Prof. Dolan also maintains an online archive of Hiberno-English: www.hiberno-english.com/. Good website.

That's a good one :)

As Hiberno-Scots (i.e. Ulster Scots) has been recognised as a language separate from Scots, what's to stop Hiberno-English gaining recognition as a language separate from Standard English?

"what's to stop Hiberno-English gaining recognition as a language separate from Standard English?"

It can easily be argued that HE is a language as there is no clear accepted definition of what is a language or dialect (that I know of). But that would be silly IMO. What would be the point?

I'd be more concerned with the problem of people trying to stamp out HE (teachers, society in general). There's no reason why we can't be proud of our own version of English withut having to wipe it out and become British-English speakers.

"what's to stop Hiberno-English gaining recognition as a language separate from Standard English?"

Everything. It's a diallect and not a language.

'Everything. It's a diallect and not a language.'

Didn't stop French, Spanish and Portuguese....

...although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one :)

"It's a diallect and not a language"

Slackjaw is right George. Very hard (if not impossible) to say what is really a language or dialect. Compare Chinese with Scandanavian languages mar shampla.

That should have been:
"Compare Chinese dialects with Scandanavian languages mar shampla."

This was in the "Vocabulary/Grammar" section of the Hiberno-English site:

The pronunciation of Hiberno-English also reflects the sounds of Irish. For instance, the insertion of a vowel, known as an'epenthetic (= inserted) vowel', in such words as 'film' (pronounced 'fillum'), or 'worm' (pronounced 'worrum'). In general, Irish people use the vowels and consonants of the Irish Language in pronouncing Hiberno-English.

I remember an ad for Erin soup on telly years ago, which illustrated this point. When asked what she thought of a sample of mushroom soup she had just tasted, an elderly Dublin lady exclaimed "It's fulla mush-er-oo-ams!"

Only dialects which have been reduced to writing (a prerequisite for standardization) and been standardized are languages, everything else is something else (dialect, vernacular, patois).

As this hasn't happened in this instance (although the dictionary is a start) I believe we can safely say Hiberno-English is a dialect of standard English and will remain so for our lifetimes.

Are you sure of that George?
If we were to examine all languages would we find that they have all been standardised?

Hiberno-English has had a dictionary for many years (afaik) not to mention been in writing for many decades.

"reduced to writing" explain, if you don't mind?

Maca,
that there is a standardized way of writing Hiberno-English, which is different to standard English.

This is just one view of the difference between language and dialect as one can always argue there is no difference.

Also, whether something like Hiberno-English is a dialect of another language (English) or a separate language is also dependent on the relative political power of the speakers of that language/dialect.
The decisions about what are "languages" and what are not, are thus political decisions.
powerful nations can claim that what they speak is a language and what less powerful groups speak are dialects.
From Terralingua:
Political definitions of a language would be: "a language is a dialect with an army (and a navy)" or "a language is a dialect with state borders" or "a language is a dialect promoted by elites".

George
Now though the issue can be even more confused. What is the English speaking nation with the biggest Army or Navy? The USAmericans. Is EN-GB a dialect of EN-US because the US has the bigger army? ;)

Many Americans would think so Maca :-)

George,
I don't think most Americans would put it that way. However, I don't think many Americans would agree that US-English is a dialect of GB-English either. ;-) I think we all speak dialects of English and would reject the idea of one standard being more correct than the other.

It could be argued, however, that US-English meets your other criteria of being a language in that is has been written and standardized for quite some time. We have our own dictionaries and spellings, as well as a few gramatical differences. But I still wouldn't consider US-English a seperate language. I think the most important standard is that dialects are mutually inteligible and languages aren't. Despite some differences we can all understand eachother very easiy in written English, and usually with only minor difficulties in spoken English. Though some accents are more difficult than others. :-) I'll admit that I had to turn on the subtitles when I watched Bloody Sunday because I only understood about a quarter of what was said in parts. Similarly, I've had to order for English friends in restaurants in Alabama because they couldn't understand the waiters.

Leaving arise the otherwise key fact that its plainly just a dialect and not a language, George's point that its not a political(football) language may be an even more pertinent feature in this part of the world which now appears to have several pseudo languages.

God help us!

Vera
"I think the most important standard is that dialects are mutually inteligible and languages aren't"

That's actually incorrect though as some "languages" are mutually intelligible.