An Introduction to Comparing Categorizations of Minority Languages

  • Svetlana MoskvitchevaEmail author
  • Alain Viaut
Part of the Language Policy book series (LAPO, volume 21)


The present study is the result of reuniting a selection of texts coming partly from materials presented at the conference “Language and Society in the 21st Century”, which was held at Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN, Moscow) in November 2016. These texts were then reworked and complemented by others in order to correspond to the pre-established project of this collective book entitled Minority Languages from Western Europe and Russia: Comparative Approaches and Categorical Configurations. This is part of a multidisciplinary research on the categorization of minority languages, coordinated in Bordeaux as part the research project Typology of Historical Minority Languages in Europe (Typologie des langues minoritaires historiques en Europe, TLMHE). This research, which follows a previous one in the same field, is mainly based also in a multidisciplinary way on linguistic and legal approaches and primarily calls on sociolinguistics, semantics and linguistic rights. One of the main objectives of the work that ensued, and the published results of which include, among others publications, two collective works (Busquets et al. 2014; Viaut and Moskvitcheva 2014), was to specify the contours of notions that are supposed to categorize in a central way minority languages or those in a minority situation. Those are namely the notions of “regional language”, “linguistic minority”, and “own language”. Although their use is widespread, at least as far as the first two are concerned, on a very large scale, the emphasis has been placed on a space which essentially corresponds to the area delimited by all the Member States of the Council of Europe, from Western Europe to Russia and the CIS, that is, by two large and particularly productive subsets for categorizing these languages. Similarly, under this program, we have been able to confront data on the notion of linguistic minority with those prevailing in Canada, and here we will also provide comparisons of notions categorizing minority languages used in the east of the above-mentioned group, in China. We also took into account the productivity, in particular, of the ex-Soviet space in this area, whose influence has been also significant in Central Asia and China. It was, moreover, useful to identify the most detached categorizing notions. These central notions, as we will see, underline the link between minority language and nation/ethnicity, a nuanced and complex link also present in other stato-national contexts.


  1. Amado-Borthayre, L. (2012). La construction collective de l’action publique en faveur de la langue dans un cadre transfrontalier au Pays Basque et en Catalogne. Thèse de doctorat en Sciences politiques soutenue à l’Institut d’études politiques. Bordeaux: Institut d’études politiques. Viewed on 23 Mar 2018.
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (2012). Slovo v romane. In Sobranie sočinenij T. 3 Teoriâ romana (1930–1961) [Word in the novel. In Collected works T. 3. Theory of the novel] (pp. 73–223). Moscow: Âzyki slavânskih kul′tur. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  3. Bicilli, P. M. (1930). Problema russko-ukrainskih otnošenij v svete istorii [The problem of Russian-Ukrainian relations in the light of history]. Praga: Izdatel′skoe obŝestvo Edinstvo. Viewed on 16 Mar 2018. (In Russian).
  4. Busquets, J., Platon, S., & Viaut, A. (Eds.). (2014). Identifier et catégoriser les langues minoritaires en Europe occidentale. Bordeaux: Maison des sciences de l’homme d’Aquitaine.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. (1992). Explanatory report to the European Charter for regional or minority languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Viewed on 15 Dec 2018.
  6. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses: une archéologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  7. Guespin, L., & Marcellesi, J.-B. (1986). Pour la glottopolitique. Langages, 83, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Kosikov, G. K. (2002). “Čelovek buntuûŝij” i “Čelovek čuvstvitel′nyj” (M. M. Bakhtin i R. Bart). In Sobranie sočinenij. Tom 2. Teoriâ literatury. Metodologiâ gumanitarnyh nauk [“The man is rebellious” and “A sensitive man” (M. M. Bakhtin and R. Bart). In Collected works. Tom 2. Theory of literature. Methodology of the humanities] (pp. 637–654). Moscow: Centr knigi Rudomino. (In Russian).Google Scholar
  10. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Muller, P., & Surel, Y. (1998). L’analyse des politiques publiques. Paris: Montchrestien.Google Scholar
  12. Viaut, A., & Moskvitcheva, S. (Eds.). (2014). La catégorisation des langues minoritaires en Russie et dans l’espace post-soviétique. Bordeaux: Maison des sciences de l’homme d’Aquitaine.Google Scholar
  13. Wurl, U. M. (2011). El concepte jurídic de llengua pròpia. Revista de Llengua i Dret, 56, 37–64. (In Catalan).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General and Russian Linguistics Department and of the Foreign Languages Department, Philological FacultyPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia/RUDN UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Dynamics of Languages in a Minority Situation, Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and MigrationRUDN UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.National Center for Scientific Research – CNRS France, Laboratory UMR 5478 IkerCNRS – Bordeaux Montaigne University – UPPAPessacFrance
  4. 4.Dynamics of Languages in a Minority Situation, Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and MigrationRUDN-UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations