Wells (1982) was used to back this up in earlier version; failed verification |
Dale Chock (talk | contribs) rv to version 486599960, 10:19, 10 April 2012, except for retention of POV tag. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{POV|date=April 2012}} |
{{POV|date=April 2012}} |
||
In |
In [[dialectology]], the term '''diasystem''' [Greek ''dia-'', 'cross-', 'across', 'through', 'between'] now denotes related dialects.{{sfn|Weinreich|Labov|Herzog|1968|loc=section 3.2.1}} It is thus a generic term, in the way that '[[language]]' is a generic term and 'English', 'Chinese', 'French' are the names of particular languages. Some scholars use "related" in a far broader sense than other scholars.{{efn|"The term 'diasystem' stands for the complete set of varieties (diachronic as well as diatopic-synchronic) supposed to derive from one ancestor."{{sfn|De Schutter|2010|p=73}}}} Another term for related dialects is [[dialect continuum]]. |
||
The term "diasystem" was coined by linguist and dialectologist [[Uriel Weinreich]] in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in exploring how to extend advances in [[structuralism (linguistics)|structuralist]] [[ |
The term "diasystem" originally had a different meaning. It was coined by linguist and dialectologist [[Uriel Weinreich]] in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in theorizing aimed at exploring how to extend advances in [[linguistics|linguistic]] theory (which in that period was [[structuralism (linguistics)|structuralist]]) to [[dialectology]]. The basic issue was to explain [[Variation (linguistics)|linguistic variation]] across dialects. In his vision, a particular phenomenon of dialectal divergence would be explained by constructing a "diasystem" which is "a system of a higher level out of the discrete and homogeneous systems that are derived from description".{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=390}} In the example he gave, the scope of the "system" was just vowel phoneme inventories, but in principle it would be entire dialects. A diasystem being a higher order system, its component units of analysis would accordingly (under structuralist theory) be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. For example, just as allophones constitute a [[phoneme]] within a dialect, in the "intersystem", as it were, phonemes would constitute a [[diaphoneme]]. |
||
Weinreich's paper inspired research in the late 1950s to test the proposal. However, the investigations soon proved it to be generally untenable, at least under structuralist theory. That is, it is unfeasible to construct a single grammar portion (let a alone an entire grammar) for multiple dialects unless the dialect differences are very minor and unless only a very few dialects are involved. With the advent of [[generative grammar|generative]] theory circa 1960, adherents of [[generative grammar]] tried developing cross dialectal grammars. The generative approach rejects the positing of structural units of a higher order of abstraction than the phoneme (and redefines the phoneme).{{sfn|Wells|1982|pp=41-68}} However, after the 1970s the generative approach was also adjudged a theoretical failure.{{sfn|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|loc=section 3.3}}{{sfn|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}} The followup to Weinreich (1954) 14 years later used the term just once (not counting footnotes).{{sfn|Weinreich|Labov|Herzog|1968|loc=section 3.2.1}} Since the 1970s, therefore, the use of the term ''diasystem'' no longer denotes a cross dialectal grammar. The terms ''diasystem'' and ''diaphoneme'' have limited currency in linguistics to the extent that neither the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2003 edition) nor the [[Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics]], (second edition, 2006) mention these terms in their indexes. The latter work gives the Weinreichian type of definition in its Glossary section. |
|||
According to some |
According to some [[sociolinguistics|sociolinguists]],{{sfn|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=44}}{{sfn|Auer|Di Luzio|1988|p=1}} the diasystem idea for incorporating variation into linguistic theory has been superseded by the [[William Labov]]'s notion of the [[linguistic variable]]. |
||
== |
==History of the Weinreichian sense of ''diasystem''== |
||
===Conception by Weinreich=== |
|||
By the 1950s, linguists considered variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms. Seeing also a perceived incommensurability between dialectology and linguistics (that is, linguists found the practice of dialectology at the time to be "impressionistic" whereas dialectologists found linguistic theory "metaphysical"),<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Weinreich|1954|p=388}}</ref>{{efn|Wells attests that, from the dialectologists' side, this hostility persisted in Britain through the 1970s.{{sfn|Wells|1982|pp=40-41}}}} Weinreich proposed applying the structuralist concept of the grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties.<ref>Weinreich also proposed the use of ''variety'' to replace ''dialect'' as it was commonly used at the time {{Harvcoltxt|Cadora|1976|p=404}}</ref> Different dialects would be described by a ''diasystem'', a supergrammar consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects and representing a higher level of abstraction.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Weinreich|1954|pp=389–390}}</ref> A diasystem being a higher order system, its component units of analysis would accordingly (under structuralist theory) be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. For example, just as allophones constitute a [[phoneme]] within a dialect, in the "intersystem", as it were, phonemes would constitute a [[diaphoneme]]. Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by an arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]], focusing on the vowels but arguing that the principle could work for other aspects of language. |
|||
