Jump to content

Talk:Standard Swedish: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ruhrjung (talk | contribs)
5,462 edits
→Mediation: Comments that are answers to Inter
 
(41 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
I can't see that the new introduction has made the definition much clearer. It omits a lot of information (the status of the Finland-Swedish standard language, the definitions that correspond with how NE and linguists define the "rikssvenska" and "högsvenska") and seems to be very focused on primarily defining the difference between the Standard Swedish in Sweden and Finland rather than treating all variations equally. The new definition also blurs the very distinct difference that Swedish linguists make between "dialect" and "regional variation" by using terms like "[[prestige dialect]]s" and contrasting it to "more genuine Swedish dialects".
{{WikiProject Languages|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=mid}}
}}
{{Archives}}


== External links modified ==
It also contains this rather dubiously worded passage:


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:"'''''Högsvenska''''' would similarly be translated to '''Standard Finland-Swedish''', that however is a controversial term with not only positive connotations as it is often perceived to reflect the arrogance of some influential Swedish speakers in Finland's bi-lingual capital who expected the dwellers of purely Swedophone smalltowns and villages to give up their ancient dialects and follow the example of the capital for better and for worse. In present-day usage, the term ''dialektfri (finlands-)svenska'' or ''standardsvenska'' would rather be used in a non-pejorative context."


I have just modified 2 external links on [[Standard Swedish]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/817788065|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Can you confirm any of these notions of how "högsvenska" is perceived by [[Finland-Swedish]] speakers?
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426204021/http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=500469 to http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=500469
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050409084005/http://www.kotus.fi/inenglish/ to http://www.kotus.fi/inenglish/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Despite several requests for citations for the definition of the concept of Standard Swedish insisted on by Tuomas, I still haven't seen any factual support for it. Could you somehow confirm that you're not simply basing these definitions on your own subjective perceptions on the matter? Can you also explain why you're rejecting the claims of the sources which I based the first definition on? [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 14:20, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}
:A week ago, or something like that, I provided you with plenty of examples and your response was TOTAL ignorance. You must understand that this is an effective way to make someone pissed! You can '''easily''' convince yourself on many points just by googling a few minutes, and beside that I thing you would gain from attaching SOME confidence to someone who actually did study Swedish as the second domestic language for a couple of years, i.e. to me. Try to remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative venture! /[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 14:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
::I can't recall any discussions about the definitions of what "rikssvenska" and "högsvenska" mean nor any proper citations on the matter. Please correct me if I'm wrong and direct me to the above mentioned citations. Or better yet; you could post them here. I'm also sure googling is indeed a good idea, though the onus of supporting your own claims in this matter must be considered your's rather than mine.

:::Don't play that hypocratic game! I didn't write "proper citations on the matter of rikssvenska", did I? You know perfectly well what I mean, but continue to treat me as shit. And you treat the Finland-Swedes as shit. And as shit you treat the entire generations of Finns who have studied '''''your''''' mother tongue. No-one is expecting you to be grateful, but just don't act as if a nation of five millions don't exist, and in particular: don't try to make Wikipedia pretend that. Do better, or you'll sooner rather than later have lost also the little that's left of your credibility and the respect some people may have left for you. /[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 03:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

::::Tuomas, please refrain from making [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. I am making an honest attempt to discuss the matter at hand here, and I don't feel your accusations are either fair or relevant. I have in no way tried to belittle the plight of Finland-Swedish speakers and I don't wish to either. I have tried my best to make the article factual and neutral and I have certainly not failed to mention the Finland-Swedes in my contributions.

::::I really don't know what discussions you're refering to, though, since I can only recall a rather confused discussion about Swedish phonology before this came up. We have not had a proper discussion of the situation of Finland-Swedish speakers, but I'm giving you an opportunity to explain what you mean and for you to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite sources]] as I have already done. I'm welcoming your views on the matter, but I'm asking that you do it in a [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]] and [[NPOV|neutral]] manner. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 09:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

::And I see no merit in comparing our respective command of the Swedish language, since that is not the issue here. The matter at hand is the definition of Standard Swedish and how the terms "högsvenska" and "rikssvenska" relate to it, so let's stick to what's relevant and not wander off into debates about our respective language skills.

::While I agree that Wikipedia is indeed a cooperative venture, the concepts of NPOV and the authority of reliable sources must be respected, and I'm sure you can agree on me on that. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 14:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

:::Thank you for contributing, Ruhrjung. I tried improving the introduction by shortening it somewhat and attempting to make it less vague. At least that's how I perceived it. Please comment if you find something unclear or if i omitted some vital fact.

