Editing Dialect (section)

=== Political factors ===
In many societies, however, a particular dialect, often the sociolect of the [[elite]] class, comes to be identified as the "standard" or "proper" version of a language by those seeking to make a social distinction and is contrasted with other varieties. As a result of this, in some contexts, the term "dialect" refers specifically to varieties with low [[social status]]. In this secondary sense of "dialect", language varieties are often called ''dialects'' rather than ''languages'':
* if they have no [[Standard variety|standard]] or [[Codification (linguistics)|codified]] form,
* if they are rarely or never used in writing (outside reported speech),
* if the speakers of the given language do not have a [[State (polity)|state]] of their own,
* if they lack [[prestige dialect|prestige]] with respect to some other, often standardised, variety.

The status of "language" is not solely determined by linguistic criteria, but it is also the result of a historical and political development. [[Romansh language|Romansh]] came to be a written language, and therefore it is recognized as a language, even though it is very close to the Lombardic alpine dialects and classical Latin. An opposite example is [[Chinese language|Chinese]], whose variations such as [[Mandarin Chinese|Mandarin]] and [[Yue Chinese|Cantonese]] are often called dialects and not languages in China, despite their mutual unintelligibility.

National boundaries sometimes make the distinction between "language" and "dialect" an issue of political importance. A group speaking a separate "language" may be seen as having a greater claim to being a separate "people", and thus to be more deserving of its own independent state, while a group speaking a "dialect" may be seen as a sub-group, part of a bigger people, which must content itself with regional autonomy.<ref>Muljačić, Ž. (1997). The relationships between the dialect and the standard language. In M. Maiden, M. Maiden, & M. Parry (Eds.), The Dialects of Italy (1st ed.). essay, Routledge.</ref>{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}}

The [[Yiddish language|Yiddish]] linguist [[Max Weinreich]] published the expression, ''A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot'' ({{lang|yi|"אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמײ און פֿלאָט"}}: "[[A language is a dialect with an army and navy]]") in ''YIVO Bleter'' 25.1, 1945, p.&nbsp;13. The significance of the political factors in any attempt at answering the question "what is a language?" is great enough to cast doubt on whether any strictly linguistic definition, without a socio-cultural approach, is possible. This is illustrated by the frequency with which the army-navy aphorism is cited.