Misplaced Pages

Dialect continuum: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:50, 1 October 2008 editAdiJapan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,631 edits reinserted Ethnologue and reworded to fit the source← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:10, 24 December 2024 edit undoLeefeni de Karik (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers848 edits →North Slavic continuum 
(805 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Geographic range of dialects that vary more strongly at the distant ends}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2018}}
{{more citations needed|date=May 2016}}
{{linguistics}} {{linguistics}}
{{Refimprove|date=July 2007}}
A '''dialect continuum''' is a range of ]s spoken across a large geographical area, differing only slightly between areas that are geographically close, and gradually decreasing in ] as the distances become greater. Dialects separated by great geographical distances may not be mutually comprehensible. According to the ] paradigm, these dialects can be considered Abstandsprachen (i.e., as stand-alone languages). However, they can be seen as dialects of a single language, provided that a common ], through which communication is possible, exists. There are occasions when various nations of the same linguistic origins occupy the same territory and thus speak the same dialect, but have split ''standard languages'' located at different parts of the continuum, sometimes causing doubt as to precisely ''which'' language is the dialect in question a property. Examples include regions such as ] in which local Muslims declare their language ]; Sikhs, ]; and Hindus, ]. Similar complications arise across much of the former ] whereby ], ] and ] may speak the same dialect within the same region, yet all have separate standard languages.


A '''dialect continuum''' or '''dialect chain''' is a series of ] spoken across some geographical area such that neighboring varieties are ], but the differences accumulate over distance so that widely separated varieties may not be.<ref>{{cite book |title=A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics |given=David |surname=Crystal |publisher=Blackwell |edition=6th |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-405-15296-9 |page=144 }}</ref> This is a typical occurrence with widely spread languages and language families around the world, when these languages did not spread recently. Some prominent examples include the ] across large parts of ], ] across north Africa and southwest Asia, the ], the ], and parts of the ], ] and ] families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include '''dialect area''' (])<ref>{{cite book |given=Leonard |surname=Bloomfield |author-link=Leonard Bloomfield |title=Language |year=1935 |publisher=George Allen & Unwin |location=London |page=51}}</ref> and '''L-complex''' (]).<ref>{{cite book | given = Charles F. | surname =Hockett | author-link = Charles F. Hockett | title = A Course in Modern Linguistics | url = https://archive.org/details/courseinmodernli0000hock | url-access = registration | publisher = Macmillan | location = New York | year = 1958 | pages = }}</ref>
In ], a '''language continuum''' is said to exist when two or more different ]s or ]s merge one into the other(s) without a definable boundary.


Dialect continua typically occur in long-settled agrarian populations, as innovations spread from their various points of origin as ]. In this situation, hierarchical classifications of varieties are impractical. Instead, ] map variation of various language features across a dialect continuum, drawing lines called ]es between areas that differ with respect to some feature.<ref>{{cite book
==Scandinavian languages==
| last1 = Chambers | first1 = J.K. | author-link1 = Jack Chambers (linguist)
The ] are a classical example of a dialect continuum, from Swedish dialects of ], to ], ], ], ], ], ] (] and ]), ], ], as well as many local dialects of the respective languages. The Continental Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian) are close enough and intelligible enough that some consider them to be dialects of the same language, whereas the Insular ones (Icelandic and Faroese) are unintelligible to the other Scandinavian speakers. Some, however, would argue that Swedish and the southern dialect of Scanian are far apart enough to be considered different languages,{{Fact|date=July 2007}} assuming that the other Scandinavian languages are also separate languages and not dialects.
| last2 = Trudgill | first2 = Peter | author-link2 = Peter Trudgill
| title = Dialectology
| publisher = Cambridge University Press | edition = 2nd | year = 1998 | isbn = 978-0-521-59646-6
| pages = 13–19, 89–91
}}</ref>


A variety within a dialect continuum may be developed and codified as a ], and then serve as an authority for part of the continuum, e.g. within a particular political unit or geographical area.
==Continental West Germanic==
Since the early 20th century, the increasing dominance of ] and their standard languages has been steadily eliminating the nonstandard dialects that comprise dialect continua, making the boundaries ever more abrupt and well-defined.
The many dialects making up ], ], ], ] and ] are often cited as another canonical example. They form a single dialect continuum, with three recognized ]. Although Dutch and Standard German are mutually intelligible only to a certain degree, there are transitional dialects that are, for example ], spoken in parts of the ] and ], and the ] dialects across the border in ] (although Limburgish is nowadays sometimes considered a language in its own right).


== Dialect geography ==
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 ], they remain linked by a chain of intermediate dialects, all mutually intelligible to their adjacent dialects, whilst English remains the single West Germanic language detached from the continental continuum: its insular location caused it to develop independently from the continental languages. Although ] was originally a West Germanic dialect, imported from the continent and initially one and the same language as that spoken in the present day regions of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany from where the new settlers migrated, and even though during the first centuries it remained mutually intelligible with the continental dialects, the Norman Invasion of England and subsequent interference with the English language, followed in turn by centuries of influence and imports directly from French and Latin, eventually made all English dialects continuous with each other but isolated from the continent. The single closest language to English is ], a language split into numerous dialects spoken in the north of the Netherlands and across the border into Germany. Nevertheless, Frisian does form a part of the continental West Germanic continuum, and remains unintelligible with English.
]'', recording local forms meaning "today"]]
Dialectologists record variation across a dialect continuum using maps of various features collected in a ], beginning with an atlas of ] by ] (from 1888), based on a postal survey of schoolmasters. The influential '']'' (1902–10) pioneered the use of a trained fieldworker.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=15–17}} These atlases typically consist of ''display maps'', each showing local forms of a particular item at the survey locations.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=25}}


Secondary studies may include ''interpretive maps'', showing the areal distribution of various variants.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=25}} A common tool in these maps is an ], a line separating areas where different variants of a particular feature predominate.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=27}}
Another example was the area where the river ] crosses the border from ] to the ]. On both sides of this border, the people living in the immediate surroundings spoke an identical language. They could understand each other without difficulty, and would even have had trouble telling just by the language whether a person from the region was from the Netherlands or from Germany. However, the Germans here called their language "Deutsch" (German), and the Dutch called their language "Nederlands" (Dutch), so from a conceptual view they are now speaking different ]s.


In a dialect continuum, isoglosses for different features are typically spread out, reflecting the gradual transition between varieties.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=93–94}} A bundle of coinciding isoglosses indicates a stronger dialect boundary, as might occur at geographical obstacles or long-standing political boundaries.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=94–95}} In other cases, intersecting isoglosses and more complex patterns are found.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=91–93}}
==Slavic languages==
===North Slavic continuum===
Another such network of dialects is the continuum of northern Slavic dialects. These for reasons of tradition are further separated into ] and ] branches: ], ], ] and ] are recognized as literary standards; all rolling smoothly into ], ] and ], which are in turn closely connected to the ], spoken by the Slavic populations of eastern ]. Collectively, these dialects form one of two continua. They are geographically separated from the South Slavic dialects by the heavy concentration of the principal non-Slavic populations of ], ] and ].


== Relationship with standard varieties ==
===South Slavic continuum===
{{main|Autonomy and heteronomy (sociolinguistics)}}
A separate south Slavic dialect continuum features ] and the ]; the latter is a network of several major dialects and three literary standards (], ] and ]). These form the western branch of South Slavic dialects which are in turn linked to an eastern branch, comprising ] and ] which properly form a dialect continuum and share a set of grammatical features that set them apart from all other Slavic languages, with the Bulgarian standard being based on the more eastern dialects, and the Macedonian standard being based on the more western dialects.
]
] may be developed and codified at one or more locations in a continuum until they have independent cultural status (autonomy), a process the ] linguist ] called '']''. Speakers of local varieties typically read and write a related standard variety, use it for official purposes, hear it on radio and television, and consider it the standard form of their speech, so that any standardizing changes in their speech are towards that variety. In such cases the local variety is said to be dependent on, or heteronomous with respect to, the standard variety.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=9–12}}


A standard variety together with its dependent varieties is commonly considered a "language", with the dependent varieties called "dialects" of the language, even if the standard is mutually intelligible with another standard from the same continuum.<ref>{{cite book
==Romance languages==
| first = William A. | last = Stewart | author-link = William Alexander Stewart
| chapter = A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism
| pages = 531–545 | doi = 10.1515/9783110805376.531
| editor-first = Joshua A. | editor-last = Fishman
| title = Readings in the Sociology of Language
| publisher = De Gruyter | year = 1968
| isbn = 978-3-11-080537-6
}}</ref>{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=11}} The ], ], ] and ], are often cited as examples.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=3–4}} Conversely, a language defined in this way may include local varieties that are mutually unintelligible, such as the ].{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=4}}


The choice of standard is often determined by a political boundary, which may cut across a dialect continuum.
The ] branch of the ], which comprises ], ], ], ], ], ] and ], as well as other languages with fewer speakers, is sometimes presented as another example, although the major languages in this group have had separate ] for longer than the languages in the continental West Germanic group, and are not commonly classified as ]s of a common language. In recent centuries, the intermediate dialects which existed between the major Romance languages have been moving toward ], as their speakers have switched to varieties closer to the more prestigious national standards. This process has been most notable in France, due to the French government's refusal to recognise minority languages, but has occurred to some extent in all Western Romance speaking countries. Language change has also threatened the survival of stateless languages with existing literary standards, such as Occitan and Catalan.
As a result, speakers on either side of the boundary may use almost identical varieties, but treat them as dependent on different standards, and thus part of different "languages".{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=9}}
The various local dialects then tend to be leveled towards their respective standard varieties, disrupting the previous dialect continuum.<ref>{{cite book
| first = Curt | last = Woolhiser
| chapter = Border effects in European dialect continua: dialect divergence and convergence
| pages = 501–523
| title = The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide
| editor1-first = Bernd | editor1-last = Kortmann
| editor2-first = Johan | editor2-last = van der Auwera
| publisher = Walter de Gruyter | year = 2011
| isbn = 978-3-11-022025-4
}} p. 501.</ref>
Examples include the boundaries between ] and ], between ], ] and ], and between ] and ].<ref>Woolhiser (2011), pp. 507, 516–517.</ref><ref>{{cite book
| first = Peter | last = Trudgill
| chapter = Norwegian as a Normal Language
| chapter-url = http://www.sprakradet.no/Vi-og-vart/Om-oss/English-and-other-languages/English/Norwegian_as_a_Normal_Language/
| pages = 151–158
| title = Language Contact and Language Conflict
| editor-first = Unn | editor-last = Røyneland
| publisher = Volda College | year = 1997
| isbn = 978-82-7661-078-9
}} p. 152.</ref>