By the 1950s, linguists considered variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms. In addition, he lamented the hostility between dialectology and linguistics; linguists found the practice of dialectology at the time to be "impressionistic" whereas dialectologists found linguistic theory "metaphysical."{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=388}}{{efn|Wells attests that from the dialectologists' side, this hostility persisted in Britain through the 1970s.{{sfn|Wells|1982|pp=40-41}}}} Weinreich proposed applying the structuralist concept of the grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties.{{efn|Weinreich also proposed the use of ''variety'' to replace ''dialect'' as it was commonly used at the time {{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=389}}}} Different dialects would be described by a ''diasystem'', a supergrammar consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects and representing a higher level of abstraction.{{sfn|Weinreich|1954|p=389-390}} Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by an arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]]. |
|||
===Critiques=== |
|||
While Weinreich did not elaborate the diasystemic approach, he did consider some theoretical pitfalls to be avoided. He repeated the structuralist tenet that an individual unit of analysis (e.g., a phoneme) is properly defined by its "oppositions" (contrasts) to fellow units. He recognized that phonemic mergers and splits with dissimilar results across dialects would pose a difficult challenge for the construction of a diasystem. He also cautioned against positing a diasystem (e.g., a set of diaphonemes) when the work of creating all the member systems (e.g., the work of phonemicization) was yet incomplete. Finally, following the lead of {{Harvcoltxt|Trubetzkoy|1931}}, he identified two distinct aspects of describing the phonemes of a single dialect that might prove problematic in the construction of diasystems: |
|||
Trubetzkoy in 1931 had proposed the following types of sound difference: differences in phoneme inventory; differences in "distribution" (i.e., phonotactics), differences in the phonetic realization of phonemes; and differences in the incidence of phonemes.{{sfn|Petyt|1980|pp=118-119}} "Incidence" refers to distribution of phonemes across the vocabulary{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=34}} (in particular, which phonemes occur in which member words of a interdialectal lexical correspondence set).{{efn|The term 'incidence' was not the one used by Trubetzkoy.{{sfn|Petyt|1980|p=118}} Its introduction for the purpose of describing this part of grammar is attributed to Kurath.{{sfn|Pulgram|1964|p=70}}}} |
|||
*'''Inventory''': the actual list of phonemes, which may vary between dialects. For example, speakers of Castilian Spanish have the phoneme {{IPAslink|θ}} and {{IPAslink|s}}, while most American dialects have just the latter.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Martínez-Celdrán|Fernández-Planas|Carrera-Sabaté|2003|p=258}}</ref> |
|||
*'''Distribution''': [[phonotactics|restrictions on the contexts]] where sounds may appear. For example, in some dialects of English, the phoneme {{IPA|/r/}} cannot occur at the end of a syllable (that is, before a consonant or at the end of a word) while it can in others.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Petyt|1980|p=118}}</ref> |
|||
A few linguists (in particular Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960)) took up the challenge of Weinreich (1954),{{sfn|Pulgram|1964|p=}}{{efn|Trudgill mentions GR Cochrane (1959), WG Moulton (1960), E Pulgram (1964), RD King (1969), H Kurath (1969), and Trudgill's own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of Trudgill (1974).{{sfn|Trudgill|1974|p=134}}}}{{efn|Francis quotes Giuseppe Francescato (1965a, 1965b) at length.{{sfn|Francis|1983|pp=165-166}}}} and "as was very soon pointed out, the inadequacy of the diasystem as used by Weinreich is in its neglect of all phonological aspects except phonemic inventory".{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=163}} Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above. Moulton (1960) found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of [[Swiss German]], Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. He reported that phonetically speaking, although each dialect seems to have the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair of phonetically identical vowels, /i/ ~ /i/, is in lexical correspondence, i.e., are diachronically equal, have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets are fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent.{{sfn|Francis|1983|p=163}} |
|||
Other researchers include the third element of Trubetzkoy's tripartite breakdown: |
|||
*'''Incidence''':{{efn|Trubetzkoy referred to this as ''etymological distribution''; other scholars use the term ''incidence''.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Petyt|1980|p=122}}</ref> Its introduction for the purpose of describing this part of grammar is attributed to Kurath.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964|p=70}}</ref>}} the distribution of phonemes among member words in an interdialectal lexical correspondence set.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|p=34}}</ref> |
|||
Pulgram (1964), examining Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960), noted not only the need for refinements in the original proposal, but that perhaps different researchers had not agreed on definitions, disciplines of study, and objects of inquiry. For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton for the original diasystem idea, see Pulgram (1964), and Francis (1983). The research and debate supported the conclusion that multiple dialects could in general not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory. |
|||
==Subsequent investigation== |
|||
A few linguists<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974|p=134}} mentions {{Harvcoltxt|Cochrane|1959}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}}, as well as {{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, {{Harvcoltxt|King|1969}}{{incomplete citation|date=March 2012}}, {{Harvcoltxt|Kurath|1969}}{{incomplete citation|date=March 2012}}, and his own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of {{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974}}.</ref> took up Weinreich's challenge<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964|p=}}</ref>{{efn|{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|pp=165–166}} quotes extensively from {{Harvcoltxt|Francescato|1965a}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Francescato|1965b}}.}} and quickly found it to be inadequate.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|p=163}}</ref> Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above. |
|||
Trudgill (1974), in a book length sociolinguistic study of the dialect of one medium sized English city, his hometown of [[Norwich]],{{efn|county of [[Norfolk]], historical region of [[East Anglia]]}} called it the "Norwich diasystem". But as a critic of Weinreich's original suggestion, he was using "diasystem" in a different sense. The population of Norwich in fact speaks a single "[[Variety (linguistics)|variety]]" (as he termed it){{sfn|Trudgill|1974|p=133}} of English. However, Trudgill concluded from his investigations that this single embraces a great diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables. Most speakers of this dialect can vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking. This scholar chose to summarize this variability and versatility with the term "diasystem". |
|||
{{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}} found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of [[Swiss German]], Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. While each dialect had the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair ({{IPA|/i/}} ~ {{IPA|/i/}}) were shown to have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets were fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent separately.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983|p=163}}</ref> |
|||
Nowadays "diasystem" is used as a convenient expression for multiple related dialects. For example, a 1996 paper on the "diasystem of [[Romani language|Romani]]", whose scope is European dialects of Romani, reports only an isogloss and a set of interdialectal sound correspondences, not first steps toward a common phonology of all European Romani dialects.{{sfn|Clouthiade|1997}}{{clarification needed|date=March 2012}} |
|||
{{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, examining {{Harvcoltxt|Cochrane|1959}} and {{Harvcoltxt|Moulton|1960}}, noted the need for refinements in the original proposal; different researchers did not seem to agree on definitions, disciplines of study, or objects of inquiry.<ref>For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton on the original diasystem idea, see {{Harvcoltxt|Pulgram|1964}}, and {{Harvcoltxt|Francis|1983}}.</ref> The research and debate concluded that multiple dialects could not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory. That is, it would be unfeasible to construct a single grammar for multiple dialects unless their differences were very minor or if it incorporated only a small number of dialects. |
|||
Related to Weinreich's proposal were efforts in both American dialectology and [[generative phonology]] to construct an "overall system" that represented the underlying representation for all dialects of English.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|p=169,226}}</ref><ref>See {{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|p=44}} for a list of major papers in the generativist stream through 1972.</ref> |
|||
An example of this was the [[diaphoneme|diaphonemic]] analysis,<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|McDavid|1952|p=383}}</ref>{{efn|{{Harvcoltxt|Stockwell|1959|pp=265–6}}, citing {{Harvcoltxt|Weinreich|1954|p=395}}, argues that {{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951}} do not present a truly diaphonemic inventory of sounds because it includes oppositions without considering the effects of phonetic context; in a diaphonemic inventory, a set of general rules should suffice to recover phonetic data so that there is a modicum of phonetic integrity.}} made by {{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951}},<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|p=224}} points to earlier works by these authors as approaching the same goal but in less detail</ref> that presumably all American varieties could fit.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trager|Smith|1951|p=9}}</ref> |
|||
{| class="IPA wikitable" |
|||
|- |
|||
! |
|||
! Front !! Central !! Back |
|||
|-align=center |
|||
! High |
|||
| i || ɨ || u |
|||
|-align=center |
|||
! Mid |
|||
| e || ə || o |
|||
|-align=center |
|||
! Low |
|||
| æ || a|| ɔ |
|||
|} |
|||
Six of the nine simple vowels in this diasystem are common across most dialects: {{IPA|/i/}} occurs in ''pit'', {{IPA|/e/}} in ''pet'', {{IPA|/æ/}} in ''pat'', {{IPA|/ə/}} in ''putt'', {{IPA|/u/}} in ''put'', and {{IPA|/ɔ/}} in ''pot''. The other three are found in specific dialects or dialect groups: {{IPA|/o/}} represents the vowel of ''rod'' in [[Scottish English]] and ''road'' in [[New England English|New England varieties]]; {{IPA|/ɨ/}} represents both an unstressed schwa as well as a vowel that appears in stressed syllables in words like ''just'' (when it means 'only'); and {{IPA|/a/}} represents the vowel of ''pot'' in American dialects.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Swadesh|1947|p=142}}</ref> |
|||
These nine simple vowels can then be combined with any of three offglides ({{IPA|/j h w/}}<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Whorf|1943}} proposed that centering diphthongs and vowel length were contextual variants of syllable-final {{IPA|/r/}} rather than {{IPA|/h/}} {{Harvcol|Swadesh|1947|p=146}}.</ref>) to make 36 possible complex nuclei. This system was popular amongst American linguists (despite criticism, particularly from [[Hans Kurath]]<ref>e.g. {{Harvcoltxt|Kurath|1957}}</ref>) until {{Harvcoltxt|Sledd|1966}} demonstrated its inadequacy.<ref>cited in {{Harvcoltxt|Allen|1977|pp=224–225}}</ref> |
|||
The most salient criticism of these broad diasystems was the issue of how [[diaphoneme#Cognitive reality|cognitively real]] they are. That is, whether speakers actually have competence in using or understanding the grammatical nuances of multiple varieties. In certain sociolinguistic circumstances, speakers' linguistic repertoire contains multiple varieties. For example, {{Harvcoltxt|Cadora|1970|p=15}} argues that [[Modern Literary Arabic]] is a diasystem of various interference phenomena occurring when speakers of different [[varieties of Arabic|Arabic varieties]] attempt to speak or read [[Literary Arabic]]. |
|||
More concretely, [[Peter Trudgill]] put forth what he considered to be a cognitively real<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974|p=141}}</ref> diasystem in {{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1974}}, a book-length sociolinguistic study of [[Norwich]]. As a critic of Weinreich's original proposal, he approached the concept as a generativist, putting forth a series of rules that could generate any possible output reflected in the diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Bickerton|1975|p=302}}</ref> Because most speakers of Norwich could vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking, the diasystem's rules reflected speakers' actual linguistic abilities. |
|||
Cognitively real diasystems are not limited to humans. For example, [[crow]]s are able to distinguish between different calls that prompt others to disperse, assemble, or rescue; these calls show regional variation so that French crows do not understand recorded American calls. While captive birds show difficulty understanding the calls of birds from nearby regions, those allowed to migrate are able to understand calls from both, suggesting that they have mentally constructed a diasystem that enables them to understand both call systems.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Frings|Frings|1959}}, cited in {{Harvcoltxt|Sebeok|1963|p=456}}</ref> |
|||
Still, these sorts of "idiosyncratic" grammars differ in degree from broader diasystems, which are much less likely to be part of speakers' linguistic competence.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Ballard|1971|p=267}}, citing {{Harvcoltxt|Bailey|1972|pp=23–24}}</ref> Even Trudgill has argued against their cognitive reality, deeming the concept of a broad diasystem to be a "theoretical dead-end."<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Trudgill|1983}}, chapter 1</ref><ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Chambers|Trudgill|1998|pp=43–44}}</ref> While the concept did not withstand scrutiny by research linguists, it nevertheless triggered a surge of academic work that used it in applied linguistics (e.g. for [[English as a foreign or second language|ESL]] education materials, composition texts for native speakers, basic linguistics texts, and in the application of linguistics to literary criticism).<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Stockwell|1959|p=259}}</ref> Diasystemic representations are also possible in dictionaries. For example, the [[Macquarie Dictionary]] reflects the pronunciation of four phonetically distinct sociolects of [[Australian English]]. Since these sociolects are the same phonemically, readers (at least, those from Australia) can interpret the system as representing their own accent.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Algeo|1988|p=162}}</ref> |
|||
Nowadays "diasystem" is used as a convenient expression for multiple related dialects.{{dubious|date=February 2012}} For example, a 1996 paper on the "diasystem of [[Romani language|Romani]]", whose scope is European dialects of Romani, reports only an isogloss and a set of interdialectal sound correspondences.<ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Clouthiade|1997}}</ref>{{clarification needed|date=March 2012}} |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*[[Dialect continuum]] |
|||
*[[Creole continuum]] |
|||
==Explanatory notes== |
==Explanatory notes== |
||
Line 66: | Line 29: | ||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist}} |
||
==Works |
==Works consulted== |
||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Algeo |
|||
|first=John |
|||
|year=1988 |
|||
|title=[Untitled review of ''The [[Macquarie Dictionary]]''] |
|||
|journal=American Speech |
|||
|volume=63 |
|||
|issue=2 |
|||
|pages=159–163 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Allen |
|||
|first=Harold B. |
|||
|year=1977 |
|||
|title=Regional dialects, 1945-1974 |
|||
|journal=American Speech |
|||
|volume=52 |
|||
|issue=3/4 |
|||
|pages=163–261 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
Line 97: | Line 40: | ||
|editor2-last=Di Luzio |
|editor2-last=Di Luzio |
||
|editor2-first=Aldo |
|editor2-first=Aldo |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1988 |
|year=1988 |
||
|chapter=Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics |
|chapter=Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics |
||
|title=Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology |
|title=Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology |
||
|edition= |
|||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|series=Sociolinguistics and language contact |
|series=Sociolinguistics and language contact |
||
|volume=4 |
|volume=4 |
||
|pages=1–10 |
|pages=1–10 |
||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Bailey |
|||
|first=Charles-James N. |
|||
|editor-last=Stockwell |
|||
|editor-first=Robert P. |
|||
|editor2-last=Macaulay |
|||
|editor2-first=Ronald K.S. |
|||
|year=1972 |
|||
|chapter=The integration of linguistic theory: Internal reconstruction and the comparative method in descriptive analysis |
|||
|title=Linguistic Change and Generative Theory |
|||
|place=Bloomington |
|||
|publisher=Indiana University Press |
|||
|pages=22–31 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Ballard |
|||
|first=W.L. |
|||
|year=1971 |
|||
|title=Review: Linguistic change and the Saussurian paradox |
|||
|journal=American Speech |
|||
|volume=46 |
|||
|issue=3/4 |
|||
|pages=254–270 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Bickerton |
|||
|first=Derek |
|||
|authorlink=Derek Bickerton |
|||
|year=1975 |
|||
|title=review of ''The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich'' by Peter Trudgill |
|||
|journal=Journal of Linguistics |
|||
|volume=11 |
|||
|issue=2 |
|||
|pages=299–308 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Cadora |
|||
|first=Frederic J. |
|||
|year=1970 |
|||
|title=Some linguistic concomitants of contactual factors of urbanization |
|||
|journal=Anthropological Linguistics |
|||
|volume=12 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=10–19 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Cadora |
|||
|first=Frederic J. |
|||
|year=1976 |
|||
|title=Contrastive compatibility in some Arabic dialects and their classification |
|||
|journal=Anthropological Linguistics |
|||
|volume=18 |
|||
|issue=9 |
|||
|pages=393–407 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
Line 165: | Line 57: | ||
|last2=Trudgill |
|last2=Trudgill |
||
|first2=Peter |
|first2=Peter |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1998 |
|year=1998 |
||
|chapter= |
|||
|title=Dialectology |
|title=Dialectology |
||
|edition=2nd |
|edition=2nd |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
||
|series=Cambridge textbooks in linguistics |
|series=Cambridge textbooks in linguistics |
||
|volume= |
|||
|pages= |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite journal |
*{{cite journal |
||
Line 181: | Line 78: | ||
|volume=5 |
|volume=5 |
||
|issue=10 |
|issue=10 |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=113–120 |
|pages=113–120 |
||
}} (This author uses the Albanian language spelling, Rromani.) |
}} (This author uses the Albanian language spelling, Rromani.) |
||
*{{cite book |
|||
|last=Crystal |
|||
|first=David |
|||
|year=2011 |
|||
|title=Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics |
|||
|edition=Sixth |
|||
|publisher=John Wiley & Sons |
|||
|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZPQVuSgDAkC&dq |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
Line 207: | Line 97: | ||
|title=Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives |
|title=Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives |
||
|edition= |
|edition= |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=John Benjamins |
|publisher=John Benjamins |
||
|series=Handbook of pragmatics highlights |
|series=Handbook of pragmatics highlights |
||
Line 215: | Line 106: | ||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
|last=Francis |
|last=Francis |
||
|first=Winthrop Nelson |
|first=W. N. [Winthrop Nelson] |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1983 |
|year=1983 |
||
|chapter= |
|||
|title=Dialectology: an introduction |
|title=Dialectology: an introduction |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=Longman |
|publisher=Longman |
||
|series=Longman linguistics library |
|series=Longman linguistics library |
||
|volume=29 |
|volume=29 |
||
|pages= |
|pages= |
||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Frings |
|||
|first=H. |
|||
|last2=Frings |
|||
|first2=M. |
|||
|year=1959 |
|||
|title=The language of crows |
|||
|journal=Scientific American |
|||
|volume=201 |
|||
|issue=5 |
|||
|pages=119–131 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Kurath |
|||
|first=Hans |
|||
|authorlink=Hans Kurath |
|||
|year=1957 |
|||
|title=The binary interpretation of English vowels: A critique |
|||
|journal=Language |
|||
|volume=33 |
|||
|issue=2 |
|||
|pages=111–122 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Martínez-Celdrán |
|||
|first=Eugenio |
|||
|last2=Fernández-Planas |
|||
|first2=Ana Ma. |
|||
|last3=Carrera-Sabaté |
|||
|first3=Josefina |
|||
|year=2003 |
|||
|title=Castilian Spanish |
|||
|journal=Journal of the International Phonetic Association |
|||
|volume=33 |
|||
|issue=2 |
|||
|pages=255–259 |
|||
|doi=10.1017/S0025100303001373 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |
|||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=McDavid |
|||
|first=Raven, Jr. |
|||
|year=1952 |
|||
|title=[untitled review of ''The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use'' by Daniel Jones] |
|||
|journal=Language |
|||
|volume=28 |
|||
|issue=3 |
|||
|pages=377–386 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
|authorlink= |
|||
|last=Petyt |
|last=Petyt |
||
|first=K. M. |
|first=K. M. |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1980 |
|year=1980 |
||
|chapter= |
|||
|title=The study of dialect: an introduction to dialectology |
|||
|title=The study of dialect : an introduction to dialectology |
|||
|edition= |
|||
|location=London |
|location=London |
||
|publisher=A. Deutsch |
|publisher=A. Deutsch |
||
|series=The language library |
|series=The language library |
||
|volume= |
|||
}}. |
|||
|pages= |
|||
}} Published simultaneously in Boulder, Colorado by Westview Press. The chapter, "Other recent approaches", which discusses generative explanations and the lect theory of Bickerton, was anthologized in Harold B. Allen, Michael D. Linn, eds., 1986, ''Dialect and language variation'', Academic Press. |
|||
*{{cite journal |
*{{cite journal |
||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
|authorlink=Ernst Pulgram |
|||
|last=Pulgram |
|last=Pulgram |
||
|first=Ernst |
|first=Ernst |
||
|url= |
|||
|authorlink=Ernst Pulgram |
|||
|year=1964 |
|year=1964 |
||
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |
||
Line 292: | Line 144: | ||
|volume=2 |
|volume=2 |
||
|issue=4 |
|issue=4 |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=66–82 |
|pages=66–82 |
||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Sebeok |
|||
|first=Thomas |
|||
|year=1963 |
|||
|title=[untitled review] |
|||
|journal=Language |
|||
|volume=39 |
|||
|issue=3 |
|||
|pages=448–466 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Sledd |
|||
|first=James H. |
|||
|year=1966 |
|||
|title=Breaking, umlaut, and the southern drawl |
|||
|journal=Language |
|||
|volume=42 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=18–41 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |
|||
|last=Stockwell |
|||
|first=Robert |
|||
|year=1959 |
|||
|title=Structural dialectology: A proposal |
|||
|journal=American Speech |
|||
|volume=34 |
|||
|issue=4 |
|||
|pages=258–268 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Swadesh |
|||
|first=Morris |
|||
|authorlink=Morris Swadesh |
|||
|year=1947 |
|||
|title=On the analysis of English syllabics |
|||
|journal=Language |
|||
|volume=23 |
|||
|issue=2 |
|||
|pages=137–150 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite journal |
|||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=Trager |
|||
|first=George L. |
|||
|authorlink=George L. Trager |
|||
|last2=Smith |
|||
|first2=Henry L, Jr. |
|||
|year=1951 |
|||
|title=An outline of English structure |
|||
|series=Studies in Linguistics occasional papers |
|||
|volume=3 |
|||
|place=Norman, OK |
|||
|publisher=Battenberg Press |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{cite book |
|||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=Trask |
|||
|first=Robert L. |
|||
|year=1996 |
|||
|title=A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology |
|||
|place=London |
|||
|publisher=Routledge |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Trubetzkoy |
|||
|first=Nikolai |
|||
|authorlink=Nikolai Trubetzkoy |
|||
|year=1931 |
|||
|title=Phonologie et géographie linguistique |
|||
|journal=Transactions du Cercle Linguistique de Prague |
|||
|volume=4 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
Line 372: | Line 153: | ||
|last=Trudgill |
|last=Trudgill |
||
|first=Peter |
|first=Peter |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1974 |
|year=1974 |
||
|chapter= |
|||
|title=The social differentiation of English in Norwich |
|title=The social differentiation of English in Norwich |
||
|edition= |
|||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
||
|series=Cambridge studies in linguistics |
|series=Cambridge studies in linguistics |
||
|volume=13 |
|volume=13 |
||
|pages= |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Trudgill |
|||
|first=Peter |
|||
|year=1983 |
|||
|title=On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives |
|||
|place=New York |
|||
|publisher=New York University Press |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite journal |
*{{cite journal |
||
Line 396: | Line 174: | ||
|journal=Word |
|journal=Word |
||
|volume=10 |
|volume=10 |
||
|issue= |
|||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=388–400 |
|pages=388–400 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Whorf |
|||
|first=Benjamin Lee |
|||
|authorlink=Benjamin Lee Whorf |
|||
|year=1943 |
|||
|title=Phonemic analysis of the English of Eastern Massachusetts |
|||
|journal=SIL |
|||
|volume=2 |
|||
|pages=1–40 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{citation |
|||
|last=Wolfram |
|||
|first=Walt |
|||
|year=1982 |
|||
|title=Language knowledge and other dialects |
|||
|journal=American Speech |
|||
|volume=57 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=3–18 |
|||
}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=Bailey |
|||
|last=Weinreich |
|||
|first=Charles-James N. |
|||
|first=Uriel |
|||
|year=1973 |
|||
|last2=Labov |
|||
|title=Variation and Linguistic Theory |
|||
|first2=William |
|||
|place=Washington, D.C. |
|||
|last3=Herzog |
|||
|publisher=Center for Applied Linguistics |
|||
|first3=Marvin |
|||
|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html |
|||
|year=1968 |
|||
|editor1-last=Lehmann |
|||
|editor1-first=Winfred P. |
|||
|editor2-last=Malkiel |
|||
|editor2-first=Yakov |
|||
|chapter=Empirical foundations for a theory of language change |
|||
|title=Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium |
|||
|edition= |
|||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=University of Texas Press |
|||
|series= |
|||
|pages=97–195 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
*{{cite book |
*{{cite book |
||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=Bickerton |
|||
|authorlink=John C. Wells |
|||
|first=Derek |
|||
|last=Wells |
|||
|year=1976 |
|||
|first=J.C. |
|||
|title=Dynamics of a Creole System |
|||
|url= |
|||
|place=New York |
|||
|year=1982 |
|||
|chapter= |
|||
|title=Accents of English I. An Introduction. (3 volume work) |
|||
|edition= |
|||
|location= |
|||
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|publisher=Cambridge University Press |
||
|series= |
|||
|volume= |
|||
|pages= |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
==Further reading== |
|||
*{{cite journal |
*{{cite journal |
||
|ref=harv |
|ref=harv |
||
|last=Cochrane |
|last=Cochrane |
||
|first=G. R. |
|first=G. R. |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1959 |
|year=1959 |
||
|title=The Australian English vowels as a diasystem |
|title=The Australian English vowels as a diasystem |
||
Line 445: | Line 228: | ||
|volume=15 |
|volume=15 |
||
|issue= |
|issue= |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=69–88 |
|pages=69–88 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Line 451: | Line 236: | ||
|last=Francescato |
|last=Francescato |
||
|first=Giuseppe |
|first=Giuseppe |
||
|url= |
|||
|year=1965a |
|year=1965a |
||
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |
|title=Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology |
||
Line 456: | Line 242: | ||
|volume=81 |
|volume=81 |
||
|issue= |
|issue= |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=484–491 |
|pages=484–491 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Line 484: | Line 272: | ||
|volume=37 |
|volume=37 |
||
|issue= |
|issue= |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=155–182 |
|pages=155–182 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Line 496: | Line 286: | ||
|volume=44 |
|volume=44 |
||
|issue= |
|issue= |
||
|location= |
|||
|publisher= |
|||
|pages=451–466 |
|pages=451–466 |
||
}} |
|||
*{{cite book |
|||
|ref=harv |
|||
|last=Weinreich |
|||
|first=Uriel |
|||
|last2=Labov |
|||
|first2=William |
|||
|last3=Herzog |
|||
|first3=Marvin |
|||
|url=http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/hist05.html |
|||
|year=1968 |
|||
|editor1-last=Lehmann |
|||
|editor1-first=Winfred P. |
|||
|editor2-last=Malkiel |
|||
|editor2-first=Yakov |
|||
|chapter=Empirical foundations for a theory of language change |
|||
|title=Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium |
|||
|publisher=University of Texas Press |
|||
|pages=97–195 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
[[Category:Language varieties and styles]] |
[[Category:Language varieties and styles]] |
Revision as of 23:29, 3 May 2012
In dialectology, the term diasystem [Greek dia-, 'cross-', 'across', 'through', 'between'] now denotes related dialects.[1] It is thus a generic term, in the way that 'language' is a generic term and 'English', 'Chinese', 'French' are the names of particular languages. Some scholars use "related" in a far broader sense than other scholars.[a] Another term for related dialects is dialect continuum.
The term "diasystem" originally had a different meaning. It was coined by linguist and dialectologist Uriel Weinreich in a 1954 paper as part of an initiative in theorizing aimed at exploring how to extend advances in linguistic theory (which in that period was structuralist) to dialectology. The basic issue was to explain linguistic variation across dialects. In his vision, a particular phenomenon of dialectal divergence would be explained by constructing a "diasystem" which is "a system of a higher level out of the discrete and homogeneous systems that are derived from description".[3] In the example he gave, the scope of the "system" was just vowel phoneme inventories, but in principle it would be entire dialects. A diasystem being a higher order system, its component units of analysis would accordingly (under structuralist theory) be abstractions of a higher order than the units of analysis of the individual systems. For example, just as allophones constitute a phoneme within a dialect, in the "intersystem", as it were, phonemes would constitute a diaphoneme.
Weinreich's paper inspired research in the late 1950s to test the proposal. However, the investigations soon proved it to be generally untenable, at least under structuralist theory. That is, it is unfeasible to construct a single grammar portion (let a alone an entire grammar) for multiple dialects unless the dialect differences are very minor and unless only a very few dialects are involved. With the advent of generative theory circa 1960, adherents of generative grammar tried developing cross dialectal grammars. The generative approach rejects the positing of structural units of a higher order of abstraction than the phoneme (and redefines the phoneme).[4] However, after the 1970s the generative approach was also adjudged a theoretical failure.[5][6] The followup to Weinreich (1954) 14 years later used the term just once (not counting footnotes).[1] Since the 1970s, therefore, the use of the term diasystem no longer denotes a cross dialectal grammar. The terms diasystem and diaphoneme have limited currency in linguistics to the extent that neither the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2003 edition) nor the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, (second edition, 2006) mention these terms in their indexes. The latter work gives the Weinreichian type of definition in its Glossary section.
According to some sociolinguists,[7][6] the diasystem idea for incorporating variation into linguistic theory has been superseded by the William Labov's notion of the linguistic variable.
History of the Weinreichian sense of diasystem
Conception by Weinreich
By the 1950s, linguists considered variation between varieties outside of the scope of inquiry of grammar construction; each variety, in their thinking, should only be studied on its own terms. In addition, he lamented the hostility between dialectology and linguistics; linguists found the practice of dialectology at the time to be "impressionistic" whereas dialectologists found linguistic theory "metaphysical."[8][b] Weinreich proposed applying the structuralist concept of the grammar to the description of regular correspondences between different varieties.[c] Different dialects would be described by a diasystem, a supergrammar consistent with the individual grammars of all the member dialects and representing a higher level of abstraction.[11] Weinreich exemplified the diasystemic approach by an arrangement of phoneme correspondences in three dialects of Yiddish.
Critiques
Trubetzkoy in 1931 had proposed the following types of sound difference: differences in phoneme inventory; differences in "distribution" (i.e., phonotactics), differences in the phonetic realization of phonemes; and differences in the incidence of phonemes.[12] "Incidence" refers to distribution of phonemes across the vocabulary[13] (in particular, which phonemes occur in which member words of a interdialectal lexical correspondence set).[d]
A few linguists (in particular Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960)) took up the challenge of Weinreich (1954),[16][e][f] and "as was very soon pointed out, the inadequacy of the diasystem as used by Weinreich is in its neglect of all phonological aspects except phonemic inventory".[19] Some of the failures had been anticipated by Weinreich himself, as described above. Moulton (1960) found an extreme example of divergent incidence in a study of two dialects of Swiss German, Luzerner and Appenzeller, which evolved independently of each other. He reported that phonetically speaking, although each dialect seems to have the same set of eleven short vowel phonemes, only one pair of phonetically identical vowels, /i/ ~ /i/, is in lexical correspondence, i.e., are diachronically equal, have a common parent vowel in earlier stages of German. The remaining phonetic similarities between the Luzerner and Appenzeller phoneme sets are fortuitous results of multiple mergers and splits that each dialect underwent.[19]
Pulgram (1964), examining Cochrane (1959) and Moulton (1960), noted not only the need for refinements in the original proposal, but that perhaps different researchers had not agreed on definitions, disciplines of study, and objects of inquiry. For extensive theoretical discussion of the implications of Cochrane and Moulton for the original diasystem idea, see Pulgram (1964), and Francis (1983). The research and debate supported the conclusion that multiple dialects could in general not be described by a common grammar, at least not under structuralist theory.
Trudgill (1974), in a book length sociolinguistic study of the dialect of one medium sized English city, his hometown of Norwich,[g] called it the "Norwich diasystem". But as a critic of Weinreich's original suggestion, he was using "diasystem" in a different sense. The population of Norwich in fact speaks a single "variety" (as he termed it)[20] of English. However, Trudgill concluded from his investigations that this single embraces a great diversity and variability of sociologically conditioned linguistic variables. Most speakers of this dialect can vary their pronunciation of each variable depending on the circumstances in which they are speaking. This scholar chose to summarize this variability and versatility with the term "diasystem".
Nowadays "diasystem" is used as a convenient expression for multiple related dialects. For example, a 1996 paper on the "diasystem of Romani", whose scope is European dialects of Romani, reports only an isogloss and a set of interdialectal sound correspondences, not first steps toward a common phonology of all European Romani dialects.[21][clarification needed]
Explanatory notes
- ^ "The term 'diasystem' stands for the complete set of varieties (diachronic as well as diatopic-synchronic) supposed to derive from one ancestor."[2]
- ^ Wells attests that from the dialectologists' side, this hostility persisted in Britain through the 1970s.[9]
- ^ Weinreich also proposed the use of variety to replace dialect as it was commonly used at the time [10]
- ^ The term 'incidence' was not the one used by Trubetzkoy.[14] Its introduction for the purpose of describing this part of grammar is attributed to Kurath.[15]
- ^ Trudgill mentions GR Cochrane (1959), WG Moulton (1960), E Pulgram (1964), RD King (1969), H Kurath (1969), and Trudgill's own dissertation of 1971, which was the basis of Trudgill (1974).[17]
- ^ Francis quotes Giuseppe Francescato (1965a, 1965b) at length.[18]
- ^ county of Norfolk, historical region of East Anglia
Citations
- ^ a b Weinreich, Labov & Herzog 1968, section 3.2.1.
- ^ De Schutter 2010, p. 73.
- ^ Weinreich 1954, p. 390.
- ^ Wells 1982, pp. 41–68.
- ^ Chambers & Trudgill 1998, section 3.3.
- ^ a b Auer & Di Luzio 1988, p. 1.
- ^ Chambers & Trudgill 1998, p. 44.
- ^ Weinreich 1954, p. 388.
- ^ Wells 1982, pp. 40–41.
- ^ Weinreich 1954, p. 389.
- ^ Weinreich 1954, p. 389-390.
- ^ Petyt 1980, pp. 118–119.
- ^ Francis 1983, p. 34.
- ^ Petyt 1980, p. 118.
- ^ Pulgram 1964, p. 70.
- ^ Pulgram 1964.
- ^ Trudgill 1974, p. 134.
- ^ Francis 1983, pp. 165–166.
- ^ a b Francis 1983, p. 163.
- ^ Trudgill 1974, p. 133.
- ^ Clouthiade 1997.
Works consulted
- Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (1988). "Introduction. Variation and convergence as a topic in dialectology and sociolinguistics". In Auer, Peter; Di Luzio, Aldo (eds.). Variation and convergence: studies in social dialectology. Sociolinguistics and language contact. Vol. 4. pp. 1–10.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Chambers, J. K.; Trudgill, Peter (1998). Dialectology. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Clouthiade, Marcel (1997). "Quelques aspects du diasystème phonologique de la langue rromani". Faits de langue. 5 (10): 113–120.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) (This author uses the Albanian language spelling, Rromani.) - De Schutter, Georges (2010). "Dialectology". In Fried, Mirjam; Östman, Jan-Ola; Verscheuren, Jef (eds.). Variation and change: pragmatic perspectives. Handbook of pragmatics highlights. Vol. 6. John Benjamins. pp. 73–80.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Francis, W. N. [Winthrop Nelson] (1983). Dialectology: an introduction. Longman linguistics library. Vol. 29. Longman.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Petyt, K. M. (1980). The study of dialect : an introduction to dialectology. The language library. London: A. Deutsch.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) Published simultaneously in Boulder, Colorado by Westview Press. The chapter, "Other recent approaches", which discusses generative explanations and the lect theory of Bickerton, was anthologized in Harold B. Allen, Michael D. Linn, eds., 1986, Dialect and language variation, Academic Press. - Pulgram, Ernst (1964). "Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology". Linguistics. 2 (4): 66–82.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Trudgill, Peter (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge studies in linguistics. Vol. 13. Cambridge University Press.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Weinreich, Uriel (1954). "Is a structural dialectology possible?" (PDF). Word. 10: 388–400.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Weinreich, Uriel; Labov, William; Herzog, Marvin (1968). "Empirical foundations for a theory of language change". In Lehmann, Winfred P.; Malkiel, Yakov (eds.). Directions for historical linguistics: a symposium. University of Texas Press. pp. 97–195.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Wells, J.C. (1982). Accents of English I. An Introduction. (3 volume work). Cambridge University Press.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Further reading
- Cochrane, G. R. (1959). "The Australian English vowels as a diasystem". Word. 15: 69–88.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Francescato, Giuseppe (1965a). "Structural comparison, diasystems, and dialectology". Zeitschrift für romanische philologie. 81: 484–491.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Francescato, Giuseppe (1965b). "Struttura linguistica e dialetto". In Straka, G. (ed.). Actes du Xe congrès international de linguistique et philologie. Paris: Klincksieck. pp. 1011–1017.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Moulton, William G. (1960). "The short vowel systems of Northern Switzerland: a study in structural dialectology". Word. 37: 155–182.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Moulton, William G. (1968). "Structural dialectology". Language. 44: 451–466.
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)