How is the table of dialects constructed? It's obvious if two dialects are at 1, but what does it mean if they're at 0? They can't be mutually unintelligible, since that would make them different languages. I ask because the dialects spoken in Argentina and in Uruguay are practically identical, save for a few regional words. If the scale being used puts them at 0.35, then it makes me wonder about the usefulness of the scale.
Dialects can mean very different things hence the old joke "a language is a dialect with its own army and navy", recognizing that the issue is really political rather than linguistic. Many Chinese dialects (like Mandarin and Cantonese) are considered dialects of the same "Chinese language" for political reasons but are mutually unintelligible, whereas Danish and Norwegian (the majority bokmal dialect anyway) are considered different languages even though they are pretty mutually intelligible because Norway and Denmark are different countries.
As for how the table of Spanish dialects was constructed, the figure gives the link to the paper it was from [1]. Basically they measured differences in dialects by giving pictures of an item (the example shown is a pinwheel) and asking what Spanish speakers from different places called that thing. Given hundreds of different concepts you can see how close Spanish dialects are to each other.
Okay, so the article is wrong for using that bit of data for the argument. It doesn't tell you much about how well two people from two different places will understand each other. If two people are in the same place and one says to the other "¿me das la veleta?", but the other would have called the object "molinete", chances are they could probably understand what the other person is saying. What makes different dialects of Spanish difficult to understand each other is slang and accent, not different words for common objects. Like, if a Spaniard tells me "Mariana está en el ordenador", I'm not going to get confused about what he means even if I would have called it "computadora".
True, but that's like saying a British person wouldn't be confused by the phrase "the trunk of my car" said by an American even if they would would say "the boot of my car" themselves. The fact still remains than "trunk" is US dialect and "boot" is British, and that the dialects are different.
I'm not saying the dialects are not different, I'm saying the fact that they're different is separate from how mutually unintelligible they are. Correlated? Yeah, sure. Equivalent? Not even close.
Shouldn't that comparison be weighted by how frequent the words are? For example words in the top 100 usage would count for more than the top 1000 and the top 10000.
It would be a much different story if British English and American English had different words for "a car". Which, by the way, happens in Spanish dialects ("el coche" vs "el carro").
here (argentina, non-native) we usually say 'el auto' but have significant use of 'coche'. 'carro' means something different; using it for an automobile sounds mexican
but if you showed an argentine a picture of a car, they might very well say 'auto' while perhaps someone from elsewhere would say 'coche', leading to a basically incorrect point of difference being measured in this study between the two dialects
Why would it be incorrect? Sometimes two or three different words describe the same thing and that's ok. If you poll enough people you can get a rough idea if one version is more dominant that the other, if there's an even split, or if different regions in the same country prefer different versions. Similar to soda/pop/coke in the US.
You can design a study with a high level of data granularity. You could even track differences in pronunciation and grammar if you wish so.
because 'we usually say coche but sometimes say auto' is almost the same as 'we usually say auto but sometimes say coche', but they differ from 'we always say carro'. if a study is saying spanish is radically different in montevideo and in buenos aires, it's just wrong. this may not be the particular design error that resulted in these incorrect results, but it seems like a promising candidate
I think we're both in agreement. Perhaps my example of coche/carro was unfortunate and I didn't make my point clear enough.
A well-designed study, in my mind, would compare the usage of a varied bag of words. Starting from articles, pronouns, numbers, common verbs, then common objects, verb forms, less common adjectives, ending with uncommon objects and phrases. The compared words would be weighted based on their frequency. If two dialects have the same articles, pronouns, numbers, etc. and some differences in less frequent nouns, they would be similar rather than radically different - at least lexically. Things might look differently if we look at pronunciation.
I don't know what list of words was compared in the study linked in this subthread, so it's hard for me to say anything about it.
probably a better cross-atlantic example would be something like 'perambulator' where the other dialect doesn't have a conflicting meaning for the word
I agree with you, differences in pronunciation, cadence, etc. should be taken in account as well. Though measuring those could take longer, if possible.
