HAUGEN-1966-Dailect, Language, Nation PDF
HAUGEN-1966-Dailect, Language, Nation PDF
HAUGEN-1966-Dailect, Language, Nation PDF
EINAR HAUGEN
Harvard University
The impossibility of stating precisely how many languages or dialects are spoken in the
world is due to the ambiguities of meaning present in theseterms, which is shown to stem from
the original use oj dialect to refer to the literary dialects of ancient Grecce. In most wages
the term language is superordinate lo dialect, but the nature of this relationship may be
either linguistic or social, the latter problem falling i n the province o j sociolinguistics. It is
shown how the development of a vernacular, popularly called a dialect, into a language is intimatdy related to the dcvdopment of writing and Ihe growth o j natwndism. This process is
shown to involve the sdcclion, codijcation, acceptance, and elaboration of a linguistic norm.
THE
[HAUGEN]
923
024
168, 1966
HAUGEN]
925
isnt English. This results from the de facto development of a standard language, with all the segregation of an Clite and the pyramidal power structure
that it has usually implied.
As a social norm, then, a dialect is a language that is excluded from polite
society. It is, as Auguste Brun (1946) has pointed out, a language that did
not succeed. I n Italy, Piedmontese is from every linguistic point of view a
language, distinct from Italian on the one hand and French on the other, with
a long tradition of writing and grammatical study. But because it is not Tuscan, and Tuscan became the standard language of all Italy, Piedmontese is
only a dialect, yielding ground to Italian with every generation and kept
alive only by local pride and linguistic inertia (Clivio 1964). Only if a dialect is watered down to an accent-that is, an intonation and a set of articulations, with an occasional lexical item thrown in for color-does it (say in
Germany or Italy or England) become salonfahig. As a complete structure
it is out in the cold limbo of modern society. I n America the stigma is placed
not so much on local dialects, since these are few and rarely heard, as on
bad English, which is quite simply lower-class dialect. The language of the
upper classes is automatically established as the correct form of expression.
They cannot say only, LCtat, cest moi, but also Le langage, cest le mien.
I n trying to clarify these relationships, linguistic science has been only
moderately successful. Even in the Renaissance it was perfectly clear to serious students of the subject that the term language was associated with the
rise of a nation to conscious unity and identity. George Puttenham wrote in
his book The Arle of English Poesie (1589): After a speach is fully fashioned
to the common understanding, and accepted by consent of a whole country and
nation, it is called a language. This kind of historical development, by which
convergence was achieved a t the expense of deviating varieties, was familiar
to the men of that age. But the arbitrary tower-of-Babel approach to linguistic
divergence was dispelled by the discovery, in the early 19th century, of historical regularity. The realization that languages have resulted from dialect-splitting gave a new content to the terms and made it possible to begin calling languages like English and German dialects of a Germanic language.
But in the mid-19th century, when scientific study of the rural and socially
disadvantaged dialects began, a generation of research was sufficient to revolutionize the whole idea of how a dialect arises. The very notion of an area
divided into a given number of dialects, one neatly distinct from the next, had
to be abandoned. The idea that languages split like branches on a tree gave
way to an entirely different and even incompatible idea, namely, that individual linguistic traits diffused through social space and formed isoglosses
that rarely coincided. Instead of a dialect, one had a Kernlandschaft with
ragged edges, where bundles of isoglosses testified that some slight barrier had
been interposed to free communication. Linguistics is still saddled with these
irreconcilable particle and wave theories; this in effect involves the differing points of view from which any linguistic structure can be seen: as a unitary
926
A merican A nthropologist
[68, 1966
HAUGEN]
92 7
defined as a superposed norm used by speakers whose first and ordinary language may be different. A language is the medium of communication between speakers of different dialects. This holds only within the limits established by their linguistic cognacy: one could not speak of Ntongo as a dialect
of English just because its speakers use English as a medium of intercommunication. The sociolinguist may also be referring to the fact that the language
is more prestigious than the dialect. Because of its wider functions it is likely
to be embraced with a reverence, a language loyalty, that the dialects do not
enjoy. Hence the possibility of saying that Mbongo is only a dialect, while
Ngkongo is a language. This means that Ngkongo is being spoken by people
whose social prestige is notoriously hieher than that of people who speak
Mbongo. When used in this sense, a dialect may be defined as an undeveloped
(or underdeveloped) language. It is a language that no one has taken the
trouble to develop into what is often referred to as a standard language.
