<p>There are always difficulties in classification. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Languages_and_dialects" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Languages_and_dialects</a>). Unintelligibility is one criterion, but there may be others, for example, the similarities in grammar, vocabulary, written forms, etc.</p>

<p>Some people and even linguistics DO consider Cantonese as a language, but in that way, Chinese will be a <strong>language family</strong> which consists of at least 8-9 major languages, where Mandarin is one of them.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-19T19:32:31.937Z
2016-02-19T19:32:31.937Z
bfrguci
<h2><em>&quot;A language is a dialect with an army and navy&quot;</em></h2>
<p>Unfortunately, there is no hard scientific distinction between &quot;two related languages&quot;, and &quot;two dialects of the same language&quot;.</p>
<p>A biological analogy might be when are two groups of animals considered <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">distinct species</a>? Inability to interbreed (cf. &quot;low mutual intelligibility&quot;) is one criterion, but it is not <em>necessary</em> for two groups to be considered distinct species e.g. chimpanzees and bonobos.</p>
<p>Likewise, while it might be easy to categorise two lects with <strong>low</strong> mutual intelligibility as distinct languages/belonging to distinct language groups (e.g. English/Japanese, or French/Italian), two closely related lects may be either defined as distinct languages or dialects of one language, depending on historical and political context (e.g. Portuguese/Galician, vs Catalan/Valencian).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is no consistent, scientific distinction between two dialects of a single language, and two separate languages (with a common ancestor). It's most often a political distinction. Some highly mutually intelligible lects are considered different languages (e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Serbian</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Croatian</a>) whereas others with extremely low degrees of mutual intelligibility are considered the same language (e.g. the <em>Valais</em> dialect of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walser_German" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Walser German</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_German" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Standard German</a>).</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/27442/20700">Is Occitan a single language or have its different dialects become separate languages?</a> (linguistics.stackexchange.com)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Chinese dialect groups</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Local varieties from different areas of China are often mutually unintelligible, differing at least as much as different Romance languages and perhaps even as much as Indo-European languages as a whole. These varieties form the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family (with Bai sometimes being included in this grouping). <strong>Because speakers share a standard written form, and have a common cultural heritage with long periods of political unity, the varieties are popularly perceived among native speakers as variants of a single Chinese language, and this is also the official position.</strong> Conventional English-language usage in Chinese linguistics is to use <em>dialect</em> for the speech of a particular place (regardless of status) while regional groupings like Mandarin and Wu are called <em>dialect groups</em>. ISO 639-3 follows the <em>Ethnologue</em> in assigning language codes to eight of the top-level groups listed above (all but Min and Pinghua) and five subgroups of Min. <strong>Other linguists choose to refer to the major groupings as languages. Sinologist David Moser stated that the Chinese authorities refer to them as &quot;dialects&quot; as a way to reinforce China as being a single nation.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese#Terminology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese#Terminology</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-28T10:09:35.527Z
2021-04-28T10:16:42.980Z
2021-04-28T10:16:42.980Z
大胳膊雅各布
<p>The misalignment of definition comes from misunderstanding of words.</p>

<p>From the very beginning of Chinese writing, writing is not word by word record of spoken, but specialized form of record eliminating any unnecessary redundancy. This makes Chinese writing more independent from actual pronunciation of languages and allows the evolution of languages without affecting Chinese writing much. It is no surprise that Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese has adopted it for a long time with this adaptable structure.</p>

<p>《方言》 is a book written nearly two thousand years ago, which means the words of various places (in the empire).</p>

<p>When Western linguistics was introduced in Chinese, "方言" was chosen to mean "dialect". While a dialect means a mutually understandable branch within a language, some perceives it is various speeches in China.</p>

<p>It is pretty tricky that while the Chinese writing is understandable across languages but the speakers of various languages are not mutually intelligible in daily life. The political issues on the unification and nationalistic climax of China causes widespread misinformation of 方言. </p>

<p>Nowadays linguistics agrees that they are Chinese language<strong>s</strong> and linguist groups them in a Chinese language family. Only those with no linguistics knowledge would still debate on the word 方言. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-16T11:11:33.403Z
2016-05-16T11:11:33.403Z
OmniBus
<p>I'm going to assume that the question you want to ask are how mutually intelligible various 方言 actually are. <a href="https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14919/Tang_Heuven_Lingua2009.pdf?sequence=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> 2009 study by Chaoju Tang and Vincent J. Van Heuven has some data on it.</p>

<p>Here's the excerpted table on how mutually intelligible various 方言 are:</p>

<p><strong>Word Classification:</strong>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/73zim.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/73zim.png" alt="Word Classifying Test"></a> </p>