You don't even have to go all the way to China. The English countryside has multiple so called "accents" that are basically unintelligible to a speaker of London English, with plenty of famous examples in popular media (e.g. [1][2]).
Similarly, Germany has plenty of mutually unintelligible dialects. They are all related to each other and any two geographically adjacent dialects are mutually intelligible, but as distance grows it becomes harder to bridge the gap (which is why everyone learns Standard German nowadays). Luxembourgish meanwhile is in every sense a dialect of German with French influences, but due to having an army is considered its own language.
> There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language.
The difference between language is more culturally and politically defined than linguistically; there are different langauges spoken in the world that have a fiar overlap and elligibility, and there are different dialects of the same "language" that are basically untelligable. It might be sensible to just consider all spoken systems to be "dialects" of each other, and comparing their similarity.
I agree. Argentine and Uruguayan Spanish are very close. I'd expect to have seen .85 or so. Argentine and Chilean Spanish are not that far apart either -- or at least they weren't 30 years ago.
I have no idea. Also there is no standard spanish even in Spain. Like Andalucian spanish and Domenican spanish have a lot in common but vary greatly with other forms of spanish.
When I was getting my degree, two of my classmates spoke Spanish as a first language. One was a transfer student from Madrid, and the other was an immigrant from northern Mexico. I was in the room the first time they met and tried speaking Spanish to one another. They couldn't understand each other and communicated solely in English after about 10 minutes.
The funny thing is that both Spaniards and Mexicans claim to use the most neutral spanish, but you'd find their idiosyncrasies rather quickly - spaniards' 'f' sound of the letter S, and the infinite modisms and particular mexican accent on the other hand.
As the Spanish empire extended its spread so widely the language grew pretty complex (as english did!) so not even the most "neutral" spanish speaking countries do it as the RAE intends.
On the other hand, Chileans really do speak their very own language.
This idea is somewhat prevalent among native Chilean speakers, but I respectfully disagree. Even under formal settings, many of the features of colloquial Chilean variants are present, and often an additional effort to neutralize the accent needs to be made to sound “formal enough” to other Spanish speakers.
One thing is that pretty much the only place you'll see formal chilean is in like, the news, or official government communication. We're not very formal people, so even in workplaces or school we wouldn't use 100% formal register.
Sure, that is largely true. But, to state that the formal register of Chilean Spanish is “probably one of the most understandable ones, accent-wise” of all available Spanish registers is, in my humble opinion, quite a stretch.
Goddamn, is that what professional news outlets sound like? It sounds like a YouTuber trying as hard as possible to sound cool or edgy. Dude, leave the coke for after the broadcast.
Where the announcer is actually overpronouncing while still keeping (expectedly) some elision. In your example, Boric’s formal register is closer to what one would usually listen.
> chileans are ok with people saying we don't speak well
I never claimed that, I am merely addressing your “one of the most understandable” statement.
I met my ex-wife in Madrid where I lived for 4 years and where she was from. That's where I learned Spanish as a second language. After we moved back to California, we obviously met and spoke to many Mexicans over the years. Zero problems communicating for her, ever. Spanish is still Spanish.
If not utterly false and defaming. ANY educated Spanish speaker could talk to any other one from the whole Latin America in the spot. We are not talking about hicks with a deep and harsh accent such as some Andalusian farmer and some Northern Mexican paisano from Nowhereland. (Kinda like mixing an Appalachian and a Scottish).
The Internet seems like a small place, and lately, I always find you talking in a demeaning way about the South of Spain and/or its people. :-)
I usually wouldn't engage further (as most people don't when faced with your harsh statements), but as a "hick farmer from Andalusia" myself, and your history on this topic, it hits too close to home.
You probably think you don't need to, but maybe consider checking how you are perceived and how you come across to people when you write the way you do.
This is my last interaction with you here or in any of the other platforms where we cross paths.
I'm from Spain and some elderly people un the South have a very hard accent to grasp. That's a reality. Andalusia, Extremadura and Albacete. The last one have been the hardest one to pick something.