The choice may be a matter of national, regional or religious identity, and may be controversial.
A less arguable example of a dialect continuum within the Italo-Western languages are the Romance ]. For many decades since its unification, the above attitude of the French government was reflected in ] by the Italian government which affected the adjoining dialects of this continuum spoken in Northern Italy. These include ] and ] among others. Over the years however, under pressure from the ], the Italian government has yielded in allowing public signs and other media to use both local and national standard dialects in most affected areas.
Examples of controversies are regions such as the disputed territory of ], in which local ]s usually regard their language as ], the national standard of ], while ] regard the same speech as ], an official standard of ]. Even so, the ] to the Indian Constitution contains ] and Urdu is among them.


During the time of the former ], a standard was developed from local varieties of ], within a continuum with ] to the north and ] to the east. The standard was based on varieties that were most different from standard Bulgarian. Now known as ], it is the national standard of ], but viewed by Bulgarians as a dialect of Bulgarian.<ref>{{cite journal
The ] consists of dialects or languages collectively called ] and further divided into ], ], ] and ].<ref>Ethnologue, , </ref> Outside of ]'s present borders, these dialects continue into neighboring ], where officially the language is called ]. South of Romania, these dialects can be traced into ], ], ], ], and ], though the number of speakers decreases dramatically south of the Danube. The westernmost Eastern Romance language is found in ] on the Istrian peninsula. Known as ], it was once thought to be the closest surviving relative of the extinct ]. However, the two languages are only distantly related, and it doesn't appear that a single dialect continuum existed {{Fact|date=December 2007}}.
| last = Trudgill | first = Peter
| title = Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of language status in contemporary Europe
| journal = International Journal of Applied Linguistics
| year = 1992 | volume = 2 | number = 2 | pages = 167–177
| doi = 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1992.tb00031.x
}} pp. 173–174.</ref>


==Europe==
==Turkic language-dialect continuum==


] is mistakenly excluded from North Slavic on the map, even though ], an East Slavic dialect group on the transition to West Slavic, is spoken there.}}]]
Turkic languages are best described as a language-dialect continuum. Geographically this continuum starts at the Balkans in the west with Balkan Turkish, includes Turkish in Turkey and Azerbaijan language in Azerbaijan, extends into Iran with Azeri and Khalaj, into Iraq with Turkmen, across Central Asia to include ], ], ], ], to southern Regions of ] and into ]. In the south, this continuum starts in northern Afganistan, northward to the Chuvashia. In the east it extends to the Republic of Tuva, Xinjiang autonomous region in Western China with Uygur language and into Mongolia with Khoton. This entire territory is inhabited by Turkic speaking peoples. There are three varieties of Turkic which are geographically outside this continuum: ], ] and ]. These languages have been geographically separated from the other Turkic languages for extensive period of time and Chuvash language stands out as the most divergent from other Turkic languages. There are also Gagauz speakers in the Moldavia and Urum Speakers in Georgia.


Europe provides several examples of dialect continua, the largest of which involve the ], ] and ] branches of the ], the continent's largest language branches.
The Turkic language-dialect continuum makes internal genetic classification of the languages problematic. Chuvash and Yakut are generally classified as significantly distinct, while the remaining Turkic languages are quite similar, with a high degree of mutual intelligibility between not only geographically adjacent languages, but also between languages/dialects which may be some distance apart. Structurally the Turkic languages are very close to one another, and share basic features such as SOV word order, vowel harmony, and agglutination.
{{cite book
| last = Grenoble
| first = Lenore A.
| authorlink = Grenoble, L. A.
| title = Language Policy in the Soviet Union
| publisher = ]
| series = Language Policy , Vol. 3
| year = 2003
| isbn = 978-1-4020-1298-3 }}


The Romance area spanned much of the territory of the ] but was split into western and eastern portions by the ] into the Balkans in the 7th and 8th centuries.
==Arabic==


The Slavic area was in turn split by the ] in the 9th and 10th centuries.
] is a classic case of ]. The standard written language, ], is based on the ] of the ], while the ] (or languages)—which form a dialect continuum reaching from the ] in North Western ] through ], ], and the ] to the ]—have diverged widely from that. Because Arabic is written in an ] (a phonetic writing system similar to an alphabet), the difference between the written standard and the vernaculars also becomes apparent in the written language and so children have to be taught Modern Standard Arabic in school in order to be able to write it.


=== Germanic languages ===
==Chinese==
[[File:West Germanic dialect continuum (according to Wiesinger, Heeringa & König).png|350px|thumb|The varieties of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum after 1945:<ref>W. Heeringa: ''Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance.'' University of Groningen, 2009, pp. 232–234.</ref><ref>Peter Wiesinger: ''Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte.'' In: Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert Ernst Wiegand (Hrsg.): ''Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung,'' 2.&nbsp;Halbband. de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1983, ISBN 3-11-009571-8, pp. 807–900.</ref><ref>Werner König: ''dtv-Atlas Deutsche Sprache.'' 19. Auflage. dtv, München 2019, {{isbn|978-3-423-03025-0}}, pp. 230.</ref><ref>C. Giesbers: ''Dialecten op de grens van twee talen.'' Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2008, pp. 233.</ref>


{{legend|#df772a|]}}
The ] are highly divergent, forming a continuum comparable to that of the Romance languages. However, all the variants more or less share a common ], though there are vernacular variations in vocabulary, grammar, and orthography.
{{legend|#8c506e|]}}
{{legend|#3e9abc|]/]}}
{{legend|#f5ef47| ] (part of ])}}
{{legend|#ecca09| ] (part of ])}}]]


==== North Germanic continuum ====
The written language originally shared by all dialects was ], which was in normal use up until the early 20th century. In pre-modern times, Northern ] grew up alongside Classical Chinese as a standard vernacular dialect. The modern standard dialect, ] (often called Mandarin), is largely based on Baihua.


The ], ] and ] comprise a classic example of a dialect continuum, encompassing Norway, Denmark, Sweden and coastal parts of Finland. The Continental North Germanic standard languages (], ] and ]) are close enough and intelligible enough for some {{Who|date=July 2024}} to consider them to be dialects of the same language, but the Insular ones (] and ]) are not immediately intelligible to the other North Germanic speakers.
Within the dialects, gradations do exist between pure local vernacular and the more refined speech of the better educated that incorporates elements from the standard language or written language.


==== Continental West Germanic continuum ====
Of course, 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. In other words, a ] speaker may write his language much the same as a ] speaker and yet pronounce the written text in an entirely different manner (see ] for more information).


Historically, the ], ], ] and ] formed a canonical dialect continuum, which has been gradually falling apart since the ] due to the pressures of modern education, standard languages, migration and weakening knowledge of the dialects.<ref name="Niebaum">{{cite book | chapter = Het Oostnederlandse taallandschap tot het begin van de 19de eeuw
==Northern Indian Subcontinent==
| given = Herman | surname = Niebaum | pages = 52–64
| title = Handboek Nedersaksische taal- en letterkunde
| editor-given = Jurgen | editor-surname = Van der Kooij
| publisher = Van Gorcum | year = 2008 | isbn = 978-90-232-4329-8
}} p. 54.</ref>


The transition from German dialects to Dutch variants followed two basic routes:
The languages spoken in ] and ] form a dialect continuum. What is called "]" in India is actually Standardized Hindi, the ]-ized version of the colloquial "]" spoken in the ] area during the time of the ]. However, the term Hindi can be used to enclose all its dialects from east to west—from ] to ]. The ] ]s also gave rise to languages like ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Of these, Punjabi can probably be included in the northern Indian continuum. Gujarati is also in some ways close to the dialects of Hindi spoken in the southern Rajasthan region.
* From ] to Southeastern Dutch (]) in the so-called ], an area corresponding largely to the modern ] in which gradual but geographically compact changes took place.{{sfnp|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=92}}
* From Low Saxon{{efn|In this context, "A group of related dialects of ], spoken in northern Germany and parts of the Netherlands, formerly also in Denmark." (Definition from ])}} to Northwestern Dutch (]): This sub-continuum also included ] dialects up until the 17th century, but faced external pressure from ] and, after the collapse of the ], from ] which greatly influenced the vocabularies of these border dialects.<ref name="Niebaum"/>


Though the internal dialect continua of both Dutch and German remain largely intact, the continuum which historically connected the Dutch, Frisian and German languages has largely disintegrated. Fragmentary areas of the Dutch-German border in which language change is more gradual than in other sections or a higher degree of ] is present still exist, such as the ]-] area, but the historical chain in which dialects were only divided by minor isoglosses and negligible differences in vocabulary has seen a rapid and ever-increasing decline since the 1850s.<ref name="Niebaum"/>
==Iran and Central Asia==


] was based on the dialects of the principal ] and ] cities. The written form of ] originated in the ] used at the ] of the ], while the spoken form emerged later, based on North German pronunciations of the written standard.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Carol |last1=Henriksen |first2=Johan |last2=van der Auwera |pages=1–18 |title=The Germanic Languages |editor1-first=Ekkehard |editor1-last=König |editor2-first=Johan |editor2-last=van der Auwera |publisher=Routledge |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-415-05768-4 }} p. 11.</ref> Being based on widely separated dialects, the Dutch and German standards do not show a high degree of ] when spoken and only partially so when written. One study concluded that, when concerning written language, Dutch speakers could translate 50.2% of the provided German words correctly, while the German subjects were able to translate 41.9% of the Dutch equivalents correctly. In terms of orthography, 22% of the vocabulary of Dutch and German is identical or near-identical.<ref>{{cite book |chapter=Cross-border intelligibility – on the intelligibility of Low German among speakers of Danish and Dutch |pages=273–295 |chapter-url=http://www.let.rug.nl/gooskens/pdf/publ_ZDL_2009b.pdf |last1=Gooskens |first1=Charlotte |last2=Kürschner |first2=Sebastian |editor1-last=Lenz |editor1-first=Alexandra N. |editor2-last=Gooskens |editor2-first=Charlotte |editor3-last=Reker |editor3-first=Siemon |title=Low Saxon dialects across borders – Niedersächsische Dialekte über Grenzen hinweg |location=Stuttgart |publisher=Steiner |year=2009 |isbn=978-3-515-09372-9 }}</ref><ref>Gooskens & Heeringa (2004)</ref>
The ] in its various varieties - ] (]), ] (]) and ] (] and other parts of the former Soviet Union) - is representative of a dialect continuum. Although official and written forms of the language vary less from one another, spoken Tajiki of Uzbekistan would be virtually incomprehensible to a Persian-speaker of the Persian Gulf islands, and vice versa. The divergence of Tajik was accelerated by the shift from the Perso-Arabic alphabet to a Cyrillic one under the Soviets. Western dialects of Persian show greater influence from Arabic and Oghuz Turkic languages, while Dari and Tajiki tend to preserve many classical features in grammar and vocabulary.


==== Anglic continuum ====
==Finno-Ugric languages==
The ] comprise areal varieties of English in England and of ] in Scotland. Those of large areas north and south of the border are often mutually intelligible. In contrast, the ] of Scots is very different from the dialects of ]—but they are linked by a chain of intermediate varieties.
] may well have been a single dialect continuum before the ]; the absence of literal evidence makes this hard to prove.


=== Romance languages ===
==Africa==
====Western Romance continuum====
]
The western continuum of ] comprises, from West to East: in Portugal, ]; in Spain, ], ] or ], Castilian or ], ] and ] or ]; in France, ], ], standard ] and ] which is closely related to Italian; in Italy, ], ], ], ], ], ] Gallo-Picene, ], ], ]; and in Switzerland, ] and ]. This continuum is sometimes presented as another example, but the major languages in the group (i.e. Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian) have had separate ] for longer than the languages in the Continental West Germanic group, and so are not commonly classified as ]s of a common language.


Focusing instead on the local Romance lects that pre-existed the establishment of national or regional standard languages, all evidence and principles point to ''Romania continua'' as having been, and to varying extents in some areas still being, what ] called an L-complex, i.e. an unbroken chain of local differentiation such that, in principle and with appropriate caveats, intelligibility (due to sharing of features) attenuates with distance. This is perhaps most evident today in Italy, where, especially in rural and small-town contexts, local Romance is still often employed at home and work, and geolinguistic distinctions are such that while native speakers from any two nearby towns can understand each other with ease, they can also spot from linguistic features that the other is from elsewhere.
There are many examples of dialect continua among the ], particularly ].


In recent centuries, the intermediate dialects between the major Romance languages have been moving toward ], as their speakers have switched to varieties closer to the more prestigious national standards. That has been most notable in France,{{Citation needed|date=June 2009}} owing to the French government's ],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/le-senat-dit-non-a-la-charte-europeenne-des-langues-regionales_1712811.html|title=Le Sénat dit non à la Charte européenne des langues régionales|website=Franceinfo |date=27 October 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20231203070556/https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/le-senat-dit-non-a-la-charte-europeenne-des-langues-regionales_1712811.html |archive-date= Dec 3, 2023 }}</ref> but it has occurred to some extent in all Western Romance speaking countries. Language change has also threatened the survival of stateless languages with existing literary standards, such as Occitan.
==Cree==


The Romance ] are a less arguable example of a dialect continuum. For many decades since Italy's unification, the attitude of the French government towards the ethnolinguistic minorities was copied by the Italian government.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/italy.php?aid=519|title=Italy : 5.1 General legislation : 5.1.9 Language laws|publisher=Council of Europe/ERICarts|website=Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe |date=September 18, 2013 |access-date=26 February 2014|archive-date=2 March 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140302163710/http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/italy.php?aid=519|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/speciali/italiano_dialetti/Cerruti.html|title=Italiano e dialetto oggi in Italia |website=Treccani |date=26 January 2011 |first1=Massimo |last1=Cerruti |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20221023143019/https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/speciali/italiano_dialetti/Cerruti.html |archive-date= Oct 23, 2022 }}</ref>
] is a group of closely related ] in ], which is distributed from ] to ]. These languages form the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi dialect continuum with around 117,410 speakers. These languages can be roughly classified into nine groups. From west to east, they are:

====Eastern Romance continuum====

The eastern Romance continuum is dominated by ]. Outside Romania and Moldova, across the other south-east European countries, various Romanian language groups are to be found: pockets of various Romanian and Aromanian subgroups survive throughout ], ], ], ], ] and ] (in ]).

=== Slavic languages ===

Conventionally, on the basis of extralinguistic features (such as writing systems or the former western frontier of the Soviet Union), the North Slavic continuum is split into East and West Slavic continua. From the perspective of linguistic features alone, only two Slavic (dialect) continua can be distinguished, namely North and South,<ref>]. 2003. ''A Glossary of Sociolinguistics''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 36, 95-96, 124-125.</ref><ref>]<span>. 2017. Map A4, Dialect Continua in Central Europe, 1910 (p 94) and Map A5, Dialect Continua in Central Europe, 2009 (p 95). In: Tomasz Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi, and Catherine Gibson, eds. 2017. </span>''Central Europe Through the Lens of Language and Politics: On the Sample Maps from the Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe''<span> (Ser: Slavic Eurasia Papers, Vol 10). Sapporo, Japan: Slavic-Eurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University.</span></ref><ref>{{cite web|first = Tomasz|last = Kamusella |url = https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/12905/The_Triple_Division_of_the_Slavic_Langua.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |author-link =Tomasz Kamusella|date = 2005|title =The Triple Division of the Slavic Languages: A Linguistic Finding, a Product of Politics, or an Accident?|format=Working Paper |id = 2005/1|location = Vienna|publisher = Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen}}</ref> separated from each other by a band of non-Slavic languages: Romanian, Hungarian and German.

==== North Slavic continuum ====

The North Slavic continuum covers the ] and ]. East Slavic includes ], ], ] and ]; West Slavic languages of ], ], ], ], ], and ] and ]. ] and ] stand out as sharing features with Slovak, Polish and Rusyn, thus serving as a transition between West and East Slavic languages.

==== South Slavic continuum ====
{{Further|Pluricentric language#Serbo-Croatian}}
]
All South Slavic languages form a dialect continuum.<ref>{{cite book|last=Crystal |first=David |author-link=David Crystal |year=1998 |orig-year=1st pub. 1987 |title=The Cambridge encyclopedia of language |location=Cambridge, New York |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=25 |oclc=300458429}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last= Friedman |first=Victor |author-link=Victor Friedman |year=1999 |title=Linguistic emblems and emblematic languages: on language as flag in the Balkans |series=Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 1 |location= Columbus, Ohio |publisher=Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures |page=8 |oclc=46734277}}</ref> It comprises, from West to East, ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Alexander |first=Ronelle |year=2000 |title=In honor of diversity: the linguistic resources of the Balkans |series=Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 2 |location=Columbus, Ohio |publisher=Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures |page=4 |oclc=47186443}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Kristophson, Jürgen |title=Vom Widersinn der Dialektologie: Gedanken zum Štokavischen |trans-title=Nonsense of Dialectology: Thoughts on Shtokavian |language=de |journal= Zeitschrift für Balkanologie |volume=36 |issue=2 |page=180 |year=2000 |issn=0044-2356}}</ref> Standard ], ], and ] are each based on a distinct dialect, but the Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian ] of the ] ] are all based on the same dialect, ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Kordić |first=Snježana |author-link=Snježana Kordić |editor1-last=Krause |editor1-first=Marion |editor2-last=Sappok |editor2-first=Christian |title=Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002 |series=Slavistishe Beiträge; vol. 434 |publisher=Otto Sagner |pages=97–148 |language=de |chapter=Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute |trans-chapter=Pros and cons: "Serbo-Croatian" today |chapter-url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/430499.PRO_UND_KONTRA_SERBOKROATISCH.PDF |location=Munich |year=2004 |isbn=978-3-87690-885-4 |oclc=56198470 |ssrn=3434516 |id={{CROSBI|430499}} | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120601174051/http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/430499.PRO_UND_KONTRA_SERBOKROATISCH.PDF|url-status=live |archive-date=1 June 2012 |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/430499.PRO_UND_KONTRA_SERBOKROATISCH.PDF |access-date=9 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Blum |first=Daniel |year=2002 |language=de |title=Sprache und Politik : Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945–1991) |trans-title=Language and Policy: Language Policy and Linguistic Nationalism in the Republic of India and the Socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991) |series=Beiträge zur Südasienforschung; vol. 192 |location=Würzburg |publisher=Ergon |page=200 |isbn=978-3-89913-253-3 |oclc=51961066}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Gröschel |first=Bernhard |author-link=Bernhard Gröschel |year=2009 |language=de |title=Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit |trans-title=Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute |series=Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics; vol 34 |location=Munich |publisher=Lincom Europa |pages=82–83 |isbn=978-3-929075-79-3 |oclc=428012015 |lccn=2009473660 |ol=15295665W}}</ref>
Therefore, ], ], ] and ] ] with each other in their respective ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Kordić |first=Snježana |author-link=Snježana Kordić |year=2010 |language=hr |title=Jezik i nacionalizam |trans-title=Language and Nationalism |url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/475567.Jezik_i_nacionalizam.pdf |url-status=live |series=Rotulus Universitas |location=Zagreb |publisher=Durieux |pages=74–77 |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3467646 |isbn=978-953-188-311-5 |lccn=2011520778 |oclc=729837512 |ol=15270636W |id={{CROSBI|475567}} |archive-date=1 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120601175359/http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/475567.Jezik_i_nacionalizam.pdf |access-date=15 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pohl |first=Hans-Dieter |editor1-last=Ohnheiser |editor1-first=Ingeborg |title=Wechselbeziehungen zwischen slawischen Sprachen, Literaturen und Kulturen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : Akten der Tagung aus Anlaß des 25jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Slawistik an der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 25–27 Mai 1995 |series=Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Slavica aenipontana; vol. 4 |publisher=Non Lieu |pages=205–219 |language=de |chapter=Serbokroatisch – Rückblick und Ausblick |trans-chapter=Serbo-Croatian – Looking backward and forward |location=Innsbruck |year=1996 |oclc=243829127}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Šipka|first=Danko|author-link=Danko Sipka|year=2019|title=Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages|location=New York|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=166|doi=10.1017/9781108685795|isbn=978-953-313-086-6|s2cid=150383965|lccn=2018048005 |oclc=1061308790|quote=lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible", leading Šipka "to consider it a pluricentric standard language}}</ref> In ], native speakers of Shtokavian may struggle to understand distinct ] or ] dialects, as might the speakers of the two with each other.<ref>{{cite book|last=Škiljan |first=Dubravko| author-link=Dubravko Škiljan |year=2002 |language=hr |title=Govor nacije: jezik, nacija, Hrvati |trans-title=Voice of the Nation: Language, Nation, Croats |series=Biblioteka Obrisi moderne |location=Zagreb |publisher=Golden marketing | page=12 |oclc=55754615}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Thomas|first=Paul-Louis |title=Le serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe): de l'étude d'une langue à l'identité des langues |trans-title=Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian): from the study of a language to the identity of languages |url=http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/slave_0080-2557_2002_num_74_2_6801 |language=fr |journal=Revue des études slaves |volume=74 |issue=2–3 |page=315 |year=2003 |issn=0080-2557}}</ref> Likewise in ], the ] dialect differs significantly from Standard Serbian. Serbian is a Western South Slavic standard, but Torlakian is largely transitional with the Eastern South Slavic languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian). Collectively, the Torlakian dialects with Macedonian and Bulgarian share many grammatical features that set them apart from all other Slavic languages, such as the complete loss of its ] systems and adoption of features more commonly found among ].

The barrier between ''East South Slavic'' and ''West South Slavic'' is historical and natural, caused primarily by a one-time geographical distance between speakers. The two varieties started diverging early on ({{Circa|11th century CE}}) and evolved separately ever since without major mutual influence, as evidenced by distinguishable ], while the western dialect of common Old Slavic was still spoken across the modern Serbo-Croatian area in the 12th and early 13th centuries. An intermediate dialect linking western and eastern variations inevitably came into existence over time – ] – spoken across a wide radius on which the tripoint of ], ] and ] is relatively pivotal.

=== Uralic languages ===

The other major language family in Europe besides Indo-European are the ]. The ], sometimes mistaken for a single language, are a dialect continuum, albeit with some disconnections like between ], ] and ]. The ] spoken around the ] form a dialect continuum. Thus, although ] and ] are considered as separate languages, there is no definite linguistic border or isogloss that separates them. This is now more difficult to recognize because many of the intervening languages have declined or become extinct.

=== Goidelic continuum ===

The ] consist of ], ] and ]. Prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, the continuum existed throughout Ireland, the Isle of Man and Scotland.<ref>{{cite book|last=Mac Eoin|first=Gearóid|chapter=Irish|pages=101–44|title=The Celtic Languages|editor-first=Martin J. |editor-last=Ball |publisher=Routledge|location=London|year=1993|isbn=978-0-415-01035-1}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=McManus|first=Damian|chapter=An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach |pages=335–445|editor=K. McCone |editor2=D. McManus |editor3=C. Ó Háinle |editor4=N. Williams |editor5=L. Breatnach |title=Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta|location=Maynooth|publisher=Department of Old Irish, St. Patrick's College|year=1994|isbn=978-0-901519-90-0|language=Irish}}</ref> Many intermediate dialects have become extinct or have died out leaving major gaps between languages such as in the islands of ], ] or ]<ref>{{Cite web |last=McLeod |first=Wilson |date=2017 |title=Dialectal diversity in contemporary Gaelic: perceptions, discourses and responses |url=https://www.abdn.ac.uk/pfrlsu/documents/PFRLSU/W._McLeod_Dialectal_Diversity.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220214181549/https://www.abdn.ac.uk/pfrlsu/documents/PFRLSU/W._McLeod_Dialectal_Diversity.pdf |archive-date=Feb 14, 2022 |website=University of Aberdeen}}</ref> and also in the ] of ], ] and ].

The current Goidelic speaking areas of Ireland are also separated by extinct dialects but remain mutually intelligible.

==Middle East==

===Arabic===

] is a standard case of ].<ref>{{cite book|first=Adolf|last=Wahrmund|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0yUYAAAAYAAJ|title=Praktisches Handbuch der neu-arabischen Sprache ...|publisher=J. Ricker|year=1898|edition=3|volume=1-2 of Praktisches Handbuch der neu-arabischen Sprache|access-date=6 July 2011}}</ref> The standard written language, ], is based on the ] of the ], while the ] (or languages) branched from ancient Arabic dialects, from North Western ] through ], ], and the ] to the ] and ]. The dialects use different analogues from the Arabic language inventory and have been influenced by different substrate and superstrate languages. Adjacent dialects are mutually understandable to a large extent, but those from distant regions are more difficult to be understood.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kaye|first1=Alan S.|title=The Semitic Languages|last2=Rosenhouse|first2=Judith|publisher=Routledge|year=1997|isbn=978-0-415-05767-7|editor-last=Hetzron|editor-first=Robert|pages=263–311|chapter=Arabic Dialects and Maltese}}</ref>

The difference between the written standard and the vernaculars is apparent also in the written language, and children have to be taught Modern Standard Arabic in school to be able to read it.

===Aramaic===
All ] languages descend from a dialect continuum that historically existed through the Aramaization of the Levant (other than the original Aramaic-speaking parts) and Mesopotamia<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bunnens |first=Guy |date=2009 |title=ASSYRIAN EMPIRE BUILDING AND ARAMIZATION OF CULTURE AS SEEN FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20723920 |journal=Syria |publisher=Institut Francais du Proche-Orient}}</ref> and before the Arabization of the Levant and Mesopotamia. ], including distinct varieties spoken by both Jews and Christians, is a dialect continuum although greatly disrupted by population displacement during the twentieth century.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kim |first1=Ronald |title="Stammbaum" or Continuum? The Subgrouping of Modern Aramaic Dialects Reconsidered |journal=Journal of the American Oriental Society |date=2008 |volume=128 |issue=3 |pages=505–531 |jstor=25608409 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25608409 |issn=0003-0279}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mutzafi |first1=Hezy |title=Further Jewish Neo-Aramaic Innovations |journal=Journal of Jewish Languages |date=23 August 2018 |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=145–181 |doi=10.1163/22134638-06011130 |s2cid=165973597 |url=https://brill.com/view/journals/jjl/6/2/article-p145_1.xml |issn=2213-4638}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Khan |first1=Geoffrey |title=The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Iran |journal=Iranian Studies |date=2020 |volume=53 |issue=3–4 |pages=445–463 |doi=10.1080/00210862.2020.1714430|s2cid=216353456 |url=https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/301788 }}</ref>. The dialect continuum also includes ] as spoken by Muslims and Christians in Syria.

=== Persian ===

The ] in its various varieties (] and ]), is representative of a dialect continuum. The divergence of Tajik was accelerated by the shift from the Perso-Arabic alphabet to a Cyrillic one under the Soviets. Western dialects of Persian show greater influence from Arabic and Oghuz Turkic languages,{{Citation needed|date=December 2008}} but Dari and Tajik tend to preserve many classical features in grammar and vocabulary. {{Citation needed|date=December 2008}} Also the ], a dialect of Persian, is spoken in Azerbaijan.

=== Turkic ===

] are best described as a dialect continuum.<ref>{{cite book | last=Grenoble | first=Lenore A. | title=Language policy in the Soviet Union | publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers | publication-place=Dordrecht | date=2003 | isbn=0-306-48083-2 | oclc=53984252}}</ref> Geographically this continuum starts at the ] in the west with ], includes ] in ] and ] in ], extends into ] with ] and ], into ] with ], across ] to include ], ], ], ], to southern Regions of ] and into ]. In the south, the continuum starts in northern Afghanistan, northward to ]. In the east it extends to the Republic of ], the ] autonomous region in Western China with the ] and into ] with ]. The entire territory is inhabited by Turkic speaking peoples. There are three varieties of Turkic geographically outside the continuum: ], ] and ]. They have been geographically separated from the other Turkic languages for an extensive period of time, and Chuvash language stands out as the most divergent from other Turkic languages.

There are also ] speakers in ] and ] speakers in ].

