Differences of Contemporary Regional Dialectal Speech in the Perspective of
Social Indices: One Language Problem
Daiva ALIUKAITE, Vytautė PASVENSKIENE
Kaunas Faculty of Humanities Vilnius University
Homo loquens and homo socialis are two traditional definitions of man. The idea of the
linguistic basis substantiating the reality is primarily related to the fundamental biblical thesis “In
the beginning there was the Word” [St. John 1:1]. The social dimension of man’s characterisation
was introduced by the Antique tradition (see Aristotle). Eventually the emphasis on these two
features and their thorough analysis brought to existence two independent disciplines, sociology and
linguistics. Nevertheless, this split between definitions and ascription of objects (language to
linguistics and social parameters to sociology) is not terminative. Neither man’s capability of
speaking and using of verbal means for world creation nor his social standing can be strictly
attributed to only one, linguistic or sociological, discourse. The humanities rally to the investigation
of various human aspects on the basis of both the parameters. This article is no exception either:
here insights of other sciences, in the first place those of philosophical discourse, are used as
implicit background of consideration. Observations of other anthropologically oriented sciences can
also be come across but these are mainly of the second order. The article aims at shedding the light
of actualised ideas of linguistic determinism upon the division of language and dialect, and linking
the two systems as two possibilities of world realisation with socio-structural quantities, the socalled social correlates (sex, age, education, social class, etc.).
As a matter of fact, socio-linguistic investigations allow blending of man’s social characteristics,
i.e. man’s capability of speaking and his social standing are interwoven. However, this study is not
based on the principles of social analysis. It deals with the socio-connotative differences between
the standard language and dialect on the ground of philosophical language determinism and
empirical investigation. Although this approach is not new, in the case of the dialectal variety of the
Lithuanian language which has distinct historical connotation the principle of socio-linguistic
tradition seems to be a quite novel solution. The motivation of this approach is proved by the
changing dialectal situation even in such a country with a long-lasting stable tradition of dialectal
differentiation as Lithuania.
A certain degree of linking regional ways of speaking based not only on the local criterion but also
on social correlates could serve as a model of investigation of a few parallel regional systems of
verbal communication. Research could be aimed at language and dialect, language and sociolect,
language and slang, standard language, computer discourse language, etc.
The theoretical presumption of this kind of insights and research pretensions is based on the
language determinism ideas. Each expression has links with different language worlds and reflects
mental movement. In this analysis dialect brings forth tradition, ethnicity and history. Investigation
of differences between the standard language and slang could open verbalisations of a more
sophisticated world with some special psycho-social pretensions (cf. group identity). On the other
hand, supported by social correlates, dialect also becomes an object of modern research even though
originating in the far past.
Language Determinism: Philosophical Division between Language and Dialect
While considering the problem of division between language and dialect, on the one hand it is
possible to assert that the essential differences of language are stipulated by the fact that every
speech strikes its roots in a different cultural tradition. In such a case language as if reflects ethnocultural experience (Kramsch 2000, 3), and dialect correlates with smaller cultural constructs. On
the other hand, however, there should be pointed out the basic explanatory role of language,
“Culture – language system” (Kavolis 1996, 255), in which case the creative power of language
capable of cultural tradition creation comes into focus, rather than taking roots in an already existent
tradition. In both cases absolute dependence is asserted. At the basis of this study lies the
presumption of post-structural discourse that language and language consciousness are the real
world, for what cannot be conceptualised or verbalised simply does not exist. Thus, language
determinism is alleged: language can create one kind of world and dialect another.
In regions with retained strong dialectal traditions there are traced clear tendencies of mixing the
two language systems in everyday communication which means that conceptual gaps in the
cognitive system of language are filled in with dialectal versions and vice versa. In this way the
borrowing system borrows fragments of world vision from the other one.