:::Tuomas, I carefully read the statements about how rural Finland-Swedes are perceived by the more urban Swedish-speaking community and I think your comments have some merit. I think they could be worder much better by adhering to a more strict NPOV, though. Don't see it as blatant criticism that I removed them, just the fact that I found them to be a bit too subjectively worded, but that I couldn't see exactly how to improve them because of my limited knowledge of the subject. Is there any chance that you could show any soruces for it? I'm sure there must be plenty of material written on the situation of the Swedish-speakers in Finland and how they perceive each other. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 20:59, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

== Words of advice to young Peter ==

Your contributions of the recent month here, Peter, call for dozens of comments. Just the sheer number of issues is one of the chief problems, but also the fact that you and your behaviour raises issues of many different kinds, both fundamental factual issues, and details, and also questions of what Wikipedia is and can be. It's hard to know what to use as an entry into this …quagmire in order to arrive at some clarity, but let me try.

I am the first to deplore that '''social''' relations between Wikipedians are important, but so they are. The evolvement of Wikipedia articles is driven by the readership's dissatisfaction with an article's current state. Some changes pass seemingly unnoticed, and other changes get amended or reverted pretty soon. Several factors do of course contribute to whether a change gets noticed or not. However, when the situation occurs that two or more contributors advocate wordings that the other party considers dissatisfactory, then a certain amount of Social Skill is necessary for your survival in this environment.

I would personally have preferred a system where changes were pending for, say, a week (at least if resulting in articles beyond, say, 200 characters), during which period it could be registered if notable opposition/dissatisfaction with the proposal was presented, in which case the proposed change would have to be reworked and presented anew. That would, in my hope, have resulted in a focus on the text instead of on the social shortcomings of some Wikipedians whose contributions and knowledge could have been of great value for Wikipedia. But this is not how things work right now.

So your behaviour, Peter, and not only your pure arguments, are crucial for you achieving anything of value here around. Not only does it matter that you've disappointed Tuomas, who has a far longer record here than you have, but you make people attach negative associations to your persona, which is a considerable handicap since in the end, Wikipedia is not about winning disputes against opponents, Wikipedia is about '''convincing''' a somewhat greater mass of interested and concerned of whom only the fewest will have energy to follow your reasoning into the details. Deplorably, your apparent credibility and your skill in basic rhetorics are factors beside the substance of your arguments that influence your ability to convince.

It's also important to remember to '''include''' the polarities in a wording designed to appear acceptable to the greatest possible readership. Your insistence on purifying the text of what you seemingly consider irrelevant, as for instance points of view that might be more typical in Finland, in Southern Sweden, among foreign students, or among immigrants, does not only taint your persona, it also makes it less likely that the energy you've put into these articles will give any lasting impression on them.

If a popular conception conflicts radically with established scholarly views, then it's a far more efficient method to mention both – the less judgemental the better, don't underestimate the intelligence of the reader!

March 13-18, Tuomas made some pretty thorough presentations <s>here at the talk page</s> at [[Talk:Swedish phonology]] as responses to your requests. It's true that you can say that he didn't give you '''exactly''' what you had craved for, but this he also stated clearly together with his explanation. It's easy to arrive at the interpretation that you had lost the interest almost before you'd made the requests. In any case, it seems as if you did not take his effort seriously. Actually, it's easy to get the impression that you ignored him and his work. Maybe you have reasons to do so, but it is hard to know for us outsiders; but in any case, people don't like the feeling of being dismissed after exertions, and without approving Tuomas' ''behaviour,'' his reactions probably appears quite natural and easy to understand for on-lookers. Particularly after your recent treatment of my edits, it's easy for me to identify with him, and on issues where I'm only vaguely knowledgeable, as for instance with regard to ''"högsvenska",'' I would without any doubt tend to assign much more credibility to Tuomas' proposals than to your.

Do I need to be more specific? I'm afraid so.

Above you write:
:''Thank you for contributing, Ruhrjung. I tried improving the introduction by shortening it somewhat and attempting to make it less vague. At least that's how I perceived it. Please comment if you find something unclear or if i omitted some vital fact.''
Do you believe in your own words?

You had in the article changed:
:'''''Standard Swedish''' denotes [[Swedish language|Swedish]] as a [[standard language|standardized language]], i.e. how it is taught to students of Swedish. [ … ] ''Standard Swedish'' is primarily a written language, and standardization by (semi-) official authorities regards the written language. Contrary to the situation in for instance [[UK|Britain]] and [[Germany]], prestigeous spoken language, as it appears in nationwide radio and television networks, is rather to be categorized to either of a few distinct [[prestige dialect]]s; a situation that may be a minor nuisance for non-native speakers. [ … ] While the written language is highly standardized, the situation with regard to [[Swedish pronunciation]] is more complicated. Standard Swedish has a number of regionally bounded [[variety (linguistics)|varieties]] that may be perceived as the most prestigeous [[dialect]] within each their region. In Sweden, these [[prestige dialect]]s are typically denoted as ''Standard Swedish'' ("[[rikssvenska]]") contrasted against the more genuine [[Swedish dialects]].
into:
:'''''Standard Swedish''' denotes [[Swedish language|Swedish]] as a spoken and written [[standard language]] in [[Sweden]] and [[Finland]]. [ … ] The mindset of most speakers of Swedish is that Standard Swedish is primarily a written standard language. [ … ] the various regional variants are often refered to as "dialects".''

From focusing on the '''limited''' standardization of Swedish compared with certain other more standardized language, and where the difference between a '''standardized written''' Swedish and '''non'''-standardized '''spoken language''' is stressed, you propose a text that '''equals''' the degree of standardization of written and spoken language, although it admits that most speakers disagree. Your version also re-defines ''Finlandssvenskt standardspråk'' och ''Sydsvenskt riksspråk'' '''from''' standard language '''to''' dialect.

It may well be so that you are factually correct and I am factually wrong on these specific points, but by describing your edit as ''"attempting to make it less vague"'' when in fact you change the meaning into its opposite on at least two points, you appear to me as either mocking or just generally dishonest. None of which is serving to increase my confidence for you and your contributions, nor does it contribute to a cooperative mood among involved contributors.

Besides, I question the usefulness of a separate article for "Standard Swedish". In my opinion, the article on the [[Swedish language]] ought to have Standard Swedish as its scope.

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 10:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
<br><small>[ this comment was written before I'd seen Peter's comment of 09:40 above ]</small>

:Considering the confusion we're experiencing while editing this article, I think a separate article is quite merited. There's still plenty more to add to this, I might add. Like, for example, making a list of the main regional variations.

:But I don't really know how else to edit than to present my proposal and then politely ask for a dialogue. To the best of my knowledge, the degree of standardization in your examples (British English and French), is about as varied as Swedish, though the official policy might say otherwise. I made the changes because I felt it ''did'' clarify (mostly on the grounds of the sources I've cited), and that's why I'm trying my best to encourage you to reinsert anything that has been omitted.

:Please take my words at face value and take my invitation for dialogue seriously. This is not an attempt to simply nit-pick or provoke an edit war and cartainly not an attempt to express chauvinism. I certainly assume good faith on your part, and I'm sure you can return that favor. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 11:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

::You can maybe do at least two things:
::# Try not to change too many things at the same time, particularly not if they attract opposition (or can be expected to do so). If you have raised a question, and leave it for shorter or longer time, explain that you do so and explain why.
::# Take the efforts by others seriously, pay attention to what may have taken hours or maybe full work days to write, and do your best to try to understand what and why other contributors aim at. Assume that others are at least as intelligent as you are (also if they a few times have proven the opposite, they may have had a bad day), although with other background knowledge.
::...and of course, assume good faith until you have strong reasons not to. In my opinion, LRC, Ish, Steve, Johan, and Tuomas all have demonstrated more commitment to valuable studies than I have; and none of them deserve to be ignored.
::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

;Note
The title of [[William S. Burroughs]]'s poeme is:
:''Words of advice <u>for</u> young people.''
/[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]]

== [[Standard language]]s or [[prestige dialect]]s ==

To move towards the tangible, we could consider the situation with the concepts:

* ''Uppsvenskt riksspråk,'' in English maybe ''Central Swedish standard language''
* ''Sydsvenskt riksspråk,'' in English maybe ''South Swedish standard language''
* ''Finlandssvenskt standardspråk,'' in English maybe ''Finland Swedish standard language''

One may characterize them as [[prestige dialect]]s, but from comments and edits it seems as if there are some opposition against such a characterization. Peter writes:
:''The new definition also blurs the very distinct difference that Swedish linguists make between "dialect" and "regional variation" by using terms like "prestige dialects" and contrasting it to "more genuine Swedish dialects".''

One may characterize them as [[standard language]]s, but as far as I understand they are ''very'' similar in their written forms, why it seems a bit farfetched to call them ''different'' standard languages, and there is no institution or body that standardize them as spoken languages, which makes me less than enthusiastic for such a categorization. Nevertheless, I am aware that some Swedes (including some writers on linguistics) would use that terminology.

I believed that ''prestige dialects'' was a ''more'' scholarly term and that the contemporary ''correct'' usage of [[dialect]] is similar to a geographically bounded [[variety (linguistics)]], while the usage of the term ''dialect'' for exclusively low-status varieties is un-scholarly.

To me this seems as we in the English Wikipedia ought to prefer the term ''prestige dialect'' rather than ''"spoken regional standard language"''.

Try to convince me otherwise!

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

== Mediation ==

I've read through most of the [[Talk:Swedish phonology]] and [[Talk:Standard Swedish]] but I am not entirely sure why you guys are arguing. Like the unsigned complaint at the end of one of the talk pages also suggest, there are more onlookers who appear to be a little confused, me included. So we're gonna find out what the crux of the matter is. Let's disregard the article contents for a bit and focus on the people involved. I'd like the guys who are arguing to post here, stating their opinions about the other people in this dispute. It's gonna be civil and free of any personal attacks.

I'd like to know:

# Whether it is possible to work together at all.
# What it's gonna take for everyone to respect everyone else.

When we have worked out our opinions and come to an agreement between ourselves if we can work together collectively, then we start to focus on the article content.

I'd like:

# People to explain their stance and eventual problems with the articles ''as they are right now''.
# People to not edit the articles before they have come to some sort of compromise about ''what exactly'' they want them to say.

There seems to me to be large possibilities for a compromise here. Make me understand what the actual problem is. How to do that? Discuss in a friendly manner about your problems first with eachother, then about the content. If there are no problems between you, just content disputes, then we will simply move on to that at once.

So, I'd like your input and suggestions about what we can do about this situation. No suggestion is stupid or insignificant. I'd like to know! [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 19:13, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:Here are my views on what the facts are:

:*Swedish has only ''one'' spoken and written standard language, '''Standard Swedish''' (''rikssvenska'' in Sweden, ''högsvenska'' in Finland). The written language is more or less 100% uniform. The spoken standard language is orginally based on dialects in Central Sweden that have been "exported" to various regions and have been "regionalized" through the influence of dialects. These in turn are called '''regional variations''' (''regionala varianter'').
:*'''Dialects''' of Swedish are not the same as regional variations of Standard Swedish, but rather linguistically separate entities that have a history that can be traced back to Old Norse.
:*Most people are unaware of the linguistic terminology and refer to the regional variations as "dialects". I have nothing against mentioning this in this article and that's why I started it, but I think the ''linguistic terminology'' should be used throughout the article and preferably in other articles about Swedish because it seems to me as the most NPOV and the least confusing.
:*The term '''prestige dialect''' is not ideal to use in this context because "standard language" is in almost all cases by definition a prestige dialect, and the same is true here. Using the term would imply that there in fact are other standard languages based on other dialects.
:*The term '''standard language''' does not in itself hold a POV. That standard languages exist is undisputed and that they are the offspring of some dialects that have been seen as more prestigeous than other is not saying that low-prestige dialects are worthless. It simply reflects a social hierarchy of which language is only a conduit. Linguistics is about analyzing language, not making judgements on its underlying motives.

:There are some slight disagreements about [[Swedish phonology]] too, but I think most of it has to do with this issue, and I think we should start by sorting this dispute out. There are still things that need to be sorted out about the finer points of Swedish phonology, but that can be dealt with later. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 20:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
:: So the crux of the problem here, in your opinion, is that the article should analyze the language and distinguish between regional variations and dialects? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 00:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, precisely that. There should be a general summary of differences between the variations, but since these almost exclusively phonological, the more complex differences should be noted in [[Swedish phonology]]. I also feel that just like [[högsvenska]], [[rikssvenska]] should be a redirect here, not a disambiguation that describes about the same things as this page does. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 11:07, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
:::: Like I have suggested below, what about having different sections for the two countries, then a ''Main article'' reference in the phonology section which refers the standard stuff you describe, but will reference the main article for more information. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 11:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good to me. What Ruhrjung is pointing out about Standard Swedish in Finland below is very relevant information to the article and not an isolated case, and I'm glad he brought it up. Language minorities often have a tendency to go a lot farther in standardizing their language because of real or perceived threats of being ousted by the majority language. Since Swedish in Sweden isn't threatened by a bigger language it is easier to allow a plurality within the standard language, even if this is still limited to relatively small phonetic variations and very minor variations in syntax and vocabulary; it's safe to say that any native Swedish speaker can understand any other Swede unless one of them is speaking a ''genuine dialect''. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 12:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

