A Comparative Analysis of Lexical Similarities in French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish: Reassessing the Language-Dialect Divide

Cite this article as: Bako, M. A., Aliero, M. A., & Muhammad, I. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of Lexical Similarities in French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish: Reassessing the Language–Dialect Divide. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 1(2), 139 - 142. https://www.doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2025.v01i02.015

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL SIMILARITIES IN FRENCH, ITALIAN, PORTUGUESE, AND SPANISH: REASSESSING THE LANGUAGE-DIALECT DIVIDE

By

Muhammad Aminu Bako

Bak.aminu3@gmail.com bakoaminuJta@gmail.com

Department of French, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto

&

Prof. Muhammad Ango Aliero

Maaliero82@gmail.com

Department of Linguistics, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto

&

Isah Muhammad

isahgaladima@gmail.com

Department of Linguistics, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto.

Abstract

This study examines the lexical similarities among French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, members of the Romance branch of the Indo-European language family, to explore the distinction between languages and dialects. Using a comparative method and data sourced from bilingual dictionaries and linguistic texts, the paper analyzes the form, meaning, and behavior of selected nominal, verbal, adjectival, and adverbial items across these languages. The findings reveal a remarkable uniformity in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning, indicating high mutual intelligibility in core vocabulary. While socio-political boundaries define these as separate languages, the study demonstrates that, linguistically, they function as a continuum of dialectal variants derived from Latin. Integrating insights from the literature on language as particle, wave, and field, the study highlights the interplay between linguistic, historical, and socio-political factors in language classification. The research underscores the importance of considering both structural similarities and extralinguistic influences when distinguishing languages from dialects, offering a nuanced perspective on the Romance language continuum.

Keywords: Language, Dialect, Indo-European languages, Lexical similarity, Comparative method, Romance languages.

1. Introduction

The distinction between a language and a dialect has long been debated in linguistics, with scholars considering structural, social, political, and historical criteria. Languages such as French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish are traditionally treated as separate languages, yet they share a common ancestry in Latin and exhibit considerable lexical, phonological, and morphological similarities. This raises the question of whether these languages are truly distinct or form a continuum of dialectal variants.

Several scholars, including Hudson (1996), Coulmas (2005), Greenberg (2004), and Wardhaugh (2010), have examined the factors that determine language classification, highlighting the importance of intelligibility, sociopolitical boundaries, and shared linguistic norms. Haugen (1996) similarly emphasizes the ambiguity in distinguishing between language and dialect, noting that dialects are typically regional or social variants of a broader linguistic system. From this perspective, the conventional separation of French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish may be more influenced by historical and political considerations than by linguistic divergence alone.

Languages are dynamic systems that can be conceptualized as particles, waves, and fields (Makoni & Pennycook, 2006; Pike, 1959; Lewis, 1999). As discrete units, languages can be listed and counted; as waves, they spread and evolve across time and geography; and as fields, they function ecologically within speech communities. Variations within languages often result in dialect continua, wherein mutually intelligible varieties coexist alongside more divergent forms. Mutual intelligibility, standardization, and shared ethnolinguistic identity are therefore key criteria for evaluating whether closely related varieties constitute separate languages or dialects (ISO 639-3; Lewis, 2015).

This paper focuses on the lexical similarities among French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish to explore the continuum between language and dialect. By comparing selected nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs across these languages, the study aims to demonstrate both the structural affinities and the socio-political factors that contribute to their classification as separate languages. In doing so, it contributes to the ongoing debate on language-dialect differentiation and enhances our understanding of Romance languages within the broader Indo-European family.

2. Literature Review

Language and Dialect

The distinction between language and dialect has been widely discussed in sociolinguistics. Hudson (1996), Coulmas (2005), Greenberg (2004), and Wardhaugh (2010) identify structural, geographical, and sociopolitical factors as key determinants. Haugen (1996) observes that language and dialect are often ambiguous terms; a language may refer to a standard linguistic norm, whereas a dialect represents one of the variants within that norm. Similarly, dictionaries define a dialect as a regional or social variant of a language with limited differentiation from the parent system (Oxford Dictionary).

From these perspectives, dialects can be understood as linguistic systems derived from a common source, typically marked by geographic or social boundaries, whereas languages are often distinguished by broader social recognition, codification, and standardization. For instance, European Portuguese, though regionally distinct, is classified as a separate language due to sociopolitical recognition, despite its similarity to Brazilian Portuguese (Garcia & Akhtar, 2015).

Language as Particle, Wave, and Field

Languages are not always discrete and countable units with clear boundaries. Makoni and Pennycook (2006) propose three perspectives:

1. Particle: Languages as discrete units that can be listed and counted.
2. Wave: Languages as bundles of features spreading over time and geography, reflecting innovations and retention of linguistic traits.
3. Field: Languages as part of an ecological system where functional usage in social contexts is emphasized.

Labov and Herzog (1968) also stress the wave-like nature of language, where innovations propagate across geographic and social space. Divergent varieties may evolve into dialects or separate languages, depending on the degree of intelligibility and sociopolitical recognition.

Criteria for Language Identification

The ISO 639-3 standard provides a functional framework for distinguishing languages from dialects:

i. Varieties are considered part of the same language if speakers can understand each other without prior study.

2. Marginal intelligibility may still allow classification as a single language if a common literature or central ethnolinguistic identity exists.
3. Varieties with substantial standardization, distinct literature, or ethnolinguistic identity are often classified as separate languages.

This framework highlights that the classification of French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish is influenced not only by linguistic features but also by socio-political and historical factors, a view supported by Lewis (2015).

3. Data Presentation and Analysis

The study focuses on lexical similarities in nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs across French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Data were sourced from bilingual dictionaries and secondary literature. To enhance readability, lexical items are presented in comparative tables with commentary.

Table 1: Lexical Similarities – Nominals

English	French	Italian	Portuguese	Spanish	Comments
Animal (land mammal)	animal, bête	animale, bestia	animal, besta	animal, bestia	High similarity; minor variations in secondary term (bête/bestia/besta).
Land	terre	terra	terra	tierra, terra	Minor orthographic differences; mutual intelligibility high.
Donkey	âne	asino	asno	asno	Identical in Portuguese and Spanish; French differs.
Adult	adulte	adulto/adulta	adulto	adulto/adulta	Pronunciation and spelling closely aligned; gendered forms present in Italian and Spanish.

 

Table 2: Lexical Similarities – Verbs

English	French	Italian	Portuguese	Spanish	Comments
Confront	confronter	confrontare	confrontar/enfrentar	confronter/enfrentar	Minor semantic expansions; root forms largely preserved.
Show	montrer	mostrare	mostrar	mostrar	Virtually identical across all four languages.
Dance	danse	danza, ballo	dança, baile	danza, baile	Multiple terms in Italian and Portuguese; base form consistent.

 Table 3: Lexical Similarities – Adjectives

English	French	Italian	Portuguese	Spanish	Comments
Inadvertent	involontaire	involontario	involontario, inadvertido	involontario	High cross-linguistic similarity.
Short	court	corto	curto	corto	Orthographic differences minor; meaning retained.
Tall/High	grand, haut	alto	alto	alto	Pronunciation may vary; semantic alignment strong.
Fat	gros, gras	grasso, obeso	gordo, obeso	gordo	Semantic overlap; synonyms differ.
Thick	épais, gros	spesso	espesso, prosso	espeso, grueso	Minor phonological variations; meaning consistent.

 Table 4: Lexical Similarities – Adverbs

English	French	Italian	Portuguese	Spanish	Comments
There	là, là-bas	lì, là, ivi	ali, lá	ali	High similarity; multiple locative forms exist.
Here	ici	qui, qua	aqui	aqui, acá	Pronunciation varies; orthography largely aligned.

3.1 Data Analysis

The comparative data reveal a remarkable level of mutual intelligibility in lexical items among French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Despite differences in grammar, syntax, and sociopolitical contexts, the shared Latin roots produce near-uniform spelling and pronunciation, supporting the argument that these languages form a continuum of dialectal variants rather than entirely discrete systems. Variations are primarily in secondary lexical choices, gender marking, or orthography, which do not impede basic comprehension across languages.

4. Conclusion

This study has examined the lexical similarities among French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish, members of the Romance branch of the Indo-European language family. The findings demonstrate that:

1. There exists remarkable uniformity in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning across core lexical items in the four languages.
2. Mutual intelligibility is high for essential vocabulary, supporting the notion of a continuum of dialectal variants rather than entirely separate languages.
3. Socio-political, historical, and standardization factors play a crucial role in defining languages, sometimes outweighing purely linguistic distinctions.

Integrating these findings with the literature, it becomes evident that the classification of languages is multidimensional. While French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish are officially recognized as distinct languages due to historical, political, and cultural reasons, their lexical patterns reveal a shared lineage from Latin, demonstrating continuity and high intelligibility. This supports the theoretical frameworks of language as particle, wave, and field, emphasizing both structural and functional perspectives.

Ultimately, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the language-dialect dichotomy, highlighting the interplay between linguistic features and extralinguistic factors. It underscores the necessity of examining both the structural similarities and socio-political contexts when classifying languages, particularly in the Romance family. Future research may expand this approach to include syntactic and morphological comparisons to further elucidate the continuum of dialectal variation across these languages.

References

Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Garcia, M. I. M., & Akhtar, H. S. (2015). Language and dialect: Criteria and historical evidence. Grassroots, 49(1), 204–215.

Greenberg, R. D. (2004). Language and identity in the Balkans: Sarbo-Croatia and its disintegration. Oxford University Press.

Haugen, E. (1996). Language, dialect, nation. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 922–935.

Hudson, R. A. (1996). Sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Labov, W., & Herzog, D. (1968). Language and dialect. Northumberland Press.

Lewis, M. P. (1999). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (13th ed.). SIL International.

Lewis, M. P. (2015). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (17th ed.). SIL International.

Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2006). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Multilingual Matters.

Oxford University Press. (n.d.). Language. In Oxford English Dictionary. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/language

Pike, K. L. (1959). History and development of the phoneme concept. University of Alabama Press.

International Organization for Standardization. (2007). ISO 639‑3:2007 – Codes for the representation of names of languages — Part 3: Alpha‑3 code for comprehensive coverage of languages. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/39534.html

Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.