Before the “linguistic turn”, which is primarily related to new epistemological insights, i.e. New
Ages (Descartes), philosophy of consciousness of British empiricists, and the transcendental
philosophy of I. Kant, when interest was taken in ways how the world and its objects come to
cognition, of how the world is created, Biblical and Antique ideas are usually present in texts as an
implicit background of considerations. Antique thinkers were positive in conceiving that world
comprehension is manifested namely via language (Cf. Aristotle, Plato and others). However, they
did not raise the issue of relationship between semantic and grammatical structures of a particular
language and world comprehension. Thereby, gradually, the world was reduced to the word with a
decreasing hesitation in admitting the omnipotence of the word. Probably, the first author to
mention it was the initiator of modern linguistics Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) focussing
his attention on the ratio of linguistic structure and comprehension of the world. Von Humboldt
claims that pre-conceptual patterns are concealed in a given language thus conditioning the initial
articulation of the world1. Therefore, the language one speaks and reasons in imposes the vision of
the world. H. G. Gadamer formulated the constitutive function of language whose power
denominates the linguistic determinism, which in some form or another is escalated in the
humanities discourse (Gadamer 1989). To follow neo-humboldtist ideas: 1) language determines
man’s thinking and process of cognition on the whole, which means that man’s cultural and social
behaviour, attitude and aggregate word outlook are formed in his consciousness through language;
2) people speaking in different languages comprehend the world differently, create a different world
image and therefore, follow different norms of social life; 3) language determines a s well as limits
man’s cognitive power; 4) the peculiarities of different languages determine not only a different
contents of thinking bit a different logic of thinking as well. Such language paradigms proposed by
neo-humboldtists which maintain language as a key to reality and a power to draw thinking limits,
correlate with American ethno-linguistic ideas.
American experts in ethno-linguistics Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–
1941) assert that the language which people use in speech and in which they reason determines the
very vision of the world. Sapir claimed that people not only live in the world of things and of social
activity but they are also affected by the language as means of communication in their societies.
According to him, it would be wrong to consider that reality might be realized an accepted without
language (Zvegintsev 1960, 114). Different languages constitute different worlds, and,
consequently, distant languages not only express different ideas in the process of arrangement of the
1
This is the fundamental thesis of modern linguistics, claimed by von Humboldt in his work Über die Verschiedenheit
des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Bonn: Ferd.
Dümmlers Verlag, 1836.
same facts, but also accept different facts without any foundation. In fact, according to Paul
Feyerabend, the speakers using entirely different languages postulate different facts or arrange
similar facts in different ways (Feyerabend 1988, 227).
Every native language is a priori as it presents the speaker with experiential possibilities. For
instance, in the case of American, German, British English, Lithuanian, and other languages, the
typical subject+predicate structure is dominant. For the speaker of any Indo-European language
this pattern serves as a language-imposed formula of the understanding of the world. Moreover,
the ratio of transitive and intransitive verbs in Indo-European and Semitic languages also indicates a
particular differentiation. In Indo-European languages with more common transitive verbal
categories the focus is laid not on the very action but on the object of the action, thus for instance, in
itself the Jewish mentality is more directed to the action. Actually, users of different languages
possessing tense non-corresponding systems, differently segment the flow of time. One might look
for and successfully come upon many more examples the abundance of which empirically validates
the presuppositions of scholars.
Any second language (no matter which way it has been learnt) is a posteriori. People enter alien
linguistic worlds and overcome the prejudices and limitations of their former or primary world, but
it does not implicate that they reject their own world, in fact, it may be done solely on the basis of
one’s a priori language experiences. Speakers, like travellers, “come home” with new experiences.
Even in the case of emigration by never coming back, it is impossible to forget the language habits
of the past (Gadamer 1989, 476).
The statement that different languages structure different worlds may be accepted without
questioning, yet languages are often manifold. The language is a variable quantity not only due to
the fact that different languages exist, but also because the same language includes different
representative systems. The inner variation of a language provides an opportunity to utter the same
thing in several different ways. Language splits into dialects, sub-dialects and regionally into other
smaller entities. This raises the question whether dialects and sub-dialects also create different
worlds, structure specific process of thinking as well as other cognitive processes. In many cases a
dialect for a user of the given language is the primary “window to the world” (i.e. a priori), and, the
standard language, in its turn, is an a posteriori verbalization of the world. This problem is utmost
urgent in countries, Lithuania among them, where regional dialectal differentiation has a distinct
historical connotation. The same problem would have a different basis in, for example, American
context because there dialectal differentiation correlates mainly with social units. Nevertheless, in
both cases there can be formulated a question about the power of different world creation by such
communication systems.