As a student of Swedish, and an inhabitant of Sweden during four years, my view is that the ''English'' Wikipedia article on the Swedish language must be primarily aimed at a non-Swedish readership (including the [[ethnic Finns]] of [[Finland]] who have studied [[mandatory Swedish]] and &mdash; until this year &mdash; been required to pass a rather qualified Swedish exam to get high-school diploma and enter university). Hence a view on Swedish ''compared'' to relevant neighbouring languages (as Danish, Norwegian, English, French, German - and Finnish) that all have either influenced or been influenced by Swedish, or both, is my mental starting point. Hence I also think that Wikipedia pragmatically can serve an ''important'' function as an amendment to text books on Swedish (and teachers in Swedish) by ''stressing'' a few aspects of Swedish that often arrive as nasty surprices once you've accustomed yourself to the language for some years already, although it maybe was parenthetically mentioned somewhere in the lower level textbooks.
: We generally don't like the word ''stressing'' unless it has a neutral meaning, which I suspect is what you have in mind, but would you mind to elaborate a little on that? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 09:41, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I interpret this ''"stressing"'' as ''mention prominently'' where it may be relevant, which may result in some repetitions. If so, I agree. This is an important feature of spoken Swedish that better is to be compared with differences between Australian, British, and American English than with [[patois]]. /[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 10:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::[[Talk:Swedish phonology#Proposal for improved intro]] is in line with my understanding of ''stressing.'' --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, I agree with some of the other contributors, that the ''lacking'' standardization of spoken Swedish, as it appears in radio/tv/film (the, in my opinion, ''large'' differences between prosody, diphtongs, /r/- and /sje/-sounds), belong to the most important aspects that have to be covered by these articles. And I do not at all agree that this is a field of issues that should or could be removed as [[Wikipedia:original research]]. It's rather than original research an issue of ''contextual'' translation, where the aspects that appear self-evident for (many) native Swedish speakers must be expressed explicitely when writing for a non-Swedish readership. It may, however, require a certain amount of linguistic knowledge to reach the standard we wish for Wikipedia articles. <small>(In fact, I guess that such removals wouldn't survive for many months, given Wikipedia's current popularity, since this is aspects that many non-Swedes are intrigued by. So, in other words, it's important to get a version that is so good that scholarly unqualified simple students of Swedish like myself do no longer feel the urge to contribute with our individual understandings, misinterpretations and confusions.)</small>

: How do you propose something like that can be achieved? Post your suggestions and let's see if the others like them. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 09:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:: Now I'm not quite sure what you ask about, but if you ask about how to execute a "contextual translation", then it suffice to take care and avoid giving the impression that the spoken language is more standardized than it in fact is. I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swedish_language&diff=10285491&oldid=10196644 a proposal] in February, that I however have done nothing to follow up on - partly due to my feeling of being unsufficiently knowledgeable, partly due to lack of time/insentives:
:::''What about three columns for pronounciation in the tables, one for high-status Götalandsmål, one for "equalized" [[Finland-Swedish]] (that according to my perception phonetically would cover also the high-status Norrland-variety rather well), and one for high-status Svealand pronounciation?''
::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to historical standardization of spoken Swedish, this is not really an area where I'm particularly competent, but I think its both relevant and interesting to note that the Finland-Swedes were much more aiming at a unified spoken high-language than were the Sweden-Swedes. In my opinion, it's not so much a matter of national pride than of factual correctness to mention Finland-Swedish standardization in an article on Standard Swedish, and to sum it up, I am generally a bit troubled by a fear that these articles, like certain textbooks, would take a Stockholm-Uppsala centered stance that in my opinion is an oversimplification and disservice towards the reader when Sweden's second and third largest metropolitan areas and the Swedish spoken in [[Mainland Finland]] are granted secondary or tertiary importance. In other words: I think these articles ought to cover Swedish primarily as it appears in more formal [[register (linguistics)|register]]s. Town dialects, rural dialects, etc, might be of some interest, but in articles of their own.

: We really don't want to fork an article into too many sub articles. What about including sections for the different places, such as Sweden in one section and Finland in another? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 09:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I am not really understanding what would be won by emphasizing the differences between ''rikssvenska'' and ''finlandssvenska'' since 1/ I understand it as that rift is diminishing, partly due to the common legal language that's a consequence of the EU membership, partly due to active efforts in Finland to counteract a process of division; and 2/ I ''perceive'' the differences within finlandssvenska and rikssvenska to be much greater than the differences inbetween.
::I think the forking at [[Swedish language#Dialects]] is of the right magnitude. The rural and urban dialects may have some kind of curiousity value, but in my opinion, they ought to be mentioned only parenthetically and/or to illustrate aspects of the hight-status varieties that stand in some relevant and interesting relation to the corresponding dialects of lower register.

