But at any time, dialect₂ forms may, in the speech of the latter, be trasferred to dialect₁ with just the necessary phonological and morphological adaptations.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 118

It could be objected that if dialect₂ necessarily implies bilingualism in contradistinction to dialect₁, it would be better and clearer to call dialect₂ a language, a term which is implied in ‘bilingual’. But language is understood to enjoy a status which can by no means be granted to many dialects₂ that only survive as the impoverished mediums of retarded rural segments of a community. The widespread reluctance to speak of bilingualism in the case of situations involving dialects₂ is due precisely to the impression that they are granted thereby a status they do not deserve.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 113

Linguistic variety on a large scale, within one and the same community, is, by both laymen and linguists, usually dealt with in terms of dialects. Other terms such as patois, brogue, 'bable', 'Platt', refer to varieties which are ultimately presented under the rubric of dialectology. Any attempt on the part of specialists to use these terms without previous redefinition is likely to be insatisfactory because they are, in fact, quite unspecific designations used, with a touch of contempt, by standard speakers in reference to any speech variety that is not socially acceptable.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 110

The very possibility of a dialect disappearing through a break in the transmission is a clear indication that that dialect is a dialect₂. A dialect₁ cannot disappear, since, in the case of unilinguals, it is the only form of speech at their disposal. The effect of a war will be to make it closer, if not to the ‘standard’, at least to the average form of speech.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 115

We all, in daily life, speak, and sometimes act, as if there existed neatly circumscribed language communities wherein all members are expected to behave linguistically in exactly the same way. Those who do not, in all details, are said to speak with an ‘accent’ if their deviation from an assumed norm are mainly phonic. They are supposed to speak ‘dialect’ if their aberrance extends to grammar and lexicon, particularly if communication is thereby somewhat impaired. As long as linguists were ‘philologists’ who mainly concentrated on written, literary forms of human communication, they were not inclined to take exception to this sketchy and naïve approach to socio-linguistics: ‘accents’ were hardly ever noticeable as such in their texts, and ‘dialects’ were best forgotten about except, perhaps, in the isolated case of ancient Greek.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 103

We would thus need a term, say, ‘dialect₁’, to refer to linguistic forms used by unilinguals in their oral communications with any other member of the community, even those who use other dialect₁: the New York city form of speech and the Chicago form of speech would thus be labelled two dialects₁ of American English, since a speaker of one would not hesitate to use his own form of speech when adressing a speaker of the other. Another term, say ‘dialect₂’, would designate linguistic forms used as a vernacular by a dialetti₁ bilinguals in their communications with some particular members of the community, whereas they use a dialect₁ the other members; the speakers of any dialect₂ are, in fact, a smaller (provincial) community with the larger (national) community […] It is clear that dialects₂ are likely to be more divergent than dialect₁, since if they were not and if, accordingly, their use did not hamper mutual understanding, speakers of dialect₂ would not take the trouble of learning a dialect₁ which is not their vernacular […] Whether dialects₁ all enjoy the same prestige, or whether one of them, or a group of them, ranks higher and is, therefore, no longer considered a dialect, but the standard, is again a different matter: prestige is difficult to misure and had better not intervene in linguistic classifications.
- Martinet (1962), Pag. 112