An international conference on ‘Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks – Status – Prospects. A Pan-European comparative, multi-disciplinary approach’, sponsored by the European Science Foundation, was held at the University of Bath on 8-10 June 2001. The aim of this event, which was organised by Gabrielle Hogan-Brun (University of Bristol) and Stefan Wolff (University of Bath), was to extend our existing knowledge and understanding of the importance of minority languages within a democratic Europe and the need for their adequate protection as part of our cultural heritage.
The keynote speakers were John Packer, (Director, Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, The Hague, The Netherlands), François Grin (Deputy Director, European Centre for Minority Issues, Flensburg, Germany) and Bencie Woll, (Chair in Sign Language & Deaf Studies, Department of Language & Communication Science, City University London).
24 short papers were presented, under the following seven topics:
1. Pan-European perspectives on language and ethnicity
‘Minority language communities in the
age of globalization: Rethinking the organization of human language diversity’ was the focus of the contribution
by Albert Bastardas-Boada (University of Barcelona, Spain). Considering
the impact of worldwide
globalization processes and of European unification on minority language
communities he stressed the importance of continued cultural diversity and the
need to organize peaceful co-existence. He suggested an 'ecological' principle
as a way forward, according to which stable habitats would be provided for
sustainable language communities, whilst at the same time assuring
intercommunication in Europe through an interlingua. It was his view that a
global language, though important for international communication, should have
limited functions, because of the application of the subsidiarity principle in
language use. Thus all communication functions that could be accomplished by
the local languages should not be allocated to the major or big language or
languages to preserve their functionality in all domains.
Camille O’Reilly, Richmond (The American University, London) spoke on ‘Minority languages, ethnicity and the state in the European union and eastern Europe post 1989.’ Her paper entailed a comparative perspective, comprising an overview of trends in both parts of Europe regarding the politics of ethnicity and the position of minority language groups. She explored the impact of EU policy and discourse on individual movements within states, as well as on the overall orientation towards linguistic heterogeneity and cultural diversity in both the East and West. She argued that while the EU is moving away from an ideal of ethnic homogeneity within states and towards a model of cultural and linguistic diversity based on multiple and hybrid identities, most states in Eastern Europe still take a largely modernist and homogenising approach, relying on the ethnic nationalist ideal of the state.
2. Legal dimensions in the protection of
minority languages and linguistic minorities
In his keynote speech John Packer clarified the role of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities in the protection of linguistic minorities, whose mandate is to de-escalate at the earliest stage conflicting tensions involving national minority issues. Human rights standards serve as an analytical framework in their work to maximise freedom through non-discrimination, and to provide opportunities through democratic, inclusive means in areas where disintegration and conflicts arise.
The focus of the keynote by François Grin was ‘The effectiveness of various measures for the protection of minority languages’. Distinguishing between the two poles of ‘politics of language’, where law is seen as normative, and ‘language policy’, with its problem-oriented stance, he called for the need to put appropriate strategies in place that give substance to the linguistic rights of minorities. Such steps ought to involve appropriate policy measures to ensure positive outcomes. He argued that evaluation of language policy processes should involve the following three pillars: capacity – (creation of) opportunities – desire (attitudes to improvement) in order to guarantee effectiveness.
Kristin Henrard’s (University of
Groningen, The Netherlands) contribution was on ‘Devising an adequate system of
minority protection: individual human rights, minority rights and the right to
self-determination’. Her paper contained a critical assessment of the
acquisition of current minority right standards, whilst acknowledging their
additional protection as compared to individual human rights and thus their
potential to contribute to minority protection. She argued that qualified
recognition of internal self-determination for minorities could be an option to
further their integration without assimilation.
In his paper ‘Linguistic diversity – pearl or stumbling bloc of EU-law?’ Gabriel von Togggenburg (The European Academy, Bozen/Bolzano, South Tyrol, Italy) discussed the legal attitude of the EU towards (its) minorities and their languages. With reference to the Treaty of Amsterdam he showed that minorities were not an issue in the economic and legal process of the European integration, and that a lack of legal competencies in Primary law at the European level was evident. He called for a new political consciousness that should promote the recognition of minority and language protection not only as a ‘political export product’ but also as an internal legal principle within the framework of the (enlarged) EU in order to prevent minority languages from being ‘macdonaldised’ through the (market force driven) destruction of Europe’s linguistic variety.
3. Language status and ethnic linguistic
identity
‘Facilitating or generating linguistic diversity?’ was the title by Máiréad Nic Craith (University of Liverpool, UK), who discussed the role of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (as a catalyst or merely the facilitator of linguistic pluralism) in the context of a multilingual Europe. Using a case study of Ulster-Scots in Northern Ireland, she queried the emergence of new and disputed languages, whose speakers then seek legitimacy under the terms of this Charter, and explored their significance for the construction of regional identities. With reference to the promotion of a Europe of the Regions, her paper examined the reactions of speakers of more established ‘minority’ languages such as Irish to the emergence of such new and disputed tongues and asked whether the promotion of a Europe of the Languages has served to maintain, protect or to enhance the cultural diversity of its regions.
James O’Connell’s (University of Bradford, UK) contribution dealt with ‘The failure of the Irish language revival: a problem for national identity’. Based on a historical analysis of linguistic development in Ireland, he examined the intimate relationship of nationalism and language, paying particular attention to the role of the Anglo-Irish, the nexus of language and identity, and the search for other ingredients – the distinctive use of English in Ireland and the literary revival, from Yeats to Heaney, from O'Casey to Friei, from Joyce to Toibin – for the construction of a national identity.
’National minority-models for linguistic diversity’ was the focus of the talk by Karen Margrethe Pedersen (Danish Institute for Border Region Studies, Aabenraa, Denmark). She introduced the language situation of the Danish-German border region Schleswig as a model that can contribute to a development from confrontation to peaceful co-existence between majorities and national minorities in a multilingual Europe. This national minority-model relates to a functional regional bilingualism consisting of the state language and two varieties of the minority language (the standard language of the kin-state and a regional language containing transfer phenomena), and to each language or variety having its own fields of function with a high status. The system of variation of the regional language, which is acquired as a minority second language, is like that of ethnic minorities’ second language in the kin-state, the difference being status. Linking linguistic diversity to transethnic identity, she finally discussed whether status planning with the national minority-model is possible in the kin-state and in a multicultural Europe.
Judith Broadbridge (University of
Staffordshire, UK) was concerned with the possibility of a reversal of language
shift in her paper on ‘Alsatian in Alsace: linguistic ability, language use,
language attitudes’. Against the background of French linguistic policy since
the French Revolution and its devastating effect on regional varieties she
examined internal language legislation as well as reaction to European-led
initiatives. Finally she considered the desirability for and effectiveness of
attempts to reverse language shift in a centralist state such as France where a
chronic lack of support has resulted in a drastic reduction of
inter-generational transmission of Alsatian.
4. The non-hearing community as a cultural
and linguistic minority
In her keynote speech Bencie Woll (City University London) gave an overview of the sign languages of Europe, introducing them as long-established natural human languages that have their own lexicons and grammars differing from those of the surrounding hearing communities. Identifying similarities and differences with the situation of spoken minority languages in Europe, she reviewed the status of sign languages and commented on efforts which are being made for one of these tongues, the British Sign Language (BSL), to achieve official legislative recognition in the European Charter of Minority Languages.
With the title ‘British sign
language and the push-me-pull-you effect’ Graham Turner (University of Central
Lancashire, UK) referred to a set of incentives and disincentives alike that
are being offered by policy makers to linguistic campaigners within the Deaf
community. He argued that whilst on the one hand, social policy developments -
led by the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act - have revitalised
the national debate about ensuring access to public life for disabled people,
on the other hand, many years of campaigning have been devoted to raising
public awareness of the Deaf community as a linguistic minority group who -
whilst they may as individuals have a physical 'impairment' - do not otherwise
identify with the general integrationist thrust of disability politics. In view
of the fact that the devolution debate, with its associated linguistic
highlighting of the 'other' languages of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
may present a parallel and template for Deaf people he offered an assessment of
the prospects for a linguistic maintenance project focusing on BSL within the
current national social, educational and cultural policy climate.
Pauline Darling’s (University of
Bath, UK) talk on ‘Russian Sign Language’ provided an overview of the history
of RSL as an unrecognised minority language, and sketched its current situation
as an 'auxiliary' means of teaching the deaf. Taking into account perceptions
of the deaf community and deaf identity, it seeked to establish attitudes
towards RSL in Russia. In view of the fact that, in the wake of glasnost and
perestroika, there is felt to be a move towards recognising sign as a minority
language, she attempted to assess how close the deaf community is to achieving
official recognition, and raised questions about the future of RSL.
5. Minority languages and the media
The contribution by Lucia
Grimaldi (Free University of Berlin, Germany) and Eva-Maria Remberger
(University of Cologne, Germany) was on ‘The promotion of the Sardinian
language and culture via the internet: fields of activity and perspectives’.
They introduced their project Limba e curtura de sa Sardigna ("Sardinian language and culture" http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/mensch/sardengl.htmln)
which was aimed initially at the collection of information on the Sardinian
language for native speakers. This was soon to develop into one of the most
extensive sites on the subject, the principal objectives being the promotion,
preservation, linguistic analysis and the development of different kinds of
language (processing) tools for sociolinguistic data collection, as well as the
networking of information on the Sardinian language and culture. They presented
evidence on the relevance of the above tasks for the protection of endangered
languages, such as Sardinian.
Carmen Millán-Varela (University
of Birmingham, UK) spoke on ‘Minor needs or the ambiguous power of
translation.’ She argued that, whilst translation is widely acknowledged as a
crucial instrument for the creation and development of national languages and
literatures, in the case of ‘minor(itised)’ languages however, translation
becomes a complex and ambiguous activity: on the one hand, it contributes to
processes of linguistic and cultural normalisation and, on the other hand, it
is a painful reminder of the existence of asymmetrical relations of power. The
study of translation is thus revealed as a powerful research tool to
investigate issues related to language, power, and identity.
'Minority languages and local
media: lessons from the Basque magazine movement’ was the focus of the talk by
Jacqueline Urla (University of Massachusetts, Amerherst, USA). She claimed that
whilst language planning policies have often placed emphasis on securing high
prestige functions as a key to minority language maintenance, policies need to
pay more attention to the promotion of more "low brow" language
functions if they are to attract young speakers. Drawing on ethnographic
research on community magazines in the Basque country, her findings indicated
that local media and other forms of popular culture help to encourage literacy,
localize standard varieties, and promote community building that is essential
for minority language survival, as well as affording opportunities for creative
experimentation with language, including language mixing, that may not be seen
as appropriate for other registers. Her paper concluded with a call for more
descriptive research on the products and processes of local media-making and
their functions as tools for language development and intergenerational
communication.
6. Politics of language and identity in
multicultural societies
In his talk on 'Balkan dialects, migrations, and ethnic violence: the case of the Bosnian Serbs’, Robert Greenberg (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA) traced the population movements in Bosnia-Herzegovina before hostilities broke out in 1992. He showed that whilst the ethnic Slavic groups (the Muslim Slavs, the Catholic Croats and the Orthodox Serbs) differed primarily in religion and cultural heritage, the ‘ethnic’ differences of the population who had shifted from rural communities to urban centres had often became neutralized, resulting in culturally diverse cities, such as Tuzla or Sarajevo. In Bosnia's rural communities however, where Serbs had settled for military and economic reasons, many of the cultural and linguistic differences had remained strong. Due to these polarizations it was not surprising that some of the fiercest fighting of the war occurred it these rural areas, where some of the war's worst massacres occurred. His research suggests that the preservation of distinctive linguistic identity in the rural areas could well be a reflection of each group's need to cling to their respective cultural heritages and their historical resistance to the pressures of assimilative tendencies.
The focus of the contribution by
Vanessa Pupavac (University of Nottingham, UK) was on ‘Education Reform and the
Politicisation of Language in the Post-Yugoslav States’. Her paper was an
analysis of the Serbo-Croat language in the Post-Yugoslav states. It considered
the politicisation of the language through an examination of works by local
linguists and school grammars, and the response of international officials to the
language question. She argued that international responses over the last decade
have helped legitimate the claim of nationalists to separate languages as part
of nationalist projects and that the divisive consequences of this approach can
be seen in the current problems being experienced by international
administrators in Bosnia-Herzegovina, attempting to reintegrate education in
the republic.
Tomasz Kamusella (University of Opole, Poland) spoke on ‘Nationalism, ethnicity and language: a case study of the Polish region of Upper Silesia’. In his paper he claimed that the development of standard languages in Central Europe is closely connected to the parallel unfolding of national movements that are in part made through these languages and, in turn, make these languages their ‘own’ as national. He showed that whilst this standard coupling of language and nation failed to take root in Upper Silesia it served the Kashubs around Gdansk (Danzig) to refashion themselves as an ethnic group who is on the road to become a new nation with their distinctive language. Using these examples he presented and analysed different uses made of minority languages in similar ecological contexts to draw attention to choices made by group leaders and to their approach to language as an instrument of doing identificational politics or not.
In his paper on ‘Minority languages in Italy’ Paolo Coluzzi (University of Exeter, UK) gave a brief introduction on the languages spoken in Italy, both those that are protected and recognized as ‘minority languages’ by the Italian law, and those that are still termed ‘dialects’ in spite of being Romance languages, as different from each other as Italian is from Spanish, and quite unintelligible to those who do not speak them. Depicting the sociolinguistic situation of one of these protected languages Friulian, (formerly called a ‘dialect’), spoken in northeast Italy, he outlined what needed to be done in terms of language planning and promotion..
7. Language policy for/against indigenous
and immigrant minorities
Cidgem
Balim’s (University of Manchester, UK) talk on ‘Language as a tool of group
survival’ focused on language policy for/against indigenous & immigrant
minorities. Presenting cases from Turkic languages (Meskhetians, Crimean Tatars
and Bulgarian Muslims/Turks) she illustrated how languages and/or dialects can
act as a binding force between ethnically different peoples in their
determination to form a (national) identity. She stressed the importance of
keeping facilities (such as schools etc.) for minorities to prevent resentment
in the face of resulting assimilation due to a lack of their provision.
Marietta Calderón (University of Jerusalem,
Israel) gave a paper on ‘Francophobic Francophones? Perspectives on the Isareli
French-speaking community’. Findings from her work on discursive
identity constructions among immigrated Israelis who remain French citizens
revealed the emphasis being laid on the importance they attribute to French,
one of the most important minority languages in Israel, as a constitutive
element of their (new) identity/identities. She also presented an analysis of
the current situation of French in Israel from a sociological point of view and
the political attitudes toward the Israeli French speaking community.
The talk by Gabrielle Hogan-Brun (University of Bristol, UK) and Meilutė Ramonienė (University of Vilnius, Lithuania) was entitled ‘Lithuanian, Russian and Polish languages in Lituania: traditions and changes’. They presented a sociolinguistic analysis of the changes which had affected Lithuanians since the collapse of communist rule in 1990. Their findings highlighted the language-related challenges that have arisen since independence and the diverging attitudes of the - now legally protected - national minorities whose behavioural and attitudinal patterns can be observed to range from segregation to active integration.
Julia Sallabank (Reading
University, UK) spoke on ‘Guernsey French and standard French: a symbiotic
relationship’. Her research showed how Guernesiais, the indigenous language of
Guernsey in the Channel Islands, and once the language of government and of the
éilite after the Norman invasion of England in 1066, has declined over the
years. According to her findings most native speakers are past child-bearing
age and now constitute less than one in ten of the population. She held the
view that this language, which is now seen as a tongue of the uneducated and
being displaced by a former lower-status language, English, would benefit from
a revival programme at school through a combination of the medium of French and
Guernesiais.
The organisers are planning to publish a selection of papers in an edited volume and to encourage future collaboration through the creation of an ESF-Network.
For more information contact one of the organisers or consult: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mlssaw/min_lang_workshop
Bristol and
Bath Gabrielle
Hogan-Brun, g.hogan-brun@bristol.ac.uk
June 2001 Stefan
Wolff, s.wolff@bath.ac.uk