The Turkic continuum makes internal genetic classification of the languages problematic. ], Khalaj and ] are generally classified as significantly distinct, but the remaining ] are quite similar, with a high degree of mutual intelligibility between not only geographically adjacent varieties but also among some varieties some distance apart.{{Citation needed|date=April 2012}} Structurally, the Turkic languages are very close to one another, and they share basic features such as ] word order, ] and ].<ref>{{cite book
| last = Grenoble
| first = Lenore A.
| title = Language Policy in the Soviet Union
| publisher = ]
| volume = 3
| year = 2003
| isbn = 978-1-4020-1298-3 }}</ref>

== Indo-Aryan languages ==

Many of the ] of the ] form a dialect continuum. What is called "]" in India is frequently ], the ]ized register of the colloquial ] spoken in the ] area, the other register being ]. However, the term Hindi is also used for the different dialects from ] to ] and, more widely, some of the Eastern and Northern dialects are sometimes grouped under Hindi.{{Citation needed|date=May 2017}} The Indo-Aryan ]s also gave rise to languages like ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ].

== Chinese ==
]
Chinese consists of hundreds of mutually unintelligible ].<ref name="Norman 2003 p72">{{cite book
| given = Jerry | surname = Norman | author-link = Jerry Norman (sinologist)
| chapter = The Chinese dialects: phonology | pages = 72–83
| editor-given1 = Graham | editor-surname1 = Thurgood | editor-link1 = Graham Thurgood
| editor-given2 = Randy J. | editor-surname2 = LaPolla | editor-link2 = Randy LaPolla
| title = The Sino-Tibetan languages | publisher = Routledge | year = 2003
| isbn = 978-0-7007-1129-1
}} p. 72.</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| given = Mahé Ben | surname = Hamed
| title = Neighbour-nets portray the Chinese dialect continuum and the linguistic legacy of China's demic history
| journal = Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
| volume = 272 | number = 1567 | pages = 1015–1022 | year = 2005
| doi = 10.1098/rspb.2004.3015 | pmc = 1599877 | pmid=16024359 |jstor=30047639
}}</ref>
The differences are similar to those within the ], which are similarly descended from a language spread by imperial expansion over ]s 2000 years ago.<ref>{{cite book
| given = Jerry | surname = Norman | title = Chinese
| location = Cambridge | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 1988
| isbn = 978-0-521-29653-3
| page = 187
}}</ref>
Unlike Europe, however, Chinese political unity was restored in the late 6th century and has persisted (with interludes of division) until the present day.
There are no equivalents of the local standard literary languages that developed in the numerous independent states of Europe.{{sfnp|Norman|1988|pp=2–3}}

Chinese dialectologists have divided the local varieties into a number of dialect groups, largely based on phonological developments in comparison with ].<ref>{{cite book
| given = Maria | surname = Kurpaska
| title = Chinese Language(s): A Look Through the Prism of "The Great Dictionary of Modern Chinese Dialects"
| publisher = ] | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-3-11-021914-2
| pages = 41–55
}}</ref>
Most of these groups are found in the rugged terrain of the southeast, reflecting the greater variation in this area, particularly in ].<ref>{{cite book
| given = S. Robert | surname = Ramsey | title = The Languages of China
| publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 1987 | isbn = 978-0-691-01468-5
| page = 22
}}</ref>{{sfnp|Norman|1988|pp=183–190}}
Each of these groups contains numerous mutually unintelligible varieties.<ref name="Norman 2003 p72"/>
Moreover, in many cases the transitions between groups are smooth, as a result of centuries of interaction and multilingualism.<ref>{{cite journal
| given = Laurent | surname = Sagart | author-link = Laurent Sagart
| title = On distinguishing Hakka and non-Hakka dialects
| journal = Journal of Chinese Linguistics | volume = 26 | issue = 2
| year = 1998 | pages = 281–302 | jstor = 23756757
}} p 299.</ref>

The boundaries between the northern ] area and the central groups, ], ] and ], are particularly weak, due to the steady flow of northern features into these areas.{{sfnp|Norman|1988|pp=190, 206–207}}<ref>{{cite book
| given = M.A.K | surname = Halliday | author-link = Michael Halliday
| chapter = The users and uses of language
| pages = 139–169 | orig-year = 1964
| title = Readings in the Sociology of Language
| editor-given = Joshua A. | editor-surname = Fishman
| publisher = Walter de Gruyter | year = 1968
| isbn = 978-3-11-080537-6
}} p. 12.</ref>
Transitional varieties between the Wu, Gan and Mandarin groups have been variously classified, with some scholars assigning them to a separate ] group.<ref>{{cite book
| given = Margaret Mian | surname = Yan
| title = Introduction to Chinese Dialectology
| publisher = LINCOM Europa | year = 2006 | isbn = 978-3-89586-629-6
| pages = 223–224
}}</ref>{{sfnp|Norman|1988|p=206}}
The boundaries between Gan, ] and ] are similarly indistinct.{{sfnp|Norman|1988|p=241}}{{sfnp|Norman|2003|p=80}}
] and ] form a dialect continuum (excluding urban enclaves of ]).<ref>{{cite book
| given = Hilário | surname = de Sousa
| chapter = Language contact in Nanning: Nanning Pinghua and Nanning Cantonese
| pages = 157–189
| title = Diversity in Sinitic Languages
| editor-given = Hilary M. | editor-surname = Chappell
| publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2016 | isbn = 978-0-19-872379-0
}} p. 162.</ref>
There are sharper boundaries resulting from more recent expansion between Hakka and Yue, and between ] and Yue, but even here there has been considerable convergence in contact areas.{{sfnp|Halliday|1968|pp=11–12}}

== Cree and Ojibwa ==

] is a group of closely related ] that are distributed from ] to ] in ]. They form the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi dialect continuum, with around 117,410 speakers. The languages can be roughly classified into nine groups, from west to east:


* ] (y-dialect) * ] (y-dialect)
* Woods Cree language or Woods/Rocky Cree (th-dialect) * ] or Woods/Rocky Cree (ð-dialect)
* ] (n-dialect) * ] (n-dialect)
** Eastern Swampy Cree ** Eastern Swampy Cree
** Western Swampy Cree ** Western Swampy Cree
* ] (l-dialect) * ] (l-dialect)
* James Bay Cree (y-dialect, sometimes called East Cree) * ] or James Bay Cree (y-dialect)
** Northern East Cree ** Northern East Cree
** Southern East Cree ** Southern East Cree
* ] (r-dialect) * ] (r-dialect)
* Western Montagnais (l-dialect) * Western Montagnais (l-dialect)
* ] (n-dialect, also sometimes called Innu-aimun) * ] or Eastern Montagnais (n-dialect)
* ] (y-dialect) * ] (y-dialect)


Various Cree languages are used as languages of instruction and taught as subjects, for example, Plains Cree, Eastern Cree, Montagnais, etc. Mutual intelligibility between some dialects can be low. There is no accepted standard Cree dialect. <ref> </ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> Various Cree languages are used as languages of instruction and taught as subjects: Plains Cree, Eastern Cree, Montagnais, etc. Mutual intelligibility between some dialects can be low. There is no accepted standard dialect.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-744/|title=LINGUIST List 6.744: Cree dialects|website=www.linguistlist.org|date=1995-05-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=CA|title=Canada}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.native-languages.org/cree.htm|title=Cree Language and the Cree Indian Tribe (Iyiniwok, Eenou, Eeyou, Iynu, Kenistenoag)|website=www.native-languages.org|access-date=10 September 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110404114314/http://www.native-languages.org/cree.htm|archive-date=4 April 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>


] (Chippewa) is a group of closely related ] in ], which is distributed from ] to ], and the ], distributed from ] to ], with ] communities in ] and ]. With Cree, the ] dialect continuum forms its own continuum, but the ] of this continuum joins the Cree–Montagnais–Naskapi dialect continuum through ]. The Ojibwe continuum has 70,606 speakers. Roughly from northwest to southeast, it has these dialects:
==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


* Ojibwa-Ottawa
==References==
** ]
** ] or Severn
** Ojibwa
*** ] or Saulteaux
*** ]
*** ]
*** ] or Nipissing
*** ] or Mississauga
** ]
* ]

Unlike the Cree–Montagnais–Naskapi dialect continuum, with distinct n/y/l/r/ð dialect characteristics and noticeable west–east k/č(ch) axis, the Ojibwe continuum is marked with ] along the west–east axis and ∅/n along the north–south axis.

== See also ==
* ] (an ] spread among linguists)
* ], including the classification units "dialect cluster", "language cluster" and "dialect group"
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ], an analogous concept in ecology

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}


] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 17:10, 24 December 2024

Geographic range of dialects that vary more strongly at the distant ends

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Dialect continuum" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series on
Linguistics
General linguistics
Applied linguistics
Theoretical frameworks
Topics
Portal

A dialect continuum or dialect chain is a series of language varieties spoken across some geographical area such that neighboring varieties are mutually intelligible, but the differences accumulate over distance so that widely separated varieties may not be. This is a typical occurrence with widely spread languages and language families around the world, when these languages did not spread recently. Some prominent examples include the Indo-Aryan languages across large parts of India, varieties of Arabic across north Africa and southwest Asia, the Turkic languages, the varieties of Chinese, and parts of the Romance, Germanic and Slavic families in Europe. Terms used in older literature include dialect area (Leonard Bloomfield) and L-complex (Charles F. Hockett).

Dialect continua typically occur in long-settled agrarian populations, as innovations spread from their various points of origin as waves. In this situation, hierarchical classifications of varieties are impractical. Instead, dialectologists map variation of various language features across a dialect continuum, drawing lines called isoglosses between areas that differ with respect to some feature.

A variety within a dialect continuum may be developed and codified as a standard language, and then serve as an authority for part of the continuum, e.g. within a particular political unit or geographical area. Since the early 20th century, the increasing dominance of nation-states and their standard languages has been steadily eliminating the nonstandard dialects that comprise dialect continua, making the boundaries ever more abrupt and well-defined.

