic variables rather than systems. As they correlate linguistic phenomena to language-external attributes, their conceptions of the language / dialect distinction tend to be rather hybrid, being shaped by linguistic as well as sociopolitical parameters. This externalist approach has been fiercely criticized by Noam Chomsky. Other linguists have adopted more constructive attitudes, either by supplementing the language / dialect distinction or by supplanting it with an entirely new conception of language.

From Saussure to 1954

Chapter 19 discusses the fate of the language / dialect distinction in structuralism. Ferdinand de Saussure’s conception of it was fairly traditional. In Saussure’s wake, mainstream structural linguists usually focused on homogeneous language systems, the langue, rather than the parole, with scant attention to the conceptual pair. In the 1950s, a dialectological turn occurred. The year 1954 in particular was a breaking point, when three structuralist papers devoted to the concept of dialect appeared. Uriel Weinreich suggested the concept of diasystem to capture variation within one language. André Martinet, in turn, tried to redefine dialect scientifically by excluding sociopolitical factors. Václav Polák, finally, argued that substantial morphosyntactic variation was required to speak of distinct languages. Phonological and lexical differences resulted in dialects only. Structuralist discussions of the language / dialect pair remained uncoordinated, however, and had relatively limited impact on subsequent debates, except for Weinreich’s diasystem concept.

Between systematization and rationalization

Chapter 16 discusses further evidence for the systematization and rationalization of the language / dialect distinction in the period 1650–1800, the age of rationalism and the Enlightenment. On the one hand, a kind of dialectological tradition emerged. The study of regional variation became a subfield of philology, albeit never an autonomous one; occasionally, it even now received the label of dialectologia, apparently introduced in 1650. For the first time, philologists presented dissertations on dialectal diversity that were no longer exclusively focused on the Greek dialects. On the other hand, scholars adopted more rational attitudes towards the conceptual pair. Some chose to supplement the binary contrast with new concepts. Others advocated distinguishing more clearly between different interpretations of the language / dialect distinction. Confusion persisted, however, throughout the early modern period. The first vocal sceptic of the conceptual pair was Friedrich Carl Fulda, who made it painfully clear how arbitrary and imprecise the distinction actually was.

Lexicostatistics avant la lettre

Chapter 14 presents a case study from an angle different from that of philology, taking the historian Johann Christoph Gatterer’s ideas on linguistic diversity as its object. It not only serves as another telling example of the tendency towards systematization, but also, and especially, represents a climax in eighteenth-century attempts at rationalizing the language / dialect distinction. Proposing an embryonic lexicostatistic method, Gatterer tried to find an objective way to use linguistic data in writing an encompassing history of tribes and nations, in particular their prehistory. Starting from a basic vocabulary set, Gatterer attempted to quantify linguistic distance. In doing so, he divided the kinship continuum into four sections: unrelated languages, related languages, dialects, and closely related dialects. His innovative methodology, prefiguring modern lexicostatistic approaches, had only limited success, however. Gatterer failed to put it into practice, and the historian was criticized for his ahistorical method by the grammarian Johann Christoph Adelung.

Putting the conceptual pair on the scholarly agenda

Chapter 13 illustrates how the eighteenth-century Dutch orientalist Albert Schultens repeatedly defined the term dialectus in a highly systematic fashion. Schultens analysed the conceptual pair principally in Aristotelian terms but tied it also to geographical factors and framed it in a language-historical scheme. He, moreover, contrasted the analogy of language to the anomaly of dialect. The Dutch orientalist extended the language,/,dialect distinction so as to include a third concept, that of degenerate offshoot, which, unlike a dialect, did not preserve the core of the language intact. He also insisted on the linguistic classes in which related dialects allegedly differed from one another. Schultens was a key figure, since he put the conceptualization of dialect on the scholarly agenda, albeit always as a matter of instrumental importance only, and triggered numerous follow-up discussions among his pupils and readers.

The conceptual pair in transition

Chapter 12 presents the book’s third case study, the Swedish scholar Georg Stiernhielm, a transitional figure. Driven by language-historical interests, Stiernhielm defined the conceptual pair in terms of substantial versus accidental differences. This Aristotelian interpretation he made very explicit, tying it to specific linguistic domains such as the lexicon and pronunciation. He moreover invoked mutual intelligibility in his definitions. As he was concerned in the first place with language history, his usage of the terms lingua and dialectus was also steeped in the diachronic interpretation. In the margin, the analogy / anomaly opposition and geography likewise shaped his conception of the distinction. The case of Stiernhielm, who probably did not know much Greek, confirms the tendency towards emancipation discussed in Chapter 11. It is, finally, no coincidence that his interest in the conceptual pair surfaced around 1650, just after he had met two erudite philologists: Christian Ravis and Claude de Saumaise.

From dogs and hounds to languages and dialects

Chapter 4 illustrates the way in which the Swiss humanist Conrad Gessner, an important language scholar, bibliographer, and zoologist, conceived of the Latin term dialectus in opposition to lingua. Renaissance intellectuals were confronted with a major information explosion, also on the languages of the world, and Gessner was one of the first to try and classify human speech in all its diversity. He did so in his Mithridates of 1555, the first ever language catalogue, in which the term dialectus frequently appeared. The word served to bring more nuance into the relationships between speech forms and is, as it was not in ancient and medieval times, clearly taken to be a variety of a language. For this interpretation, Gessner was inspired not only by ancient sources but also by the works of his contemporaries. Unlike Roger Bacon, the Swiss humanist was not an isolated pioneer, but the exponent of an early sixteenth-century trend.