The same happens with the Basque language/variants with some Uribe Kosta subdialects and some further away French Basque dialects.
Spaniard here. I daily talk with Argentines. Maybe the grammar and slang get obtuse sometimes, but overall once we talk formal Spanish the issues on jargon dissappear.
Also, the Spanish Royal Academy for the language logs every word from Iberia to Mexico and the Patagonia at their online dictionary, so everyone can guess the meaning of a local word in the spot.
I call bullshit on this. I am from Spain, I have met many people from different Spanish-speaking countries including Equatorial Guinea (people always forget about them), and we rarely have any problem understanding anybody (unless someone is an idiot who doesn't want to be understood, it happens too).
This is just anecdata regarding two people I knew personally. As with everything, reality may be quite different in the aggregate and individual experiences will vary.
There literally is a standard Spanish, no? I understand it to be based on Castilian. However I understand your point that even within the country of Spain there are many dialects which diverge from "standard".
Not really. Just like English, the standard variety in each country is considered equally "standard".
> I understand it to be based on Castilian.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as I know Castilian is just a synonym for the Spanish language (as opposed to other languages of Spain e.g. Catalan). So the variety spoken in Guatemala and the one in Tenerife are equally "Castilian".
Spanish native here, confirming that RSA is the institution that sets the language standard.
But, people always deviate from it, though in my experience in word meanings and pronunciation, never in grammar to a degree that it become intelligible to another Spanish speaker.
The toughest film to listen to for me was "The rose seller"[1] (1998), took me like 10m to get my ear accustomed to their pronunciation.
So is the Andalusian accent from a Northern Spaniard like me, it's close to the prosody and speech of the US Southern accent. The first 20 minutes understanding Risitas were pure hell. But you get used to it in a few days.
It's like some American trying to understand the Scott/Welsh (can't remember now) sheperd not exposed to it. I'm pretty sure they could be used to it in less time than a week.
There's "neutral" spanish, but it's less of a formal standard and more of a rough subset that people recongnize it's generally understandable to most people
It being so artificial means that it doesn't fit anywhere, even it if's becoming more common (Kids are growing up listening to Media dubbed to it, so it's not weird seing a Child "speak like a cartoon" for a while until their local dialect kicks in)
It is what I usually call the "TV" or "media" standard. Same in french, the french language you listen on TV is very uncommon if you actually talk to french people from different areas of France and it is not even common in Paris.
The differences between Spanish "dialects" are overstated IMO and closer to accents. No two Spanish accents are as different as the dialects of Arabic or dialects of Chinese are from each other. People will share anecdotes about not being able to understand different words(like straw, car, computer) but the underlying grammar is the same in all varieties. Im natively fluent in both English(US) and Spanish and I find English accents way harder to understand than Spanish ones. The only time Ive felt completely clueless listening to English was talking to a Scottish man.
The royal Academy of Spanish has the mission of promoting language unity, the American vocabulary is huge so a lot of words are really puzzling for people in other countries, but there is a common root that can be used.
Yeah, I was wondering about these two countries myself. Also it was very strange to see the Peru and Cuba correlation, those two dialects are nothing alike.
People from both countries can speak a version of Spanish that is mutually intelligible. But if you go into a high school (or even listen to adults that are being very casual) then it'd sound wildly different.
I speak Chilean Spanish. Distinctive characteristics include no use of vos; the "tú" conjugation is often "-ai" (cómo estai?) or "-i" (qué teni allí?); saying weón every sentence; using "po" for emphasis (sí po!); specific words like "fome" (boring), "la raja" (awesome), "bacán" (cool); phrases like "estoy cagado de hambre", "estoy chato", "pasarlo chancho", "cachai?"...
It's also very related to class, at least in Chile. Even I struggle to understand people in tougher neighborhoods of Santiago.
sorry, i was talking about the differences between buenos aires spanish and uruguay spanish. i totally cacho that chilean is a different language entirely, however much germán garmendia tries to pretend otherwise :)