Dialect geography

Part of map 72 of the Atlas linguistique de la France, recording local forms meaning "today"

Dialectologists record variation across a dialect continuum using maps of various features collected in a linguistic atlas, beginning with an atlas of German dialects by Georg Wenker (from 1888), based on a postal survey of schoolmasters. The influential Atlas linguistique de la France (1902–10) pioneered the use of a trained fieldworker. These atlases typically consist of display maps, each showing local forms of a particular item at the survey locations.

Secondary studies may include interpretive maps, showing the areal distribution of various variants. A common tool in these maps is an isogloss, a line separating areas where different variants of a particular feature predominate.

In a dialect continuum, isoglosses for different features are typically spread out, reflecting the gradual transition between varieties. A bundle of coinciding isoglosses indicates a stronger dialect boundary, as might occur at geographical obstacles or long-standing political boundaries. In other cases, intersecting isoglosses and more complex patterns are found.

Relationship with standard varieties

Main article: Autonomy and heteronomy (sociolinguistics)
Local dialects of the West Germanic continuum are oriented towards either Standard Dutch or Standard German, depending on which side of the international border they are spoken.

Standard varieties may be developed and codified at one or more locations in a continuum until they have independent cultural status (autonomy), a process the German linguist Heinz Kloss called ausbau. Speakers of local varieties typically read and write a related standard variety, use it for official purposes, hear it on radio and television, and consider it the standard form of their speech, so that any standardizing changes in their speech are towards that variety. In such cases the local variety is said to be dependent on, or heteronomous with respect to, the standard variety.

A standard variety together with its dependent varieties is commonly considered a "language", with the dependent varieties called "dialects" of the language, even if the standard is mutually intelligible with another standard from the same continuum. The Scandinavian languages, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, are often cited as examples. Conversely, a language defined in this way may include local varieties that are mutually unintelligible, such as the German dialects.

The choice of standard is often determined by a political boundary, which may cut across a dialect continuum. As a result, speakers on either side of the boundary may use almost identical varieties, but treat them as dependent on different standards, and thus part of different "languages". The various local dialects then tend to be leveled towards their respective standard varieties, disrupting the previous dialect continuum. Examples include the boundaries between Dutch and German, between Czech, Slovak and Polish, and between Belarusian and Ukrainian.

The choice may be a matter of national, regional or religious identity, and may be controversial. Examples of controversies are regions such as the disputed territory of Kashmir, in which local Muslims usually regard their language as Urdu, the national standard of Pakistan, while Hindus regard the same speech as Hindi, an official standard of India. Even so, the Eighth Schedule to the Indian Constitution contains a list of 22 scheduled languages and Urdu is among them.

During the time of the former Socialist Republic of Macedonia, a standard was developed from local varieties of Eastern South Slavic, within a continuum with Torlakian to the north and Bulgarian to the east. The standard was based on varieties that were most different from standard Bulgarian. Now known as Macedonian, it is the national standard of North Macedonia, but viewed by Bulgarians as a dialect of Bulgarian.

Europe

Major dialect continua in Europe in the mid-20th century

Europe provides several examples of dialect continua, the largest of which involve the Germanic, Romance and Slavic branches of the Indo-European language family, the continent's largest language branches.

The Romance area spanned much of the territory of the Roman Empire but was split into western and eastern portions by the Slav Migrations into the Balkans in the 7th and 8th centuries.

The Slavic area was in turn split by the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin in the 9th and 10th centuries.

Germanic languages

The varieties of the continental West Germanic dialect continuum after 1945:   Frisian   Low Franconian   Low Saxon/Low German    Central German (part of High German)    Upper German (part of High German)

North Germanic continuum

The Norwegian, Danish and Swedish dialects comprise a classic example of a dialect continuum, encompassing Norway, Denmark, Sweden and coastal parts of Finland. The Continental North Germanic standard languages (Norwegian, Danish and Swedish) are close enough and intelligible enough for some to consider them to be dialects of the same language, but the Insular ones (Faroese and Icelandic) are not immediately intelligible to the other North Germanic speakers.

Continental West Germanic continuum

Historically, the Dutch, Frisian, Low Saxon and High German dialects formed a canonical dialect continuum, which has been gradually falling apart since the Late Middle Ages due to the pressures of modern education, standard languages, migration and weakening knowledge of the dialects.

The transition from German dialects to Dutch variants followed two basic routes:

Though the internal dialect continua of both Dutch and German remain largely intact, the continuum which historically connected the Dutch, Frisian and German languages has largely disintegrated. Fragmentary areas of the Dutch-German border in which language change is more gradual than in other sections or a higher degree of mutual intelligibility is present still exist, such as the Aachen-Kerkrade area, but the historical chain in which dialects were only divided by minor isoglosses and negligible differences in vocabulary has seen a rapid and ever-increasing decline since the 1850s.

Standard Dutch was based on the dialects of the principal Brabantic and Hollandic cities. The written form of Standard German originated in the East Central German used at the chancery of the kingdom of Saxony, while the spoken form emerged later, based on North German pronunciations of the written standard. Being based on widely separated dialects, the Dutch and German standards do not show a high degree of mutual intelligibility when spoken and only partially so when written. One study concluded that, when concerning written language, Dutch speakers could translate 50.2% of the provided German words correctly, while the German subjects were able to translate 41.9% of the Dutch equivalents correctly. In terms of orthography, 22% of the vocabulary of Dutch and German is identical or near-identical.

Anglic continuum

The Germanic dialects spoken on the island of Great Britain comprise areal varieties of English in England and of Scots in Scotland. Those of large areas north and south of the border are often mutually intelligible. In contrast, the Orcadian dialect of Scots is very different from the dialects of English in southern England—but they are linked by a chain of intermediate varieties.

Romance languages

Western Romance continuum

Romance languages in Europe

The western continuum of Romance languages comprises, from West to East: in Portugal, Portuguese; in Spain, Galician, Leonese or Asturian, Castilian or Spanish, Aragonese and Catalan or Valencian; in France, Occitan, Franco-Provençal, standard French and Corsican which is closely related to Italian; in Italy, Ligurian, Piedmontese, Lombard, Emilian, Romagnol, Italian Gallo-Picene, Venetian, Friulian, Ladin; and in Switzerland, Lombard and Romansh. This continuum is sometimes presented as another example, but the major languages in the group (i.e. Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian) have had separate standards for longer than the languages in the Continental West Germanic group, and so are not commonly classified as dialects of a common language.

Focusing instead on the local Romance lects that pre-existed the establishment of national or regional standard languages, all evidence and principles point to Romania continua as having been, and to varying extents in some areas still being, what Charles Hockett called an L-complex, i.e. an unbroken chain of local differentiation such that, in principle and with appropriate caveats, intelligibility (due to sharing of features) attenuates with distance. This is perhaps most evident today in Italy, where, especially in rural and small-town contexts, local Romance is still often employed at home and work, and geolinguistic distinctions are such that while native speakers from any two nearby towns can understand each other with ease, they can also spot from linguistic features that the other is from elsewhere.

In recent centuries, the intermediate dialects between the major Romance languages have been moving toward extinction, as their speakers have switched to varieties closer to the more prestigious national standards. That has been most notable in France, owing to the French government's refusal to recognise minority languages, but it has occurred to some extent in all Western Romance speaking countries. Language change has also threatened the survival of stateless languages with existing literary standards, such as Occitan.

The Romance languages of Italy are a less arguable example of a dialect continuum. For many decades since Italy's unification, the attitude of the French government towards the ethnolinguistic minorities was copied by the Italian government.

Eastern Romance continuum

The eastern Romance continuum is dominated by Romanian. Outside Romania and Moldova, across the other south-east European countries, various Romanian language groups are to be found: pockets of various Romanian and Aromanian subgroups survive throughout Bulgaria, Serbia, North Macedonia, Greece, Albania and Croatia (in Istria).

Slavic languages

Conventionally, on the basis of extralinguistic features (such as writing systems or the former western frontier of the Soviet Union), the North Slavic continuum is split into East and West Slavic continua. From the perspective of linguistic features alone, only two Slavic (dialect) continua can be distinguished, namely North and South, separated from each other by a band of non-Slavic languages: Romanian, Hungarian and German.

North Slavic continuum

The North Slavic continuum covers the East Slavic and West Slavic languages. East Slavic includes Russian, Belarusian, Rusyn and Ukrainian; West Slavic languages of Czech, Polish, Slovak, Silesian, Kashubian, and Upper and Lower Sorbian. Eastern Slovak and Pannonian Rusyn stand out as sharing features with Slovak, Polish and Rusyn, thus serving as a transition between West and East Slavic languages.

South Slavic continuum

Further information: Pluricentric language § Serbo-Croatian
South Slavic dialect continuum with major dialect groups

All South Slavic languages form a dialect continuum. It comprises, from West to East, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Bulgaria. Standard Slovene, Macedonian, and Bulgarian are each based on a distinct dialect, but the Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian standard varieties of the pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language are all based on the same dialect, Shtokavian. Therefore, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins communicate fluently with each other in their respective standardized varieties. In Croatia, native speakers of Shtokavian may struggle to understand distinct Kajkavian or Chakavian dialects, as might the speakers of the two with each other. Likewise in Serbia, the Torlakian dialect differs significantly from Standard Serbian. Serbian is a Western South Slavic standard, but Torlakian is largely transitional with the Eastern South Slavic languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian). Collectively, the Torlakian dialects with Macedonian and Bulgarian share many grammatical features that set them apart from all other Slavic languages, such as the complete loss of its grammatical case systems and adoption of features more commonly found among analytic languages.

