Talk:Dialect continuum

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)

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)

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)

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? — 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)

Hello, the point of the source is absolutely correct. Examples: Although the Low Saxon varieties are consindered to be "Abstand-languages", they are renerally regarded as dialects of German, only because of political circumstances. In constrast Low Saxon varieties in the Netherlands fit the socio-linguistic definition of Dutch dialects. 2001:9E8:D5AB:9100:AD3B:E81D:3903:CA9A (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)