This dimension of functional superiority and inferiority is usually disregarded
by linguists, but it is an essential part of the sociolinguists concern. It becomes
his special and complex task to define the social functions of each language or
dialect and the prestige that attaches to each of these.
What is meant by an undeveloped language? Only that it has not been
employed in all the functions that a language can perform in a society larger
than that of the local tribe or peasant village. The history of languages demonstrates convincingly that there is no such thing as an inherently handicapped
language. All the great languages of today were once undeveloped. Rather
than speak of undeveloped languages as dialects, after the popular fashion,
it would be better to call them vernaculars, or some such term, and limit
dialect to the linguists meaning of a cognate variety. We are then ready
to ask how a vernacular, an undeveloped language, develops into a standard, a developed language. To understand this we will have to consider the
relation of language to the nation.
The ancient Greeks and Romans spread their languages as far as their
domains extended, and modern imperialists have sought to do the same. But
within the modern world, technological and political revolutions have brought
Everyman the opportunity to participate in political decisions to his own advantage. The invention of printing, the rise of industry, and the spread of
popular education have brought into being the modern nation-state, which extends some of the loyalties of the family and the neighborhood or the clan to
the whole state. Nation and language have become inextricably intertwined.
Every self-respecting nation has to have a language. Not just a medium of
communication, a vernacular or a dialect, but a fully developed language.
Anything less marks it as underdeveloped.
The definition of a nation is a problem for historians and other social
scientists; we may accept the idea that it is the effective unit of international
political action, as reflected in the organization of the United Nations General
Assembly. As a polit>icalunit it will presumably be more effective if it is also a
social unit. Like any unit, it minimizes internal differences and maximizes
928
American Anthropologist
[68, 1966
H A UGEN]
929
bolize past oppression and convey an alien culture. The cost of re-education is
not just the expense in terms of dollars and cents, but the malaise of training
ones children in a medium that is not their own, and of alienation from ones
own past.
The alternative is to develop ones own language, as Finland did in the
19th century, or Israel did in the 20th. Different languages start a t different
points: Finlands was an unwritten vernacular, Israels an unspoken standard.
Today both are standards capable of conveying every concept of modern
learning and every subtlety of modern literature. Whatever they may lack is
being supplied by deliberate planning, which in modern states is often an important part of the development process.
It is a significant and probably crucial requirement for a standard language
that it be written. This is not to say that languages need to be written in order
to spread widely or be the medium of great empires. Indo-European is an example of the first, Quechua of the Inca Empire an example of the second
(Buck 1916). But they could not, like written languages, establish models
across time and space, and they were subject to regular and inexorable linguistic change. It is often held that written language impedes the natural development of spoken language, but this is still a matter of discussion (Zengel
1962; Bright and Ramanujan 1964). I n any case the two varieties must not be
confused.
Speech is basic in learning language. The spoken language is acquired by
nearly all its users before they can possibly read or write. Its form is to a great
extent transmitted from one generation of children to the next. While basic
habits can be modified, they are not easily overturned after childhood and are
virtually immovable after puberty. The spoken language is conveyed by
mouth and ear and mobilizes the entire personality in immediate interaction
with ones environment. Writing is conveyed by hand and eye, mobilizes the
personality less completely, and provides for only a delayed response. Oral
confrontation is of basic importance in all societies, but in a complex, literate
society it is overlaid and supplemented by the role of writing.
The permanence and power of writing is such that in some societies the
written standard has been influential in shaping new standards of speech. This
is not to say that writing has always brought them into being, but rather to
say that new norms have arisen that are an amalgamation of speech and writing. This can of course take place only when the writing is read aloud, so that
it acquires an oral component (Wessh 1937). There is some analogy between
the rise of such spoken standards and that of pidgin or creole languages
(Meillet 1925: 76; Sommerfelt 1938: 44). The latter comprise elements of the
structure and vocabulary of two or more languages, all oral. They have usually
a low social value, compared to the oral standards, but the process of origin is
comparable. The reawakening of Hebrew from its century-long dormant state
is comprehensible only in terms of the existence of rabbinical traditions of
reading scripture aloud (Morag 1959). Modern Hebrew has shown a rapid
adaptation to the underlying norms of its new native speakers, so that it has
930
American Ant/cropologisl
[68, 1966
H AUGEN]
93 1
03 2
Americaic Anthropologist
[68, 1966
device enabling a modern standard language to meet the needs of every specialty devised by its users. There are no limits to the elaboration of language
except those set by the ingenuity of man.