It is, however, often difficult to distinguish whether two linguistic communities speak different
languages or use two different dialects of the same language (Shuy 1994, 349). Linguistics has not
generally resolved the issue of a “distinctive language” yet. Seeking to specify the category of a
“distinctive language” linguists face the language and dialect problem (Musorin 2001, 12). There is
no definite borderline separating relative languages and dialects, which is, in fact, just the matter of
tradition and agreement. Traditionally, dialects are considered to be dialects of a certain language
(Chambers 2003, 3), in other words, variants of a language2 subordinated to it (Chambers 2003, 2).
Following R. W. Shuy, dialect is “<...> a simple regular regional or social variant of a language”
(Shuy 1994, 534). “Differences of dialects are observed at all levels of a language; pronunciation,
grammar and meaning values of separate words differ” (Robins 1996, 51). One of the tests applied
by linguists to deal with the complicacy is the mutual intelligibility (Steinbergs 1997, 349). When
“Linguistic Encyclopaedia Dictionary” [19] (…) explains the language in two ways: 1) “language as a defined
corresponding system of signs”, 2) “language is some definite ethnic or “idioethnic” really existing system of signs,
which is used in a particular socium, at definite time, and in definite space” (…), and here the second meaning of the
concept language should be actualized. Also confer the dichotomy of langue and parole by F. de Saussure.
2
two dialects become mutually unintelligible, they turn out to be different languages (Fromkin &
Rodman 1988, 253).
Thus it is evident that traditional dialectology bases the concept of a dialect on differentiating
formal features of a language. However, this distinction is not homogeneous or ultimate. A
language can never be “a collection of mutually intelligible dialects” (Chambers 2003 3). Although
the speaking ability is immutable and permanent for the whole of mankind, natural languages alter
historically (Eco 2001, 44). According to the Lithuanian scholar Simas Karaliūnas, “<…> modern
standardized languages used to be dialects of a single language” (Karaliūnas 1997, 301). Dante
Alighieri in his work De Vulgari eloquentia (1304–1307) claimed that the folk speech (i.e. dialects)
was nobler since the mankind had learnt it first. To follow Eco, folk speech is natural (Eco 2001,
41–43), and the standard language is more or less affected by human decisions (e.g. codifications,
language policy and planning, etc.). This idea would have been useful to Von Humboldt, who, in
his theory, apart from claiming that every nation speaks the way it thinks and thinks the way it
speaks, focuses on, a certain absolute, the phenomenon of human spirit. Von Humboldt
distinguishes between an individual human spirit generally, and an individualized spirit of a nation.
According to him, language is the main sphere for the functioning of the individual human spirit:
“Language is as if an external expression of the spirit of a nation; the language of a nation is its
spirit, and its spirit is its language, and it is difficult to imagine another two objects, which coincide
more” (Humboldt 1960, 71).
The term dialect has acquired new features in the contemporary science of linguistics. The
traditional definition of a dialect stresses the variety of language with regard to geographical and
social aspects (sociolinguistics) or gender (gender linguistics), etc.
The dialect is defined differently by linguistics and social sciences, which have experienced the
“linguistic turn”, where it“ <…> has been started to consider that the language and various
linguistic socio-cultural forms transfer the social experience and structure the very socio-cultural
subject” (Rubavicius 2003, 9). The philosophical paradigm of the historical New Ages also
introduces models for language interpretation, among which alternatives to the concepts of the
dialect may be found as proposed by contemporary linguists. Representatives of these fields often
discuss territorial and social differences in relation to speech even without using the category of
dialect, and base social differences on dialectal differences, or, on the contrary, considering
different social classes (or some other social constructs) as the basis, explain the variability of
speeches in this relation.
At the turn of 20th–21st centuries the proposed term for the phenomenon is dialect rather than
dialectal speech since the latter is less strict or imperative, and does not introduce a clear
differentiation between people speaking one or another dialect, but just indicates difference of the
speaker’s utterance and may be based on several dialects. On the whole, the dialectal speech
denominates the features of a dialect at all language levels (phonetic, morphological, etc.).
In the discussion of dialectal differentiation, the aspect of assessment comes into focus. For
instance, in Japan, as stated by Fumio Inoue, “Dialects are often estimated as something despicable
and shameful, <…> when speaking, people tend to hide their dialectal habits” (Inoue 1993, 3).
Although such assessment cannot be completely correct, unfortunately, it is very popular. On the
other hand, some countries demonstrate contrary tendencies: dialects are broadly used in
Switzerland, which is obvious in social and religions discourse, e.g. in radio and TV casts,
churches, primary schools, etc. (Watts 2001, 301). Such attitude is based on the ideology of dialect,
according to which, dialects are used to implement the idea of Switzerland symbolising local
patriotism and political decentralization. It is evident that in such countries as Switzerland3, dialects
are closely integrated into culture and the system of ethnic values. Regrettably, no similar
ideological aspects in the field of dialect differentiation have developed in Lithuania yet, although
3
A similar situation is also noticed in Scandinavian countries.
there appear single remarks, claiming that “<…> one need not consider a dialect only as a different
pronunciation of nearly the same words, despite its extreme importance. One must possess a very
stubborn spirit to feel dialect sound prouder than the sounding of the standard language.
The standard language and the dialect make two different possibilities of world onthologisation:
reasoning and speech. Dialect cannot be defined as a style of language, but rather as a different
nature of language. The standard language always preserves traces of formality while the dialectal
speech always seems to be more informal and intimate. Each dialect has unique and most subtle
features of intonation and meaning, which are hard to grasp or describe, and to say more,
impossible to repeat or reproduce in any other dialect or speech. These subtleties create an original
and distinctive atmosphere, a unique attitude to the world (Girdenis 2000, 250).
The Social Aspect of Dialectal Speech Peculiarities
In the discussion of regional varieties of the language the social aspect denotes social characteristics
of dialects. Of course, the social criterion is not essential, but, on the other hand, especially at the
present moment, it denominates additional values of language exploration. An attempt to relate
dialects to social structures is motivated by the theory of the isomorphism of language and culture:
language is linked with society, and particular means of language can betray the social status of the
individual.
Each social role (social status) has a set of its linguistic means. Three main social characteristics of
a society, namely class, sex, and age, are the key determinants of social roles (Chambers & Trudgil
1998). The above-mentioned determinants are also important in the discussion of dialectal speech
habits. Although dialectal speech is primarily related to dwellers of rural settlements (the regional
factor), in a more detailed analysis the already mentioned social determinants are also important.
When exploring the speech of children originating from different social classes, the sociologist B.
Berstein (1967) arrived at the conclusion that the language of children originating from lower social
classes is less developed than that of the children whose families belong to a higher social stratum.
The scholar singled out two codes: the educated or elaborated, and the interrupted or restricted. In
fact, such socio-hierarchical classification is not welcomed by the author of article. Therefore, she
limits herself to a generalizing idea that habits of dialectal speech often correlate to a lower social
stratum. On the one hand, this statement is inspired by the collected empirical data 4, which usually
come from respondents belonging to the group of the low-educated (graduates from secondary
schools in the best case). Typically, their language demonstrates dialectal habits. On the other hand,
the data of the socio linguistic questionnaires (the respondents being enquired about what social
groups are related to dialectal speech) confirmed the same remarks.
Young people with dialectal speech habits are mainly influenced by their environment. Their
language characterises every speaker as a member of a particular social group, first and foremost
marked by the criterion of education. Moreover, in rural areas, where young people are defined as a
certain social group with dialectal speech habits, another abstraction appears, i.e. the dialects of the
youth. The dialects of the youth should be distinguished not only according to the criterion of
region. On the one hand, they are subordinated to the local dialect, yet, on the other, they
demonstrate additional features. The dialects of the youth include usual characteristics of the
traditional dialect, since they are based on the phonetic, lexical, syntactical and other differences. In
addition, they betray the features typical only of the youth. Besides the fact that the young people
belonging to a particular social stratum adopt the speech habits of their group, they also stress their
specificity, marked by obvious individuality. However, it is another object of research.
4
By using targeted methodology for the collection of material, the collected material (recordings of dialectal speech)
can lead to such conclusions. A socio-linguistic questionnaire (questions: how do you assess the dialect, what do you
relate it to, etc.), was schemed and the collected data validated the primary hypothesis that the habits of dialectal speech
depend not only on the criterion of place, but also on social determinants. The focus was laid on respondents of various
social layers, age, education, residing both in urban and rural areas.
Social class and education often correlate among themselves. Therefore the lower social class
demonstrates low education or in some cases the total absence of education. However, linguistic
experts stress that one of the main reasons of dialect integration and levelling is educational systems
and development of information systems. In fact, the opposite conclusion can be made that one of
the causes for the existence of dialects is social differentiation when certain social classes are
marked by negative indicators in the field of education and information technologies. Consequently,
it is not surprising that the segment of education defines every social structure from the point of
view of language. Dialects are cherished in lower strata, and representatives of those social groups
usually do not transgress the borders of their a priori language, i.e. dialect. Usually, the possibility
to transgress these limits correlates to a relevant social context, to the possibility to alter that
context, and maybe, in certain cases, to education, regular communication with representatives of
other strata, etc.
It should be noted that even at the absence of such educational characteristics two speech systems
can be mixed in everyday communication: conceptual gaps in standard language/dialectal speech
can be filled in with the lacking elements from dialect/standard language. As a matter of fact, this is
the way for a speaking community to add to its language world outlook and gain education in a
natural rather than institutionalised way.
As validated by the research data analysis dialectal speech occurred to be typical of both male and
female speakers. Only female speakers were apt to hide their dialect habits at the beginning of a
conversation. This inclination should be related to tendencies, which have been established in the
society: to speak the standard language means to speak in an elite, prestigious and educated way.
However, on the basis of exclusively gender criterion it is impossible to draw adequate conclusions.
The criterion of age is important as well. Women are more eager to choose prestigious forms of
language, whereas men, on the contrary, more inertly, accept the habits of speaking of their social
stratum. No similar difference has been noticed among adults, and thus, the conclusion might be
drawn that, gradually, the norms of the social stratum rise above all other norms. If the social
stratum is marked by a dialect speech, it becomes the only means of communication.
The article relates dialect variation in a language to the social context purposefully, since the
tendency that dialects are used only in lower social strata in rural regions is obvious. At least it can
be noted that more or less educated subjects attempt to use the variants of the language of a higher
status. The situation in urban areas is even less favourable to dialects, since, in most cases, the
habits of dialectal speech are tenacious only among certain social classes. On the other hand, it is
important to stress that the stereotype of allocating the language users to particular social strata on
the basis of a dialect has been established.
Thus it is evident that the analysis of social aspects of dialects could be successfully expanded by
using determinants of social roles, but then another question arises whether such linguistic division
would reveal different worlds to the users of a language/dialect, and which worlds, those of the
higher or lower social strata are richer, or they are just different?
The most important category for the assessment of dialectal speech according to the aspect of social
determination is the otherness. Researchers should hierarchise the ways of speaking, i.e. the
standard language or the dialect. Although at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st
centuries dialectal speech is not associated with the most attractive social indicators, it should be
admitted that the cognitive potential hidden in the inner structure of the dialect is special and
unique. The prestigious position would differentiate just a single aspect of a language and its
dialects. However, there are more important aspects apart from the mentioned stereotype. Reduced
endings, different systems of stress movement from syllable to syllable, or any other dialectal
peculiarity is even though a minute but a different window opened onto the world, a different
linguistic vision of the world. Here it is important to note that apart from the already mentioned
social correlates, dialectal speech is typical (although less frequently) of other social groups of
speakers. Intellectuals of the elder (and not only) generation and other language-conscious
individuals make efforts to preserve their native dialect in their private discourse as they adequately
value the very roots of their native language, their dialects. Therefore they do not ignore this
particular way of speaking or take it as a sign of a lower social stratum, low educational level, etc.,
but value dialects as their cultural heritage and expression of both their ethnic and onthological
identity. Such attitude correlates with their respect to the historical experience of the nation, to the
native land, national habits, etc.
The subjects taking part in a communication act differ according one or more parameters. In fact, a
communication act with participants of equal level in respect of sex, age, education, carrier, origin,
place of habitation, etc. is supposed to be a rather rare case. Consequently, the participants of a
communication act always try to adapt their speech to a certain social context.
Summing up the theoretical insights and empirical evidence the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1. Dialectal speech is linked not only with the criterion of location but also with social constructs –
educational, age, sex and social class criteria.
2. For the users of both standard language and dialect who are conscious of the difference between
the two systems, dialect is a natural means of expression characterised by closeness of relation,
emotionality, simplicity, privacy. The standard language is taken by these subjects as an unnatural,
artificially constructed expression. The homogeneity of their communication and double coding, i.e.
changing of speech, depends upon the social context. These subjects tend to use the standard
language with the representatives of the younger generation and do not avoid dialectal speech while
communicating with the older one. Such behaviour is evoked by social stereotypes which are deep
rooted in the society: the standard language is supposed to be a feature of the younger generation
(age criterion), and dialect belongs in the communication of the older.
Thus, on the basis of empirical analysis it can be alleged that dialect and language are two distinct
ways of speech which are followed by social correlates. Besides, as can be judged by the
respondents’ answers, dialect and language (especially in countries with historical dialectal
connotation) tend to be comprehended as two different speech systems.
The relation of the dialectal speech to socio-structural units takes place only at the level of
considerations, but such socio-linguistic solution inspired by the theory of the isomorphism of the
language and the society is also possible.
Bibliography:
Chambers, J. K. (2003) Sociolinguistics Theory. Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance.
Second Edition. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, a Blackewell Publishing Company.
Chambers, J. K.; Trudgill, P. (1998) Dialectology. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Eco, U. (2001) Tobulos kalbos paieškos Europos kultūroje. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Gadamer, H. G. (1989). Truth and method. New York: Continuum.
Girdenis, A. (2000) Kalbotyros darbai, T. II, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutes.
Inoue, F. (1993) The Significance of New Dialects. In Journal of the International Society for
Dialectology and Geolinguistics, DiG 1, p. 3–27.
Feyerabend, P. (1988) Against method. London: Verso.
Fromkin, V.; Rodman, R. (1988) Language in Society. In Dialects. Fromkin, V.; Rodman, R.
(1988) An Introduction to Language, Los Angeles: The Dryden Press, p. 251–258.
Karaliūnas, S. (1997) Kalba ir visuomenė. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.
Kavolis, V. (1996) Kultūros dirbtuvė. Vilnius, 1996.
Kramsch, Cl. (2000)Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robins, R. H. (1996) Dialect, idiolect, style. General Lingvistics. London and New York: Longman.
Romaine, S. (2000) Language in Society. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Second Edition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rubavičius [Rubavicius], V. (2003) Postmodernusis diskursas: filosofinė hermeneutika,
dekonstrukcija, menas. Vilnius: Kultūros, filosofijos ir meno institutas.
Shuy, R. W. (1994) Dialects: How They Differ. In Language, Edited by V. P. Clark, P. A.
Eschholz, A. F. Rosa. New York: St. Martin’s Press, p. 534–537.
Steinbergs, A. (1997) The Classification of Languages. Contemporary Linguistics. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Watts R. J. (2001) Discourse theory and language planning: A critical reading of language planning
reports in Switzerland. In Sociolinguistics and social theory. Edited by Nicolas Coupland, Srikant
Sarangi and Christopher N. Candlin. London: Printed in Malaysia, VVP, p. 297–320.
Zinkevičius [Zinkevicius], Z. (1994) Lietuvių kalbos dialektologija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir
enciklopedijų leidykla.
Звегинцев [Zvegintsev], В. А. (1960) Теоретико-лингвистические предпосылки гипотезы
Сепира – Уорфa. In Новое в лингвистике. Москва, 1960, Вып. 1. c. 114.
Гумбольдт [Humboldt], В. О. (1960) О развитии строения челoвеческих языков и его влиянии
на духовное развитие человеческого рода. In Звегинцев [Zvegintsev], В. А. (1960) История
языкознания XIX и XX веков в очерках и извлечениях, ч. 2, Москва: Просвещение, c.68–71.
Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. ( 1960) Москва: Советская энциклопедия.
Мусорин [Musorin], А. Ю. (2001) Что такое отдельный язык? In Сибирский лингвистический
семинар. Новосибирск, 2001, No 1, c. 12–16.