The barrier between East South Slavic and West South Slavic is historical and natural, caused primarily by a one-time geographical distance between speakers. The two varieties started diverging early on (c. 11th century CE) and evolved separately ever since without major mutual influence, as evidenced by distinguishable Old Slavonic, while the western dialect of common Old Slavic was still spoken across the modern Serbo-Croatian area in the 12th and early 13th centuries. An intermediate dialect linking western and eastern variations inevitably came into existence over time – Torlakian – spoken across a wide radius on which the tripoint of Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Serbia is relatively pivotal.

Uralic languages

The other major language family in Europe besides Indo-European are the Uralic languages. The Sami languages, sometimes mistaken for a single language, are a dialect continuum, albeit with some disconnections like between North, Skolt and Inari Sami. The Baltic-Finnic languages spoken around the Gulf of Finland form a dialect continuum. Thus, although Finnish and Estonian are considered as separate languages, there is no definite linguistic border or isogloss that separates them. This is now more difficult to recognize because many of the intervening languages have declined or become extinct.

Goidelic continuum

The Goidelic languages consist of Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx. Prior to the 19th and 20th centuries, the continuum existed throughout Ireland, the Isle of Man and Scotland. Many intermediate dialects have become extinct or have died out leaving major gaps between languages such as in the islands of Rathlin, Arran or Kintyre and also in the Irish counties of Antrim, Londonderry and Down.

The current Goidelic speaking areas of Ireland are also separated by extinct dialects but remain mutually intelligible.

Middle East

Arabic

Arabic is a standard case of diglossia. The standard written language, Modern Standard Arabic, is based on the Classical Arabic of the Qur'an, while the modern vernacular dialects (or languages) branched from ancient Arabic dialects, from North Western Africa through Egypt, Sudan, and the Fertile Crescent to the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq. The dialects use different analogues from the Arabic language inventory and have been influenced by different substrate and superstrate languages. Adjacent dialects are mutually understandable to a large extent, but those from distant regions are more difficult to be understood.

The difference between the written standard and the vernaculars is apparent also in the written language, and children have to be taught Modern Standard Arabic in school to be able to read it.

Aramaic

All modern Aramaic languages descend from a dialect continuum that historically existed through the Aramaization of the Levant (other than the original Aramaic-speaking parts) and Mesopotamia and before the Arabization of the Levant and Mesopotamia. Northeastern Neo-Aramaic, including distinct varieties spoken by both Jews and Christians, is a dialect continuum although greatly disrupted by population displacement during the twentieth century.. The dialect continuum also includes Western Neo-Aramaic as spoken by Muslims and Christians in Syria.

Persian

The Persian language in its various varieties (Tajiki and Dari), is representative of a dialect continuum. The divergence of Tajik was accelerated by the shift from the Perso-Arabic alphabet to a Cyrillic one under the Soviets. Western dialects of Persian show greater influence from Arabic and Oghuz Turkic languages, but Dari and Tajik tend to preserve many classical features in grammar and vocabulary. Also the Tat language, a dialect of Persian, is spoken in Azerbaijan.

Turkic

Turkic languages are best described as a dialect continuum. Geographically this continuum starts at the Balkans in the west with Balkan Turkish, includes Turkish in Turkey and Azerbaijani language in Azerbaijan, extends into Iran with Azeri and Khalaj, into Iraq with Turkmen, across Central Asia to include Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, to southern Regions of Tajikistan and into Afghanistan. In the south, the continuum starts in northern Afghanistan, northward to Chuvashia. In the east it extends to the Republic of Tuva, the Xinjiang autonomous region in Western China with the Uyghur language and into Mongolia with Khoton. The entire territory is inhabited by Turkic speaking peoples. There are three varieties of Turkic geographically outside the continuum: Chuvash, Yakut and Dolgan. They have been geographically separated from the other Turkic languages for an extensive period of time, and Chuvash language stands out as the most divergent from other Turkic languages.

There are also Gagauz speakers in Moldavia and Urum speakers in Georgia.

The Turkic continuum makes internal genetic classification of the languages problematic. Chuvash, Khalaj and Yakut are generally classified as significantly distinct, but the remaining Turkic languages are quite similar, with a high degree of mutual intelligibility between not only geographically adjacent varieties but also among some varieties some distance apart. Structurally, the Turkic languages are very close to one another, and they share basic features such as SOV word order, vowel harmony and agglutination.

Indo-Aryan languages

Many of the Indo-Aryan languages of the Indian subcontinent form a dialect continuum. What is called "Hindi" in India is frequently Standard Hindi, the Sanskritized register of the colloquial Hindustani spoken in the Delhi area, the other register being Urdu. However, the term Hindi is also used for the different dialects from Bihar to Rajasthan and, more widely, some of the Eastern and Northern dialects are sometimes grouped under Hindi. The Indo-Aryan Prakrits also gave rise to languages like Gujarati, Assamese, Maithili, Bengali, Odia, Nepali, Marathi, Konkani and Punjabi.

Chinese

Areas of Chinese dialect groups

Chinese consists of hundreds of mutually unintelligible local varieties. The differences are similar to those within the Romance languages, which are similarly descended from a language spread by imperial expansion over substrate languages 2000 years ago. Unlike Europe, however, Chinese political unity was restored in the late 6th century and has persisted (with interludes of division) until the present day. There are no equivalents of the local standard literary languages that developed in the numerous independent states of Europe.

Chinese dialectologists have divided the local varieties into a number of dialect groups, largely based on phonological developments in comparison with Middle Chinese. Most of these groups are found in the rugged terrain of the southeast, reflecting the greater variation in this area, particularly in Fujian. Each of these groups contains numerous mutually unintelligible varieties. Moreover, in many cases the transitions between groups are smooth, as a result of centuries of interaction and multilingualism.

The boundaries between the northern Mandarin area and the central groups, Wu, Gan and Xiang, are particularly weak, due to the steady flow of northern features into these areas. Transitional varieties between the Wu, Gan and Mandarin groups have been variously classified, with some scholars assigning them to a separate Hui group. The boundaries between Gan, Hakka and Min are similarly indistinct. Pinghua and Yue form a dialect continuum (excluding urban enclaves of Cantonese). There are sharper boundaries resulting from more recent expansion between Hakka and Yue, and between Southwestern Mandarin and Yue, but even here there has been considerable convergence in contact areas.

Cree and Ojibwa

Cree is a group of closely related Algonquian languages that are distributed from Alberta to Labrador in Canada. They form the Cree-Montagnais-Naskapi dialect continuum, with around 117,410 speakers. The languages can be roughly classified into nine groups, from west to east:

Various Cree languages are used as languages of instruction and taught as subjects: Plains Cree, Eastern Cree, Montagnais, etc. Mutual intelligibility between some dialects can be low. There is no accepted standard dialect.

Ojibwa (Chippewa) is a group of closely related Algonquian languages in Canada, which is distributed from British Columbia to Quebec, and the United States, distributed from Montana to Michigan, with diaspora communities in Kansas and Oklahoma. With Cree, the Ojibwe dialect continuum forms its own continuum, but the Oji-Cree language of this continuum joins the Cree–Montagnais–Naskapi dialect continuum through Swampy Cree. The Ojibwe continuum has 70,606 speakers. Roughly from northwest to southeast, it has these dialects:

Unlike the Cree–Montagnais–Naskapi dialect continuum, with distinct n/y/l/r/ð dialect characteristics and noticeable west–east k/č(ch) axis, the Ojibwe continuum is marked with vowel syncope along the west–east axis and ∅/n along the north–south axis.

See also

Notes

  1. Carpathian Ruthenia is mistakenly excluded from North Slavic on the map, even though Rusyn, an East Slavic dialect group on the transition to West Slavic, is spoken there.
  2. In this context, "A group of related dialects of Low German, spoken in northern Germany and parts of the Netherlands, formerly also in Denmark." (Definition from Wiktionary)

References

  1. Crystal, David (2006). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell. p. 144. ISBN 978-1-405-15296-9.
  2. Bloomfield, Leonard (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 51.
  3. Hockett, Charles F. (1958). A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. pp. 324–325.
  4. Chambers, J.K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 13–19, 89–91. ISBN 978-0-521-59646-6.
  5. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 15–17.
  6. ^ Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 25.
  7. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 27.
  8. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 93–94.
  9. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 94–95.
  10. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 91–93.
  11. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 10.
  12. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 9–12.
  13. Stewart, William A. (1968). "A sociolinguistic typology for describing national multilingualism". In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language. De Gruyter. pp. 531–545. doi:10.1515/9783110805376.531. ISBN 978-3-11-080537-6.
  14. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 11.
  15. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), pp. 3–4.
  16. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 4.
  17. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 9.
  18. Woolhiser, Curt (2011). "Border effects in European dialect continua: dialect divergence and convergence". In Kortmann, Bernd; van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). The Languages and Linguistics of Europe: A Comprehensive Guide. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 501–523. ISBN 978-3-11-022025-4. p. 501.
  19. Woolhiser (2011), pp. 507, 516–517.
  20. Trudgill, Peter (1997). "Norwegian as a Normal Language". In Røyneland, Unn (ed.). Language Contact and Language Conflict. Volda College. pp. 151–158. ISBN 978-82-7661-078-9. p. 152.
  21. Trudgill, Peter (1992). "Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of language status in contemporary Europe". International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2 (2): 167–177. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1992.tb00031.x. pp. 173–174.
  22. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 6.
  23. W. Heeringa: Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance. University of Groningen, 2009, pp. 232–234.
  24. Peter Wiesinger: Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte. In: Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke, Herbert Ernst Wiegand (Hrsg.): Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, 2. Halbband. de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 1983, ISBN 3-11-009571-8, pp. 807–900.
  25. Werner König: dtv-Atlas Deutsche Sprache. 19. Auflage. dtv, München 2019, ISBN 978-3-423-03025-0, pp. 230.
  26. C. Giesbers: Dialecten op de grens van twee talen. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2008, pp. 233.
  27. ^ Niebaum, Herman (2008). "Het Oostnederlandse taallandschap tot het begin van de 19de eeuw". In Van der Kooij, Jurgen (ed.). Handboek Nedersaksische taal- en letterkunde. Van Gorcum. pp. 52–64. ISBN 978-90-232-4329-8. p. 54.
  28. Chambers & Trudgill (1998), p. 92.
  29. Henriksen, Carol; van der Auwera, Johan (1994). König, Ekkehard; van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). The Germanic Languages. Routledge. pp. 1–18. ISBN 978-0-415-05768-4. p. 11.
  30. Gooskens, Charlotte; Kürschner, Sebastian (2009). "Cross-border intelligibility – on the intelligibility of Low German among speakers of Danish and Dutch" (PDF). In Lenz, Alexandra N.; Gooskens, Charlotte; Reker, Siemon (eds.). Low Saxon dialects across borders – Niedersächsische Dialekte über Grenzen hinweg. Stuttgart: Steiner. pp. 273–295. ISBN 978-3-515-09372-9.
  31. Gooskens & Heeringa (2004)
  32. "Le Sénat dit non à la Charte européenne des langues régionales". Franceinfo. 27 October 2015. Archived from the original on 3 December 2023.
  33. "Italy : 5.1 General legislation : 5.1.9 Language laws". Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. Council of Europe/ERICarts. 18 September 2013. Archived from the original on 2 March 2014. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
  34. Cerruti, Massimo (26 January 2011). "Italiano e dialetto oggi in Italia". Treccani. Archived from the original on 23 October 2022.
  35. Peter Trudgill. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 36, 95-96, 124-125.
  36. Tomasz Kamusella. 2017. Map A4, Dialect Continua in Central Europe, 1910 (p 94) and Map A5, Dialect Continua in Central Europe, 2009 (p 95). In: Tomasz Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi, and Catherine Gibson, eds. 2017. Central Europe Through the Lens of Language and Politics: On the Sample Maps from the Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe (Ser: Slavic Eurasia Papers, Vol 10). Sapporo, Japan: Slavic-Eurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University.
  37. Kamusella, Tomasz (2005). "The Triple Division of the Slavic Languages: A Linguistic Finding, a Product of Politics, or an Accident?" (Working Paper). Vienna: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. 2005/1.
  38. Crystal, David (1998) . The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 25. OCLC 300458429.
  39. Friedman, Victor (1999). Linguistic emblems and emblematic languages: on language as flag in the Balkans. Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 1. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures. p. 8. OCLC 46734277.
  40. Alexander, Ronelle (2000). In honor of diversity: the linguistic resources of the Balkans. Kenneth E. Naylor memorial lecture series in South Slavic linguistics; vol. 2. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Dept. of Slavic and East European Languages and Literatures. p. 4. OCLC 47186443.
  41. Kristophson, Jürgen (2000). "Vom Widersinn der Dialektologie: Gedanken zum Štokavischen" [Nonsense of Dialectology: Thoughts on Shtokavian]. Zeitschrift für Balkanologie (in German). 36 (2): 180. ISSN 0044-2356.
  42. Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" [Pros and cons: "Serbo-Croatian" today] (PDF). In Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian (eds.). Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002 (PDF). Slavistishe Beiträge; vol. 434 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 97–148. ISBN 978-3-87690-885-4. OCLC 56198470. SSRN 3434516. CROSBI 430499. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2017.
  43. Blum, Daniel (2002). Sprache und Politik : Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945–1991) [Language and Policy: Language Policy and Linguistic Nationalism in the Republic of India and the Socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991)]. Beiträge zur Südasienforschung; vol. 192 (in German). Würzburg: Ergon. p. 200. ISBN 978-3-89913-253-3. OCLC 51961066.
  44. Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics; vol 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. pp. 82–83. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W.
  45. Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 74–77. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 15 May 2019.
  46. Pohl, Hans-Dieter (1996). "Serbokroatisch – Rückblick und Ausblick" [Serbo-Croatian – Looking backward and forward]. In Ohnheiser, Ingeborg (ed.). Wechselbeziehungen zwischen slawischen Sprachen, Literaturen und Kulturen in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : Akten der Tagung aus Anlaß des 25jährigen Bestehens des Instituts für Slawistik an der Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 25–27 Mai 1995. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Slavica aenipontana; vol. 4 (in German). Innsbruck: Non Lieu. pp. 205–219. OCLC 243829127.
  47. Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. S2CID 150383965. lexical differences between the ethnic variants are extremely limited, even when compared with those between closely related Slavic languages (such as standard Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian), and grammatical differences are even less pronounced. More importantly, complete understanding between the ethnic variants of the standard language makes translation and second language teaching impossible", leading Šipka "to consider it a pluricentric standard language
  48. Škiljan, Dubravko (2002). Govor nacije: jezik, nacija, Hrvati [Voice of the Nation: Language, Nation, Croats]. Biblioteka Obrisi moderne (in Croatian). Zagreb: Golden marketing. p. 12. OCLC 55754615.
  49. Thomas, Paul-Louis (2003). "Le serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe): de l'étude d'une langue à l'identité des langues" [Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian): from the study of a language to the identity of languages]. Revue des études slaves (in French). 74 (2–3): 315. ISSN 0080-2557.
  50. Mac Eoin, Gearóid (1993). "Irish". In Ball, Martin J. (ed.). The Celtic Languages. London: Routledge. pp. 101–44. ISBN 978-0-415-01035-1.
  51. McManus, Damian (1994). "An Nua-Ghaeilge Chlasaiceach". In K. McCone; D. McManus; C. Ó Háinle; N. Williams; L. Breatnach (eds.). Stair na Gaeilge in ómós do Pádraig Ó Fiannachta (in Irish). Maynooth: Department of Old Irish, St. Patrick's College. pp. 335–445. ISBN 978-0-901519-90-0.
  52. McLeod, Wilson (2017). "Dialectal diversity in contemporary Gaelic: perceptions, discourses and responses" (PDF). University of Aberdeen. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 February 2022.
  53. Wahrmund, Adolf (1898). Praktisches Handbuch der neu-arabischen Sprache ... Vol. 1-2 of Praktisches Handbuch der neu-arabischen Sprache (3 ed.). J. Ricker. Retrieved 6 July 2011.
  54. Kaye, Alan S.; Rosenhouse, Judith (1997). "Arabic Dialects and Maltese". In Hetzron, Robert (ed.). The Semitic Languages. Routledge. pp. 263–311. ISBN 978-0-415-05767-7.
  55. Bunnens, Guy (2009). "ASSYRIAN EMPIRE BUILDING AND ARAMIZATION OF CULTURE AS SEEN FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB". Syria. Institut Francais du Proche-Orient.
  56. Kim, Ronald (2008). ""Stammbaum" or Continuum? The Subgrouping of Modern Aramaic Dialects Reconsidered". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 128 (3): 505–531. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 25608409.
  57. Mutzafi, Hezy (23 August 2018). "Further Jewish Neo-Aramaic Innovations". Journal of Jewish Languages. 6 (2): 145–181. doi:10.1163/22134638-06011130. ISSN 2213-4638. S2CID 165973597.
  58. Khan, Geoffrey (2020). "The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Iran". Iranian Studies. 53 (3–4): 445–463. doi:10.1080/00210862.2020.1714430. S2CID 216353456.
  59. Grenoble, Lenore A. (2003). Language policy in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-306-48083-2. OCLC 53984252.
  60. Grenoble, Lenore A. (2003). Language Policy in the Soviet Union. Vol. 3. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-1-4020-1298-3.
  61. ^ Norman, Jerry (2003). "The Chinese dialects: phonology". In Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.). The Sino-Tibetan languages. Routledge. pp. 72–83. ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1. p. 72.
  62. Hamed, Mahé Ben (2005). "Neighbour-nets portray the Chinese dialect continuum and the linguistic legacy of China's demic history". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 272 (1567): 1015–1022. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3015. JSTOR 30047639. PMC 1599877. PMID 16024359.
  63. Norman, Jerry (1988). Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-521-29653-3.
  64. Norman (1988), pp. 2–3.
  65. Kurpaska, Maria (2010). Chinese Language(s): A Look Through the Prism of "The Great Dictionary of Modern Chinese Dialects". Walter de Gruyter. pp. 41–55. ISBN 978-3-11-021914-2.
  66. Ramsey, S. Robert (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-691-01468-5.
  67. Norman (1988), pp. 183–190.
  68. Sagart, Laurent (1998). "On distinguishing Hakka and non-Hakka dialects". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 26 (2): 281–302. JSTOR 23756757. p 299.
  69. Norman (1988), pp. 190, 206–207.
  70. Halliday, M.A.K (1968) . "The users and uses of language". In Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 139–169. ISBN 978-3-11-080537-6. p. 12.
  71. Yan, Margaret Mian (2006). Introduction to Chinese Dialectology. LINCOM Europa. pp. 223–224. ISBN 978-3-89586-629-6.
  72. Norman (1988), p. 206.
  73. Norman (1988), p. 241.
  74. Norman (2003), p. 80.
  75. de Sousa, Hilário (2016). "Language contact in Nanning: Nanning Pinghua and Nanning Cantonese". In Chappell, Hilary M. (ed.). Diversity in Sinitic Languages. Oxford University Press. pp. 157–189. ISBN 978-0-19-872379-0. p. 162.
  76. Halliday (1968), pp. 11–12.
  77. "LINGUIST List 6.744: Cree dialects". www.linguistlist.org. 29 May 1995.
  78. "Canada".
  79. "Cree Language and the Cree Indian Tribe (Iyiniwok, Eenou, Eeyou, Iynu, Kenistenoag)". www.native-languages.org. Archived from the original on 4 April 2011. Retrieved 10 September 2008.
Categories: