Advertisement

Reflection on a Multidisciplinary Approach to “Minority Languages” as a Linguistic Object in Europe

  • Alain ViautEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Language Policy book series (LAPO, volume 21)

Abstract

The theme of minority languages includes the idea of functional asymmetry, often present in relationships between linguistic expressions, although such contact must be considered broadly by including “languages” as well as language variants at any level or, in a more common way, as “lects”. So, we first refer here to “languages”, being linguistic expressions that can be distinguished from that mass of lects as emergent and institutionally recognized forms.

This paper, after reminding the meanings of terms such as “minority”, “minoritized”, as well as language minoritization and, conversely, linguistic revitalization processes. Quantitative in demolinguistic terms or qualitative in terms of status, which characterizes the primary meaning of “minority language” is combined with the difficulties of the implementation in its favor of language planning measures. As a result, the minority language has become a complex object that remains fundamentally sociolinguistic, initially as well as on arrival, but which requires a multidisciplinary approach that is as coordinated as possible with those of law, political sciences, psycholinguistics and didactics.

Keywords

Diglossia Multidisciplinarity Minoritization Minority language European Charter for Regional or Minority languages 

References

  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. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux, Sciences Po Bordeaux. http://www.theses.fr/2012BOR40006. Viewed on 25 Oct 2016.
  2. Aracil, L. V. (1965). Conflit linguistique et normalisation linguistique dans l’Europe nouvelle (pp. 10–12). Nancy: CEU; published in Catalan in Aracil, L. V. 1982. Papers de sociolingüística, 31–34. Barcelona: La Magrana.Google Scholar
  3. Bavoux, C. (1997). Lecte. In M.-L. Moreau (Ed.), Sociolinguistique. Concepts de base. Sprimont: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  5. Council of Europe. (1993). Explanatory report to the European charter for regional or minority languages, convention open for signature on 5 November 1992. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/16800cb5e5. Viewed on 25 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
  6. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  7. Guespin, L., & Marcellesi, J.-B. (1986). Pour la glottopolitique. Langages, 83, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haugen, E. (1987). Language planning. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society [Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft] (pp. 626–637). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. Léonard, J. L., & Djordjević Léonard, K. (2014). Un terrain vepse. Études finno-ougriennes, 46. http://efo.revues.org/4376. Viewed on 25 Oct 2016.
  10. Marsh, D., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Policy communities and issue networks. Beyond typology. In D. Marsh & D. A. W. Rhodes (Eds.), Policy networks in British government (pp. 249–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Trimaille, C., & Matthey, M. (2013). Catégorisations. In J. Simonin & S. Wharton (Eds.), Sociolinguistique du contact. Dictionnaire des termes et concepts (pp. 95–122). Lyon: ENS Éditions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Vallverdú, F. (1977). La normalització del català modern. Treballs de sociolingüística catalana, 1, 147–155.Google Scholar
  13. Viaut, A. (1996). Normalisation linguistique et patrimoine. In A. Viaut (Ed.), Langues d’Aquitaine: dynamiques institutionnelles et patrimoine linguistique (pp. 41–70). Bordeaux: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine.Google Scholar
  14. Viaut, A. (2002). Apport et réception française de la Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires: approche sociolinguistique. Revue d’études comparatives Est-Ouest, 33(1), 9–48. http://www.persee.fr/doc/receo_0338-0599_2002_num_33_1_3131. Viewed on 25 Oct 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Viaut, A. (2005). La représentation du standard dans les langues minorées à travers ses fonctions intégrative et séparatrice. In Entgrenzungen für eine Soziologie der Kommunikation (Festschrift für Georg Kremnitz zum 60. Geburtstag) (pp. 88–103). Wien: Praesens.Google Scholar
  16. Viaut, A. (2010). La notion de besoin linguistique et les langues minoritaires. In D. Darbon, R. Otayek, & P. Sadran (Eds.), Altérité et identité, itinéraires croisés. Mélanges offerts à Christian Coulon (pp. 401–416). Bruxelles: Bruylant.Google Scholar
  17. Viaut, A. (2012). Marge linguistique territoriale et langues minoritaires. Lengas revue de sociolinguistique, 71, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weinreich, U. (1968 [1953]). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague/Paris: MoutonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Scientific Research – CNRS France, Laboratory UMR 5478 IkerCNRS – Bordeaux Montaigne University – UPPAPessacFrance
  2. 2.Dynamics of Languages in a Minority Situation, Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and MigrationRUDN-UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations