The relationship between dialect and standard language in terms of “formality” is not absolute, but depends on the specific social and cultural background, usage scenarios, and the degree of standardization of the language itself. The following analyzes the complexity of this problem from different angles： ###1. Differences in language functions 1. **Normalization attributes of standard languages** Standard languages are usually systematically standardized by official institutions (such as dictionaries, grammar books, and teaching systems), and their core function is to achieve barrier-free communication across regions and groups. In scenarios such as judicial documents, academic papers, and official announcements, standard language is regarded as a formal carrier because of its unity, precision, and authority. For example, the use of modern Chinese Mandarin in government documents can avoid ambiguity to the greatest extent. 2. **Diversity of social functions of dialects** The “informal” impression of dialects often stems from their daily communication attributes, but some dialects have irreplaceable formal value in specific fields.： -**Cultural rituals**: Hokkien is regarded as a solemn expression tool in Taiwan's temple festivals and opera performances.； -**Local governance**: Although Swiss German (Schweizerdeutsch) is a colloquial dialect, it is often used in debates in the state parliament, forming a functional division of labor with standard German.； -**Literary creation**: The use of Shaoxing dialect in Lu Xun's "The True Story of A Q" gives the text a unique regional seriousness. ###2. The dynamic evolution of the historical dimension 1. **The process of “de-formalization” of dialects** Many dialects have historically assumed formal functions. For example, Wu was the lingua franca of the Southern scholars class in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, but the “Mandarin movement” in the late Qing Dynasty and early Ming gradually withdrew it from the official field. This change reflects the shaping of language status by political power. 2. **Dialectalization penetration of standard language** Standard languages may also absorb dialect elements to enhance expressiveness. For example, the words “fool” and “pay the bill” in Mandarin are derived from Northeast dialect and Cantonese, and have become a supplement to formal expressions after being spread by the media. ###3. Sociolinguistic perspective 1. **Prestige Dialect phenomenon** Some dialects have obtained quasi-formal status due to economic and cultural advantages. In the early days of reform and opening up, Cantonese once became the “high-end language code” for business negotiations in South China due to the economic radiation of Hong Kong, and even spawned the official media scene of “Cantonese-general bilingual broadcasting”. 2. **The influence of language ideology** In Catalonia, although the Catalan language is recognized as a “local language” by the Spanish Constitution, it has established its formal status in education and justice through local legislation, challenging the absolute authority of the Castilian language. This shows that "formality” can be reconstructed through political games. ###4. Implications of quantitative research Sociolinguist Trudgill's research on the city of Norwich, England, shows that： -The proportion of the middle class who use standard English in formal interviews is 97%, but it drops to 58% when friends meet%； -The working class fell from 39% to 2% under the same scenario. This proves that the choice of language form is highly dependent on contextual pressure, not the inherent attributes of the dialect itself. ### Conclusion The formality of dialects and standard languages is not binary opposition, but presents a **spectral distribution**. The core variables that determine formality include： -**institutionalized support** (such as legal status, education system)； -**Domain specificity** (fields such as religion, art, etc. may retain dialect formality)； -**Social power structure** (the dominant group's right to define language values). Therefore, the assertion that “dialects are always not as formal as standard languages” is an oversimplification, and the essence of language practice is a dynamic power negotiation process.