The Language-Dialect Problem: A Critical Review of Koukhis Thesis on Moroccan Standard Amazigh

According to El Koukhi (2014) the distinction between “dialect” and “language” can be made on the sole criterion of mutual intelligibility. Two varieties that are mutually intelligible are dialects and two varieties that are not mutually intelligible are separate languages. This leads him to argue that the linguistic varieties in Morocco constitute independent languages rather than dialects due to their lack of mutual intelligibility. On this basis, he further advocates the idea of standardization of these varieties as separate languages rather than a unified Standard Tamazight. While this position may appear intuitively appealing, it reflects a highly reductionist understanding of a complex linguistic issue. Such a formulation overlooks decades of research in general linguistics and sociolinguistics, where the language–dialect distinction has consistently been shown to resist simple binary criteria. As a result, El Koukhi’s argument against Standard Tamazight in his article “Standard Tamazight: Between the invention of a new language and the nanufacturing of ideological illusion” rests on methodologically weak and theoretically outdated foundations.
The identification of what constitutes a “language” versus a “dialect” is not a straightforward´-or-purely structural matter. All languages exhibit internal variation, and speech communities are inherently heterogeneous. Varieties are usually classified as dialects when they are close and are associated with social´-or-regional differences. Cockney and Norfolk, for example, are typically regarded as English dialects. However, sociopolitical and historical factors often intervene and render closely similar and related linguistic varieties as distinct and independent languages as is the case with Swedish and Norwegian´-or-Hindi and Urdu. Some varieties such as Macedonian and Bulgarian´-or-English and Scots have contested status (Brown & Ogilvie, 2009). These examples demonstrate that mutual intelligibility is not the only criterion used to determine linguistic classification.
From a de-------script-------ive linguistic perspective, a dialect is a distinct variety that has specific lexico-grammatical and phonological characteristics (Crystal, 2008). It should be noted that any language with a sufficient number of speakers is destined to develop dialectical variations, particularly in situations when there is a geographical´-or-social isolation from other speakers (Crystal, 2008). In many cases, there is one variety among others that acquires prestige and gets standardized and serves as the written form of the language (Crystal, 2008). This standardization process is not determined by intelligibility principle but by sociopolitical selection and institutional support. It is important to note, however, that empirical data from across the world shows that mutual intelligibility can not serve as the sole decisive criterion on which to differenctiate between a dialect and a language. This becomes clear when taking into consideration the examples of Chinese “dialects”. Mandarin and Cantonese, for instance, are mutually unintelligible when it comes to speaking but are considered dialects because of the same writing system and common culture. On the other hand, languages of Scandinavia, like Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish, are, almost mutually intelligible but are still considered different languages because of the different histories, politics, and cultures (Crystal, 2008-------;------- Chambers & Trudgill, 1998). These linguistic cases show that mutual intelligibility is not a decisive criterion that can guarantee dialect status nor language status.
Further complexity arises when considering historical´-or-temporal variation. Linguistics also employs the term “dialect” to describe different historical stages of a language, such as Middle English, Elizabethan English, and Modern English (Crystal, 2008). Despite the fact that contemporary English speakers cannot readily understand Chaucer’s Middle English or, to a lesser extent, Shakespeare’s Early Modern English, these stages are not treated as separate languages but as diachronic varieties of a single linguistic system. If mutual intelligibility were applied rigidly, these diachronic varieties of English would erronously be considered separate languages rather than stages of a single language that has developed over time.This alone is sufficient to invalidate El Koukhi’s claim that mutual intelligibility is the sole principle that can decide what a dialect is and what a language is. Thus, it becomes clear that mutual intelligibility, at most, is a crude heuristic tool that has been used for didactic purposes and not for scientific classification. Language taxonomy uses a number of different criteria such as structure, standardization, sociopolitical status, and domains of usage. The distinction between “language” and “dialect” is as much a social and political construct as it is a linguistic one (Crystal, 2008).
Within this theoretical approach, the various dialects of Tamazight in Morocco–Tashelhit, Central Atlas Tamazight, and Tarifit–may be considered as dialects within a single linguisic continuum rather than distinct separate languages. There is considerable degree of mutual intelligibility among these linguistic varieties, with comprehension becoming more challenging primarily between the most geographically and linguistically distant points along the linguistic continuum. These dialects’s classfication is not, and should not be, based exclusively on levels of intelligibility but rather on similarities in structure, historical continuity, shared culture, and increasing institutional standardization. This view aligns with the influential model of Kloss (1967), who introduces the concepts of Abstand (inherent linguistic distance) and Ausbau (deliberate linguistic development). The Amazigh dialects of Morocco are clearly not instances of Abstand languages, because they show structural and lexical similarities. Their present existence as one single standardized language is mainly the result of an Ausbau process. The Ausbau process cannot be applied in the reverse -------dir-------ection, as suggested by El Koukhi (2014), to create three distinct standardized languages, since such development typically arise only in contexts of state formation and geopolitical division, where separate national frameworks promote distinct linguistic identities. If El Koukhi does not advocate nationalist´-or-separatist positions, it is difficult to reconcile why he would promote the standardization of three distinct languages, given that such developments typically arise in contexts of state formation and geopolitical division.
Ausbau process is something which has actually been done in Morocco through the Royal Institute of Amazigh Culture (IRCAM), which has develpoped the Standard Tamazight through the adoption of properties from the various regional dialects. This shows that language status is not an inherent property that is determined by mutual intellegibility. It is rather an outcome of sociopolitical planning and institutioanl intervention (Ennaji, 2005). El Koukhi’s position (2014) reveals a fundamental logical contradiction. While his argument is grounded in the lack of mutual intelligibility, his proposed solution does not seek to reduce this gap but instead risks reinforcing and even widening it. By advocating for separate standardizations, he effectively institutionalizes linguistic fragmentation rather than fostering convergence´-or-mutual accessibility among speakers. Overall, it can be concluded that the argument proposed by El Koukhi (2014) fails to withstand critical scrutiny. El Koukhi’s reliance on mutual intelligibility as a single criterion for establishing language-dialect status is both simplistic and misrepresentative of the nature of linguisic classfication. It further disregards the multidimensionality of linguistic reality and all the extensive body of scholarship demonstrating otherwise.
References

الكوخي، محمد. (2014). الأمازيغية المعيارية بين اختلاق لغة جديدة وصناعة الوهم الأيديولوجي. تبين، 2(7)، 27-46. https://doi.org/10.31430/CTEE1206
Brown, K., & Ogilvie, S. (Eds.). (2009). Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world. Elsevier.
Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Ennaji, M. (2005). Multilingualism, cultural identity, and education in Morocco. Springer

Kloss, H. (1967). Abstand languages and ausbau languages . Anthropological Linguistics, 9(7), 29–41.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1