<p>and </p>

<p><strong>Word Understanding:</strong>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/MBFkI.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/MBFkI.png" alt="Word Understanding Test"></a></p>

<p>You can read more on the methodology in the paper itself.</p>

<p>For comparison's sake <a href="http://www.sulaandjohn.com/files/users/e/535D6469E2612048E040A8C0AC002D4E/Mutual%20Comprehension.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> 1989 John B. Jensen study found that Spanish and Portuguese are </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>50-60% mutually intelligible at least as measured on...passive
  listening to electronically re-produced voices</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-20T06:46:52.723Z
Here is an indication of how these measures of mutual intelligibility can work very differently than you would expect.  Listeners from many regions understand Beijing speech better than their own region's.  And, for example, on both charts Beijing listeners understand Taiyuan speakers better than Taiyuan listeners do.
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-20T01:17:41.383Z
2016-02-21T13:57:19.050Z
2016-02-21T13:57:19.050Z
Ringil
<p>I have always thought, perhaps wrongly, that it was mutual intelligibility that was the deciding factor as to whether a 方言 would be considered a dialect or it's own separate language.</p>

<p>Wikipedia's entry <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#Political_factors" rel="nofollow">Dialect: Political Factors</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An opposite example is the case of Chinese, whose variations such as Mandarin and Cantonese are often called dialects and not languages, despite their mutual unintelligibility.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm not interested in politics, though; linguistically speaking when can a 方言 be considered a language and not a dialect?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-19T12:33:46.213Z
Mutual Intelligibility is pretty much the only criterion. Literally the only thing stopping Mandarin and Cantonese from being called separate languages/topolects are political considerations.
Ringil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-19T13:11:09.710Z
Is there a list of mutual unintelligible 方言?
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-19T18:12:49.167Z
Defining the difference between language and dialect has been a very very long dispute among linguists since... like... forever. If you are not a linguist (which seems the case), just don't bother about it. There's no consensus and it won't lead you anywhere.
Enrico Brasil
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-21T17:54:44.017Z
@wuerling swedish, norwegian and danish with the their respective variants together form a continuum of dialects of the a common language. The difference isn't larger than the German spoken in the southern Germany and in the northern Germany.
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-04T08:19:02.797Z
"A language is a dialect with an army and navy."
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-29T03:35:56.063Z
If owing to a shift in historical accident, the capital of a republican China is in say Nanjing, (nearly happened), or Quanzhou, (which was China's major port for foreign traders), the "common language" or Putonghua would not necessarily be Mandarin which essentially started life as a local dialect of the area around Beijing. An issue as important as the national language of a nation cannot escape the arbitrary politics of the moment.
Wayne Cheah
<topolect>
When is a 方言 a language and not a dialect
# When is a 方言 a language and not a dialect

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-02-19)

I have always thought, perhaps wrongly, that it was mutual intelligibility that was the deciding factor as to whether a 方言 would be considered a dialect or it's own separate language.

Wikipedia's entry [Dialect: Political Factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#Political_factors) says:

> An opposite example is the case of Chinese, whose variations such as Mandarin and Cantonese are often called dialects and not languages, despite their mutual unintelligibility.

I'm not interested in politics, though; linguistically speaking when can a 方言 be considered a language and not a dialect?

**Tags:** topolect

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Mutual Intelligibility is pretty much the only criterion. Literally the only thing stopping Mandarin and Cantonese from being called separate languages/topolects are political considerations.  
> **username_0**: Is there a list of mutual unintelligible 方言?  
> **username_2**: Defining the difference between language and dialect has been a very very long dispute among linguists since... like... forever. If you are not a linguist (which seems the case), just don't bother about it. There's no consensus and it won't lead you anywhere.  
> **username_3**: @wuerling swedish, norwegian and danish with the their respective variants together form a continuum of dialects of the a common language. The difference isn't larger than the German spoken in the southern Germany and in the northern Germany.  
> **username_4**: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy."  
> **username_5**: If owing to a shift in historical accident, the capital of a republican China is in say Nanjing, (nearly happened), or Quanzhou, (which was China's major port for foreign traders), the "common language" or Putonghua would not necessarily be Mandarin which essentially started life as a local dialect of the area around Beijing. An issue as important as the national language of a nation cannot escape the arbitrary politics of the moment.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-02-20. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

I'm going to assume that the question you want to ask are how mutually intelligible various 方言 actually are. [This](https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14919/Tang_Heuven_Lingua2009.pdf?sequence=1) 2009 study by Chaoju Tang and Vincent J. Van Heuven has some data on it.

Here's the excerpted table on how mutually intelligible various 方言 are:

**Word Classification:**
[![Word Classifying Test](https://i.sstatic.net/73zim.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/73zim.png)

and

**Word Understanding:**
[![Word Understanding Test](https://i.sstatic.net/MBFkI.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/MBFkI.png)

You can read more on the methodology in the paper itself.

For comparison's sake [this](http://www.sulaandjohn.com/files/users/e/535D6469E2612048E040A8C0AC002D4E/Mutual%20Comprehension.pdf) 1989 John B. Jensen study found that Spanish and Portuguese are

> 50-60% mutually intelligible at least as measured on...passive
> listening to electronically re-produced voices

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: Here is an indication of how these measures of mutual intelligibility can work very differently than you would expect.  Listeners from many regions understand Beijing speech better than their own region's.  And, for example, on both charts Beijing listeners understand Taiyuan speakers better than Taiyuan listeners do.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2016-02-19. Score: 3

There are always difficulties in classification. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Languages_and_dialects>). Unintelligibility is one criterion, but there may be others, for example, the similarities in grammar, vocabulary, written forms, etc.

Some people and even linguistics DO consider Cantonese as a language, but in that way, Chinese will be a **language family** which consists of at least 8-9 major languages, where Mandarin is one of them.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2021-04-28. Score: 2

## *"A language is a dialect with an army and navy"*

Unfortunately, there is no hard scientific distinction between "two related languages", and "two dialects of the same language".

A biological analogy might be when are two groups of animals considered [distinct species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definition)? Inability to interbreed (cf. "low mutual intelligibility") is one criterion, but it is not *necessary* for two groups to be considered distinct species e.g. chimpanzees and bonobos.

Likewise, while it might be easy to categorise two lects with **low** mutual intelligibility as distinct languages/belonging to distinct language groups (e.g. English/Japanese, or French/Italian), two closely related lects may be either defined as distinct languages or dialects of one language, depending on historical and political context (e.g. Portuguese/Galician, vs Catalan/Valencian).

> There is no consistent, scientific distinction between two dialects of a single language, and two separate languages (with a common ancestor). It's most often a political distinction. Some highly mutually intelligible lects are considered different languages (e.g. [Serbian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language) and [Croatian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language)) whereas others with extremely low degrees of mutual intelligibility are considered the same language (e.g. the *Valais* dialect of [Walser German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walser_German) and [Standard German](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_German)).

* [Is Occitan a single language or have its different dialects become separate languages?](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/27442/20700) (linguistics.stackexchange.com)

## Chinese dialect groups

> Local varieties from different areas of China are often mutually unintelligible, differing at least as much as different Romance languages and perhaps even as much as Indo-European languages as a whole. These varieties form the Sinitic branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family (with Bai sometimes being included in this grouping). **Because speakers share a standard written form, and have a common cultural heritage with long periods of political unity, the varieties are popularly perceived among native speakers as variants of a single Chinese language, and this is also the official position.** Conventional English-language usage in Chinese linguistics is to use *dialect* for the speech of a particular place (regardless of status) while regional groupings like Mandarin and Wu are called *dialect groups*. ISO 639-3 follows the *Ethnologue* in assigning language codes to eight of the top-level groups listed above (all but Min and Pinghua) and five subgroups of Min. **Other linguists choose to refer to the major groupings as languages. Sinologist David Moser stated that the Chinese authorities refer to them as "dialects" as a way to reinforce China as being a single nation.**

* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese#Terminology>


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2016-05-16. Score: 1

The misalignment of definition comes from misunderstanding of words.

From the very beginning of Chinese writing, writing is not word by word record of spoken, but specialized form of record eliminating any unnecessary redundancy. This makes Chinese writing more independent from actual pronunciation of languages and allows the evolution of languages without affecting Chinese writing much. It is no surprise that Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese has adopted it for a long time with this adaptable structure.

《方言》 is a book written nearly two thousand years ago, which means the words of various places (in the empire).

When Western linguistics was introduced in Chinese, "方言" was chosen to mean "dialect". While a dialect means a mutually understandable branch within a language, some perceives it is various speeches in China.

It is pretty tricky that while the Chinese writing is understandable across languages but the speakers of various languages are not mutually intelligible in daily life. The political issues on the unification and nationalistic climax of China causes widespread misinformation of 方言.

Nowadays linguistics agrees that they are Chinese language**s** and linguist groups them in a Chinese language family. Only those with no linguistics knowledge would still debate on the word 方言.


---