::By the way, I forgot to express my admiration for your effort here, Inter!
::--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The article [[Swedish phonology]] differs from what I've learned on several points, and in most cases I think Tuomas' (and others') proposals seem sound.

--[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 09:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no new developments for 2 days, and that [[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] seems uninterested (I left a note on his talk page about this), I am open for suggestions on what you guys think you should do. There are 2 people who have discussed the situation so far. If we leave out the people who maybe has little interest, maybe you two can work out how the articles should look? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 07:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not uninterested. But now and then there are other more fun things to do in life.

I am not a Linguist, rather I'm a user of linguistics, and I do not hold myself to be a good judge on what linguist schoolars fancy this season (or decade). But I did an attempt some weeks ago to read up on the subject, including works relied on by Isotalo (as ''Engstrand (2004)'' and the Swedish National Encyclopedia). And my comments on relevant talk pages were intended to meet Isotalo's repeated requests for schoolarly backing up of statements. My disappointing experience was that there were no responses. Virtually none at all. Not from anyone!

With the exceptions for the ''existence'' of Isotalo's sound files, I was about to write that I saw no forward progress of these pages after the discussion on [[Talk:Swedish language#Rinkebysvenska]], where Isotalo's arguments had some merits, but in fact I do hold the current state of Swedish language[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Swedish_language&diff=11539177&oldid=10692807] to be a slight improvement, that I guess is rather an effect of ''reactions'' on Isotalo than of his actual additions. The [[Swedish phonology]] article, on the other hand, would gain from being reverted to its status before the split off. After that, improvements according to proposals put forward on the talk page could be done. I do not know if it's right to interpret the silence several proposals have been met with (a trend striking all serious contributors, I would say) as lack of enthusiasm, lack of opposition, lack of support, or as anything else.

I think it seems fairly obvious that Isotalo is by far the boldest of the involved editors. Other might have proposed the split offs at the talk page instead. I am not sure whether I believe this boldness and its results to be good or bad, but several separate sub-pages clearly increases the probability of incoherence between the different articles, and Isotalo's style does in no way improve the cooperative climate here.

: Forking articles may not always be desirable, but in some cases neccessary for various reasons. In this case I am unsure about whether or not this was a good idea, but seeing as we now have 2 articles, we should make the best of it. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With regards to "facts" and established views, whether scholarly or not, I'm not impressed by Isotalo. There is a chance he just don't get it, but as things looks right now, I'm not the one to explain to him. I do so far only exceptionally agree with anything he's expressed in connection with Westeuropean languages, on the NPOV concept, on what constitutes a ''personal attack,'' etc., etc. However, there is also a chance that he is just deliberatly playing games with Wikipedia. ''Trolling, flamebaiting,'' call it what you want. His addition of a significantly un-Finland-Swedish language file to illustrate the pronunciation of ''[[Helsingfors]]'' (i.e. the pronunciation in Stockholm, not in Helsingfors) hints rather in direction of the second alternative, but I'm not sure this example harms Wikipedia &mdash; it might as well, sooner or later, make some Helsinki-Swede aware of the need for a better recording. :-)

: Actually I can come up with an example of this very problem. I sometimes look upon as anon editors ''americanify'' an otherwise
: ''english'' article by switching i.e ''spesialisation'' to ''spesialization''. Is this good or bad? There is a discussion going. :But I havent checked up on what they have found, so I cant say. The point is that it seems to me this is somewhat the same problem :albeit in a lesser degree. What about some suggestions for how it should be done by all sides here? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* I think most (or all) of the propositions I've made here (on these articles and talk pages) are more merited than those made by Isotalo. Specifically, I think for instance that my proposal to use the IPA-symbol {{IPA|/&nbsp;&#643;&nbsp;/}} on a phonemical level to indicate what the Swedes call the /sje/-sound to be worth considering. Its use would connect to the phoneme's relations to other Germanic languages. The different realizations, including {{IPA|[&nbsp;&#615;&nbsp;]}}, must reflect later developments.

