Is there a recent trend towards recognising more dialects as languages?

grayure

Member
It seems to me that it's more common than it used to be for particular ways of speaking to be categorised as languages rather than dialects recently. For instance, Scots and English are now often differentiated whereas previously they weren't, Asturian is seen as different than Castilian and the Okinawa dialect is sometimes seen as separate than the Japanese spoken in Tokyo. But if i hear Asturian, i can't say it's really so different than Castilian, and Scots (not Scots Gaelic!) and English are surely not so different either, though as a semi-Scot i'm very attached to the idea that it's a different language, let's face it, it's not like it's West Frisian. So, is there something like a nationalistic or other political motive behind this? I just don't find it very convincing that they're all really mutually incomprehensible.
Thanks, yes i know the saying (oddly appropriate that it should be Yiddish though!), but is there a recent trend in that direction? Is it because people are making themselves heard or attaching more importance than before to their particular style of speech?
 
No one should define language as mutually comprehension. Norway, for example strongly encourages dialect use. How will you define language vs dialect? That is maybe the crux of the problem. Neither term has a very iron-clad definition, and a lot has to do with attitudes, not scientific theory.

You know, I assume that the renown dialectician (and author of studies on languages in contact), Max Weinreich, who is usually credited with the saying "?? ?????? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????"

A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.
Max, was BTW, Uriel's father. Uriel wrote my elementary Yiddish textbook. Neat family.
 
Top