In everyday life we use the term dialect to refer to local or regional variations of a language in terms of its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. However, in linguistics, a dialect is any variation of a standard language that reflects the cultural, social and historical identity of its speakers (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2014). In this framework, what is meant by dialect is actually called a topolect, while language variations based on social class are called sociolects, such as the received pronunciation historically spoken by the highest social class in the United Kingdom.
Another interesting and very common type of dialect is the chronolect, which is based on the language used in a given time period, like the language spoken by Gen Z today or that of our grandparents. The list of dialects is extensive, especially because languages travel with people, leading to endless instances of ethnolects, including language mixing, when some form of bilingualism is involved; or idiolects, which are the unique ways each individual speaks.
These different types of dialects have long been intertwined with political power. Historically, the dialect of a ruling group or majority often became the “standard” language, solidifying the political dominance of one social group over others (Bourdieu, 1991). This is seen, for example, in the rise of French as the standardised language of France, where the Parisian topolect became dominant, marginalising not only other topolects but also other languages spoken within the same territory, like Occitan and Breton. This shows how language standardisation reinforces the political unity of a country, often to the detriment of minority or minoritised identities.
This legacy still affects our world today. In parliamentary settings, for example, the standard language is traditionally used, while dialects – whether social, regional, cultural, chronological, ethnic or personal – are often deemed inappropriate for such formal situations. In reporting, a full representation of dialects would be complex. However, while official records used to prioritise the standard language, thereby masking the linguistic diversity of representatives and their constituents, dialects and minoritised languages have entered parliamentary discourse more frequently in recent decades. Using dialects, the speaker may achieve many functions, such as rhetorical aims or some means of asserting regional, social or ethnic identity, which is what happens when using other languages (see, for example, McPherson, 2023; Mngadi, 2024; Kelly, 2024 in earlier editions of Tiro).
In response to these changes, some reporting offices have adapted to mirror the political landscape. Many now transcribe dialect or foreign words in the same manner as standard language, such as the Dutch House of Representatives; while in other cases, dialect words are transcribed but phonological variation standardised, as in the Finnish Parliament, dialect words transcribed in italics, as in the Italian Senate; transcribed and translated, as in the US House of Representatives; or translated or omitted altogether, as in the Turkish Grand National Assembly.
All in all, while the treatment of dialects and foreign languages spoken in parliamentary settings varies worldwide, a common practice seems to be the translation of spoken language into written form, often involving the omission of oral features like certain exclamations (“eh!”), fillers (“uhm”), and repetitions (“I-I mean”) or the correction of grammar mistakes. Officially the reason is clarity, yet it might also result largely from thinking that written language and its styles are predominant over spoken language and its styles. Ultimately, this demonstrates that the written variant still plays a significant role in the power dynamics of language.
Carlo Eugeni is Tiro’s Scientific Adviser. He wishes to thank the following people for the information that they gave about reporting dialect in their parliaments: Marlene Rijkse and Rian Schwartz, the Dutch House of Representatives; Gilulia Torregrossa, Italian Senate; Karen McConnell, the US House of Representatives; Kadriye Aktay and Elif Yurek, the Turkish Grand National Assembly; and Eero Voutilainen, the Finnish Parliament.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.
Kelly, A. M. (2024). “Bilingualism in the Official Report of the Irish Houses of Parliament”. Tiro 1/2024. Available at https://tiro.intersteno.org/2024/06/bilingualism-in-the-official-report-of-the-irish-houses-of-parliament/
McPherson, D. (2023). “Representing indigenous languages in the parliamentary Hansard of British Columbia, Canada”. Tiro 2/2023. Available at https://tiro.intersteno.org/2023/12/representing-indigenous-languages-in-the-parliamentary-hansard-of-british-columbia-canada/
Mngadi, E. (2024). “Reporting South African Sign Language in the Official Parliamentary Hansard Record”. Tiro 1/2024. Available at https://tiro.intersteno.org/2024/06/reporting-south-african-sign-language-in-the-official-parliamentary-hansard-record/
Wardhaugh, R. & Fuller, J. M. (2014) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 7th ed. Wiley-Blackwell.
