Editing Dialect (section)

==Colloquial meaning of dialect==
The colloquial meaning of dialect can be understood by example, e.g. in [[Italy]]<ref name="auto3">«The often used term "Italian dialects" may create the false impression that the dialects are varieties of the standard Italian language.» Martin Maiden, M. Mair Parry (1997), The Dialects of Italy, Psychology Press, p. 2.</ref> (see ''[[:it:Dialetto|dialetto]]''<ref name="battaglia">«Parlata propria di un ambiente geografico e culturale ristretto (come la regione, la provincia, la città o anche il paese): contrapposta a un sistema linguistico affine per origine e sviluppo, ma che, per diverse ragioni (politiche, letterarie, geografiche, ecc.), si è imposto come lingua letteraria e ufficiale». Battaglia, Salvatore (1961). ''Grande dizionario della lingua italiana'', UTET, Torino, V. IV, pp. 321–322.</ref>), [[France]] (see ''[[:fr:patois|patois]]'') and the [[Philippines]],<ref name="auto">{{cite book |author=Peter G. Gowing, William Henry Scott |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zfjZAAAAMAAJ |title=Acculturation in the Philippines: Essays on Changing Societies. A Selection of Papers Presented at the Baguio Religious Acculturation Conferences from 1958 to 1968 |publisher=New Day Publishers |year=1971 |page=157}}</ref><ref name="maiden">{{cite book |last1=Maiden |first1=Martin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9Dz_LyQF_eAC&q=dialects+of+italy |title=The Dialects of Italy |last2=Parry |first2=Mair |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=9781134834365 |page=2}}</ref> carries a [[pejorative]] undertone and underlines the politically and [[Social stratification|socially subordinated]] status of a non-national language to the country's single official language. In other words, these "dialects" are not actual dialects in the same sense as in the first usage, as they do not derive from the politically dominant language and are therefore not one of its [[variety (linguistics)|varieties]], but instead they evolved in a separate and parallel way and may thus better fit various parties' criteria for a separate language.

Despite this, these "dialects" may often be historically [[cognate]] and share [[Genetic relationship (linguistics)|genetic roots]] in the same [[Language family|subfamily]] as the dominant national language and may even, to a varying degree, share some [[mutual intelligibility]] with the latter. In this sense, unlike in the first usage, the national language would not itself be considered a "dialect", as it is the dominant language in a particular state, be it in terms of [[Prestige (sociolinguistics)|linguistic prestige]], social or political (e.g. [[official language|official]]) status, predominance or prevalence, or all of the above. The term "dialect" used this way implies a political connotation, being mostly used to refer to low-prestige languages (regardless of their actual degree of distance from the national language), languages lacking institutional support, or those perceived as "unsuitable for writing".<ref name="auto8">{{cite book |author=Defenders of the Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C3oLAQAAMAAJ |title=Filipino is Not Our Language: Learn why it is Not and Find Out what it is |year=2007 |page=26}}</ref> The designation "dialect" is also used popularly to refer to the unwritten or non-codified languages of developing countries or isolated areas,<ref name="auto4"/><ref name="auto5"/> where the term "[[vernacular|vernacular language]]" would be preferred by linguists.<ref>{{cite journal |page=927 |title=Dialect, Language, Nation |first=Einar | last=Haugen |journal=American Anthropologist |series=''American Anthropologist'' New Series, Vol. 68, No. 4 |year=1966 |volume=68 |issue=4 |doi=10.1525/aa.1966.68.4.02a00040 |language=en |jstor= 670407|doi-access=free }}</ref>