: Someone else chip in here if you wish and discuss this proposition. [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: As I read the talk page (I've not done any book reading in this field recently, myself), I think it's demonstrated that the {{IPA|[&nbsp;&#615;&nbsp;]}} is not that populat or wellknown or unambiguos that its use in this ''international'' context would be motivated. So far I right now can remember, I've seen {{IPA|/&nbsp;&#643;&nbsp;/}} in text books on Swedish and my German-Swedish lexicon uses the same symbol. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

* Isotalo seems to believe that the definition of ''[[standard language]]'' is uncontroversial and carved in stone. Calvert (1986), ''Descriptive Phonetics,'' lists possible criteria for standard pronunciation:
** What most people say
** What educated/prestigeous people say
** What media says
** What dictioinaries say
** How words are spelled
** How words originally were pronunced
** Intelligibility
** Beauty

* Isotalo further fancies a definition of ''[[dialect]]'' that is quite the contrary to what I've been used to. For me, a dialect is any [[variety]] that can be geographically defined; and every dialect is more or less influenced from the outside of its boundaries (influence from written languages are typically to characterize as ''influence from the outside)''. Dialects are always in the process of change, and this process is chiefly determined by factors related to [[social prestige]]. The information most relevant to convey to Wikipedia's readers is not whether Finland-Swedish or Götaland-Swedish are "dialects", but that the speakers in these areas have other standards for how to speak when speaking standard language (in the meaning more intelligible or more prestigeous). [[Rosengård]]ssvenska following some patterns of Central Swedish phonology is a typical example of how speech patterns that are considered high-prestigeous in one Swedish-speaking area may be shunned by socially upward mobile people in other Swedish-speaking areas.

: But Wikipedia needs one unified article on the subject. What about incorporate a discussion about this in the article, hearing both views on the matter by the both of you? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: Wikipedia must also strive for consistency. These articles on the Swedish language can not use another definition of ''dialect'' than the Wikipedia article on [[dialect]] does, ''unless'' this is very clearly indicated. --[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 07:53, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

* Swedish has one ''written'' standard. Isotalo is however wrong (or tendentiously simplifying) when he omits to point out the crucial importance of the written language in the development of prestige dialects (including a ''Central Swedish Standard).'' [[Svealand]]-Swedish certainly was one of the influences on written Swedish (from medieval writers via Gustav Vasa's Bible in Swedish to the orthography of the compulsory primary schools enforced in Sweden in 1842), but other important influences were that of Low-German, French, Latin grammar, but also prestigeous [[Götaland]]-Swedish ([[Saint Birgitta]]). (I write this based on what I've learned during my studies of Swedish, in Finland aswell as in Sweden. I believe this to be general schoolbook knowledge, and do not quite understand how Isotalo can take another position, unless there exists some new exciting research that can be quoted, when he writes: ''The spoken standard language is orginally based on dialects in Central Sweden that have been "exported" to various regions and have been "regionalized" through the influence of dialects.)''

: Again, what about incorporating both views in a way that satisfies everyone? (Unless some of it is historically incorrect) [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* It may come as a surprise for some non-Swedes, but Swedish culture "stresses" a prestige hierarchy between dialects (and for that matter: languages) that is not totally uniform for all of the Swedish speaking area, but that exists as a generally accepted concept everywhere (maybe uncounciously, but people know about it in any case). According to this, archaic dialects seem typically to be considered less prestigeous. The most positive interpretation I can do of Isotalo's activities here, is that he believes <u>either</u> that the size of the Swedish speaking populations in Finland and in Götaland are neglible, <u>or</u> that he mistakenly believes that they like him consider a ''Central Swedish Standard'' to be their standard (which, by the way, is true for some border areas, notably in [[Ostrobothnia]] and [[Ostrogothia]]).

* As may be clear by now, I consider Swedish to be <u>one</u> language, and spoken standards (as ''Central Swedish Standard, South Swedish Standard,'' and ''Finland Swedish Standard)'' may well be covered by articles of their own, but by calling one of these ''*Swedish Standard Pronunciation'' we express ourself in a way that may be forbearingly overlooked by native Swedish speakers, but that is fundamentally unhelpful to non-natives, and also has a possible unwished effect on the debate in Finland on [[Mandatory Swedish]], where factoids on what is thought outside of Finland always have great appeal.

* Comparisons between the different spoken standards belong to the articles on [[Swedish language]] and [[Swedish phonology]]. Personally, I can accept separate articles on [[Swedish phonology]] and [[Standard Swedish]], although I'm far from convinced this is a good solution. Similarly, I'm not convinced that the current state of the article on [[Finland-Swedish]] is particularly good. But [[User:Tuomas#View of Wikipedia|my general attitude]] is that Wikipedia doesn't have to be improved promptly.

* Making a conceptual difference between ''Finland Swedish Standard'' on one hand and ''Central Swedish Standard'' plus ''South Swedish Standard'' on the other is a solution that I see few merits in. The differences are no bigger; it contradicts the efforts of the Finland-Swedes to avoid further separation; and the time span of association with a Swedish government is no longer for [[Jämtland]] or the Swedish West- and Southcoast than for Finland. Like the Finnish-Swedish border wasn't drawn along linguistic borders, such a division would support false assumptions on the degree of Finnish influence on Swedish in Northsweden. It would also support false assumptions of the unimportance of a ''South Swedish Standard'' pronunciation. But I do see two supportive arguments:
*# Only Finland-Swedish has to struggle against threatening influences from Finnish and necessary adaptions in the fields of governmental language (like [[Meänkieli]] in Sweden)
*# which is why one in the most prestigeous ''written'' and spoken Finland-Swedish can find lexical differences from Sweden-Swedish <small>(which is much more rare in the case of written South Swedish Standard, exemplified by the spelling ''fjor'' for ''fjol'' and the word ''middag'' and derivatives for ''lunch'' &mdash; grammar differences are really small, and of the similar magnitude between all of these three standards)</small>

Whether "I can work together with Isotalo" or not, is more a question of if here will be others to work with. Isotalo has clearly indicated that he doesn't take me or my efforts seriously, so in my opinion, it would rather be a question of if he can start work together with me or not. As things stand right now, I believe it's high time for Isotalo to start doing some serious thinking.

/[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 09:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: There has been others to work with in the past, but let's assume that it is possible to find some common ground? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 13:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I saw no problems until mid-March.
::I'm not in any hurry. Improvements can wait.
::Common ground ''with'' Isotalo depends ''on'' Isotalo.
::Concillatory appearance is a first but unsufficient step.
::/[[User:Tuomas|Tuomas]] 14:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Can Isotalo chip in here with suggestions? [[User:Inter|Inter]]\<sup><font color="green">[[User_talk:Inter|Echo]]</font></sup> 10:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Here goes:

:::*The subdivision of Standard Swedish is more complex than just three general standards of "Central", "Southern" and "Finland-Swedish". The use of the term "standard" should be avoided, since these are not in any way codified or officially sanctioned on their own merits. The terms "variety" still seems like the best descrption to me and there are at least three more of these ("norrländska", "dalmål", "gotländska") as well as the city varieties ("stadsmål") spoken in the cities succh as Göteborg, Malmö and Stockholm.
:::*I can find no major disagreement among linguists on the differences between the terms "regional varities" and "dialects", and this holds true even for one of Tuomas' own sources (Leionen, 2004 [http://selene.lib.jyu.fi/vaitos/studies/studhum/9513918289.pdf]). A thorough explanation on the perception of the term "dialect" among laypeople should not be avoided, but it seems that the best way to avoid further confusion is to stick to the terms that have been used by scholars and other encyclopedias for quite some time now. Briefly explaining the quite straight-forward distinction between these terms and avoiding unnecessary use of obscure terms as [[acrolects]] or [[patois]] seems to me as being least prone to confusion or misunderstanding by the average reader. Trying to abide to the mindset of laypeople (which is mainly based on a misconcpetion of linguistic terms) in this matter seems a lot more prone to confusion than sticking to widely accepted terms among scholars.
:::*Standard Swedish is according to all sources I can find based on a Central Swedish dialect (or group of dialects centered on Stockholm) which has been promoted as both the written and spoken standard since the late 19th century. As Tuomas points out, this is to a great degree due to the fact that the written language has had great influence on the spoken language. Eventhough there has been influences from other dialects in the past, the base seems to be firmly rooted in the standards of the capital region around Stockholm.
:::*This subdivision of the standard language and phonologies into seperate articles is not without prior precedent. There are articles for [[Standard Mandarin]], [[Standard Cantonese]] and at least ten seperate articles for phonologies for all kinds of languages such as [[Vietnamese phonology]] and [[Portuguese phonology]].
:::*There is an ongoing debate among scholars on how to classify Rinkeby Swedish ("Rinkebysvenska") and its equivalents outside Stockholm. Are they [[sociolect]]s, mere accents, or further varieties of Standard Swedish? I think it would be appropriate to mention them together with the other city-specific varieties such as "stockholmska" and "göteborska", though not as actual subdivisions of these.

:::There is one issue where the sources available give no clear indication right now, and that is Standard Swedish in Finland. Whether this is considered to be just another variety to be grouped among the other regional varieties or variety completely seperate seperate from those spoken in Sweden (and maybe containing further subdivisions) is not thoroughly explained anywhere. [[User:Karmosin|Peter Isotalo]] 12:11, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:55, 20 November 2024

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Standard Swedish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Standard_Swedish&oldid=1258645082"