While form and function may generally be distinguished as we have just
done, there is one area in which they overlap. Elaboration of function may lead
to complexity of form, and, contrariwise, unity of form may lead to rigidity of
function. This area of interaction between form and function is the domain of
style. A codification may be so rigid as to prevent the use of a language for
other than formal purposes. Sanskrit had to yield to Prakrit, and Latin to the
Romance languages, when the gap between written and spoken language became so large that only a very few people were willing to make the effort of
learning them. Instead of being appropriate for all purposes for which the
language is used, the standard tends to become only one of several styles
within a speech community. This can lead to what Ferguson (1959) has described as diglossia, a sharp cleavage between high and low style. Or it
may be a continuum, with only a mild degree of what I have called schizoglossia, as in the case of English (Haugen 1962). I n English there is a marked
difference between the written and spoken standards of most people. I n addition, there are styles within each, according to the situation. These styles,
which could be called functional dialects, provide wealth and diversity
within a language and ensure that the stability or rigidity of the norm will
have an element of elasticity as well, A complete language has its formal and
informal styles, its regional accents, and its class or occupational jargons,
which do not destroy its unity so long as they are clearly diversified in function
and show a reasonable degree of solidarity with one another.
Neither codification nor elaboration is likely to proceed very far unless the
community can agree on the selection of some kind of a model from which the
norm can be derived. Where a new norm is to be established, the problem will
be as complex as the sociolinguistic structure of the people involved. There will
be little difficulty where everyone speaks virtually alike, a situation rarely
found. Elsewhere it may be necessary to make some embarrassing decisions.
To choose any one vernacular as a norm means to favor the group of people
speaking that variety. It gives them prestige as norm-bearers and a headstart
in the race for power and position. If a recognized 6lite already exists with a
characteristic vernacular, its norm will almost inevitably prevail. But where
there are socially coordinate groups of people within the community, usually
distributed regionally or tribally, the choice of any one will meet with resistance from the rest. This resistance is likely to be the stronger the greater tBe
language distance within the group. I t may often be a question of solidarity
versus alienation: a group that feels intense solidarity is willing to overcome
great linguistic differences, while one that does not is alienated by relatively
small differences, Where transitions are gradual, it may be possible to find a
central dialect that mediates between extremes, one that will be the easiest to
learn and most conducive to group coherence.
Where this is impossible, it may be necessary to resort to the construction
of a new standard. To some extent this has happened naturally in the rise of
HA U G EN]
933
the traditional norms; it has been the aim of many language reformers to duplicate the effect in new ones. For related dialects one can apply principles of
linguistic reconstruction to make a hypothetical mother tongue for them all.
Or one can be guided by some actual or supposed mother tongue, which exists
in older, traditional writings. Or one can combine those forms that have the
widest usage, in the hope that they will most easily win general acceptance.
These three procedures-the comparative, the archaizing, and the statistical
-may easily clash, to make decisions difficult. I n countries where there are
actually different languages, amounting in some African nations to more than a
hundred, it will be necessary either to recognize multiple norms or to introduce
an alien norm, which will usually be an international language like English or
French.
Finally, a standard language, if it is not to be dismissed as dead, must have
a body of users. Acceptance of the norm, even by a small but influential group,
is part of the life of the language. Any learning requires the expenditure of time
and effort, and it must somehow contribute to the well-being of the learners if
they are not to shirk their lessons. A standard language that is the instrument
of an authority, such as a government, can offer its users material rewards in
the form of power and position. One that is the instrument of a religious fellowship, such as a church, can also offer its users rewards in the hereafter. National
languages have offered membership in the nation, an identity that gives one
entrke into a new kind of group, which is not just kinship, or government, or
religion, but a novel and peculiarly modern brew of all three. The kind of significance attributed to language in this context has little to do with its value as
an instrument of thought or persuasion. I t is primarily symbolic, a matter of
the prestige (or lack of it) that attaches to specific forms or varieties of language by virtue of identifying the social status of their users (Labov 1964). Mastery of the standard language will naturally have a higher value if it admits one
to the councils of the mighty. If it does not, the inducement to learn it, except
perhaps passively, may be very low; if social status is fixed by other criteria,
it is conceivable that centuries could pass without a populations adopting it
(Gumperz 1962, 1964). But in our industrialized and democratic age there are
obvious reasons for the rapid spread of standard languages and for their importance in the school systems of every nation.
The four aspects of language development that we have now isolated as
crucial features in taking the step from dialect to language, from vernacular to standard, are as follows: (1) selection of norm, (2) codification of form,
(3) elaboration of function, and (4) acceptance by the community. The first
two refer primarily to the form, the last two to the function of language. The
first and the last are concerned with society, the second and third with language. They form a matrix within which it should be possible to discuss all the
major problems of language and dialect in the life of a nation:
Society
Language
Form
Selection
Codification
Function
Acceptance
Elaboration
American Anthropologist
934
[68, 1966
NOTES
This paper was written as a contribution to the work of the Seminar on Sociolinguistics, held
at the Indiana University Linguistic Institute in the summer of 1964, under the direction of
Charles A. Ferguson. I t has profited from extensive discussion with the members of the Seminar.
1
REFERENCES CITED
BERNSTEIN,BASIL
1962 Linguistic codes, hesitation phenomena and intelligence. Language and Speech
5:31-46.
BLOOMFIELD,
LEONA~D
1933 Language. New York, Holt.
BRIGHT,WILLIAM,AND A. K. RAMANUJAN
1964 Sociolinguistic variation and language change. Proceedings, IX International Congress of Linguists. The Hague, Mouton. Pp. 1107-1114.
BRUN,AUGUSTE
1946 Parlers r6gionaur: France dialectale et unit6 fransaise. Paris, Toulouse: Didier.
BUCK, C. D.
1916 Language and the sentiment of nationality. American Political Science Review
10:44-69.
CLIVIO,GIANRENZO
1964 Piedmontese: a short basic course. Mimeographed ed. Center for Applied Linguistics,
Washington, D. C.
D r m o m m DE LACAD~MIEFRANC~USE
1932 Paris, 8th ed.
FERGUSON,
CHARLES
A.
1959 Diglossia. Word 15:325-340.
1%2 The language factor in national development. Anthropological Linguistics 4, 1:2327.
FISHMAN,
JOSHUA
1964 Language maintenancelanguage shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics 9:32-70.
Gwremz, JOHN
1962 Types of linguistic communities. Anthropological Linguistics 4, 1:28-40.
1964 Hindi-Punjabi code switching in Delhi. Proceedings, IX International Congress of
Linguists. The Hague, Mouton. Pp. 1115-1124.
HATZFELD,
A., AND A. DAUMESTETER
1920 Dictionnaire g6n6ral de la langue francaise. Paris, 6. ed.
HAUGEN,
EINAR
1962 Schizoglossia and the linguistic norm. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics. Georgetown University, Washington, D. C. No. 15,63-69.
HAVRANEK,
BOHUMIL
1938 Zum Problem der Norm in der heutigen Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachkultur.
R e p . in A Prague school reader in linguistics. J. Vachek, ed. Bloomington, Ind. Pp.
413-420.
HAUGEN]
0.35
LABOV,WILLIAM
1964 Phonological correlates of social stratification. I n The ethnography of communication. John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, eds. American Anthropologist 66, no. 6,
pt. 2~164-176.
LE PAGE,R. B.
1964 The national language question: linguistic problems of newly independent states.
London, Oxford University Press.
L 1 m 6 , E.
1956 Dictionnaire de la langue francaise. Paris.
MARTINET,ANDRk
1964 Elements of general linguistics. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
MEIUET, h M I N E
1925 La methode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo, Institutet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.
MORAG,
SHELOMO
1959 Planned and unplanned development in modern Hebrew. Lingua 8: 247-263.
OXFORDENCLISRDICTIONARY
1888 ff. James A. H. Murray et d.,eds. Oxford University Press.
SOW~ERFELT,
Am
1938 Conditions de la formation dune language commune. Actes du IV Congrb international de linguistes. Copenhagen. Pp.42-48.
VOEGELIN,
C. F., and Z. S. HARRIS
1951 Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95 :322-329.
WESS~N,ELIAS
1937 VArt rikssprAk: Nigra huvudpunkter av dess historiska utveckling. Modersmhlslaramas F6renings irsskrift. Pp.289-305.
ZENGEL,MARJORIEs.
1962 Literacy as a factor in language change. American Anthropologist 64: 132-139.