In Mahboob and Szenes' (2010) words, "using names of countries as labels to classify language varieties is, arguably, imposing a nationalistic twist to linguistic varieties" (p. 580).
Just like his titles, which turn classifying language into a sort of nonsensical jazz, Tolliver turns artistic representation into a game of humor and imagination.
Classifying languages is a hot topic, because linguistic and social facts can be hard to disentangle.
Among other reasons, they note that these languages were grouped with Hindi by the British in an attempt to classify languages in the early days of British rule.
Based on this finding, we classify languages into three subtypes with respect to subject opacity: (a) languages in which subjects are never transparent (English), (b) languages in which only in situ subjects are transparent (Russian, German), and (c) languages in which subjects are always transparent (Japanese).
For the purpose of the study, faculty members were classified as Language and Non-Language.
They are, for the purpose of the study, classified as language and non-language teachers.
In straightforward cases, varieties of language that are mutually intelligible are classified as dialects, while varieties of speech that are not mutually intelligible are classified as separate languages.
Chinese exists in a number of varieties that are popularly called dialects but that are usually classified as separate languages by scholars.
What was worse, the Americans and British had been crammed together in our low hangar: we, like everyone else, were classified by language, and English was not the world's Master Tongue, but rather just another print format.
