Think about the word 'dialect' for a moment. From a linguistic perspective, the term is pretty bland. Usually, linguist use to refer to a variety of language spoken in a particular area and/or by a particular group of people. It's worth noting that by that same definition, the standard or prescribed form a given language is also one of its dialects.
For a lot of people, a variety outside of the standard is often viewed as an aberration of the standard. As such, I think I should mention here that
This dismissal of a dialect isn't rare amongst governments and it can leave a lasting impact. In the case of Isan, people speak it, but it's almost never written. At the same time, it's use is confined to certain domains and not viewed as sophisticated enough for academia or political discussions.
And that's a shame because no language or variety of one is inherently inferior or less than another. It's only people's outlooks on them that create theses hierarchies. And the only was to get rid of these is to stop using words like dialect, patois and phaa-sǎa-tìn as terms of dismissal.
Okay, that's how linguists see it, now let's think about the word dialect in the way that non-linguists use it. This is where things get a bit more hairy
If you spend a lot of time with English speakers, you'll notice that there's a specific way the word is used. It's fine to talk about the different dialects of German, Thai or Arabic. Using the word to refer to varieties of English however will get you looks. Few people mention the Louisiana or Glaswegian dialects of English. Even if a given variety has a different grammar and syntax, Anglophones generally prefer the term "accent." For radio shows and pop culture, accent is the term to use. You can see it on Buzzfeed and articles by the BBC.
So what's going on? Why this aversion to using the word 'dialect' for different varieties of English?
In the Anglophone world, the word has a long history of carrying a pejorative or negative connotation. Sometimes it's been used to imply something is incomplete or lacking about a language. Throughout the history of the British Empire, the term has a long history of dismissing other language as inferior. And when used with English, it's been used to dismiss varieties spoken by marginalised people as uncouth or improper.
Using the term to dismiss a form of speech isn't exclusive to English by any means though. The Italian word dialetto did and still can carry pejorative connotations that dismiss not only different regionals varieties of Italian, but other distinct languages as something beneath the standard form of Italian.
For a lot of people, a variety outside of the standard is often viewed as an aberration of the standard. As such, I think I should mention here that
No dialect is an aberration of the standard.
That's just not how language works. Dialects don't develop from standard languages as corrupted or bastardised forms. In actuality, varieties of language develop parallel to each other while we happen to live in an age where one is chosen as a 'standard' and given a sense of prestige. And very often, the varieties not chosen as the standard are then labeled as 'dialects'.
This of course doesn't mean that every group of language-speakers use the term dialect this way. In Norway, people proudly speak their local dialekter in informal situations and use a somewhat artificial Norwegian in writing and in formal situations. Here, the word doesn't cary an pejorative weight.
In French, they have it both ways. The term dialecte is mostly neutral. However, the French language still has a quick word for dismissing a linguistic variety as as less than and that's patois.
The big takeaway here is that the idea of a ‘dialect’ doesn’t mean the same thing across languages or cultures. Moreover, in some languages the idea carries weight and baggage and pejorative connotations. And very unfortunately sometimes those connotations are used to dismiss a variety of a language or even an entirely separate language as something inferior or lesser. And that can have gave negative affects on the people that speak them.
In the northeast part of Thailand lies a region called Isan. Topographically, culturally and linguistically, Isan is distinct from the rest of Thailand. In terms of language, the traditional language of the region is Isan, which most linguistics will tell is a variety of Lao. The Thai government has been stating for decades that Isan is a dialect of Thai. Whether Isan is a variety of Lao or Thai isn't important though. What is the way the Isan is talked about.
In 2016, I went to Isan to visit friends and the topic of language came up regularly. The family I was staying with spoke a mixture of Thai and Isan, often switching fluidly between the two without a second thought. When I asked about Isan the word phaa-sǎa-tìn, came up regularly. The word means dialect, but the way it was used during my stay varied a lot. Sometimes, it was talked about proudly as a marker of regional identity. Other times, it was mentioned as something hickish and uncultured compared to Central Thai. Very often these conflicting views would be held by the same person.
This is par for the course in Thailand though. The country has a population of about 70 million people and dozens of different local languages. Some of these like Shan and Lao are related to Central Thai while others Hmong and Karen belong to different families. Both in spite of and because the diversity of its people, the Thai government has been pushing forth what many called Thaification. That means encouraging Thai nationalism and promoting the customs, beliefs, religion and language of Central Thailand. The process is still ongoing and happening in Isan today.
Today the Isan language is thriving in its home region. Although it's rarely written, it's use in daily interactions is obvious and ubiquitous. Despite this, many Isan speakers still talk about the language in relation to Thai as something less than and something not suited for all situations. My friends uncle once explained that it was something he could use for the family, but not at the bank. In some ways, the Thai government's dismissal of Isan has trickled down to its speakers.
In French, they have it both ways. The term dialecte is mostly neutral. However, the French language still has a quick word for dismissing a linguistic variety as as less than and that's patois.
The big takeaway here is that the idea of a ‘dialect’ doesn’t mean the same thing across languages or cultures. Moreover, in some languages the idea carries weight and baggage and pejorative connotations. And very unfortunately sometimes those connotations are used to dismiss a variety of a language or even an entirely separate language as something inferior or lesser. And that can have gave negative affects on the people that speak them.
In the northeast part of Thailand lies a region called Isan. Topographically, culturally and linguistically, Isan is distinct from the rest of Thailand. In terms of language, the traditional language of the region is Isan, which most linguistics will tell is a variety of Lao. The Thai government has been stating for decades that Isan is a dialect of Thai. Whether Isan is a variety of Lao or Thai isn't important though. What is the way the Isan is talked about.
In 2016, I went to Isan to visit friends and the topic of language came up regularly. The family I was staying with spoke a mixture of Thai and Isan, often switching fluidly between the two without a second thought. When I asked about Isan the word phaa-sǎa-tìn, came up regularly. The word means dialect, but the way it was used during my stay varied a lot. Sometimes, it was talked about proudly as a marker of regional identity. Other times, it was mentioned as something hickish and uncultured compared to Central Thai. Very often these conflicting views would be held by the same person.
This is par for the course in Thailand though. The country has a population of about 70 million people and dozens of different local languages. Some of these like Shan and Lao are related to Central Thai while others Hmong and Karen belong to different families. Both in spite of and because the diversity of its people, the Thai government has been pushing forth what many called Thaification. That means encouraging Thai nationalism and promoting the customs, beliefs, religion and language of Central Thailand. The process is still ongoing and happening in Isan today.
Today the Isan language is thriving in its home region. Although it's rarely written, it's use in daily interactions is obvious and ubiquitous. Despite this, many Isan speakers still talk about the language in relation to Thai as something less than and something not suited for all situations. My friends uncle once explained that it was something he could use for the family, but not at the bank. In some ways, the Thai government's dismissal of Isan has trickled down to its speakers.
This dismissal of a dialect isn't rare amongst governments and it can leave a lasting impact. In the case of Isan, people speak it, but it's almost never written. At the same time, it's use is confined to certain domains and not viewed as sophisticated enough for academia or political discussions.
And that's a shame because no language or variety of one is inherently inferior or less than another. It's only people's outlooks on them that create theses hierarchies. And the only was to get rid of these is to stop using words like dialect, patois and phaa-sǎa-tìn as terms of dismissal.
Comments
Post a Comment