LINGUISTIC REGIONALISM IN EASTERN EUROPE AND BEYOND Minority, Regional and Literary Microlanguages edited by Dieter Stern, Motoki Nomachi, Bojan Belić Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main 2018 Contents Stern, Dieter, Motoki Nomachi & Bojan Belić Linguistic regionalism in (Eastern) Europe: Introduction 7 General Aspects of Linguistic Regionalism Stern, Dieter Languages without an army: minority, regional and literary microlanguages 14 Adamou, Evangelia & Davide Fanciullo Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 40 Bojan Belić, & Nomachi Motoki Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev: perspective 66 A language emancipation Stern, Dieter The privacy of having a language of one’s own: Slavic regional standard projects and minority agendas online 85 Načeva-Marvanová, Mira Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages at their threshold – the state of the art and further prospects 124 Case Studies: Slavic Microliterary Languages Marvan, Jiří (†) Łysohorskyʼs Lachia and Lachian – Politics – Poetics – Scholarship? 150 Lifanov, Konstantin Язык восточнословацких текстов с точки зрения теории литературных микроязыков 166 Michna, Ewa Language situation of stateless groups struggling for recognition: The case of the Lemko language in Poland 184 Osowski, Błażej Моравский язык: перспективы 204 источники регионализма, состояние и Woolhiser, Curt Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps: exploring the perceptual dialectology of Poland’s Podlasie region 217 Case Studies: Linguistic regionalism in Western Europe Terao, Satoshi Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese: the “latest” and the “least” among Romance languages 257 Colui, Paolo, Lissander Brasca, Marco Triino, Simona Scuri Language planning for Italian regional languages: the case of Lombard and Sicilian 274 Cornips, Leonie Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg through dialect forms and popular culture 299 The voice of regional language activists Labudda, Jaromira Edukacja kaszubska wczoraj i dziś 320 Maksymiuk, Jan The development of a Latin spelling system for Podlachian 335 in memoriam Jiří Marvan 1936-2016 POĆECHA POETOWI* Śćekléni wětrów obłómało Stómy owocnej zahrady? Tela sňeha napadało? Ňebudźeš už nigda młady? Zaś budu řéky śe rozléwać pod wélhkym nebém wesna. Ňebudźe će? No budźe spjéwać twoja pěsňa. (1942) CONSOLATION FOR THE POET** The violent winds have broken Your trees that with fruit were hung? A lot of snow has fallen? Will you never again be young? Again the rivers will be swelling Under a vast sky in spring. Youʼll be no more? But your poems will sing. (Translated by Ewald Osers) *Óndra Łysohorsky. Lašsko poezyja 1931-1977, edited by J. Marvan and P. Gan, Cologne-Vienna 1988, p. 647. **Bard swojeho ludu / Euro-lašsky poeta / A Euro-Lachian poet / The bard of his people. Óndra Łysohorsky, edidted by J. Marvan, Ostrava 2009, p. 67.         LINGUISTIC REGIONALISM IN (EASTERN) EUROPE: INTRODUCTION Dieter Stern (Ghent), Motoki Nomachi (Sapporo), Bojan Belić (Seattle) In the early 1990s a team of anthropologists from the University of Frankfurt am Main set out to find out what exactly region and regionalism means from the grassroots perspective of local communities and individuals. They came to the overall conclusion that regionalization of identities is somehow linked to the growing individualization in Western societies and provided the bulky volume, which contains their findings, with the pertinent title Region: Heimaten der individualisierten Gesellschaft ‘Region: Homelands of an individualized society’ (SCHILLING / PLOCH 1995). Home or homeland was conceived of as a personal, perhaps even an embodied experience. Regionalism would arise where no strong central identification model was on offer or where this model had lost for one reason or another its binding force either by having been discredited historically or just by not being able to offer a strong narrative of the past and the future for the present. Seen from this perspective, regionalization would be the withdrawal of collective identity towards the experiential immediacy of the private sphere. The very process of the growing regionalization of identity throughout Europe illustrates how the private is inherently political, and recent evolutions in Europe show how the downsizing of identity to personal proportions is put to use in order to give expression to public concerns about ongoing large-scale sociopolitical processes of change. At the moment of writing this short introduction to our volume, the council of the province of Venezia, which is headed by the Lega Nord, a party of the extreme right, has declared the Venetians a people in their own right on the basis of their Venetian language, which, it is claimed, has little to do with Italian. A news commentator argued that this is to be taken as a first step to achieve political independence from Italy as an antagonistic response to the perceived negative effects of unsuccessful national governance and globalization, more specifically the current migration crisis (SCHLAMP 2016). This latest development may give a glimpse into how regionalism may possibly evolve in the future, viz. a tool to renegotiate ideologies of belonging. Within this interpretative context, recent migrants become the symbolic vanguard of a culture of radical openness which would deny local residents their right to their home, culture and territory. Regionalism would position itself as a refutation of this perceived design for a future one-world society of the homeless, defending the notion of a territory and an attendant language and culture as the indispensable locus of identity and self-determination. As a symbolic practice, identity could not possibly do without powerful material 8 Dieter Stern, Motoki Nomachi & Bojan Belić objects like land and language. Unlike the national claim to exclusive territoriality, the demagnified regional variant of this same claim will, due to its experiential immediacy, easily come to cover also the ideational sphere of the private as the smallest possible zone of exclusive identity building. Apart from cases like the province of Venice, however, linguistic and cultural regionalization goes for the most part unnoticed. Though the Council of Europe has realized its political potential and made it part of its legislation, accordingly, regionalization is basically a grassroots phenomenon kept alive by enthusiasts trying to make sense of their environment by building a home out of language and culture in a world that no longer feels like home. Attempts at making one’s local way of speaking a “real,” officially recognized language may at first glance strike any accidental onlooker as the weird whim of some lone freak, but the number of such freaks appears to be on the increase, and many of them appear to find local support quite easily. As solitary as their undertakings may be in the beginning, they appear to strike a chord with their intended public. Many may disapprove of the specific way in which regional identity is played out by these activists, disagreeing, e.g., about the need and usefulness of elaborated orthographic designs. But in the end even this disagreement on the details of implementation betrays a general concern with deeper issues of identity. Linguistic regionalism should therefore be seen as one of many possible surface expressions of a much broader, not even necessarily linguistic, search for a place to identify with. In this context, the editors, whose background is Slavic linguistics and who have been working on sociolinguistic aspects of regionalism and the formation of standard languages in the Slavic-speaking countries, started to collaborate in various frameworks, including the JSPS grant-in-aid titled “A Comprehensive Study of the Slavic Literary Microlanguages after the Revolution of Eastern Europe” (2013‐2016: headed by Motoki Nomachi) and the bilateral agreement for collaboration between Ghent University and Hokkaido University. The core of the present volume consists of the revised versions of papers which were presented at the symposium “Slavic Minorities and their (Literary) Languages in the European Context and beyond: the Current Situation and Critical Challenges,” held at Tokyo’s Waseda University on January 30‐31, 2015 as one of the events of the abovementioned grant-based project and the agreement. The symposium took place at a time when mass migration to Europe with its implications, which also pertain to the topic of our volume, had not yet reached the critical threshold of becoming an issue of major concern for European politics and media coverage. Accordingly, with the exception of Satoshi TERAO’S, the contributions to this volume make little reference to the possible interplay of the seemingly contrary forces of migration and regionalization. The initiators of the conference and editors of the present volume being Slavicists, the contributions to this volume display a clear Slavic bias. Seeing that standardization Introduction 9 projects for regional and minority languages are not restricted to Slavic languages – though among these languages the creation of ever new literary microlanguages has become particularly fashionable in recent years – the editors felt the need to widen the perspective of the volume and also include insights from and about non-Slavic European languages, in order to deepen our understanding of the processes at hand within the Slavic-speaking countries. The volume offers two separate sections for case studies, accordingly, one for Slavic and the other for non-Slavic regional and minority languages. In dealing with regional and minority languages, one still has to face the situation where basic terminological issues are as yet unsettled. Tags like regional and minority language are concurrently used, and it is not always clear whether they are used to mean the same or quite different things. The European Council has adopted a corresponding legal classification, leaving open what its cultural or linguistic substrate might be. The situation is further muddled up by insufficient communication between Slavic studies, with its own field of investigation into minority or regional languages, which within this research tradition go by the name of literary microlanguages, and the disciplines devoted to other European linguistic minorities. The contribution by Dieter STERN specifically addresses issues of terminology, trying to untangle its often misleading and vague use. This contribution also offers a critical reassessment of Aleksandr Duličenko’s by now classical concept of literary microlanguage. Issues of theoretical relevance are also addressed in the immediately following contributions. In dealing with the specific case of Pomak, Evangelia ADAMOU and Davide FANCIULLO offer a critique of current regional language designs which put too much emphasis on standardization and writing as a strategy of language maintenance, showing that this approach, rather than helping the cause of the respective linguistic minority, is likely to provoke antagonistic feelings within the community, whose members are likely to experience language standardization as an encroachment upon their specific economy of meaning. Building upon the cases of the Bunyev and the Banat Bulgarian languages in Serbia, Bojan BELIĆ and Motoki NOMACHI elaborate on the idea of minority linguistic rights and their possible negative effects on linguistic minorities, which might give rise to a competitive approach of enhancing the status of one’s linguistic minority community rather than serving its immediate needs. In another contribution, Dieter STERN approaches a sample of Slavic literary microlanguages from a netnographic angle, addressing the virtuality of literary microlanguage designs. His survey is guided by the question whether online activities of linguistic minority activists will, apart from creating online support for a purportedly offline community, entail also specific forms of virtual community building emerging from intimate forms of identity play online. The theoretical section is rounded off by Mira NAČEVA-MARVANOVÁ’S survey of linguistic corpora of literary microlanguages, in which the usefulness of text 10 Dieter Stern, Motoki Nomachi & Bojan Belić corpora for formal linguistic research into this particular type of languages is addressed. The first group of case studies is dedicated to a range of Slavic literary microlanguages, which are approached from diverse methodological and ideological perspectives. Jiří MARVAN’S engagingly written essay on Óndra Łysohorsky’s private language for poetic purposes, which became known as Lachian, is a convincing case for the intimate relationship between language and individual which feeds into the commitment necessary for language creation. Konstantin LIFANOV critically reassesses the allegedly long-standing tradition of Eastern Slovak as a literary microlanguage. It is a showcase which debunks often invoked ideas of continuity of tradition and identifies them as myth building devices employed to sanction current standardization projects by providing them with a purportedly time-honored tradition. Ewa MICHNA and Błażej OSOWSKI approach their respective cases, Lemko and Moravian, from the perspective of professional linguists pleading for the legitimate course of their respective linguistic community, thereby straddling the border between sober linguistic inventory taking and outright linguistic activism. Both papers represent the current mainstream in dealing with Slavic regional and minority languages. Curt WOOLHISER approaches the Eastern Slavic dialects of Podlachian – for which a project has been launched only recently to raise them to the status of a regional language (see MAKSYMIUK, this volume) – from the inside perspective of the residents of that area, applying classical tools of folk linguistic research (dialect recognition and map drawing tests). Drawing also upon ethnographic sources from the late 19th/early 20th century, he is able to show that a basic perceptual change with respect to regional linguistic variation is underway. Whereas under historical conditions of strict local confinement of one’s life and perception language was primarily conceived of in terms of the immediate socio-geographical space to mark off group boundaries within one’s immediate local surroundings, the present residents of this region, especially the young or ‘third’ generation, tend to perceive regional linguistic variation increasingly in terms of large-scale ethno-linguistic units, such as Ukrainian and Belarusian, testifying to the success of ‘secondary attitudes’ (KALOGJERA 1985) as transmitted through the national education system. This reconceptualization of the role of regional language variation is possibly also at the foundation of the basic inner contradiction of current regional linguistic activism, which, in trying to articulate a true regionalist agenda, is unable to free itself from ethno-romantic rhetoric. The second group of case studies is meant to go beyond the narrow scope of Slavic literary microlanguages and the specific framework within which these are usually treated, by inviting specialists in non-Slavic regional languages to provide a glimpse into their field of study. This is not only meant to show that similar things are happening elsewhere, too, but it is also hoped Introduction 11 that the inclusion of studies from outside the Duličenkian paradigm will inspire new approaches to the study of Slavic regional and minority languages. Satoshi TERAO provides an overview of the Mirandese linguistic community and its language in northeastern Portugal. Set against his own Japanese background, Terao then addresses the question of whether the European policy of linguistic regionalization is by any means transferable and applicable to linguistic situations elsewhere in the world, especially to Eastern Asia. He also touches upon the delicate issue of possibly conflicting linguistic rights of heritage groups on the one hand and immigrant newcomers on the other hand, thereby putting linguistic regionalization in a truly global perspective. Paolo COLUZZI, Lissander BRASCA, Marco TRIZZINO and Simona SCURI offer a glimpse into the intricate regional linguistic situation of Italy, which is quite famous for the tremendous diversity of its so-called dialects. Their study contrasts the efforts taken to achieve official recognition in Lombardy and Sicily. Notwithstanding the apparent differences, with regard to the design and respective success of the concerted efforts for recognition, both cases display a common focus on the proliferation of regional languages as a means of everyday oral communication. This bespeaks an attitude towards linguistic regionalism quite different from that of most of the Slavic ventures. Where Lombard and Sicilian are intended to become an audible feature of the regional landscape, the Slavic approach strives to ennoble local linguistic practices by adding to them the dignity provided by a standardized literary language. Leonie CORNIPS explains the emergence of linguistic regionalism in the Dutch province of Zuid Limburg as a side effect of the overall process of Dutch nation building. The crucial point she is making is that there would be no Limburg linguistic regionalism if the Limburgians had not been forged into a subnational sociopolitical entity in the course of Dutch nation building, part of which consisted of the delimitation of provincial administrative units. She illustrates this point by referring to Limburg popular culture, in which Limburg identity is constructed through a contrast of periphery and center by confronting Limburg attitudes, traits and manners with those of posh Amsterdammers. Cornips’ contribution should be read as an important aside on the efforts of many scholars in the field of Slavic literary microlanguages, e.g., STEGHERR (2003), to interpret recently emerging regional linguistic movements along the lines of primordial independent ethnic groups. All three contributions testify to a quite different approach to regional and minority languages, which capitalizes to a much lesser degree on standardization and building up a written tradition as compared to the Slavic linguistic sphere. This might ultimately reflect a difference in linguistic ideologies between Slavic and other European speech communities as well as academic cultures, with writing and literacy ranking much higher in Slavic communities and cultures than elsewhere. 12 Dieter Stern, Motoki Nomachi & Bojan Belić The volume is rounded off by two contributions by language activists, who provide an inside perspective on linguistic regionalism. As one of the first teachers of Kashubian and an author of textbooks for use at school, Jaromira LABUDDA takes an active part in planning curricula for the Kashubian language, one of the more firmly established Eastern European minority languages, particularly since it was recognized as an official regional language in Poland in 2005. Her portrait of the pedagogical efforts taken for the spread and maintenance of Kashubian not only provides a balance of the achievements and challenges for the Kashubian linguistic cause, but also bespeaks the strong dependence on a high degree of personal commitment needed to keep even a minority language like Kashubian, with its firmly established infrastructure, going in the face of the general erosion of strictly localized ways of living. The role and significance of personal commitment is self-evident in the case of starting up a regional language project. Jan MAKSYMIUK is one of the latest founding fathers of a Slavic regional language. In his paper he presents his own spelling system for Podlachian, a regional variety of East Slavic spoken in the Podlachia region in the Eastern borderland of Poland. The title of his recent book Čom ne po-svojomu? ‘Why not in your own language?’ bespeaks a true spirit of non-conformism by converting the conformist requirement to validate and defend the use of local ways of speaking into an open invitation to do whatever you like and to express yourself freely the way you think fit. The barely hidden message of his enthusiastic project lies possibly also at the foundation of so many other efforts throughout Europe to promote linguistic regionalism: Be yourself – be local! Though some projects will take on the rhetoric of romantic linguistic nationalism while others will try to put on more contemporary attitudes of civil rights movements, all of them appear to boil down to a fundamental dissent with the existing order and a longing for individual sense-making. To our deepest regret, two individuals did not get to see the completion of this volume: one of the contributors and the keynote speaker of the abovementioned symposium in Tokyo, Jiří Marvan, has not lived to witness the publication of the volume. Marvan was famous, first of all, for his eminent achievements in Czech, Ukrainian and Baltic linguistics, but he was also one of the most distinguished figures in the study of Óndra Łysohorsky’s Lachian literary language. Also, as one of the closest friends of the poet and the most enthusiastic supporters of Łysohorsky’s poems and thoughts, Marvan compiled various collections of his poems, including the capital works titled Lašsko poezyja 1931-1977 (1988) and Lachische Poesie 1931-1976 (1989) thereby contributing to Lachian literary studies. All his works related to Óndra Łysohorsky were the ultimate source of inspiration to organize the symposium and produce this volume. Without his understanding, support and active collaboration, neither symposium nor this volume would have been realized. Drahy profesore a miły přotelu, moc sérdečňe dźekujemy Wóm za wšecko. Introduction 13 The other individual is Bogusława Labudda who, for many years, has served as a curator at the Museum of Kashubian-Pomeranian Literature and Music in Wejherowo, Poland. Much like her father Aleksander Labuda, she was an enthusiastic patroness of the Kashubian regionalism. She generously supported the aforementioned grant-in-aid, particularly by providing hard-toreach materials on Kashubian and other literary microlanguages. She was also one of the inspirational sources when it came to organizing the symposium in Tokyo. The volume was long in the making, and its completion would not have been possible without the help from others apart from the editors and the contributors. We wish to express our warmest thanks to Susanna (Shosh) Westen, formerly of the University of Washington in Seattle, who did a fantastic job in getting the language of all the English contributions right and converting them from less fine to finest English. We have to thank also Christian Voss for his friendly support and willingness to have our volume included in his series Studies on Language and Culture in Central and Eastern Europe. Many thanks go also to the staff of Peter Lang Publishers, especially Mr. Benjamin Kloss, with whom it was a pleasure to collaborate to get the final touches done and get the volume ready for publication. REFERENCES KALOGJERA, D. 1985. Attitudes toward Serbo-Croatian language varieties. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 52: 93-109. SCHILLING, H. / B. PLOCH (eds.). 1995. Region. Heimaten der individualisierten Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main. SCHLAMP, H-J. 2016. Warum Venetien ein eigener Staat werden will. Spiegel Online, 11 December 2016. STEGHERR, M. 2003. Das Russinische. Kulturhistorische und soziolinguistische Aspekte. Munich.    LANGUAGES WITHOUT AN ARMY: MINORITY, REGIONAL AND LITERARY MICROLANGUAGES Dieter Stern (Ghent) On October 1, 2017 Catalonia held a referendum on its independence. The Spanish central government perceived this as a major political threat and reacted by massive police interventions to stop the vote. In the course of this operation at least 844 people and 33 police were hurt. In the days following the vote legal actions were taken against representatives of the Catalonian regional government, and independence leader Carles Puigdemont fled to Belgium to avoid arrest. The Catalonians had to learn the hard way what it means to have a language without an army. One may with some reason argue that this is all about politics and growing discontent with the central government, possibly even with the EU at large, and not so much about language and ethnicity per se. But still, language, more specifically the recognition of Catalan as a language of its own, has played an eminent role in the whole cultural-political process leading up to the events of October 2017. The case of Catalan should serve to remind everyone that minority issues, among them the issue of minority languages, are by no means minor issues of interest only to the odd specialist in the field. Catalonians are, of course, a sizable minority of some million people, and most minorities, especially those we will be dealing with in this volume, are much smaller, and so their impact on big politics, which might get them into the news, may accordingly be expected to be far less significant. The impact of these smaller minorities and their respective languages or, rather linguistic ambitions, is, however, not to be measured in the sheer number of their respective speakers and/or supporters. It is rather their recently increasing proliferation which may be indicative of a major shift in the way people construct ethnic-style identities throughout Europe. It is not the overall number of any one linguistic minority which is relevant here, but the overall trend towards ever smaller, highly localized forms of identification, to which the minority language projects discussed in this volume give testimony. Throughout Europe there appears to be a steadily accelerating process of fragmentation and personalization of cultural and linguistic identities underway, which seems to be particularly vibrant in Eastern Europe. Taking a closer look at these minuscule linguistic communities – some of them of long standing, but many quite recent arrivals on the scene – one cannot avoid the impression that the case of Catalonia offers us a glimpse into the past rather than into the future, which may see a further disintegration – not just of Catalan – into ever smaller regional languages. Languages without an army 15 Minority language, regional language, literary microlanguage – is it all the same? The contributions to the present volume deal with languages which appear to be in one way or another defective in at least some of the features that would allow them to be listed within the inventory of today’s established standard languages. Most will intuitively attach labels such as small or minor to these languages, implying not just smallness with respect to the number of speakers, but also smallness in terms of a restricted functionality (KUSSE 2009, 41) or existing power differentials (NIC CRAITH 2003, 60-1), the latter making them in a way languages without an army and a navy.1 Of course, smallness is a relative notion and is sometimes applied to fully-fledged national languages like Dutch, because of their comparatively smaller number of registered native speakers and their weaker prominence as languages of science, international communication, etc. (KUSSE 2009, 41-2). On the other hand, there are languages such as Kurdish which share all of the features typical of languages that we call small or minority languages but which are used by millions of speakers. Apart from that, Max Weinreich’s famous bon mot is meant to say that a language without an army and a navy is usually deemed a dialect, but the point in calling a linguistic repertoire a minority or regional language is to stress that it is not just a dialect. The bon mot implies a clear-cut binary distinction between either ‘languages’ with power potentials or ‘dialects’ without them, leaving no space in between for other categories. What then could these languages in between language and dialect be? There appears to be no binding and conclusive demarcation of the shady zone between dialect and language inhabited by minority, regional and literary microlanguages. Of course, there are quite straightforward cases such as Basque, where a linguistic repertoire lacking power and full functionality must be awarded the status of a language simply because there are no known relatives which could claim it as a dialect (TRUDGILL 2004, 36). Basque must clearly be classified as an Abstand language. The same holds true for Saami, which surrenders the                                                                                                                 1 The present volume thus clearly focuses on what has been called ‘absolute minorities’ or ‘minorities without a fatherland’ by MARTI (2009, 19) or languages which do not subscribe to a national matica (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 76). Cases of extraterritorial national minorities, like Germans in Belgium, where the minority in question fully subscribes to the standard of an extraterritorial nation state, will accordingly be excluded from consideration. We will consider these cases rather as potential minority languages, inasmuch as (some of) their speakers might in theory any time in the future decide to dissolve the association with the exocentric standard and opt for a regional linguistic identity. For much the same reason, Carinthian Slovene ought to be excluded, though there is a strong cultural movement within this group which will make use of the diverse dialects of Carinthia rather than the Slovene standard language for written expression. 16 Dieter Stern power of official language as well as part of its virtual functions to Norwegian and Finnish, but no one would seriously put up the claim of its being a dialect of one of these two languages, though with respect to its sociolinguistic functionality it comes pretty close to being a dialect. There is thus a conflict of approaches. Weinreich’s formula focuses exclusively on sociopolitical status, whereas most linguists will also take into account genetic linguistic findings in order to determine the status of a linguistic repertoire as dialect or language. For the languages discussed in this volume, all of which tend definitely more to the Ausbau than to the Abstand end of Kloss’s opposition, the genetic status would as a rule be more tenuous than is the case for Basque and Saami, and a claim of their being just another dialect could be, and in fact was (and in some cases still is), put forward, applying techniques of erasure of potential differences and iconization of common features (IRVINE / GAL 2000). So even under the heading of ‘minority language,’ there seems to rule inequality. On the one hand, there are ‘real,’ i.e., more or less uncontested minority languages. On the other hand, there are minority languages with an insecure status between dialect and language. This points to a key aspect of the status of a language, viz., official, legal and public recognition of a language as a cultural object in its own right. A language proper, e.g., any national standard language, would then be a linguistic repertoire which has completed the course of being recognized on all pertinent levels and for which measures have been taken to secure its autonomous state by investing it with power and, by the same token, providing the preconditions for full functionality. A dialect would be any distinct linguistic repertoire for which there exists a hitherto unchallenged claim of affiliation by a higher ranking and more encompassing linguistic repertoire. Minority and regional languages as well as literary microlanguages would then run the full gamut from the most spurious counter-claim of linguistic independence up to the situation where full-scale official recognition has been achieved, but where central official functions are still denied. Final recognition would of course depend on the power of the argument to convince and the willingness of all parties concerned to be convinced. It appears then that the difference between a language and a minority language boils down to the process of social and political negotiation of perceptions and claims, making it largely a political and cultural construct (NIC CRAITH 2003, 61). In the contemporary European context, the Council of Europe, which authored the European Charter for Minority or Regional Languages (ECRML), has become the major reference point and seems, contrary to its original aims, to have become instrumental to the generation of ever new regional or minority languages (NIC CRAITH 2003). Its essentialist focus on autochthonous cultural linguistic heritage, which is largely conceived in terms of an inherent connectedness of culture and territory, appears to determine the regionalist orientation of most recent linguistic rights movements Languages without an army 17 throughout Europe. It goes without saying that in a world where so-called objective or matter-of-fact arguments prevail, extreme linguistic proximity may prove an almost insuperable obstacle to general recognition (NIC CRAITH 2003, 66), condemning the language varieties in question to remain forever in a state of langue collatérale (ELOY 2004). The success of efforts at getting recognition may also possibly account for the recent emergence of the label of ‘regional language’ alongside ‘minority language,’ as applied by European institutions. In fact, the languages dealt with in this volume fall into different official categories. Very few, like Burgenland Croatian, are assigned the title of minority languages, whereas others, like Kashubian or Limburgs, are officially designated as regional languages, but most (Silesian, Moravian, Aegean Mecedonian, Bunyev, Eastern Slovak, Podlachian, etc.) have no official label whatsoever and are not even considered to be languages by some (GUSTAVSSON 2006). For some of the yet unrecognized linguistic repertoires, activists are trying hard to achieve recognition, and if they ever succeed, those languages will most probably be awarded the title of ‘regional language.’ The definition of ‘regional language’ as provided by the ECRML is not very illuminating. It merely states that regional languages are different from dialects, without offering any further explanation. The delimitation between regional and minority languages is also rather hazy and often appears not to be in agreement with the specific labels assigned to individual languages.2 It has been argued that the term was introduced as a formal solution to avoid the legally and also financially more binding term ‘minority language,’ which was found objectionable by the French government in application to claims of recognition for some 75 languages identified in Cerquiglini’s minority languages report for France (NIC CRAITH 2003, 62-3; SIBILLE 2000). WICHERKIEWICZ (2003, 76; 2007, 350) provides a list of ten features which set regional languages apart from other languages, especially minority languages:3 (1) close genetic relationship with the language of the majority on its territory (2) long-standing tradition of common historical evolution within the tradition of the majority language (3) its users perceive themselves as belonging to the linguistic nation of the majority but also have particularly strong feelings about their regional identity (4) pronounced dialectal differentiation on its territory                                                                                                                 2 3 See NAČEVA-MARVANOVÁ (this volume) for a more detailed discussion of European official terminology. For a similar but more concise delimitation of regional against minority languages see WIRRER (1997, 155). 18 Dieter Stern (5) regional languages are typically classifiable as dialect clusters (6) lack of a standardized (written) form of the language, or existing standard not being commonly known within the speech community (7) rich and long-standing tradition of vernacular writing (8) low prestige in relation to the language of the majority (9) opposition toward being classified as minority from within the group (10) efforts to bolster up the status and prestige during the past two decades This list is certainly very appealing in that it neatly sums up the typical phenomena encountered in dealing with regional language movements, but as with all lengthy feature lists, the defining power of the list seems to decrease, the more features are added. Some of the features may be laden with intrinsic problems, such as the gradable feature (7), which immediately calls for a definition of ‘rich’ and ‘long-standing.’ Other features, such as (6), also seem to be applicable to many minority languages, unless one wants to introduce this feature as a demarcation line between regional and minority languages, which would require a written standard for a language to be qualified as minority language. This, however, would conflict with feature (1), which is also meant to distinguish between regional and minority languages. If both features define regional versus minority languages, they should be expected to align in all cases. But genetical relationship and standardization are not intrinsically related and may therefore not be expected to coincide and align. Other features might prove too restrictive; again feature (7), if applied strictly, would exclude quite a number of current regional language projects, or feature (8), which is too simplistic to address complex situations of deeply hidden feelings of linguistic inferiority alongside overt expressions of dialect pride, as may be encountered in most parts of Southern Germany. Also, feature (9) proves to be deceptive in that it assumes a more or less homogeneous attitude among the envisaged regional group (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 77). We therefore suggest a different approach, taking feature (1), which indeed touches upon a core problem of the whole issue, as a point of departure. We assume that a commonly accepted criterion for judging the status of a linguistic repertoire as independent is historical depth. Anyone with some knowledge of historical linguistics will point to the fact that Frisian represents the last remnant of a language of its own. Said to be historically closer to English than to Dutch, unlike Limburgs, it could not be claimed by Dutch as a dialect (provided, of course, you accept historical linguistics as a suitable base on which to settle matters of language conflict). But then the argument in favor of Frisian’s being a language of its own rests exclusively on historical linguistic evidence of a couple of sound changes which, at a quite remote historical period, differentiated Western Germanic into various ‘dialects,’ as historical linguists would call these isoglossic subdivisions. These isoglossic Languages without an army 19 differences are, however, of the same type as those which at a historically later date made Limburgs look different from Standard Dutch and also from the rest of the Dutch dialects. What looks like a principal difference between Frisian and Limburgs at first glance, then, turns out to be a difference of degree, viz., a difference of historical remoteness of the pertinent isoglossic changes.4 However, in a culture of learning, which assigns a central significance to history, time-depth may make all the difference, privileging seniority over youth. Thus, public recognition will be more easily achieved for any linguistic repertoire for which a long-standing history of linguistic divergence can be demonstrated. It then appears that the real difference between Frisian and Limburgs – and this holds also for Kashubian versus Silesian and many others – is that scholars and the general public have come to accept Frisian as an independent language, making it a real minority language, whereas Limburgs, though it has achieved official recognition as a regional language after a period of intense petitioning, may be expected to be treated only with reserve as a language in its own right by those who take a historical-genetic stance towards matters of linguistic diversity. This historical-genetic language ideology may be supposed to be reflected somehow even among the speakers of the regional language itself, who still have to come to grips with the idea that their idiom should no longer be regarded as what it was for them before, viz., an admittedly weird, but nevertheless Dutch dialect. On the other hand, where the historical-genetic ideology is dropped or used in an informal and haphazard manner, anything may be possible and even real Abstand minority languages may be claimed by representatives of linguistic majorities as a variant of their standard code, applying the most radical forms of erasure imaginable. Within the ideological framework of the Windischen hypothesis, Slovene in Carinthia has been held not to be a Slavic language at all, but a local, heavily Slavicized German dialect (PRIESTLEY 1997). Konstantinos TSIOULKA (1907) took great pains to prove at booklength that the Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia were in fact archaic Greek dialects. And today every Turk will tell you that Kurdish is just an uphill variety of Turkish, though it is clearly an Iranian language. In all of these cases, there are vested political interests behind the claims put forward. However, as the case of Tsioulka demonstrates, great pains are taken to keep up the appearances of linguistic argument (writing a book, using a particular type of learned language, …), thus attesting to the tremendous authority which linguistic method has gained among the European populace to settle ethnic or national                                                                                                                 4 Interestingly enough, on a glottometric dissimilarity scale set up by HOPPENBROU(2001) the independent language Frisian scores lower than some of the peripheral regional varieties of Dutch, among them Limburgs. See also WICHERKIEWICZ (2007, 355). Thus, on glottometric grounds Frisian could by all means be claimed as a Dutch dialect. WERS 20 Dieter Stern conflicts. This authority comes along with a tantamount trust in the capacity of linguistics to provide powerful truth measures to distinguish languages from dialects, which, as alluded to above, it may not after all have. As all of this shows, the social process of recognition is controlled by two separate forces; firstly, the desire, whatever the motivation, for cultural independence or at least uniqueness, and, secondly, the desire to shore up this state of independence and/or uniqueness against counter-claims. This is where linguistics comes in and where it is turned into a sociopolitical tool by assigning it the role of an arbiter. This particular role assignment is based on the deeply rooted general ideology that science uncovers objective and unchallengeable truth and that conflictual issues such as identity claims can and should be settled by neutral and objective arbiters. But at the bottom of it, identity issues have everything to do with individual and subjective strife. Claiming or disclaiming a language is not about establishing linguistic truth, but about fashioning the world according to one’s desires. Accordingly, language claims are put forward wherever someone sees a chance and has a vested interest in doing so. Silesian will be claimed by Polish, not because of its linguistic proximity, but because of fears of the possible disintegration of the Polish national project. The fact that Silesian is in fact recognizably close to Polish helps the Polish argument and puts the Silesian position seriously under pressure, but solely because both sides accept modern linguistic science as an arbiter. Lack of public recognition apparently also informs legal usage, which shuns treating linguistic codes only recently promoted to language status on a par with long-established minority languages. The difference between minority and regional languages could then be determined as a difference between languages with official AND public recognition as opposed to languages with official recognition only. Since public recognition needs time to take firm root, minority languages are those with a long-standing tradition of continuous campaigning for official recognition, as is illustrated by the differential treatment of Macedonian in relation to Pomak by minority rights reports (see ADAMOU / FANCIULLO, this volume). The public can be made to accept any claim as factual truth as long as a tradition and an institution (or at least a vociferous and influential pressure group) stand behind it rather than a lone individual who only recently conceived the idea that the way of speaking of his immediate local surroundings might be considered a language of its own. Aleksandr DULIČENKO’S differentiation into avtonomnye vs. periferijnye and ostrovnye types of literary microlanguages (2011, 322-3) would then boil down to a difference of long-established vs. recent claims of linguistic independence. What then would literary microlanguages be in this context? Slavic studies appears to be the only academic discipline which has made the study of minority languages in written form into a specialized subdiscipline. Aleksandr DULIČENKO may be credited not only with having founded a spe- Languages without an army 21 cial branch of research under the label of literaturnye mikrojazyki, but also with having made it one of the most prolific fields of activity within Slavic studies. Since the publication of his seminal work in 1981, the list of established Slavic written languages has been considerably extended by ever new small literary languages. Though many of these languages will disappear from existence – but not from the list – as fast as they pop up, they appear quite likely to be succeeded by some new arrivals, for example, Podlachian (MAKSYMIUK, this volume). It is almost as if focusing on the written aspect of minority or regional languages is something specifically Slavic, but then Germanic and Romance linguistics pay no specific attention to writing and treat regional and minority languages primarily from the perspective of their speakers, their sociolinguistic situation and their linguistic rights. What would appear to be specific to Slavic cultures is then rather specific to the culture of Slavic studies (especially in Eastern Europe), which values written expression above oral use. For many a scholar of Slavic, written language is the epitome of culture, and anything which is put into writing may aspire to be considered culture in the long run. This is probably why the most recent definition of literary microlanguages, as provided by DULIČENKO (2011, 318), does not even try to answer the question anyone is likely to put: What is the difference between literary/standard languages and literary microlanguages?5 Duličenko’s definition is very strange indeed in that it, rather than demarcating the boundaries of its object, stresses the overall similarities with literary languages. The first of the six criteria for literary microlanguages states the overarching point that they are just literary languages, very clearly:                                                                                                                 5 See also RABUS (2015, 148-51) who is confounded by the aprioric and intuitive way in which Duličenko applies his own definitions and categories, which contrasts with the stark rigidity of the categories themselves. Rabus then sets out to refine, or rather redefine the concept of microliteratry language by testing it against Monika Wingender’s recent framework for the definition of standard languages. Rabus’s is basically an effort at making literariness or standardness a quantifiable and measurable entity by using Wingender’s tetrahedron model as some kind of calculus. But the answer this calculus may at best provide is to what degree any literary language – be it micro- or not – qualifies as standard on a standardness scale. It does not solve the problem of drawing a line between microand regular standard languages. At best it could provide a numerical value for micro-ness to substitute for a true definition. Ultimately, relying exclusively on the calculus will force upon the observer the idea that standardness is in fact a gradable property. The difference between micro- and regular standard would be just a matter of degree and nothing else. This would, by the way, be in line with what Duličenko himself says, viz., that there is no real difference between micro- and regular standard languages, a point which he never substantiated and which may be questioned indeed. But then any calculus can only prove and confirm what it is designed for. It is unable to identify principal conceptual differences beyond its specific scope. In the case at hand this would be gradability. 22 Dieter Stern “[Литературный микроязык] — это форма существования языка - как и любого этнического литературного языка (в отличие от таких форм существования, как диалекты или просторечия)” (DULIČENKO 2011, 318). ‘[A literary microlanguage] is a form of linguistic being just like any other ehtnic literary language (as opposed to those forms of linguistic being as dialects and substandard usage).’ So, instead of delimiting his object of study, Duličenko makes a plea for treating literary microlanguages on a par with other written languages. His interest appears not to be in defining an object but in promoting a cause. The hidden argument of his plea is quite straightforward. There is a sharp dividing line between culture (kul’turnost’) and non-culture (beskul’turnost’) for linguistic expression, and this is writing. Any linguistic repertory which can be put into writing and provide for cultured (which for Duličenko seems to imply standardized) forms of expression ought to be considered as constitutive of high culture, irrespective of the total number of those who will ever use the cultured medium in question. Smallness is for Duličenko a self-evident, simple and countable fact. There is no need for him to define it. None of the languages on his list may ever be expected to reach the number of speakers and writers of even the smallest Slavic national language. Further implications of smallness are never even touched upon. His approach is programmatic rather than academic. Accordingly, the literacy checklist which DULIČENKO (2011, 343) provides for Slavic literary microlanguages should not be taken as a calculus to define literacy as a gradable entity, but rather as a to-do list for activists of individual language projects which indicates the steps that need to be taken in the future. The example of Duličenko’s testifies to an interest in regional linguistic identities which is clearly not restricted to his person, but reflects a wider movement toward a reorganization of patterns of identification throughout Eastern Europe. Local Eastern European activists, who for the most part belong to the local intelligentsia, conceive of matters of regional linguistic identity according to the values and beliefs about language current within their social group. The basic ideology prevalent among this particular social group may be described as a kind of national romanticism, which adheres to a preconceived and fixed program that determines the frame within which regional linguistic identity will be able to express itself. As can be gleaned from recent regional language projects, these programs are largely inspired by what could be called the grand narrative of national revival, as deployed throughout Europe in the course of the transformation of the anciens régimes into modern nation states in the 19th century. Language as the very core of the nation stood at the center of this narrative, and putting language into writing and thereby laying the foundations for national literature was considered Languages without an army 23 key to awakening the nation from its long slumber. This clearly implies that dominant linguistic ideologies within the regions in question will define what will count as a regional language. Accordingly, within the framework of the Eastern European intelligentsia, the notion of a regional or minority language without (preferably literary) writing will not work.6 The specifically Eastern European insistence on writing as a cornerstone of cultural expression – which, it should be stressed, is not completely alien to, but certainly less prominent throughout the rest of Europe – can therefore not be cast aside as irrelevant to the discussion of Eastern European regional languages. In order to arrive at a true understanding of Eastern European linguistic regionalism, the issue of writing must therefore be an integral feature of any attempt at delineating the transition zone between dialect and language for any Eastern European (Slavic) regional/minority language. A true understanding of linguistic regionalism in Eastern Europe must, however, also try to come to grips with the specific relationship between national and regional languages in writing. In what follows we will therefore try to fill in the gap left by Duličenko and provide a list of features which we deem essential in marking the boundary between national literary/standard languages and literary microlanguages. To begin with, literary microlanguages are (1) supplementary written languages. As supraindividually and supralocally standardized regional languages in writing, these supplement writing in the national language. There are no monolingual writers of literary microlanguages, so that this must be taken as a defining feature indeed. Literary microlanguages, where they really take root, are second written languages for all their users, a feature which clearly distinguishes them from national standard languages, which usually will be the first and, for many, the only written language. In defining literary microlanguages as (potential) second or supplementary written languages, we should take care to restrict this definition to the present state of affairs, which is, notwithstanding talk about globalization and postnationalism, still basically national in structure. In prenational European states, which did not yet know national education programs, the status of any precursor of a literary                                                                                                                 6 This is where the often invoked “need to create a written language of their own” (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 83) actually comes from, though it will be understood by most as some kind of very practical, almost vital need, which on closer scrutiny turns out to lack any basis. What need to write your specific ingroup code would there be apart from answering to general expectations of institutions granting formal recognition (cf. below in this contribution, ‘Copy & Paste: Why the standard language framework?’) and the specific desire to reenact the narrative of national awakening? If a vital, i.e., pragmatic rather than cultural need for using one’s ingroup code in writing besides the national standard would in fact exist, why then are most efforts to put these languages into writing never taken up by the envisaged minority population? 24 Dieter Stern microlanguage as supplementary might prove tenuous. In theory, prenational societies allow for the possibility of a small and locally bound idiom being the only known medium of written communication for at least some of its users. Given the all-encompassing nature of national education programs, this, however, verges on a logical impossibility within the framework of modern nation states. Literary microlanguages are written languages based on languages (2) vulnerable to external claims. This is at least true for all of the Slavic literary microlanguages and their spoken substrates, with the only exception being Sorbian. For Sorbian there exists a purely theoretical possibility of being claimed one day by one of its neighboring sister languages, Polish or Czech, but as a matter of fact, the public recognition of Sorbian as a language of its own has taken very deep root indeed throughout Europe, so much so that any external claim on Sorbian could not fail to meet instantaneous, vigorous rejection from all sides, though the case could at least partly be backed up by the hard matter of historical linguistic arguments (see also GUSTAVSSON 1998, 76-7). This is probably why many feel reluctant to include Lower and Upper Sorbian on the list of literary microlanguages. The notion of a literary microlanguage typically connotes weakness, which typically manifests itself in self-affirmative acts in the face of withheld recognition, as in the case of Silesia, where the intensity of linguistic claims seems to correlate with the degree of denial of these same claims (KOCYBA 2009, 242). Literary microlanguages are also (3) regionally restricted. They are not languages of wider communication which facilitate contact beyond any kind of social group boundary. The term regional implies the nation state as a higher unit of sociopolitical order into which the region is embedded. Microlanguages are therefore subnational (4) by definition. Where microlanguages accompany separatist ambitions and when these ambitions are one day realized, the microlanguage will cease to be a microlanguage and turn into a national standard language immediately. Thus languages like Luxembourgish, Romansch and Irish clearly qualify as literary microlanguages according to the list given below, though they do differ from microlanguages owing to their official status as national languages (cf. also TRUDGILL 2004, 37). The subnational nature of microlanguages also implies that without a national superstructure based on a national language, there would be no such thing as a microlanguage, which is a second order language of writing within a national linguistic framework. Accordingly, the so-called premodern precursors of some microlanguages would simply be written languages like so many others at their time, but not microlanguages. Microlanguages are typically (5) ingroup, rather than outgroup languages, and use and knowledge of the written code is basically an esoteric feature of cultural practices within the narrow confines of the ingroup of so-called heritage speakers (including new speakers, taking on the role of proactive language supporters). Writing in a litera- Languages without an army 25 ry microlanguage will never be just an act of communication, as is true of most national standard languages, but will always be a particular kind of (6) act of identity in addition, i.e., some kind of tribute to the language you are writing in. For a philosopher writing in English, French or Russian, the language he uses will just be a convenient tool at disposal. This purely pragmatic attitude would appear to be unimaginable in the case of using a microliterary language. To sum up, literary microlanguages are regionally bounded secondary written ingroup languages, vulnerable to external claims and used primarily as acts of cultural identity. They agree with national standard languages in that they are the object of language planning with the ultimate goal of standardization and that their primary mode of expression is writing. When it comes to language planning, microlanguages, especially the more recent ones, tend more often than not to be the result of conscious standard creation ex nihilo, whereas national standard languages can often be shown to have had a long-standing history of evolving norms of writing prior to their becoming objects of language planning concerns. LITERARY MICROANGUAGE (1) second/supplementary language in writing (2) externally claimable (3) regionally bounded (4) subnational (4) ingroup only (5) writing necessarily an act of identity NATIONAL STANDARD LANGUAGE first, often only language in writing not externally claimable supraregional national ingroup/outgroup writing not necessarily an act of identity Though there is a natural overlap with regional and minority languages, it must be stressed that literary microlanguages are conceptually quite different. Whereas regional and minority languages are defined primarily in terms of legal and social status, the basic defining feature for literary microlanguages is cultural in nature, with its focus on the techniques of writing and standardization. It should also be stressed that the above definition of literary microlanguages works only within the framework of the modern nation state. Localized ways of writing in premodern times were embedded within very different cultural frameworks and, accordingly, should be judged differently. If the language of the works of Renaissance poets like Marko Marulić and Petar Zoranić displays distinct Čakavian features, this does not testify to the existence of a Čakavian microliterary language, as suggested by DULIČENKO (2004, 70), but rather reflects general ecolinguistic preconditions for writing of the Renaissance period throughout all of Europe (among them the nonexi- 26 Dieter Stern stence of language planning and standardizing institutions).7 This limitation of our definition should not be misunderstood in terms of its being only a preliminary definition, which should be replaced by or elaborated into a general definition that would provide a formula for all historical periods. Any attempt to define literary microlanguages without taking into account the cultural preconditions provided by their sociohistorical environment is doomed to fail, because it ignores the cultural and historical, i.e., contingent nature of the phenomenon in question. From nation to community: the nation state, regionalization and glocalization In his effort to situate the recent rise of regional minority language agendas in the context of the postmodern fragmentation of social cohesion and identity, STERN (this volume) identifies the autonomous modern individual as the selfcontained locus of identity formation. This approach appears to particularly meet the social environments created through and with the help of the internet, but its stress on the decision-making individual may mislead one into believing that social identity must necessarily evaporate as a final consequence of total individualization. As a matter of fact, the emancipated and autonomous individual might not be so much a backlash against age-old collective suppression of the individual, but rather a functional redesign of the individual as a performing unit within a restructured social framework identified as neoliberal governmentality. It is indicative of a shift from a centralized and rule-governed disciplinary government to a form of government which assigns individuals “an active part in their being governed” (ROSE 2000, 78). This relegating move in a way redefines social cohesion by allowing for local, more personalized and by the same token more engaging and responsible ways of defining the whole of society from its peripheries. Thus, individualized identities, which will ideally cluster into more immediate regional communities with their respective identities, may indeed be seen as a reflection of the social shift characteristic of neoliberal governmentality, with its rise of smaller-scale communities as the locus of personal engagement and identity formation (ROSE 2000, 79-89).8                                                                                                                 7 8 Modern efforts at writing literature beyond the scope generally allotted to dialect literature in Čakavian, such as in the case of Vladimir Nazor, proves, however, a more tenuous case at the borderline of dialect and microliterary language (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 76). Notwithstanding its literary ambitions, modern literary Čakavian behaves like a dialect by subscribing to a national (Croatian) matica. Despite its recent rise in popularity, the term ‘region’ appears to have not yet been defined in a clear-cut manner, and it may be doubted if such a formal definition would be useful and desirable. Various definitions and theories of regions and regionalism have been proposed. For a neat summary of the existing literature and a further elaboration of the issue, see BLOTEVOGEL (1996). For a historical survey of Languages without an army 27 Seen from the perspective of globalization, this relegation of ethnic-style identification to local (mostly peripheral) environments has been aptly addressed by Peter TRUDGILL (2004) as the linguistic glocalization of Europe. The term glocalization acknowledges a global move, which manifests itself in the apparently all-encompassing and systematic spread of the new localized model of linguistic identification at least throughout Europe, alongside the localist move itself. TRUDGILL (2004, 45-6) sees linguistic glocalization not so much as a backlash against English-dominated globalization, but rather as a movement which seizes upon the opportunities created for regionalization by the relative weakening of the formerly strictly bounded and socially cohesive nation state as a consequence of advanced globalization. This appealing correlation between the global and the local, however, provides no answer to the question of why there should be a movement toward regionalization at all. It is also inconsistent with the finding that ethnolinguistic regionalism will in most cases shun strong identifiers like ethno- and glottonyms and instead use labels such as ‘our language’ or ‘one’s own language’ (Pomak nashta, Tornedal Finnish meänkieli, Podlachian po-svojomu, Silesian naszo godka alongside ślónsko godka, etc.)9, and will be eager to disclaim any national ambitions (TRUDGILL 2004, 41). This stress on subordination within the national framework shows that localization derives rather from a reconceptualization of the nation state not in the face of, but as a driving fac-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               9 the rise of European regionalism, see HARVIE (1994). We treat ‘region’ as a social construct of territoriality which allows individuals to relocate themselves in social space in the face of fundamental changes of existing frameworks of social cohesion. As such the outlines, border and contents of any given region are basically a matter of social negotiation in which individual perceptions play a crucial role (SCHILLING / PLOCH 1995), which can make the determination of what a specific region is supposed to be a cumbersome and elusive task. From this specific perception it also follows that regions are produced by a general move towards regionalism, which on its part presupposes an existing fixed framework of reference, such as the nation state. Regionalism may but need not refer to administrative component parts of a federally organized nation state. Though the use of the first person plural pronoun as an identifier, which implies a contrast between ‘us’ and ‘them’, would answer patterns of group formation based on exclusion typical of ethnicity, it still falls short of true ethnicity in that it does not provide an individuating name, which would put forward a claim of uniqueness among all other groups. Unsurprisingly, the label ‘our language’ will also be used in standard-dialect-situations to set off dialect from standard speech, as in the case of that particular region of Zakarpattia, which is generally not considered to form part of the Rusyn territory. Here, speakers of Ukrainian dialects will label their speech as ‘bad’ and ‘uncultured’, thereby defining it as part of the diasystem of the Ukrainian national language. At the same time they will also use denominations as po-našomu, thereby evoking a contrast between the local and the supralocal (DICKINSON 2010, 71). 28 Dieter Stern tor of globalization. Both globalization and localization are the effect of the relegation of responsibility to the individual in the wake of a reinterpretation and redesign of the socioeconomic role of the nation state (WATERS 1995; MILLER / SLATER 2000, 103). The relegation of all kinds of aspects of social and economic life to the responsible individual as a working principle of the postmodern lean state may ultimately call into question the raison d’être of the nation state, where it touches upon matters of ethnic-style identity. Whereas most types of social identities concern divisions within a society, ethnic-style identity is meant to determine the outer limits of society. Unlike social divisions such as class, gender, profession, etc., ethnic identity is meant to create self-sufficient, potentially autonomous social groups, which means that any ethnic manifestations below the level of the nation state must be seen as competing with the nation state on defining the outer limits of what is henceforward to be called society. As soon as the empowered individual sets out to make ethnic-style identity his personal responsibility and reorganizes it on a local scale, the core of the nation state will be at stake. Its survival will then depend on its ability to accommodate these lower level, face-to-face ethnic-style communities. Regionalization thus bears the seeds of separatism which, taken to extremes, might in the end lead to the total disintegration of the nation state. Especially in post-socialist Eastern European societies, which underwent a sudden shift from rigidly centralized forms of governance to forms of neoliberal governmentality, it was likely to create feelings of the state’s leaving the citizens helpless to their fate. Nowhere else would the nation state be perceived to have failed so drastically as throughout Eastern Europe. Most Eastern Europeans have been raised to define the nation state in terms of culturedness, with a specific emphasis on language as the very core of culture. Replacing it with a down-sized copy of itself within the context of a more immediate and therefore seemingly more controllable and reliable community framework would seem a quite natural move and might even be seen as a kind of rescue action for the sake of culture perceived as being under an imminent threat. Recent ethnolinguistic regionalization in Eastern Europe will therefore predictably, more than anywhere else, bear traces of a cultural mission, with writing and standardization as the epitome of culturedness. An older layer of linguistic regionalization needs, however, to be distinguished from recent grassroots regionalism. When the proliferation of the nation state model was still on the rise, it was the nation state itself which in some cases tried to forestall territorial claims on ethnolinguistic grounds by neighboring nation states by relabeling externally claimable minority groups on their own territory so as to make them an autonomous, locally bounded ethnicity. The Greek practice of differentiating between alvanika for national Albanians and arvanitika for Albanians in Greece (TRUDGILL 2004) is a case in point, as much as the Windischentheorie’s declaring the Slovenian-spea- Languages without an army 29 king population of Carinthia in Austria to be ethnic Germans (PRIESTLEY 1997). In these and other cases, the competition between nation states drove nationalist politics to embrace ethnic particularization as a strategic move, notwithstanding the principal threat it must pose to the very ideological underpinnings of the nation state itself. It must, however, be stressed that there is no sharp dividing line between this particular type of regionalization as part of a national power scheme and grassroots regionalism. Regionalization may start as harmlessly as West-Polesian or Podlachian, with the sincere enthusiasm of local activists who foster a particular love for their home region, but it may be seized upon at any time by higher end political echelons to promote national interests. If, then, decentralization serves as a catalyst to recent ethnic-style regionalization, why should it be restricted to the sociogeographical patterns for literary microlanguages identified by DULIČENKO (2011, 322‐3) as either peripheral (regional) or geographically isolated (which would be just another form of peripherality)? Why should regions closer to the geographic and socioeconomic center not follow the same move toward localized linguistic community formation? Dialectal variability as the material substrate for any form of linguistic regionalization is by no means restricted to peripheral zones; it pervades whole language areas. Since the linguistic prerequisites for linguistic regionalization are everywhere more or less the same, it may be conjectured that its driving forces are not linguistic at all. We assume therefore that a move toward linguistic regionalization is largely dependent on a general feeling of being peripheral and of not belonging to the nation to the same degree and measure as other member regions of the nation. For small extraterritorial groups this is obvious. These have to define their place against the backdrop of opposing and mutually exclusive claims of allegiance, first to the nation state they live in, and then to the extraterritorial nation which claims them on linguistic grounds, but with whom they usually do not even share a common history of national linguistic unification (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 82). With groups living at the geographical periphery, but well within the nation state which puts a linguistic claim on them, the case for regionalization is less straightforward. To begin with, only a few groups in border regions, such as the Silesians, will come up with claims of ethnolinguistic particularity or even independence. Thus, it is not the mere fact of proximity to another nation state which gives rise to feelings of otherness and a lower degree of belonging. As for Silesia, this region has a long history of changing national allegiances, and it was only after WW II that it was made a constituent part of the Polish nation state, making it a geopolitical anomaly in very much the same way as Limburg (CORNIPS, this volume). We may expect the historical vicissitudes of Silesia to be reflected among the regional population in a general cultural consciousness of otherness, and there are still many Silesians with a vivid personal memory of having had to swap cultural loyalties. 30 Dieter Stern The same holds for many other peripheral regions in which regional linguistic agendas were raised by individuals (VOSS 2009; DICKINSON 2010). As Leonie CORNIP (this volume) points out with respect to Limburg, the formation of regional identities within the realm of a nation state should not be seen so much as a resurgence of age-old and nationally suppressed allegiances, but rather as a by-product of national unification. In fact, many regional identities may owe their existence to the very process of national integration. There would be no Limburg identity without a Dutch nation state, which designed the province of Limburg quite artificially, and what seems to hold for this particular case may be true of other – certainly not all – cases of recently claimed regional identities throughout Europe. In many instances it seems that regional identities are a by-product of earlier nation building taking root in efforts to integrate perceived regional diversity into a grand narrative of unity, very much in the vein of the present motto of the European Union, ‘United in diversity.’ It would then be the nation state itself which provided the pattern and material for later moves towards regionalism, which were likely to turn up in times of dissatisfaction with centralized governments as a kind of backlash against excessive homogenization (HARVIE 1994, 38), which was particularly strong throughout Eastern Europe. Additionally, in some of these peripheral regions, there are groups speaking very similar dialects just across the border (e.g., in Teschen Silesia in the Czech Republic, but also Rusyn, which is divided among four nation states). The immediate experience of dialect continua being arbitrarily crosssected by nation state borders will not fail to cause a heightened awareness of the ambivalence of linguistic-cultural pledges of allegiance. Why should you share your linguistic identity with speakers of other regions of the nation state, whose speech is so different from your own, instead of sharing it with those foreigners across the border who happen to speak just like you?10 ROKKAN and URWIN’s (1983) concept of an ‘interface periphery’ may be applied here.11 Linguistic regionalism, then, may in theory pop up anywhere, but it is most likely to be seized upon by an individual as an opportunity for local community building in regions with a history of shifting loyalties and/or an immediate experience of linguistic ambiguity, as in the case of dialect continua crossing borders of nation states.                                                                                                                 10 Though it might appear so at first glance, this argument is not about measurable linguistic distance instigating the desire for recognition of a language of one’s own or even forming the “cause for the attempts to create” a written variety of one’s language, as would be argued by GUSTAVSSON (1998, 83). A complex experience of peripherality rather than the simple matter-of-fact observation of linguistic distance lies at the bottom of all moves towards cultural and linguistic independence. 11 See also DE VRIES (2013, 143ff), who uses ‘interface periphery’ in a narrower sense. Languages without an army 31 Copy & Paste: Why the standard language framework? Formal, official recognition is generally perceived to be necessary in order to make one’s form of speaking a language. This does, however, require the linguistic code in question to undergo certain adaptations in order to make it fit for the process of official recognition. As Paul GARVIN puts it, “the officialization of a language requires its standardization” (1993, 38). But why should this be so? In the present (Eastern) European context, linguistic regionalization may be seen as one of many mechanisms for delegating the responsibility for social cohesion from central institutions to individuals and emergent interest groups, and from the center to the periphery. This move would imply that with the rise of regional identities, new formats of enacting and modelling these new identities should take over. Instead, we perceive a simple reproduction of old patterns on a demagnified scale. Why is it always the standard language model which is invoked in order to make a nameless linguistic repertoire into a language, i.e., a somehow bounded unit which can be given a name? (1) Firstly, there are, of course, the immediate expectations of the institution (the post-nationalist nation state, the EU) which is to grant official recognition. In a world which has come to accept administration as a prerequisite for social life and interaction, an officially recognized language will be expected to be able to serve official functions, among them administrative tasks, which, of course, will require writing in a standardized manner (GARVIN 1993, 40-1). Standardization is a precondition of modern mass-produced technology (MILROY 2007, 133), and the overall acceptance of its extension to language may be taken as indicative of a technocratic ideology having made itself master of the society in question. Piotr KOCYBA (2009, 243) rightly observes that the insistence on a written standard reflects a basic asset of nationalist ideologies. This might be seen as an additional aspect which ought to be taken into account, but, if one bears in mind that the nation state is contrary to the self-image it advertises, basically a modernist, i.e., a technocratic project, it will become apparent that Kocyba's statement is perfectly in line with the argument put forward here. Though most regional communities do not aspire to cultural homogenization of their region by having the written standard of the center replaced by a standard of their own, some form of writing and standardization appears to be inescapable once official recognition is gained. (2) Then, transforming one’s local way of speaking into a uniform standard reference framework will make sure that there is a language, i.e., a definable and formally describable cultural object to begin with. The standard serves here as a means to reduce variability – be it geographical or caused by different modes of individual competence and use – which could be perceived as wild growth. This is about making the language a visible object, just as the big national languages are, in order to avoid its being ridiculed as a mere agglomeration of diverse local dialects “not worth preserving or being supported” (DE VRIES 2013, 141). (3) The next step then is 32 Dieter Stern about competitiveness. In order for a small language to be accepted as an equal among equals, it must be shown to be able to do the same things as the big languages do (GARVIN 1993, 50). Typically, the entire evolutionary trajectory must be skipped, to immediately arrive at what is considered the very pinnacle of written expression, without having to go through all the intervening stages of low literacy. If you can write serious poetry in your language (cf. Lachian as a model case), there can be no doubt that this is not only a real language, but that it is a language which performs well at what are generally considered to be the highest echelons of linguistic expression. The difference between Lachian and Russian is then just a matter of the numbers of users. It may be noted in passing that the most powerful demonstration of equivalence of referential capacity would be provided by the translation of world literature into one’s regional or minority language. (4) Respectability does not stop there. Standardization as a precondition of official recognition implies also a priority shift from the oral to the written channel. It is implied that writing and codification will make the linguistic code less vulnerable to detrimental forces from outside. Ideas may prevail about codification’s slowing down language change (especially through the presumably intense contact with the majority language), and by the same token also counteract its extremest form, which is language death. Thus, in creating a standard for your minority language, the base of reference seems to have to necessarily shift from the oral to the written channel. But this in itself will bring about a major change for the whole system of beliefs and practices in which the linguistic code in question was embedded up to this point. What is ‘good’ or ‘correct’ will henceforward be judged on the basis of written texts, where heretofore (e.g., in dialect literature) the authentic spoken word would have determined the value of the written text. This is a priority shift, which in fact means a radical overthrow of the existing economy of cultural values of the linguistic community. This subversion of cultural values attached to language is likely to be at the heart of resistance towards written standards among the envisaged communities of users (MARTI 2009, 35-6). Most linguists, who for whatever reason want to help the cause of regional linguistic minorities, still think in modernist patterns of centralized, authoritative top-down support according to a uniform model, which is considered as the one and only true way of reaching one’s goal, notwithstanding the skepticism of some with respect to the efficacy of corpus planning for minority languages (DE VRIES 2013, 140). In particular, disappointment about recent re-evaluations of top-down language planning efforts (e.g., in France), as well as a recently growing awareness among linguists that linguists’ and speakers’ wishes are more often than not at odds, have led to some as yet diffident attempts at reorientation. Pluralism is making its way as the new slogan for language planning. In their case study of Pomak, ADAMOU / FANCIULLO (this volume) offer an engaging Languages without an army 33 and convincing argument for considering new pathways for regional minority language maintenance beyond the beaten tracks of classical codification. These points clearly testify to the new regional identities’ trying to reproduce as neatly as possible the conditions of centralized or national identity. There is no actual change in kind intended. Instead, a rearrangement of old and established patterns of the overall economy of meaning is being sought in an effort to rescue patterns of culturedness to lower, communal levels of organization. Language, its normativeness and writing still persist as the ideal prerequisites of collective identification. The only innovation appears to consist in allowing for a plurality of identically patterned standards, where heretofore standards were meant to define in an all-encompassing manner a homogeneous totality of all social relationships within its realm. In this respect, the regionalization of (linguistic) identities shows itself to be two-faced. It is traditionalist and at the same time – though probably unintentionally – highly subvertive of the preexisting order which it is meant to sustain within a new power structure. It tries to save perceivedly traditional collective patterns of identity assignment by downscaling them, irrespective of its socioeconomic usefulness within the new decentralized framework. As has been pointed out, the insistence on writing as a prerequisite for general recognition seems to be particularly prominent throughout the Slavicspeaking countries. The prevalent attitudes on how to stage a minority language agenda are neatly bundled up in Duličenko’s approach of treating regional and/or minority languages on a par with national languages. By applying the same criteria of well-formedness to both kinds of languages, he reproduces established assumptions and ideologies about the ideal state of any language. There appears to be an inevitable and more or less direct cultural evolutionary path from primarily oral to written expression according to technically defined standards. In his insistence on an exact match with national standard languages, Duličenko’s concept of literary microlanguages appears to go far beyond the goals generally envisaged by linguists for regional minority languages, but in principle it does not differ so much from language revitalization programs throughout Western Europe which, though being more realistic about the chances of establishing a persistent written culture for their respective objects of caretaking, nonetheless rest on the same “hegemonic notions of languages as separate codes and as defining group belonging” (O’ROURKE / PUJOLAR / RAMALLO 2015, 11), which given its feasibility should be subjected to a process of making it a written language. The only difference here is Duličenko’s insistence on the primacy of written over oral expression and the exact parallelism with the trajectories of national standard languages. Rising from dialect to language is conceived of as having to go along the same default path by most regional language activists throughout Eastern Europe. This path is not just one of many ways to ultimate success; it is in itself a defining feature of the ultimate result. A microliterary language 34 Dieter Stern which has not followed this trajectory will be less of a true language than those which neatly followed the prescribed path. The path itself is defined by the great success stories of 19th century national linguistic emancipation throughout much of Central and Eastern Europe, stories which as a rule feature a lone and highly romantic poet-grammarian-hero who gives his people access to the unconsciously longed-for national language, a true language of one’s own. A microliterary language should therefore ideally start with a founding father and a group of followers who help his regional flock to make their subconscious desires for linguistic ethnification come true: “Обычно, в период, когда созревают необходимые этносоциальные предпосылки в среде, где потенциально возможно создание нового литературного языка, появляются пионеры, которые собственным примером и всей своей деятельностью {…} пытаются доказать полезность и необходимость собственного литературного языка, стремятся определить возможности и пути создания такого языка” (DULIČENKO 2011, 330). ‘Usually, in a period, when the necessary ethnosocial preconditions maturate within an environment where there is a potential to create a new literary language, pioneers will show up, who, through their own example and their whole-hearted commitment {…} will try to prove the usefulness and necessity of having a literary language of one’s own, and they will spare no effort to explore the pathways and opportunities to create such a language.’ As often with Duličenko’s writing, this quote is not so much a statement of facts, but a blueprint for the procreation of ever new literary microlanguages. Tellingly, the need to advertise the new language receives particular emphasis in this statement, which indicates that this is about active language creation instead of professional support at the service of a linguistic community which is already aware of itself and its language. The insistence on the trivial myth of nation-building, encapsulated in this formula, is indicative of a desire to live through the great moment of cultural genesis forever and ever more in a postmodern world, which is perceived as precipitating its inhabitants from the heights of culture into the abyss of barbarism. Stress on a long-lasting ethnic history, ideally supported by a practice of writing almost as old, comes as part and parcel of many of the pleas for the recognition of regional language. The impulse appears highly conservative in its ethnic essentialism and fits the tendencies described by VOSS (2009, 62-3) as neonationalism.12 This is                                                                                                                 12 This conservativism might also account for some of the more obvious shortcomings of Duličenko’s conceptualization of literary microlanguages. If microlanguages are conceived of as an attempt at esca- pist identitarian historicism, as we do here, it is little wonder that the internet as a possible field of application is never even mentioned and that Islam is consistently ignored in delimiting the possible functions of microlanguages in religious practice. Languages without an army 35 not so much about linguistic rights but about saving values and models of the cultural nation by transposing them to a regional level. Literary microlanguages are therefore more than just sociolinguistic realities, they are programs for cultural reform. Taking this into account, one comes to appreciate the importance of copying as exactly as possible the original blueprint of 19th century national language genesis, which comes as a total package and a fixed script. The conservative impulse implies a rhetoric of saving age-old traditions from time immemorial, which regionalism adopts from nationalism in order to turn it against nationalism itself. Regional identity will accordingly be imagined as something which was there before nationalism entered the scene and which was only temporarily superseded by it. The struggle for regional identity is conceived of as an act of historical restitution of an allegedly more natural kind of order. Heavy stress is therefore put on furnishing philological proof of a long-standing tradition of writing for any regional language. Where philological proof cannot be provided, phantasmagorical claims are put on ancient tribes long gone, like the Jatvingians, who lent their name to Šeljahovič’s short-lived West-Polesian language. Adopting historical and philological discourse as a framework of legitimation, the advocates of microliterary languages – possibly inadvertently – subscribe to anti-modernist sentiments of the kind voiced by Jean-Paul SARTRE (1971), blaming modernity for turning authentic regional man into anonymous national masses. Conclusion – Should regional minority languages ever try to achieve fullscale standardization? Revitalization and other support programs for small languages of all kinds will follow the romanticist path of an idealized homogeneous speech community, consisting of monolithic ideal and authentic speakers using forever and ever the same authentic linguistic code as an iconical sign of their identity. This approach is in conflict with reality on two counts. For one, there never has been, nor is, nor ever will be a state of absolute social homogeneity through space and time that will allow for an invariable language to serve its needs. Language is a highly variable and fluid object - if it is an object - and can and should not be trapped in a standard straightjacket, certainly not if it is meant to empower its speakers with the freedom of using their language at will. O’ROURKE / PUJOLAR / RAMALLO (2015, 11-2) accuse language revitalization programs for their historicizing attitude, in that they try to model minority linguistic communities according to an idyllic perception of a rural and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Issues of cultural conservatism as a reaction to a perceived threat against identity in a world of seemingly accelerating constant change is also addressed by EDWARDS (2010, 66-8). 36 Dieter Stern authentic past of homogeneous, strictly sedentary and highly ethnified local populations. Duličenko fits this model to reconstruct a long-standing history of striving for linguistic independence by the local linguistic communities identified by him. But his specific model also points to another aspect of solidifying local linguistic practices by means of standardization. Instead of preserving what is believed to have once been there, standardization efforts as a matter of fact contribute to the creation of something which has never been there before, viz., by converting spaces of (though underprivileged, but) free and variable linguistic expression into zones of formalized linguistic control and measurement. Creating standards, if successful, will transplant patterns of power typical of the technocratic center to the local peripheries, thereby supplanting informal economies and regimes of language use by something most regional minority speakers are happy to have been able to escape so far. The claim of preserving historically grown authenticity then appears as a disguise for ultimately subjecting the peripheries to centralist ideals of homogeneity, thus completing the historical mission of the center. Given the cultural prevalence of centralist thinking, sometimes members of local groups will inflict centralized patterns of cultural expression upon themselves. In particular, the shift of primacy from oral to written may induce minority group members to reinterpret linguistic competence in terms of knowledge of the standard model, rather than in terms of the degree of participation and birthright within the traditional oral community, as is the case in Galicia (O’ROURKE / PUJOLAR / RAMALLO 2015, 14). Slavic literary microlanguages thus offer an interesting field of newly emergent regionalized forms of linguistic expression, which deserve to be acknowledged for what they are, i.e., post-modern models of linguistic identification trying to invoke idylls of an imagined past of closely-knit local communities. It may, however, be doubted whether an escapist and idealizing historicism will ultimately serve the cultural and social needs of peripheral local communities. Instead of putting forth a claim on history and trying to compete with national languages by anachronically reproducing their patterns of historical emergence, models for linguistic identification could be offered which differ from the big national languages not only in size but also in kind. Post-modern modes of meaningful linguistic mixing and hybridization come to mind, as recently staged in Belarus and Ukraine by a growing number of a self-conscious urbanized population through the use of the mixed codes, Trasjanka and Suržyk. It is here that destandardization and decentralization are put into practice in the most accentuated manner. REFERENCES BLOTEVOGEL, H. H. 1996. Auf dem Wege zur einer ‘Theorie der Regionalität’: Die Region als Forschungsobjekt der Geographie. In: G. Brunn (ed.), Languages without an army 37 Region und Regionsbildung in Europa. Konzeptionen der Forschung und empirische Befunde. Baden-Baden: 44-68. DE VRIES, J. 2013. Language policy and regional characteristics of minority language communities. The State of Minority Languages. International Perspectives on Survival and Decline. New York: 135-151. DICKINSON, J. 2010. Languages for the market, the nation, or the margins: overlapping ideologies of language and identity in Zakarpattia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 201: 53-78. DULIČENKO, A. D. 2004. Славянские литературные микроязыки: Образцы текстов, vol. II, Tartu. — 2011. Основы славянской филологии, vol. II: Лингвистическая проблематика. Opole. EDWARDS, J. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity. Cases and Categories. Amsterdam-Philadelphia. ELOY, J.-M. (ed.). 2004. Des langues collatérales: problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique: actes du colloque international réuni à Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001, vol. 1. Paris. GARVIN, P. L. 1993. A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 100/101: 37-54. GUSTAVSSON, S. 1998. Sociolinguistic Typology of Slavic Minority Languages. Slovo 46: 75-89. — 2006. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, Euromosaic and the Slavic Microliterary Languages. In: A. D. Duličenko / S. Gustavsson (eds.), Славянские литературные микроязыки и языковые контакты. Tartu: 82-101. HARVIE, C. 1994. The Rise of Regional Europe. Routledge. HOPPENBROUWERS, G. 2001. De indeling van de Nederlandse streektalen – Dialecten van 156 steden en dorpen geklasseerd volgens de FFM. Gorcum. IRVINE, J. T. / S. GAL. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In: Paul Kroskrity (ed.), Regimes of Language. Santa Fe, NM: 3583. KOCYBA, P. 2009. Aspekte der Konstruktion kollektiver Identität in Oberschlesien. In: C. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. Munich-Berlin: 235-254. KUSSE, H. 2009. Kleinsprachenlinguistik. Zur Typologie von Kleinsprachen und den Aufgaben ihrer linguistischen Beschreibung am Beispiel slavischer Kleinsprachen. In: C. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. Munich-Berlin: 41-60. 38 Dieter Stern MARTI, R. 2009. Klein-Klein. Zum Neben- und Gegeneinander kleiner Kulturen. In: C. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. Munich-Berlin: 19-40. MILLER, D. / D. SLATER. 2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford-New York. MILROY, J. 2007. The ideology of the standard language. In: C. Llamas / L. Mullany / P. Stockwell (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. New York: 133-139. NIC CRAITH, M. 2003. Facilitating or generating linguistic diversity: The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In: G. Hogan-Brun / S. Wolff (eds.), Language Minorities in Europe: Framework, Status, Prospects. Hampshire-New York: 56-72. O’ROURKE, B. / J. PUJOLAR / F. RAMALLO. 2015. New Speakers of Minority Languages: the Challenging Opportunity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 1-20. PRIESTLEY, T. 1997. On the development of the ‘Windischentheorie’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 124: 75-98. RABUS, A. 2015. Slavische Minderheitensprachen – Mikrostandardsprachen? Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 71-1: 147-174. ROKKAN, S. / D. URWIN. 1983. Economy, Territory, Identity. London. ROSE, N. 2000. Tod des Sozialen? Eine Neubestimmung der Grenzen des Regierens. In: U. Bröckling / S. Krasmann / Th. Lemke (eds.), Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt am Main: 72-109. SARTRE, J.-P. 1971. Préface. Le procès de Burgos, by Gisèle Halimi. Paris: ixvi. SCHILLING, H. / B. PLOCH. 1995. Region. Heimaten der individualisierten Gesellschaft. [Kultur-anthropologische Notizen, 50] Frankfurt am Main. SIBILLE, J. 2000. Les langues régionales. Paris. TRUDGILL, P. 2004. Glocalization and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe. In: A. Duszak / U. Okulska (eds.), Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: 35-49. τ ν Μ α κεδόνων. Athens TSIOULKA, K. 1907. Σύµβολα ι εἰ ς τὴ ν διγ λοσσία ν ῶ [repr. Athens: Ap. A. Charises, 1991]. VOSS, C. 2009. Zur Phänomenologie kleiner Kulturen am Beispiel balkanischer Sprachminderheiten. In: C. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. Munich-Berlin: 61-76. WATERS, M. 1995. Globalization. London. WICHERKIEWICZ, T. 2003. Języki mniejszościowe i regionalne w Europie — problemy typologii. In: E. Wrocławska / J. Zieniukowa (eds.), Języki mniejszości i języki regionalne. Warszawa: 73-78. Languages without an army 39 — 2007. Tożsamość etniczna a język regionalny na przykładzie dolnoniemieckiego i limburskiego. In: C. Obracht-Prondzyński (ed.), Kim są Kaszubi? Nowe tendencje w badaniach społecznych. Gdańsk: 349-358. WIRRER, J. 1997. Scenarios of endangeredness: endangered languages, less endangered languages, non-endagered languages. In: B. Synak / T. Wicherkiewicz (eds.), Language Minorities and Minority Languages in the Changing Europe. Gdańsk: 329-336.    WHY POMAK WILL NOT BE THE NEXT SLAVIC LITERARY LANGUAGE Evangelia Adamou (Paris) and Davide Fanciullo (Sofia) 1. Introduction Following the major political changes in the early 1990s and the Yugoslav wars, the map of the Balkans has been profoundly reshaped. Based on a complex set of religious and ethnic criteria, new states have been formed. In most cases, the independence of these states has been closely linked to the political will and subsequent action to create new literary languages in accordance with the ‘one-state-one-language’ model. Indeed, since the nineteenth century, the encoding of a standard literary language is perceived in the Balkans, as in other European countries, as inextricably linked with the identity of a nation or ethnic group; see among others HAUGEN (1966), WRIGHT (2004), JOSEPH (2004), GREENBERG (2008), EDWARDS (2009). Among the least vocal political movements for minority rights recognition in the Balkans, one can single out the Pomak movement in both Greece and Bulgaria; see support statements by the European Free Alliance.1 A similar lack of political activism is reported for the Pomaks residing in Turkey. What may unite Pomaks from the above-mentioned countries is, on the one hand, their shared Muslim religion,2 and on the other hand, their language, Pomak. Most important, contacts among Pomaks from all three countries, Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, appear to be frequent, although we lack precise studies on this topic. This paper is structured as follows: in section 2, taking a big data approach, we discuss the information that can be gathered through national censuses with respect to Pomaks. In section 3 we present the Pomak linguistic background. In section 4 we discuss language endangerment, specifically, language shift in Greece and Turkey and dialect leveling in Bulgaria. In 5 we discuss the sociopolitical context blocking language policies in favor of Pomak and show how the lack of political action is shaping the language practices of the Pomaks. Last, in section 6 we address the relevance of creating a 1 2                                                                                                             http://www.e-f-a.org/home/ We note the presence of other Slavic-speaking Muslims in the Balkans, i.e., in Albania, in the Republic of Macedonia, and in Kosovo. However, the language varieties of these populations do not share a number of features with the Pomak varieties. Moreover, these groups use different language names and ethnic group names, e.g., Torbesh and Gorani. This topic deserves further investigation, since during some interviews it appears that Pomaks from Greece are open to considering these varieties as “Pomak” varieties. Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 41 literary Pomak language by discussing existing language planning models in Europe. 2. Pomaks in Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece: a big data approach In this section we present some background information on Pomaks based on macro-linguistic data for Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece. However, the information gathered with a big data approach is problematic for two main reasons. Questions with respect to identity or first language are either not included in the censuses, e.g., Greece and Turkey, or are optional, e.g., Bulgaria. Moreover, responses to questions in official censuses about ethnic groups and language use are notoriously complex, and thus the results should always be viewed with some distance. For example, sometimes the language spoken at home is not considered a language worth mentioning in a census, especially when it does not have a literary tradition and an official status. Also, when censuses suggest language names, they may use exonyms, i.e., language names employed by outsiders that members of the speech community do not identify with. In section 2.1 we present and discuss the data for Bulgaria, in section 2.2 for Turkey, and in section 2.3 for Greece. 2.1. Bulgaria In the 2011 Bulgarian census, questions about ethnicity, mother tongue, and religion were optional.3 We note that the least frequently answered question is the one related to religion (22% non-response), followed by 10% non-response for mother tongue, and 9% for ethnicity. The graph in Figure 1 shows the ethnic composition of the population in Bulgaria in the 2011 census based on the voluntary responses about ethnic affiliation (source National Statistics Institute). We observe that 84.8% of the respondents self-ascribe to the Bulgarian ethnic group, 8.8% to the Turkish ethnic group, 4.9% to the Romani ethnic group, and 0.8% responded that they do not have any ethnic self-determination. 3                                                                                                             We note that the right to belong to a minority and the right not to answer questions about ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria, Art. 6 par. 2. 42 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo Figure 1. Major ethnic composition in Bulgaria (2011) (our graphic processing of data from NSI) 99.4% of the respondents who declared Bulgarian ethnicity also indicated that Bulgarian was their mother tongue. The graph in Figure 2 shows the languages, other than Bulgarian, associated with Bulgarian ethnicity, i.e., 0.28% of these respondents indicated Turkish as their first language, followed by 0.13% with Romani as first language. Figure 2. Relationship Bulgarian ethnicity / Language (our graphic processing of data from NSI) Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 43 Figure 3 graphs the responses with respect to self-declared minorities. The traditional ethnic minorities in Bulgaria, i.e., formed before 1878,4 are the Russian, Armenian, Karakachan, Vlach, Greek, Jewish, Tatar, Gagauz, Serbian, Cherkes, and Albanian minorities. Typically, members of these minorities are bilingual in the language of their ethnic group and Bulgarian.5 We note that, similar to the 2001 official census, Pomak is not mentioned in the 2011 census. However, this result could be accounted for by the fact that 19,260 respondents opted for “other” and 53,107 for “do not self-determine”. We may therefore consider that these two groups of respondents are likely to include members of the Pomak population along with other minority groups. Figure 3. Self-declared minority groups in Bulgaria (our graphic processing of data from NSI) In conclusion, there are no official statistics on the number of Pomaks in Bulgaria. A tentative estimation can be done if we consider religious affiliation in combination with the areas of historical presence of the Pomaks in Bulgaria: of the 577,139 respondents who declared as being Muslim, 29,001 of them live in the region of Smolyan (Rhodope), 82,227 in the region of Kărdžali, and 23,314 in the region of Haskovo. According to this estimate, the number of Pomaks in Bulgaria would be roughly 100,000. 4 5                                                                                                             Treaty of San Stefano, 3 March 1878, signed between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Source: NSI, NCCEDI - National Council for Cooperation on Ethnic and Integration Issues. Year: 2011. http://www.nccedi.government.bg 44 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo 2.2. Turkey In Turkey, no questions about ethnicity, religion, and language were covered by the last census. However, based on a study conducted by Turkish universities, the number of Pomaks in Turkey is estimated to be between 300,000 and 600,000,6 a figure that seems particularly high when contrasted with older sources. Indeed, according to information from the 1965 census, which was the last census in Turkey to take into consideration linguistic minorities (METZ 1995), 23,138 respondents declared Pomak as their mother tongue, 2,776 declared Pomak as their unique spoken language, while 34,234 declared Pomak as their second best spoken language. A majority of those respondents lived in Edirne, Kırklareli, and Çanakkale. Due to the use of the language name “Bulgarian,” the group of the respondents probably corresponds to Christian Bulgarians, even though it cannot be excluded that some of the respondents were Pomaks who opted for the official language name “Bulgarian.” In general, however, one must note that the census was conducted at a moment when responses with respect to minorities were highly problematic, and as a consequence the real numbers were most probably much higher. At the end of the 1980s, the number of Pomaks in Turkey increased, when more than 320,000 Bulgarian Turks and other Muslim Bulgarians (including Pomaks) moved to Turkey following repressive measures of forced assimilation in Bulgaria. However, it is also noted that in the following years some 125,000 of them, both Bulgarian Turks and Muslim Bulgarians, voluntarily returned to Bulgaria (METZ 1995). Based on these numbers it is not easy to draw any conclusions about the presence of Pomaks in Turkey following the migration of the 1980s, but it is safe to say that links with Turkey were strengthened. Finally, Pomaks from both Greece and Bulgaria have settled in Turkey since the 1990s, either to pursue educational or professional opportunities. To conclude, given the numbers in the 1965 census and what we know about migration in the 1980s and 1990s, the numbers cited in Milliyet in 2008 remain particularly high. If these numbers were found to be precise, it would mean that the majority of Pomaks are nowadays settled in Turkey. 2.3. Greece In Greece, the 2011 national census did not include any questions about ethnicity, religion or mother tongue that could be relevant for the present paper.7 The number of Pomaks in Greece is estimated to be approximately 36,000, 6 7                                                                                                             Numbers cited by the journal Milliyet June 6, 2008. http://www.milliyet.com.tr/ turkiye-deki-kurtlerin-sayisi-/yasam/magazindetay/06.06.2008/873452/default.htm http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/PAGE-census2011 Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 45 according to the numbers cited in KOSTOPOULOS (2009, 290-1). However, it is very difficult to evaluate the presence of Pomaks in Greece. One of the criteria could be the use of the Pomak language, but a strong language shift to Turkish has taken place during the twentieth century, leading to a considerable decrease in the number of Pomak speakers. Moreover, the language shift was accompanied by a shift in identity such that individuals of Pomak ancestry frequently refer to themselves nowadays as Turks. Even though mention of a Pomak background may occasionally surface in ethnographic interviews, as the first author’s research shows, it would most likely be excluded from an official census. Lastly, urbanization and marriages between members of various ethnic groups have also considerably modified identity, and it is more appropriate to describe Greek Thrace Pomaks in terms of complex identities. 3. Linguistic background on Pomak 3.1. Language name The language name Pomak refers to the Balkan Slavic linguistic varieties traditionally spoken by Muslim communities settled in Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey. The most common alternate names are Bulgarian, that of the most closely related standard language (cf. Ethnologue), 8or Rhodopean, a language name based on the name of the Rhodope Mountains, where Pomaks have traditionally lived. In Bulgaria, preference for one of these terms is variable. For example, those settled in the Bulgarian Rhodope mountains refer to their language as na rodopski ‘in Rhodopean’, while the denomination na pomashki ‘in Pomak’ is preferred by those living in areas where the presence of ethnic Turkish groups is stronger, e.g., the villages close to the region of Haskovo and Kărdžali such as Mandra, Krivo Pole, Koren, and Malevo. In Greece, Pomak, pomatsko, is the most common language name. 3.2. Pomak in a dialectological and typological perspective Pomak belongs to the South Slavic language branch and, more specifically, its Eastern group, together with Bulgarian and Macedonian. Bulgarian dialectologists classify Pomak as a Rhodope dialect of Bulgarian, generally qualified as “archaic”; see among others MILETIČ 1912, MIRČEV et al. 1962‐1981, KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA 2006. In KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA (2012b), there is an overview of the conservative features that characterize the Rhodope dialects, which bears witness to an intermediate state of transition from Old Bulgarian/Slavic to the contemporary Bulgarian language. At the phonetic level, the most important features are the widespread presence of the vowel [ɔ] (Bulgarian transcription ô) in place of the Old Church Slavonic yers and nasal vowels [ɛ]̃ and [ɔ̃ ] (ă/ъ in Standard Bulgarian), which are still attested in the village Tihomir (see KABASANOV 1963); the open 8                                                                                                             http://www.ethnologue.com/ 46 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo front vowel [æ] (Bulgarian transcription ê) and the use of the Old Church Slavonic vowel [y] (ы) after stops, as attested in the village Tihomir; the palatalization of the consonants before the front vowels e and i, e.g., dʲeˈsa-­‐ta ‘the children’,   ˈkamenʲe ‘stones’. Another shared phonetic trait of the Rhodope varieties is the reduction o > a, o > u, and e > i, which are also found in other Bulgarian dialects. The use of a number of lexical items derived from Common Slavic and present in Old Church Slavonic is also considered a conservative feature characteristic of the Rhodope varieties. At the grammatical level, the Rhodope varieties can be thought of as “conservative” in that they have kept grammatical case, unlike the most closely related Bulgarian and Macedonian. This has been described for Pomak spoken in Greece, where there are nominative, genitive‒dative (based on the dative forms), accusative (old genitive‒accusative), and vocative cases (ADAMOU 2009). In Pomak spoken in Bulgaria, however, case is no longer in use nowadays, following the trend of reverting to an analytic system observed in Bulgarian and Macedonian. At the end of the nineteenth century, POPKONSTANTINOV (1889) noted the presence of case in the Bulgarian Rhodope region, illustrated in (1) for the accusative and combining with the three definite articles (see below for more details on the definite articles). 1. ˈstarea-tu-g old-DEF.A-ACC ˈstarea-su-g old-DEF.S-ACC ˈstarea-nu-g old-DEF.D-ACC (POPKONSTANTINOV 1889, 137, note 14; our glosses) The use of the dative case is also described in STOJKOV (1962), as illustrated in (2). čeleku-tu-mu 2. ˈsin-u son-DAT person-DEF.A-DAT ˈbrat-u čeleku-su-mu brother-DAT person-DEF.S-DAT čeleku-nu-mu Iˈvan-u person-DEF.D-DAT Ivan-DAT (STOJKOV 1962, 131-2; our glosses) Based on features such as grammatical case, it is widely accepted that the Pomak varieties of Greece are even more conservative than the Rhodope varie- Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 47 ties spoken in Bulgaria, which appear to have been strongly influenced by the Bulgarian literary language (KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA 2012a, 52). Against the widespread approach among Bulgarian scholars, however, ADAMOU (2011) has stressed that Pomak should not be viewed merely as a conservative Slavic variety, since it also shows a number of innovative features. For example, it is noted that Pomak in Greece codes animacy in case, a “conservative” feature characterizing Old Church Slavonic (MEILLET 1897) as well as several modern Slavic languages (see ADAMOU 2009 referring to this phenomenon as “differential object marking”). But unlike the other Slavic languages, Pomak has innovated and extended this marking to feminine proper nouns. See example (3a), where the accusative case is used for the feminine proper noun ‘Meriem’, and compare with the nominative form. The accusative case observed in this example would not have been used for a non-human object, as can be seen in (3b). 3a. huse´in i´ʃtja meri´em-a NP.M.NOM want.AOR.3SG NP.F-ACC a´la meri´em gu ni i´ʃtja but NP.F.NOM 3SG.ACC NEG want.AOR.3SG ‘Hussein liked Meriem, but Meriem didn’t like him’. (ADAMOU 2009, 389) 3b. ´kladi na´xtar-et put.IMP.2SG key-DEF.A ‘Put the key on the door!’ na at vra´ta-ta door-DEF.A Another feature that characterizes Pomak is the use of three definite articles with a spatial-pragmatic reference, similar to Macedonian. The three Pomak articles allow a distinction between a referent which is close to the speaker’s sphere, marked by -s- and illustrated in (4a); close to the addressee’s sphere, marked by -t- as in (4b); and away from both, marked by -n- as can be seen in (4c). [context: table close to the speaker] 4a. jela nah matsa-sa come.IMP.2SG to table-DEF.S ‘Come to the table!’ (ADAMOU 2011, 875) [context: table close to the interlocutor] 4b. na matsa-ta at table-DEF.A ‘On the table!’ (ADAMOU 2011, 875) 48 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo [context: table away from both interlocutors] 4c. pri matsa-na next table-DEF.D ‘Next to the table!’ (ADAMOU 2011, 875) Although the three-way article distinction in Pomak is considered a conservative feature among most Bulgarian dialectologists, it is convincingly described as an innovation in MLADENOVA (2007). More significant, unlike Macedonian, the Pomak articles partake in an innovative range of temporal-modal uses that constitute a rare typological feature since grammatical tense is generally linked to verbs and not nouns (ADAMOU 2011). In the temporal set of uses, the -t- article, which is used for referents close to the addressee in “here and now” situations, is used for the past, as shown in (5a), and the distal article -n- is used for the future, as shown in (5b). 5a. na sfadba-ta beh sas tʃerven-et fustan at marriage-DEF.PAST was.1SG with red-DEF.PAST dress ‘At the marriage, I was wearing the red dress.’ (ADAMOU 2011, 877) 5b. na   sfadba-­‐na       ʃe     nadena-­‐m     tʃerven-­‐en       fustan at marriage-DEF FUT wear-1SG red-DEF.FUT dress ‘At the marriage, I will wear the red dress.’ (ADAMOU 2011, 877) Research in the Rhodope dialects spoken in Bulgaria by both Christians and Muslims has also pointed to similar uses (KABASANOV 1964; KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA 2012a; FANCIULLO 2014, 2015). Temporal markedness in the noun phrase appears to be mandatory in the contexts in which the temporal value is primary and contributes to the overall meaning of the phrase. This is particularly apparent when modal and evidential values are triggered. The same can be observed with the temporally marked demonstratives and subordinators. It should be noted, however, that Pomak spoken in Greece is characterized by a significant amount of variation, as frequently observed for non-standardized varieties (ADAMOU 2011). For example, in some Pomak villages the three articles are used, while in others the -t article is the only one maintained. The same can be observed in the Pomak varieties spoken in Bulgaria. 3.3. Pomak in relation to the Rhodope varieties of the Christian communities In Bulgaria, Pomak is a term that applies to the Slavic varieties spoken by the Muslim populations, but there are no significant linguistic differences between the Pomak varieties and the most closely related Rhodope varieties spoken by Christians. According to MILETIČ (1912), there are no substantial differences between the dialects of the Muslim Slavic speakers (Pomaks) and the Christians Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 49 who live in the Rhodope Mountains in Bulgaria. The main features perceived as typical of the speech of Bulgarian Muslims (Pomaks) are the akane in unaccented syllables, by which an [o] in Standard Bulgarian is realized as [a] in the Rhodope dialects, e.g., goˈljam vs. gaˈljam ‘big’, moˈgila vs. maˈgila ‘hill’, otˈnese vs. adˈnese ‘took away’, and the full vocalization (pleophony), e.g., glaˈva vs. galaˈva ‘head’ (VRANČEV 1948, 25). Differences between the Rhodope dialects spoken by Muslims and Christians are considered to be minimal and yet, in VRANČEV (1948), the dialect of Bulgarian Muslims living in the Rhodope Mountains is considered to be closer to Old Slavonic and less exposed to external influences. It is thus qualified as “pure”, “archaic”, and “nicer” than the varieties spoken by Bulgarian Christians, and is described as “softer and more melodious” (VRANČEV 1948, 25-6), probably due to the process of palatalization of the consonants, as described in the previous section. According to STOJKOV (1962), differences are limited: in the village Arda, e.g., Rhodope Christians atse vs. Rhodope Muslims jejtse ‘egg’; dvar vs. duvar ‘wall’; mutek vs. mitek ‘small’; vrut vs. vrit ‘all’ (STOJKOV 1962, 128); in several villages, i.e., Borikovo, Dolen, Smilen, Kiseličevo, Mogilica, use of the vowel [y] (Cyrillic ы), e.g., vykam ‘call’, žyto ‘wheat’, myška ‘mouse’, syrene ‘cheese’, and kravy ‘cows’ (STOJKOV 1962, 130). The use of [y] is also found in the Pomak varieties of Greece as well as in a number of other Balkan Slavic varieties; i.e., it is mentioned as a distinctive trait of Tihomir in Bulgaria, similar to the Pavlikians’ dialect (KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA 2012a following MILETIČ 1912, 13-6) and the dialects of the villages of Nikopoli (bg. Zarovo) and Ossa (bg. Visoka) in Greece (KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA 2012a, note 1 following IVANOV 1922, 93-4). The use of Turkish borrowings is another feature that is often referred to in order to differentiate the speech of Muslim and Christian Slavic speakers in the Rhodopes (VRANČEV 1948, 25). STOJKOV (1962, 128) mentions that Bulgarian Pomaks have Turkish names and use Turkish greetings and numerals. ADAMOU (2010) similarly notes for Pomak spoken in Greece the existence of specific religious-cultural expressions borrowed from Turkish and sometimes from Arabic via Turkish, e.g., greetings such as hoʃ geldin ‘welcome’; i gjedʒeler ‘good night’; salam alekum (Arabic); meraba ‘hallo’ (Turkish < Arabic); thanking expressions such as allah kabulele (Arabic); bereket vəәrsin; allah kabul etsin; close kinship terms such as bubajko ‘dad’ (reg. buba); anne ‘mom’; abla ‘elder sister’; and numerals above 5. 3.4. Mutual intelligibility between speakers of Bulgarian and Pomak In order to establish the proximity or the distance between two languages, intelligibility studies are widely used in linguistics (see recently the special issue of Linguistics on this topic, edited by SCHÜPPERT / HILTON / GOOSKENS 2015). Such systematic studies are still needed in order to establish the de- 50 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo gree of intelligibility between speakers of Bulgarian and Pomak. These studies must take into consideration the fact that there is often an asymmetrical inter-comprehension between speakers of a standard language and speakers of dialects, related to exposure and possibly also language attitudes. In the absence of intelligibility studies for Pomak and Bulgarian, and in order to illustrate language attitudes with respect to Pomak and to provide some preliminary remarks on the intelligibility of Pomak among Bulgarian and Macedonian speakers, we present an excerpt from an informal Facebook discussion among academics. The participants in this discussion are either native speakers of Bulgarian or academics who have an excellent knowledge of Bulgarian and Macedonian. The discussion concerns the comprehension of an online broadcast9 in Pomak as spoken in Greece. a. Does anyone understand anything in this video? It seems to me that if one doesn’t speak Greek fluently it is impossible to understand anything from the ‘Pomak’ language. b. Surprising! c. Yes, the most distant Macedonian dialect is fifty times more understandable than this. d. Yes, indeed […] it’s disturbing for someone who speaks Bulgarian […] we understand some words but… e. Well, the accent is totally Greek. There are also many Greek and Turkish words (haber…) […] f. In my opinion, it’s Greek with ingredients of a ‘dialect’ conceived and authorized by some specialist of the [Greek] Ministry of Interior. It’s the logical result of the attempt to create a modern language, so to ‘Greecize’ as an alternative to ‘Slavicize’, which would be equivalent to ‘Bulgarize’ and therefore not an option. (some sentences are translated from French) In this informal conversation, it appears that the content of the Pomak broadcast is not understood by speakers of Bulgarian and Macedonian who are not familiar with the Rhodope or Pomak dialects. Moreover, unpublished research from the first author of this article confirms the lack of inter-comprehension between speakers of Bulgarian and speakers of Pomak from Greece through recordings and in face-to-face conversations. The situation is probably not so different for Bulgarian speakers with respect to the Rhodope dialects from Bulgaria. As discussed in the preceding 9                                                                                                             We note that despite its success among the local Pomak-speaking population, this broadcast is no longer provided and has been replaced by a broadcast in Turkish, the official minority language, which is more widely spoken in the area and which is generally supported by substantial funding. Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 51 sections, the Pomak varieties have phonetic, morphological, and lexical characteristics that make them difficult to understand for native speakers of Bulgarian. For example, we report below a discussion from a blog with respect to a previous post of an audio recording in the Rhodope dialect. The comments by the Bulgarian-speaking users, apparently not inhabitants of the Rhodope region, indicate their difficulty in understanding the recording: a. Only at the end, I just do not understand it after “run run, doctor, then a cow ...” b. ...it was not easy c. I did not understand a thing :( d. It’s true, the “original” speech of this aunt is practically not understandable! e. I barely understood what the grandmother is talking about! (our translation from Bulgarian) In contrast, all Pomak speakers living in Bulgaria have a good knowledge of Bulgarian, through education, everyday contact, and media. In Greece and Turkey, however, even though contact with speakers of Bulgarian has increased in the past decades, knowledge of Bulgarian is by no means widespread. It would therefore be interesting to conduct an inter-intelligibility study in both countries. 4. Dialect levelling, language contact, and language shift Let us now turn to language practices in the three countries and, more specifically, examine the challenges for the transmission of Pomak in each case. In 4.1 we discuss the situation in Bulgaria, in 4.2 in Greece, and in 4.3 in Turkey. 4.1. Bulgaria In Bulgaria, due to the proximity of Pomak with Bulgarian and a situation of diglossia, we observe clear effects of so-called “dialect leveling” (see MILROY / MILROY 1985; KERSWILL 2003). For example, the analysis of a 30-hour corpus of interviews among the speakers of the Rhodope dialects from Bulgaria shows the predominance of the -t deictic forms (which partake among others in the formation of definite articles), especially among the youngest speakers, and the loss of the two other deictics, -s and -n (FANCIULLO 2015). A possible interpretation of this finding is that the frequent use of the -t form is due to influence from Standard Bulgarian, which has a single deictic -t for determination. The use of this Standard Bulgarian feature, as observed in the recordings, may also be influenced by the fact that these conversations took place with outside group members who do not have the local Pomak variety 52 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo as their first language. Finally, we note that the corpus consists of conversations on topics related to the past, i.e., traditions, customs, religious festivals, and may have thus resulted in the greater use of deictic -t associated with the past temporal values. It is also generally noted that, in Bulgaria as in other European countries, dialects are not transmitted to the younger generations. This is due to a complex set of sociolinguistic factors, but we note that negative language attitudes towards Pomak are also at play. As reported for the Pomaks who live in the Chech region (westernmost Rhodope Mountains, Blagoevgrad Province, in southeastern Pirin Macedonia), Pomak is nowadays viewed as: “corrupted Bulgarian (a term for dialects used in Bulgarian linguistics in the past). In other words, they [Pomaks] assume that there might be a relation to the Bulgarian language, tending to have in mind the standard norm” (SREBRANOV 2006, 139). Although, as discussed in the sections that follow, the influence of Turkish is crucial for Pomak spoken in Greece and Turkey, Turkish influence does not seem to be important in Bulgaria. Indeed, during the twentieth century knowledge of Turkish among the Pomaks in Bulgaria is considered peripheral (see VRANČEV 1948, 47), but this is also argued to be the case for Pomaks in Greece (ADAMOU 2010). However, unlike the strong shift to Turkish reported for Pomak speakers of Greece in the second half of the twentieth century (ADAMOU 2010), no strong shift to Turkish is noted in Bulgaria, although several families, especially those with kinship relations in Turkey, encourage university education in Turkey. This may be due to a feeling of greater cultural proximity and religious identity with Turkey, encouraged through specific scholarships for students of Turkish origin; see, for example, the recent Presidency for Turks Abroad and Related Communities program.10 4.2. Greece In Greece, Pomaks are at best trilingual, speaking Pomak together with Turkish and Greek. However, there is a very strong tendency for Pomaks to shift to Turkish, and this shift has already been completed for several families and localities of Greek Thrace (ADAMOU 2010). It is therefore likely that the generation which is now in its 20s and has learnt Pomak will not transmit the language to the generations to come. Education plays a role for this choice as younger speakers, including young women, are nowadays more educated than their parents and grandparents through schooling in Turkish and Greek. Bilingual Greek-Turkish education is provided to Muslim communities of Greek Thrace in accordance to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Young Pomak speakers are also more exposed to Turkish and Greek, as their social networks have been radically changed (ADAMOU 2012). Compare the social net10                                                                                                             http://www.ytb.gov.tr/ Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 53 work graphed in Figure 4a for a female Pomak speaker, reconstructed for the middle of the twentieth century, and the present day social network graphed in Figure 4b. It appears clearly that the network is dense and multiplex in both cases, but that in the contemporary setting contacts with community outsiders, namely coworkers, have increased. Figure 4a. Social network for a female Pomak speaker reconstructed for the mid-twentieth century (family in circles and close friends in triangles) Figure 4b. Contemporary social network for a female Pomak speaker (coworkers in rectangles, family in circles, and close friends in triangles) 4.3. Turkey Pomaks in Turkey appear to be bilingual in Pomak and Turkish, but language shift to Turkish may be inferred from a study that mentions the presence of 600,000 Pomaks, most of whom have been “Turkified.”11 Based on a qualitative study, KAHL (2007) also reports language shift to Turkish among Pomaks of Turkey. However, we lack studies and data about language practices in families of Pomak background settled in Turkey. 5. Why will Pomak not be the next Slavic literary language? In this section we now turn to discuss the chances for the creation of a Pomak literary language. 5.1. Pomak in the minority rights movements agenda The creation of a literary language is typically a top-to-bottom process, similar to other instances of language regulation, such as those related to langua11                                                                                                             Study reported in the journal Milliyet June 6, 2008, http://www.milliyet.com.tr/turkiye-deki-kurtlerin-sayisi/yasam/magazindetay/06.06.2008/873452/default.htm 54 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo ge academies around the world. It is therefore expected that a small number of people would elaborate a literary language, through literary creation and standardization. This is generally achieved by combining a number of dialectal features with lexical innovation, in order to respond to the expansion of language domains and replace borrowing from the dominant language. The codification of a language requires the identification of a unified spelling and, in general, the transition from an oral tradition to a written one, with extension of language domains, a process that is intrinsically linked to issues of prestige and social status; see among others HAUGEN (1966), MILROY / MILROY (1985), DEUMERT (2004), GORTER, VAN MENSEL / MARTEN (2012). For this process to be successful, a favorable political context is required, and as experience shows, it is best supported by the existence of an autonomous state; see the examples of Macedonian, Croatian, or more recently — in a clear top-to-bottom approach — Montenegrin. However, as discussed in this section, there is no active Pomak political movement in either Bulgaria, Greece or Turkey, and even less so a movement for the promotion of the Pomak language. In Bulgaria there are some attempts at politicization of the Pomak population around a distinct identity, e.g., the POMAK party (Patriotic Alliance for Diversity, Authenticity and Culture, in Bulgarian Patriotično Obedinenie za Mnogoobrazie, Avtentičnost i Kultura). The POMAK party, however, has made no ethnic or religious claims. Lack of political organization promoting a Pomak minority in Bulgaria may be due to relatively low discrimination towards Muslims in general. According to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) report, there appears to be no significant discrimination in the field towards Bulgarians of Turkish background, and we expect this finding to also apply to Pomaks: In contrast with the other Turkish groups surveyed, respondents in Bulgaria identified all other grounds for discrimination as more widespread than discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. Moreover, in Bulgaria many respondents identified various grounds for discrimination as ‘non-existent’ – more than in other countries; for example, two respondents in five (40%) said that discrimination on ethnic grounds was non-existent, and three in five (60%) thought the same about discrimination on religious grounds (FRA re12 port 2009, 199). In contrast, reports on minority rights in Bulgaria put forward claims for ethnic recognition for two Slavic-speaking minorities, Pomaks and Macedonians: 12                                                                                                             http://fra.europa.eu/en Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 55 66. Article 54 of the Bulgarian Constitution states that “everyone shall have the right to avail himself of the national and universal human cultural values and to develop his own culture in accordance with his ethnic self-identification, which shall be recognized and guaranteed by the law.” However, the Government denies the existence of an ethnic Macedonian minority, and does not recognize the Pomaks (considered as Bulgarian-speaking Muslims by the Government) as a distinct minority – claiming that both groups are in fact ethnic Bulgarians. Representatives of those who self-identify as ethnic Macedonians and as Pomaks claim that their minority rights are consequently violated. […] 93. In accordance with its Constitutional provisions to respect the right to ethnic self-identification, the Government should ensure and protect this right, as well as the freedom of expression and freedom of association of members of the Macedonian and Pomak minorities. (Excerpt from the report of the independent expert on minority issues, United Nations General Assembly, Jan 13 2012). Interestingly, in these reports, no recommendation is made for the use of the Pomak language in education as opposed to recommendations for Macedonian, Romani, and Turkish: 97. The Government’s position not to allow the use of mother tongue languages as the language of instruction in schools, particularly in regions where minorities are a majority or constitute a large percentage of the population, is a concern for minorities, including the Roma, Turkish Muslims and Macedonians. Bilingual education commencing in the early years of schooling would enable children to become proficient in their mother tongue as well as in Bulgarian. Furthermore, it would enable them to maintain their ethnic and linguistic identity and help minority pupils to achieve positive educational outcomes. The Government is urged to consider introducing bilingual education and to ratify the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. (Excerpt from the report of the independent expert on minority issues, United Na14 tions General Assembly, Jan 2012). The distinct treatment of Pomak is clearly not due to linguistic reasons, for example, a greater linguistic distance between Macedonian and Bulgarian than between Pomak and Bulgarian. Rather, this difference stems from the fact that Macedonian has been promoted as a distinct language since at least roughly the middle of the twentieth century and increasingly so since the independence of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (1991‐1993). 13                                                                                                             http://www.e-f-a.org/home/ 14 http://www.e-f-a.org/home/ 56 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo Similarly, in Turkey, there is no strong movement for the recognition of Pomaks as an ethnic or linguistic minority. A rather symbolic mention of Pomaks as a distinct ethnic group is presented in the excerpt below from a wellcited interview of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Republic of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan made a speech to the citizens in his hometown Rize on November 7. In this public speech, he mentioned about the Pomaks that they are equal ethnics as other ethnicity living in Turkey. This speech means that Prime Minister accepted the existence of Pomaks living in Turkey. “No one is superior to anyone!” Erdogan also stated that Turkish, Kurdish, Laz, Circassian, Abaza, Pomaks Manav, Georgian are not superior to each other. “Everyone is valuable for us. No one is superior to anyone!”, he said. (2011, http://www/habera.com/Erdogan-bu-kez-siveli-seslendi-haberi-119510.html) This statement follows the Justice and Development (AK) Party’s strategy to promote political dialogue and actions in favor of minorities in Turkey, most notably among the Kurds and Roma (KAVAL 2014; CHAMBRIAL / MANAC’H 2015). The relative promotion of minorities in Turkey needs to be put in perspective within the more general frame of promotion of the religious foundations of Turkey, which sets the frame for the recognition of linguistic minorities (ÖZKAN 2014). However, the situation has been quickly changing since the elections in summer 2015, which have shaken AKP’s supremacy. In Greece, Pomaks are part of the so-called Muslim or Turkish minority and partake in a complex sociopolitical setting composed of conflicting interests from the two dominant ethnic groups and respective states in the area, Greece and Turkey; see for more details TSIBIRIDOU (2000), DEMETRIOU (2004), PAPANIKOLAOU (2008), and KOSTOPOULOS (2009). Local religious authorities are funded by Greece, Turkey, and, increasingly, by other Islamic countries, further complicating the situation. In the Greek context, the Pomak language could become a feature of the Pomak identity, as it cannot easily merge with the Bulgarian identity, which is strongly characterized by the Orthodox religion and the neighboring Bulgarian state. However, no official actions from the Greek state have been taken in favor of Pomak, and they are likely not to be taken by the newly elected left-wing SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left) government in 2015. This is to be expected, given the affair concerning Sabiha Suleiman’s candidacy with SYRIZA for the 2014 European parliamentary elections. At the time, the party’s candidate in Thrace, Dimitris Christopoulos, strongly opposed Suleiman’s candidacy, fearing the candidate’s “Greek nationalist speech” and stating that the Muslim minority in Thrace is “a Turkish unified thing” that Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 57 should not be challenged; see among others Al Jazeera’s article on the topic.15 languages. In the absence of left-wing support, it is interesting to note that the promotion of Pomak rights in Greece is part of the agenda of the extreme rightwing parties. For example, in 2007, Georgios Karatzaferis, who was at the time a member of the Independence/Democracy group in the European parliament and the president of the extreme right-wing party LAOS (Popular Orthodox Party), addressed the European parliament to support the creation of a chair of Pomak language and culture at the Democritus University of Greek Thrace: For decades, the Greek state has pointedly and defiantly ignored the cultural identity of the Pomaks of Greek Thrace, whom it is trying to ‘Turkicize’ by refusing to teach them their own language and forcing them to learn Turkish. The Pomaks are using every means to protest against this strategy and are calling for an immediate end to the fascist practice of enforced ‘Turkicization’. Recently, a well-known Greek businessman, Mr. Prodromos Emfietzoglou, proposed that a ‘Chair for Pomak Language and Culture’ should be set up at the Democritus University of Thrace in order to record the language, history, customs and traditions of the Pomaks. Can the EU take some kind of initiative to subsidize the establishment of such a chair and can its creation, the aim of which is to preserve a priceless example of Balkans culture and prevent the enforced ‘Turkicization’ of the Pomaks, be placed under the aegis of the EU? The Commission’s negative reply is cited below: The Commission attaches great importance to the protection of minorities, to multiculturalism and multilingualism — values which are among the EU core principles. Article 151 (1) of the Treaty states that ‘the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member states, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’. The respect for the cultural, religious and linguistic diversity in Member states was reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 22). In its communication ‘a new framework strategy for multilingualism’, adopted in 2005, the Commission calls upon Member states to establish national plans to promote multilingualism, also taking into account regional and minority languages. 15                                                                                                             http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/greek-roma-muslim-an-ill-fatedf-20145572540804183.html 58 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo However, the Commission would also like to draw the Honourable Member’s attention to Articles 149 and 150 of the Treaty clearly giving the Member states full responsibility for the organisation of their education and vocational training systems and the content of teaching. The EU's role in this field is not to replace their actions, but to support and supplement them. With respect to the proposal to create a Chair of Pomak language and culture at the Democritus University of Thrace, the Commission has to emphasise that it has neither a legal basis, nor a budget authorisation to support such an action. (source: European Parliament website http://www.europarl.europa.eu) To conclude, in this complex political context, it appears that no official promotion of Pomak in Greece is to be expected in the near or more distant future. 5.2. Pomak in the press and in informally-written contexts If the creation of a literary language is a top-down process, is there a bottomup future for the promotion of Pomak? For example, studies of informally written Romani on the internet and social media show that speakers use any script available to them, depending on the country of origin (LEGGIO 2013). In Bulgaria, we note the existence of websites and pages on Facebook where users discuss their dialect, customs, and folklore. In general, users of these forums use the Cyrillic script when writing in dialect, but this is to be expected, given that this is the script of the Bulgarian educational system. These forums involve both Christians and Muslims, and the confessional criterion is not associated with a linguistic distinction. Generally, they use the adjective rodopski ‘Rhodope’ to cover linguistic, geographic, and cultural identity. An analysis of some examples illustrates the use of the local varieties. For example, in (8a), we note the use of the three-way determiners, typical of the Rhodope varieties, and in particular the use of the deictic -s to indicate the possessive meaning for the inalienable parts of the body (dušo-sa ‘my soul’, sartse-so ‘my heart’) and geographical belonging (naš-sa planino ‘our mountain’). With regard to phonetics, we note the akane form with the use of [a] in a stressed syllable, i.e., ˈbalno vs.ˈbolno in Standard Bulgarian. In (8b), we note the use of the temporal subordinator aga, which is a feature of the Pomak varieties, and the -s deictic associated with a situation which is simultaneous with the utterance situation, i.e., divi-se jagodi ‘wild strawberries’. Last, in (8c), in an excerpt from a tale, we note the use of the evidential forms such as rodila ‘gave birth’, račila ‘wanted’, formed with the past participle in -l and absence of the auxiliary. 8a. Йетце хубаво си го написал. Хем ми стана бално на душоса, хем ми стана драго на сарцесо, че има ейтакива люде в нашса планино. Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 59 8a. Йетце хубаво си го написал. Хем ми стана бално на душоса, хем ми стана драго на сарцесо, че има ейтакива люде в нашса планино. ‘You’ve written it very well. On the one hand it hurt my soul, but on the other hand I felt joy in my heart, because there are people of that kind in our mountain.’ 8b. Оти айсе фтасуват дивисе ягоди - зуници им викаме, са сетих ага бех мучек име други пак диви ягоди ама малко по инакви и по едърки. ‘Because now wild strawberries get ripe - we call them zunitsi, now it came to my mind of when I was a kid, there were also wild strawberries but they were different and smaller.’ 8c. Адно время св. Бугродица мириснала адно китка и станала кормяста. И отъ била мума, га родила не рачила да зьомъ декянцину си. Врю людеть и жъвотнътъ я молили, ала та все не рачила. Най-сетя душла адна жеба с машку жепча на рабo […] ‘A long time ago the holy Virgin smelled a flower and became pregnant. And because she was a maiden, when she gave birth, she did not want to take her own child. All the people and animals begged her, but she did not want to. At the end came a frog with a little frog on the back […]’ For the use of Pomak in Turkey, we do not have much information except for the study by KAHL (2007), who mentions the use of the Turkish alphabet in the informal writing of Pomak. Finally, in Greece, attempts to write Pomak in formal publications have always been criticized because of the script, whether it was Greek or Latin (MANOVA 2011). Since the 1990s several publications about Pomak have been issued,16 e.g., KARAHODZA (1996), THEOHARIDIS (1996), and ROGO (2002), using the Greek script; KOKKAS (2004a, 2004b) and the tale published by PAKETHRA (2006), using the Latin script. A lot of criticism of these publications was related to the funding sources: in the case of KARAHODZA (1996), the editor is, strikingly, the Greek army, and in all the other cases funding was provided by Greek businessman Prodromos Emfietzoglou, either through the cultural center PAKETHRA (Politistiko Anaptixiako Kendro Thrakis) or directly through his company Mihaniki. Independent of the funding and the political agenda behind these publications, the use of either the Greek or the Latin script is understandable from a functional perspective in that they are both widespread in the community due to schooling in Greek 16                                                                                                             In some of these publications, native Pomak speakers have worked in collaboration with Greek authors without associating their names to the publications. Personal research and interviews conducted during the 2000s by the first author with the authors and collaborators of these publications, but also with other members of the Pomak communities, confirm that this choice was due to strong, negative pressure from the Pomak communities on those ingroup members who promoted the Pomak language. 60 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo or/and Turkish. The alternative of adding Cyrillic as a third script would most likely further complicate the situation for a community that has had difficulties with integrating into the existing bilingual educational system (TZEVELE17 KOU et al. 2005). Beyond the choice of the script, we note that the use of Pomak in writing is very restricted. For example, Pomak is not used in the Pomak local newspaper Zagalisa, which is instead published in Greek. Recently, however, the use of Pomak has been favored in the local newspaper, Natpresh, by Pomak native speaker Sebaidin Karahodza; also see http://natpresh.blogspot.fr/. As far as informal writing is concerned, Pomak is never used in contexts in which we usually find other minority languages, such as social media. To give an example of the Facebook network of a young Pomak speaker with one thousand Facebook friends, we note that not one instance of Pomak is found despite the network’s being composed of native Pomak speakers. Instead, the exchanges mainly take place in Greek and Turkish. In private text messaging between teenagers and young adults, however, Pomak is mixed together with Greek and Turkish using the Latin script. 6. Summary and discussion In conclusion, it appears that Pomak is not being actively promoted by Pomak communities or by the authorities of Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece. Individual Pomak speakers who promote their language in formal publications are extremely rare, and Pomak is not being used by its speakers in social media. The result is a strong language shift in Greece and in Turkey towards Turkish and dialect leveling in Bulgaria under the influence of Standard Bulgarian. A change in language attitudes is thus crucial for the maintenance of this precious Slavic linguistic inheritance. In relation to the topic of this volume, the question that we may ask is whether the creation of a Pomak literary language would facilitate language transmission and revitalization of Pomak. To answer this question, it would be necessary to take a close look at the results from other European contexts. Language policies in Europe have promoted the expansion of several minority and regional languages from informal to formal settings and from oral to written communication (although in some cases, strong literary traditions may have existed in the past). To achieve this goal, most communities opted for the standardization of their oral varieties, a choice that aims at institutional legitimacy and unification of an otherwise heterogeneous linguistic setting. However, experience from the French regional languages within the 17                                                                                                             We can mention here the Greek-funded program, Programma Ekpaidefsis Mousoulmanopaidon, which specifically targeted students of the Muslim minority of Greek Thrace. Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 61 French state shows that the creation of a literary language and its use for literary production, in media, and education is not necessarily successful in reversing the language-shift process. Indeed, despite standardization or bilingual curricula for various regional languages in France, it appears that there is little language transmission in informal settings and no use of the regional languages in everyday life; see Proceedings of the French National Assembly on the Future of Regional Languages, June 3, 2014. More generally, it has been shown that although education in a recently standardized language allows for new speakers to acquire an otherwise non-transmitted language, the group of new speakers is often in an antagonistic relation with the group of traditional speakers (ÁLVAREZ-CÁCCAMO 1993; O’ROURKE / PUJOLAR / RAMALLO 2015). As a result, alternatives to the standardized model of minority languages are increasingly being discussed in the literature. As MATRAS (2015) notes: with changing ideologies, the idea of regulating language has become less acceptable. Instead, the paradigm shift that is influenced by postmodernist and postnational thinking lends support to diversity and pluralism (MATRAS 2015, 298). The author argues more specifically for the successful examples of policies promoting pluralism in the codification of Romani (MATRAS 2015). Similarly, COSTAOUEC (2013) criticizes the dominant models for minority languages in Europe and suggests an alternative view: It is probably time to reconsider minority languages’ emancipation within the framework of a renovated multilingualism. […] Today the only available option seems to be turning themselves into ‘state languages’ or ‘official languages’ (this is what Catalonia continually claims, for example). This solution reproduces on the regional scale what state-nations have done on a larger scale during the last centuries: they have built and imposed a controversial identity between nation and language, people and language. We can perhaps introduce into the debate the idea that people’s emancipation and languages’ emancipation would benefit from internationalism and the obliteration of borders, be it regional or national, rather than from the multiplication of barriers (COSTAOUEC 2013, 188). To conclude, should Pomak become a key component of a transnational Pomak identity, the choice to codify a Pomak language or not would be open to language activists and language planners. 62 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo Acknowledgments Many thanks to the editors of this volume: Bojan Belić, Motoki Nomachi, and Dieter Stern. Abbreviations 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person A addressee’s sphere ACC accusative AOR aorist D distal DAT dative F FUT M N IMP PAST PN S feminine future masculine neuter imperative past proper name speaker’s sphere REFERENCES Actes du Colloque sur l’avenir des langues régionales, Assemblée Nationale, Paris, 3 June 2014. ADAMOU, E. 2009. Le marquage différentiel de l’objet en nashta et en pomaque (Grèce). Retour sur l’hypothèse du contact. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 104-1: 383–410. — 2010. Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish. Language in society 39-2: 147–171. — 2011. Temporal uses of definite articles and demonstratives in Pomak (Slavic, Greece). Lingua 121-5: 879–889. — 2012. Social networks in Greek Thrace: Language shift and language maintenance. In: J. Lindstedt / M. Wahlström (eds.), Balkan Encounters: Old and New identities in South–Eastern Europe. Helsinki: 7–32. ÁLVAREZ-CÁCCAMO, C. 1993. The Pigeon House, the Octopus and the People: The Ideologization of Linguistic Practices in Galiza. Plurilinguismes 6, 1-26. CHAMBRIAL M. / E. MANAC’H 2015. Réveil de la communauté roma. Le monde diplomatique, January 2015. COSTAOUEC, D. 2013. Skol Diwan in Paris: a step away from regionalism in the teaching of Breton. Sociolinguistic Studies 7-1/2: 167‒190. DEMETRIOU, O. 2004. Prioritizing ‘ethnicities’: The uncertainty of Pomakness in the urban Greek Rhodope. Ethnic and Racial Studies 27-1: 95– 119. DEUMERT, A. 2004. Language Standardization and Language Change. The dynamics of Cape Dutch. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. EDWARDS, J. 2009. Language and identity. Cambridge. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2009. European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Main results report. Accessed online http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/664eumidis_mainreport_conference-edition_en.pdf Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 63 FANCIULLO, D. 2014. Le forme deittiche di determinazione a valore temporale nei dialetti dei monti Rodopi (Bulgaria-Grecia), in: A. Bonola / P. C. Ramusino / L. Goletiani (eds.), Studi italiani di linguistica slava. Strutture, uso e acquisizione. Florence: 280-301. — 2015. Temporal expressions in nominals: tripartite deictics in the Rhodope dialects of Bulgaria. PhD thesis at the University of Macerata. GORTER, D. / F. H. MARTEN / L. VAN MENSEL (eds.). 2012. Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. New York. GREENBERG, R. D. 2008. Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford. HAUGEN, E. 1966. Dialect, Language, Nation. American Anthropologist New Series 68-4: 922-935. IVANOV, J. 1922. Un parler bulgare archaïque. Revue des études slaves 2: 88103. JOSEPH, J. E. 2004. Language and identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York. КABASANOV, S. 1963. Еdin starinen bălgarski govor — Tihomirskijat govor. Sofia. — 1964. Osobenosti na pokazatelnite mestoimenija i na trojnoto členuvane v njakoi rodopski gorovi. Izvestija na Instituta za bălgarski ezik, Bălgarska Akademija na Naukite. KAHL, T. 2007. The presence of Pomaks in Turkey. In: Steinke, K. / C. Voss (eds.), The Pomaks in Greece and Bulgaria: A model case for borderland minorities in the Balkans. München. KANEVSKA-NIKOLOVA, E. 2006. Trojnoto členuvane v rodopskite govori. Plovdiv. — 2012a. Săštestvuva li “pomaški ezik” i ima li počva za nego? Rodopi 5-6: 50-53. — 2012b. Za blizostta na rodopskite govori do Kirilo-Metodievija ezik. Zeszyty Cyrylo-Metodiańskie 2: 9-14. KARAHODZA, R. 1996. Pomakiki-Elliniko lexiko [Pomak-Greek dictionnary]. D Soma Stratou. KAVAL, A. 2014. Les Kurdes: combien de divisions? Le monde diplomatique. November 2014. KERSWILL, P. 2003. Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English. In: D. Britain / J. Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology. In honour of Peter Trudgill, Amsterdam: 223–243. KOKKAS, N. 2004a. Uchem so Pomatsko. Xanthi. — 2004b. Uchem so Pomatsko B. Texts. Xanthi. KOSTOPOULOS, T. 2009. To “makedoniko” tis Thrakis. [The “macedonian” affair of Thrace]. Athens. 64 Evangelia Adamou & Davide Fanciullo LEGGIO, D. V. 2013. Lace avilen ko radio. Romani language and identity on the Internet. School of Arts, Languages and Cultures. Manchester: The University of Manchester. MANOVA, M. 2011. On some recent Pomak writing activities in Greece: Ethno-cultural context and linguistic peculiarities. Esuka-Jeful 2-1: 261– 272. MATRAS, Y. 2015. Transnational policy and ‘authenticity’ discourses on Romani language and identity. Language in Society 44: 295‒316. MEILLET, A. 1897. Recherches sur l’emploi du génitif-accusatif en vieux slave. Paris. METZ, C. H. (ed.). 1995. Turkey: A Country Study. Washington, D.C. MILETIČ, LJ. 1912. Die Rhodopemundarten der bulgarischen Sprache, Vienna. MILROY, J. / L. MILROY 1985. Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London. MIRČEV, K. / T. KOSTOVA / I. KOČEV / M. MLADENOV (eds.) 1962-1981. Bălgarska dialektologija: Proučvanija i materiali. Sofia. MLADENOVA, O. 2007. Definiteness in Bulgarian. Berlin / New York. NEUBURGER, M. 2004. The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria. Ithaca. O’ROURKE, B. / J. PUJOLAR / F. RAMALLO (eds.). 2015. New speakers of minority languages: the challenging opportunity. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 231: 1-20. ÖZKAN, B. 2014. Turkey, Davutoglu and the idea of pan-islamism. Survival. Global Politics and Strategy, 56-4. PAKETHRA. 2006. Tríne altónenï yábalkï i adín drákuloz sas yedí glávï, [Pomak-Greek tale]. Xanthi. PAPANIKOLAOU, A. 2008. 'Halk verilmez, alinir' (Rights are not granted, they are taken): The 'politicization' of rights in the case of the Turkish-Muslim minority of Western Thrace, Greece. PhD thesis at the University of Sussex. POPKONSTANTINOV, H. 1889. Material’ za izučavane rodopskoto narečie. In: SbNU 1, 133-156. Report United Nations General Assembly, January 2012. ROGO, A. 2002. Pomakika dhimotika tragoudhia tis Thrakis [Pomak Folksongs of Thrace]. Xanthi. SCHÜPPERT, A. / N. HILTON / C. GOOSKENS. 2015. Introduction: Communicating across linguistic borders. Linguistics 53-2: 211‒218. SREBRANOV, R. 2006. Bulgarian Muslims from the Chech region and their linguistic self-identification. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 179: 131-143. STOJKOV, S. 1962. Bălgarska dialektologija. Sofia. Why Pomak will not be the next Slavic literary language 65 STEINKE, K. / C. VOSS (eds.). 2007. The Pomaks in Greece and Bulgaria: A model case for borderland minorities in the Balkans. Munich. THEOHARIDIS, P. 1996. Grammatiki tis Pomakikis glossas [Grammar of the Pomak language]. Thessaloniki. TSIBIRIDOU, F. 2000. Les Pomak dans la Thrace grecque : Discours ethniques et pratiques socioculturelles. Paris. TZEVELEKOU, M. / V. LYTRA / V. KANTZOU / S. STAMOULI / M. IAKOVOU / S. VARLOKOSTA / Y. PAPAGEORGAKOPOULOS / V. CHONDROYANNI. 2005. Proficiency in Greek of the children attending Greek-Turkish bilingual minority schools of Western Thrace. ALTE Second International Conference, Berlin, 19-21 May 2005. VRANČEV, N. 1948. Bălgari mohamedani. Pomaci. Sofia. WRIGHT, S. 2004. Language policy and language planning. London. BANAT BULGARIAN AND BUNYEV: A LANGUAGE EMANCIPATION PERSPECTIVE1 Bojan Belić (Seattle) and Motoki Nomachi (Sapporo) [A] minority should have the right to its own culture and to its identity without stigmatization or discrimination. – (HUSS / LINDGREN 2011, 9) 1. Introduction Our goal is to examine language emancipation of exactly two less studied Slavic speech varieties spoken in the Southeast European nation state of Serbia. Specifically, language emancipation of the varieties spoken by two different ethnicities in Serbia – Banat Bulgarians and Bunyevs – are analyzed. It is, indeed, significant to examine both of these language emancipation efforts for, on the one hand, they are taking place in one and the same linguopolitical environment – that of Serbia, more precisely – in its Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (henceforth, Vojvodina), while, on the other hand, their respective language emancipation processes turn out not to be the same. In order to account for the Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation efforts as thoroughly as possible, in the section immediately following, section 2, we present the most essential aspects of the notion of language emancipation to be employed in the present chapter. Then, in section 3, we provide an example of language emancipation in the Nordic region; this is the region from which the authors of the latest notion of language emancipation hail and to which the notion itself is applied. We offer a sketch of the linguopolitical environment relevant for the present chapter in section 4, and in section 5 we briefly sketch the two ethnicities in our focus. The next two sections, sections 6 and 7, present, respectively, various details of the Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation efforts. The concluding section summarizes our findings. 1 The authors would like to express their gratitude to Leena Huss of Uppsala University and Wayles Brown of Cornell University for having provided extremely useful comments and suggestions upon reading the earlier versions of this paper. Also, we owe many thanks to Dieter Stern of Ghent University, one of the editors of the present volume. All three helped improve the final text of this paper. The authors, naturally, take full responsibility for all of its shortcomings. Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 67 2. Language Emancipation (LE) In his monograph on language policy, SPOLSKY (2004, 113) opines – among other things – about a hierarchical structure of constitutionally monolingual polities: “Many countries of the world have a … ‘monolingual but …’ policy. They may name in their constitution or in their laws a single national or official language, but then modify the intolerance by proclaiming protection for one or more minority languages.” This modification of intolerance in Spolsky’s parlance presents an example of emancipatory politics per HUSS / LINDGREN’s (2011, 1) terminology, which, according to them, “means the changing of this hierarchical power structure, so that a new, democratic (or at least more democratic than before) structure emerges.” Ultimately, emancipatory politics concerned with language result in the emancipation of a language or else language emancipation, which is to be understood as “improving the position of an underprivileged language through political efforts and language planning. It is a process where the language and the linguistic environment of the people are changing so that the structures of inequality are broken down and circumstances more favorable to equality are created.” As such, language emancipation is seen as “a recurring sociolinguistic phenomenon that a low status vernacular is introduced in oral as well as written form to one or several prestigious societal domains where it has not been used previously. At the same time, the status of the language is enhanced (HUSS / LINDGREN 2011, 2).” It is, indeed, HUSS / LINDGREN’s (2011) notion of LE that we employ in the present chapter. The central tenet of Huss and Lindgren’s theory is that of an underprivileged language (henceforth, UL): it is its emancipation that is being observed as containing at least one of the six elements listed in (1a-f) below: (1) Language Emancipation Elements (LEE) (HUSS / LINDGREN 2011, 3) a. UL is revalorized and gains respect both inside and outside the group; b. UL gains an official status through legislation; c. UL is introduced orally and in writing in one or several prestigious societal domains where it has not been previously used; d. on a societal level, a language shift begins from the high status language to the low status language in order to improve the position of the low status language in society; e. an ongoing language shift from low status to high status language in private life, especially in the home, is slowed down or reversed; f. corpus planning is carried out in order to develop written standards, to develop vocabulary for different domains, to write grammars and dictionaries, etc., thus creating a modern infrastructure for the language. 68 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi Huss and Lindgren explain that manifestations of LE are manifold. To us they seem to differ along the time axis as either being diachronic or synchronic, even though Huss and Lindgren seem to view them as differing along the language number axis as multilingual or unilingual, respectively. The diachronic (multilingual) ones would be what HUSS / LINDGREN (2011, 3) refer to as (1) nationalist LE (of the 1800s); and (2) minority LE (of the late 20th and early 21st centuries). The synchronic (unilingual) ones are concerned with (1) variation within one language (enhancement of the status of geographical and social dialects); (2) language autonomization (the gaining of autonomy of a dialect group so that a new language is born); and (3) creation and use of special new expressions (conscious change of vocabulary). Of all these manifestations of LE, it is language autonomization that is crucially relevant for our analysis of the Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev LE efforts in Serbia. 3. Nordic Region (NR) and LE In their attempt to define language emancipation by providing various examples of emancipatory developments, HUSS / LINDGREN (2011) focus on the northern edge of Europe, i.e., the Nordic countries in particular. According to ROTO et al. (2013, 13), “[t]he Nordic region refers to the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland Islands.” What is crucial for the present chapter is that, among other things, the region constitutes what is known as the Nordic cooperation, “one of the world’s most extensive forms of regional collaboration (MUNCH HAAGENSEN 2013, 2).” It is “built on common values and a willingness to achieve results that contribute to a dynamic development and increase Nordic competencies and competitiveness.” As such, the NR, which may be considered a supranational geopolitical entity, intersects with another supranational geopolitical entity of Europe, notably the European Union (EU): Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are member states of the EU, while Iceland is a candidate country for the EU with accession negotiations “put on hold by the Icelandic government in May 2013.” The fact that three countries of the NR are members of the EU necessarily impacts language emancipation developments in the region, where there are numerous areas of cooperation, one of which concerns language, with the concept of language emancipation at its core. However, language policies in the NR are crucially impacted by the Declaration on a Nordic Language Policy as the latest major policy document. The Declaration was the first document of its kind in the NR, declared in 2006 by eight statespeople, one from each of the five Nordic countries, as well as one from each of the three Nordic autonomous areas. While it is not legally binding, it proposes that it serves “as the foundation for a unified, long-range, and effective language-policy effort (DECLARATION 2007, 89)” Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 69 and, as such, it is claimed to present “[t]he Nordic countries … as a pioneering region when it comes to language issues” suggesting that “[t]his Nordic model for a language community and cooperation in the field of language should be highlighted in international contexts. (DECLARATION 2007, 95).” The policy advocated by the DECLARATION (2007, 91) is founded upon two major tenets, one of which is language equality and the other, which is language roles. On the one hand, according to the principle of language equality, all languages are considered to be equal. On the other hand, according to the principle of language roles, while all languages are, indeed, equal, they do not play the same role. They are, thus, classified as: - languages that are complete and essential to society: Danish, Finnish, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian (in both written forms: Bokmål and Nynorsk), and Swedish; languages that are essential to society: the different varieties of Saami and Greenlandic; and languages that have a special status: Meänkieli (Tornedalian language), the Kven language, different varieties of Romani, Yiddish, German, and the various Nordic sign languages. One of the languages that have a special interest, the Kven language, deserves particular attention here because of the recent emancipatory efforts of its speakers. “The Kven language of northern Norway has up to the early years of the 21st century been subject to prejudicial language and cultural policies due to its close ethnolinguistic relationship with Finnish,” states (LANE 2011, 57), adding that it “has recently acquired recognition by the Norwegian state through its inclusion under Norway’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (LANE 2011, 58).” LEWIS et al. (2014) list it as Finnish, Kven and classify it as Uralic, Finnic, stating that the number of speakers of the Kven language is 5,000. LANE (2011) provides various figures, all between 2,000 and 10,000 speakers. We look at the Kven language emancipation as a point of comparison in our examination of various aspects of language emancipation in Serbia, whose linguopolitical situation we investigate next. 4. Linguopolitical Situation in Present-Day Serbia BAŠIĆ / ĐORĐEVIĆ (2010) provide a comprehensive account of the fulfillment of the rights of national minorities in Serbia to officially use their languages and alphabets, which helps in understanding the relevant linguopolitical environment better. They necessarily address the well-known fact that the rights of national minorities are regulated, first, in the whole of Serbia – by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (henceforth, Constitution); then, in 70 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi Vojvodina – by the Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (henceforth, SAPV); and then, finally, by various lower laws. The overall linguopolitical environment is defined by the Constitution in its articles 10, 14, 75, and 79, excerpts from which are given in (2) below: (2) CONSTITUTION a. Article 10: In the Republic of Serbia, the Serbian language and the Cyrillic alphabet are in the official use.2 The official use of other languages and alphabets is regulated by the law based on the constitution. b. Article 14: The Republic of Serbia protects the rights of national minorities. For the national minorities the state guarantees particular protection in order for them to realize full equality and protection of their identity. c. Article 75: In addition to constitutionally guaranteed rights for all citizens, national minorities are guaranteed additional, both collective and individual, rights. … By means of collective rights, national minorities, directly or through their representatives, participate in deciding or else decide themselves on certain matters regarding their culture, education, obtaining information, and the official use of their language and alphabet, as regulated by the law. d. Article 79: National minorities have the right to: … use their own language and alphabet; request a trial in their language in the state bodies, public institutions, bodies of an autonomous province or a local body in the parts in which they are numerically significant; education in their own language in state institutions and institutions of autonomous provinces; … use their first and last name in their own language; have traditional local, street, and place names, as well as topographic signs, written in their language in the areas in which they are numerically significant; to be informed in their own language fully, timely, and without bias… Additional rights of national minorities may be established by provincial laws, in accordance with the Constitution based on the law. It is, indeed, in SAPV, the highest law of Vojvodina, where initial details of the lingopolitical environment are found: (3) SAPV, Article 24: In addition to the Serbian language and Cyrillic alphabet, in the bodies of AP Vojvodina Hungarian, Slovak, Croatian, 2 All translations to English are authors’ unless noted otherwise. Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 71 Romanian, and Ruthenian language (sic!) and their alphabets are equally in the official use, in accordance with the law. Within the scope of its jurisdictions, the bodies of AP Vojvodina take measures to fulfill consistently the legally regulated official use of languages and alphabets of national minorities – national communities. In 2005 Serbia ratified the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, after which the law acknowledging the ratification was passed. According to the law, Serbia accepted the Charter’s responsibilities for the Albanian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Romani, Romanian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian, and Croatian language (LAW RAT)3. The official use of all the languages explicated thus far is regulated by the Law on the Official Use of Languages and Alphabets. Its Article 11 specifies that “the local self-governing unit (i.e., municipality, B.B. & M.N.) will mandatorily, by means of its statute, introduce in the official use the language and alphabet of a national minority if the percentage of that national minority reaches 15% according to the latest census (LAW LANG).” Finally, the Provincial Parliamentary Decision on the Closer Arrangement of Various Issues of the Official Use of Languages and Alphabets of National Minorities on the Territory of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in its Article 8 concurs with the LAW LANG Article 11, while at the same time allowing for the local communities, selfgoverning units smaller than municipalities, to introduce the language and alphabet of a national minority in the official use if that national minority comprises at least 25% of the local community’s overall population (again, based on the latest census). Within the outlined linguopolitical environment, we direct our attention – in turn – solely toward two ethnicities: Banat Bulgarians and Bunyevs, first, by briefly describing them in the immediately following section, and then, second, in section VI, by scrutinizing their respective LE efforts. It turns out that even though the observed linguopolitical environment is exactly the same, the two respective sets of LE efforts for the two UL’s, as well as the results of those efforts, differ significantly, thus showing the fluid nature of the LE notion itself. 5. Banat Bulgarians and Bunyevs in Present-Day Serbia Both Banat Bulgarians and Bunyevs predominantly inhabit parts of Vojvodina in Serbia. Vojvodina lies in the north of Serbia, where it comprises an area of 21,506 square kilometers, approximately one-­‐fifth of one percent of the 3 It appears that the list of languages includes those spoken by various minorities living in Serbia. Clearly, neither Banat Bulgarians’ nor Bunyevs’ speech varieties are a part of the list. 72 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi overall area of Europe. Its population is 1,931,809, which constitutes 26.87% of the overall population of Serbia (GOVERNMENT). Map 1. Banat Bulgarian migrations and settlements Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 73 5.1. Banat Bulgarians Banat Bulgarians refer to themselves in various ways. Of them, Palćeni (English: Pavlikians or Paulicians) appears to be the most widespread. As is suggested by the name Banat Bulgarians, they inhabit the Banat region, which stretches on both sides of the Serbia-Romania border. Banat Bulgarians are thus found both in the Romanian Banat and the Serbian Banat. They are descendants of Catholic Bulgarians from northwestern and northcentral Bulgaria. They immigrated to the present-day Romanian Banat in the middle of the 18th century in several waves to escape from Ottoman rule in Bulgaria. They settled in the villages of Stár Bišnov (Romanian: Dudeștii Vechi) and Vinga. Later on, between 1779 and 1867, these Bulgarians, searching for work and better life conditions, immigrated to various villages in the presentday Serbian Banat (TELBIS 1938; TELBIZOV / VEKOVA-TELBIZOVA 1963; ĆURČIĆ / JOVANOVIĆ 2014), as shown in Map 1. In the southern Serbian Banat, Banat Bulgarians live in at least seven different villages in six different municipalities, with the greatest populace in Ivanovo, in the municipality of Pančevo, where, according to KALAPIŠ (2014, 111) and the 2011 Census (see also SIKIMIĆ / NOMAĆI 2016), there are 254 Banat Bulgarians among 1,053 residents. Data from the 2011 Census for seven different villages are given in Table 1. Village Ivanovo Skorenovac Total Population 1053 2354 Bulgarians4 254 80 Konak Jaša Tomić Stari Lec Banatski Dvor 777 1505 963 1095 45 34 7 11 Belo Blato 1342 85 Table 1 Their native speech variety is classified as the Banat dialect of the Bulgarian language, characterized by having a unique literary form based on the vernacular, which is different from the standard Bulgarian language. The Banat Bulgarian literary language was originally codified in the mid-19th century by a local priest and teacher of German origin, Jozu Rill, with the Croatian Gajica-based Latin script (STOJKOV 1967, 9-23; see also DULIČENKO 2003, 4 The 2011 census does not differentiate between Bulgarians and Banat Bulgarians. Therefore, the numbers presented are our best attempt to account for the number of Banat Bulgarians in Serbia. 74 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi 207). The orthography has been changed a few times since the time of Jozu Rill, whose system was highly complicated and naturally underwent a number of simplifications by his successors. In the Serbian Banat, the orthography entirely depends on the orthography used in Romania. This language was introduced in Banat Bulgarian schools in the entire Banat region by the end of the 19th century, though in the Serbian Banat, its use declined and its functioning as a literary language almost ceased in the 1930s.5 5.2. Bunyevs Bunyevs use the term Bunjevci to refer to themselves. In Vojvodina they inhabit the region of Bačka, living mainly in and around the cities of Subotica and Sombor. They are Roman Catholics, traditionally associated with farming, with large, usually isolated farms, called salaši, being a significant part of their identity. According to the most plausible theory6, Bunyevs migrated from Dalmatia and Western Herzegovina to Bačka in the 17th century, in several groups led by Franciscan monks, during the Habsburg campaigns to reconquer southern territories of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, they were most probably part of the large-scale 17th‐century migrations of the South Slavic Christian population, which settled on the depopulated lands of present-day southern Hungary, in return for which they offered their military services. According to WEAVER (2011), this populace has been officially, and inconsistently at that, named Catholic Rascians, Illyrians, or Catholic Serbs, with the name Croats, used for Bunyevs, appearing in the Hungarian census data only in mid‐19th century. Bunyev’s native speech variety, which Bunyevs refer to as bunjevački, is described in dialectology as the so-called Neoštokavian Young Ikavian dialect of what used to be known as the Serbo-Croatian language. This dialect is also spoken in the Dalmatian hinterland and on some Dalmatian islands in Croatia, in western Herzegovina in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Serbian and Hungarian Bačka, as demonstrated by IVIĆ (2001, 233-44) and STEPANOVIĆ (1994, 101). According to the 2011 census (CENSUS1), there are 16,469 Bunyevs in Vojvodina (16,706 in Serbia overall), of which 13,553 (82.3% of all Bunyevs in Vojvodina; 81.1% of all Bunyevs in Serbia) reside in the territory of the city of Subotica, a major city in the north, and 2,058 (12.5% of all Bunyevs in Vojvodina; 12.3% of all Bunyevs in Serbia) reside in the territory of the city of Sombor, a major city in the northwest. 5 6 For details, see NOMACHI (2015a). There are no accurate historical records from that time. For details see MANDIĆ (2009), TODOSIJEVIĆ (2002), WEAVER (2011). Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 75 6. Banat Bulgarian LE (BBLE) The task of analyzing Banat Bulgarian LE (henceforth, BBLE) is not an easy one, not only because of the simple fact that the Banat Bulgarian language as such is not recognized in any of the laws consulted, but also because it is not always possible to differentiate legally Banat Bulgarians from Bulgarians. Although Banat Bulgarians do have a tradition of using a literary language, its existence has not been all that visible because the tradition has weakened over time. It thus comes as no surprise that what we refer to as the Banat Bulgarian language is often treated simply as one of the isolated Bulgarian dialects outside of Bulgaria, with little attention paid to the fact that Banat Bulgarian possesses a literary form different from that of the Bulgarian language. Crucially, Bulgarian is one of the minority languages for which Serbia accepted the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages’ responsibilities and is, at the same time, fairly well represented in Serbia (cf. APPLICATION 2013). However, APPLICATION (2013) does not speak of the Banat Bulgarian language, which – coupled with no support whatsoever either from the Serbian government or the Vojvodina government – means that Banat Bulgarian may be regarded as an UL. One small victory of sorts in the language emancipation efforts of Banat Bulgarians is seen in the village of Ivanovo, where Banat Bulgarians represent more than 25% of the entire population. In 2008, thanks to the provisions of the Provincial Parliamentary Decision on the Closer Arrangement of Various Issues of the Official Use of Languages and Alphabets of National Minorities on the Territory of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, they were able to introduce multilingual signs in the village.7 Still, the statute of the city of Pančevo, on whose territory Ivanovo is located, indicates – among other things – that “in Ivanovo, the Bulgarian language and alphabet are in the official use (STATUTE PA, Article 3).” The LE efforts of Banat Bulgarians cluster around two major drives toward making Banat Bulgarian more present in the everyday life of Banat Bulgarians themselves. Both are, however, marked by grass-roots activism stimulated by Romanian Banat Bulgarians, among whom Banat Bulgarian has had a much stronger literary tradition, flourishing even more after the collapse of the Nicolae Ceausescu regime. The first drive took place in the early 1990s in the city of Zrenjanin and was led by a local priest, Mr. Stojan Kalapiš. He decried the inequality of the Banat Bulgarian language in the church, since the sermon and Holy Mass in his parish were held presumably in Hungarian and Croatian, even though Banat Bulgarian was also used in churches 7 It is noteworthy that on 28th August 2015, there appeared multilingual signs, including in Banat Bulgarian, at the entrance to and exit from Belo Blato. According to Mr. Istvan Poszór (personal communication), they did not ask for permission, but on the local level they decided to erect them, because officially the number of Banat Bulgarians is insufficient (around 10% of the entire population of Belo Blato) for them to apply for the permission. 76 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi until the mid-1930s.8 Mr. Kalapiš reintroduced the language, in addition to his regular sermons in Hungarian and Croatian, using holy books published in Romania. However, since he was the only priest who knew Banat Bulgarian, it was impossible for him alone to continue the Banat Bulgarian sermon because the villages where Banat Bulgarians reside are scattered in the Serbian Banat. In order to try to remedy this situation, since 2012 Romanian Banat Bulgarians have been attempting to send Banat Bulgarian-speaking priests to their Serbian compatriots, often facing financial problems, which have repeatedly slowed down the whole project. A second drive started in the early 21st century in the village of Ivanovo and was initiated by a local activist, Mr. Josif Vasilčin-Mare. Living in the multilingual environment of Ivanovo and having a Hungarian mother and a Banat Bulgarian father, he considered multilingualism an important feature of his village worth promoting. In order to promote Ivanovo and the multiple ethnicities in the village, he started publishing a multilingual newspaper Ivanovački dobošar ‘Ivanovo Town Crier,’ in 8 languages,9 including Banat Bulgarian, which now reappeared in secular writing again after the mid1930s.10 In addition, Mr. Vasilčin-Mare published a few books, whose number was severely limited due to the fact that there are not that many people who know how to write in Banat Bulgarian even though they can read it; they write almost exclusively in either Serbian or Hungarian, which in most cases are also their native or near native languages.11 Romanian Banat Bulgarians often send their own publications to Mr. Vasilčin-Mare, who then distributes them to Serbian Banat Bulgarians. As of October 2015, there is no other domain where the Banat Bulgarian literary language is used among Banat Bulgarians in Serbia, there being neither TV nor radio broadcasts in Banat Bulgarian. No website nor virtual community in Banat Bulgarian is available 8 After that period, there was no clergyman who could preach sermons in Banat Bulgarian. Thus, Banat Bulgarians went to Holy Mass in Croatian or in Hungarian, and there they sang in Banat Bulgarian. It is noteworthy that in some instances epitaphs kept being written in Banat Bulgarian, though they were also written in Croatian (Ijekavian Štokavian), Serbian in the Latin script (Ekavian Štokavian), Serbian in Cyrillic, and in Hungarian. 9 The number of languages varies. In 2012 Mr. Vasilčin-Mare introduced articles written in Bunyev, though Bunyevs do not live in Ivanovo, for the sake of solidarity among minorities. This did not last long. The reason for that is unknown. 10 In Serbian Banat, having no cultural center for Banat Bulgarians, secular writings were published in Romanian Banat in such media as Banatsći balgarsći glasnić ‘Banat Bulgarian News’ and Banatsći balgarsći kalendar ‘Banat Bulgarian Calender.’ To the best of our knowledge, there were only a few Banat Bulgarian writers in Serbian Banat. They were Matija Bánčov (1911-?) and Georgi Damjanov (19111989). For details, see MÁRKOV (2010) and NOMACHI (2015b). 11 As one of such examples, one can mention collections of poems by Magdalena Vasilčin-Doža. See NOMACHI (2015b). Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 77 either, which is not the case with Banat Bulgarians in Romania (See Stern’s second article in this volume). Mr. Vasilčin-Mare has also been collaborating intensively with a local folklorist, Mr. Augustin Kalapiš. In 2009 they offered a Banat Bulgarian language course in collaboration with the Pančevo-based NGO In Medias Res, that has been promoting and supporting the development of minority languages in Vojvodina and beyond.12 The course attracted both children and adults. However, unlike the Bunyevs, only a small number of the old Banat Bulgarian population speaks Banat Bulgarian fluently, while they do not know how to write it. In writing, they use either Serbian or Hungarian, indicating an ongoing shift, with no slowing down whatsoever, from Banat Bulgarian to the two languages of a higher status. There is no cultural institution among Banat Bulgarians in charge of their language planning efforts, including standardization. Also, the local activists themselves do not have any formal training in Banat Bulgarian, which is why their efforts seem to be non-professional and, thus, ineffective. In 2010 Mr. Ognjan Cvetkov, a teacher of the standard Bulgarian based in Ivanovo, and the aforementioned Mr. Augustin Kalapiš published Săvremenen bălgarski ezik i bălgarski palkenski ezik: bukvar i čitanka ‘Contemporary Bulgarian and Bulgarian Pavlikian: Primer and Reader.’ The part on Banat Bulgarian, authored by Mr. Kalapiš, differs significantly from what is known as Banat Bulgarian among Romanian Banat Bulgarians and, what is even more important, is heavily influenced by Serbian and, to a certain extent, Hungarian.13 Mr. Kalapiš has been preparing a dictionary as well, though with no apparent normative power to it. To summarize, applying the results presented of BBLE to LEE from (1) above, we arrive at the following chart (+ and – indicate successful and unsuccessful language emancipation results, respectively): (4) LEE of BBLE LEEs 1a 1b BBLE 12 Overall Respect Official status － ?+/－ 1c New Societal Domains +/－ 1d Language Shift 1 1e Language Shift 2 – – 1f Corpus Planning and Standardization +/－ This NGO was established in 2010, thanks to the effort of local activists Mr. Valentin Mik and Ms. Svetlana Nikolin. They organize minority language courses, cultural events such as Međunarodni dan maternjeg jezika ‘International Day of Mother Tongue’ and also engage in publishing journals and books on the minority issues. 13 For instance, see Mr. Gjuka Gergulov’s very negative reaction published in 2011 at Banat Bulgarian virtual community Falmis http://falmis.org/statii/banatsibalgari/364-za-bukvara, June 6, 2017. 78 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi Generally speaking, there are many Banat Bulgarians who are proud of their language, and other ethnicities do not particularly oppose them. However, it is clear that they are not gaining much respect from others, and in general practically nobody, except for the locals and scholars, knows that there are Banat Bulgarians in Serbia in general. Thus, the path that BBLE may not easily, if ever, be established. 7. Bunyev LE The linguopolitical environment in Serbia, as outlined thus far in the present chapter, does not recognize the Bunyev language in any one of the consulted laws. This fact alone qualifies Bunyev as an UL, much like Banat Bulgarian. There is, however, one crucial difference between the two: unlike the Banat Bulgarian language, the Bunyev language figures as one of the mother tongue modalities in the results of the 2011 census (CENSUS2): there are 6,821 speakers of Bunyev in Vojvodina (99.8% of all 6,835 Bunyev speakers in Serbia). Clearly, though, the present-day Bunyev situation shows the consequences of at least four centuries of either affirming or denying their identity: Bunyevs find almost no parallel with other national minorities within the same linguopolitical environment. According to a leading Bunyev activist, the president of the oldest Bunyev national institution, the Bunyev Matica, Mr. Ivan Sedlak, the way to break down the observed inequality lies in resolving “two very important issues, meaning, the issue of standardization and the issue of the continuing development of education in [their] mother, that is, [their] Bunyev tongue (ILIĆ / BELIĆ 2012).” In order for this to happen, however, Bunyevs had to build or rebuild various national institutions, two more in addition to the already mentioned Bunyev Matica: the Bunyev National Minority Council, and the Bunyev Info Center. With these three institutions in place, work on the Bunyev LE (henceforth, BLE) began. The aforementioned inclusion of the Bunyev language among the mother tongue modalities in the 2011 census seems to be one successful result of BLE. What appears to be another successful BLE result is the 2007 adoption of the Handbook for the Educational Curriculum, Bunyev Speech/Lect with Elements of the National Culture, for the first, second, third, and fourth elementary school grades (elective school subject) (cf. OFFICIAL BULLETIN, 2007). From that moment on, it was possible and legal to organize classes in elementary schools, which – indeed – first happened in the 2007/2008 academic year. According to the Bunyev National Council data, out of Vojvodina’s 45 municipalities, classes have been organized in the two with the highest reported number of Bunyevs in them – Subotica and Sombor. The latest report from Ms. Nevenka Bašić Palković, Librarian Advisor at the City Museum of Subotica (personal communication, October 28, 2014), there are about 400 students, grades 1 through 8, enrolled in the class in 13 different elementary Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 79 schools. Those students use the Bunyev grammar thus far produced for grades 1 through 4 (‘CLEW My First Bunyev Grammar for the Elementary School, grades 1‐4’ (КЛУПЧЕ Моја прва буњевачка граматика од 1. до 4. разреда основне шкуле)) and the School reader for grades 1 and 2 (‘Bunyev School Reader and Instruction Book for Teachers, grades 1‐2’ (Буњевачка читанка и приручник за учитеље 1–2. разред)). Also, a school reader for the elementary school grades 3 and 4 (by the authors of the school reader for the elementary school grades 1 and 2) is currently in preparation and two teachers, Bunyevs, offered to work on textbooks for the elementary school grades 5 through 8. Clearly, despite the fact that the Bunyev language was recognized in the 2011 census results, its name as such is not to be found in the Serbian elementary school curriculum. There the Bunyev speech variety is referred to as speech/lect rather than language. Žarko Bošnjaković (in BOŠNJAKOVIĆ / SIKIMIĆ 2013) addresses the issue of the name of the Bunyev speech variety, explaining that two distinct labels have been used for it, language (jezik) and speech/lect (govor), and interchangeably so, without no apparent method involved. Moreover, he notes that there were also attempts to avoid the language-or-speech/lect labeling altogether by referring to the idiom as simply Bunyev (bunjevački), or Croatian Štokavian-Ikavian Bunyev (hrvatska štokavsko-ikavska bunjevština), or Croatian (‘Bunyev’) (hrvatski (‘bunjevački’)), the last allowing for “the term Bunyev to be belittled in three different ways: by its position (following the term Croatian), by the use of parentheses, and by the use of quotation marks (BOŠNJAKOVIĆ / SIKIMIĆ 2013, 189).” While it is not quite clear exactly how Bošnjaković’s conclusion follows from the various dialectological textbook descriptions of the Bunyev speech variety mentioned, which have always described Bunyev as a part of a dialect, he eventually proposes that “considering the fact that the Bačka Bunyevs do not have a standardized language, the idiom that they use can only be called speech/lect.” Applying the results presented of BLE to LEE from (1) above yields the following chart (+ and –, again, indicate successful and unsuccessful language emancipation results, respectively): (5) LEE of BLE LEEs 1a 1b BLE Overall Respect Official Status + – 1c New Societal Domains + 1d Language Shift 1 1e Language Shift 2 +/– +/– 1f Corpus Planning and Standardization +/– We suggest that the Bunyev language, as an UL in present-day Serbia, is – indeed – in the process of gaining respect among Bunyevs themselves and, to 80 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi a certain extent only, in modern-day Serbian society. The Committee of Experts, in its second monitoring cycle on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (cf. APPLICATION), noted among other things that “[t]he presence of Bunjevac in the media remains good. Besides a radio and a television programme broadcast by Radio Television Vojvodina, Bunjevac is present at Trend Radio in Bačka Topola, Radio Subotica and Radio Sombor. There is a monthly in Bunjevac with a supplement for children.” Nevertheless, the language has yet to gain official status through legislation. Still, as we have demonstrated, it has been offered regularly in the Serbian elementary school curriculum since the 2007/2008 academic year. This was exactly the time that marked a sort of hard-to-measure language shift toward the Bunyev language and, conversely, slowed down a language shift from it. The infrastructure of the language has been in the process of being constructed for some time now and with variable success; there is, however, no clear end in sight as of yet. 8. Conclusion Admittedly, we have selected the easiest example of the interplay of LE efforts and linguopolitical environments, that in which two sets of LE efforts occur in one and the same linguopolitical environment. We admit that analyzing two sets of LE efforts in two different linguopolitical environments is already more challenging. Comparing one set of LE efforts in one linguopolitical environment with that of another set of LE efforts in a different linguopolitical environment potentially presents the most demanding task. Nevertheless, in our concluding remarks we offer a few useful insights regarding several aspects of the LE notion in general, important in the ongoing endeavor to understand better the notion itself. We repeat LEE of BBLE from (4) above, and LEE of BLE from (5) above, in (6) and (7) below, respectively, for convenience and ease of comparison. (6) LEE of BBLE LEEs 1a 1b BBLE Overall Respect Official Status － ?+/－ (7) LEE of BLE LEEs 1a 1b BLE Overall Respect Official Status + – 1c New Societal Domains 1d Language Shift 1 1e Language Shift 2 +/－ – – +/－ 1c New Societal Domains 1d Language Shift 1 1e Language Shift 2 +/– +/– 1f Corpus Planning and Standardization + 1f Corpus Planning and Standardization +/– Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 81 According to our analysis of the two sets of LE efforts, it is clear that they differ significantly – in five out of six elements in fact (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e). It should be clear as well that since all six LE elements are valued here simply as either successful or unsuccessful (+ or –, respectively), thus, ultimately subjectively, not even the fact that both in (6) and in (7) 1f’s are marked with the exact same symbol means that we maintain that, at the moment, the corpus planning efforts of Banat Bulgarian and Bunyevs are to be equated. Indeed, the use of the same symbol simply indicates that the two corpus planning efforts, which – ultimately – might lead toward development of written standards, are equal only in that they are both ongoing. Each one, however, has been going on at its own pace and in its own manner. To emphasize the most obvious, in the case of Banat Bulgarian the effort seems to depend on one or two people, whereas in the case of Bunyev the whole institution of the Bunyev National Council is behind the effort. The results of the efforts, as we presented above, are, in fact, different in that there are fewer publications for Banat Bulgarian than for Bunyev. With this in mind, the so-called ethical question that HUSS / LINDGREN (2011, 12) pose is invoked: “Is language emancipation a struggle for a place higher up on the pecking order, or is it a fight for justice?” While in an ultimately ideal situation LE should exhibit both, our analysis has thus far not yielded enough to believe that to be the case. We have not detected any collaboration efforts between Banat Bulgarians and Bunyevs; certainly much more investigation in that direction is necessary. This type of non-collaboration is seen in and around the aforementioned 2007 event of the adoption of the Handbook for the Educational Curriculum, Bunyev Speech/Lect with Elements of the National Culture. At that time this was only one out of a total of ten elective subjects on language with elements of national culture in the Serbian elementary school curriculum. To be absolutely exact, the Bunyev Speech/Lect with Elements of the National Culture subject is the only one concerned with a speech/lect, while the other nine subjects are concerned with languages. Thus, nine national minorities are placed higher up on the pecking order – above Bunyevs: their speech variety appears to be inequal to the other nine in an otherwise similar pool of elective subjects. On a few occasions in the present chapter we have indicated that one of the main aspects, if not – indeed – the main aspect of either set of LE efforts under consideration, is to make sure that one’s own speech variety is eventually regarded not as a dialect, but as a language. We have presented the minor success of Bunyevs in that the 2011 census included the modality of the Bunyev language. This appears to be a sort of germ of what H USS / LINDGREN (2011, 3) refer to as language autonomization: “gaining of autonomy of 82 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi a dialect group so that a new language is born.” However, this rare example in Serbia does not seem to reflect HUSS / LINDGREN’s (2011, 3) claim that “[a]t present there are many examples of language autonomization,” which they support by citing examples from the Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, Southern Estonia, Sweden, and Norway. Moreover, they indicate that “in many other language communities the issue of dialect vs. language is under discussion (HUSS / LINDGREN 2011, 4).” Our two case studies indicate that – on the one hand – while there may have been some discussion regarding Bunyev in the past, the present is not continuing it: Bošnjaković (in BOŠNJAKOVIĆ / SIKIMIĆ 2013) views the whole issue from the standpoint of the concept of standardization, whatever it may mean to the various parties involved, and decides in favor of speech/lect rather than language. The Serbian elementary school curriculum has settled for the same label as well. On the other hand, there seem to be no such discussion whatsoever, or at least not on the same level, regarding Banat Bulgarian. While it is not easy to compare the efforts of such a fluid notion as LE, our analysis indicates that the present-day LE in the Southeast European nation state of Serbia has quite a long way to go to reach the so-called late modern age, which COUPLAND / KRISTIANSEN (2011, 27) describe as “a time of undermining of the power of authority [when] power is spread out and individuals have the right to partake in public debate.” Eventually, this should lead toward “well-balanced multiculturalism and multilingualism [which] can be useful and enriching for the wider society (HUSS / LINDGREN 2011, 12).” Still, the view held by Žarko Bošnjaković appears to be not only the dominant one within the linguistic elite in Serbia, but also the view on which minority leaders base almost all of their efforts. Without any regard for what their late modern age language emancipation options might be, even if nouvelle ones are to be outlined, minority leaders turn to the ideas of language emancipators from the so-called romantic era, during which publication of a dictionary, a grammar book, and an orthographic manual was the ultimate proof of a standardized speech variety, which was consequently deemed a language. The late modern age, however, presents ever so many instances in which the notion of language standardization, let alone one stemming from more than two centuries ago, is fiercely challenged. REFERENCES BAŠIĆ, G. / Lj. ĐORĐEVIĆ. 2010. Остваривање права на службену употребу језика и писама националних мањина у Републици Србији. Заштитник грађана. Belgrade. BOŠNJAKOVIĆ, Ž. / B. SIKIMIĆ. 2013. Bunjevci. Etnodijalektološka istraživanja 2009. Novi Sad. Banat Bulgarian and Bunyev language emancipation 83 ĆURČIĆ, S. / M. JOVANOVIĆ. 2014. Атлас насеља Војводине: Банат I-II. Novi Sad. DULIČENKO, A. D. 2003-4. Славянские литературные микроязыки I-II: Образцы текстов. Tartu. HUSS, L. / A.-R. LINDGREN. 2011. Introduction: defining language emancipation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 209:1-15. ILIĆ, M. / B. BELIĆ. 2012. Language in the Making? The Case of Bunjevački or Tradition Done the Modern Way. Paper presented at the 18th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore. Seattle, WA, U. S. A., 30th March, 2012. IVIĆ, P. 2001. Дијалектологија српскохрватског језика: увод и штокавско наречје. KALAPIŠ, A. 2014. 145 gudini ud naselvanjetu na banatsćite balgare-palćene u Ivanovo. Timișoara. MANDIĆ, M. 2009. Buni, Bunievci, Bunjevci. Subotica. MÁRKOV, M. 2010. Antologija na banátskata balgarska literatura 1. Timișoarа. NOMACHI, M. 2015a. The Rise, Fall and Revival of the Banat Bulgarian Literary Language: Sociolinguistic History from the Perspective of TransBorder Interaction. In: Kamusella, T. / M. Nomachi / C. Gibson (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Slavic Languages, Identities and Borders. New York: 394-428. — 2015b. Whose Literature? Aspects of Banat Bulgarian Literature in Serbia. In: Kenichi, A. (ed.), Perspectives on Contemporary East European Literature: Beyond National and Regional Frames. Sapporo: 179-192. SIKIMIĆ, B. / M. NOMAĆI. 2016. Језички пејзаж меморијалног простора вишејезичних заједница: Банатски Бугари / Палћани у Србији. Јужнословенски филолог 72-1/2: 7-31. SPOLSKY, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge. STEPANOVIĆ, P. 1994. Говори Срба и Хрвата у Мађарској: Штокавско наречје. Gornji Milanovac. STOJKOV, S. 1967. Банатският говор. Sofia. TELBIS, K. 1938. 200 gudini u Banata 1738-1938. Timişoara. TELBIZOV, K. / M. VELKOVA-TELBIZOVA. 1963. Традиционен бит и култура на банатските българи. Sofia. TODOSIJEVIĆ, B. 2002. Why Bunjevci did not Become A Nation: A Case Study. East Central Europe 29-1/2: 59-72. WEAVER, E. B. 2011. Hungarian Views of the Bunjevci in Habsburg Times and the Inter-war period. Balcanica 42. 84 Bojan Belić & Motoki Nomachi DOCUMENTS APPLICATION. 2013. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages – Application of the Charter in Serbia. 2nd Monitoring Cycle. Web. August 23, 2014. <http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/report/Evaluation Reports/SerbiaECRML2_en.pdf>. CENSUS1. 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Ethnicity. Web. August 19, 2014. <http://popis2011.stat.rs/?page_id=2134>. CENSUS2. 2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia. Religion, Mother Tongue and Ethnicity. Web. August 19, 2014. <http://popis2011.stat.rs/?page_id=2134>. CONSTITUTION. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. Web. August 19, 2014. <http://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/documents/Ustav_Srbije_ pdf.pdf>. DECISION. Provincial Parliamentary Decision on the Closer Arrangement of Various Issues of the Official Use of Languages and Alphabets of National Minorities on the Territory of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Web. August 20, 2014. <http://www.puma.vojvodina.gov.rs/dokumenti/odluke/ Odluka_sluzbene_jezika.pdf> GOVERNMENT. The Government of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Web. January 19, 2016. < http://www.vojvodina.gov.rs /sr/%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0% BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0% BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%98%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0% B2%D0%BE%D1%98%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B D%D0%B0>. LAW LANG. Law on the Official Use of Languages and Alphabets. Web. January 19, 2016. <http://www.ombudsman.rs/attachments/ZAKON%20o%20sluzbenoj% 20upotrebi%20jezika%20i%20pisma.pdf> LAW RAT. Law on the Ratification of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Web. August 20, 2014. < http://www.pravamanjina.rs/ attachments/Zakon%20o%20ratifikaciji%20evropske%20povelje.pdf>. OFFICIAL BULLETIN. 2007. Službeni list Autonomne pokrajine Vojvodine. 63.12:655–663. STATUTE. Statute of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. Web. January 19, 2016. <ttp://www.pravamanjina.rs/attachments/statut%20APV.pdf>. STATUTE PA. Statute of the city of Pančevo. Web. August 23, 2014. <http://www.pancevo.rs/Statut_grada_Panceva-134-1>. THE PRIVACY OF HAVING A LANGUAGE OF ONE’S OWN: SLAVIC REGIONAL STANDARD PROJECTS AND MINORITY AGENDAS ONLINE Dieter Stern (Ghent) Introduction Postmodernism is a convenient cover term which cultural pessimists have been using for several decades now as the basis to attack what they perceive as ominous signs of the decay and disintegration of post-industrial societies. In particular, they have repeatedly deplored the devaluation of cultural institutions under the impact of an ever growing individualism. The changes addressed under the heading of postmodernism are quite perspicuously present and cannot be denied, though they may often seem to be depicted in an exaggerated way. The social facts and their motivation appear quite self-evident. A growing middle class of emancipated citizens, taught to doubt authority of whatever kind and to take on responsibility for almost every aspect of their own lives, has come to treat anything as a matter of their own personal choosing and design. Social institutions, which one could not previously have imagined as not claiming the unfailing collective allegiance of all individuals within their reach, have been privatized by degrees. A well-known case in point is Sheilaism, the personal religion of a nurse by the name of Sheila, who famously stated in a research interview: “My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice” (cited from BELLAH 1985, 221). This statement is suggestive of a tendency for centralizing social institutions – which used to bundle entire populations into cohesive belief systems – to give way to as many Sheilaisms as there are individuals. Even being a Christian appears nowadays more akin to a matter of personal commitment than a binding obligation imposed upon the individual from outside.1 In the wake of modernist individualization, identity has changed from a predefined condition into a task of self-determination (BAUMAN 2003, 43). It appears that under conditions of liquid modernity, one’s cultural profile and identity are no longer anchored in social institutions and common beliefs and principles, but rather within the individual itself (BAUMAN 2003, 210). It goes without saying that religion is not likely to be the only social institution affected in this way. Since DANEŠ’ seminal article (1982) on the demise of the spisovná čeština as a standard way of speaking in public under the influence of what he called a decline of loyalty towards authority2, instan1 2 In the case of Christendom, the particularizing tendency towards individualistic fragmentation in the name of the personalization of belief and the relation to God and the spiritual world has been ongoing for several centuries now (Reformation, and later especially Wesleyan Methodism). ‘Nachlassen der Autoritätsloyalität’ in DANEŠ’ (1968, 96) terms. 86 Dieter Stern ces of destandardization of European standard languages have received wide attention. Regionalized varieties of the standard have taken over the public functions reserved for the standard. More and more regional dignitaries speak with an accent even while fulfilling their most official tasks. Though microliterary languages3 subscribe to the idea of a written standard as the one and only respectable state of being for any language, they undermine existing national standards by claiming the (additional) allegiance of those who have already pledged fealty to one of the greater national standard languages. One may retort along with DULIČENKO (1994, 560) that microliterary languages are by no means meant to replace national standard languages, that they are rather meant as a supplement to bolster up feelings of regional identity, but you will miss an important point, viz., the politico-ideological underpinnings of national standard languages with their historical claim of exclusive loyalty in the name of national unification (BURKE 2004, 165). In this sense, microliterary standard languages are supportive of trends towards destandardization.4 Regional standard language designs may be appealing to those who are discontent with their rather abstract and anonymous national linguistic identity, and who are looking for some other format of identification which feels closer to home and offers a smaller formula more closely bound to the immediate embodied experience of one’s individual self. It is not surprising that regional standard projects are promoted by groups with an openly separatist agenda, such as Ruch Autonomii Śląska (Movement for the Independence of Silesia). Just like destandardization, microliterary standard language projects contribute to the devaluation of the standard by trying to weaken its claim of total allegiance and by proliferating regional alternatives to standardized written expression for specific parts of the population and specific uses. They thus undermine the autarchy of the national standard by on the one hand splitting up a national speech community ideologically conceived of as homogeneous by means of erasure in the sense of GAL / IRVINE (1995) into a more loosely associated set of regional speech communities defined by their divergent secondary linguistic identities, and on the other hand by claiming niches of usage that had been formerly exclusively reserved to the national standard. In this way, room for personal choice is made, where it did not previously exist. Language choice in writing becomes a matter of individual choice and commitment, ultimately opening up the possibility of a seeming paradox, viz., a standard language for just one person. Óndra Łysohorsky’s Lachian project, accordingly, might aptly be termed linguistic Sheilaism. Regional 3 4 Here used in the broad sense of standardized regional or minority languages. For a discussion of terminology and phenomenology, see Stern, section I of this volume. For a somewhat different perspective on microliterary languages as contributing to destandardization and the creation of what he terms ‘post-standard languages’ see DUNN (2006, 61). The privacy of having a language of one’s own 87 standard languages along with regional identities offer neatly packaged alternatives for seekers of ethnic-style collective identities in an age of individualistic fragmentation, which has come to discard the national format of identification and seems in need of something else to replace it. Though regional identity movements make use of nationalist rhetorics, conceptualizing regional ethnic-style identity as beyond one’s own choosing, in order to succeed they are largely dependent on modern-day identity seekers. Therefore, it is not surprising that a growing number of regional standard projects are going online in order either to proselytize or to maintain what already has been achieved. Virtual linguistic communities? But why should the internet be the right place to go after identity seekers? There is an obvious answer to this. Imagine someone’s becoming aware of some disconcerting symptoms on his body and wanting to ascertain what they are. What do you think would be the first thing he would do? Go and see a real doctor or consult Dr. Google?5 Feelings of regional identity without common recognition are like disconcerting physical symptoms in that they are very personal concerns to begin with. The internet, on the other hand, is a very private place, where you can probe into personal issues, looking around for people experiencing the same symptoms or feelings, without having to commit yourself right away. It is a place where individuals look for partial copies of themselves, for other people struggling with the same personal issue. The internet opens up more opportunities for noncommital explorations into the social potentials and wider implications of personal issues than socalled real life would usually offer. This makes it the ideal place for all kinds of identity seekers who start out as lonely individuals looking for the likeminded. For these identity seekers the internet becomes the interface between the private and the social, where private issues can be turned into issues with wider social implications. The noncommital nature of the internet appears intuitively to be related to what has been addressed as virtuality. Internet studies in the ’90s made the internet the test case and exemplification for generally acclaimed notions that the postmodern world had to face major changes in its social makeup. Catchphrases like virtuality, virtual life and cyberspace evoked ideas of disembodiment and a disconnectedness from real life in a physical as well as in a social sense. MILLER / SLATER (2000), however, challenged this view by showing that so-called internet communities were more often than not firmly rooted in real life. Their case study of diaspora Trinidadians’ use of the internet show5 The phenomenon of cyberchondria, caused by excessive self-diagnosis on the web, only recently acquired a name of its own and even attracted mass media attention. It clearly shows that Dr. Google has become a serious rival for real doctors. 88 Dieter Stern ed life online to be just an extension of real life and the internet just a convenient accessory facility to help overcome communicative problems in a diasporic community, not unlike using a telephone or even letter writing. However, MILLER / SLATER (2000, 6) also concede that their case study might not encompass all there is to the internet in ethnographic terms, but that there are indeed forms of internet use which come quite close to what has been popularly descried as virtual life. This distinction between accessory and disconnective use of the internet will be crucial to our exposition of the ways in which microliterary standard languages are being put online. We assume that people looking for alternative patterns to remodel and refurbish their identity tend to a rather disconnective use of the internet. For these the internet offers in fact a no man’s land of imagination where one can have a go at patterns of identity which could not possibly be acted out offline. Despite the often invoked global reach and all-encompassing nature of cyberspace, the internet largely consists of the most intimate hidden recesses of private life, shut off from the rest of the world, where esoteric communities of the like-minded may unfold as they desire (LANDZELIUS 2006, 30-3). In this sense, virtual communities would appear as a perfect fit, especially for recently emergent regional linguistic communities which reinterpret globalization in local terms, leading to glocalized linguistic identities (TRUDGILL 2004). On the other hand, regional minority groups firmly grounded in real life would rather be expected to make a more accessory use of the internet in order to help maintain what is already there independently of the internet. One of our concerns will therefore be to classify a select number of better known microliterary languages and their purported regional minorities according to their patterns of online presence. The kinds of sites preferred by either microcommunity may be taken as a diagnostic of their actual state. Symptoms of disconnectivity may be taken to betray a recent and unstable linguistic minority agenda, whereas symptoms of accessoriness bespeak a more or less firmly rooted, established linguistic minority. But before we take up this particular path, a few general observations on the specificity of behavior and life online are in order. General conditions of life online In an obvious way, the internet offers the technical facilities to support and create cohesion for small minority groups (DUNN 2006, 58), either dispersed in a diaspora or immersed in the immediate surroundings of growing numbers of outsiders belonging to the culturally overarching majority group. This seems especially true where regional minority activism has been seriously hampered by central state control, with its natural suspicion of anything suggestive of decentralization and subversion of existing power structures, as is obviously true for all of Eastern Europe (but not only for Eastern Europe). The internet, along with other deterritorialized and fragmented forms of mass The privacy of having a language of one’s own 89 communication – such as satellite television with its hundreds of channel choices – effectively undermines central control as exerted by territorially organized nation states and allows for regional activism of any kind at fairly low costs (ELKINS 1997, 148; WARSCHAUER 2000, 157). As a social medium the role of the internet in promoting and enabling the institution of new social conventions, as in our case promoting the use of minority idioms in a way comparable to that of acknowledged standard languages, is not restricted to the instrumental role of a mere catalyst. Whereas in pre-internet times microliterary standard languages were generally conceived in the seclusion of a study room and communicated to the intended public in a top-down fashion through authoritative print media (grammars and textbooks, as, e.g., in the case of Burgenland Croatian), standard language designs launched through the internet are met by a public which, as a rule, has the necessary technical means at their disposal to make their opinion heard and thereby to interactively (re)negotiate any standard language proposal.6 The authoritative and centralizing gatekeeper role (DOCTOR 1991) of a grammarian mastermind, such as assumed by recent microlanguage designers, even online, might possibly give way to a weak form of authority determined by the fickle social position any language designer is able to maintain online (namely, as maker/insider, i.e., as someone able to claim knowledgeability about the ethnicity/language in question and at the same time to organize and manage a web portal). Interactivity may also favor a more fluid and polyphonous style of norm formation, ranging from open debates in discussion groups about the status of a given language to the empractical7 evolution of almost invariant norms instead of top-down implementation of prefabricated study room norms. An example of interactive status planning would be the discussion whether Silesian should be classified as dialect or as language on the site of Ruch Autonomii Śląska (www.raslaska.org, temat: Status ślonskij godki). A case in point for the online evolution of spelling norms would be the Banat Bulgarian news group BulgariansFromBanat_worldwide (LUCHEV 2006). But the role of the internet in enabling open-ended discussions is not restricted to its providing the necessary technical facilities to anyone and everyone. The rise of the internet as a social medium has also contributed to the emergence of an online culture that entertains specific ideas of grassroots democracy about its most eminent tools, i.e., chatrooms and discussion fora. The conversational behavior on these sites of interaction is informed by notions of the unrestricted right of everyone to make his point and be taken seriously. The authority of the chosen few who may boast an academic degree, 6 7 On the internet as a potentially counter-standardizing medium see also DUNN (2006, 60). In the philosophical sense of Pirmin STEKELER-WEITHOFER (2005). 90 Dieter Stern which in offline culture would usually invest them with the power to settle matters such as status planning by virtue of their recognized social position as expert, may see itself challenged by a public encouraged by the perceived social specifics of the discussion forum or chatroom to maintain their opinion despite their lack of academic training in the relevant field. Additionally, expert participants of fora more often than not may not even disclose their academic background. Thus, this is the first basic difference between communication patterns online and more traditional modes and channels of communication. Whereas the particular property of accessibility (KOZINETS 2010, 70-1) may contribute to a more fluid and hierarchically flat process of norm formation, rather than traditional top-down norm enforcement, the property of anonymity (KOZINETS 2010, 70) may utimately (but need not, and often does not) counteract the aim of what netnographers, i.e., ethnographers of the internet, call the consumption activity8 of an online group (in our case, regional language and identity formation or maintenance). Despite its seemingly public character, particular sociopsychological properties of the internet, described as ‘online disinhibition effect’ by LAPIDOT-LEFLER and BARAK (2013), facilitate a much more playful, almost intimate approach to identity, encouraging the adoption of a social alter ego, without necessarily changing one’s real life status. Disinhibition, or deviance from everyday norms of behavior, is further supported by the principal homogeneity of interest within internet communities. Unlike regular ethnic communities, members of online ethnic communities share the same commitment to the task which brought them together online in the first place. Thus, one may feel safe to act out the role of being a true Silesian or Banat Bulgarian in the company of the like-minded. This communion with the like-minded has been variously, especially in connection with stigmatic aspects of one’s identity, reported to induce online community members to come out to the offline world about their perceived stigma (KOZINETS 2010, 28), thereby ultimately helping one’s cause. Likewise, minority ethnic or regional identities are known to often be hidden from the outside world of the majority, giving rise to what Peter NELDE (2004, 114) has aptly termed ‘whispered cultures’ (Flüsterkulturen).9 One might expect 8 9 Netnography draws a line between social(izing) and consumption activities, meaning by the latter the topic or theme of any internet site which will define the particular focus of the site users. These may be real objects of consumption, such as consumer goods or collectible items, but also more immaterial topics of interest such as fan sites, religious worship, political ideas, and, last but not least, regional languages and identities. This aspect is certainly relevant for Silesian, which, in a manner typical for minority cultures, seems to be hidden from outsiders. Silesians’ inhibitions about using their language in public has been most vividly put into words by one commentator: The privacy of having a language of one’s own 91 that the communion of the like-minded online will bolster up ethnic or regional self-consciousness, encouraging community members to more actively promote ethnic or regional agendas offline. But this expectation rests on the assumption that online communities concerned about ethnic or regional identity should be interpreted as support groups for problem-ridden people. In my view, another perspective on ethnic communities online seems as likely. A cursory glance at some of the more popular Silesian sites reveals an almost playful approach to language and identity. One may variously experiment with linguistic and other expressions of ethnic identity which one possibly might never use on the street, where one is expected to behave as an average person. Unlike the real-life ethnic minority group with which one chooses to identify, any online group forming around ethnic and/or linguistic identity as the common object of interest will form a homogenous community of the like-minded, with few or no individual differences among members. Where no differences among individuals seem to hold, there is also little danger of disapproval of more pronounced forms of ethnic self-expression. Surely, you might not count on the same degree of like-mindedness throughout the envisaged offline ethnic minority, lumped together by chance rather than by the professed will of its members. It is here where online regional minority language activities straddle the border between MILLER and SLATER’s expansive realization of the internet’s dynamics of objectification and its expansive potential (2000, 10-4).10 Visiting internet sites and joining internet fora, the express intention of which is to promote Silesian language and identity, may even lead to the formation of closely knit online social groups or etribes, comparable to communities of practice, giving rise to self-reassuring but also self-sufficient practices of being Silesian online.11 Being Silesian “Godańe po ślůnsku je jak łazyńe w laćach. W laciach czujesz się naprawdę komfortowo, ale gdybyś się pojawić się w nich na przyjęciu byłaby gańba” (Ślůnsko godka ino w chaupje, quoted from ADAMETZ (2009, 11); translation ‘To talk in Silesian is like walking in slippers. You feel really comfortable in slippers, but if you were to go to a reception in slippers, it would be a shame.’). 10 In terms of both expansive realization and expansive potential, the internet enables and supports the construction and realization of identities. Whereas, in the case of expansive realizations, the identities are presumed to be preexisting to and independent of the internet, it is the internet which stimulates the adoption of new forms of identity in expansive potential. As M ILLER / SLATER (2000, 14) state, there is a thin line between both, and in the case of Slavic regional minority activities online, there are at least a few cases at hand, which may hardly count as an expansion and intensification of preexisting offline community life, but show instead forms of selfexpression that clearly appear to have been engendered by the internet and its specific social conditions. Wymysöeryś, the language of Wilamowice, seems to be a case in point. 11 This idea is supported by ELKINS’ (1997, 141) general statement that virtual groups “have the potential to be just as fundamental to the identities of some people as the 92 Dieter Stern may thus ultimately form the basis of secondary social identities, comparable to those of play spaces known as virtual worlds (KOZINETS 2010, 85), such as, e.g., Second Life. Delving into the recesses of a secondary identity online ultimately might allow the First Life of online Silesians to remain relatively unaffected.12 The compensatory role of a Second Life regional identity could ultimately even act as a depressant for real life minority ambitions, since it allows minorities to fully act out and thereby satisfy regional sentiments, at least virtually. A case in point would seem to be Tadeusz Jeczalik’s online Silesian Republic (www.republikasilesia.com), which even offers Silesian citizenship (DAENINCK 2012, 22-4). Whatever Jeczalik’s ultimate aim and purpose, the borders of his republic are neatly set up within the realm of the internet. No efforts seem to have been made to ever transport his republic to the social world of embodied people. This may partly be due to the fact that Jeczalik lives as an expat in Florida. Nevertheless, Jeczalik’s efforts do in fact reach out beyond the virtual at least in one respect. He offers t-shirts for sale with two different mottos: “Silesius non polonus” (‘A Silesian is not a Pole’) and “Nie Niemiec, Nie Polak, Ślązak!” (‘Not German, not Polish, Silesian!’). Adrian Drożdż, the author of a website called ‘Silesia restituta’ (DAENINCK 2012, 25-7), which like Jeczalik’s site stands out for its far-reaching, openly separatist ideas, shows the same symptoms of a Second Life-like identity. The adoption of a pseudonym, Adrian Silesian, clearly points in this direction. But Drożdż has, unlike Jeczalik, more serious First Life ambitions. He encourages his few followers to take action in real life, and he himself took part in a march for Silesian autonomy, where he was seen with a t-shirt of Jeczalik’s making (DAENINCK 2012, 27). Though this actually looks like internet activity’s being embedded in an overarching real-life setting, it is in fact the other way around. Geeky acts, such as donning mottoed t-shirts, should be interpreted as Second Life’s ultimately invading the social space of Real Life, rather than the internet’s supporting and facilitating established patterns of Real Life. Actors on the scene Now let us turn to the specific case of Slavic microliterary standard languages, with a special focus on the protagonists we might expect to re-encounter on the internet. During the last three decades, but most markedly after the existing ethnic communities whose existence we have taken for granted for decades or even centuries.” See also LEE (2006, 153). 12 This assumption can be backed by LYSLOFF’S more general observations on the role of the internet in helping the fragmentization of identities: “When we go online, the computer extends our identity into a virtual world of disembodied presence, and at the same time, it also incites us to take on other identities. We lurk in, or engage with on-line lists and usenet groups that enable different versions of ourselves to emerge dialogically” (2003, 255). The privacy of having a language of one’s own 93 breakdown of socialist regimes, the Slavic-speaking countries have seen an upsurge of linguistic regionalism, which has been hailed by the academic world by founding a subdiscipline specifically dedicated to what has come to be known as microliterary standard languages. Many academicians would, however, take a somewhat skeptical stance towards the growing number of ever smaller Slavic standard languages or rather projects, suspecting ethnic entrepreneurs, many of them coming from academia themselves, as being the only actors behind the scene (VOSS 2003, 494). Notwithstanding these suspicions, there appears to be a vivid basis for at least some of these regional languages, which manifests itself in a wealth of internet sites variously giving expression to feelings of regional identity and loyalty. Some of them have probably been set up by the same ethnic entrepreneurs, but the existence of more or less flourishing discussion fora shows that the minority language agenda appeals to a wider audience, which is certainly not representative of the envisaged minority population on the whole, but may be assumed to reflect a sizable dimension of public sentiments within these populations. An exceptional but therefore more telling case of ethnic entrepreneurs includes those from outside the envisaged community, who figure as makers or insiders on the net. A well-known case in point is Han Steenwijk and his three Resia-speakers who support and serve to legitimate his goal of designing a micro-nation by dint of designing a microstandard-language with its own micro-literature. This particular case brings the issue of postmodern individualism and compartmentalization clearly to the fore, and the particular link between individual strife and the internet becomes equally apparent. Though ethnic entrepreneurs like Han Steenwijk tried to create their selfmade homegrown linguistic microcosm expressive of their very own personal commitment (long) before the advent of the internet, the internet in an obvious way helps them make their microcosm feel more real by giving it the shape of a small, apparently interactive, living world which can be immediately experienced visually, like a showcase. Writing a grammar book for Resian Slovene is a lonely enterprise, and you may never really rest assured about the physical reality of the universe you are trying to create. Sense-making, as seen from the perspective of the embodied individual, will not be satisfied by only creating artefacts single-handedly. It needs the sensory perception of a real place, where the individual battle for sense-making becomes an almost physical reality on the screen, a place where you can always go, which is not an artefact, but an imagined place or reality made visually real. Despite all claims of the disembodiment promoted by virtuality, there is thus ultimately something quite physical about online activity, which the real, corporeal world cannot provide. Ethnicity is thus reduced to a private and intimate location on the screen, fenced off from viewpoints questioning the fragile creation of one’s own imagination by the anonymous remoteness and hiddenness of small social spaces of which the vast world wide web ultimate- 94 Dieter Stern ly consists. Instead of offering a ready-made solution to disoriented identity seekers, those offering regional ethnic-style identity online appear to be themselves seekers of alternative models of personal identity. This is, paradoxically enough, even true for those experts from outside who may one day hope to be awarded membership rights and status within the ethnolinguistic regional community of their own making. There is another point to ethnic entrepreneurs, viz., a conflict between the interests of the envisaged group and the overall academic interest to have ever new objects around which one’s beloved academic activities can revolve, such as writing grammar books and providing means of standardization, etc. Though on the face of it ethnic entrepreneurs and the heritage speaker community appear to be jointly fighting for the same goal, which will often be depicted as some kind of basic human right (viz., to speak one’s mother tongue, and, as the highest form of this freedom, to write literature in this tongue), both may have very different beliefs and ideas about what the common goal in question really is and ought to be. People trained in writing grammar books perceive language differently from people who just happen to be heritage speakers. And they may also pursue different interests in supporting a minority linguistic agenda (EDWARDS 2010, 73). This is a matter of divergent language ideologies and also of divergent political (to be taken in a very broad sense) interests. As James COLLINS aptly put it: “As academics, our categories of analysis are a part of linguistic practices that characterize social realities, and we inhabit positions as specialists in state-certified institutions that make our statements and our silences unavoidably interest laden” (1998, 259). Slavic regional minority languages on the internet Now that we have settled the theoretical premises and outlined those aspects which appear to be relevant to the study of microliterary languages on the internet, we can proceed to take a closer look at what is actually out there on the net. This is, of course, not going to be an exhaustive overview for all of the quite impressive number of Slavic microliterary languages. We have restricted our preliminary exploration of the field to a number of cases, which are hoped to be sufficient to give an idea of the basic ways in which Slavic microliterary languages are being staged online. This analysis is preliminary in that respect; it does not offer an in-depth netnography involving participant observation of communities linked to one or other web location. Instead, we restrict ourselves to a somewhat sketchy content analysis in order to arrive at a first basic classification of internet representations, which, it is hoped, will also shed light on the state of the respective microliterary language with respect to its envisaged community. Special attention will be paid to the difference between disconnective and accessory use of the internet, as outlined above. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 95 As a preliminary step, we will, however, need to introduce and discuss an additional analytical tool. Kyra LANDZELIUS (2006, 5) distinguishes two predominant orientations of web locations, which she describes as: “those geared towards an internal public comprised of fellow group members, and those geared towards an external public (which may target non-indigenous people and/or indigenous people from other groups). We might describe the former initiative as predominantly inreach, and the latter as predominantly outreach.” Landzelius further identifies four basic orientations of minority web activities: (1) community services, (2) image management, (3) sovereignty campaigns or movements, (4) indigenous cosmopolitan networks. Whereas (1) exclusively tends to the inreach and (4) to the outreach end of the continuum, (2) and (3) are unspecified with respect to their principal orientation. Landzelius’ classification was set up for communities of endangered indigenous peoples and in an obvious manner presupposes the existence of a firmly rooted and healthy community offline. Microliterary languages, however, differ from classical indigenous (linguistic) minorities in one important respect, viz., that the existence of a firmly rooted community is far from being clear. There is certainly an object of potential identification, i.e., the microliterary language, but is there also a group which identifies with it? Landzelius’ classification could be used as a diagnostic to address this delicate question. Websites which clearly qualify as inreach, such as (1) community services offered to and used by a linguistic minority group, would clearly prove the rootedness of any microliterary language, whereas (3) sovereignty campaigns, especially those which promote claims of existence for the minority language in question, are rather indicative of a language’s being only weakly anchored as an object of identification within its respective community. The four basic orientations can, however, also be mapped on the distinction between ‘accessory’ to and ‘disconnective’ from offline life. Orientation (1) would be the only one exclusively linked to the accessory use of the internet, whereas the remaining orientations would, due to their inherent self-referentiality, qualify as potentially enabling disconnective tendencies. But how to stage a language online, especially if it is not widely recognized? In a quite obvious manner, a website as “expansion in space and time of their creators” (MILLER / SLATER 2001, 104) is the natural medium to spread the fame and significance of its creators and, by the same token, the creators’ specific agendas. Being out there on the net is in itself already tantamount to a valorization of the language one wants to make known. Like no other medium, websites will also interlink the common and the personal, personalizing any national, regional or other socal claim (MILLER / SLATER 2001, 105). A first important step, then, would be to make the language of your choice ap- 96 Dieter Stern pear like any commonly recognized language, which means to present it in the same format as these languages are presented as factual knowledge online. To gain recognition for one’s language means, in the first place, to have a Wikipedia entry for it as a surrogate proof of existence. Having a Wikipedia entry would comprise both an outreach and an inreach orientation. The outreach act would consist of having one’s minority language registered, as it were, as a trademark among the recognized languages of the world.13 At the same time, the act of registration also serves an inreach need by providing self-assurance about one’s possibly shaky linguistic identity. The registering function is best served by articles written in a seemingly scientific-objective manner similar to the great foreign languages of scientific communication, i.e., English, and, for the Slavic speaking context, also Russian and German. In order to put forward a standard language agenda, the article should, in the first place, ideally treat the minority language as a microliterary or regional standard language. An additional asset would be to have a Wikepedia entry written in the respective microlanguage itself. This act goes far beyond claiming recognition by registering one’s language as a trademark. It would demonstrate the potentials of the microlanguage in question and rank it as an equal among the other written languages by shifting it from being a mere object of description to a powerful tool of description. Amazingly enough, only a tiny fraction of microlanguages are promoted in this way, and there are even some which, though they have a Wikepedia entry, are not put forward as independent literary languages in their own right. For the time being, I can only guess why so little use is made of the possibilities offered by Wikipedia. For one, publishing an entry on any given microlanguage is a far simpler step than publishing it also in the microlanguage in question. Publishing an article on Silesian on the English or German Wiki-site is not much of an effort, apart from writing it and putting it online. For the latter purpose, however, one would have to set up a new Wiki-site for the new target language, which requires some willingness to acquaint oneself with the technical requirements and procedures of Wikipedia and to maintain the language-specific site. 13 The communicative value and function of having a Wikipedia entry is comparable to having one’s language been assigned an ISO-code by the Library of Congress, as is clearly shown by the case of Silesian. The fact that Silesian was given the code no. ISO 639-3 has been taken as a factual proof that Silesian really is an independent language (see KOCYBA 2009, 246‐247 for a penetrating comment on this particular case). This case is also illustrative of how constructivism and essentialism can go hand in hand in practice. An act of mental construction (recognition by an official institution) is willingly taken as proof for material essence. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 97 The following table provides an overview of which microlanguages appear on Wikipedia and in what manner.14 As a basis I have made use of Miloš Okuka’s extensive list of all Slavic languages (OKUKA 2002): Language according to Okuka Wikipedia entry in own language Ägäis-Makedonisch/ Aedean Macedonian Banater Bulgarisch/ Banat Bulgarian No 14 No Wikipedia entries in major languages (roof language) German mention of literacy treated primarily as mikrojazyk yes No English German Russian Bulgarian yes yes yes yes yes?15 no yes no16 The table was compiled on the basis of a survey by the author done on August 26, 2014. 15 Motoki Nomachi (pers. comm.) points out that though the Russian and the English foreign language articles are quite similar in content, the headings to the Wiki entry display a marked terminological difference, implying a different evaluation of the linguistic status. The Russian entry has the heading Банатско-болгарский язык, i.e., language, whereas the otherwise similar English entry has the heading Banat Bulgarian dialect. The problem with the English entry is that it constantly mixes up ‘language’ and ‘dialect,’ using them interchangeably. The exposition of the Banat Bulgarian alphabet along with a specimen of the language in standardized writing would, however, testify to its being conceived of as a language of its own by the author of the Wiki entry. 16 Motoki Nomachi (pers. comm.) rightly observes that though the Bulgarian entry on Banat Bulgarian may superficially appear to recognize the existence of Banat Bulgarian as a language in its own right by treating it as a written language, on closer scrutiny it becomes apparent that the entry was designed to achieve just the opposite. The entry is specifically dedicated to the Банатска българска книжовна норма ‘Banat Bulgarian literary norm,’ which might be taken as a sign of recognition, but it starts with a statement which clearly defines the Banat Bulgarian written norm as a subset of the Bulgarian language: Банатската българска книжовна норма или само Банатска писмена норма е писмено-регионална норма на българския език, исползвана от банатските българи ‘The Banat Bulgarian literary norm or, simply, the Banat written norm is a regional written norm of the Bulgarian Language, used by the Banat Bulgarians’. In view of this, treating the written norm separately from the Spoken Banat Bulgarian should be seen as an attempt to forestall any interpretations which would suggest the unity of Banat Bulgarian as an independent and self-sufficient linguistic system in its own right by linking up the written norm and to its spoken substrate. 98 Dieter Stern Burgenlandkroatisch/ Burgenland Croatian No Čakawisch/ Čakavian No Halschanisch/ Halšanian Kajkawisch/ Kajkavian No Kaschubisch/ Kashubian Yes Lachisch/Lachian No17 Mährisch/Moravian No Moliseslawisch/ Molise Slavic No Ostslowakisch/ Eastern Slovakian Resianisch/ Resian No 17 No No English German Russian Croatian English German Russian Croatian no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no English German Russian Croatian English German Russian Polish yes no no yes yes yes yes yes German Russian German Czech English German Russian Croatian Russian yes yes no yes no no yes no yes no no no no yes yes yes no (“sporny status”!) no18 yes no no no no yes no yes English German Russian Slovene no yes yes no no no yes yes It is interesting to note that the Silesian Wiki entry treats Lachian as a dialect of the Silesian language. This is quite illustrative of the fickleness and insecurity of regional linguistic claims and also reveals the sometimes jealous competition between regional projects in redefining the linguistic map of Europe. 18 Though the German Wiki entry calls Lachian a language in its heading Die Lachische Sprache, it treats Lachian further as a group of transitional dialects between Polish and Czech. The privacy of having a language of one’s own Rusinisch/Rusyn yes19 Schlesisch/Silesian Yes Vičsch/Vičshian Westpolessisch/ West Polesian No No German English Russian Ukrainian German English Russian Polish No English German Russian 99 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no yes no no20 yes yes yes no no yes The most effectively promoted microlanguages are Kashubian, Rusyn and Silesian. Kashubian, however, has to be seen in a somewhat different light. It has a long-standing tradition of being treated by a sizable community of Slavic scholars as a language of its own. A Wiki entry for that language should therefore not so much be appreciated as an act of promotion and registering, but rather as a natural consequence of its common acceptance as an independent language by scholars. In view of this, the treatment of the status of Kashubian as sporny ‘moot’ in its own Wiki entry may come as a surprise and appears indicative of the particularly strong claims of allegiance put forward by a significant segment of Polish mainstream language activism. Rusyn presents us with a similar paradox. Though someone has taken care to maximally promote the cause of this language by setting up a Rusyn Wiki site and composing a lengthy Wiki entry in that same language, the strong affirmative claim behind this act is not backed up by the content of the entry, which basically echoes the critical assessment of the status of Rusyn found in the foreign language entries. The same appears to hold in principle for the entries in and about Silesian. But then there is ultimately not much of a paradox. These are Wiki entries, where everyone tries to be as critical and objective as possible by reproducing the multiplicity of conflicting views without openly taking up a stance of one’s own, i.e., where everyone tries to behave as a modern-day knowledge worker and intellectual might be expected to behave. The ultimate benefit of having an entry in one’s language on one’s language on Wikipedia is to communicate the factual existence of one’s language to a wider audience of people inside as well as outside the envisaged linguistic 19 The entry in Rusyn claims that both Vojvodina and Transcarpathian varieties form one entity. 20 The Polish Wiki entry consists mainly of a long discussion of the status of Silesian as a dialect or language. 100 Dieter Stern community. A Wiki entry in a way reifies and objectifies any topic that is written about. In the end, the necessity of a Wiki entry may and will be evaluated differently by different minority language activists and should therefore not be taken as a diagnostic for commitment to the minority language cause. More telling in this respect are the overall number and diversity of sites which in one way or the other address issues of regional minorities and their respective languages. What follows is a survey of six regional minority languages which have at one time or another been classified as microliterary languages by scholars in this particular field. These languages are: West Polesian, Kashubian, Silesian, Moravian, Banat Bulgarian and Burgenland Croatian. The sample (v. appendix) was chosen intuitively, with a view to have them represent the whole range of different types of web representation for any Slavic microliterary language. The analysis is also restricted with respect to the perspective it takes, which is basically that of an outside person who simply registers what he sees. Neither participant observation nor background interviews have been applied, which makes the survey and the conclusions based on it preliminary. And finally, there is one very serious drawback to any internet survey of this kind, viz., the volatile and temporary nature of the objects of investigation. A significant number of the websites I compiled for a preliminary study in 2006 are by now extinct or have changed their web location, their profile or their content. The same holds for the earlier list of Silesian and Kaszubian websites compiled and analyzed by Katarzyna WIŚNIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER (2009), half of which I was unable to retrieve six years later, in June 2015. Even some of the websites of my current sample will have changed their location or gone extinct by the time this article appears in print. I hope, though, that the overview of the plain, visible features of individual websites will give a first clue about the web profile of any of the selected languages, with the qualification that any profile and judgment on it will be nothing more than an arbitrary snapshot of the particular moment when the sample was compiled. Future internet surveys may add the longitudinal dimension which my analysis must lack. For the sample in the appendix, only those websites have been selected which represent a basic type for the language in question. Thus, the Burgenland Croatian site of the cultural organization KUGA was left out, because it would merely replicate the identical feature set of the Hrvatsko kulturno društvo u Gradišću ‘Croation Cultural Association in the Burgenland’ and therefore add nothing to the overall web profile of Burgenland Croatian. Thus, with the exception of West Polesian and Moravian, the list of websites analyzed, is not exhaustive for any one language.21 There are still more websites to be 21 For Silesian and Kashubian a fairly exhaustive list of websites is provided by WIŚ(2009, 274-5). NIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER The privacy of having a language of one’s own 101 found online for any of the selected languages, but nothing is expected to basically alter the overall web profile for any one language. I will proceed by commenting on the features, their interrelations and their possible diagnostic value for appraisal of the stage of the respective microliterary language online and, possibly, also offline. This will enable us to draw up a web profile for the languages analyzed by highlighting the most typical forms of web representation for each individual language, which I believe to be indicative of the cultural embedding of the respective languages. I will start with the most straightforward feature, viz., the range of languages used as medium of communication. Language choice is in an obvious way related to the feature of addressee with its distinction between outreach and inreach. Only five out of the twenty-six websites of our sample make use of English. Addressing an English-reading public may be presumed to serve a similar function as having a Wiki entry in the main languages of globalized communication. There appears to be a clear intent in using English to reach out beyond the immediate confines of one’s own regional group and to link up to the world at large. Some clarification, however, is needed for two of the pages using English. The Republic of Silesia (10)22 was set up and maintained by an American citizen of Silesian descent. For this individual English would be the most natural, possibly even the only manageable choice, depending on the stage of attrition of his knowledge of Polish or his Silesian heritage language. In the case of the Banat Bulgarian site Stár Bišnov (19), the focus on the local community rather than on the language associated with it precludes the interpretation of the use of English as an effort to establish and promote the acceptance of Banat Bulgarian on a global level. There remain ultimately only three sites which would seem to have made an effort to have the existence of their respective object language confirmed on a global scale. One of them is the Banat Bulgarian Virtuálna biblioteka (21). Its use of English might attest to the organizers’ awareness of the small but vital group of linguists and language aficionados all over the globe who would appreciate a free supply of primary linguistic data. The remaining two sites (1)-(2) are the only still active sites on West Polesian and testify to a bygone effort to have this language recognized by a wider public. This raises the question of who in reality would be the intended global audience. Most makers of websites are painfully aware that only a very small fraction of the worldwide public will actually pay attention to their ethnolinguistic endeavor. In fact, no more than a couple of individuals, perhaps even known to one another and to the website makers personally, will ever be likely to take more than cursory notice of the issues raised on websites supporting microliterary languages. One might even venture so far as to maintain that global outreach in these cases is in fact more like inreach, serving the in22 The numbers in parentheses refer to the survey of websites in the appendix. 102 Dieter Stern terests of an intimate group of like-minded individuals who happen to be spread over the globe. Thus, the use of English on the only two still operative websites on West Polesian (1)-(2), instead of attesting to serious ethnic strife, rather reflect the fact that the West Polesian cause has in the meantime shrunk to the smallest imaginable social dimension, being restricted to the attention of a few specialists. In addition, though at first glance global outreach would appear to bolster up real-life ambitions, it rather contributes to the commodification of minority languages as objects of consumption for individuals in the remote private recesses of the world wide web. Most website makers will rather rely on the respective majority language as a means of communication. Though use of the majority language might appear to reflect an attempt to put forward a plea for one’s cause to the respective national majority, in view of the fact that the typical member of a minority associated to a microliterary standard uses the majority language as his primary means of communication, especially in reading, it should rather be seen as the only effective means to potentially reach every member of the envisaged linguistic minority and warm them up to the idea of using the ethnic heritage language in domains that have been hitherto reserved to the majority language. An impressive share of 20 out of 26 websites make use of the majority language, therefore clearly bespeaking the serious real-life ambitions of most websites on the list. Use of the majority language, then, testifies to an inreach orientation, addressing an offline cultural-linguistic community more often than not even on the level of community services, which presupposes the existence of a firmly established cultural-linguistic minority. In view of the above, it should not come as a surprise that the micro- or minority languages figure less prominently than the majority languages as a means of communicating the cultural and linguistic contents of the websites. For all languages but West Polesian there are websites making use of the minority language. In total these are 17 out of 26 websites. In a number of cases, however, the majority language will be more prominent than the minority language, and in a few cases the use of the minority language is functionally restricted. Thus, the Republic of Silesia (10) uses Silesian for the symbolic purpose of ethnic display rather than as a serious means of communication. The same holds for many other websites, even those which profess to promote the regional language and culture in question, such as the site of the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association (5), which uses Kashubian in its title and link section, but has all its texts in Polish. In this case, too, the regional or minority language serves an exclusively symbolic function. The main page of Slonsky Radio (11) is another case in point, though it offers access to chatroom facilities which are distinguished by a lively use of Silesian. Most websites offer a switch button which enables the user to view the contents alternatively in the majority or minority language. This is basically due to common web practices of language management (SPOLSKY 2009) and fits in with The privacy of having a language of one’s own 103 ideas of equal rights for minorities, but it should also be seen as a means to facilitate the promotion of the minority language, especially its usually little known standard version, among the envisaged cultural-linguistic minority. In all cases except Burgenland Croatian, the use of the minority language serves an additional purpose apart from the communication of contents. Having an article on whatever topic in Kashubian or Banat Bulgarian will effectively demonstrate the powerful referential capacity of the minority language to a presumably skeptical minority audience and, hopefully, inspire them to follow the model of the website to use the minority language in writing. As will be argued below, Burgenland Croatian seems to have already passed the stage of actively proselytizing written language novices. The bilingualism of most Burgenland Croatian websites seems to follow firmly entrenched patterns of institutionalized practice, reflecting a stark legalistic attitude of officially decreed minority language regulations. I believe the overall content profile of a language to be indicative of the interests and shape of the community figuring behind the microliterary language project. A basic distinction has to be made between websites focusing exclusively on issues of a linguistic nature and those focusing on and possibly even facilitating (offline) community life. Undoubtedly, linguistic issues are to be considered as part and parcel of community life, but unlike other aspects of community life, such as news on the latest communal elections, they have also a high potential for self-referentiality, which means that they may but need not support and facilitate ongoing offline community life. We therefore presume that languages that are exclusively or predominantly represented by websites with an essentially linguistic focus are artificially constructed for whatever purpose. A microliterary language backed up by a reallife community should ideally display a sound mix of websites on both linguistic matters and community life. But even in cases of languages represented by websites of variegated content, one must be wary of a possible split between linguistic strife and real community life. Silesian seems to be a case in point. Silesian websites exclusively concerned with promoting highly elaborated models of a written Silesian standard, like Instýtut Ślůnskij Godki (8) or Pro loquela Silesiana (9), appear to stand somewhat apart from a wealth of websites fostering Silesian identity and community life, which as a rule pay scant attention to formal linguistic issues of language planning. The Silesian Republic is a case in point as is Slonsky Radio. Though for the latter there is an expressly linguistic side to its staging of being Silesian (it offers a Silesian switch button), it does not subscribe to the elaborate and somewhat self-contained efforts at academically grounded standardization. There are, however, a few exceptions to this general trend. One example is the private infosite Gůrny Ślůnsk (12), which systematically applies a standard spelling, that it states is the most commonly known and which seems to be identical to the one until recently propagated and used by the Instýtut Ślůnskij Godki (8). 104 Dieter Stern The topics commonly addressed on a website may also serve as an indication which position the microliterary or minority language holds within the specific cultural economy of meaning of the minority group. Minority languages or groups, mainly represented by websites conveying local community news, may be said to interpret identity basically in terms of community life, whereas cultural stuff, to use Frederik BARTH’S (1969) expression, like language becomes accessory to the social group in question. There is a straightforward interrelation with the feature labeled ‘relation to language,’ which operates on the basic distinction between an instrumental or accessory use of language and language being treated as a self-contained object of consumption. Kashubian stands out as a language with a clear focus on communal life, with two webpages dedicated exclusively to community news and services. One of them, Kaszubi (4), doesn’t even make use of Kashubian as a means of communication, which begs the question of whether a website like this testifies to the Kashubians being a linguistic community. This is, however, not meant to deny that Kashubians do in fact make use of the internet to stage their minority identity in linguistic terms, as is pointed out by WIŚNIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER (2009, 266-8). Featured articles on minority/microliterary languages, on the other hand, which either propose and promote a standard model of written usage or elaborate on issues of ethnolinguistic independence, could well be characterized as mobilization efforts to close communal ranks behind a standard language design, unless they are written against the backdrop of a legally based institutional minority policy, as is the case with Burgenland Croatian. Where mobilization fails, however, they start to serve a rather self-contained aim, viz., that of manipulating language as an object of professional interest or individual identity play. The Moravian site Moravský národní kongres (13) shows, by the way, that online identity play even in its most radical, separatist form need not necessarily have a linguistic agenda.23 All but two languages-cumcommunities are represented by websites featuring articles on linguistic issues alongside websites of other content. The two exceptions, Kashubian and West Polesian, embody in a telling way the opposite extremes of linguistic activism. West Polesian is exclusively represented by articles on linguistic issues, leaving the impression of a language without community. Kashubian is just the other way round, with only a few featured articles trying to promote the status and use of Kashubian as a written (or spoken) medium. If it were not for other content formats, viz., an online bookshop and an online language advisory board, one might think of Kashubian as a vital community without a language. 23 At least it does not have a linguistic agenda any more. But see below for the initial period of the Moravský národní kongres. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 105 On the face of it, Kashubian appears to treat linguistic matters on a different, rather practical level, which might be seen as a strong indicator of the Kashubian language’s being firmly rooted within a real-life linguistic community. The online advisory board Rada Języka Kaszubskiego (6) appears to testify to a vital linguistic minority with an established and commonly acclaimed written form.24 A final assessment of this claim would, however, require an investigation into user statistics. Online bookshops, which offer books on general and popular topics, also bespeak an advanced level of minority language engineering. Free bookshops, which rely for their existence exclusively on the income from book sales, without any official funding or private donations, might be considered hard and fast proof of the vitality of a linguistic minority. But this does not apply to Kaszubska książka (3), which forms part of the Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie, a non-profit organization (organizacja pożytku publicznego) under Polish legislation. The ‘About us’-page (O nas) of this online bookshop clearly states its cultural mission: “Wszystkie nasze działania są ukierunkowane na szerzenie czytelnictwa i kultury kaszubskiej wśród dzieci, młodzieży oraz osób dorosłych” (‘All our efforts are directed toward the growth of the Kashubian readership and Kashubian culture among children, youth and grown-ups’). Thus, instead of attesting to the vitality of the linguistic community and the instrumentality of language use, this bookshop rather bespeaks a less conspicuous effort at proselytizing heritage language supporters. Apart from this specific Kashubian case, a more general qualification needs to be made concerning bookshops specializing in regional/minority languages. On the face of it, bookshops unreservedly qualify as community services, but one should be aware that books as collectible items also lend themselves to the privatization of linguistic identity and to self-contained forms of individual identity play. Ultimately, there is a common feature of both articles on minority languages and books in minority languages. Both treat language as an object of consumption, which implies the commodification of language as a consumable item, possibly leading a life independent from its communicative use in social interaction. 24 Since the legal status of Kashubian as a regional rather than a minority language would not put Polish state authorities under any obligation to actively provide institutional support for the language (WIŚNIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER 2009, 258), it may not be assumed that the language advisory board was set up according to the binding requirements of a minority policy program. It may be assumed that the advisory board was set up according to a perceived practical need from within the community, which very likely applied for state funding to realize their project. The overall design of the site, which offers little general information on the language and its standard spelling, rather precludes its interpretation in terms of a proselytizing site said to be trying to establish rather than to maintain a linguistic community. 106 Dieter Stern An astonishing fact about Slavic microliterary languages online is that the most obviously beneficent tools to help the cause of any underused language are hardly ever used. Only two out of 26 websites offer truly interactive facilities. Slonsky Radio (11), which is basically a unidirectional infoboard of an internet radio station, offers an ample choice of links leading visitors either to a chatroom, a forum, or a Facebook page, where Silesians are able to freely express their opinions in any one of three languages – Polish, German, or Silesian – and where they may not only interact with the web host, but also with any other visitor to the site. Interestingly enough, this site, as has already been pointed out, does not subscribe to any specific written norm for Silesian and contributions in Silesian by visitors are written in an ad hoc fashion, with some individuals, however, apparently having taken the trouble to adopt the spelling conventions as proposed by the Instýtut Ślůnskij Godki (8) or Pro loquela Silesiana (9). The other truly interactive site is, or rather was, the yahoo newsgroup Bulgarians from Banat Worldwide (17), a chatroom which saw lively activity for a few years, but which by now has fallen completely still. The Banat Bulgarian newsgroup members would, just like the contributors to the interactive facilities of Slonsky Radio, write their minority language in an ad hoc fashion, without giving heed to standard spelling proposals. Both web locations attracted primarily diasporic members of their respective minority public, though the websites did not expressly address and invite expats. For obvious reasons, interactive formats are particularly attractive to expats, for whom the internet offers the only opportunity to socialize in the name of one’s minority identity. Interactive formats are the only tools to offer a direct pathway into extreme forms of virtuality, which might ultimately lead to the formation of Silesian or other e-tribes, and it is expats who are most prone to making use of interactive facilities to replace their lost social life within a strictly localized regional minority by a surrogate life with a strong and possibly somewhat exaggerated ethnic flavor, which doesn’t seem appropriate in most offline situations. Though interactive facilities might in principle also be availed upon by minority members still living in their original home region to sustain and even boost their regional linguistic identities, this opportunity is rarely seized upon. The reasons for this can only be guessed at. My personal guess would be that makers of websites who try to promote an elaborate standard spelling might not be overly enthusiastic about having their precious spelling carelessly muddled up or ignored by an interactive mob of ordinary heritage minority speakers online. The two extant examples of interactive sites are, by the way, quite sufficient to corroborate any reservations against using interactive tools to promote a written standard. Language standardization is always a unidirectional, top-down act and intuitively shuns all forms of uncoordinated, free expression. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 107 The preferred format of a unidirectional, top-down rendition of information and instruction might theoretically be assumed to help existing offline communities to organize and support their minority linguistic life style. However, without further investigation into the reception of unidirectional online facilities by their respective speech comunities, we cannot tell what the ultimate real-life net effect of any of the websites has been. Is there a Kashubian, Silesian, Banat Bulgarian, etc., community out on the streets waiting for online help to make them speak and write their language properly? I would expect a lively reception offline to engender in turn some kind or other of vivid interactive life in any minority or microlanguage online. This not being the case, it remains doubtful whether there is anything really going on out there on the streets.25 And this is where standardization projects really become virtual or, rather, self-contained in the end. Coming across an isolated piece of writing, like Zbyšek Šustek’s article “Otázka kodifikace spisovného moravského jazyka” (‘On the question of the codification of literary Moravian’) (14) – which was originally published in print, but by now has entered virtual space through an internet journal – I could not avoid having the impression of a lone voice in the wilderness. Šustek’s proposal looks like a very private and intimate piece, vented to an imagined online readership, thus creating the illusion (largely for himself) of being heard by a large expert and general public, when the paper in fact will hardly ever be read and identified with, except perhaps by a very small community of the like-minded. This makes one painfully aware that the internet can be a depressingly lonely and reclusive 25 This conclusion is, of course, dependent on the rate of internet access and internet literacy among the offline communities in question, about which there are no data available for the time being. It may, however, be assumed that European regional minority groups do not differ significantly from majority groups in their access to the internet, with the only qualification being that minorities as a rule do not form part of the urban metropolitan population and therefore possibly show a slightly lower degree of access than the national average. The difference between densely populated urban areas and sparsely populated rural areas within the EU accounts for an average difference of roughly 10% more internet users in metropolitan areas. Judging by the percentage of individuals within the EU that have never used the internet, general internet access is indeed comparatively low in Southeastern European countries. It is 54% for Romania and 46% for Bulgaria, with an estimated rate of 59% and 51% of non-users for rural areas. In Central European countries, however, internet access may not be expected to form an obstacle to massive online participation in minority activities. The rate of non-users is 33% for Poland and 24% for the Czech Republic, with an estimated rate of 38% and 29% of non-users for rural areas. Taking into account that internet access is strongly dependent on age, potentials for internet minority activism look significantly more favorable for minority communities, with strong support among younger and middle-aged indviduals (cf. Life Online, on https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/scoreboard_ life_online.pdf). 108 Dieter Stern private place, equipped, however, with a unique capacity to gloss over actual loneliness as a feeling of being out there in the world at large. Now that I have given a general idea about what the visible features of websites may tell us about microliterary languages online, I would like to give a short assessment for each of the languages of the sample. West Polesian is the only language for which the website sample of two webpages is exhaustive. Grigory Naumovets’26 personal home page and the entry within the highly fragmentary Belarusian encyclopedia Мовы свету (‘Languages of the World’) appear to be the only online remnants of the ambitious West Polesian standard project, which even produced its own newspaper, Збудінне, and attracted some scholarly attention back in the late 1980s and the 1990s. The present state of this language, or rather language proposal, judging by its online representation, clearly bespeaks a failed project, surviving only as a virtual memory trace. The three articles on the West Polesian language and the Jatvingian people on Grigory Naumovets’ personal website were put online in 2000, and he seems not to have cared much about this language any time afterwards. His homepage is still maintained and visited by a lively community of the like-minded, posting regularly comments on his latest releases on all kinds of mostly linguistic topics (Russian, Ukrainian, Rusyn, Cyrillic, etc.). But during the 15 years since they were put online, no one has ever cared to comment on his West Polesian items. West Polesian comes quite close to Sheilaism, as described at the beginning of this paper. It is a private language which could only survive as a potential object of consumption in the most hidden recesses of the internet, waiting there to spark someone’s desire for identity play. On a cline from esoteric to communal, West Polesian occupies the most esoteric end, but it shares this position with Moravian. One of the few still remaining websites on Moravian regionalism gives testimony to an earlier upsurge of separatist strife, which produced a number of websites giving vent to violent anti-Czech, or rather anti-Prague sentiments, with an express desire for independence from the central government in Prague. Stefan TROEBST (1999, 601) aptly commented on this movement as a “short-lived decomposition product of the dismantled Czechoslovak state, a political misfiring.” The discourse of discontent was basically socioeconomic, though with a clear ethnic undercurrent, which also included an attempt at launching a Moravian standard language. The Moravský národní kongres (13) published a Moravian alphabet in 1992. Interestingly enough, there is no longer anything to be found on the still active website of this movement. It was ŠUSTEK (1998) 26 Grigory Naumovets is a freelance IT programmer and web designer from Kiev who specializes in multilingual web design. He professes a more private interest in linguistic matters of all sorts, with an emphasis on Ukrainian and various East Slavic regional languages. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 109 who tried to give Moravian regionalism a more linguistic edge with the publication of his elaborate standard proposal in the Festschrift for Nikita Tolstoj. He received negative feedback for this by STICH (2000) and BLÁHA (2005) in traditional print format. In 2001 the paper was republished once again in print in OPÁLKA (2001), and it was also put online in the internet journal Britské listy (14). So again we have a virtual memory trace of a bygone, short-lived individual effort at standard language creation. The linguistic side of Moravian regionalism in particular discloses clear traits of a private and intimate preoccupation. Šustek’s more formally linguistic identity play is paralleled by Robert Keprts’ Moravian poems online. It must be admitted, however, that the situation was somewhat different a couple of years ago. Then, Moravian linguistic regionalism was still advocated by at least two independent organizational websites, in addition to Šustek’s private academic endeavor. In 2006 there were still the Ústav jazyka moravského27 and Morava28, both focusing exclusively on the issue of having a standard language of one’s own so that Moravians would no longer have to use Czech. In a strict sense, this is not even about the creation of a microliterary standard, intended as an addition to existing national standard models of expression. Rather, this is about having a real standard language for a real independent state, not just a microstandard for a minority too small to have serious national-political ambitions. Though by now Moravian has dwindled down to the dimensions of a personal linguistic pastime, when comparing it once again to West Polesian, it can at least boast as once having had a community behind it, though this was primarily defined in terms of socioeconomic discontent. Unlike the aforementioned cases, Silesian regionalism appears to be quite a vital phenomenon, which is clearly reflected by a wide range of online facilities. A typical Silesian website like Slonsky radio offers general information and community services on anything Silesian. There are individual sites with a more sharply pronounced separatist strain, such as Ruch Autonomii Śląska or Jeczalik’s Republic of Silesia, but most Silesian sites opt rather for a conciliatory kind of cultural regionalism. More than with any other group, expats play a vital role in online activity.29 Actually, the strong Silesian diaspora may be the main cause for Silesian regionalism’s being quite strong online. Alongside the more socioculturally oriented websites, there are a few which 27 http://ujm.szm.com, extinct by the date of writing this article. http://www.morava.nu/jazek.htm 29 Unlike other minority websites, many Silesian sites contain features addressing Silesians living abroad, particularly in Germany. This may be gleaned from the site Radio slunska, with its German language switch button, a photo gallery of its truest followers (słuchaczy), many of them living in inconspicuous provincial places throughout Germany, such as Bielefeld, Bad Kreuznach or Rielasingen-Worblingen, and a board of supporters (kamraci), which counts among them the Ortsgruppe Duisburg-Süd (Local Group of South Duisburg). 28 110 Dieter Stern focus on language and that exclusively in terms of regional language standardization. These attempts are ambitious and operate on a linguistically sophisticated level, but it is my impression that they somehow do not link up with the rest of Silesian online regionalism, which has a less pronounced linguistic profile. Whereas online activity testifies to a vital Silesian community both on- and offline, the Silesian microliterary standardization efforts seem to suffer from the same esotericity as West Polesian and Moravian, the difference being that the Silesian efforts are of a more recent date and appear therefore still more vital. Like Silesian, Banat Bulgarian regionalism is, at least in Romania, reflected by a rich online presence. Banat Bulgarian is nested into a majority speech community speaking a language which is only distantly related to the minority language, so that the minority language might be expected to be one of the major markers of ethnicity due to its high salience. However, there are Banat Bulgarian regionalist websites which do not capitalize on the minority language to bolster up regional identity. Possibly, it is exactly the fact of having a real language of one’s own which is very different indeed from the language of the surrounding majority what makes speaking Banat Bulgarian a more natural, matter-of-fact ingredient of being Banat Bulgarian. Websites which put a very strong focus on language standardization, however, attest rather to an insecure linguistic identity needing standardization in order to make the wished-for linguistic gap between majority and minority the more visible. There are, though, some sites which make an effort to promote existing standard orthographies, but they do so in a more inconspicuous, less soliciting manner, like Nick’s blog Sveta od pukraj námu (18). Based on the online presence of Banat Bulgarian, I would judge Banat Bulgarians a fairly self-conscious offline community, making a rather instrumental everyday use of their language and only occasionally focusing on language as an object of consumption for identity play. At first glance Kashubian falls within the same category as Banat Bulgarian. The linguistic side of being Kashubian seems to be even less prominent, with the minority language only made an overt object of attention by a community service offering advice to active offline users of Kashubian. Thus, no serious effort seems to be made at proselytizing and making the minority language known to the majority. But on closer inspection it appears that a more inconspicuous form of active proselytizing is employed by Kashubian sites, which, instead of openly addressing the question of language status and use, try to advance the cause of the heritage language by offering practical institutional support (advisory board, book shop). This leaves the superficial impression of a vital linguistic community, where, in comparison with Silesian, it is in fact only a difference of legal status that allows Kashubian activists to treat linguistic issues in a more matter-of-fact way. One is led to think that no one among the Kashubian population would seriously doubt the existence of The privacy of having a language of one’s own 111 the minority language, not even its suitability as a means of writing. Solitary online regional identity play would appear pointless in an apparently selfconscious and vital speech community, such as Kashubian appears to be. It might, however, in the end be the case that the overall Kashubian internet profile ought rather to be interpreted in terms of officially granted state support, which may conceal actual minority life behind a mask of state-financed regional linguistic activism.30 A more obvious case in point is the last language on our list, Burgenland Croatian. At first glance, Burgenland Croatian appears the most deeply entrenched and most firmly rooted minority language with a generally accepted and applied written standard. But then Burgenland Croatian is the only language of our sample which has been granted systematic and all-encompassing official support as a real minority language, which, in European legal terms, endows it with a rank higher than that of a regional language. The language, especially its standardized form, is firmly institutionalized; it is a cultural tool in the hands of public engineers and a few private cultural organizations which unreservedly subscribe to official linguistic patronage. The backbone of all online activity appears to be the highly academic Znanstveni institut Gradišćanskih Hrvatov (26). But the ultimate dimension of official support can only be truly appreciated if the use of the microliterary standard on the Volksgruppen ORF (25), the minority program of the Austrian state broadcasting company, is given due consideration. Up to this point, personal preoccupation with minority language standardization was treated as a mark of linguistic solipsism. But in view of the utter institutionalization of almost all online cultural expression in the case of Burgenland Croatian, we have to admit that the privately designed, owned and promoted microlanguage projects have at least the refreshing air of liveliness, though it be that of a (group of) solitary individual(s) committed to his/their one and only goal. Official recognition and support provide the technical means for the maintenance of regional cultural expression, but they do to a certain extent deprive regional/ethnic strife of its vital forces, giving way to a saturated attitude of administering culture in a musealized fashion. The search for identity is an active process of personal commitment and implies a feeling of insecurity about your status. This will perhaps put into perspective the seeming paradox that the most clearly expressed forms of separatism (Silesia, Moravia) are to be found with those groups which feel the most insecure about the cultural basis of their identity. 30 On comparing the Silesian to the Kashubian case, a similar conclusion is reached by WIŚNIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER (2009, 269): “Da der Status des Schlesischen als eine separate Sprache noch nicht gesichert ist, kann die höhere (im Vergleich zu den Kaschuben) Seitenzahl mit Informationen über das Schlesische auf ein wenig intensivere Bestrebungen hindeuten als im Fall der Kaschuben, deren Sprache als Regionalsprache gilt, wodurch die äußeren Entwicklungsbedingungen für sie durch gesetzliche Regelungen stabilisiert sind.” 112 Dieter Stern It goes without saying that cultural insecurity is a matter of mutuality and highly dependent on the attitude of the dominant majority culture. In conclusion: An outlook on literary microlanguages online Microstandards have been designed for classical forms of top-down mass communication, above all print media, which heavily rely on standardized formats of written expression. On the face of it, the focus of microstandard projects on the written channel seems to make microstandards the ideal format for online communication. But although online communication fosters the primacy of the written channel, online patterns of interaction are not conducive to the emergence and maintenance of centrally organized and distributed standard formats. It seems that even many online users understand online exchanges in terms of oral communication, despite the use of writing. The idea of standard runs, at least for the time being, counter to the individually fragmented and therefore highly selective forms of interaction, which includes acceptance, but also avoidance of any standard proposal. If at all, uniform patterns of written communication become more a matter of interactive negotiation than prescription. It cannot be excluded that online fora form basically around groups of members committed to the idea of strictly centralized standard forms of writing, but these form negligible minorities of apassionati within the huge multiverse of the internet, and even within the much smaller regional minority public they purport to represent. Unlike other forms of mass communication, the internet reaches only those people who want to be reached. In this respect things are, as a matter of fact, not much different from what they were in pre-internet times. Microlanguages reached a few philological aficionados, whereas the targeted minority sometimes hardly ever heard about there being a standard written version of their customary, local way of speaking. Thus, microstandards continue to reside in niches which are much smaller even than intended. It is obvious that the future staging of minority projects will involve a shift from print to electronic media, which in my opinion requires a shift in attitude if a more substantial part of the targeted regional minority public is to be attracted in the long run. Internet minority activists need to heed the specific needs of the larger minority community. Predictably, philological rigor imposed on free written online expression deters rather than attracts prospective online community members. A more liberal attitude towards written expression - in happy contrast to the typical rigorous standards encountered everywhere else in modern life (not just with respect to language) - will set itself off by allowing for a larger percentage of people interested in new, more localized forms of identity to feel at home with their regional language in writing. On collecting material for my presentation online, I could not help but have the impression that the focus of the makers and devotees more often than not is on language as a goal in itself and as the ultimate object of desire. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 113 Standardization is a specific language game which forms an attractive consumption activity only for those with a philological mindset. Ordinary people, even those with a strong feeling about having a regional identity linked to their regional language, will be put off by school-like learning procedures and a formalized focus on language as such (NIC CRAITH 2003, 68). Mark WARSCHAUER (2000, 162-3) commented pertinently on Hawai’ian efforts at linguistic and cultural revitalization, where a “mismatch between patterns of interaction in Hawai’i’s public schools and universities and traditional Hawaiian ways of communicating and learning” has been observed. He remarks that “Hawaiians learn best through extensive social interaction” and “are motivated to learn not for individual aggrandizement but to contribute to a broader community network.” What Warschauer depicts in culturally relativistic terms as something particularly Hawai’ian could in the end turn out to be a feature of a more universal kind. The features Warschauer describes as typical of Hawai’ian modes of learning match more or less exactly the aim of minglers, as described by DE VALCKE (2005), on so many websites around the world, for whom the consumption activity is less a goal in itself than an object around which to construct social relationships. I assume this also to be true of many potential members of regional minority groups, who are attracted by the promise of rich social interactions revolving around the looked-for regional identity rather than by the reified object of a standard language which requires specialist knowledge and training in order for one to be able to actively deal with it. Therefore, sites which focus on building up social networking opportunities rather than highly specialized consumption activities may prove to be more successful in supporting and maintaining any regional language-cum-identity agenda. On the other hand, devotees to the consumption activity as such will find sites with a social rather than object-based focus less appealing in the end, which means that both foci of interest will have to be reconciled somehow. Finally, due to what is often invoked in the name of anonymity, but is in fact a direct consequence of disembodiment, the internet facilitates specific forms of behavior that the same persons probably never display offline. In the beginning of this paper we assumed that the absence of visible clues characteristic of face-to-face encounters, which normally check unwished-for behavior, favors extreme forms of self-expression. We expected that in extreme cases this disinhibiting effect might be conducive to self-contained forms of regional identity play, not unlike disconnected forms of socializing known as Second Life. Except for Jeczalik’s Republic of Silesia, however, hardly any of the websites analyzed in this paper can be qualified accordingly. Many sites provide community services in a way which makes them accessory to rather than disconnected from offline activities, though it must be pointed out that this connectedness to a vital offline community may prove deceptive on closer scrutiny. Disconnectedness is, in fact, a prominent feature of many 114 Dieter Stern websites dedicated to the cause of Slavic microliterary languages. This disconnectedness does, however, not take the form of Second Life socializing, but rather of solitary identity play. Solitariness is particularly strongly felt in memory traces of once cherished objects of private identity play on personal websites. But it is also present in recent efforts to promote elaborate standard proposals allegedly addressed at a group of people who presumably will never appreciate it. Ultimately, under the cover of many professed efforts for the common good of an idealized minority, there seems to shine through a desire for self-contained play with objects of identification and professional devotion. This kind of disconnective object-oriented devotion is in no way causally linked to the internet. It existed long before the advent of the internet, but the internet offers just the right place to indulge in solitary devotion. REFERENCES ADAMETZ, J. 2009. Sprachattitüden autochthoner Schlesier zu ihrem Idiom. Eine Analyse von Forumsinhalten und Internetseiten. Unpublished term paper, Slavic Department, University of Bonn. BARTH, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Long Grove, Illinois. BAUMAN, Z. 2003. Flüchtige Moderne. Frankfurt am Main. BELLAH, R. N. (ed.). 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA. BLÁHA, O. 2005. Moravský jazykový separatismus: zdroje, cíle, slovanský kontext. In: Studia moravica. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Facultas Philosophica 3: 293-299. BURKE, P. 2004. Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge. COLLINS, J. 1998. Our Ideologies and Theirs. In: B. B. Schieffelin / K. A. Woolard / P. V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies. Theory and Practice. New York-Oxford: 256-270. DAENINCK, G. 2012. De Virtuele Sileziërs: Netnografie van een regionale identiteit. Unpublished Master thesis, Department of Slavic and East European Studies, Ghent University. DANEŠ, F. 1982 [1968]. Dialektische Tendenzen in der Entwicklung der Literatursprache. [first published in 1968 in: I. Scharnhorst (ed.), Welt der Slaven. Grundlagen der Sprachkultur 2. Berlin: 92-113]. DE VALCKE, K. 2005. Virtual Communities of Consumption: Networks of Consumer Knowledge and Companionship. ERIM PhD Series: Research in Management. DOCTOR, R. 1991. Information Technologies and Social Equity: Confronting the Revolution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42: 216-228. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 115 DULIČENKO, A. D. 1994. Kleinschriftsprachen in der slawischen Sprachenwelt. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 39-4: 560-567. DUNN, J. 2006. What do you do if you haven’t got an army and a navy? Some observations on the standardisation of regional and minority languages. In: A. D. Duličenko / S. Gustavsson (eds.), Славянские литературные микроязыки и языковые контакты. Tartu: 55-63. EDWARDS, John. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity. Cases and Categories. Amsterdam-Philadelphia. ELKINS, D. J. 1997. Globalization, Telecommunication, and Virtual Ethnic Communities. International Political Science Review 18-2: 139-152. GAL, S. / J. T. IRVINE. 1995. The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research 62-4: 967-1001. KOCYBA, P. 2009. Aspekte der Konstruktion kollektiver Identität in Oberschlesien. In: Chr. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. München-Berlin: 235-254. KOZINETS, R. V. 2010. Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online. Los Angeles. LANDZELIUS, K. 2006. Introduction: Native on the Net. In: K. Landzelius (ed.), Native on the Net. Indigenous and Diasporic Peoples in the Virtual Age. London-New York: 1-42. LAPIDOT-LEFLER, N. / A. BARAK. 2013. The effects of online disinhibition – lack of boundaries facilitates human behaviour in cyberspace. Paper presented at the EastBordNet Congress, Humboldt University, Berlin, January 11-13, 2013. LEE, H. 2006. Debating Language and Identity Online. Tongans on the Net. In: K. Landzelius (ed.), Native on the Net. Indigenous and Diasporic Peoples in the Virtual Age. London-New York: 152-168. LUCHEV, D. 2006. BulgariansFromBanat_worldwide (to the problem of the ethnographic investigation of the communities via internet). Ethnologia Bulgarica 2006-3: 77-92. LYSLOFF, R. T. A. 2003. Musical Community on the Internet: an On-Line Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 18-2: 233-263. MILLER, D. / D. SLATER. 2000. The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford-New York. NELDE, P. H. (ed). 2004. Multilingualism, minorities and language change. [Plurilingua, 28] St. Augustin. NIC CRAITH, M. 2003. Facilitating or generating linguistic diversity: The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In: G. Hogan-Brun / S. Wolff (ed.), Language Minorities in Europe: Framework, Status, Prospects. Hampshire-New York: 56-72. OKUKA, M. (ed.). 2002. Wieser Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens, Bd. 10: Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. Klagenfurt. 116 Dieter Stern OPÁLKA, J. 2001. Historie moravského národního jazyka. Moravský historický sborník 1999-2001. Brno. SPOLSKY, B. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge. STEKELER-WEITHOFER, P. 2005. Philosophie des Selbstbewußtseins. Frankfurt am Main. STICH, A. 2000. O spisovné moravštině a jiných “malých” jazycích. Naše řeč 83-5: 260-264. ŠUSTEK, Z. 1998. Otázka kodifikace spisovného moravského jazyka. Языки малые и большие … In memoriam acad. Nikita I. Tolstoj. Tartu: 128142. TROEBST, S. 1999. Autonomiebewegungen im Osteuropa der Nach-“Wende”-Zeit. Mähren-Schlesien, Subkarpaten-Rus’ und Gagausenland. Osteuropa 49-6: 597-615. TRUDGILL, P. 2004. Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe. In: A. Duszak / U. Okulska (eds.), Speaking from the Margin: Global English from a European Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: 35-49. VOSS, C. 2003. Review of Okuka, Miloš (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens, Klagenfurt/Celovec 2002. Südost-Forschungen 61/62: 493-496. WARSCHAUER, M. 2000. Language, Identity, and the Internet. In: B. KOLKO / L. NAKAMURA / G. RODMAN (eds.), Race in Cyberspace. New York: 151170. WIŚNIEWIECKA-BRÜCKNER, K. 2009. Kleine Sprachen und kleine Kulturen in Polen – Kaschubisch und Schlesisch: Die Rolle der Sprache in der Darstellung und Konstruktion von Identität. In: Chr. Prunitsch (ed.), Konzeptualisierung und Status kleiner Kulturen. München-Berlin: 255-276. The privacy of having a language of one’s own 117 APPENDIX Name of language name of site languages used web address content site genre adressee community type interaction orientation relation to mode language West Polesian Home Page English, personal outreachgeneral (1) of Grigory Belarusian, homepage inreach public + Naumovets Russian online CoLikeMinded http://gn.org. Articles, unidirectional image consumption management object ua/taxonomy/ mainly on (sovereignty (microstand.) Westterm/16 campaign) Polesian (2) Мовы свету English, infoboard outreach general (Languages Belarusian public + of the World) online CoLikeMinded http://languag Lemma on unidirectional image consumption management object es.miensk.co West (sovereignty (microstand.) m/index.html Polesian campaign) Kashubian Kaszubska Polish online inreach offline (3) książka (The bookshop minority Kashubian group + Book) individual identity seekers http://kaszubs sales items unidrectional community consumption exchange services object kaksiazka.pl (books) (sales) (microstand.) (4) Kaszubi Polish infoboard, inreach offline (Kashubians) web portal minority group http://kaszubi minority unidirectional community unspecified news services .pl (5) Kaszëbsko- Polish infoboard, inreach offline pòmòrsczé (Kashubian) website priv. minority org. group zrzeszenié (KashubianPomeranian Association) 118 (6) (7) Silesian (8) (9) Dieter Stern http://www.z info on organization k-p.org/ and cultural activities Rada Języka Polish, Kaszubskiego (Kashubian) (Kashubian Language Board) http://rjk.org. info on helpdesk + pl/ QA interface Zéńdzenié Kashubian Młodëch Ùtwórców Kaszëbsczich (Union of Young Kashubian Writers) http://zymk.n Info on organization, et/ events, poets + Kashubian poetry Instýtut Silesian, Ślůnskij Polish Godki (Institute of the Silesian Language) http://naszog articles on Silesian odka.pl/ language and culture Pro loquela Polish Silesiana (In favor of the Silsian Language) http://silesian info on unidirectional community services helpdesk instrumental (microstand.) inreach offline minority group + identity seekers interactive, community consumption asymmetrical services object (microstand.) blog, image online website priv. management CoLikeorg. minded + identity seekers unidirectional inreach, (though: outreach feedback function) consumption object (microstand.) website priv. outreach to org. envisaged minority Co Likeminded > offline effect intended unidirectional sovereignty + sales campaign (“misja – promujemy ślůnsko godka”) proselytizing outreach to website priv. envisaged org. minority consumption object + instrumental (microstand.) unidirectional sovereignty consumption Co Likeminded > offline effects intended The privacy of having a language of one’s own a.org/ (10) (11) (12) Moravian (13) Republic Silesia organisation + facebook of English, Silesian campaign 119 object (kultywowanie (microstand.) i promowanie Śląskiej mowy) blog, inreach, virtual outreach republic, Second Life (†) manifesto moderately sovereignty www.republi and interactive, campaign ka.silezia.co merchandise asymmetrical (separatist) m Slonsky Polish, infosite inreach Radio Silesian, (Silesian German Radio) http://www.sl music, news, unidirectional community onskyradio.e guestbook, + interactive services chatroom for (chatroom, u/ Silesians facebook, forum) Gůrny Ślůnsk Silesian, private inreach (Upper Polish infosite Silesia) http://www.g Silesian unidirectional sovereignty ornyslonsk.re history, (apart from movement publika.pl language, sign-up football option ‘guestbook’) Moravský Czech infosite inreach, národní private outreach kongres organization (Moravian National Congress) http://www.u ethnic unidirectional sovereignty manifesto, movement h.cz/mnk/ info about (separatist) separatist polls CoLikeMinded> virtual Part of consumption object (no standard) offline minority group instrumental (no standard) Co likeminded Part of consumption objects + instrumental Co likeminded > offline effect intended none [!] 120 (14) (15) Banat Bulgarian (16) (17) 31 Dieter Stern Britské listy31 Czech item in online outreach broader journal online public http://www.b article on unidirectional sovereignty consumption movement object ritskelisty.cz/ codification (separatist) (microstand.) 9809/199809 of Moravian 14d.html#03 Robert Keprt Moravian private inreach, Co LikeNa modré homepage, outreach minded + vlně blog identity (On the blue seekers wave) http://home.ti Poetry in unidirectional image consumption management object scali.cz/cz68 Moravian (microstand.) 9646/ Falmis. Bulgarian website priv. inreach offline Дружество org. + (Banat expats minority (book) shop in Bulgaria) group + на банатските individual българи в identity България seekers (Welcome. Association of Banat Bulgarians in Bulgaria) http://falmis. News and unidirectional community part of articles on + sales + services + consumption org Banat offline image object «Banat Bulgarian life membership management Bulgarian and culture subscription culture» BulgariansFr Rumanian, discussion inreach online omBanat_wo Banat group, minority rldwide Bulgarian chatroom group + Co likeminded https://groups chat, on interactive, sommunity instrumental symmetrical services + + .yahoo.com/n Banat image consumption eo/groups/ Bulgarian management object BulgariansFr language & The Britské listy claim in their subtitle to be a journal on everything on which you better keep silent in the Czech Republic (Deník o všem, o čem se v České republice příliš nemluví.) The privacy of having a language of one’s own (18) (19) (20) (21) omBanat_wo culture rldwide/info Sveta ud Banat pukraj námu Bulgarian (The World from our place) 121 (identity self- (no standard) affirmation) blog + inreach online web portal minority member + individual identity seeker http://www.st News and unidirectional community instrumental services + + arbisnov.blog articles on Banat image consumption spot.be Bulgarian management object language and (identity self- (microstand.) culture affirmation) StárBišnov Banat community inreach, offline (Old Bišnov) Bulgarian, website, outreach minority Romanian, institutional group + Bulgarian, online global English public http://starbisn News on unidirectional community instrumental local services + (microstand.) ov.ro/ community image management Uniunea Romanian blog inreach offline Bulgara din minority Banat group? + Romania individual (Bulgarian identity Union of seeker Banat Romania) http://uniunea pics, unidirectional image none [!] documents, management (identity selfbulgara.blogs opinion papers on affirmation) pot.be Banat Bulgarian history and culture Virtuálna Banat download site inreach, offline biblioteka Bulgarian, outreach? community + (The English, individual Virtual Romanian, identity 122 Burgenland Croatian (BLC) (22) (23) (24) (25) Dieter Stern Library) Bulgarian http://bibliote online library unidirectional community services ka.awardspac e.us/index.ht m Hrvatske BLC online inreach newspaper Novine. seekers consumption object (microstandar d) offline minority group http://www.h news, mainly rvatskenovine minority + a few general .at items Graničari BLC (Border German People) www.granica info on folklore ri.com/ ensemble unidirectional community services instrumental (microstandar d) infoboard, inreach website priv. org. unidirectional community (though: services member login) infoboard, inreach website priv. org. offline minority group instrumental (microstandar d) Tajednik Gradišćanskih Hrvatov (Croatian News. A weekly journal of the Burgenland Croatians) Hrvatsko BLC kulturno German društvo u Gradišću (Croatian Cultural Association in Burgenland) http://www.h minority unidirectional community services kd.at/index.p news, info on + sales organization hp/hr/ (HKD) and minority, sales items Volksgruppen BLC State inreach offline minority group instrumental (microstandar d) offline The privacy of having a language of one’s own ORF Hrvati (Ethnic Minorities ORF Croatians) (26) http://volksgr general and uppen.orf.at/h minority / local news rvati Znanstveni BLC German institut Gradišćanskih Hrvatov (Scientific Institute of the Burgenland Croatians) 123 television minority news site, instituional minority group unidirectional community services instrumental (microstand.) institutional outreach, website + inreach online shop offline academic public http://zigh.at/ info on unidirectional image instrumental organisation, + sales management + articles on consumption minority and object language, (microstand.) online dictionary, sales items (books) ELECTRONIC CORPORA OF SLAVIC MINORITY LANGUAGES AT THEIR THRESHOLD – THE STATE OF THE ART AND FURTHER PROSPECTS Mira Načeva-Marvanová (Ústí nad Labem) After the fall of the Iron Curtain, since the mid-1990s new written and spoken language digital corpora have been developed for almost all the standard Slavic languages. One should add that this quite appropriate, useful, and, above all, extremely beneficial approach is one of the best methods of language documentation of minority languages as well. 1. Introduction The goal of this contribution is to collect and present the available electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages and to evaluate their properties and options. For this purpose the corpora are classified by type and language. The content and sort of the language sources included and the presence of relevant corpus functions for structural and statistical analysis are discussed for each of the corpora presented. Some of the Slavic minority language corpora are part of bigger multilingual corpora projects, so they follow the model of corpora building of these projects. A difference can also appear in the size of the Slavic minority languages corpora in comparison with the corpora of standard Slavic languages – the minority language corpora are usually much smaller (or even very small), so at this stage it can have further implications for the number of concordances of the query items and for the reliability of the statistical analysis of frequency data. In this research we use our own methodology to compare the functional attributes of the corpora analyzed, where, as a main benchmark, we have chosen the standards of the modern second generation1 text corpora. The basic sources for this contribution are the Slavic minority corpora as such and their documentation, as well as some publications about these corpora – such as MICHAILOVSKY / MAZAUDON / GUILLAUME / FRANÇOIS / ADAMOU (2014), MLADENOVA (2005; 2012; 2013), QUASTHOFF / RICHTER / BIEMANN (2006), WÖLKOWA (2013; 2014). The presented text and spoken corpora are Slavic minority languages corpora; a portion of them are corpora of literary languages and a portion of them of non-literary languages and language varieties. It should be emphasized that the term minority languages is not unambiguous, as it is used in different publications in a quite different sense. In a very broad sense, it is used                                                                                                                         1 The term second generation corpora refers to corpora created during or after the 1990s (see BAKER / HARDIE / MCENERY 2006, 142). Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 125 as an opposite of the term main world languages;2 in a narrow sense, it corresponds to the languages of minority nations and ethnic groups usually living in compact territories. In EU documentation, minority languages as a term could be interpreted as a close counterpart of the term regional languages. Moreover, in the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (1992), they are never distinguished separately. In the text of the Charter,3 both attributes are always introduced together: “For the purposes of this Charter: ‘regional or minority languages’ means languages that are: (i) traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State’s population; and (ii) different from the official language(s) of that State; it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants …”.4 Both the notions regional and minority languages are understood as one complex term. Nevertheless, an attempt at their interpretation is supplied in the Explanatory report5 to the Charter as follows: “In preference to other expressions such as ‘less widespread languages’, the CAHLR6 opted for the term ‘regional or minority languages.’ The adjective ‘regional’ denotes languages spoken in a limited part of the territory of a State, within which, moreover, they may be spoken by the majority of the citizens. The term ‘minority’ refers to situations in which either the language is spoken by persons who are not concentrated on a specific part of the territory of a State or it is spoken by a group of persons, which, though concentrated on part of the territory of the State, is numerically smaller than the population in this region which speaks the majority language of the State.” In some later EU publications, terms such as ‘minority’ languages (and ‘minorities’) are avoided, and preference is given to the term ‘regional,’ likely used in a political context (mainly as in the French political debate, see GRIN 2003, 19-20) or, as ŠATAVA (2006, 3) indicates, in some cases the attribute                                                                                                                         2 3 4 5 6 See for instance DEMBITZ / GLEDEC / SOKELE (2014, 427), where the term minority language is used for Croatian. In a similar way ČERMÁK (2003, 43) uses the notion of minor languages for languages as Czech. In the text of the Charter the term “regional or minority language” is used 129 times (see COUNCIL OF EUROPE 1992a). See COUNCIL OF EUROPE 1992a, Preamble, I, 1. Definitions. See COUNCIL OF EUROPE 1992b, paragraph 18. CAHLR = Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (see http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012-bringing-rights-tolife_en.pdf, p.4). 126 Mira Načeva-Marvanová ‘regional’ is a tactical element making it easier for authorities to accept the given language code at an official level. But in other publications, on the contrary, the term ‘regional’ is omitted (see Euromosaic report of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION 1996, where the authors prefer terms such as ‘minority’ languages and ‘minority’ language groups of the EU, respectively).7 On the other hand the use of the term ‘regional’ for ‘old’ or ‘traditional’ minorities could become unclear in some cases, and it might not even exist in all languages (e.g., identification of minority as ‘autochthonous / indigenous’ in the case of some Finno-Ugric languages in LAAKSO / SARHIMAA / SPILIOPOULOU / ÅKERMARK / TOIVANEN 2013, 12-3). But another term – ‘linguistic minority’ – in the words of GUSTAVSSON (1999, 11), is often used but rarely defined. This practice was also confirmed by avoiding the definition of the notion of minorities at all in some United Nations human rights documents, e.g., in the Declaration on rights of persons belonging to minorities8 of the United Nations (see UNITED NATIONS 1992; DUCHÊNE 2008, 231). This avoidance has its practical and diplomatic reasons. A detailed typology of the notions discussed, with a primary emphasis on Celtic languages, is performed by EDWARDS (2010, 73-103) in his book, “Minority languages and group identity. Cases and categories,” and for Slavic languages by GUSTAVSSON (1998, 75-89) in his paper, “Sociolinguistic typology of Slavic Minority Languages,” at the XIIth International Congress of Slavists in Krakow. In relation to Slavic minority languages for the following decade, GUSTAVSSON (2006, 82-101) and DUNN (2008, 2-10) discuss the actual stages and the specifications connected with the ratification of the Charter for regional or minority languages and of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. In the Slavic context another terminological nuance is quite well established – Slavic literary microlanguages and Slavic microlinguistics, respectively, as terms for a field promoted by A. Duličenko (DULIČENKO 1981). In his latest works he also suggests a new term – small Slavic literary languages (in Russian “малые славянские литературные языки” = “м.с.л.я.”, see DULIČENKO 2005; 2014a; 2014b), as an equivalent to his earlier term Slavic literary microlanguages (in Russian “славянские микроязыки”, see DULIČENKO 1981; 2003-2004). During the last 30 years and more, the number of Slavic literary microlanguages has increased from 12 up to 20. They are classified into four main types: autonomous, island, peripherally-island and peripheral (or regional) (see DULIČENKO 2015, 44). Duličenko’s classification is based on areal and geographical principles and is in conjunction with the relation to                                                                                                                         7 8 According to GRIN (2003, 20) another term, lesser-used languages, was coined by the EU institutions for those member states which do not recognize any minorities (see The European bureau for lesser-used languages – EBLUL at http://eblul. eurolang.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemd=33), primarily in order to avoid the notion minority and respectively minority languages. See http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 127 the original “root” language for all types of microlanguages except autonomous. Gustavsson defines Duličenko’s collection of Slavic microlanguages as a subgroup of the Slavic minority languages (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 76). His definition of minority languages consequently includes the Slavic microlanguages and does not make a real distinction between minority and regional 9 languages as well: “A Slavic minority language is thus the language of a Slavic minority living in an area with dominant majority language.” (GUSTAVSSON 1998, 77). In our article, the preferred term is Slavic minority languages, by which both notions for literary microlanguages and non-literary languages and va10 rieties can be defined. Their speakers have been living as language minorities, and they are usually autochthonic or have been settled in their territory for centuries. 2. Types and sorts of corpora The following classification, based mainly on BAKER / HARDIE / MCENERY (2006), LÜDELING / KYTÖ (2008) and CVRČEK (2015), shows the main kinds of language corpora according to their size, source types, presence of grammar annotation, level of linguistic analysis, extralinguistical specification, number of languages included, etc. We shall use this for the description of the Slavic minority language corpora in the next chapters of this contribution. According to their size, language digital corpora might mainly be divided into big or “large size” corpora and smaller (or small) size corpora, but this “quantitative criterion” could be in a way quite relative.11 First, up to now the corpora of written languages have had much larger contents, while the corpora of the spoken languages have usually been more limited. In the context of minority languages, the availability of a large number of ready-made electronic texts is not a matter of course, so the process of digitalization of some written text sources often had to be done manually. According to the language form of the language sources, corpora are divided into corpora of written or spoken languages. Spoken corpora include sound records of whole texts and usually transcription. This could evidently be of enormous importance, especially in the case of endangered minority languages and dialects. For further sociolinguistic research it might also be useful if the informants in spoken corpora were properly described by age, sex, education, residential area, etc. Statistical functions of the corpus mana-                                                                                                                         9 As it is the case of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (1992) as well. 10 As may be expected, their corpora are primarily oral, but for a part of the literary minority languages written corpora were already built as well. 11 For national language corpora, the big size language corpora are cca from 100 million running words. For Slavic minority language corpora, the biggest corpus up to now is the Upper Sorbian written language corpus HOTKO, with 36 million words. 128 Mira Načeva-Marvanová gers (called also corpus engines, corpus browsers or corpus query systems) may occur in both kinds of corpora; in modern written corpora they are usually well developed, in spoken corpora just partially. The majority of the corpora are text corpora of a number of written or spoken continuous texts. A special case is that of written sentence corpora, i.e., corpora of just sentences without larger context; the WORTSCHATZ corpora include collections of such separate sentences. Another general feature of language text corpora is their annotation level – POS (part of speech) morphological and syntactic (in the text parsed corpora and tree-bank corpora) level. Annotation in language corpora means that “the linguistic analyses are encoded in the corpus data itself” (see MCENERY / HARDIE 2012, 13 and, for more detail, MCENERY / WILSON 2001, 32-3). A large part of the modern text corpora is already annotated, but non-annotated corpora are also present, usually in their pilot or earlier versions. Oral corpora can have prosodic annotation.12 According to their sociolinguistic variety, we have corpora of literary or non-literary varieties of language. Corpora can be defined as well as reference or non-reference. For reference corpora the content of the text database is constant, and every concordance with its statistical results is permanently traceable, while the text database for non-reference corpora (sometimes corpora still in progress) is not yet in final form. Corpora may be genre balanced or genre selective. And, of course, we can also apply the “time” criterion and find corpora of contemporary or historical language stages. 3. Slavic minority languages corpora – languages, types, and location The number of Slavic minority language corpora is quite limited and can be summarized as follows: First, there are two monolingual larger size written text corpora – of Upper Sorbian – HOTKO (36 million words) and of Lower Sorbian – DOTKO (12 million words). Second, there are five sentence corpora of Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Kashubian, Silesian, and Trans-Carpathian Rusyn as part of the WORTSCHATZ corpora project.13 Further, there is a series of five oral digital multimedia corpora as part of the French-German research program EUROSLAV 2010 and LACITO (France): Burgenland Croatian, Molise Slavic (Na-našu) (Southern Italy), Nashta (Liti, Northern Greece), the speech of Edesa (Northern Greece, called Bulgaro-Macedonian                                                                                                                         12 Cf. e.g. The Lancaster/IBM Spoken English Corpus (at http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/ annotation.html) (Cit. on 4/1/2015); GREENBAUM / SVARTVIK (1990). The LondonLund Corpus of Spoken English (at http://corp.hum.ou.dk/itwebsite/corpora/ corpman/LONDLUND/INDEX.HTM) (Cit. on 4/1/2015). 13 A project of the University of Leipzig, see About the Leipzig Corpora Collection (at http://asvdoku.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/corpora/), published on 5/1/2015 (Cit. on 6/1/2015). Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 129 by DRETTAS (1976/2010),14 and colloquial Upper Sorbian. Next is the digital archive of Lower Sorbian language data documentation as part of the multimedia archive of the DOBES (Documentation Bedrohter Sprachen / Documentation of Endangered Languages).15 And last we include The Transdanubian electronic corpus of Bulgarian in Southern Romania, published in 2013; its final version will cover the language from 38 locations.16 A list of the minority language corpora is presented in the following Table 1:                                                                                                                         14 See DRETTAS (1976/2010), Bulgaro-Macédonien. Collection Pangloss. LACITO (Langues et civilisations à tradition orale). Paris. (Available at http://lacito.vjf.cnrs. fr/pangloss/index.htm). 15 Available at http://dobes.mpi.nl/ 16 The corpus project was undertaken by a joint team of the University of Calgary (Canada) and the Sofia University (Bulgaria). 130 Mira Načeva-Marvanová Table 1: Slavic minority languages corpora – list of languages and corpora 1. MINORITY LANGUAGE (or DIALECT) CORPUS or COLLECTION OF CORPORA CORPUS COLLECTION OF CORPORA HOTKO Upper Sorbian Sorbian, Upper (hsb) Colloquial Upper Sorbian DOTKO WORTSCHATZ Sorbian, (dsb) WORTSCHATZ EUROSLAV 2010 & LaCiTo 2. Lower Sorbian 3. Kashubian Lower Sorbian Kashubian (csb) DOBES WORTSCHATZ 4. Silesian Silesian (szl) WORTSCHATZ 5. Rusyn (Trans-Carpathian) Rusyn (TransCarpathian) (rue) Burgenland Croatian Molise Slavic WORTSCHATZ 6. 7. 8.   Burgenland Croatian Molise Slavic Nashta (Liti, Northern Greece) Edesa (Northern Greece) Bulgarian (in Southern Romania) Lower Nashta BulgaroMacedonian (for this naming see DRETTAS 1976/2010) Transdanubian EUROSLAV 2010 & LaCiTo EUROSLAV 2010 & LaCiTo EUROSLAV 2010 & LaCiTo EUROSLAV 2010 & LaCiTo TEC 2013 Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 131   TYPE written written oral written SIZE (words, sentences, types, tokens, texts) – if announced 36 million words, 44 million tokens 100,000 sentences, 521,387 sentences, 423,974 types, 7,428,480 tokens 9 recordings (spoken texts) YEAR (of publication) 2013 1999, 2012 1999, 2011, 2012 2010 written 12 million words 15 million tokens 4,352 sentences, 18,696 types, 56,657 tokens written written 4,873 sentences, 22,382 types, 9,055 tokens 2012 written 6,304 sentences, 31,821 types, 85,754 tokens 2012 written 2,388 sentences, 11,660 types, 30,347  tokens 2012 oral 12 recordings (spoken texts) oral oral oral oral & written 71 recordings (spoken texts) 15 recordings (spoken texts) 8 recordings (spoken texts) 10 777 words 2012 - 2010-2012   2010-2012   2010-2012   2010-2012       2013 132 Mira Načeva-Marvanová 4. The HOTKO and DOTKO written corpora of Upper and Lower Sorbian Both corpora are compiled in Lusatia at the Serbski institut – HOTKO17 at the Upper Sorbian department at Budyšin, and DOTKO18 at the Lower Sorbian department at Chóśebuz. Both of them were published in cooperation with the Czech National Corpus19 and are hosted by the Czech National Corpus portal (Prague), so they use a number of corpus functions at its actual corpus manager KonText.20 They extend to over a million running words: HOTKO – 36 million words (44 million tokens); DOTKO – 15 million (24 million tokens), which is the reason they belong to the so-called big electronic corpora. The corpora are at the stage of intensive further collection of their text databases, which is the main task now. The texts included in HOTKO are, in relation to time, quite remote (at the moment for about 190 years) – from 1820 to 2010; a big portion of the texts in DOTKO is from the years 1848 – 1933.21 The original spelling is respected, which requires additional manual correction or editing.22 The genre selection of HOTKO has become balanced by now23 by dominant 57% of written media texts, 23% literature (fiction, poetry, etc.), 12% dictionaries and terminology of particular school subjects, 4% religious texts, 4% scientific and technical texts (see WÖLKOWA 2013, 43-44). The periodization of the texts in HOTKO and its percentage is as follows24: the period after the fall of the Iron Curtain (1989/1990) – 54%, the period 1945–1990 – 18-19%, the first part of the 20th century texts – 18%, 19th century texts – 10%. As can be seen, preparatorily a large percentage of the texts first had to be digitalized by scanning. They were then automatically reread by OCR25 soft-                                                                                                                         17 HOTKO = HOrnjoserbski Tekstowy KOrpus, see http://www.serbski institut.de/ cms/os/48/hornjoserbski. 18 DOTKO = DOlnoserbski Tekstowy KOrpus, see http://www.dolnoserbski.de/ korpus/. 19 See WÖLKOWA (2014, 61-2). 20 KonText is the latest improved corpus manager of Czech National Corpus from January 2014; at the beginning DOTKO was presented first by manager Bonito and from December 2011 by Sketch Engine, later by NoSketch Engine version as well. See also WÖLKOWA (2013, 44-47; 2014, 59-60). 21 See http://ucnk.ff.cuni.cz/english/struktura.php (cit. on 10/1/2015). 22 In both corpora – still in process (caused by personal reasons), see http://www.serbski-institut.de/cms/os/476/informacije; http://www.dolnoserbski.de/ korpus/informacije. 23 The balanced corpus contains texts from different language genres and text domains (see BAKER / HARDIE / MCENERY 2006, 18). 24 See WÖLKOWA (2013, 44). 25 OCR = Optical Character Recognition – a software for digital conversion of scanned images of printed texts. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 133 ware programs. An additional separate table at the HOTKO web pages26 compares and respells to modern spelling the cases of sounds with older variants of spelling (most of these variants occur in older and historical texts). Another part of the texts might become available thanks to cooperation with the main Sorbian publishing house, Domowina, and the language center Witaj. At this stage both HOTKO and DOTKO corpora are not yet lemmatized, not yet morphologically annotated (no tagging: for queries via POS (part of speech attribute) and CQL (Corpus query language) for detailed grammar features of each lemma).27 The corpora are available online for free after registration.28 But what is also important is that they comprise regular expressions,29 detailed metalinguistic documentation (containing authors of the texts and sources with full bibliography, classification by genre, by the type of the fonts for older historical texts, etc.), filter selection for creating subcorpora according to the documentation, filter selection (positive and negative) for research of collocations, sorting of concordances, functions for searching by frequency of forms (case-sensitive) and by metalinguistic information from the documentation. An advantage of these Sorbian corpora is that queries with corpora attributes, i.e., “basic” (word) and “phrase” can be searched, which extends the options for searching not only single word forms but whole expressions and idioms as well. The function of creating queries by regular expressions support can be used to compensate for the absence of lemmatization; e.g., queries with (.*) at the end of the query allow for the retrieval of most of the word forms – but not all of them (!), as those which are irregular or with some root alternations cannot be recognized in this way. Queries with the same marking or with (.+) at the beginning of the expression can give, for example, word formation units. Other combinations, such as using square brackets, allow for the search of spelling variants and may indicate alternatives between chains.                                                                                                                         26 See http://www.serbski-institut.de/cms/os/479/prawopisne-warianty See https://www.sketchengine.co.uk/xdocumentation/wiki/SkE/CorpusQuerying; CVRČEK (2015) available on http://wiki.korpus.cz/doku.php/pojmy:dotazovac% C3%AD_jazyk?redirect=1 (Cited on 16/07/2015). 28 A simple version without registration is available at DOTKO web pages on http://www.dolnoserbski.de/korpus/. 29 The list of regular expressions is available at http://www.serbski-institut.de /cms/os/477/regularne-wurazy or in Czech at the CNC manual on http://wiki.korpus. cz/doku.php/pojmy:regularni_vyrazy. 27 134 Mira Načeva-Marvanová The metalinguistic documentation has been prepared in great detail (cf. list of all included sources)30 and is ready to be used for statistics via the corpus manager KonText. The importance of the creation of the HOTKO and DOTKO corpora is enormous, primarily with regard to its main purpose for linguistic research of all levels and for education,31 history, sociology, etc. They collect and mediate the written tradition of their native language for a relatively wider period of time, especially to bilingual Sorbians at home and abroad. The editing and publication of Upper and Lower Sorbian's biggest corpora shows how successful transborder cooperation could be between the founder Sorbian institutions in Budyšin and Chóśebuz and the Institute of the Czech National Corpus in Prague.32 The close relations of these three languages – Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, and Czech – facilitate ways to solve a range of linguistic and technical problems inside corpora building as well. 5. The WORTSCHATZ web corpora project – Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Kashubian, Silesian, and Rusyn 5.1. General information about the project The Leipzig Corpora Collection (LCC), or the WORTSCHATZ web corpora, is really a monumental project of a large number of monolingual corpora of languages (from 18 EU languages at its early stages in 200633 to 229 languages in its “blue” version,34 then up to 634 languages according to its “green” beta-test version).35 Among the main benefits of the collection are: uniform format and web interface for all corpora, comparable data sets for different languages, statistical functions, including information about co-occurrence, standardized visualization of the co-occurrence data (see QUASTHOFF / RICHTER / BIEMANN 2006, 1779).                                                                                                                         30 See Žórła hornjoserbskeho tekstoweho korpusa at http://www.serbskiinstitut.de/cms/os/476/informacije/1150/%C5%BD%C3%B3r%C5%82a%20hornj serbskeho%20tekstoweho%20korpusa#1150. 31 The application of electronic language corpora in the education of native and foreign language became one of the modern teaching innovations of the last decades. It brings new knowledge and experience of language to children, students and teachers. Concrete teaching suggestions and exercises, for example, see in ŠULC (2007), THOMAS (2005), SCOTT / TRIBBLE (2006), NAČEVA-MARVANOVÁ (2011). 32 Examples of other transborder cooperation are the Baltic project for Lithuanian, Latvian and Latgalian corpora; see HIPILATLIT (2013) in the list of corpora at the end; the Finno-Ugric languages project ELDIA (see LAAKSO, J. / A. SARHIMAA / S. SPILIOPOULOU ÅKERMARK / R. TOIVANEN 920130; GRÜNTHAL (2010)). 33 See QUASTHOFF / RICHTER / BIEMANN (2006, 1779). 34 See http://corpora.uni-leipzig.de/. 35 See http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/ws_norm/index_wm.php. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 135 The corpora present a collection of separate sentences. The corpus size is specified by the number of sentences, types, and tokens. The procedure for their selection is described briefly at the LCC User’s Manual.36 The sentences have to meet certain criteria, selected by a set of filters: they may not be too long; they have to be well-formed sentences; they should not contain too many words from foreign languages (different from the language of this corpus); there should not be too much repetitive information, etc. The size of the different corpora varies – the smallest size was decided to be 100,000 sentences, the next larger sizes are 300,000, 1 million, 3 million, 10 million, 30 million and 100 million.37 The Slavic minority languages corpora in LCC have been represented by smaller sizes: the corpora count is one or two (but as it can be seen in following Table 2 – they are not yet all available (= not yet published)), and they are in the process of development. The open-minded philosophy of this project, besides the incorporation of additional languages, is basically open for donations of texts in any language (see QUASTHOFF / RICHTER / BIEMANN 2006, 1802). 5.2. The Slavic minority languages corpora input in LLC – size and content The following languages – Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian, Kashubian, Silesian, and Rusyn (Trans-Carpathian) – have already been included in the present list of the corpora.38 The language material was incorporated mainly during the years 2011–2012, but one news corpus of Upper Sorbian was even prepared in 1999. Table 2 shows some general information about these languages with their code and count of the subcorpora for each of them.                                                                                                                         36 See Leipzig corpora collection user’s manual, Version 1.0, p. 13. See Leipzig corpora collection user’s manual, Version 1.0, p. 12. 38 Among the standard Slavic languages present are Belarusian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, and Ukrainian. 37 136 Mira Načeva-Marvanová Table 2: Metalinguistic information at Wortschatz map of language corpora39       *   Table 3 shows the concrete subcorpora incorporated for the Slavic minority languages. The selection was extracted from the main list of all languages.                                                                                                                         39 See http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/ws_norm/index_wm.php (Cit. on 15/1/2015). Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 137 Table 3: Slavic minority languages at LCC40 LANGUAGES Upper Sorbian Lower Sorbian Kashubian Silesian Rusyn (Trans-Carpathian) SUBCORPORA GENRE AND YEAR Wikipedia2012 News1999 Web2011 Wikipedia2012 Wikipedia2012 Wikipedia2012 Wikipedia2012 5.3. Main features and advantages The web data-based corpora could have their internal text balance. Wikipedia text content is characterized by some diversity, so besides the newspaper and newsmedia language at the News corpora, the genre representation of Wikipedia and the web in general extends the thematic and genre content of the corpora not only with strictly encyclopedia style texts. The corpora search words or their forms and whether the word or the form is available. The result is presented on the following levels: term (the word or its form), number of occurrences, class of frequency (in comparison with the other words in the corpus), links to other words (mainly comprises 2-words namings or idioms), examples (e.g., sentences) with an option for more examples – with statistical ranking, significant co-occurrences of the word (or of the word form) – with statistical ranking, significant immediate left- and right-neighbors of the word (or of the word form) – with statistical ranking, a co-occurrence graph (if available). The corpora are available online for free for smaller corpora (larger corpora from 1M may be downloaded on a request for non-commercial use). A new application is the co-occurrence graph, which can graphically depict associations of the queried word, thus giving some idea of how to obtain word meanings from these co-occurrence graphs (see for more details QUASTHOFF / RICHTER / BIEMANN 2006, 1802). The size and diversity of the corpus are conditions on which the measure for detecting the semantic ties depends. This is, e.g., the case of the item šula ‘school’ in Upper Sorbian for which the WORTSCHATZ corpus (based on 1999 news corpus) has created the following graphic presentation (Table 4). 41 Table 4: Graphs for the word šula ‘school’ (Nom., Fem., Sg.) in Upper Sorbian corpus at WORTSCHATZ                                                                                                                         40 From the Full list of corpora (published May, 3rd, 2013) available on http://asvdoku.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/corpora/index.php?id=full-list-of-corpora (Cit. on 10/1/2015) and http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/ws_norm/index_wm.php (Cit. on 10/1/2015). 41 According to http://corpora.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/cgi-bin/hsb_news_1999/wort_ www?site=10&Wort_id=5566&Wort=w&stpw=0&verweise=7. 138 Mira Načeva-Marvanová   We may conclude the main advantages of the Slavic minority language corpora at WORTSCHATZ: they all present corpora via sophisticated corpora technology for languages, for most of which (with the exception of Sorbian, Upper and Lower) alternative written language corpora or similar databases do not exist or, for the time being, are not available. Their target is the word form (comparable in a way to the attribute “word” in standard written language text corpora). Unfortunately, in the case of minority Slavic languages, which still have small corpora, the statistical functions are not yet sufficiently reliable. Nevertheless, the web, Wikipedia, and news text supplies are still the easiest sources for creating corpora and are a prerequisite for fast, further development of these types of corpora. Besides, the large (mega) language text corpora do not usually contain Wikipedia sources. Texts of this type can be found and analyzed from the database of Wortschatz corpora. 6. The Pangloss collection of LACITO (Paris): the oral corpora archive The oral archive of LACITO (Langues et civilisations à tradition orale) is based on the fieldwork of speech (or spoken texts) recordings from 70 predominantly endangered languages from all over the world. At the moment there are 1460 recordings available at the archive, consisting of 190 hours of spoken texts. 430 documents (or 60 hours of recordings) have already been annotated and published (more documents are currently being processed).42                                                                                                                         42 See http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/themes/index_en.htm. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 139 6.1. General features The Pangloss collection corpora are spoken language corpora of connected, spontaneous speech, with sets of recordings made in their original cultural contexts and environments. The spoken texts are transcribed in consultation with native speakers43 and annotated (grammar annotation of the texts is not yet published for all languages in the collection). Metadata documentation about the languages and the corpora in question is included. It consists of maps, photos, and other information about the languages as well as personal profiles of the informants and, finally, information on the locality and the typology of the languages. 6.2. The Slavic section at Pangloss collection: EUROSLAV 2010 Project This French-German project includes an oral electronic database and corpora of five endangered Slavic varieties44 spoken in non-Slavic countries in Europe such as Italy, Austria, Germany, and Greece (see ADAMOU / BREU / DRETTAS / SCHOLZE 2013 and MICHAILOVSKY / MAZAUDON / GUILLAUME / FRANÇOIS / ADAMOU 2014, 123).45 The database contains authentic spoken texts (stories, tales, customs, anecdotes, etc.) and their recordings for the following languages: Colloquial Upper Sorbian; Burgenland Croatian in Austria; Na-našu46 in Italy (as well a South Slavic minority language from the region of Molise, Southern Italy, called Molise Slavic or Molise Croatian – the collection was recorded in the three small towns of Acquaviva Collecroce, Montemitro and San Felice del Molise); Nashta in Greece (a corpus for a minority language from the village of Liti, Northern Greece near Thessaloniki); and a language named Bulgaro-Macedonian [sic!] by its researcher DRETTAS (1976/2010), spoken in the town of Edessa (Northern Greece). All spoken texts are presented with a recording, a synchronized sentenceby-sentence transcription, and a transcription of the whole text. They are translated into three foreign languages (English, French, and German) and into the official language of the country where the Slavic language variety is situated (German, Greek, and Italian). An important advantage is the morphological annotation (description) of all the word forms in the sentence in a linear way to aid in understanding the grammar and syntactical relations of the original sentence (for complete details see below, Table 5). All EUROSLAV 2010 minority languages corpora are freely accessible and available online.                                                                                                                         43 See http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/presentation_en.htm. See http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/partenariat/euroslav/index_en.htm (cit. on 18/1/2015). 45 See also http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/partenariat/euroslav/index_en.htm (Cit. on 16/1/2015). 46 The names Na-Našu and Nashta are conventional – they mean “in our [language] and “the our [language]” in the language of its native speakers. 44 140 Mira Načeva-Marvanová Table 5: Main features of the EUROSLAV 2010 Slavic collection TRANSCRIPTION Phonetic Transcription ● ● (●)* 71 ● ● ● 15 ● ● ● ● ● ● 8 ● ● ● ● ● ● (not all) 9 ● ● (●)* ● (27+22+ 22) Grammar Annotation Translations SIZE (RECORDS) 12 EN FR GE ● ● GR IT ● ● ● ● BulgaroMaced.47 (in Edesa, N Greece) Nashta (in Liti, N Greece) Molise Slavic Burgenland Croatian MINORITY LANGUAGE/ LANGUAGE VARIETY EUROSLAV 2010 ORAL ELECTRONIC CORPORA ● Upper Sorbian ● *(●) The brackets indicate that the English translation is used only in morphology tagging of the grammar annotation.                                                                                                                         47 See DRETTAS (1976/2010). Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 141 7. The DOBES project and the corpus of Lower Sorbian The DOBES (Dokumentation Bedrohter Sprachen / Documentation of Endangered Languages) was established in 2000 by the Volkswagen Foundation (Germany).48 Currently, it consists of more than 40 languages in danger of extinction. The Lower Sorbian Language Archive is part of it, and Lower Sorbian is one of the few languages in Europe in this database. DOBES is accessible for free after registration via the framework of the Max Planck Institute for psycholinguistics. Permission is required to gain access to some levels of the multimedia documentation (texts, audio records, annotated video, photos) and to the archive’s metadata information.49 Table 6: Lower Sorbian DOBES Corpus LANGUAGE Lower Sorbian SESSION 143 AUDIOS 143 VIDEOS 1 ANNOTATIONS 20 IMAGES 0 The electronic corpus based on the DOBES language archive of all languages can be searched by a corpus browser. The search engine Trova offers three search levels: simple, single layer and multiple layer. Some of the main features of the DOBES corpora of Lower Sorbian are: transliteration, annotation, queries with regular expressions, statistical functions, metalinguistic information and documentation, download options to obtain additional program tools (all available at the DOBES site) for grammar and typology research. 8. The Transdanubian electronic corpus of Bulgarian dialects in Romania 8.1. General description This corpus contains recordings and their transcriptions of a collection of spoken dialect texts compiled during the 1960s and 1970s.50 It belongs to the mid-sized corpora (in the context of primary spoken dialect language sources), received from 146 local informants from 38 localities from the southern part of Romania. The database from January 2015 contains a total of 10,777 words. The corpus has Bulgarian and English versions, and the language database is written in a special phonetic Bulgarian alphabet51 based on STOYKOV (1993, 42-3). It departs from the Cyrillic alphabet with some supplementary signs in common with the IPA system and the Latin alphabet. The corpus includes linguistic and metalinguistic information and is far more than a pure language data source – it also contains presentations of the                                                                                                                         48 See http://www.mpi.nl/resources/data/dobes (Cit. on 15/1/2015) and http://www. mpi.nl/resources/data (Cit. on 15/1/2015). 49 See http://www.mpi.nl/resources/data/dobes (cit. on 15/1/2015) and http://dobes. mpi.nl/ (Cit. on 15/1/2015). 50 See MLADENOVA 2006; 2012; 2013 (http://www.corpusbdr.info/index.php?re=12). 51 MLADENOVA 2013 (see http://www.corpusbdr.info/index.php?re=23). 142 Mira Načeva-Marvanová dialects with their features and their historical background, location and current situation, as well as data on the population, its geographical location and sociolinguistic particulars. By the second half of the 20th century, there were no longer any monolingual Bulgarians52 in the area; the conditions of Bulgaro-Romanian bilingualism were surely older (coexistence with Romanian has lasted for more than 300 years – the emigration process took place during the 18th and 19th centuries). Supplements to the corpus include maps and a photo gallery on some ethnological and areal topics. The following map shows the main area included in the project: Map of the dialects in the Transdanubian corpus of the Bulgarian dialects (according 53 to MLADENOVA 2013)   The corpus includes a rich theoretical introduction to the transdanubian dialects and their background (cf. MLADENOVA 2013, Introduction – Dialects, electronic source) as well as a description of the bilingualism of the Bulgarian population in this area (see MLADENOVA 2013, Introduction – Bilingualism, electronic source). 8.2. Some main features The corpus manager allows searching word forms or making queries by strings of letters, allowing for the collection of the forms of word-formation paradigms referring to the target word root or word base. This option can be used at this stage to compensate for the absence of lemmatization. Thematic queries by keywords and by Romanian glosses can also be done.54 The main features of this corpus are: query of word forms, queries with regular expressions, additional search options (by keywords and by Romanian glosses), filtering. The corpus is easy to use, with a substantial and friend-                                                                                                                         52 MLADENOVA 2013 (see http://www.corpusbdr.info/?re=27). See http://www.corpusbdr.info/?re=10. 54 See http://www.corpusbdr.info/?re=60. 53 Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 143 ly interface. It is freely accessible online. The Transdanubian corpus is still in the process of improvement and development - not all texts from all areas are available yet (the pilot version was published in 2013). 9. Management and funding The “logistics” for language corpora planning and building requires enthusiastic interdisciplinary teams of linguists, mathematicians and I.T. specialists and, not least, “fundraisers.” But at the start of any corpora project, there is a great deal of fieldwork in order to collect a sufficient amount of language data (spoken or written). Some of the Slavic corpora presented above used older recordings as well (from the 1960s–80s). The real accumulation of a large number of texts began with the computerization of modern society and the digitalization of almost all print activities during the last decade of the 1990s. While the national language corpora projects are often sponsored by national education or research institutions, the minority languages electronic corpora are often funded by private and international academic research projects. We shall briefly try to list the institutions involved and the main ways of funding55 of Slavic minority languages corpora projects, see Table 7. Table 7: Slavic minority languages corpora: institutions and funding HOTKO Serbski Institut – Budyšin DOTKO Serbski Institut - Chóśebuska wótnožka Czech National Corpus – Prague WORTSCHATZ University of Leipzig corpora collection EUROSLAV 2010 Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) / French & LACITO National Research Agency corpora collection Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Langues et civilisations à tradition orale UMR 7107 du CNRS (Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique) DOBES Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Volkswagen Stiftung / Volkswagen Fondation (Germany) TRANSUniversity of Calgary (Canada) DANUBIAN Sofia University (Bulgaria) CORPUS Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (research grant)                                                                                                                         55 This piece of information is not always completely available. 144 Mira Načeva-Marvanová 10. Conclusion and an encouragement for future corpus builders The corpus building of Slavic minority languages, though in its infancy, is already a reality. One can expect, in the conditions of the current digital world, that the methods for documentation of Slavic minority languages will proceed in the direction of greater digitalization and the creation of language corpora. No doubt EU social politics and the social environment56 stimulate and support such approaches, and this can help to produce a strong creative and financial framework for the building of Slavic minority languages corpora as well. However, considering the strategy of Slavic corpus linguistics and its achievements up to now, it seems appropriate to suggest that it is at least equally important for most of the Slavic minority languages to seek and find the will to establish mutual internal, as well as trans-border, and trans-continental, international understanding and cooperation. On the other hand, some of the published corpora projects have created almost universal browsers for other languages as well. Macrolanguage corpora projects are usually open for new additional languages, and this is another alternative which can also prove helpful. This research was focused on projects which are already published and accessible online. Unfortunately, there are still minority Slavic languages without any electronic databases and corpora, but reports on planning some future corpora projects, e.g., for Lachian57 and Trans-Carpathian Rusyn,58 look promising. REFERENCES BAKER, P. / A. HARDIE / T. MCENERY 2006. A Glossary of Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh. COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 1992a. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992. CETS No.148. Strasbourg. Available at http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list//conventions/rms/090000168007bf4b (Cit. on 12/12/2014). — 1992b. Explanatory report to the European charter for regional or minority languages. Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992. European Treaty Series – No. 148. Available at                                                                                                                         56 Along with the EU Charter discussed in our Introduction, see also COUNCIL OF EUa New Decade. MA Thesis (Prague: Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 2011). 58 The corpus is planned by E. Budovskaya from Georgetown University (Washington D.C.), see MADRIGA (2013). ROPE (2010), Minority Language Protection in Europe: into 57 VAŠÍČEK M., Laština Óndry Łysohorského jako mikrojazyk. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 145 https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM Content?documentId=09000016800cb5e5 (Cit. on 12/12/2014). — 2010. Minority Language Protection in Europe: into a New Decade. Strasbourg. CVRČEK, V. 2015. Přehled základních pojmů korpusové lingvistiky. Příručka ČNK – Český národní korpus. Praha. Available at http://wiki.korpus.cz/doku.php/pojmy:prehled_pojmu) (Cit. on 16/07/2015). ČERMÁK, F. 2003. Minor languages in Todayʼs Europe: The Czech case. Slovenski knjižni jezik – Aktualna vprašanja in zgodovinske izkušnje. Ob 450-letnici izida prve slovenske knjige. Mednarodni simpozij Obdobja – Metode in zvrsti. Ljubljana, 5.–7. december 2001. (= Obdobja 20). Ljubljana 2003: 43-49. DEMBITZ, Š. / G. GLEDEC / M. SOKELE 2014. An economic approach to big data in a minority language. Procedia Computer Science 35: 427-436. DUCHÊNE, A. 2008. Ideologies across nations: The construction of linguistic minorities at the United Nations. Berlin / New York. DULIČENKO, A. D. 1981. Slavjanskie litraturnye mikrojazyki. Voprosy formirovanija i razvitija. Tallinn. — 2003-2004. Slavjanskie literaturnye mikrojazyki. Obrazcy tekstov. 1-2. Tartu. — 2005. Мalye slavjanskie literaturnye jazyki (mikrojazyki). In: Jazyki mira. Slavjanskie jazyki. / Languages of the World. Slavic Languages. Moskva: 383-403. — 2014а. Slavjanskie literaturnye jazyki (slavjanskaya mikrolingvistika). In: A. D. Duličenko, Vvedenie v slavjanskuju filologiju. Moskva: 568-651. — 2014b. Slavische Kleinschriftsprachen mit komplementärer Funktion zu slavischen Standardsprachen / Small Slavic Languages with Complementary Function to Slavic Standard Languages. In: K. Gutschmidt / T. Berger / S. Kempgen / P. Kosta (2014). Die slavischen Sprachen / The Slavic Languages. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung / An International Handbook of their Structure, their History and their Investigation. 2. Berlin / New York: 2010-2028. — 2015. Fenomen slavjanskix mikrofilologij v sovremennom slavjanovedenii. Poznańskie studia slawistyczne 8: 37-52. DUNN, J. 2008. The Slavonic Languages and European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Papers presented at the XIV International Congress of Slavists, Ohrid, 10-16.09.2008, 2-10. (Available on https://www.academia.edu/784371/Papers_to_be_presented_at_the_XIV_ International_Congress_of_Slavists_Ohrid_10-16.09._2008). EDWARDS, J. 2010. Minority languages and group identity. Cases and categories. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. 146 Mira Načeva-Marvanová EUROPEAN COMMISSION 1996. Euromosaic — The production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union. Luxembourg. FRANCIS, W. N. / H. KUČERA 1964. Manual of Information to Accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers – Department of Linguistics, Brown University. Providence. Rhode Island. (Revised 1971; Revised and amplified 1979). (Available at http://clu.uni.no/icame/brown/bcm.html). GREENBAUM, S. / J. SVARTVIK 1990. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. Avaiable at http://corp.hum.ou.dk/itwebsite/corpora/corpman/LONDLUND/INDEX. HTM (Cit. on 4/1/2015). GRIN, F. 2003. Language policy evaluation and the European charter for regional or minority languages. Basingstoke / New York. GRÜNTHAL, R. 2010. The ELDIA project. In: 2010 CEL/ELC Forum. The Multilingual Challenge. The next generation. Brussels 03.12.2010, 1-25. Available at http://www.celelc.org/archive/ArchivTexte/079_Gruenthal_ELDIA_2010.pdf (Cit. on 15/9/2015). GUSTAVSSON, S. 1998. Sociolinguistic Typology of Slavic Minority Languages. Slovo 46: 75-89. — 1999. Introduction. Nationalities Papers. 1999, 27-1: 11-15. — 2006. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, Euromosaic and the Slavic Literary Microlanguages. In: Slavianskie literaturnye mikrojazyki i jazykovye kontakty / Slavic literary microlanguages and language contacts, A. D. Dulichenko / S. Gustavsson (eds.). Tartu, 82-101. LAAKSO, J. / A. SARHIMAA / S. SPILIOPOULOU ÅKERMARK / R. TOIVANEN. 2013. Summary of the research project ELDIA (European Language Diversity for All). Abridged version of the original English language report. Available at https://fedora.phaidra.univie.ac.at/fedora/get/o:304813/bdef:Content/get (Cit. on 25/8/2015). LÜDELING, A. / M. KYTÖ (eds.) 2008. Corpus linguistics. An International Handbook 1. Berlin / New York. MADRIGA, I. 2013. I snova ob unikalʼnosti rusinskogo jazyka. Available at http://zakarpattya.net.ua/Blogs/115398-Y-snova-ob-unykalnostyrusynskoho-iaz%D1%8Bka-) (Cit. on 11/11/2014). MCENERY, T. / A. HARDIE 2012. Corpus linguistics. Method, theory and practice. Cambridge. Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 147 MCENERY, T. / A. WILSON 2001. Corpus linguistics. An introduction. Edinburgh. MICHAILOVSKY B. / M. MAZAUDON / S. GUILLAUME / A. FRANÇOIS / E. ADAMOU 2014. Documenting and Researching Endangered Languages: The Pangloss Collection. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8: 119135. (Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4621) (Cit. on 12/08/2015). MLADENOVA, O. 2005. Ob elektronnom izdanii korpusa bolgarskikh dialektnykh tekstov iz Rumynii. In: A. N. Sobolev / A. J. Rusakov (eds.). Jazyki i dialekty malyx etnicheskix grupp na Balkanax. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii (Sankt-Peterburg, 11-12 junja 2004 g.), Sankt-Peterburg / München, 98-108. — 2012. Bălgarskite govori v Rumănija: Opit za săzdavane na elektronen korpus na dialektnata rech na dvuezichno naselenie. Ezik i literatura, 653/4: 115-122. — 2013. Impact of Bulgarian-Romanian bilingualism on the Transdanubian dialects. In: Transdanubian Electronic Corpus. Supplement to Bulgarian Dialects in Romania by Maxim Mladenov. (Available at http://www.corpusbdr.info) (Cit. on 15/01/2015). NAČEVA-MARVANOVÁ, M. 2011. Český národní korpus a výuka českého jazyka na české škole – základní, střední, vysoké. In: Výuka mateřským jazykům dnes.[Usta ad Albim bohemica, 2011,11-1] Ústí nad Labem, 157http://www.pf.ujep.cz/kbo/usta-ad-albim165. (Available at bohemica-archiv?layout=tree). QUASTHOFF, U. / M. RICHTER / C. BIEMANN 2006. Corpus Portal for Search in Monolingual Corpora. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC, Genoa, 1799-1802. (Available at http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2006/) (Cit. on 1/12/2014). SCOTT, M. / C. TRIBBLE 2006. Textual Patterns. Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. STOJKOV, S. 1993. Bălgarska dialektologija. Sofia. ŠATAVA, L. 2006. “Regional languages” as emancipation strategy: Latgalian and Võro-Seto – two examples from the Baltic States. In: 6th Biennial Conference of ECSA-C (European Community Studies Association - Canada) What Kind of Europe? Multiculturalism, Migration, Political Community and Lessons from Canada. Victoria, B.C. Canada, Friday-Saturday 19-20 May 2006, 1-7. (Available on http://www.ecsac.ca/biennial2006/pdf/Leos-Satava.pdf) (Cit. on 15/9/1915). ŠULC, M. 2007. Experimentujeme s češtinou. Jak pracovat s korpusem českého jazyka ve školách i mimo ně. Praha. THOMAS, J. 2005. An Introduction to the use of Corpora in Teaching and Studying English. Exploring the British National Corpus with the Word 148 Mira Načeva-Marvanová Sketch Engine. In: Workshop ICT4ELT, Brno, FI MUNI, May-June, 2005, 1-10. (Available at http://fi.muni.cz/ICT4ELT) (Cit. on 16/9/2015). UNITED NATIONS 1992. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. (A/RES/47/135). Available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/47/a47r135.htm (Cit. on 16/9/2015). VAŠÍČEK, M. 2011. Laština Óndry Łysohorského jako mikrojazyk. MA Thesis, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague. WÖLKOWA, S. 2013. Hornjoserbski tekstowy korpus w nowej formje. Serbska šula 2: 44-47. Available at http://korpus.cz/doc/citace/Woelkowa_Sesu_2_2013.pdf (Cit. on 26/10/2014). — 2014. Tekstowy korpus a dalše informaciske srědki wo hornjoserbskej rěči w interneće. Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej 49: 59-71. CORPORA ADAMOU, E. / W. BREU / G. DRETTAS / L. SCHOLZE (eds.) 2013. EuroSlav2010: Elektronische Datenbank bedrohter slavischer Varietäten in nichtslavophonen Ländern Europas – Base de données électronique de variétés slaves menacées dans des pays européens non slavophones (Deutschland - Italien - Österreich - Griechenland). Konstanz: Universität / Paris: LaCiTo (Internet Publication). (Available at http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/index.htm#europe). ADAMOU, E. 2007. Corpus Nashta. Collection Pangloss. LaCiTo (Langues et civilisations à tradition orale). Paris – Villejuif. (Available at http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/index.htm). BREU, W., 2001-2011. Na-našu. Collection Pangloss. LaCiTo (Langues et civilisations à tradition orale). Paris-Villejuif (Available at http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/index.htm). CNC = Český Národní Korpus. 2000-2013- . Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK, Praha (Available at http://www.korpus.cz). DOBES = DOkumentation BEdrohter Sprachen / Documentation of Endangered Languages. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 2000 – 2014. (Available at http://dobes.mpi.nl). Electronic corpora of Slavic minority languages 149 DOTKO = DOlnoserbski Tekstowy KOrpus. 2013. Serbski Institute, Chóśebus. (Available at https://www.korpus.cz; http://www.dolnoserbski.de/korpus). DRETTAS G., Bulgaro-Macédonien.Collection Pangloss. LaCiTo (Langues et civilisations à tradition orale). Paris-Villejuif, 1976 (2010). (Available at http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/pangloss/index.htm). HIPILATLIT = (Lithuanian-Latvian-Latgalian common corpora project: 1. MuLa = Special Latgalian corpus, 2. LILA parallel corpus = Latvian-Lithuanian-Latvian Parallel corpus, 3. LLL dictionary = Lithuanian-Latvian-Latgalian dictionary), Rezekne – Kaunas – Riga: Rēzeknes Augstskola, 2013. (Available at http://hipilatlit.ru.lv/lv/). HOTKO = HOrnjoserbski Tekstowy KOrpus. Verze 1 z 6. 3. 2013. Serbski institute, Budyšin. (Available at https://www.korpus.cz). TEC 2013 = Transdanubian Electronic Corpus. Supplement to Bulgarian Dialects in Romania by Maxim Mladenov. 2001-2013. [University of Calgary / Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia, Calgary / Sofia]. (Available at http://www.corpusbdr.info). WORTSCHATZ = Neues internationale Wortschatzportal. 1998–2015. Institut für Informatik, Univerzität Leipzig, Leipzig. (Available at http://corpora.informatik.uni-leipzig.de) ŁYSOHORSKY’S LACHIA AND LACHIAN – POLITICS – POETICS – SCHOLARSHIP? Jiří Marvan† (Prague – Ústí nad Labem) In the year 1988, after 30 years of “execution by silence” (Karel Kryl, the poetic minstrel of the Czech emigration), a crucial change in the history of Lachian and its poetry took place: the appearance of a collection of (almost) all the Lachian poems Lašsko poezyja 1931-1977 (henceforth LP 1988). “Fortytwo years after his return to Czechoslovakia, Óndra Łysohorsky at last found his dream fulfilled” (OSERS 2009, 141). The author, Óndra Łysohorsky, welcomed this project with the following words: Ňečekołch, že ešče śe dožiju tak jasneho wychodu słónca ‘I have not expected to live to see such a bright sunrise’ (Pismo Jiřímu Marvanowi, Bratislava, Jan 24, 1985, LP 1988, 829) LP 1988 was published in Germany under the auspices of the Slavic section of UNESCO at the eleventh hour – just about one year before the poet’s passing. He declared this publication, containing 550 poems with additional supporting documents, the final version of his Lachian poetry.1 In a way, it is his testament (poručénstwo) to his future addressees. The editors of LP 1988 admit that they could not have suspected – apart from the belated satisfaction for the poet – it would trigger such editorial and scholarly activities that might correspond to the emergence of a new field. Shall we call it Lachian Studies or Lachology?2 One of the purposes of this contribution is to attempt to show that the establishment of that discipline, considering the status of Lachian and its poetry,3 is the most appropriate, if not the only way to approach the question of their future prospects. But first of all we should take a look at the genesis of the LP 1988, which became the harbinger of this prospective discipline and, eventually, an integral part of this proposed field. The genesis of Lachian and Lašsko poezyja in the poet’s vision It took almost five years (1984-1988) to complete and publish this monumental volume of more than 850 pages. Says one of the editors of LP 1988: “The genesis of Lachian studies (‘Lachology’) started with an unplanned meeting                                                                                                                           “W předłožénej knize widźim kónečnu werzyju mojéj lašskej poezyje,” see the author’s untitled introduction to LP 1988.   2   Cf. GAN (2007, 73) where the term “Lachist” is used as well.   3   One man = one language, cf. DULIČENKO (1981, 98; 1990/1992, 110-1).   1 Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 151 of both the future editors in Göttingen (Germany) in early spring 1984, followed by the compilation of collected poems of Ó. Łysohorsky {…} at Monash University (Australia) from texts which were for years smuggled through the Iron Curtain from Bratislava (Slovakia). The final product was their publication both in Lachian {…} and their excellent German rendering {…}. It was an attempt to save for posterity the poetry of a Nobel Prize candidate (1970) considered in his time one of the most extraordinary poets of Europe (F. X. Šalda, B. Pasternak et al.)” (GAN 2007, 73). This article attempts to mediate some important features of Lachian and its poet that no bibliographical items can offer. It includes, naturally, some poetic license, which might not be rigorously precise, but nevertheless is much more authentic, making it possible to read Łysohorsky as our contemporary. After all, the editors who kept in direct touch with the poet for several years, with his workshop, with his mental world, were considered by him “younger brothers” and their correspondence one of the dearest to his heart (LP 1988, 828-9). Unlike later research, with its quite justified hypotheses, assumptions and quotations, such direct contact with the heart of the matter has the undeniable advantage of first-hand data and experience. We should start with his most controversial “frenzied idea” of Lachia as a new European country in the middle of Europe, the state of Lachia (Lašsko zémě, LP 1988, 817) bordering with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany of the 1930s, with Hitler already in power. In the postscript to his first book of Lachian poems Spiwajuco piaść,4 he presents Lachian as “a language used by about two million persons” and the Lachian nation “as deep-rooted in one of the crucial spots of Europe” (LP 1988, 816). Almost two years earlier, when introducing his work to our poet’s lodestar, Petr Bezruč (Silesian, yet using standard Czech in his poems), he refers to “their” country as Ślónsko (LP 1988, 825). However, “though sometimes criticized as a separatist, he was no nationalist {…}. He writes about Silesia and Lachia, for example, Ślónsk, ślónske spěwy ‘Silesian songs’, Lašsko, Lachia, lašsky duch ‘Lachian spirit,’ as well as regional heroes and artists the Lachian Robin Hood Óndraš, Leoš Janáček, Petr Bezruč.” (HANNAN 2005, 116). His Central Asian experience helped him to understand that Lachia is not a national, let alone political issue. One should add that one of his Tashkent poems, Na wesno (‘In Spring’), seems to be an epitaph of that kind of “frenzied” idea.                                                                                                                           ‘Singing fist,’ cf. ŁYSOHORSKY (1934, 94-9).   4 152 Jiří Marvan Jak s matku młuwi syn młuwim se zémiu rodnu… Jech nojménšej země poeta… Sélzy se z plaču straciły A płakać začła pěsňa The way a son talks to his mother I talk with my native land I’m the poet of the smallest country… The tears vanished from the cry and the cry turned out to be my song Tashkent, December 8, 1942 (LP 1988, 644) But how about the 1930s? Nowadays, while European states initiate and try to develop (with certain difficulties) Schengen-type processes and take other steps which would limit their own statehood, they claim in the same breath that their languages “represent in fact an important step along the road to a Europe based on the principles of democracy and cultural diversity within the framework of nation sovereignty and territorial integrity.”5 As we see from the above-cited poem, the ideas that the euro-politicians have been planning for the generations to come the poet achieved inadvertently in the 1930s. He created his own dreamland of Lachia by means which seemed to the poet to be crucial for any country and its integrity, namely its language. At the end of the day, this concept of Lachia of the 1930s would fulfill all the dreams of our euro-politicians about a new, happy Europe – no states but full linguistic and cultural sovereignty! Suddenly our poet’s “frenzied utopia” emerges as one of the proto-models of the future multilingual and multicultural (or “polycultural,” see 7. below) Europe: we can imagine Łysohorsky as sitting with the authors of that Charter and helping them to compile it. Says he: Europskych je poeta lašskym słowém ‘I am a European poet through my Lachian word’ Bukhara, November 11, 1942 (LP 1988, 617) The poet reaffirms his European identity in at least two more Central Asian poems (see LP 1988, 493; 553). The words Europa, europejsky appear in his poems 55 times.6                                                                                                                         5 6   See COUNCIL OF EUROPE (1992). European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992. I am thankful for these data to my former student M. Vašíček (with Lachian roots), who compiled the Lachian corpus and, with the use of it, offered the first grammatical analysis of Lachian, see below section 7 and VAŠÍČEK (2011). Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 153 The birth of a poetica nova and its environment … “I hear the tongue of forebears” In one of his first poems, the budding poet Óndra Łysohorsky says, entering for the first time the mystery and magic of poetic Lachian: Leto Skalnaty břéh, smrekami obrosnuty, śe zřodli w rozpjéňénej Ostrawicy Zdřajuce leto. Přez hałuźe padze słónco poledňa do wysokej trowy… Zda śe, že hajóm w leće opařytym zdřajuce břoskwy w słóncu pod Wezuwém. Zawjéróm oči. Poledňane moře. Rybiorek křyk nad neapolskym golfém… Rybiorky křyčo. Ščasnych je w Beskidach choć teskno rosnu smreky nad šachtami. Tyś přemłuwiła. Słyšim młuwu předków měkšu jak młuwa połedňanych mořy Naples?, June 30, 1932 (LP 1988, 8; BSL 2009, 18) Summer A rocky bank with just a few spruces washed by the foaming Ostrawica. Summer is ripening. Through the twigs the southern sun falls on the tall green grass… I feel as if I were caressing peaches on a hot summer’s day, below Vesuvius I close my eyes. I see a southern sea. I hear the gulls’ scream on the Gulf of Naples… Still the gulls scream. I’m happy in the Beskyds although even the spruces sadly frame the coal-pits. You spoke. I hear the language of my forebears soft as the murmur of the southern seas It is significant that this was not happening at home on a “rocky bank by the foaming Ostrawica” but at the foothills of Vesuvius, at a shore of a southern sea. It is exactly this remoteness from Lachia which discloses the might of one’s homeland and, first of all, the might of an omnipresent bond with its 154 Jiří Marvan language. It is this human environment of the native language which – unlike the physical environment – accompanies us everywhere. Right here, at the foothills of Vesuvius the poet experienced for the first time a feeling of the importance of his own particular language, of the spiritual essence of Lachian, free of the burden of the faraway physical reality, mundane communication and its pollution. Isolated from his native Lachian environment, where the Lachian language was quite natural, he discovers a synesthetic effect of that environment – rocky bank, spruces, foaming Ostrawica, the mountains of Beskydy, coal pits – all that rendered the language of his forebears appealing to the nascent poet with its softness, “softer than the speech of the southern seas.” We should note here the synesthetic effect of the adjective soft: sense of touch → sense of hearing (southern sea) → sense of beauty (mother tongue). Let us remind ourselves that the poet’s linguistic contemporary formulated the same idea of an inherent bond with one’s language in the following maxim: the linguistic system is not language unless it is empathized (see TRNKA 1943, 64).7 Trnka explains his maxim as follows: “it must be a part of our egos [actually I’s — J.M.] in order to change in a dynamic system capable of continuous development in time and space.” And Lachian, though being a “one language – one man show,” proved that remarkably well (see DULIČENKO 1981, 978; 1990/1992, 110-1). “Throughout his life Óndra Łysohorsky endeavored to refine and codify his mother tongue – moreover that his Tashkent Sonnets {…} probably his most beautiful poems would hardly be comprehensible to the Silesian miners whose speech he had thus elevated.” (OSERS 2009, 120; cf. 7. below). Łysohorsky and his presentiment of ‘inner language’ The poem Leto (see above), though appearing at the very threshold of Łysohorsky’s poetic career, offers, albeit inadvertently, quite a few clues how to tackle his discovery. It discloses, in particular, an underlying, yet unnoticeable presence of the native tongue that had been alive for centuries (cf. “the language of my forebears” above) without having appeared on the surface. This we suggest to be called ‘inner language,’ i.e., “the inherent presence of                                                                                                                         7 Here the author of these lines must admit that the last word in the Czech original “prožíván” was (unlike the German erlebt ‘experienced’) quite difficult to render in English. J. Vachek, in the English version of the Dictionary of the Prague School Linguistics (VACHEK 2003, 93; 185, used the “term” ‘internalized,’ cf. also VACHEK 2005, 134). Another translation offered a variant ‘experienced.’ My many years of experience, especially with younger adepts of linguistics, proved that the term ‘empathy’ is the best way to render Trnka’s maxim in the way he meant it in our conversations. Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 155 the native environment of one’s own language.” That is why this inner, intimate part of language acquired the name ‘endo-sphere.’8 One of the simple, easily accessible criteria of the ‘inner language’ is its untranslatability to another language. Typically, the inflection – which is a part of the inner language as both its signifié and signifiant – is internal. There is no correspondence in the extralinguistic reality – which is why it is nevertheless very much enjoyed and used for internal purposes of the native speakers by witty writers and jokers. This kind of mutual enjoyment and conviviality on all levels of the ‘inner language’ shared with native speakers, but only with them (!), is just one of the chief motives for creating languages called micro, regional, and local, – motives which nevertheless the tradition of their description and research seems to neglect. And yet, these properties of ‘inner language’ are one of the main arguments for preserving all languages, for with the death of any language we lose a part of the heritage of humankind. The correspondence to reasons for preserving the biological species is quite striking. Following Trnka’s maxim it appears quite appropriate to call self-identification with one’s own language linguistic empathy. This intimate bond has the property of inherence and eternity in contrast to the transience of everyday matters conveyed by standard communication. Here is the answer to the question posed in the title: what offers Lachian a prospect for the future – transient matters of everyday life or the inherent, eternal value of Lachian? Paradoxically, the less understandable it became to miners in Ostrawa, as mentioned above by Osers, the brighter Lachi- an’s prospects for the future! There is a clear contrast and, eventually, interplay between both environments of Lachian – we might say between the ecology of the natural environment (shared with them by Lachian of the 1930s) and the ecology of the poetic world (unique to Lachian since the 1940s). Their relation penetrates the whole scale of Łysohorsky’s work as shown in the following two poems:                                                                                                                         8   In exact sciences the corresponding Greek word endon is connected with the technical, scientific notion ‘inside’. But this is a secondary, materialized (superficial!) meaning, while our endosphere is clearly much more anchored in the original, more intimate meaning “at us (at home) – in my hearth.” This intimate meaning is an excellent inspiration for poets but of no use, even an obstacle for (more) exact disciplines (chemistry, biology, anatomy, genetics, architecture et al.). 156 Jiří Marvan Moja harfa je ceło słóńsko zém: chałupky w Beskidach a šumne řéky kolónije hawjérske a słónečniky fedrowe weže, fabriky a dym... My harp is the whole Silesian land: Shacks in the Beskyds, lovely streams, poor miners’ hovels, sunflowers and gaunt pithead towers, factories, steam… December 11, 1932 (LP 1988, 53; BSL 2009, 28-9) Here Lachian (i.e., the harp in the first verse) is the human transformation of the extralinguistic reality appearing in the following three verses. More than thirty years of poetic experience later, Łysohorsky discloses (maybe even to himself) in the poem Trojica (‘Threesome’) the prime sources of his poetic Lachian in the following verses: Lašsko řeč matky, linije Łysej hory a zvony Frydeckej Panny Maryje Lachian tongue of my mother, outlines of the Bold Mountain and bells of Frydek Virgin Mary wélňo śe w sércu … a w pěsni spjéwaju … a objémaju swět a hwězdy. wave in my heart … and sing in their own song … and are embracing the world and the star. Bratislava?, March 18, 1965 (LP 1988, 793) His song (again the poetic Lachian) still has preserved its roots – after 50 years – in the poet’s empathy. The poet refers here to three poetic synesthetic instruments, i.e., the magic “environment of the Lachian mother tongue” (“softer than murmur of the Southern sea”: sense of touch → sense of hearing, the sounds of his nascent poetry), graceful contours of his mountain Łyso hora (sense of seeing → sense of hearing the fluency and euphony) and the rhythm of a bell through which he reaches a complex of his senses reflected in the rhythm of his poetry (N.B. unlike in Czech, no vowel quantity and penultimate stress).9                                                                                                                         9 Synesthesia is a process consisting of three consecutive stages: physiological → psychological, and finally → linguistic. The last is defined as follows: “the description of one kind of sense that normally describes another” (AH 1996, 1821). In our case three different stimuli evoke different levels of Lachian with the final outcome its inimitable (!) grace and magnitude. Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 157 From Politics to Poetry In its attempt to revive Lachian for the people of its region, Bard swojeho ludu (BSL 2009) divides the history of Łysohorsky’s poetry into three periods: (1) Dómowina – Homeland (1932-1938) (BSL 2009, 18-45): the poet uses his native vernacular to reflect his region inhabited (in contrast to peasant speakers of other Slavic vernaculars) by exploited miners and steelworkers, called at that time proletarians. This seems to correspond to the ideology of the prewar Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and its contribution to the world revolution led by Moscow.10 (2) Émygracyja – Exile (1941-1945) (BSL 2009, 46-75): Moscow meant politically a “sobering” process; however, not Moscow but the Central Asian experience (notably Bukhara and Samarkand), free of political issues, produced his most beautiful poems in Lachian. “In the more than 200 poems he wrote in Central Asia {…} he communes only with the stars. He is clearly anxious to present himself in the role of an exile, a role that, in one or another, has been his from the beginning {…}” (OSERS 2009, 127). The ecology of the poetic world had been discovered. (3) Émigracyja w dómowiňe – Exile at home (1954-1965) (BSL 2009, 7691): the period which was called in the introduction “execution by silence,” cf. also “silent burial alive” (GAN 2005, 152). Though not suffering from physical discrimination (some prominent Czech poets were physically liquidated), the poet was sent to Bratislava in 1947 to serve in rather insignificant teaching and librarian positions until 1961, when he retired. But fortunately that was not the end of his story. This sequence of events seems quite useful, as it corresponds with the process of depoliticization and poetization of his poetry suggested in the title. (1) No doubt the prewar period involved politics, as the author presented the ‘Lachian nation’ as the exploited proletarians and Prague as a capitalist evil.11 As a result of this, communists considered Łysohorsky a proletarian poet. (2) Ironically, it was Moscow which was the place of the poet’s “sobering.” Łysohorsky, who as a representative (or even a leader) of the ‘Lachian people’ joined the All-Slav committee,12 was gradually realizing that the substance of poetry is not the topic (‘surface structure’) but its language (‘deep structure’), while the communists saw it exactly the other way round. At the same time, it was the breaking point in which the outer world was retreating and his work became poetry in itself.                                                                                                                          Cf. LP 1988, 14; 25; 27; 62; 121; 128; 130, poems typical for the years 1932–1933.    The Czech part of Czechoslovakia was generally considered one of the most industrialized parts of Europe.   12  See his membership card with his poetic name Lysogorskij (BSL 2009, 147).   10 11 158 Jiří Marvan (3) In the postwar period in which even the most prominent Czech poets proved to be more flexible to the regime, the poetic vision of Lachian made Łysohorsky undesirable, and he was removed to Bratislava. The poet’s inner emigration in the postwar period, was a period of very limited, yet active creativity for our poet.13 The political controversy erupted at the end of the 1960s, when he was nominated by his Western (Swiss, Provençal and Dutch) fellow poets for the Nobel Prize. That happened thanks to the excellent translations of Ewald Osers, which eventually brought to this pedestal another Czech poet, Jaroslav Seifert, in 1984 – the year in which the story of LP 1988 starts. Łysohorsky’s chances were thwarted by exiled (!) Czech communists after the fall of the Prague Spring in 1968 (GAN 2007, 65). His work was slowly but surely sinking into oblivion. After more than 40 years of marginalization, Lašsko Poezyja appeared to him as a miracle. Perspectives – a challenge for Lachian and its scholars To talk about the future prospects of the Lachian legacy would make no sense without considering its present and future protagonists and cornerstones. This is particularly important, considering obvious distinctions, even paradoxes in the fates and present status of Lachian vis-à-vis its Slavic counterparts.14 It is first of all a contrast in the popular background (with ‘source vernacular’) i.e., Lachian proletarians vs. rural population. The other distinction of Lachian was defined as ‘one man = one language’ (DULIČENKO 1990/1992, 111; SKORWID 2010, 141), which makes Lachian “the smallest among small” or, following the terminology of microlinguistics, a nano-language! But this did not reduce its vigor, vitality and ability to develop. Actually, Łysohorsky’s Lachian developed at a certain stage much faster than its rural counterparts (DULIČENKO 1981, 98), eventually reaching the stage we called “the ecology of the poetic world”. These questions of proper reception and treatment were certainly in the poet’s mind when he was committing them to paper in the following Tashkent poem. Take particular note of the last three verses: Poručénstwo A možne přyjdźe w kraj naš za sto roków čłowěk z cudzyny, co rozumjé spěwu w Beskidach budźe słychać płakać skały Legacy Maybe in a hundred years a stranger will come into our region, one who understands song… In the Beskyds he will hear crying rocks                                                                                                                          Just 17 poems in 1954-1960 and 10 poems in 1965-1977 (see LP 1988, 851-2; BSL 2009, 90-1).   14  As mentioned above in 4, cf. DULIČENKO (1981).   13 Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian we spěwu ptaków, w šumě wodopadów… a ňeusłyši s ludskeho jazyka ani w chałupce na ostatnim wéršku lašskeho słowa Napiše w swět cudzyňec cudzym słowém: znóm dźiwny kraj, kaj zhynuł downy noród, bo newzoł w piaść meč, skuty mu poetu Wybili noród, no poeta žije. Přyroda wěčno spjéwo jeho spěwy bo w jeho spěwach słyši sama sebe. 159 In songs of birds, in murmur of waterfalls … and in human speech he will not hear even in a cottage on the last hill a Lachian word. In strange words the stranger will write to the world: I know an odd region, where an ancient nation perished as it did not seize the sword in its fist forged by the poet They killed off the people, but the poet is alive. Eternal nature sings its songs as in its songs it hears itself. Tashkent, May 21, 1942 (LP 1988, 544) Will Lachian be confined back to “eternal nature” and, as suggested above, will it face the dilemma of ‘no author = no language’ (= ‘no future’)? That equation might very likely have been true – with some rather marginal exceptions as occasional remarks and perhaps a Wikipedia entry – without the appearance of LP 1988. That collection was, since its appearance, as we saw, a triggering stimulus, and it is still the backbone of further research and new editions demonstrating the qualities of this poet (MARTINEK 2012, 94-95; 155). Says an erudite Czech scholar: Łysohorsky elevated a regional language to “a high artistic level”, we should remember him as “a quite respectable poet” (HARÁK 2007, 40-1). No doubt some representatives of the older generation, apart from the editors (MARTINEK 2012, 143-4), contributed, following the appearance of LP 1988, to the present stage of studies. First of all there was British translator E. Osers (a native of Prague), with his poetic mastership,15 the editor’s Laudatio (113-4) and his own (bilingual) Epilogue (117-41). Chronologically, it was followed by an American scholar, K. Hannan, whose interest in Lachian was revived by the appearance of LP 1988 (personal correspondence with J.M.). He established himself as a leading figure in the field by publishing the first comprehensive monograph on the topic (HANNAN 1996a). This book, though with no response in the poet’s country, was reported by western scholars in                                                                                                                          See in BSL 2009 his translations on pp. 19-91.   15 160 Jiří Marvan several reviews (e.g. MAGOCSI 1998). Thanks to this experience (see also HANNAN 1996a and HANNAN 1996b) this scholar with Silesian roots offered, after his arrival to Europe, a quite fresh approach to our field (HANNAN 2005; MARTINEK 2005, 143). A crucial stage in the poet’s ‘Lachian story,’ in which Lachian was being gradually transformed into pure poetry, was, paradoxically, as we know, the Soviet emigration. The close relation between Łysohorsky and prominent Russian poets is traditionally interpreted as a result of their admiration for his poetic mastership. Says one of them, B. Pasternak: “Common poetic inclinations and time-tested influences bring me closer to Łysohorsky. He is a precious outstanding contemporary poet with remarkable ideas and extraordinary art taste.”16 However, S. Skorwid, reflecting the Moscow genius loci, offers a quite untraditional point of view. We should appreciate his different angle showing an unpleasant tinge of this “poetic” friendship and solidarity in the world of materialism, as these translations, albeit some excellent, were by virtue of existential necessity (SKORWID 2010). In our view Skorwid, though younger than Osers and Hannan, was part of their generation, forming a bridge between the scholarly exile of the 1990s (with scholars from three continents) and the homecoming of Lachian poetry back to Silesia in the next decade. Another bridge between generations was the colloquium of scholars and friends just a couple of months after the poet’s death, in which one felt Łysohorsky’s being almost physically present.17 That is why the date 1990 is emphasized here. As admitted by the editor, this was still a “pre-LP” gathering (BOGAR 1990/1992, 5). A new generation of Lachian studies However, it is up to the younger and young generations to form the core of activities and to develop the idea of Lachian studies – a task confirmed by P. Gan with his “handing the torch” to them (GAN 2005, 155). It was first of all G. Balowska, who surprised us with a series of lectures, especially at Jan Evangelista Purkyně University (Ústí nad Labem) in the years 1996-2007.18 Her book devoted solely to Łysohorsky presented a series of her lectures delivered at other occasions as well (BALOWSKA 2008). Another scholar playing an important role in establishing the modern field of Lachian studies is L. Martinek. A local Silesian, he provides quite useful insight into the local context (another genius loci), including some other writers of that region (MARTINEK 2005) as well as into the parochial view of lo-                                                                                                                          GAN in LPG 1989 quotes Literatura i isskustvo from 21. 8. 1943; cf. also BSL 2009, 16 15; MARTINEK 2012, 92.   Participants were Osers, Gan, Duličenko and the poet’s wife O. Gojová-Kuchtová. 18  See BALOWSKA (1996; 2000; 2001) and MARTINEK (2012, 95).   17 Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 161 cal scholars who found it hard to accept that one of them might achieve international fame (MARTINEK 2008). The results of his contribution are reflected in his recent article, the purpose of which is to demythologize and depoliticize Łysohorsky’s legacy of Lachian and its poetry (MARTINEK 2012, 86). He points out that “Czech literary history is obliged to find for Óndra Łysohorsky, an outsider for long time, an appropriate place in the Pantheon of Czech poetry to which he has every right” (MARTINEK 2012, 99). In this context he emphasizes the role of BSL 2009 and its obvious intention to achieve this goal (MARTINEK 2008, 44). After all, Łysohorsky’s “place in the Pantheon of Czech literature” would contribute considerably to international recognition of Czech literature itself in view of Łysohorsky’s standing far surpassing the international recognition of any other Czech poet. We can hardly ignore his Nobel Prize candidacy and its fate or the fact that he is the most translated “Czech” poet (40 or more languages?) with a scholarly reputation in quite a few countries.19 The third important player is the young linguist M. Vašíček, who overcame the barrier of the Lachian language proper by a comprehensive description of its morphology. Based on his own corpus, including almost all lexical items of Lysohorsky’s poetry, he provided its comprehensive description of nominal and verbal paradigms, including their classification and exemplification (VAŠÍČEK 2011; 2012). Some important publications of Łysohorsky’s poetry based on LP have appeared in the last ten years. It was Poručénstwo – Odkaz (2005), first of all, a remarkable success supported by the regional Moravian-Silesian government Bard swojeho ludu (BSL 2009). It includes a quite unusual experiment, i.e., an effort at “transforming” Lachian poetry to its Czech counterpart, preserving relevant features of Lachian, particularly the emphasis on rhythm dictated by its penultimate word stress (BSL 2009, 19-89). This publication seems to be the first serious attempt to offer the idea of Lachian to Czech Silesians as an inherent part of their turbulent history. Finally, one should also mention the Museum of the Beskydy, which is the chief venue for scholarly meetings on Łysohorsky and his work (BOGAR 1990/1992; JURČÁK 2005). More important, it offers, thanks to the custodian K. Janasová, its archives for further research.20 No doubt we have just discovered another significant distinction of Lachian vis-à-vis other Slavic counterparts. It is not its surrounding natural environment that keeps it alive, but the solid scholarly and material base Lachian                                                                                                                          Britain, Germany, Australia, USA, Canada, Poland, Russia et al.; cf. BOGAR (1990/1992, 5) and MARTINEK (2012, 91-6).   20 The Museum functions as a Łysohorsky “memorial house” as well, including Łysohorsky’s study with original furniture.   19 162 Jiří Marvan and its poetic world (see 3. above) enjoy. They form a firm base for a new discipline called Lachian studies.21 Conclusion: Authorities on the legacy of Łysohorsky and his poetry The essence of our presentation is neatly summed up by a remark of Ewald Osers, for many years Łysohorskyʼs fellow-poet and translator. After all, he is the man who brought Łysohorsky and another Czech poet, Seifert, to the very threshold of Nobel laureateship. The comment is critical but, at the same time, full of empathy with our poet and his Lachian: “The argument whether Lachian is a dialect or a language is of course unscientific. The status of a certain form of speech as a codified language normally depends on non-linguistic, mainly political and literary factors. It must moreover be perceived and intuitively [sic — JM] felt by its native speakers as something akin to a home, a something worth dwelling in and taking care of” (OSERS 2009, 119). How close this is to the concept of linguoecology, rendered here by another poet with an active experience of translating poetry from almost all Slavic languages. The poet himself admits “that his Lachian verses are not an international act but ‘erupted from his soul’ {…} throughout his life. Óndra Łysohorsky endeavoured to refine and codify his Lachian mother tongue – moreover to such a degree that… his most beautiful Lachian poems would hardly be comprehensible to the Silesian miners whose speech he had thus elevated” (OSERS 2009, 120).22 Osers was born in Prague in 1917 and brought his bilingual Czech-German competence from Prague to England in 1939. He transformed this early linguistic experience in his poetic activities to a Slavic-English bilingualism and, eventually, to the ecolinguistic equation ‘language = home’ as well. Though he translated from quite a few other languages (with 160 titles published!), the peak of his career was Czech, thanks to Łysohorsky and Seifert (cf. Laudatio, BSL 2009, 113-4). Óndra Łysohorsky, the solitary Lachian poet, died 25 years ago. Yet Lachian, his idiolingua, idiopoetry, as we see, is still present and able to address us today with his powerful linguistic and poetic message. Says an American Slavist of Silesian origin: “Perhaps Łysohorsky’s true legacy is his humanism. He celebrated borders without ever being confined by them. Due to the misuse of the term multiculturalism in the United States, one hesitates to call Łysohorsky a multiculturalist; he was, nevertheless, an advocate for the appreciation of different cultures. As MARVAN (1992, 87-8) points out, Łysohorsky was ahead of his time in envisioning a Europe of rich but endangered                                                                                                                          For a thorough review of their basic bibliography listing over 50 items, see MARTINEK (2012, 141-5).   22  December 1932, cf. BSL 2009, 154; LP 1988, 825.   21 Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 163 regional cultures and minority languages.” Óndra Łysohorsky remains one of Czechoslovakia’s great, original literary figures, despite the fact that his work is little known today in the Czech Republic… “We anticipate that his life story and work will not be forgotten” (HANNAN 2005, 121). Some polyglots and/or “euroglots” might, in days to come, call Łysohorsky one of the first representatives of European polyculturalism of the 20th century. And another Silesian adds: “The Lachian language turned out to be an excellent linguistic material for poetry; its mastering by Ervin Goj was undeniably a great achievement thanks to which he built up the prestige of his regional dialect and developed it into a language rich enough to be used in literature {…}” (BALOWSKA 2008, 184). In July 1944 Boris Pasternak explained to the poet his role as follows: “Your fate would be of interest to nobody hadn’t you been a representative of something else.” (SKORWID 2012, 85). “But what is something else in the global context?” asks Skorwid. The answer seems obvious for us. It is a powerful message for all vernaculars and dialects, for all local and regional languages: all of them confine the magnitude and irreplaceable uniqueness of Lachian but not too many of them have their own Łysohorsky to prove it! REFERENCES BALOWSKA, G. 1996. Jazykový obraz ženy v díle Óndry Łysohorského. In: D. Moldanová D. (ed.), Žena – Jazyk – Literatura. Sborník z mezinárodní konference. Ústí nad Labem: 364-369. — 2000. Formowanie się idei laskiego języka literackiego. Socjolingwistyka 16: 85-96. — 2001. Začátek a konec “lašského jazyka”. In: D. Moldanová (ed.), Konec a začátek v jazyce a literatuře. Sborník z mezinárodní konference. Ústí nad Labem: 225-231. — 2008. Lašské dílo Óndry Łysohorského. (J. Marvan (ed.), Acta Slavica et Baltica 8), Praha. — 2012. Autonomizacja gwary a kreatywność jednostki. In: L. Martinek et al., Od dialektů k literárním jazykům v Evropě. Kolektivní monografie / Od dialektów do języków literackich w Europie. Monografia zbiorowa. Opava 2012: 69-75. BOGAR, K. (ed.) 1990/1992. Umělecký a lidský obraz básníka Óndry Łysohorského. Kolokvium usktečněné ve dnech 13.-14. 9. 1990 u příležitosti nedožitých 85 let básníka. Frýdek-Místek. COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 1992. European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Strasbourg, 5.XI.1992. CETS No.148. Strasbourg. (Available on http: //www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list//conventions/rms/090000168007bf4b) (Cit. on 18/12/2014). DULIČENKO, A. D. 1981. Slavjanskie literaturnye mikrojazyki. Tartu. — 1990/1992 Fenomen Ondry Lysogorskogo : Odin čelovek – odin jazyk. 164 Jiří Marvan In: K. Bogar (ed.), Umělecký a lidský obraz básníka Óndry Łysohorského. Kolokvium usktečněné ve dnech 13.–14. 9. 1990 u příležitosti nedožitých 85 let básníka. Frýdek-Místek: 104-113. GAN, P. 2005. Jak jsem přispěl ke zmrtvýchstání slezského evropského básníka. In: P. Jurčák (ed.), Práce a studie Muzea Beskyd. Příspěvky z kolokvia: 147-157. — 2007. Za češtinou a jejími tvůrci – k antipodům. Laudatio na Jiřího Marvana – rosistu, lachistu a básníka, In: H. Opleštilová / H. Petáková (eds.), Europeica – Slavica – Baltica. Jířímu Marvanovi k 70. narozeninám. Praha: 57-74. HANNAN, K. 1996a. Borders of language and identity in Teschen Silesia. New York. — 1996b. The Lachian Literary Language of Óndra Łysohorsky. The Slavic and East European Journal 40-4: 726-743. — 2005. The Lachian Identity of Óndra Łysohorsky. In: P. Jurčák (ed.), Práce a studie Muzea Beskyd. Příspěvky z kolokvia Óndra Łysohorsky (19051989). Odkaz a inspirace. Frýdek-Místek: 113-125. HARÁK, I. 2007. Byl jednou jeden autor. Psí víno. Časopis pro současnou poezii 42: 40-41. JURČÁK, P. (ed.) 2005. Práce a studie Muzea Beskyd. Příspěvky z kolokvia Óndra Łysohorsky (1905-1989). Odkaz a inspirace. Frýdek-Místek. ŁYSOHORSKY, Ó. 1934. Spiwajuco piaść. Praha. MAGOCSI, L. P. 1998. Review of K. Hannan: Borders of language and identity in Teschen Silesia. Slavic Review 57-1: 181-182. MARTINEK, L. 2005. Poznámky ke vztahu Pawła Kubiszwe k Óndrovi Łysohorskému. In: P. Jurčák (ed.), Práce a studie Muzea Beskyd. Příspěvky z kolokvia Óndra Łysohorsky (1905-1989). Odkaz a inspirace. FrýdekMístek: 103-112. — 2008. Óndra Łysohorsky – outsider ? In: Z. Bariaková / M. Kubealaková (eds.), Podoby outsiderstva v umeleckej literatúre. Banská Bystrica: 3445. — 2012 Óndra Łysohorsky – regionální autor, nebo lašsko-evropský básník? In: L. Martinek et al. (eds.), Od dialektů k literárním jazykům v Evropě. Kolektivní monogtrafie / Od dialektów do języków literarackich w Europie. Monografia zbiorowa. Opava: 86-10. MARVAN, J. 1992. Łysohorsky’s project of poetic Lachian. Australia Slavonic and East European Studies 6: 89-96. OSERS, E. 2009. Epilogue – Epilog. In: BSL, J. Marvan (ed.), Bard swojeho ludu / Euro-lašsky poeta – Óndra Łysohorsky – A Euro-Lachian poet / The bard of his people. Ostrava: 117-141. SKORWID, S. 2010. Lašský experiment Óndry Łysohorského v Rusku: Z nouze ctnost. Bohemica Olomucensia 2-1: 141-152. Łysohorsky’s Lachia and Lachian 165 — 2012. Laština Óndry Łysohorského: promarněná mince “regionálního mikrojazyka”. In: L. Martinek et al. (eds.), Od dialektů k literárním jazykům v Evropě. Kolektivní monogtrafie / Od dialektów do języków literarackich w Europie. Monografia zbiorowa. Opava: 76-85. TRNKA, B. 1943. Obecné otázky strukturálního jazykozpytu. Slovo a slovesnost 9-2/3: 57-68. VACHEK, J. 2003. Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia. — 2005. Lingvistický slovník Pražské školy. Praha. VAŠÍČEK, M. 2011. Laština Óndry Łysohorského jako mikrojazyk. Morfologická analýza. MA thesis, Filozofická fakulta, Univerzita Karlova, Praha. — 2012. K principům formování normy literární laštiny Óndry Łysohorského. Studia slavica 16: 211-220. ABBREVIATIONS LP – Lašsko poezyja = Óndra Łysohorsky, Lašsko poezyja 1931-1977. (J. Marvan, P. Gan, eds.), [Collected poems]. Association internationale pour lʽétude et la diffusion des cultures slaves (UNESCO). Schriften des Komitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Förderung der Slawischen Studien 12/I (herausgegeben von Hans Rothe). Köln / Wien 1988. LPG – Lachische Poesie = Óndra Łysohorsky, Lachische Poesie 1931-1976. (P. Gan / J. Marvan / F. Rohder, eds.), [Collected poems]. Association internationale pour lʽétude et la diffusion des cultures slaves (UNESCO). Schriften des Komitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Förderung der Slawischen Studien 12/II (herausgegeben von Hans Rothe). Köln / Wien 1989. BSL – Bard swojeho ludu / Euro-lašsky poeta – Óndra Łysohorsky – A EuroLachian poet / The bard of his people. (J. Marvan, ed.). Ostrava 2009. Poručénstwo – Poručénstwo. Óndra Łysohorsky. Odkaz. (= Acta Slavica et Baltica 3, J. Marvan ed.). Praha 2005. AH – The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston / New York 1996. ЯЗЫК ВОСТОЧНОСЛОВАЦКИХ ТЕКСТОВ С ТОЧКИ ЗРЕНИЯ ТЕОРИИ ЛИТЕРАТУРНЫХ МИКРОЯЗЫКОВ Константин В. Лифанов (Москва) Введение В последние годы в Словакии обозначился интерес к использованию в художественных текстах региональных вариантов словацкого языка. Наибольшую известность в этом плане приобрели постановки классической словацкой пьесы Й. Грегора-Тайовского (1874-1940) «Женский закон» (Ženský zákon), написанной в 1900 г. на словацком литературном языке и многие годы не сходящей со сцен словацких театров. Относительно недавно, однако, ряд театров представил данную пьесу в необычной интерпретации, когда словацкий литературный язык был заменен на один из говоров, довольно существенно отличающийся от литературного языка. Так, «Театр на галерке» (Divadlo na hambálku) в г. Малацки играет эту пьесу на загорском говоре западнословацкого диалекта, Спишский театр (Spišské divadlo) в г. Спишска Нова Вес – на спишском говоре, а любительский театр в г. Тарнов – на шаришском говоре (оба относятся к восточнословацкому диалекту)1. В репертуаре Загорацкого театра (Záhorácke divadlo) в г. Сеница представлено большое количество постановок на загорском говоре, включая кукольные спектакли для детей, Кладзанский народный театр (Kladzanské ľudové divadlo) ставит спектакли на земплинском говоре восточнословацкого диалекта, в том числе «Земплинские сказки – рассказики не только для детей», поставленный по одноименной книге Й. Енчо (JENČO 2012). О росте популярности представлений на диалектах свидетельствует также то, что в 2015 г. будет проходить уже V фестиваль диалектного театра в восточ– нословацком городе Михаловце. На восточнословацком диалекте в самое последнее время появилось несколько книжных публикаций. Кроме уже названных «Земплинских сказок» Восточнословацкое объединение «Валал» (Valal), имеющее сайт в сети Интернет на восточнословацком диалекте,2 издало еще две книги для детей: сборник повестей «Три брата», собранных В. Гнатю1 2 Научным анализом языка пьес, а также других современных изданий, язык которых отличается от литературного языка, до настоящего времени никто не занимался. В связи с этим мы его называем диалектом, как это принято в самих театрах и средствах массовой информации, хотя это могут быть стилизации диалектной речи, как это имеет место в произведениях М. Зимковой (ZIMKOVÁ 1982), а не говоры в чистом виде. http://ilonas.net/valal/index.html Язык восточнословацких текстов 167 ком в Воеводине (HNAŤUK 2010), и «Кислую книжку» И. Медеши (ME3 А. Крет и Л. Врана перевели и опубликовали «Евангелие Иисуса Христа на спишском говоре» (KRET / VRANA 2011). Вероятно, на основании подобных фактов, а также вследствие издания «Восточнословацкого словаря» (HALAGA 2002) возникло следующее утверждение: «В последние десятилетия наблюдается оживление идеи восточнословацкого литературного языка» (ДУЛИЧЕНКО 2005, 609). Поскольку данное ут– верждение содержится в разделе, посвященном славянским литературным микроязыкам, автор этой идеи рассматривает названные факты в рамках существовавшего, по его мнению, в истории словацкой письменности восточнословацкого литературного микроязыка. Концепция литературных микроязыков благодаря ее автору и наиболее активному исследователю в этой области А.Д. Дуличенко получила широкое распространение в славистике и привлекает все больший интерес славистической общественности. Данной проблематике посвящены международные конференции или заседания их отдельных секций, выходят многочисленные сборники и журнальные статьи. Вместе с тем, изначально данная область славистики характеризовалась существенной лакуной, последствием которой явилась недостаточно разработанная теоретическая база данного направления славистики, а именно: практическое отсутствие определения литературного микроязыка и выделения его характеристик как языка литературного. Изначально и в течение длительного времени автор концепции использовал данный термин «для обозначения литературно-языковых образований, находящихся вне списка известных славянских литературных языков крупных наций (этносов)» (ДУЛИЧЕНКО 2005, 595). Данное определение трудно назвать исчерпывающим, поскольку не вполне понятно, какое образование следует считать литературно-языковым и какие образования входят в названный список. Видимо, осознавая уязвимость такого подхода к выявлению литературных микроязыков, автор концепции в одной из своих последних работ дает развернутое определение этого явления, включающее его дифференциальные признаки, и отделяет литературные микроязыки от других языковых образований, которые он называет «литературными диалектами»: ĎEŠI 2010), «...литературный микроязык – это такая форма существования языка (или диалекта), которая наделена письменностью, характеризуется нормализующими тенденциями, возникающими как следствие функционирования литературно-письменной формы в рамках более или менее организованного литературно-языкового процесса. Именно организованный литературно3 Обе книги в действительности написаны на южнорусинском языке, распространенном главным образом в сербском крае Воеводина, хотя его основой являются прежде всего говоры восточнословацкого диалекта (ЧАРСКИЙ 2011). 168 Константин Лифанов языковой процесс диктует выбор письменности, ведет к унификации грамматических, лексических и прочих норм, заявляя тем самым о рождении нового литературного языка» (ДУЛИЧЕНКО 2011, 318-9). Автор подчеркивает, что для признания какого-то идиома литературным микроязыком необходимо установить, что этот идиом не просто обладает письменностью, а реализует определенные принципы правописания, базируется на определенном говоре или диалекте, характеризуется выработкой литературно-языковых норм в области фонетики, грамматики и словаря и возможностью их стабилизации и дальнейшей кодификации (ДУЛИЧЕНКО 2011, 318). Таким образом, характерной особенностью литературного микроязыка является преемственность текстов, созданных в разные периоды его формирования. Исходя из этого, оценить суть языковых явлений, имеющих место в самое последнее время в Словакии, возможно только после всестороннего изучения предшествующих состояний, что и является целью данной статьи. В словакистике в отношении текстов, созданных в Восточной Словакии и содержащих элементы восточнословацкого диалекта, используется термин «культурный восточнословацкий язык» (kultúrna východoslovenčina), предложенный Э. Паулини. Основанием для этого послужило лишь то, что «... в памятники письменности, созданные в Восточной Словакии, нередко в большом количестве проникают восточнословацкие языковые элементы, причем часто, особенно в XVII – XVIII вв., тексты представляют собой чистые восточнословацкие записи» (PAULINY 1971, 86). Заметим, что язык восточнословацкой письменности так и остался на периферии интересов Э. Паулини, однако предложенный им термин получил распространение,4 хотя его сущность так и не была определена. Его отличие от литературного микроязыка состоит в том, что этот идиом не признается литературным вследствие того, что он не был кодифицирован.5 Более того, некоторые авторы пишут о том, что в нем отсутствовала норма (KRAJČOVIČ / ŽIGO 2002, 107), хотя это утверждение является следствием отождествления кодификации и нормы, довольно распространенного в словакистике6. С нашей точки зрения, говорить о существовании некоего «культурного» идиома можно только в том случае, если тексты, написанные на нем, имеют 4 5 6 Об истории формирования концепции трех культурных языков в словакистике см. (ЛИФАНОВ 2001, 6-11). В действительности грамматики, описывающие идиомы восточнословацкого типа, имели место, о чем см. ниже. Так, например, один из наиболее крупных словацких теоретиков языка Я. Горецкий вообще считает понятие норма избыточным, так как в его понимании норма совпадает с литературным языком (HORECKÝ 1979, 19). Язык восточнословацких текстов 169 сходные черты, которые обнаруживают их взаимосвязи друг с другом. Поиск этих взаимосвязей и является целью данной статьи. Языковой характер восточнословацких памятников письменности в Средневековье Языковая ситуация в Восточной Словакии на протяжении многих веков была чрезвычайно сложной, поскольку здесь функционировало несколько идиомов, имевших разную природу. Для того чтобы установить их сущность и сделать вывод о том, возможно ли идентифицировать их все в совокупности или какой-либо из них в отдельности как литературный микроязык или культурный восточнословацкий язык необходимо проанализировать их генетическую структуру, выявить механизм возникновения и установить их соотношение с идиомами, функционировавшими в других регионах Словакии. На данный момент это задача будущего, так как словакистика еще не располагает всем необходимым материалом для исчерпывающего решения этой задачи, поскольку подробно не изучены соответствующие тексты в сопоставительном аспекте. Тем не менее, определенные факты уже накоплены, поэтому можно делать предварительные заключения, которые в дальнейшем необходимо будет проверять и уточнять на более широком языковом материале. Истоки формирования особого идиома, функционировавшего в Восточной Словакии («восточнословацкого литературного микроязыка»), находят уже в XV веке и подтверждают это главным образом языковыми особенностями двух памятников: «Молитвами Спишского капитула, произносимые во время проповеди» (Modlitby pri kázni Spišskej kapituly) 1480 г. (ДУЛИЧЕНКО 2011, 413) и письма разбойников жителям г. Бардеёва (list zbojníkov Bardejovčanom) предположительно 1493 г. (KRAJČOVIČ / ŽIGO 2002, 107). Заметим, что данные тексты относятся к разным жанрам письменности и имеют разный языковой характер. Что касается последнего, то действительно в очень небольшом по объему тексте преобладают восточнословацкие языковые особенности, которые, однако, отражаются непоследовательно. Хорошо известно, что стержнем, вокруг которого в средневековье организовывались все существовавшие тексты, включая светские, являлась богослужебная литература (НАУМОВ 1995), поэтому данный текст может быть отнесен к абсолютной периферии письменного языка, поскольку язык разбойников, естественно, не может считаться вершиной в иерархии текстов в плане их литературности. 7 «Молитвы Спишского капитула», напротив, следует отнести 7 Под литературностью в данном контексте мы имеем в виду наличие определенных правил построения текста и более строгое использование языковых средств, характеризующихся селективностью и тенденцией к нормированному употреблению в соответствии с существующими канонами. Названный текст, однако, характеризует достаточно свободное использование языковых элемен- 170 Константин Лифанов именно к ядерному корпусу текстов, однако они написаны на чешском языке лишь с отдельными восточнословацкими элементами. Наличие этих элементов не представляет собой особого восточнословацкого явления, поскольку проникновение в литературный язык локальных диалектных элементов было характерной особенностью памятников средневековой письменности в целом. В других текстах словацкого происхождения мы можем найти особенности иных диалектных зон, например, в формулах крещения и венчания «Остригомского ритуала» (Ostrihomský rituál) 1625 г. среднесловацкие, в «Жилинской книге» (Žilinská kniha) 1378-1561 гг. (на чешском языке со словакизмами с 1473 г.) северные западнословацкие и т.д. В отношении, например, памятников древнерусской письменности еще Г.О. Винокур указывал на то, что ее язык, «какими бы стилистическими приметами он ни отличался, это в принципе язык диалектный» (ВИНОКУР 1959, 67). Вместе с тем, сочетание в текстах церковнославянской и русской языковых стихий обусловили наддиалектный характер языка древнерусских памятников (ГУХМАН 1970, 524). Аналогичную функцию особенно на ранних этапах развития словацкой письменности выполняли богемизмы, значение которых с течением времени снижалось. Кроме вышесказанного, оба названных памятника для XV в. являются изолированными, не имеющими аналогов, поэтому говорить о зарождении особой восточнословацкой письменной традиции уже в XV в. на основании этих текстов не приходится. Иная ситуация наблюдается в более поздний период, представленный значительным корпусом текстов, многие из которых в языковом отношении отличаются своеобразием. С целью выяснения сущности возникшего идиома были изучены тексты восточнословацкой деловой письменности XVII – XVIII вв. Анализ показал, что многие важнейшие особенности восточнословацкого диалекта в данных текстах отражаются весьма непоследовательно и даже полностью отсутствуют (LIFANOV 1997). Наибольшая степень насыщенности диалектными элементами характеризует записи показаний свидетелей в суде, особенно если используется прямая речь или придаточные предложения, заменяющие прямую речь. Это объясняется тем, что перед записывающим стояла сложная задача зафиксировать текст в соответствии с языковыми нормами того времени и одновременно сохранить аутентичность высказывания, в том числе и в языковом отношении. В связи с последним подобные записи содержат значительные отклонения от типичной формы административного стиля, использовавшегося в Восточной Словакии, приближаясь к диалекту, но полностью с ним не совпадая. Приведем пример подобного тов, последствием которого является проникновение в него значительного количества диалектизмов. Язык восточнословацких текстов 171 текста, обращая внимание на практически последовательное отражение ассибиляции, т.е. изменения ť > c, ď > dz8: Thomku zohab ti doma tu huniu wezmi datczo inssoho napic; pred Potressom powedal takto... a tak hodziel gdzes wnoczi, a rano prisol wrosseni i ukriwaweni, a iesce poweda ne wedzeli abi bil zabit ten clowek z zenu; opital se ia Tomka preczo biel ioho; na to on odpowedziel, at poweda ze ia na nioho wyiawiel az cloweka z zenu zabiel, a kat na nioho wiyawial, wsak to wsitczi ludze wedza (1608 Стропков). В наиболее типичных же записях деловой письменности восточнословацкого происхождения, как и в соответствующих западнословацких текстах,9 ассибилированные согласные подвергаются реституции и на их месте находим главным образом соответствующие мягкие согласные ť a ď: dawame na wedeny (1603 Быстре); magi... luku buduczu gim w ruki pustiti (1603 Быстре); item hlopu co hodil do Kossic robit…10 (1671 Брезовица-над-Торисоу); sem y tam po swete se rozegsti (1688 Дравце); na treti mesycz daly sme dewet y trycet nemeckych zlatych (1686 Лачнов); budie mat odplatu od neg (1690 Соливар); wissyho Boha y na tom swietie take y na druhim (1690 Соливар); co na mne pridje (1676 Комитат 10 копейщиков11); menteki dve gedna velmi djerava (XVIII Комитат 10 копейщиков); gak totisto ziadano bude (1787 Комитат 10 копейщиков). Для того чтобы установить, в каком отношении находится деловая письменность, созданная в разных регионах Словакии, и таким образом определить сущность языка восточнословацкой письменности, необходима специальная методика его изучения. В этом смысле чрезвычайно важное значение имеют такие диалектные элементы, которые различаются по всем словацким диалектам, например формы мужского рода 8 Далее в этом разделе приводятся примеры главным образом из рукописных памятников, фотокопии которых хранятся в Историческом отделении Института языкознания Людовита Штура в Братиславе в коллекциях под названием «Письменные памятники Шаришского и Земплинского комитатов. XVII – XVIII вв.» (Písomnosti Šarišskej a Zemplínskej župy. XVII. - XVIII. storočie), «Письма Комитата 10 копейщиков. XVII – XVIII вв.» (Listy Stolice 10 kopejníkov. XVII. - XVIII. storočie) и «Протоколы XVII – XVIII вв. Прешов» (Protokoly XVII. - XVIII. storočia. Prešov). 9 В ряде говоров западнословацкого диалекта также имеет место указанная ассибиляция мягких согласных, однако она довольно быстро устраняется из языка письменных текстов. 10 В инфинитивах, возможно, употреблена чешская форма с твердым формантом. Аналогично под влиянием чешского языка могут выступать и числительные с твердым согласным в конце основы. 11 Комитат 10 копейщиков (Stolica 10 kopejníkov) — особое территориальное образование, существовавшее на территории Спиша с XII в. 172 Константин Лифанов единственного числа причастий на -l. Примечательно, что в восточнословацких текстах обнаруживаются генетически разнородные формы, из которых наибольшее значение для выявления механизма формирования языка восточнословацкой деловой письменности имеют формы со вставным гласным е, однозначно являющиеся западнословацкими. Ср. примеры: budto pekar, neb inši pospolity človek, bohaty, neb chudobny, mleťi prinesel (1675 Левоча); a gestly bi som nehtyel aneb totisto nemohel dawam zupelnu mocz Geg Milosti paneg (1768?); z nih gedno drahe... ukradel a utiekel (1738 Прешов); padel gest los (1750 Прешов); co sprawedliwym spusobem na mne wzat mohel (1727 Комитат 10 копейщиков); sebe satisfactiu ucziniti mohel (1741 Комитат 10 копейщиков). Кроме генетически западнословацких форм в изученных текстах также были зафиксированы типичные среднесловацкие (встречающиеся, однако, и в некоторых западнословацких говорах, а также в западно- и центральноспишских восточнословацкого диалекта) со вставным гласным о и чешские формы со слоговым l в конце основы: ponewacz pan Fornosegi Giorgi nemohol odlozit tich sto a pec... zlatich (1635 Комитат 10 копейщиков); ponewač som nyepriwizol panu wino (1680 Прешов); Dzura Drab, ktery pomohol tie statky odhanacz (1685 Баеров); ponewaz gak lonskeho tak take y tohoto roku marecz witekol; priwezol tak tess 12 becžek wody; nebo on mne prinesol wssetko (1750 Прешов); a gdi on issol do Sendala wibiehl tot ssami kuon toho cloweka (1608 Стропков); padl gest los (1750 Прешов). Приведенные примеры свидетельствуют о том, что восточнословацкие тексты определенным образом были связаны не только с западнословацкими, но и с чешскими текстами. Этот факт подтверждается также наличием других генетически разнородных форм, представленных в памятниках восточнословацкой письменности. Так, например, в формах прилагательных мужского рода фиксируются типичные чешские, западнословацкие и западные восточнословацкие формы с гласным e во флексии, северные среднесловацкие с гласным ie и восточные восточнословацкие с гласным o. Ср. примеры из шаришских и земплинских административно-правовых документов Stegto strany Yarku mlinskeho (1658); na luky Stropkowskie (1606); Agnietha Istvana Radomskoho sestra (1608). Для установления генезиса языка словацкой письменности чрезвычайно важен тот факт, что в западнословацких текстах представлены только формы с гласным е, а в среднесловацких – формы с гласным e, а также с гласными ie (северный вариант) и i (южный вариант). Из сказанного вытекает, что типичный восточнословацкий идиом, представленный в административно-деловых документах, а также в других жанрах письменности, находился в русле общесловацкой письменной традиции и представлял собой ее региональный вариант гибридного типа. При этом формирование этого идиома происходило поэтапно: сна- Язык восточнословацких текстов 173 чала он возникает в Юго-Западной Словакии, откуда распространяется в Северо-Западную и Среднюю Словакию, сохраняя основные характеристики и одновременно приобретая локальную окраску в виде местных диалектных особенностей, которые, однако, полностью не вытесняют исконные элементы. Из Средней Словакии же он распространяется в Восточную, становясь там доминирующим и также приобретая местные диалектные особенности. Именно этим можно объяснить такое генетическое разнообразие элементов, представленных в восточнословацких текстах (LIFANOV 2002). Вместе с тем, особенностью всех регионов Словакии, включая восточнословацкий, было то, что степень проникновения региональных элементов широко варьировалась от приближения к диалектным записям до практически полного воспроизведения текстов западнословацкого происхождения. В качестве примера приведем один из последних текстов «Левочских формул присяг» XV – XIX вв. (ŠTOLC 1951), в котором только одна форма предл. пад. ед. ч. притяжательного местоимения mojim выдает его восточнословацкое происхождение, однако соответствующая форма прилагательного dobrem имеет западнословацкое или чешское происхождение. Также восточнословацкими диалектными формами мы можем считать причастия на -l privezol и prinesol,12 но и в данном случае фиксируется типичная западнословацкая форма mohel. Formula Juramenti Molitorum Prisaham Bohu všemohucimu, Otcu, Synu a Duchu svatemu, blahoslavenej P. Marii,všeckym svatym a vyvolenym božim, že v mojim mlyne podle uridzeni slavneho magistratu a p[ana] arendatora povinosti moje mlynarske podle možnosti mojej pilne a verne vyplniti chcem. Budinky ku mlynu prinaležice nezanedbam, ani kaziti nebudem, ale od škody chraniti a v dobrem stave držati budem. Panu arendatorovi poslušnost a uctivost slibujem, obz[v]laštne ale jemu prinaležice myto od jedneho každeho odbirati budem, nikemu neodpustim a od nikeho vicej, jak prinaleži, neveznem. Odnate myto hnedky do kasty ku tej potrebe pritomnej vsypem, ništ neodložim a pre sebe nezadržim. Bez cedulky p. Arendatora žadne zrno do mlyna neveznem a jestli by nekdo privezol, alebo prinesol, pokud mi cedulku, aneb dovoleni p[ana] arendatora nepreukaže, na mleni nasypat nedopustim. Jestli by sem zbadal, že nekdo znamenite vicej zrna do mlyna dava, jako na cedulki vyložene jest, alebo ustne oznamuje, techdy takovu vec p. arendatorovi oznamim a pokud on nedovoli, zrno takove nasypat a zemlet nedam. Kdyby se mezi p[anom] arendatorom a nekterymi ji12 Приведенные формы с вставным гласным [о] представлены в спишском говоре восточнословацкого диалекта, на территории распространения которого находится г. Левоча. От соответствующих среднесловацких форм они отличаются отсутствием дифтонга в корне и билабиального [u] в абсолютном конце (priviezou, priniesou). 174 Константин Лифанов nymi straniva miery aneb myta roztržitost stala, v takej prihode len podle uridzeni p[ana] arendatora tak dluho pokračuvat budem, pokud slavny magistrat inač neuridi. Pri mleni taki poradek zachovavat budem, aby chudobny tak jako možny zrno sve zemlet mohel, jako ja sam pri mleni nikeho neukrivdim tak, aby zkrz mojich domacich, aneb zkrz moju čeladku, aneb zkrz jinych nikdo ukrivdeny nebol a do škody neprišel, jak vedne tak v noci starost mati budem. Jednym slovem, povinosti moje mlynarske tak zachovavat a vyplniti se usilovat chcem a budem, jak je dobry krestian a statečny majster a meštan podle svedomi plniti povinen jest. Nech mi tak Boch pomaha a jeho svate slovo. В целом же текст написан в соответствии с нормами, сформировавшимися в Юго-Западной Словакии и распространившимися оттуда по территории всей Словакии. Отметим также важный факт, что на этом идиоме в Восточной Словакии создавались многие тексты, наиболее важным из которых является первый полный перевод Библии, осуществленный монахами ордена камальдулов в Червеном Клашторе на Спише во второй половине 50-х гг. XVIII в. Как отмечает И. Котулич, этот язык использовался на всей территории Словакии, включая Восточную, также в качестве языка обучения, в том числе и в Кошицком университете, о чем свидетельствует большое количество написанных на нем учебных пособий с пометой «для использования молодежью словацких школ» (KOTULIČ 1992). Таким образом, наиболее распространенный в Восточной Словакии идиом находился в русле развития словацкой письменной традиции и представлял собой лишь региональный вариант общесловацкого идиома. После первой кодификации словацкого литературного языка А. Бернолаком (бернолаковщины), осуществленной в 1787 г., Восточная Словакия также не осталась в стороне от общесловацкого процесса. Здесь, в Соливаре, в 1792-1794 гг. находился опорный пункт Словацкого ученого товарищества, а в кошицкой типографии печатались книги на бернолаковщине. Язык духовных книг восточнословацких кальвинистов Рассмотренный идиом, однако, не был единственным, функционировавшим на территории Восточной Словакии. Широко известен факт использования другого идиома восточнословацкими кальвинистами. В 1750-1758 гг. были опубликованы пять книг религиозного содержания, три в прозе и две рифмованные. Переиздавались они и позже, в XIX и начале XX вв. Последняя книга вышла в 1923 г. В этих книгах использовалась старовенгерская орфография, и представляли они собой переводы с венгерского языка, что не удивительно, поскольку центром кальвинизма в Венгрии был город Дебрецен, где еще в 1536 г. был основан Кальвинистский коллегиум (ныне – Теологическая академия), в котором Язык восточнословацких текстов 175 обучались будущие священники. В Дебрецене названные книги и были опубликованы. Как показало исследование П. Кирая (KIRÁLY 2006), переводчиками этих книг были два человека: прозаические тексты переводил Георгиус Ессениус, а рифмованные – Андраш Шпацаи. Ессениус был учеником Яна Валесиуса, этнического чеха, проповедника венгерской кальвинистской церкви в Раце (Западная Словакия, недалеко от города Сеница). При поддержке Валесиуса Ессениус стал учеником Кальвинистского коллегиума в Дебрецене в 1733 г. После его окончания он возвращается в Рацу, где был в 1736 г. посвящен в священники Валесиусом и стал проповедником «чешской странствующей церкви». Андраш Шпацаи был родом из местечка Шпачинце, расположенного к северу от Трнавы. Таким образом, оба переводчика не были по происхождению восточными словаками. Считается, что указанные кальвинистские тексты были написаны почти на чистом земплинском говоре и содержат лишь незначительные следы чешского языка и среднесловацкого диалекта (PAULINY 1971, 86), однако даже беглого взгляда достаточно, чтобы обнаружить в них, в частности в книге «Голос набожного пения» (S[PÁTZAI] 1752), элементы не восточнословацкого происхождения: Na viszokém jaszném (земпл. na visokim jasnim) nyebe Szláva vetsní Bose tebe (16); Abrahamoj Pátriárchoj taki to reknól (земпл. rik) (17); Hadovi (земпл. hadoj) kedi hrosél (17); Na szvê (земпл. svojo) tslovetsensztvo patrácz (17); Dál jim motz takej szlávi, Szinami (земпл. sinoma) Bozskima, Abi bulyi chtoré (земпл. chtori) by vnyém (19).13 Наконец, информация о переводчиках текстов вызывает сомнения относительно традиционной характеристики их языка, в связи с чем он нуждается в более подробном изучении. Особенностью данного идиома было то, что он оставался узко конфессиональным, использовавшимся исключительно как язык богослужения. По данным П. Кирая, кальвинисты в Восточной Словакии имели около двадцати храмов и насчитывали около 10 тысяч человек (KIRÁLY 2006, 32). По данным, приводимым Ю. Месарошем, в 1720 г. в Восточной Словакии проживало 149 тыс. человек (MÉSÁROŠ 1964, 182). Очевидно, что к 50-м гг. XVIII в. их было более 150 тыс. Среди кальвинистов значительное количество составляли венгры, проживавшие в Вос13 В рассматриваемых текстах фиксируются также долгие гласные, на основании чего Е. Паулини предпологает, что в земплинском говоре долгие гласные существовали еще в XVIII в. Заметим, что Р. Крайчович считает, что долгие гласные в восточнословацком диалекте начали утрачиваться в XV в., и данный процесс завершился уже в начале XVI в. (KRAJČOVIČ 1988, 79). Против предположения Э. Паулини свидетельствует также то, что в более позднем «Трактире» Я. Андрашчика (ANDRÁŠČIK 1886) и «Очерке шаришской грамматики» 1875 г. А. Урбана (URBAN 1875) также представлены долгие гласные, хотя и непоследовательно. 176 Константин Лифанов точной Словакии. Таким образом, по самым благоприятным подсчетам кальвинисты словацкой народности в Восточной Словакии составляли не более 5% ее населения. Это вполне коррелирует с современными данными о численном составе представителей религиозных конфессий в Словакии. Так, по данным подсчета населения 2011 г. представители кальвинистской церкви во всей Словакии составляли 1,8 % населения. Поскольку они живут главным образом в Восточной Словакии, то там их количество будет составлять приблизительно не более тех же 5%. Таким образом, данный идиом вследствие того, что он использовался лишь небольшой частью населения Восточной Словакии, причем весьма функционально ограниченно, не может претендовать на статус восточнословацкого литературного языка, поскольку являлся сакральным языком восточнословацких кальвинистов. Отметим также то, что его использование в Восточной Словакии в качестве языка богослужения было обусловлено в значительной степени внешним фактором, а именно: тесной духовной связью с венгерскими собратьями по вере, составлявшими преобладающую ветвь протестантизма в Венгрии. При этом кальвинистскими приходскими священниками в Словакии были главным образом венгры, которые читали молитвы и пели религиозные песни либо на венгерском языке, либо на рассматриваемом идиоме (SEDLÁK 1997, 12). Когда же часть словацких кальвинистов переселилась в США, в результате чего эта связь разрушилась, они стали ощущать «неотвратимую потребность в создании единой организации <…> для их (кальвинистов – К.Л.) воспитания в духе словацкого патриотизма» (UHERKA 1951, 122). В связи с этим они стали издавать свою газету «Словенски Кальвин» на словацком литературном языке. Характеристику языка кальвинистских книг, а также более поздних изданий, содержащих восточнословацкие диалектные элементы, еще в 1906 г. дал С. Цамбел: «В словацких книгах, созданных кальвинистами, и в школьных учебниках (издававшихся для носителей восточнословацкого диалекта – К. Л.) обнаруживается сильное влияние словацкого и, частично, чешского литературных языков. „Šenk Paľenčeni“ Андрашчика у нас считают образцом восточнословацкой речи. <...> Это ошибочная точка зрения. <...> создатель (этого произведения – К. Л.) смешал со своим шаришским говором все словацкие диалекты» (CZAMBEL 1906, 189-190). Заметим, что данное утверждение С. Цамбела осталось практически не замеченным. Восточнословацкие тексты XIX – XX вв. «Šenk Paľenčeni» («Трактир») Я. Андрашчика – это рифмованная пьеса против пьянства, впервые изданная в 1845 г. и затем несколько раз переиздававшаяся, в том числе и в переводе на словацкий литературный язык. Мы используем при анализе текст, изданный в Будапеште в 1886 Язык восточнословацких текстов 177 г. (ANDRÁŠČIK 1886). Текст данной пьесы, в отличие от книг кальвинистов, был издан готическим шрифтом, характерным для бернолаковщины, с использованием специфической графики. Некоторые звуки обозначаются так же, как они обозначались в добернолаковских текстах. Так, [j] обозначается графемой ‹g›, [š] – диграфом ‹ss›, [í], хотя в восточнословацком диалекте в целом отсутствует фонологическая долгота, – графемой ‹j›. Представлены и другие графемы, обозначающие долгие гласные, хотя и непоследовательно: ‹á› и ‹é›, как в словацком и чешском литературных языках, и ‹ů› – как в чешском, однако в тексте пьесы, в отличие от чешского языка, оно обозначает всякое долгое [ú], а не только восходящее к [ó]. Я. Андрашчик сохраняет графемы ‹y›, ‹ý›, хотя они отсутствовали в литературном языке, кодифицированном как А. Бернолаком, так и Л. Штуром. Мягкость согласных [ť], [ď] и [ň] перед [е] не обозначается 14, а мягкое [ľ] изредка фиксируется как [li]. С утверждением С. Цамбела относительно гибридного характера языка данной пьесы невозможно не согласиться. Для наглядности приведем небольшой фрагмент, демонстрирующий это (ANDRÁŠČIK 1886, 9): Straňme už, leženia – nič nám neosožj; Slowá furmanowo – wčul sů otewrené, Gak wečer powjdal, - že sme otrowené. Taká mi na ůdy – welká mdloba zassla, Gakoby sa nemoc – na mjm tele pasla... В приведенном фрагменте фиксируются генетически среднесловацкий дифтонг ia (leženia) и долгота в форме slowá, западнословацкая лексема včul “сейчас”, восточнословацкая форма им. падежа мн. числа притяжательного прилагательного furmanowo, чешская стяженная форма предл. падежа ед. числа притяжательного местоимения mjm. Более того, в тексте пьесы представлены отнюдь не только элементы разных словацких говоров. Действие пьесы происходит в русинском селе, поэтому в речи персонажей в значительной степени фиксируются также элементы русинского языка. Ср., например, словоформу, отражающую восточнославянский рефлекс праславянского сочетания *tj > č (hoču), полногласие (holowa), глагольные формы 3 лица настоящего времени с конечным [t] (ANDRÁŠČIK 1886, 10, 20): 14 Мягкие согласные [ť], [ď] в тексте пьесы встречаются редко вследствие того, что на их месте фиксируются характерные для восточнословацкого диалекта ассибилированные [c] и [dz]. 178 Константин Лифанов Teper i ga hoču – už Wás poslůhati, Gak ssa mi začala – holowa ssčipati. Eň nehodzen dnesska – daleg massirowac, Budzem sse tu – toťim prislůhowac. Napjma ssa teper, - bo už mame z čoho, Paliunka nás učit, - gak sůditi koho... Bo znate, nemagut, - krom lachy na tele; Ale obskaržene – magut s čim platiti. Кроме того, автор при помощи разных иноязычных и инодиалектных элементов пытается охарактеризовать своих героев, что одновременно со значительным количеством непроизвольно употребленных элементов чешского, западнословацкого и среднесловацкого происхождения создает картину механического соединения генетически разнородных элементов и отсутствия каких-либо закономерностей их употребления. В языковом отношении и с точки зрения графики и орфографии пьеса Я. Андрашчика стоит особняком и не корреспондирует с другими текстами. В вышеприведенной цитате из работы С. Цамбела упоминаются также школьные учебники, издававшиеся при активной поддержке венгерского правительства для восточнословацких детей. С 60-х гг. XIX в., особенно после создания Австро-Венгрии, набирает силу мадьяризация не венгерских народов Венгрии, в наибольшей степени затрагивающая Восточную Словакию. Особенно активно она проходит в системе образования. В это время существенно сокращается число восточнословацких школ, в которых обучение велось на словацком литературном языке. Доминирующим становится венгерский язык, однако в некоторых школах обучение переводилось на «словьяцкий язык» — идиом, в значительной степени состоявший из элементов восточнословацкого диалекта. Словацкие историки оценивают этот факт как скрытую форму мадьяризации (TAJTÁK 1970, 57). Не удивительно, что спустя определенное время эти школы также переходили на венгерский язык. К сожалению, нам не удалось изучить язык указанных учебников, хотя получить представление о нем можно на основе «Очерка шаришской грамматики» А. Урбана, написанной по инициативе венгерского правительства именно для того, чтобы стать руководством по языку при создании этих учебников. Парадигмы в грамматике А. Урбана имеют с генетической точки зрения очевидно гибридный, а потому искусственный характер. В качестве примера приведем парадигму множественного Язык восточнословацких текстов 179 числа склонения неодушевленных существительных трех родов (URBAN 1875, 7-8)15: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dvori, -e dvoroch dvorom dvori, -e dvori, -e dvoroch dvorami Slová slov slovom slová slová slovoch slovámi Ženi žen ženom ženi ženi ženoch ženami С одной стороны, приведенная парадигма характеризуется типичным для восточнословацкого диалекта отсутствием противопоставления существительных мужского рода существительным иных родов по качеству гласного в формах дат. и предл. падежей (лит. dvorom, dvoroch : slovám, ženám, slovách, ženách), а с другой — омонимия род. и предл. падежей, характерная для восточнословацкого диалекта, в парадигмах грамматики распространяется только на существительные мужского рода, что не соответствует ни восточнословацкому диалекту, ни литературному языку (всл. dvoroch – dvoroch, slovoch – slovoch, ženoch – ženoch; лит. dvorov – dvoroch, slov – slovách, žien – ženách). В глагольном словоизменении наиболее яркими являются формы причастий на -l мужского рода, образованных от глаголов с основой на согласный и имеющих вставное о, как и в литературном языке, хотя для шаришского говора в названных формах характерна утрата конечного l. Ср. примеры из грамматики: predol, kladol, jedol, pasol, mohol. Обращает на себя внимание также обозначение долгих гласных, отсутствующих в восточнословацком диалекте (за исключением окраинных сотацких говоров). При этом обозначенная долгота по крайней мере визуально выполняет смыслоразличительную функцию. Ср. примеры: вин. пад. ед. ч. dobru : твор. пад. ед. ч. dobrú16, предл. пад. ед. ч. chtorim : твор. пад. ед. ч. chtorím. Из сказанного вытекает, что язык грамматики А. Урбана не соотносится ни со средневековыми восточнословацкими текстами, ни с языком кальвинистских духовных книг, ни с более поздними публикациями XX в. Можно предположить, что автор грамматики соединяет черты словацкого литературного языка и восточнословацкого диалекта, а также вно15 В грамматике А. Урбана, как и в старых словацких грамматиках, падежи традиционно обозначаются цифрами: 1. — именительный, 2. — родительный, 3. — дательный, 4. — винительный, 5. — звательный, 6. — предложный, 7. — творительный. 16 Интересно, что такое же явление, отсутствующее в словацких диалектах, представлено в кодификации А. Бернолака (BERNOLÁK 1964, 177). 180 Константин Лифанов сит в него некоторые иные особенности, руководствуясь собственными соображениями. Публикации XX в. по крайней мере с фонетической и морфологической точек зрения действительно восходят к восточнословацкому диалекту. Тексты эти в начале XX века выходили в Прешове, а в конце 30-х – начале 40-х гг. в Кошице, который по Венскому арбитражу отошел к Венгрии. Вероятно, идиом, зафиксированный в них, характеризуется наддиалектностью, поэтому вряд ли его следует называть шаришским, тем более что Кошице находится на территории распространения абовского, а не шаришского говора. Этот идиом существовал со значительным временным перерывом, т.е. практически только тогда, когда вся территория Восточной Словакии или ее часть входила в состав Венгрии, причем во второй период своего существования он находил опору в «Словьяцкой грамматике» Э. Добранского (DOBRANSKI 1941). Для того чтобы показать различие между языковым материалом грамматик А. Урбана и Э. Добранского, приведем из последней парадигмы тех же самых типов склонения, которые уже были приведены из грамматики А. Урбана (DOBRANSKI 1941, 17-21): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. domi domoch domom domi domi domoch domami koľesa koľesoch koľesom koľesa koľesa koľesoch koľesami hlavi hlavoch hlavom hlavi hlavi hlavoch hlavami Данные парадигмы являются однородными, отражающими особенности западных говоров восточнословацкого диалекта (спишских, шаришских и абовских). Пытаясь кодифицировать этот язык, автор бесспорно исходит из восточнословацкого диалекта. Об этом свидетельствует также отсутствие долгих гласных в системе языка, что, естественно, находит отражение в упрощении графики. Несмотря на значительный перерыв в использовании, можно утверждать, что существует преемственность между текстами, написанными в начале и в 40-е гг. XX в. Эта преемственность подчеркивается и названием журнала «Наше знамя» (Naša zastava), выходившего в оба рассматриваемых периода. Данный идиом ранее не изучался, поскольку к нему было и остается резко отрицательное отношение со стороны словацких лингвистов, однако с языковой точки зрения он представляет безусловный интерес как специфический региолект, выполнявший в определенной степени функции литературного языка. Его особенностью является однозначно восточнословацкая основа, хотя и с определенным влияни- Язык восточнословацких текстов 181 ем словацкого литературного языка в грамматике. Лексика же этого языка восходит к лексике словацкого литературного языка, которая адаптируется к фонетическим правилам восточнословацкого диалекта, а некоторые бытовые слова заменяются диалектными. В данной статье мы лишь приведем фрагменты журнала «Наша застава» 1910 и 1942 гг., демонстрирующие значительное сходство их языка. Naša zastava 1909 GRÖNLAND Z vlastnich skušenoscoch piše Agostin Károly Vzdelani, učeni človek ňe ľem preto pracuje, žebi on sam vižil a svoj chľeb vihľedal, aľe žebi i druhim miľionom ku užitku bul. Ku došahnucu teho ciľu veľoraz obetuje svoj čas, pokoj, majetek, rodzinne blaho, ba često ai vlastni život svoj. Ňeučeni, ňevzdelani človek je ku takej praci ňeschopni. Do dňes ňeznaľi bi sme ňič o veľkej Amerike, ňebul bi tam aňi jeden človek našeho kraju, ňebula bi znama pred nami Afrika, tota treca častka žemi, a druhe veľo kraje šveta, ňechodzeľi bi sme po žeľežňicoch, so šifami, ňehasnovaľi bi sme ňevislovňe užitečne nastroje telegrafu a telefonu, ňeuživaľi bi sme pomoc ňepočetnich mašinoch, bidni bi bul naš život, mizerne našo chovaňe, obzvlaštňe chudobňejšeho naroda, kedbi muderci a učeni ľudze ňebuľi pracovaľi, a sice zadarmo, bez svojeho zisku ľem z laski proci svojim bľiznim, pre milovaňe a rozširovaňe znamoscoch a vzdelanosci po calej žemi. Naša zastava 1942 PREVLASC SLOVJAKOCH Každi narod zvedavi je na svoju minulosc, na kraj, dze śe koľiska jich predkoch koľisala. Tu uverejňime, že zkadzi pochadzaľi našo predkove. Veľo śe pisalo, veľo śe hutorelo o tim, že prevlasc nas, Slovjakoch, tu bula pod poladňovima ubočami Karpatoch. Tak učeľi nas v školoch za 20 roki, tak rozpravjaľi, tak pisali o tim za českeho paňstva. Toto jich tverdzeňe aľe ňezodpoveda skutečnosci. Vekša častka učencoch s totu otazku śe zaobirajucich prevlasc Slavjanoch medzi Vislu a Bugom (vedľa druhich od Oderi až po Doňec), medzi Vichod, a Čarnim Morom, v Stredňej Europe až po pulnocne uboče Karpatoch hľeda. Prevlasc Slavjanoch bula medzi tima hraňicami, aľe na poladňove uboče Karpatoch, vtedi do našej terajšej vlasci, ľem pozdňejši, v V.-VII. stoľetu śe dostaľi. В плане функционирования данный идиом имел некоторые признаки литературного языка, в частности ограниченную полифункциональ- 182 Константин Лифанов ность, поскольку использовался в публицистике, художественной литературе (поэзия Виктора Дворчака, переводы художественных произведений с венгерского), предпринимались попытки ввести его в качестве обучения в школе. После второй мировой войны, однако, он прекратил существование. Заключение Из изложенного можно сделать вывод о том, что единого восточнословацкого литературного микроязыка (и культурного восточнословацкого языка) в истории восточнословацкой письменности не существовало, поскольку в каждый из периодов употреблявшиеся идиомы отличались практически по всем показателям: графике и орфографии, механизму их возникновения, гетерогенному или гомогенному характеру, сферам функционирования. Возникали лишь отдельные очаги восточнословацкой письменности, обусловленные разными причинами, имевшие разную природу, весьма ограниченную сферу употребления и различный языковой характер, что свидетельствует об отсутствии преемственности восточнословацкой письменности, а таким образом и единого литературно-языкового процесса. Эти языковые образования отличала гибридность, причем в их создании участвовали разные говоры восточнословацкого диалекта, а также словацкий и чешский литературные языки. На общем фоне выделяются тексты XX в., которые в языковом отношении характеризуются взаимосвязью. Изучение этого вопроса, однако, следует продолжить. Другой задачей представляется сопоставление языка современных текстов, содержащих восточнословацкие элементы, именно с этими текстами, поскольку отсутствие связи с памятниками письменности, относящихся к другим периодам, очевидно. ЛИТЕРАТУРА ВИНОКУР, Г. О. 1959. Избранные работы по русскому языку. Москва. ГУХМАН, М. М. 1970. Литературный язык. Общее языкознание. Формы существования, функции, история языка. Москва: 502-548. ДУЛИЧЕНКО, А. Д. 2005. Малые славянские литературные языки (микроязыки). Языки мира. Славянские языки. Москва: 595-615. – 2011. Основы славянской филологии. Т. II. Лингвистическая проблематика. Opole. ЛИФАНОВ, К. В. 2001. Генезис словацкого литературного языка. [LINCOM Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 21]. München. НАУМОВ, А. 1995. Средневековая литература и богослужение. Ricerche slavistiche 42: 49-59. ЧАРСКИЙ, В. В. 2011. Русинский язык Сербии и Хорватии в свете языковых контактов: лингвогенетический аспект. Щелково. Язык восточнословацких текстов 183 ANDRÁŠČIK, J. 1886. Šenk palenčeni. Budapest. BERNOLÁK, A. 1964. Slovenská gramatika. Gramatické dielo Antona Bernoláka. Na vydanie pripravil a preložil Juraj Pavelek. Bratislava: 113-530. CZAMBEL, S. 1906. Slovenská reč a jej miesto v rodine slovanských jazykov. Turčiansky sv. Martin. DOBRANSKI, E. 1941. Slovjacka gramatika. Kassa (Košice). HALAGA, O. R. 2002. Východoslovenský slovník. Košice – Prešov. HNAŤUK, V. 2010. Trome braca. Petrikovce. HORECKÝ, J. 1979. Východiská k teórii spisovného jazyka. Z teórie spisovného jazyka. Bratislava: 13-22. JENČO, J. 2012. Zempľinske rozpravki – povidočki ňeľem pre dzecočki. Petrikovce. KIRÁLY, P. 2006. Vznik a zánik kalvínskej východoslovenčiny. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 51-1/2: 31-64. KOTULIČ, I. 1992. Bernolákovčina a predbernolákovská kultúrna západná slovenčina. Pamätnica Antona Bernoláka. Martin: 77-90. KRET, A. / VRANA, L. 2011. Evanjelium Ježiša Krista v spišskom nárečí. Bratislava. KRAJČOVIČ, R. / ŽIGO, P. 2002. Dejiny spisovnej slovenčiny. Bratislava. LIFANOV, K. 1997. Jazyk východoslovenských administratívnoprávnych pamiatok v stredoveku. Slovenská reč 62-3: 139-146. — 2002. Hierarchia kultúrnych jazykov v slovenských písomnostiach predkodifikačného obdobia. Slovenská reč 67-1: 19-29. MEĎEŠI, I. 2010. Kvaśna kňižka. Petrikovce. MÉSÁROŠ, J. 1964. Roľnícka otázka na východnom Slovensku. Príspevky k dejinám východného Slovenska. Bratislava. SEDLÁK, I. 1997. V letokruhoch národa. Martin. S[PÁTZAI], A. 1752. Hlasz pobosnoho spéványa. V Debretzinye. ŠTOLC, J. 1951. Jazyk levočských slovenských prísah zo XVII. - XIX. storočia. Jazykovedný sborník 5: 197-247. TAJTÁK, L. 1970. Maďarizačné tendencie na východnom Slovensku v druhej polovici 19. storočia. K slovenskému národnému vývinu na východnom Slovensku (1848-1918). Košice: 39-60. UHERKA, F. 1951. Slovenský Kalvín. Pamätnica zlatého jubilea Slovenskej kalvínskej presbyteriánskej jednoty v Amerike. Pittsburgh, PA: 122-137. URBAN, A. 1875. Sárosi tót nyelvtan vazlata. Eperjes. LANGUAGE SITUATION OF STATELESS GROUPS STRUGGLING FOR RECOGNITION THE CASE OF THE LEMKO LANGUAGE IN POLAND Ewa Michna (Kraków) Introduction One of the essential elements of culture providing a basis for creating group distinctiveness and continuity is language, and the development of a particular language is a frequent factor leading to the appearance of national identity and national groups (BILLIG 1995, 29-36). According to Michael Billig, in nationalist and general discourse, language is often seen as a fundamental attribute of the nation. As a result of these convictions, a group which aims to be seen as separate in national and ethnic terms must prove that it possesses its own language. Therefore, one of the essential strategies in the struggle for recognition is the ability to prove the distinctiveness of the language of the group. The codification of a language and its protection as a valuable element of cultural heritage is usually one of the basic demands made by ethnic groups in their attempts to attain emancipation (BILLIG 1995, 29-36). In contemporary times, language emancipation has benefited from changes in international law regarding respect for fundamental language rights. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has played an important role in the protection of linguistic diversity in Europe and the realization of the aspirations of those groups wishing to preserve this element of their cultural heritage (DOŁOWY-RYBIŃSKA 2011, 51). In this article I intend to present the language situation of the Lemkos, a community which has fought for legal recognition since the return of democracy in 1989. The Lemkos attained this recognition thanks to the 2005 Act on national minorities and ethnic and regional languages. The language situation analyzed in this article requires, in my opinion, that we take into account both the specific situation of the group in question, in that it is stateless and divided with regard to its identity, and also the context in which the fight for recognition as a separate group took place. The considerations contained in this article are based on the results of empirical research carried out since the mid-1990s among ethnic activists of the Lemko community. This research consisted of in-depth, open-ended interviews dealing with broadly understood issues of group identity. An important element of these conversations was discussion of such issues as the relationship between identity and language, the codification of the Lemko language, the teaching of Lemko in schools, and the future of the language. Interviews from the second half of the 1990s, i.e., the beginning of the codification of the Lemko language and its systematic introduction into the public sphere, Language situation of stateless groups 185 showed the early stages of the standardization of Lemko and efforts to achieve recognition for it.1 The empirical material is supplemented by interviews, conducted in July and September 2015 with members of the Lemko community, namely, activists in the preservation, development and dissemination of standard Lemko; Lemko language teachers; Greek Catholic and Orthodox clergy from Lemko parishes, some of whom also teach their ethnic language. The material assembled in the course of these interviews is accompanied by the results of observation of events such as ethnic festivals and the Congresses of the Rusyn Language in Prešov (1999) and in Kraków (2007), by the analysis of Lemko press publications, the programs of the Lemko internet radio lem.fm, and material to be found on the radio website. The interviewees were chosen according to fixed criteria. I decided to interview those individuals who have participated since the early 1990s in the standardization of the Lemko language and who are active participants in the efforts to achieve recognition of Lemko as an independent language and state protection for it, who organize the teaching of Lemko both in and outside schools, and who promote the position of the language in various aspects of the public sphere. The interviewees act to preserve the position of Lemko in numerous fields, and some of them are also authors, teachers of Lemko language and members of Lemko organizations. They are important people for the Lemko community and act on behalf of the group. It is worth noting that in the case of stateless groups, which often lack professional groups for the protection and promotion of their language and educated, professional linguists, it is precisely the ethnic leaders who play a cardinal role in the question of the group language. It is they who create language policies, which, as Tomasz Wicherkiewicz has rightly observed over many years of research of collateral languages, are not the sole responsibility of the state, but also, in particular situations, that of ‘groups of language users’ (WICHERKIEWICZ 2014, 68). Ethnic activists attempt to realize ethnic aspirations in the name of community that they represent. This is true of the Lemko community, which I have analyzed since the beginning of the 1990s. The processes of language emancipation, which I have analyzed from an anthropological perspective in accordance with the norms of research, will be presented here from the perspective of the ethnic group itself. The material assembled enables the Lemko language situation to be presented from the point of view of those ethnic activists involved in the creation of language policies. The extent of support of ‘ordinary’ members of the Lemko community for such policies is a separate question, and one which will not be discussed in this analysis. It                                                                                                                         1 I have included the results of research on the standardization of the Rusyn language in several earlier publications (MICHNA 1995; 2004a). This research gives a context for the processes of the codification of the Lemko ethnolect. The Lemko language is described in a similar way by Tomasz WICHERKIEWICZ (Poland’s…); Paul Robert MAGOCSI (2004) and Michael HORNSBY (2015a; 2015b). 186 Ewa Michna only occurs here in the comments of ethnic activists who act on behalf of the community. The article is divided into three parts. First, I wish to present general remarks about the group, the Lemko language, and the language situation of the group. In the second section, I will focus on the activities of ethnic activists who have been involved in the process of standardization of the Lemko language and in efforts for its promotion and teaching in schools since the fall of communism and the beginnings of democratic civic society in Poland. In the third part of this article, I will describe what I consider to be the deciding factors for the language situation of the Lemkos in Poland. I will focus on three elements: the functioning of the languages of small ethnic groups without their own state; the internal situation of the group; and the policies of the Polish state for the protection of minorities. 1. General remarks 1.1. The Lemko ethnic group The Lemkos are one of several highland ethnic groups whose autochthonous territory is located in the Carpathian Mountains in the southeast of Poland. According to the most recent figures, taken from the 2011 census, 9,640 Polish citizens declared that they belonged to the Lemko minority (Minorities 2011). Lemkos are usually members of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches. The group is divided with regard to ideas of ethnic identity. Some Lemkos self-identify as Ukrainians, while others state that Lemkos and Ukrainians are distinct ethnic groups. The origin of these divisions concerning ethnic identity is to be found in the early period of the development of national identity among the Lemko population at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries (MICHNA 1995; MOKLAK 1987; 1993; NOWAKOWSKI 1992; ZIĘBA 2007; 2008). They were institutionalized after the social and political transformation of 1989. In April of that year, a new law on associations was passed, which abolished hitherto existing restrictions on the registration of organizations, thus allowing the free activity of minority representatives. Among those who availed themselves of the opportunities offered by this new law were members of the Lemko community, who formed two organizations, the Union of Lemkos (Об'єднання Лемків), a grouping of those members of the community who saw themselves as ethnic Ukrainians, and the Lemko Society (Стоваришыня Лемків), which consisted of Lemkos wishing to achieve emancipation. Although there is insufficient data to show the degree of support for these opposing national programs, most contemporary sociological and anthropological research on the Lemko community has shown a division along the lines of ideas of identity in the group (MICHNA 1995; NOWAK 2000). It is certain that some estimates can be made based on the results of the 2011 census, in which respondents could declare two Language situation of stateless groups 187 nationalities.2 The census showed that only a small number of Lemkos, when stating that they were a separate group, declared that they had a connection to the Ukrainian nation. Out of 10,000 declarations of Lemko identity, 283 individuals stated that their second national identity was Ukrainian. Moreover, 801 individuals belonging to the Ukrainian minority in Poland declared that they were also members of the Lemko ethnic group (Czwarty… 2013). The Lemkos are scattered across Poland, with a small minority inhabiting the Lemkovyna (in Polish, Łemkowszczyzna) region in the Carpathians, the original territory of the Lemkos. The remainder are to be found in the western and northern regions of Poland. The expulsion of the Lemkos from Lemkovyna took place in two stages. The first, which took place between 1944 and 1946, involved the transfer of the Lemko population according to the terms of the agreement concluded in September 1944 between the Polish Committee of National Liberation and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic concerning the ‘repatriation’ of Poles from the territory of the Ukrainian SSR and of Ukrainians from Poland. As a result of this agreement, 70% of the inhabitants of Lemkovyna were moved to Soviet Ukraine (MISIŁO 1996; 1999). The second stage of deportations, in 1947, given the official name of Operation Vistula, resulted in the forced transfer of the remaining 30% of the Lemko population, seen as Ukrainians, to the western and northern regions of Poland. Resettlements affected the entire Lemko community, leading to a complete transformation of the ethnic nature of the Lemkovyna region, which was cleared of its autochthonous inhabitants and resettled with Poles. Although after 1956 the authorities allowed the return of individual Lemkos, this did not take place on a large scale. Both waves of expulsions led to the permanent dispersal of the Lemkos. The majority found themselves in Ukraine, while those that remained in Poland are divided into those who still inhabit Lemkovyna and the remainder, significantly more numerous but scattered across the west of the country. This has had some influence on the status of the language of the group. This dual identity has particular significance for further analysis of the issue, in that it determines the attitude of group members to the Lemko language. Ukrainian Lemkos do not consider there to be a discrete Lemko language, but rather that Lemko is one of the dialects of Ukrainian. Ukrainian Lemkos do not support the standardization of the Lemko language, believing this to be unnecessary, since the Ukrainian language is the literary form of Lemko. According to Lemkos with a Ukrainian national consciousness, attempts to give Lemko a literary form will lead to the creation of an artificial language                                                                                                                         2 In the 2011 census, in accordance with suggestions made by minority groups, the following two questions were included: “What is your nationality understood as the national or ethnic affiliation?” and “Do you feel affiliated also to any other nation or ethnic group?” This enabled members of ethnic minorities to express their multilayered identities (BARWIŃSKI 2014, 222). 188 Ewa Michna whose archaic features will make it of little use in contemporary life. They see attempts to codify Lemko as anti-Ukrainian and aimed at weakening the Ukrainian minority in Poland (MICHNA 2004, 63-6). In contrast, those Lemkos who aim to achieve emancipation defend the idea of a distinct Lemko language.3 The standardization of the language, according it the status of a literary language, attempts to achieve official recognition as a distinct language, and the teaching of Lemko in schools were essential elements in their politics of identity and in the struggle for the acknowledgement of the particularity of the Lemko community, which, until the democratic transformation of 1989, was treated by the authorities of the Polish People’s Republic as part of the Ukrainian nation. In this article I intend to analyze the actions taken by Lemko activists who emphasized the distinctiveness of the Lemkos from the Ukrainian nation and attempted to achieve language emancipation. 1.2. Language or group of dialects? Status of Lemko language from the linguistic point of view It is accepted that Lemko is a member of the East Slavic language group. However, here the consensus regarding its classification ends, both among scholars and speakers of the language (MISIAK 2006, 107). From a linguistic perspective, Lemko belongs to the group of Rusyn highland dialects which most linguists include in the South Ukrainian dialect group, as has been shown by Janusz RIEGER (1995). At the same time, linguists note the particularity of the Lemko sub-dialect and the presence of borrowings from Polish, Slovak, Hungarian and Romanian (RIEGER 1995, 16-22). Lemko uses the grazhdanka. The alphabet used in the Lemko language norm consists of 34 letters (FONTAŃSKI 2004, 222-3). As Tomasz WICHERKIEWICZ has commented (Poland’s…), scholarly opinion is divided on the question as to whether the Lemko dialect represents a distinct language system (FONTAŃSKI, CHOMIAK 2000, 12), whether it is a local version of the Rusyn language (MAGOCSI 2004), or whether it is a sub-dialect of Ukrainian (ŁESIW 1997; RIEGER 1995). There have been numerous factors influencing the situation of the Lemko language, as has been the case with remaining Carpatho-Rusyn dialects. Aleksandr DULIČENKO (1981), who includes the Rusyn literary language among the Slavic literary microlanguages, has noted the following elements:                                                                                                                         3 Discussion of the status of the Lemko language, its distinct nature, and the issue of its standardization has been taking place since the early 1990s, mainly among ethnic activists involved in Lemko organizations. I have treated this issue in more detail elsewhere (MICHNA 1995; 2004b). Interesting new data on the attitude of Lemkos to their language can be found in the article by Michael HORNSBY (2015a), examining, as is stated in the introduction, Lemkos with a Ukrainian national consciousness. It is therefore important to take into consideration that this article presents the opinions chiefly of the opponents to the standardization of the Lemko language. Language situation of stateless groups 189 the peripheral nature of Lemko and its contact with other West-Slavic and non-Slavic languages, the influence of geographical location, considerably far from their ethnic Ukrainian heartland and significantly isolated from this language area, and, finally, the role of the state. Speakers of the language were far from the autochthonous Ukrainian territory, and the national entities of which they were citizens were subject to change, as, first, they were subjects of a multi-ethnic, non-Slavic empire and then citizens of West Slavic states. According to Duličenko (1981), from a historical/cultural and literary/linguistic point of view, the Carpatho-Rusyn language has for a long time manifested its separateness. Its uniqueness is also influenced by the specific ethnicity of its speakers, who have a strong sense of linguistic and religious identity, the latter factor being determined by the adherence of the CarpathoRusyn to the Orthodox and Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches. 1.3. The sociolinguistic situation of the group The Lemko language is a minority language in Poland. The Lemko community is characterized by asymmetric bilingualism, as Lemko is primarily spoken in private – in the home and with friends and neighbors. Lemko is the medium of communication in everyday situations and also during festivities, where group members speak in their language ‘in Church’, and also at events of an ethnic character. In an ethnically foreign environment, for example, at school, at work, and among ethnically Polish acquaintances, Lemkos speak Polish. The Lemko language is used above all in rural settings, where there are greater concentrations of Lemkos. As a result, the Lemkowyna region provides an environment which is much more favorable for the Lemko language than the western regions of Poland (MISIAK 2006, 111-2), where Lemkos, resettled as a result of the Operation Vistula, live mainly in the cities. In cities, even in family settings, Lemko is spoken only occasionally, and intergenerational transmission of the language is disappearing. The younger generation has a passive knowledge of Lemko – children and adolescents understand the language of their parents and grandparents but do not speak it (DUĆ-FAJER 2004). All the people I interviewed indicated that the decline in the transmission of the Lemko language from generation to generation has been accelerated by the increase in the number of mixed marriages. There is a lack of sociological research to specify the degree of linguistic assimilation of the Lemkos. The most recent available figures on the numbers of Lemko speakers are to be found in the 2011 census, in which 6,0004 citizens of Poland stated that they used the language in a domestic setting (Członkowie… 2011). The sociolinguist Wicherkiewicz includes Lemko among the poten-                                                                                                                         4 Of these, 5,470 self-identified as Lemkos, while 530 declared Ukrainian ethnicity. 190 Ewa Michna tially endangered languages (Poland’s…).5 Concerns as to whether the Lemko language will survive were also expressed by Lemko community activists interviewed in the late 1990s, who made the following comments: “It is obvious that our language is in a bad situation. We don’t live in our Lemkowyna, where the whole countryside spoke Lemko. We mostly live among Poles. And not every family maintains the language. The processes of assimilation will 6 continue (M/1998-2).” Similar comments were made by everyone I interviewed in 2015. “If endangered languages include Basque, and even Irish, which benefits from the best possible support from the state, then what can we do, as we don’t have the same advantages. If we were not part of a diaspora, if we were all in the same place, then maybe we would have a chance. Basically, we are a minority (M/2015-4).” All interviewees noted the decline of the process of natural transmission of the language in families and the loss of its social and cultural function. Certain interviewees also commented on the fast pace of unfavorable changes, such as the disappearance of intergenerational transmission: “Few children speak Lemko as a first language. The numbers are getting smaller and smaller, and the younger the class, the worse the problem gets. We can see changes over the last few years, and the pace of decline is simply terrible. Children from the youngest age groups hardly ever speak Lemko outside of the home. It’s better in the countryside. There they teach the children more, because the grandmothers are at home, and there are Lemko neighbors. And in the west [among the Lemkos who were resettled as a result of Operation Vistula E.M.], it’s even worse. There, they hardly speak Lemko at all (F/2015-2).” Analysis of the empirical material gathered indicates the relevance of the argument made by Cezary OBRACHT-PRONDZYŃSKI (2006) to the situation of the Lemko language. Regarding the situation of the Kashubian language, he noted that we can see before our very eyes a race against time. The issue is                                                                                                                         5 6 Potentially endangered languages have a large number of speakers among the youngest generation yet lack official status and have low or relatively low prestige. They are used in most situations by all age groups, and are securely transmitted from generation to generation. Nevertheless, they are replaced in some aspects of life by the dominant language (WURM 1998, 192). (M/1998-2) – brackets contain information regarding the interview. M/F refers to the sex of the interviewee; the first figure is the year of the interview and the second is the number. Language situation of stateless groups 191 whether or not we can promote the teaching of the language in schools to such an extent that this can replace the transmission of the language in the family. If this is not possible, then the language will only survive in enclaves in small rural communities or among ideologically motivated enthusiasts. 2. Actions taken by ethnic activists The democratization of the social and political landscape in Poland enabled the Lemkos, who had until then been considered by the communist authorities as Ukrainians, to openly express their aspirations for emancipation. Their attempts to be seen as a distinct ethnic group also had a linguistic dimension. This involved attempts to improve the status of the language and to give it a literary form, following the argument of linguistic nationalism that every mature nation should have its own distinct, codified language. In her account of the history of the Lemko language, Małgorzata Misiak has described the stages of its emancipation from its beginning to the present day. She considers the start of this process to be the foundation of the Lemko Society – an organization of Lemkos that denies that they are members of the Ukrainian nation. In this period of emancipation, Lemkos aimed to obtain recognition of their language (both by the state and by scholars of linguistics) as a fullyfledged means of communication, and were active in its standardization. They were involved in attempts to increase the scope of its use and teaching (MISIAK 2006, 128). 2.1. Standardization Lemko activists supporting the thesis that there is a distinct Lemko group argue that their language is the main expression of their identity and as such cannot be allowed to die out (MICHNA 2004b; MISIAK 2006, 128). The teaching of the Lemko language was one of the fundamental aims of the Lemko Society (Statut 1989). It is worth noting that the teaching of Lemko in the school system required standardization of the language. The Lemko Society did not include standardization as one of the goals listed in their statutes, and a language commission was not organized by this organization. Steps towards the normalization of the language were first taken by the Commission of Education, working within the framework of the association. The main objective of this commission was to introduce the teaching of Lemko into the school system. This was made possible by the Act of 7 September 1991, allowing national and ethnic minorities to organize the teaching of their languages and to allow classes to be taught in these languages (Ustawa 1991). Attempts at codification of the language began with the preparation of textbooks and grammar for children. This task was given to Mirosława Chomiak, who was the first teacher to organize Lemko classes in a school in the district of Uście Gorlickie. We should note that the textbook chosen by teachers at the very beginning was Metodyj Trochanovskij’s Bukwar, which had been 192 Ewa Michna published and used in schools in the interwar period.7 In the 1930s, several periodicals had also been published in the local language of the Lemkos. Contemporary codifiers of Lemko language have referred to the norms of written Lemko established then. My research regarding the Lemko activists in the early 1990s, at the time of the initial stages of the teaching of Lemko in Polish schools and the first attempts at standardization, revealed that codification was not a subject which gave rise to strong emotions among language users. Apart from the Ukrainian Lemkos, who opposed any form of codification of the Lemko language, there were no major controversies concerning the choice of basic language norms. The standard for the language, based on the West Lemkowyna dialects, gained the approval of the majority of Lemko activists and authors in favor of Lemko language emancipation. Interviewees stated that one of the reasons for the lack of controversy regarding the choice of language norms was the resettlement of the Lemkos, which meant that the differences in Lemko dialects were limited. As they are scattered throughout the western and northern regions of Poland, group members today speak in a similar way. The following observation made by an interviewee illustrates this point of view: “Really, after Operation Vistula, all the Lemkos had been dispersed, and something along the lines of a common koine was formed (M/1996-5).” According to my interviewees, the result of the dispersal and resettlement of the Lemko community was that there were no larger concentrations of Lemkos or strong pockets of regional difference where the inhabitants would have postulated that their dialect should become the literary norm. On the other hand, one of the crucial decisions which codifiers had to make was the choice of alphabet. Although the teaching of Russian ceased to be compulsory after the fall of communism and the Cyrillic alphabet is not universally known among the younger generation of Lemkos, codifiers had no doubts that the eastern alphabet was the only one to allow continuity of tradition. The periodical of the Lemko Society, Besida, published a letter from a young boy asking the editor to publish texts written in the ‘Polish’ alphabet so that he could read them more easily. The editor, Piotr Trochanowski, one of the best known Lemko authors, answered in a way that is illustrative of the point of view of the periodical:                                                                                                                         7 In 1933/1934, two textbooks written by Metodyj Trochanovskij were used in Lemkowyna. Trochanovskij was the first to undertake the standardization of the Lemko language, based on the West Lemkowyna dialect. Language situation of stateless groups 193 “Our alphabet can be learnt in a couple of days. Language, Paweł, is the soul of the nation, and its alphabet is like a box where the soul is kept. Our soul would die in a foreign box. Wouldn’t you be sad [if that happened] (Besida 1996)?” At the same time, Lemko activists saw the standardization of Lemko as a long-term, gradual process, involving the introduction of Lemko into numerous areas of public life, the development of Lemko literature, and the publication of Lemko periodicals. They did not believe that the Lemko language was in need of an official act of codification. Since the early 1990s, the Polish state had allowed for the financing of publications in Lemko and its teaching in the classroom. Interviewees argued that codification was necessary so that Lemko authors could write correctly, and was above all crucial for teachers of Lemko (MICHNA 2004a). Similar views were expressed in the interviews I conducted in 2015: “Teachers of the Lemko language respect the norms, and I can’t imagine their doing otherwise. If we don’t respect the norms, then you really need to ask if there is any point in teaching the Lemko language. Grammar is important especially in teaching (M/2015-6).” The first publication of a description of contemporary Lemko grammar was based on a manuscript in 1992. The author, Mirosława Chomiak, collaborated with Lemko authors in the Education Commission of the Lemko Society, who acted as consultants for the work. A subsequent important publication was the first Lemko-Polish dictionary, compiled by Jarosław Horoszczak in 1993. The first complete grammar of the Lemko language was published in 2000. This was the result of the collaborative efforts of Mirosława Chomiak and linguist Henryk Fontański from the University of Silesia (CHOMIAK/ FONTAŃSKI 2000). The Lemko language milieu viewed the publication of this work as a success and as the culmination of a series of efforts aimed at standardization of the language. Although not all of its propositions were accepted, disagreements were mainly limited to minor questions of spelling. Most of my interviewees who have been involved in the promotion of the Lemko language stated that this publication was highly significant for the further growth of the language and its teaching in the school system. In 2004 the second edition of the Grammar of the Lemko language was published, with some minor changes in orthography (C HOMIAK/FONTAŃSKI 2004). These changes were mostly in relation to palatalization and the writing of the letter <i>. In interviews conducted in 2015, Lemko activists have indicated that the changes suggested in the second edition met with the approval of only a small number of speakers of the language: 194 Ewa Michna “I agree with some of the changes, as some of the earlier suggestions [in the first edition of the work, note E.M.] were the result of the preferences of important authors, who insisted on their version of the language. But unfortunately these changes were inconsistent. There were many inconsistencies. What mattered was the strength of personality of the author and the amount, sometimes a very large amount, of texts that they had written, but there are even more inconsistencies here. So I see these suggested changes as a step in the right direction (M/2015-6).” Most interviewees were critical of the changes, declaring that they would continue to use the forms suggested in the first edition: “This new grammar book has introduced a lot of strange stuff, and eliminated a lot of good things, which it sees as Ukrainianisms. This is not acceptable (F/20155).” Interviewees also noted that work still is needed on grammatical norms, and that the basis for this work should be the first edition of the grammar book: “There is no point in writing ten grammar books; if there already is one, and if the second differs from it only in a few details, then you have to decide on one of them. We chose the first one, and popularized it. You can add some things, but you can’t change it completely (M/2015-7).” One of the most recent initiatives for the standardization of Lemko has been the preparation of the first monolingual Lemko dictionary, supported by the grant, Protection and revival of the Lemko linguistic and cultural heritage: reconstruction of the indigenous vocabulary and music, under the direction of Helena Duć-Fajfer. Most interviewees were of the opinion that such a dictionary, based on a broad corpus of Lemko texts which have been compiled electronically, would be a significant step towards the establishment of linguistic norms: “There is a chance that when the dictionary comes out it will be yet another source and a model for how we should write (F/2015-2).” In some interviews, however, there was concern that the norms on which the authors have been working might not meet with the approval of the majority of speakers: “The dictionary will do a great deal of good, because some questions will need to be answered and standardized, for instance, regarding spelling. There are some young people who are working on this, but will the others, who are now against this idea, finally accept [these changes]? They won’t think about the fact that Language situation of stateless groups 195 some people were working on [this project] for several years and that it was a lot of effort. But it’s always the same. There is never universal agreement (M/20155).” Attempts at standardization are complicated by the lack of an independent academic institute or organization which could deal with the issue of researching and describing the various aspects of the language. Another issue on which the 2015 interviewees commented was the lack of acceptance in Lemko milieus for the new norms and internal debate regarding the forms that have become standardized. The following comment may be seen to typify this attitude: “There were language group meetings, but we didn’t reach an agreement, because the same people who decided on the rules now argue against them. They say that some aspects are artificial. It’s true, when a language is standardized, then you always have to accept some version. For example, I don’t agree with everything that is in the grammar book, I hear something else, but when I write, I follow the rules in the first edition of the grammar book (F/2015-2).” Open debates and contestation of the accepted norms are a new phenomenon, as interviewees from the late 1990s state that the new standardized forms were not a controversial matter. Also, there is a lack of broad-scale cooperation among Lemko activists regarding the accepted norms of the language. While other groups (such as the Kashubians) were able to create a language commission to solve problems in standardization of their respective languages, the Lemkos did not succeed in doing so. 2.2. Change in the language status Change in the status of the language has been an undoubted success for the Lemko community. This took place when the Lemkos were included (alongside the Roma, Tatar and Karaite communities) among the ethnic minorities listed in the Act of 6 January on national and ethnic minorities and regional languages. The Lemko language was recognized as the mother tongue of the Lemko ethnic community and, as such, benefited from protection. The Act of 2005 offered the minority a range of rights, such as the possibility of spelling their names according to the orthography of their ethnic languages, the right to use an auxiliary language,8 the right to have two versions of their name in                                                                                                                         8 As stated in the Act of 6 January on national and ethnic minorities and regional languages, an auxiliary language is the language of a national or ethnic minority or a regional language which can be used alongside Polish as an official language at municipality (gmina) level. Members of ethnic minorities can use their auxiliary language verbally and in writing in their dealings with district officials and can, at their 196 Ewa Michna Polish and in their regional language (Act 2005). Moreover, the state had the obligation to provide financial support for the attempts of ethnic minorities to preserve their cultural identity and languages. It is of particular importance that the Act legally recognized Lemko as a distinct language. After the Act was passed, ethnic activists supporting Lemko emancipation hoped that discussions of whether Lemko is a dialect of Ukrainian, or, as they argued, an independent language, would cease. However, this did not happen. Ukrainian Lemkos continue to see standardization of Lemko as a politically motivated attempt to create an artificial language, a view which is often expressed in the ethnic press. Some of my interviewees have expressed concerns that activities of Ukrainian Lemkos might threaten the promotion of the Lemko language and culture: “Much has been achieved on the road to emancipation. There is a great deal of language material, and many publishing bodies, but there has also been an increase in activities aimed against the Lemko language, and we don’t know what effect this will have on the group. Will our efforts over the years be wasted? Will we see the development of an alternative, pro-Ukrainian philology (F/2015-1)?” However, most interviewees emphasized that, as a result of the official recognition of the Lemko community and their language, hostility to the codification of the language and to their activities are less of an issue than previously, when they were concerned that the opposition of Ukrainian Lemkos might limit activities promoting the Lemko language. 2.3. The presence of Lemko in various areas of life One of the aims of Lemko activists has been the promotion of the Lemko language in the public sphere. Over the last twenty years, the status of Lemko has been transformed from that of an unrecognized language used primarily in private life to that of a language enjoying state protection and present in most aspects of life. The areas where the language is present are steadily growing. In the publication Rusynskyj jazyk, published in the series Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich in 2004, Duć-Fajfer lists ten areas where sociologists have indicated the functioning of the Lemko language (FURDAL 1990, 236-9), namely, everyday life, artistic and literary, journalistic, entertainment, in associations, churches, school information and academia. Using the same typology, MISIAK (2006, 11-124) describes eight such spheres, omitting academia. Most of my interviewees agree that the last twenty years have seen enormous progress both in terms of language emancipation and in the preserva-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 request, receive official correspondence in that language. Application forms sent to district offices can also be written in the language of the minority. Language situation of stateless groups 197 tion and development of the language, as well as an increase in the areas where it is used. 3. The factors determining the sociolinguistic situation of the Lemko group 3.1. The situation of a small group without a state The survival of small, stateless ethnic groups without support from state bodies depends on the organization and activities of the groups themselves. The language situation of such groups is also dependent on the condition of the language and of the community. The survival of such communities is affected by many conditions. Following suggestions made by John EDWARDS (1992), I will indicate the factors that I see as influencing the situation of the group which I have analyzed. 3.1.1. Numbers and geographical concentration of the language group The number of Lemko speakers is relatively small; according to the data of the most recent census, there are 6,000 speakers, and the community does not inhabit a compact area but is instead dispersed over two main regions, Lemkowyna and the western regions. Having been expelled and resettled as a result of Operation Vistula, the contemporary Lemko community does not form enclaves but rather lives surrounded by users of the majority language, increasing the pressures of language assimilation. 3.1.2. The degree and type of language transmission As shown by sociological research (MISIAK 2006), the situation of the Lemko community has seen a decline in the transmission of the language from generation to generation, particularly in urban areas. This decline has also been noted by the community activists in my research. It is therefore essential that this decline be counterbalanced by institutional measures, such as teaching in schools, which would replace and complement the lack of intergenerational transmission. 3.1.3. The degree of standardization, its status, recognition by the state, and language rights Standardization of the Lemko language is an ongoing process, having begun in the 1990s and continuing today. It is a language where the canon is without a long tradition. The norms are only now being introduced and are not being used by all speakers. It is a polynormative language, based on the subdialect of whoever writes it, and different publishing bodies choose different rules of writing, depending on the national preferences of the publisher. The acceptance of uniform norms is made difficult by internal disagreements and divisions in identity. The Act on minorities has recognized Lemko as the language of the Lemko ethnic minority. As such, it benefits from legal protection and financial support for its protection and development. At the same 198 Ewa Michna time, there is discussion regarding its status and separateness, which is questioned both by those members of the Lemko community who see themselves as part of the Ukrainian nation and by some academic scholars. 3.1.4. The religious life of the community The Lemko language is present in the religious life of the community, where two religious traditions can be found. It is particularly strong in the Orthodox Church, where it is to some extent used in ceremonies, but without any formal support on the part of the Orthodox hierarchy. Nevertheless, its use in religious ceremonies is a subject of discussion. There is a lack of Lemko translations of religious texts, including the Bible, which is a matter of great importance for language emancipation. In the case of the Greek Catholic Church, the language is only occasionally present in church settings, while the Ukrainian national character of the Church and the use of Ukrainian in the liturgy means that Lemko Greek Catholics do not come into contact with their ethnic language in the religious sphere. 3.1.5. Education The teaching of Lemko at all levels of education is financed by the state as part of its obligations regarding the protection of minorities. The fact that the group is widely dispersed over the national territory means that the organization of school and inter-school groups in sufficient numbers is a difficult matter. The language is often taught in combined groups, where differences in the age of the pupils can cause difficulties for the teacher. A considerable problem is also the low prestige of the language as well as the lack of practical application. This has a negative influence on motivation to learn Lemko, as can be seen from the significant drop in the numbers of pupils studying it in the school system. While several hundred pupils begin the study of the language in primary school, this number falls to only a few dozen who complete it at the secondary school level. In the early 1990s, a serious problem was also the fact that parents did not consider the language to be worth teaching in the classroom. Parents felt that since children learnt the language at home, free time was better spent learning a more practical language, such as English, or resting. Today, however, research shows that some parents expect schools to assume the task of teaching Lemko to children, thus compensating for the lack of intergenerational transmission at home. A further difficulty in the teaching of Lemko is the lack of qualified teachers. Lemko philology, which was intended to provide teachers of the language, is not a popular subject for prospective students from the group. Above all, there is a lack of qualified candidates in the western territories and therefore an insufficient number of teachers of Lemko. Still another problem is that there is a lack of language textbooks and modern audio-visual teaching aids, the preparation of which is impossible for the handful of teachers of Lemko. The group cannot Language situation of stateless groups 199 avail itself of the help of outside professionals, as there are none, and depends on the activities of teachers, only some of whom have the necessary qualifications to create such teaching aids. The result of all of these factors is that, despite legal and financial support from the state, the organization and teaching of Lemko language classes in schools is a major challenge for the activists of the group. 3.1.6. The link between identity and language and the attitude of the community to their language Research has shown that speakers of Lemko and members of the Lemko community see a strong connection between their language and their ethnic identity (MICHNA 2004a; MISIAK 2006). Language is one of the fundamental ethnic markers allowing for division of the world into ‘our people’ and ‘others’. Therefore, language has a very important symbolic role to play. At the same time, it is mainly the ethnic activists who endeavor to assure its survival and growth. The attitude of ordinary members of the Lemko community and ordinary speakers to their language is somewhat different. In my research in the late 1990s, most interviewees emphasized that aside from a small Lemko elite, Lemkos saw their language merely as a simple instrument of communication within their group. This attitude is typical of traditional societies, where language is not valued for its own sake. The effect of this way of thinking and the low prestige of the language is that group members do not make conscious efforts to transmit the language to their children, which poses a serious threat for the survival of the language. Such an attitude to the preservation of the language is not a problem for groups that live in compact clusters, where interaction with other group members in various aspects of life is a frequent occurrence. Intergenerational transmission of the language in such societies may remain unhindered. For almost 70 years, however, the Lemko community has been uprooted and dispersed. Intensive contact with the majority language at school, at work, and in the Polish mass media has resulted in the gradual marginalization of their language. The decline in intergenerational transmission has meant that, as is characteristic for most minority communities, the Lemko language ceases to be the basic medium of communication in the domestic sphere, where it was traditionally prevalent, and is replaced by majority languages. 3.2. The situation within the group – identity dualism One of the key factors for the condition of the Lemko language is the situation within the group. Divisions in identity have led to criticism of certain actions aimed at achieving language emancipation. Ukrainian Lemkos have attempted to discredit the accepted language norms and the educational measures which have been taken. Despite its legal recognition, the separate iden- 200 Ewa Michna tity of the Lemko language is often called into question, both within the group and by certain academics who consider the Lemko language to be a sub-dialect of Ukrainian. 3.3. State policy towards the Lemko minority Certain inconsistencies can be seen in state policy towards the various identities of national minorities. On the one hand, the Lemko minority has been recognized as a separate ethnic group distinct from the Ukrainian minority (in the Act on minorities, Ukrainians are one of nine national minorities), but in decisions relating to the Lemko minority, Lemkos with a Ukrainian national consciousness are not considered to be Ukrainians, but rather members of the Lemko ethnic minority. As a result of the measures for the protection and development of Lemko identity, language and culture, various projects are financed, some of which aim to support the language emancipation of the group, while others are decidedly opposed to the emancipation of the Lemko ethnolect. An interesting example of such a situation was the campaign to promote the use of national minority, ethnic and regional languages, which took place in 2014. As part of the campaign, the Ministry of Administration and Digitization, which was responsible for the implementation of the Act on minorities, prepared a website relating to protected languages in Poland. To the surprise of Lemko activists in favor of language emancipation, the contents of the website referring to the Lemko language were illustrated by a song in Ukrainian. Upon being advised by Lemko activists of this incongruity, an official from the ministry stated that this song had been proposed by a Lemko organization, and that this was sufficient. He added that the contents of the website were supposed to contain material representing various Lemko communities, taking into consideration the existence of divisions in identity within the group. This is only one of numerous examples showing that the Lemko language, which has only recently been codified, still does not have a clearly defined status for officials responsible for state policy for the protection of minorities. This condition of the Lemko language stems from the fact that the Lemkos are a stateless group without the support of a national state which could represent their interests in discussion with the Polish state and also legitimize their separateness. Having an external state of their own makes the separateness of a minority and their language obvious. Language users without the protection of an independent state must struggle in order to achieve a separate status for their language, and their efforts are often undermined by opponents of emancipation of the group. Considering the experiences of the Lemkos and their attempts to promote the status of their language, I consider Max Weinreich’s criterion for distinguishing a language from a dialect to be apposite: “a language is a dialect with an army and navy.” The situation of the Lemkos is not made easier by their complex relations with Language situation of stateless groups 201 Ukraine, where Lemkos are seen as one of the ethnographic Ukrainian groups. Concluding remarks In analyzing the language situation of the Lemko community, we can see a range of processes characteristic of language minorities in the modern world, as D OŁOWY -R YBIŃSKA (2011) indicates in relation to other minority languages, namely Breton, Sorbian and Kashubian. She argues that the function of minority languages is subject to frequent change; they cease to be above all a medium of communication, as they are replaced in this role by the majority language. The members of such groups are bilingual, and are surrounded by the majority language in their daily lives, at school, at work, and in their contact with the mass media. Intergenerational transmission disappears, and the younger generation often only has a passive understanding of the language. On the other hand, the language often acquires a symbolic role for such groups, as it is an essential element of group identity and integration (DOŁOWY-RYBIŃSKA 2011, 554-6). In their attempts to achieve emancipation and emphasize the separate nature of their group, ethnic elites undertake many actions focused on their language. They see it as the main ethnic marker of the group and as proof of their separate identity. In such situations, many actions of ethnic activists are centered on the language and on planning the status of the language by means of its codification, the creation of a national literature in the minority language, by translations of world literature into the minority language, by the organization of education, by the creation of cultural institutions and ethnic media, and by the gradual introduction of the language into various areas of life. This offers the hope that despite changes in the function of the language and the manner of its transmission, it will nevertheless survive, and ethnic leaders responsible for language policies will succeed in winning their race against time and enable the disappearing intergenerational transmission of the language in the family milieu to be replaced by institutional forms of language promotion. REFERENCES BARWIŃSKI, M. 2014. Struktura narodowościowa Polski w świetle wyników spisu powszechnego z 2011 roku. Przegląd Geograficzny 86-2: 217-241. BILLIG, M. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London. CHOMIAK, M. / FONTAŃSKI, H. 2000. Gramatyka języka łemkowskiego. Katowice. — 2004. Gramatyka języka łemkowskiego. 2nd edition. Warsaw. Członkowie mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych w rozumieniu ustawy o mniejszościach narodowych i etnicznych według najczęściej wymienianych języków kontaktów domowych. 2011. 202 Ewa Michna Czwarty Raport dotyczący sytuacji mniejszości narodowych i etnicznych oraz języka regionalnego. 2013. Warsaw. DOŁOWY-RYBIŃSKA, N. 2011. Języki i kultury mniejszościowe w Europie: Bretończycy, Łużyczanie, Kaszubi. Warsaw. DULIČENKO, A. D. 1981. Славянские литературные микроязыки. Tallinn. DUĆ-FAJFER, H. 2004.   Соціолінґвістічный аспект – Лемковина. In:   Pycиньcкый язык. [Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich] Opole: 349363. EDWARDS, J. 1992. Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: towards a typology of minority language situations. In: W. Fase, K. Jaspaert, S. Kroon (eds.) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Amsterdam: 37-54. FONTAŃSKI. H. 2004.   Літературный язык – Лемковына. In: Paul Magocsi (ed.) Pycиньcкый язык. [Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich] Opole: 211-262. FRASER, N. 1995. From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post-Socialist’ Age. New Left Review 212 : 68-93. FURDAL, A. 1990. Językoznawstwo otwarte. Wrocław/Warsaw. HORNSBY, M. 2015a. Constructing a Lemko identity: tactics of belonging. International Journal of Multilingualism 12: 1-12. — 2015b. Revitalizing Minority Languages: New Speakers of Breton, Yiddish and Lemko. Basingstoke. HOROSZCZAK, J. 1993. Pierwszy słownik łemkowsko-polski. Legnica. LESIW, M. 1997. Украïнські говірки у Польщі. Warsaw. MAGOCSI, P. R. 2004. Pycиньcкый язык. [Najnowsze dzieje języków słowiańskich] Opole. MICHNA, E. 1995. Łemkowie. Grupa etniczna czy naród? Kraków. — 2004a. Pomiędzy gwarą a językiem standardowym. Kodyfikacja gwar Rusinów Karpackich. Socjolingwistyka 18: 57-86. — 2004b. Kwestie etniczno-narodowościowe na pograniczu Słowiańszczyzny wschodniej i Zachodniej. Ruch rusiński na Słowacji, Ukrainie i w Polsce. Kraków. — 2007. Edukacja w środowisku rusińsko-łemkowskim i jej rola w podtrzymaniu etniczności grupy. In: C. Obracht-Prondzyński (ed.), Problemy i wyzwania edukacji międzykulturowej. Gdańsk/Wieżyca: 114-139. MISIŁO, E. 1996. Repatriacja czy deportacja. Przesiedlenie Ukraińców z Polski do USRR 1944-1946. Dokumenty. Vol. 1. Warsaw. — 1999. Repatriacja czy deportacja. Przesiedlenie Ukraińców z Polski do USRR 1944-1946. Dokumenty. Vol. 2. Warsaw. — 2012. Akcja "Wisła". Dokumenty. Extended edition. Warsaw. MISIAK, M. 2006. Łemkowie. W kręgu badań nad mniejszościami etnolingwistycznymi w Europie. Wrocław. Language situation of stateless groups 203 Mniejszości narodowe i etniczne oraz społeczność posługująca się językiem kaszubskim - liczebność (również wg województw). 2011. MOKLAK, J. 1987. Orientacje polityczne na Łemkowszczyźnie. In: H. S. Michalak, P. Spodenkiewicz (ed.) Colloquium narodów: materiały z sympozjum "Litwini, Białorusini, Ukraińcy, Polacy - przesłanki pojednania. Łódź: 94-99. — 1993. Republiki łemkowskie 1918-1919. Wierchy. Kraków: 63-76. MOSLEY, C. (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger, 3rd edition. Paris. NOWAK, J. 2000. Zaginiony świat? Nazywają ich Łemkami. Kraków NOWAKOWSKI, K. Z. 1992. Sytuacja polityczna na Łemkowszczyźnie w latach 1918-1939. Rzeszów. NOWICKA, E. 2012. The Politics of Culture. Perspectives of Stateless Nationalities/Ethnic Groups. Warsaw. OBRACHT-PRONDZYŃSKI, C. 2006. Czy tzw. kwestia kaszubska jest nadal kwestią językową? In: J. Treder (ed.), Kaszubszczyzna w przeszłości i dziś. Warsaw: 31-49. PISULIŃSKI, J. 2003. Akcja „Wisła”. Warsaw. Poland's Linguistic Heritage - Documentation Database for Endangered Languages. T. Wicherkiewicz, et al. "Lemko Rusyn", http://innejezyki.amu.edu.pl/Frontend/Language/Details/23. RIEGER, J. 1995. Słownictwo i nazewnictwo łemkowskie. Warsaw. Statut Stowarzyszenia Łemków. 1989. Бесіда/Besida. Krynica. Ustawa z 6 stycznia 2005 r. o mniejszościach narodowych i etnicznych oraz o języku regionalnym. Dz.U.2005.Nr17.poz.141. Ustawa o systemie oświaty z dnia 7 września 1991. Dz.U. 1991 nr 95 poz. 425. URBAŃCZYK, S. 1995. Dramat Stefana Romułta. 1995. In: H. Horodyska (ed.) Całe życie pod urokiem mowy kaszubskiej. Warsaw: 45-55. WICHERKIEWICZ, T. 2014. Regionalne języki kolateralne Europy – porównawcze studia przypadku z polityki językowej. Poznań. WURM, S. 1998. Methods of language maintenance and revival, with selected cases of language endangerment in the world. In: K. Matsamura, H. Syobo (ed.) Studies in Endangered Languages. [ICHEL Linguistic Studies, 1] Kyoto: 191-211. ZIĘBA, A. 2007. Tożsamość etniczna jako obiekt manipulacji politycznej: przypadek Rusinów łemkowskich (XVIII-XX wiek), część 1. Ricznyk Ruskoj Bursy/Rocznik Ruskiej Bursy, H. Duć-Fajfer (ed.). Gorlice: 59-94; — 2008. Tożsamość etniczna jako obiekt manipulacji politycznej: przypadek Rusinów łemkowskich (XVIII-XX wiek), część 2. Ricznyk Ruskoj Bursy/Rocznik Ruskiej Bursy, H. Duć-Fajfer (ed.). Gorlice: 59-71. МОРАВСКИЙ ЯЗЫК: ИСТОЧНИКИ РЕГИОНАЛИЗМА, СОСТОЯНИЕ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ Блажей Осовски (Познань) Вопрос моравского языка не является исключительно языковой проблемой, т.к. в Центральной и Восточной Европе язык является одним из важнейших показателей национального своеобразия (или, в более широком смысле, этнического). Аналогично происходит в случае моравского языка, сильно втянутого в деятельности моравского движения (moravské hnutí), имеющего также национальный аспект (BLÁHA 2005, MARŠÁLEK 2013). Таким образом, проблема литературного моравского языка в Чешской республике часто рассматривается как политический вопрос: не на лингвистическом уровне, а  с позиции регионального сепаратизма.1 Итак, пока что моравский язык в чешской лингвистике не считается языком отдельным от чешского языком. Зато голоса о существовании отдельного моравского языка появляются среди исследователей за пределами Чешской республики (ŠUSTEK 1998, DULIČENKO 2002). Это напоминает о недавней ситуации c кашубским языком, который за пределами Польши считался языком, в то время как в Польше – диалектом польского языка. Однако на территории Моравии существуют говоры, диалекты и интердиалекты,2 которые могут послужить основой для создания моравского языка.3 Итак, здесь идет речь о разработке нормы и ее реализации. Однако, как известно, нормирование дело не простое, т.к. это процесс длительный, сложный, и, прежде всего, его благополучие зависит не только от группы его проводящей. Сам процесс нормирования является составляющей языковой политики, которая касается трех сфер: планирование статуса, корпуса и приобретения (COOPER 1989, 31). Нормирование находится во 2-й группе факторов и представляет собой сложный процесс в несколько этапов. М. РАДОВАНОВИЧ перечисляет следующие: выбор нормы, ее описание, предписание, разработка, принятие, применение, расширение, культивирование, проверка и исправление (RADOVANOVIĆ 1986, 188-9). К этим этапам мы еще вернемся. Прежде необходимо уточнить, что мы понимаем, используя определение «моравский язык». На пересечения языковых и политико-этнических факторов возникли определения: "менее используемые языки" и                                                                                                                         1 2 3 К исключениям относятся, напр., ULIČNÝ (2005), KRČMOVÁ (2007). Интердиалект (чешск. interdialekt, obecné nářečí) – устная форма языка возникающая в результате взаимодействия территориальных вариантов как наддиалектное языковое образование (см. BĚLIČ 1972, 10). Более подробно о языковой ситуации в Моравии (OSOWSKI 2013). Моравский язык 205   "региональные языки", тогда как литературный язык ассоциируется прежде всего с нациями, имеющими собственное государство, хотя это не всегда обязательный принцип. К менее используемым языкам относятся: языки национальных меньшинств, имеющих свое государство за пределами своей этнической территории (напр., украинский в Польше), официальные языки государств, находящиеся в опасной ситуации, без государственной поддержки, снижение числа пользователей (напр., белорусский в Беларуси), языки национальных меньшинств не имеющих своих национальных государств (напр., лужицкие языки в Германии), языки диаспор - не имеющие своей территории (напр., цыганские языки) и микроязыки, выделенные из-за небольшого числа пользователей (WICHERKIEWICZ 2003, 75-6). В свою очередь региональный язык (региолект) характеризует: близкое родство с языком большинства своей территории/страны, с которой он развивался в течение долгого времени, сильное чувство обособленности этнической и/или региональной при отсутствии чувства национальной обособленности, большое диалектное разнообразие, отсутствие единого стандарта, низкий социальный престиж, сопротивление "бытию меньшинством". Главным образом определение региональный язык отвечает ситуации, в которой находится моравский (WICHERKIEWICZ 2003, 76-7).4 Однако нужно обратить внимание, что как малоиспользуемые языки, так и региолекты являются языками, история которых находится под наблюдением уже какое-то время, между тем моравский язык только начинает борьбу за существование, является в состоянии возникновения. Источники моравского регионализма Откуда у части мораван ощущение языковой обособленности и необходимости иметь свой собственный язык? Событием, которое до сих пор живо в памяти мораван и которое особенно экспонируемо членами моравского движения, является появление и существование Великой Моравии. Отсюда берется учредительный миф об автономной Моравии, а после падения Великоморавской империи чувство несправедливости и обиды, нанесенной чехами, т.к. после вторжения венгров это государство перестало существовать, а его земли были поделены прежде всего между Венгрией и Чешской Республикой, которым досталась Моравия. Стоит отметить, что в пределах Чешского королевства она имела автономию в сферах юрисдикции, администрации, финансов, а также собственный сейм. Во время правления Габсбургов (от 1526 г.) Моравия сохранила свою автономию, которая длилась также после восстания Чехословакии в 1918 г., когда Моравия получила полную адми-                                                                                                                         4 Автор перечисляет еще литературную традицию, которая, однако, на примере моравского языка является слишком ничтожной. 206 Блажей Осовски нистративную автономию, а в 1927 г. была объединена с Силезией (Země Moravsko-slezská). Когда в 1938 г. Чехословакия стала федерацией двух республик, главным образом на востоке Моравии появились голоса, что Моравия также должна стать очередной единицей федерации. Немецкая оккупация и война приостановили эти требования, но после ее окончания они возобновились в 1946-1948 годах, далее в 1968 и 19901992. Распад Чехословакии в 1992 г. означал конец планов автономии Моравии. Традиция административной автономии Моравии, на которую ссылаются члены моравского движения,5 является фактом. Однако фактом является и то, что, несмотря на автономию Моравии, не возникла самостоятельная нация, к чему причастно в том числе отсутствие значительного монархического двора (KNOZ 2001, 66), создание в барокко общей чешско-моравской дворянской нации (KNOZ 2001, 56).6 Также в настоящее время в регионе отсутствует отчетливый центр,7 отдельные функции которого выполняются по меньшей мере двумя городами: Брно и Оломоуц. Не без значения оказываются факт, что несмотря на многие сходства речь в этих городах отличается, что препятствует формированию единого кода. Более того речь в Брно становится все ближе к чешскому литературному языку (KRČMOVÁ 1997, 230), что безусловно работает в ущерб функционированию моравского языка. Тем не менее, почти тысячелетняя история моравской автономии способствовала тому, что жители этих земель были независимы от чешской идентичности и называли себя мораванами. Это длилось до XIX в.,                                                                                                                         5 6 7 Она появляется в малых литературных формах, помещенных на странице Moravská orlica (рус. Моравский орел), а также фан-странице Poezie moravského disentu (рус. Поэзия моравскoго диссидентства). Тематика стихотворений характерна для членов моравского регионализма: история и давнее могущество (Jošt, рус. Йост Моравский), старина и красота Морави (Věstonické Venuši, рус. Вестоницкая Венера, Zem plna krás, рус. Страна полная красоты), их места (Velehrad, рус. Велеград), использование Моравии Чехией (Praga caput respublicae, рус. Прага убивает республику, Pláč nad strátou, рус. Плач по потере), неадекватность названия государства („Mám chut’ dát rákoskou přes slechy, všem tupým hlavám, co stát ten nazývají Čechy”, рус. „Я хочу дать стерженю в ухо всем тупым главам, которое называют эту страну Чехия“), обособленность этих двух регионов и аналогичные ситуации в других странах („řekli byste, já se ptám, Skotovi, že je Angličan??”, рус. „Вы сказали бы, я спрашиваю, шотландцю что он англичанин”), гордость бытия мораваном (Domov múj, рус. Моя родина). В этом отдавался отчет также в 1968 г., когда обсуждались изменения в организации самоуправления Чехословакии. Появляющиеся тогда голоса об обособлении Моравии не были поддержаны национальными критериями, но экономическими, культурными и этническими (PERNES 2001, 179). Связь литературного языка с центрами культуры – срв. ТОЛСТОЙ (1988, 24-5). Моравский язык 207   когда под влиянием формирования национальной идентичности чехов и немцев мораване были вынуждены разделиться между этими двумя группами. Славянские мораване приняли чешский литературный язык и чешскую национальную идентичность, хотя ее ощущение было слабее, чем собственно в Чехии (ŘEPA 2001, 168). Только школьная система способствовала распространению чешского национального сознания и чешского литературного языка (HROCH 1995), в то же время, однако, сохранилась моравская идентичность в территориальном смысле. Не все, однако, подверглись этому процессу, и небольшой процент мораван стал определять свою идентичность как моравскую также в национальном значении. Именно эта группа действует в настоящее время в качестве моравского движения. За определение с ним равнозначное считаю "моравский национализм" без оценочного тона, т.е. в соответствии с западной традицией (ŻELAZNY 2006, 33). Статистика В Европе кульминация национальных движений приходилась на XVIIIXIX вв., однако, и новейшая история свидетельствует о их жизнеспособности. У. АЛЬТЕРМАТТ отмечает, что "po upadku imperium sowieckiego nowa fala risorgimento objęła Europę Wschodnią (ALTERMATT 1997, 99)"8 в качестве реакции на политику унификации, проводимую СССР и замораживания этнических конфликтов во имя единства класса. Кроме того, после 1989 года на волне демократизации, восстановления прошлого (в том числе пражский централизм) и моды на этническую обособленность появляется моравский регионализм, провозглашающий идею о существовании моравской нации и пытающийся создать литературный моравский язык.9 В переписи населения 1991 года, принадлежность к моравской национальности заявило 13% граждан Чешской Республики. Моравское движение было самым популярным в столице Моравии – Брно и окрестностях, где мораванами представилось почти 2/3 жителей. Через 10 лет, процент заявлений упал до уровня 4% (SZUL 2009, 276), что можно объяснить спадом первоначальной эйфории после освобождения ситуации. Последняя всеобщая перепись, проведенная в 2011 г. принесла новые, интересные данные, в нее включен вопрос о национальности и родном языке. Оказалось, что среди всех граждан Чешской республики (10.436.560) исключительно с моравской национальностью себя иденти-                                                                                                                         8 9 Рус. „после падения советской империи новая волна risorgimento охватила Восточную Европу". Литературный здесь является определением, использованным деятелями моравского движения по принципу равноценно для литературного чешского языка; однако же нет лингвистического подтверждения. 208 Блажей Осовски фицирует 521.80110 (это означает, что после последней переписи процент остался практически на том же уровне – 5%). Кроме того, часть людей определило свою национальность как двойную, т.е. моравскую и чешскую - 99.028 (0,9%), силезскую - 4.567 (0,04%), словацкую - 1.650 (0,02%), немецкую - 292, польскую - 152, ромскую - 113, еврейскую 10. В свою очередь 62.908 человек определило свой родной язык как моравский (0,6% всех жителей Чешской республики), а 45.561 как чешский и моравский (0,4%). Это значит, что моравский язык как единый или как один из двух родных выбрал только 1% жителей Чешской республики. Что интересно, среди 521.801 человек, заявивших моравскую национальность даже 429.630 (82%)11 одновременно, как свой родной язык указало чешский, а только 55.424 – моравский (11%). Среди 62.908 человек,12 которые определили свой родной язык как моравский, 55.424 из них (88%) выбрало в качестве национальности – моравскую, далее – чешскую 2.498, силезскую – 69, словацкую – 26, польскую – 14, немецкую – 5, ромскую – 2, венгерскую – 1, а 3.125 человек ее не назвало. На основе вышеуказанного можно утверждать неполную корреляцию национальности и моравского языка. Идентификация13 с моравской национальностью автоматически не приводит к выбору моравского языка в качестве родного. Это происходит только в 11% случаев. Зато опре-                                                                                                                         10 Данные на основе: http://vdb.czso.cz/ Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 > Табл. 614 Obyvatelstvo podle věku, podle národnosti, mateřského jazyka, náboženské víry, nejvyššího ukončeného vzdělání, státního občanství a podle pohlaví (5.08.2015) 11 Данные на основе: http://vdb.czso.cz/ Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 > Табл. 153 Obyvatelstvo podle národnosti, mateřského jazyka a podle pohlaví (5.08.2015) 12 Большинство из них (53%) составляют мужчины. Половой критерий является настолько важным, что традиционно принято, что женщины занимаются потомством и тем самым имеют возможность передавать свой способ речи. 13 Чтобы говорить о национальном сознании, стоит привести разделения СВЕНА ТЕГИЛЯ на тождественность и идентификацию. Первая из них - это простое сознание принадлежности к группе, вторая предполагает элементы активной и сознательной позиции, а также работы на пользу своей общины (HROCH 2003, 107). Итак, можно утверждать, что члены моравского движения это та часть мораван, которая имеет национальное сознание, в то время как все остальные имеют моравскую тождественность, но не соединяют ее с нацией. То, что национальные движения не сосредотачиваются сразу на всех, кто является потенциальной (целевой) национальной группой, очевидно и связано с начальными фазами национального движения – в схеме М. ГРОХА это является научной и агитационной фазами. Собственно их мы и наблюдаем в настоящее время в Моравии. Если моравский регионализм будет успешен, то вместе с распространением национальной идентичности наступит массовая фаза (HROCH 2003, 9). Моравский язык 209   деление моравского языка как родного в большинстве случаев решает исход идентификации с моравской национальностью (88%). Несмотря на потерю в течение 20 лет сторонников моравского регионализма следует отметить, что он по-прежнему имеет постоянную группу сочувствующих. Причины его популярности можно усмотреть в централизации и появлении мультикультурных обществ (SZACKI 1997, 5), которые вызывают в блоке ощущение опасности. Между тем, национализм выступает как избавление от гнета, предлагая готовую идентичность и коллективную поддержку (ALTERMATT 1997, 103). Также эти факторы появляются в Моравии, хотя особенно первый из них кажется важным. Члены моравского движения чувствуют себя обиженными пражскими учреждениями, экономически эксплуатируемыми и оттесненными на второстепенную позицию по отношению к центру (Праге).14 Отсюда проистекает простой вывод, представленный моравским регионализмом, что мораванам следует вернуть прежнюю автономию для того, чтобы стать самоуправляемыми и независимыми от существующего эксплуататора, Праги.15 Нормирование Вернемся к выделенным РАДОВАНОВИЧЕМ этапам нормирования (LUBAŚ 2009, 86). Первые два из них, т.е. выбор нормы и ее описание, я рассмотрел в статье Kodyfikacja morawskiego języka literackiego (OSOWSKI 2011), поэтому здесь я ограничусь лишь упоминанием наиболее важных определений. Одно из первых предложений нормы, представил в 2006 году в своем авторском блоге16 Ростислав СВОБОДА. Однако со временем была достигнута договоренность между ним и Институтом моравского языка (Ústav jazyka moravského – далее UJM), эффектом чего была Důvodová argumentace k užití spisovného moravského jazyka (рус. Обоснование для использования моравского литературного языка) с 2008 г. (далее DA). Некоторые из предложенных решений были довольно революционными по сравнению с орфографией чешского языка. Так предложено заменить чешск. ‹ch› на ‹x› (по аналогии с старославянским языком), что вынуди-                                                                                                                         14 Кажется, что в анализе ситуации Моравии особенно полезной является концепция внутреннего колониализма. Это взгляд американского социолога ХЕЧТЕРА, цитируемый множеством исследователей националистических вопросов, в том числе (HROCH 2003, 113). 15 Это, как административные единицы приобретают для их граждан высший смысл и могут стать государствами, а их граждане членами наций, показывает на примере Южной Америки Б. АНДЕРСОН (ANDERSON 2006, 53). В случае Моравии, однако, по-другому, в то время как исторический регион поделен меж нескольких административных единиц (чешск. страны), что усложняет его интеграцию. 16 Dalskimoravak.bloguje.cz 210 Блажей Осовски ло заменить чешск. ‹x› на диграф ‹ks›. Чешск. ‹q› в свою очередь должно было записываться как ‹kv›, чешск. ‹ď›, ‹ť›, ‹ň›, ‹ě› – в моравском должны были иметь связь с южнославянскими языками, т.е. ‹dj›, ‹tj›, ‹nj›, ‹je›. Решено отказаться от различения ‹ú› – ‹ů›, сохраняя только первый из знаков. Кроме того, введено много других изменений на орфографическом уровне с символической целью (срв. DĄBROWSKA-PARTYKA 2000, 178), чтобы создать собственную орфографию для собственного (моравского) языка независимую от чешских решений. Орфографическая, фонетическая и словоизменительная нормализация дала в результате 28 инновационных черт (не выступающих ни в моравских говорах, ни в чешском литературном языке, напр. местоимения jetrý, jeký, род. мн. ч. noha – nóh), 30 общих черт с чешским языком и 41 – с моравскими говорами (OSOWSKI 2011, 164-7). Несмотря на очень высокую схожесть черт с моравскими говорами нельзя утверждать, что норма DA была основана на одном конкретном моравском говоре, возведенном в ранг литературного языка. В DA встречаются черты как центрально-моравские, так и восточно-моравские. Эти вторые доминируют из-за своего отличия по отношению к состоянию чешского литературного языка. К сожалению, они занимают небольшое, периферийное пространство, а основные центры моравской культуры (Брно и Оломоуц) лежат вне их. Как уже говорилось выше, описание нормы DA произошло в 2008г., а через два года представлена ее модификация (Učebnica pravidel spisovné moravštiny, рус. Учебник по моравскому языку), что соответствует этапу корректировки нормы по РАДОВАНОВИЧУ. Однако прежде чем мы перейдем к описанию нормы, уделим внимание оставшимся этапам нормирования. Передача DA de facto не была возможна, т.к. UJM, несмотря на название, не был научным учреждением, а лишь общественной организацией, действующей во имя создания моравского литературного языка, распространения знания его нормы и популяризации записанных на нем текстов. UJM не имел инструментов, позволяющих эффективно влиять в пределах введения нормы DA. Он даже не мог распорядиться изменить названий улиц и городов, выпускать массовые печатные издания, учебники и книги, транслировать радио- и телепрограммы на моравском языке согласно DA. Это блокирует следующие этапы нормирования, т.е. обработку, принятие и применение. Последние два этапа ограничиваются единственно членами UJM или энтузиастами существования литературного моравского языка. Однако нельзя сказать, что не появлялись тексты, записанные на этом языке. Немногое можно сказать о том, как протекало культивирование и проверка нормы DA. Можно только предполагать, что отсутствие ее принятия и использования вынудило UJM ограничить инновационные черты, чуждые языковым обычаям мораван. Действитель- Моравский язык 211   но норма UJM с 2010 г. (очень ограниченная в описательной части по отношению к DA17) подтверждается реально существующими чертами моравских говоров, а также чешского литературного языка. Приближение к реальной языковой ситуации в Моравии произошло ценой обособленности моравского языка по отношению к чешскому. Вместо заключения. Перспективы выживания моравского языка Используя данные переписи населения с 2011 г., попробуем спрогнозировать дальнейшую судьбу моравского языка. С этой целью обратимся к декларации относительно родного языка по возрастным группам.18 Сравнение я провел для ответов: а) моравский язык, б) моравский и чешский языки, в) чешский язык. Пользователи последнего практически во всех возрастных категориях насчитываются миллионами, в то время как моравский язык никогда не превышал порог в 10.000. Для возможности сравнения, я имею в виду данные не в цифрах, а в процентах (срв. График 1 в конце текста), т.е. отношение выборов данного языка в отдельных возрастных группах для всех вариантов данного языка. Уже на основании таблицы (срв. в конце статьи) – и ранее приведенных данных – поражает дисбаланс между носителями чешского и моравского языков. Динамика развития поколений говорит в пользу чешского языка. Среди пользователей каждого языка чешский язык имеет наибольший процент малолетних детей (15%, срв. Табель 1 в конце текста), но уже в следующей категории (15-19 лет) чешский язык, моравский язык, чешский и моравский языки имеют близкие значения (5,5-5,7%). В группах молодых людей (до 20 лет) преобладает выбор чешского языка, а затем чешского и моравского, моравского. Эта иерархия изменяется у 20- и 30-летних. Больше всего среди них пользователей чешского языка, а далее моравского. Тенденция к эмансипации еще более проявляется среди 40- и 50-летних людей, у которых в процентах чешский язык опережает чешский и моравский языки. На уровне процентов есть, однако, различия порядка десятых. В качестве родного чешский и моравский языки выбрало больше всего 60- и 70-летних людей. Второе место в их выборе занял моравский язык, а третье – чешский. Среди людей старше 80-                                                                                                                         17 Učebnica pravidél spisovné moravštiny (рус. Учебник по моравскому языку) состоит из 26 страниц, а добавленный к ней Slovník spisovné moravštiny (рус. Словарь моравского литературного языка) – из 14. Он имеет алфавитно-гнездовую структуру и не содержит никакого толкования слов, кроме грамматической информации, также не регистрирует цитат и примеров употреблений. Итак, это орфографический словарь. 18 Таблица 1 и график 1 разработаны на основании данных: http://vdb.czso.cz/ Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů 2011 > Табл. 614b Obyvatelstvo podle věku, mateřského jazyka a pohlaví. 212 Блажей Осовски ти лет разница порядка одной десятой не позволяет сделать более обобщенных выводов. Пытаясь составить прогноз развития языковой ситуации на основе приведенных данных, следует начать с самого старшего поколения, которые неизбежно уходит, затем перейти к младшим поколениям, которые вступают в жизнь, а их языковые привычки определяют текущую и будущую языковую картину. Из Графика 1 видно, что чешский и моравский языки охотно выбираются пожилыми людьми (60-79 лет). С одной стороны это может свидетельствовать об ощущении региональной автономии (моравской) этих людей, с другой – о некотором конформизме, вызванном унифицирующим давлением властей коммунистического периода, в котором им довелось провести большую часть жизни. Среднее поколение (40-59 лет), прожившее подобное количество лет при коммунизме, в независимой Чехословакии и Чешской республике, имеет наибольшее согласие для автономных позиций, в том числе языковых. Это они чаще всего выбирали моравский язык как родной. В свою очередь младшее поколение (до 39 лет), большая часть жизни которых пришлась на времена свободной Чешской Республики, чаще всего в качестве родного языка выбирает чешский. Однако совсем молодые люди (до 19 лет) относительно реже всего выбирают моравский язык как родной, что можно связать с унифицирующим влиянием школы. Однако школы – это не конец образовательной системы, заинтересованной в распространении национального сознания и его проявлений. Б. АНДЕРСОН обращает внимание, что во время национального возрождения в Европе компиляторы словарей были связаны с университетами, из которых тоже происходили прежде всего адресаты этих словарей (АNDERSON 2006, 71). Э. ХОБСБАУМ выражает это следующим образом: „the advance guard of middle class nationalism fought its battle along the line which marked the educational progress [...]. The progress of schools and universities measures that of nationalism, just as schools and especially universities became its most conscious champions” (HOBSBAWM 1962: 135). Также нельзя игнорировать факт, что из университетов зачастую поступают импульсы программных реформ или содержания обучения; люди университета традиционно пользуются также авторитетом среди населения данного города, региона, устанавливая определенные стандарты и образцы для подражания. Таким образом, завоевание этого окружения для идеи моравского языка было бы весьма желательно. Тем не менее, сам факт, что университетская среда не принимала участия в нормировании моравского языка является значительным и подтверждает привязанность моравской интеллигенции к чешскому языку. К сожалению, это пессимистичский прогноз для моравского языка, поскольку распределение поколений показывает тенденцию сокращения круга его пользователей. Как уже говорилось выше, моравская нацио- Моравский язык 213   нальность и моравский язык выбирают чаще мужчины, чем женщины, что только отрицательно будет сказываться на будущих поколениях, т.к. женщины традиционно занимаются воспитанием детей и передают им свой способ речи. ЛИТЕРАТУРА ANDERSON, B. 2006. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London–New York. ALTERMATT, U. 1997. Powrót wojen etnicznych w Europie? Znak 49-3: 95107. BĚLIČ, J. 1972. Nástin české dialektologie. Praha. BLÁHA, O. 2005. Moravský jazykový separatismus: zdroje, cíle, slovanský kontext. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Facultas Philosophica. Moravica 3: 293-299. COOPER, R.L. 1989. Language planning and social change. Cambridge. DĄBROWSKA-PARTYKA, M. 2000. Pismo jako znak tożsamości. In: M. Bobrownicka (ed.), Język a tożsamość narodowa. Kraków 2000: 169-182. DULIČENKO, A.D. 2002. Mährisch. In: M. Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europäischen Ostens. Klagenfurt: 291-293. HOBSBAWM E.J. 1962. The Age of Revolution. Europe 1789-1848. London. HROCH, M. 1995. Jazykový program národních hnutí v Evropě. Jeho skladba a sociální předpoklady. Český časopis historický 93-3: 398-418. — 2003. Małe narody Europy. Perspektywa historyczna. Wrocław. KNOZ, T. 2001. Natus Moravus, Linguae bohemus. Národ, stát, jazyk a kultura na Moravě raného novověku. In: Morava a české národní vědomí od středověku po dnešek. Brno: 53-71. KRČMOVÁ, M. 1997. Proměny brněnské městské mluvy. In: F. Daneš (ed.), Český jazyk na přelomu tisícletí. Praha: 225-230. — 2007. Existuje moravština? In: E. Rusinová (ed.), Přednašky a besedy ze XL. běhu LŠSS. Brno: 93-99. LUBAŚ, W. 2009. Polityka językowa. Opole. MARŠÁLEK, P. 2013. Existuje moravský národ a moravská státnost? Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Iuridica 1: 215-224. OSOWSKI, B. 2011. Kodyfikacja morawskiego języka literackiego. In: M. Balowski (ed.), Na styku kultury polskiej i czeskiej: dziedzictwo, kontynuacje, inspiracje. Poznań: 145-172. — 2013. Miejsce literackiej morawszczyzny w rzeczywistości językowej Moraw. In: A. Kołodziej / M. Bańka-Kowalczyk / A. Nowakowska (eds.), Słowiańszczyzna dawniej i dziś. Język, literatura, kultura. Monografia ze studiów slawistycznych. Červený Kostelec: 187-194. PANIC, I. 2000. Ostatnie lata Wielkich Moraw. Katowice. 214 Блажей Осовски PERNES, J. 2001. Snahy o obnovu zemského zřízení na Moravě v letech 19681970. In: Morava a české národní vědomí od středověku po dnešek. Brno: 173-186. RADOVANOVIĆ, M. 1986. Sociolingvistika. Novi Sad. ŘEPA, M. 2001. Moravane nebo Češí. Vyvoj českého národního vědomí na Moravě v 19. století. Brno. ŠUSTEK, Z. 1998. Otázka kodifikace spisovného moravského jazyka. In: А.Д. Дуличенко (ed.), Языки малые и большие... : in memoriam acad. Nikita I. Tolstoi. Tartu: 128-142. SZACKI, J. 1997. O narodzie i nacjonalizmie. Znak 49-3: 4-31. SZUL, R. 2009. Język – naród – państwo. Język jako zjawisko polityczne. Warszawa. ULIČNÝ, O. 2005. Tož včil neco vo tem nerealnym projektu tej spisovné moravščiny. In: O. Uličný (ed.), Eurolitteraria & Eurolingua. Liberec: 267272. WICHERKIEWICZ, T. 2003. Języki mniejszościowe i regionalne w Europie – próba typologii. In: E. Wrocławska / J. Zieniukowa (eds.), Języki mniejszości i języki regionalne. Warszawa: 73-78. ŻELAZNY, W. 2006. Etniczność: ład, konflikt, sprawiedliwość. Poznań. ТОЛСТОЙ, Н.И. 1988. История и структура славянских литературных языков. Москва. 12,1 5,6 Табель 1. 14,3 12,4 13,1 16,9 9,7 4,0 Чешский Язык 45561 62908 9263300 Вместе 5495 11,6 7274 14,5 1343643 0-14 2548 5,5 3486 5,7 523984 15-19 5394 12,0 7527 13,0 1204261 20-29 6537 14,5 9110 16,5 1531081 30-39 5630 13,2 8303 13,1 1217254 40-49 5967 14,0 8781 13,6 1263923 50-59 7684 16,2 10175 12,8 1189983 60-69 4442 8,9 5607 6,7 621624 70-79 1812 4,1 2559 3,8 347480 80+ 52 в% 86 в% 20067 Не указан Возраст 215   в% Моравский Моравский язык 11,8 Чешский и моравский 216 Блажей Осовски 18,0   16,0   14,0   12,0   10,0   8,0   6,0   4,0   2,0   0,0   0-­‐14   15-­‐19   20-­‐29   30-­‐39   40-­‐49   50-­‐59   60-­‐69   70-­‐79   80+   Чешский   Моравский   График 1. Чешский  и  моравский     LINGUISTIC VARIATION, IDENTITY AND MENTAL MAPS: EXPLORING THE PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY OF POLAND’S PODLASIE REGION Curt Woolhiser (Waltham) 1. Introduction The Podlasie region (Podlasie Voivodeship, Polish Województwo Podlaskie, Figure 1 below), situated along Poland’s northeastern border with Belarus and Lithuania, has historically been characterized by a high degree of ethnolinguistic diversity.1 In terms of linguistic geography, the Podlasie region’s eastern half represents the westernmost territorial extent of East Slavic dialects, which dialectologists have generally described as Belarusian in the north and transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian or Ukrainian to the south of the city of Białystok. The glottonyms and classifications employed by linguists, ethnographers, sociologists, historians and other outside observers are, however, of limited utility when we seek to explore the ways in which linguistic features are mapped onto ethno-confessional identities, and vice versa, by members of local communities in the Podlasie region themselves. In the northeastern part of the Podlasie Voivodeship, where the indigenous East Slavic dialects are considered by linguists to be structurally closest to the Belarusian standard language, the local population is predominantly Roman Catholic and has for decades been largely Polish in terms of national self-identification. The Eastern Orthodox minority in this part of Podlasie, who are speakers of the same dialects as their Catholic neighbors, identify themselves variously as being of Polish, Belarusian, or (among the older generation) simply “Orthodox” nationality. Further to the south, in the vicinity of Bielsk and Hajnówka, where transitional dialects and dialects that are structurally closer to Ukrainian are spoken, and where the majority of the region’s Eastern Orthodox population is concentrated, the numbers of selfidentified Belarusians are much higher, approaching 80% in some districts according to the 2002 and 2011 Polish censuses. The number of self-identified Ukrainians in the region is far smaller, despite over two decades of efforts by the Union of Ukrainians of Podlasie to promote a Ukrainian national identity among local speakers of Ukrainian-like dialects. 1 It is important to note that the contemporary Podlasie Voivodeship, created in 1999 by merging the Białystok Voivodeship, the Łomża Voivodeship and the eastern portion of the Suwałki Voivodeship, includes some territory in the northeast and west that was never part of the historical Podlasie as it existed between 1513 and 1795. In this paper the term ‘Podlasie region’ is used to refer to the entire modern, post-1999 Podlasie Voivodeship. 218 Curt Woolhiser In this paper I present a number of preliminary findings from my current research focusing on the contemporary sociolinguistic situation in the eastern part of the Podlasie Voivodeship, not only in terms of language use, structure and attitudes, but also in terms of the ongoing evolution of local residents’ subjective perceptions of the region’s internal linguistic differentiation and the relationship between individuals’ ethnic and religious identity and the mental maps and language ideologies that inform their linguistic choices and affiliations. These subjective aspects of the socio-spatial dimension of language have gained prominence in recent years in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology within the framework of studies of language ideology, folk linguistics and perceptual dialectology. 2. Folk Linguistics and Perceptual Dialectology Over the last two decades there has been a growing appreciation among sociolinguists of the role of folk conceptions of language differentiation and subjective perceptions of the spatial and social distribution of languages in the processes of language and dialect maintenance and change. The British linguist David Britain, one of the leading proponents of what may be called the geolinguistic turn in sociolinguistics, argues that in investigating the role of spatial factors in language variation, it is important to distinguish between three distinct spatial dimensions: 1) Euclidian, geometric space, the objective, socially neutral space determined by mathematical and physical laws; 2) social space, being the space shaped by human agency and cultural organization; and 3) perceived space, that is, how society perceives its immediate and not so immediate environments (BRITAIN 2004, 34). As BRITAIN (2004, 34) notes, “[g]eometric space is appropriated and thus made social through human settlement, but social space can never be entirely free of the physical friction of distance. And our perceptions and value judgments associated with our surroundings, although deeply affected by both social and Euclidian space, can in themselves affect the way space is later appropriated, colonized and interacted with.” Accordingly, it can be argued that people’s perceptions and beliefs regarding the territorial and social distribution of different language varieties in the socio-spatial environment that they inhabit are significantly correlated with various aspects of language status and use, including processes of language or dialect maintenance and shift. Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 219 Figure 1. The Contemporary Podlasie Voivoideship (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File:Podlaskie_mapa.png) The subjective construction of the socio-spatial dimension of language constitutes what the American sociolinguist Dennis Preston (PRESTON 1989) terms perceptual dialectology, which includes the mental maps and associated subjective evaluations that individuals form of their immediate and more distant sociolinguistic environment. While some elements of perceptual dialectology appeared as early as the 1950s in studies of Dutch and Japanese dialectology, since the 1980s Preston and other researchers have devised a broad range of tools for investigating spatiality in sociolinguistic dialectolo- 220 Curt Woolhiser gy, including tests for subjective assessments of linguistic proximity or distance of recordings of dialect speech from varieties spoken in the local community, and map drawing tests, in which informants are asked to draw the approximate geographical distribution of language varieties in their region and indicate which of them are closest linguistically to their own forms of speech. While Preston’s work is focused primarily on folklinguistic perceptions of linguistic variation in English-speaking North America, since the 1990s other researchers have employed and further refined his methods in the study of perceptual dialectology in other parts of the world, including Europe, South America, the Near East and East Asia. 3. The Linguistic and Cultural Geography of Eastern Podlasie The geographical distribution of Podlasie’s East Slavic dialects and their main phonological and morphological isoglosses are well known to specialists in Belarusian dialectology, thanks in large part to the monumental Atlas gwar wschodniosłowiańskich Białostocczyzny (GLINKA et al. 1980) and other dialectological studies of the region. The map in Figure 2 below, based on data from GLINKA et al. (1980) and other sources, illustrates the main isoglosses within the region’s East Slavic dialects, as well as the westernmost extent of East Slavic dialects in Podlasie as determined by dialectological expeditions in the second half of the 20th century. Essentially, the East Slavic dialects of eastern Podlasie represent the western extension of the two main dialect areas of southwestern Belarus: the southwestern Belarusian dialects per se, and the west Polesian Brest-Pinsk dialects, typologically closer to Ukrainian, separated by a narrow band of transitional dialects. Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 221 Figure 2. The Linguistic and Cultural Geography of the Polish-Belarusian Borderlands (Sources: GLINKA et al. 1980, KLIMČUK 1995, SAFAREWICZ 1974) Fig. 3 below illustrates some of the key phonological, morphological and lexical features characteristic of the northern and southern Podlasian dialects, as compared with their equivalents in standard Belarusian and standard Ukrainian. Like the West Polesian, or Brest-Pinsk dialects on the Belarusian side of the border, the dialects of the southern part of Podlasie unquestionably 222 Curt Woolhiser share a greater number of phonological features with standard Ukrainian than with standard Belarusian, including the absence of akanne, the presence of reflexes of compensatory lengthening of mid-vowels in newly-closed syllables, dispalatalization of paired consonants before the vowel /e/ and, at least in many dialects, before etymological /i/, retention of palatalization in the dental affricate /c’/, among other features. The situation is somewhat less clear-cut, however, in the case of morphological and lexical features, many of which can be said to link these dialects with the broader Belarusian speech territory. However, in the linguistic classification of dialects, phonological features, particularly those which are more archaic, are generally regarded by linguists as indicating the “true” linguistic identity of any given language variety. The linguistic classification of dialects based on shared archaic features, in turn, becomes in ethnonationalist discourse an argument for a primordial national affiliation for speakers of specific language varieties. In Ukrainian dialectology the East Slavic dialects of southern Podlasie, along with the Brest-Pinsk dialects, are traditionally classified as part of the Northern dialect group of Ukrainian, along with the dialects of western Volhynia. In the Belarusian dialectological tradition the same dialects are considered a distinct subgroup within the Belarusian dialectal continuum, standing apart from the Southwestern, Central and Northeastern dialect groups which constitute the core of the Belarusian speech territory. Phonological Features Standard Belarusian Dialects of the Northeastern Podlasie Region BielskHajnówka (southern Podlasian) Dialects Standard Ukrainian korova molody korova molodyj b’aru beru beru dz”ec”i d’êt’i (d’êty) хod’it’i (xoditi, xodyty) d’ity (pa prostu, pa svojаmu, …) Realization of unstressed etymological /o/ Realization of unstressed /e/ cekanne/dzekanne Palatalization /dispalatalization оf dentals before reflexes of LCS *i karova ‘cow’ malady ‘young’ b’aru ‘I take’ dz”ec”i ‘children’ хadz”ic” ‘to walk, go’ karova malady хadz”ic” (svoja mova, po svojemu, ...) xodyty Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps Reflex of LCS *ě Reflex of *o in new closed syllables Dispalatalization of *r’ Reflex of *c’ C’a in unstressed position Morphological аnd lexical leatures Final consonant in third person plural of verbs Third person pronouns Demonstrative pronoun “this” Interrogative pronoun “what” 223 l’es, s”ena ‘forest, hay’ kon’ ‘horse’ l’ês, s”êno l’ês, s’êno l’is, s’ino kôn’ kôn’ (kuon’) k’in’ havorac” ‘they speak’ vul’ica ‘street’ dz”es”ac” ‘ten’ havorac” hovorat hovor’at’ vul’ica vulyc’a dz”es”ac” hul’ic’a, hulyc’a deset’ b’aruc” ‘they take’ b’aruc” berut berut’ jon, jana, jano, jany ‘he, she, it, they’ hetа ‘this’ jôn, jаno, (jane) vôn (vuon), vona, vono, vony v’in, vona, vono, vony heto siête ce što ’what’ što što, ščo ščo jаna, jаny des’аt’ Figure 3. Structural Comparison of Standard Belarusian, Dialects of Northeastern Podlasie, Bielsk-Hajnówka (southern Podlasian) Dialects and Standard Ukrainian It is noteworthy, however, that the founder of Belarusian dialectology, Efim Karskij, classified the dialects of the Brest-Pinsk region, as well as those of the southern Podlasie region as Ukrainian (“Little Russian”) rather than Belarusian (KARSKIJ 1903, 11); this classification was also reflected in the Moscow Dialect Commission’s 1915 map of the East Slavic speech territory (DURNOVO et al. 1915). Let us now examine an important, albeit somewhat controversial source for information on the changing ethno-national and linguistic identities of the population of eastern Podlasie: census data. The 2002 Polish census, the first since the 1930s to include ethnicity, showed that some 47,640 Polish citizens claimed Belarusian ethnicity, the majority (96.6%) being concentrated in the Podlasie region (GUS 2008). The 2011 census, which allowed respondents to 224 Curt Woolhiser select more than one ethno-national identity, showed that roughly 37,000 Polish citizens identified first and foremost as Belarusian, of which 31,000 selected Belarusian as their sole ethno-national affiliation. A further 10,000 identified Belarusian as a second ethno-national affiliation (usually alongside Polish), giving the total number of people claiming Belarusian as a primary or secondary identity of roughly 47,000 (GUS 2012, 18). This is considerably lower than estimates based on the number of those in the Podlasie region who identify as Orthodox, who account for between 150,000 and 300,000 people. However, if the self-identified Belarusian population of the Podlasie Voivodeship is broken down by region, it turns out that up to 37,000, nearly 80% of the total number of self-declared Belarusians, are concentrated in the region south of Białystok, among speakers of dialects that are structurally closer to Ukrainian. The 2002 Polish census (GUS 2008) included, along with ethnicity, a question concerning the language of the home. In response to this question, 40,650 indicated that they spoke Belarusian at home, although one might question the extent to which this response was influenced by the wording of the census questionnaire and/or prompts provided by the census takers. As in the case of ethno-national identity, the 2011 census allowed for a greater range of responses to the questions regarding use of non-Polish language varieties, including both “native language” (język ojczysty) (a rather ambiguous formulation, as will be seen below) and the language of the home. In response to the first question regarding “native language,” 17,480 respondents indicated Belarusian, 554 indicated a “dialect of the Polish-Belarusian border region” (gwara pogranicza polsko-białoruskiego), 425 indicated a “Belarusian-Ukrainian dialect” (gwara białorusko-ukraińska) and an additional 341 indicated “Belarusian dialect” (gwara białoruska), also defined as “plain/simple language” (język prosty), as their “native language” (GUS 2012, 98). A similar range of answers was recorded in the 2011 census in response to the question regarding the language spoken at home. Belarusian was reported as the language of the home by 26,448 respondents (3,950 of them indicating that it was the sole language they spoke with family members), with an additional 669 stating that their home language was a “dialect of the Polish-Belarusian border region,” 549 indicating that they spoke a “Belarusian dialect” and 516 indicating a “Belarusian-Ukrainian dialect” (GUS 2012, 96). The significant decline in the number of Polish citizens declaring Belarusian as the language of the home between the 2002 and 2011 censuses can be attributed to some extent to the greater range of responses permitted in the latter census. Poland’s accession to the European Union in 2004 provided new opportunities for the development of the Belarusian minority and the promotion of the Belarusian language in the public sphere. Thus far, the region has been slow to implement the provisions of the 2005 Act on National and Ethnic Mi- Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 225 norities and Regional Languages, which permits the use of languages alongside Polish in official contexts and in signage in those areas where the nonPolish population makes up more than 20% of the population. In July of 2007, the Hajnówka gmina (municipality), where some 26% of the population claim Belarusian ethnicity, and up to 60% of the residents are Eastern Orthodox, became the first in the region to declare Belarusian co-official with Polish, as a so-called “auxiliary” language (język pomocniczy). Hajnówka’s decision was followed in 2009-2010 by the Orla and Czyże gminas to the southwest and west of Hajnówka, and the Narewka gmina to the northeast. The fact that it is in the areas where the local dialects are furthest from standard Belarusian that Belarusian has been declared an auxiliary language raises some interesting questions concerning the relationship between Belarusian identity and linguistic variation in the region. In signage, for example, the spelling of toponyms has become a contentious issue, with local authorities insisting on spellings that are in accordance neither with standard Belarusian spelling nor with local dialectal norms, representing in many cases a compromise between the two, or in some cases, a polonized version of the toponym written in Cyrillic (some examples are shown below in Figures 4-6). Figure 4. Bilingual sign for the village of Orla (Polish Orla, cf. local dialect Vuorl’a = Вуорля, standard Belarusian Ворля, showing the spelling approved by the Orla Gmina in the fall of 2009 226 Curt Woolhiser Figure 5. Sign in the village of Koszele, Orla gmina, showing Polish (Koszele), standard Belarusian (Кашалі), and local dialectal (Кошэліе) forms of the village’s name. Figure 6. Bilingual sign for the village of Koszele showing the “compromise” spelling in “the language of the Belarusian minority” 4. Linguistic Variation, Ethnolinguistic Identity and “Folk Linguistics” in Podlasie from the 19th to 21st centuries Glottonyms – designations for different language varieties in use, both within the community and beyond its borders – are an important reflection of continuity and change in folklinguistic consciousness, including the impact of the language ideologies of ethnolinguistic nationalism. The linguistic and ethnographic term “Belarusian,” first used in this region in academic circles in the mid- to late 19th century in reference to both Ortho- Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 227 dox and Catholic speakers of local East Slavic dialects, did not enter popular discourse in the Polish-East Slavic borderlands until the first decades of the 20th century. In the late 19th century, the East Slavic (“Belarusian”)-speaking peasantry of the region, both Catholic and Orthodox, had a clear idea of what they were not, but their own identities were fragmented along local, regional, social and confessional lines. An extremely valuable source for reconstructing the folklinguistic consciousness of the inhabitants of eastern Podlasie at the end of the 19th century is the collection of dialect texts with commentaries by Michał Federowski, Lud białoruski na Rusi Litewskiej (FEDEROWSKI 1897-1903), which includes numerous texts collected in Roman Catholic villages in the vicinity of Suchowola and Sokółka, to the north of Białystok. Among Federowski’s texts are local inhabitants’ statements about various ethnolinguistic outgroups, both nearby and further afield, providing a glimpse into local language attitudes and mental maps on the eve of the far-reaching social transformations of the 20th century. An interesting example is a statement by a resident of the Catholic village of Chodorówka, near Suchowola, who draws a clear distinction between the people of his area (nasz czaławiek, naszy ludzi) and the so-called Mazury (Mazurians), villagers living across the Brzozówka river (which formed the border between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland from 1569 to 1795): “Mazury, co za rékaju na Polszczy, czasto śmiejućsie z naszych ludzéj, co chodziać u każuchu i swici i nazywajuć nas Rusínami, kapuśniákami, alé jeny samy nie lépszyje, bo na ích nie zabaczysz ínnaho adzienia jäk kupczo, a swahó nie wyrablajuć, bo ich kabiety hultajki2 (FEDEROWSKI 1897 (vol. 1), 233). The distinction between nasz czaławiek and the Mazury was not only cultural and regional: the peculiarities of the neighboring “Mazovian” dialect, including the feature of mazurzenie (the merger of retroflex fricatives and affricates with their alveolar counterparts) were commented upon and served as the basis for a rich body of linguistic humor. Interestingly, however, it is not clear from Federowski’s text cited above whether the author of these specific remarks had in mind speakers of Polish Mazovian dialects per se, or the speakers of East Slavic dialects with mazurzenie just to the west of the Brzozówka river. While cultural and linguistic distinctions contributed to the perception of the Mazury as a separate ethnic group among Belarusian-speaking Catholics (not to mention the Orthodox population), even the less pronounced linguistic differences between the various East Slavic dialects of Podlasie and the western Hrodna region became the basis for distinguishing between different 2 “The Mazurians, who live across the river in Poland, often make fun of our people for wearing sheepskin coats and homespun cloth shirts, and call us Ruthenians, cabbage-eaters, but they aren’t any better themselves, because you never see anything but store-bought clothes on them, they don’t make their own, because their women are lazy.” 228 Curt Woolhiser groups. It is thus something of an oversimplification to claim that the Belarusian peasantry perceived its language (and variants thereof) only in terms of social class. Federowski's dialect materials from the 1880s and 1890s indicate the existence of a wide range of local names for neighboring groups, suggesting that the linguistic divisions within the East Slavic dialects were often as salient as those between the dialects and Russian and Polish. Often, a single linguistic feature would become the basis for the definition of an out-group: for example, those who pronounced the reflexive verbal suffix as -sa rather than ‐s’a or ‐s’e in the western Hrodna region and the area to the east and northeast of Białystok were called sakały, cakały or szkoty (the latter from the ethnonym Scot, a legacy of the Scottish peddlers, merchants and mercenaries who plied their trade in the region in the late 16th and 17th centuries) and regarded as being ignorant and unrefined. The sakały, in turn, referred to Belarusian speakers in the Hrodna and Sokółka regions who pronounced the reflexive suffix as ‐s’e or ‐s’a as mazury or siekaly (FEDEROWSKI 1902, vol 2, xxviii). Another East Slavic-speaking group clearly perceived by Belarusian-speaking villagers as different from naš čalavek were the Polesians or Palešuki from the Brest region, whose dialects, like those of the southern Podlasie region, are typologically closer to those of northwestern Ukraine. In addition to the ethnonym Palešuk, speakers of these dialects were also known as szczokały or szokały, based on their pronunciation of the interrogative pronoun szczo (ščo), szo (šo) ‘what’ instead of the general Belarusian variant što (FEDEROWSKI 1902, vol 2, xxviii). Federowski's texts include numerous anecdotes about the alleged primitivism and slow-wittedness of the Palešuki, often involving imitations of the Polesian dialect. The Polesians, in turn, referred to their Belarusian-speaking neighbors to the north as Lytvyny (“Lithuanians”) and no doubt had similar negative stereotypes about them. As suggested by Federowski’s texts and other dialectological studies of the late 19th century, it appears that the glottonym and ethnonym “Ukrainian”, like “Belarusian,” was still unknown to the rural population of the Podlasie region. According to KURASZKIEWICZ (1938, 104), villagers in the vicinity of Bielsk and Hajnówka (who speak a variety of transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian dialects) referred to speakers with pronunciations of the type c’ep’er ‘now’, dz’e idz’esz ‘where are you going?’ (that is, with cekanne and dzekanne as in standard Belarusian) with the terms Litviny, c’epruk’i (lit. those who say c’ep’er ‘now’ instead of teper), and the variety they speak as litoŭski jazyk (the Lithuanian language); according to Kuraszkiewicz, the term they used for themselves was korol’óŭc’i (people of the Kingdom (of Poland), and for their dialect, po korol’óŭsku hovoryt’i ‘to speak in the Kingdom way’ cekanne and dzekanne for the most part were confined to the part of the Białystok region north of the river Narew which remained part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the Union of Lublin in 1569, while the areas south of the Narew had been Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 229 directly incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland. Thus, political divisions were, in the past, reflected to some extent in the names of local varieties of speech, at least where these political divisions roughly coincided with linguistic boundaries. Significantly, however, the term litoŭski jazyk (Lithuanian language) as a designation for Belarusian-type dialects with cekanne and dzekanne was not generally employed by the speakers of these dialects themselves. Over a century later, many speakers of East Slavic dialects in Podlasie, regardless of their ethnic identity, continue to refer to their own vernacular using the ethnically neutral terms havaryc’ pa našamu/hovoryt’i po našomu ‘to speak our way,’ pa svojamu/po svojemu/po svojomu ‘(our) own way’, or pa prostu/pa prastomu/po prostu ‘the simple/plain way.’3 As an illustration of this SAJEWICZ (2008, 34) cites a villager from Lewkowo Nowe, northeast of 3 As regards the semantics of the adjective prosty in this context, it is worth examining the various meanings it can convey in those dialects where prosty jazyk/paprostu serves as an autoglottonym. According to MACKEVIČ et al. (1979-1986, vol. 4, 113-4), in the Belarusian dialects of the Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian border region, the adjective prosty can mean ‘uncomplicated,’ ‘straight/direct,’ ‘homespun’ (as opposed to store-bought), ‘untethered, unfettered’ (referring to livestock). How speakers of Belarusian dialects themselves interpret the glottonym prosty jazyk/ prostaja mova ‘simple/plain language’ is addressed by STRACZUK (1999) in her study of folk conceptions of the interrelationship between language, religion and ‘nationality (nacja) in the Belarusian-Polish-Lithuanian border region. Analyzing data from a series of interviews carried out between 1993 and 1997 with older residents of a number of villages in the northern Hrodna region of Belarus, Straczuk finds that most of her informants describe their native prosty jazyk (prostaja mova) as an unrefined (‘homespun’), ‘mixed’ form of speech (i.e. incorporating elements of Polish and Russian), lacking its own grammar (and hence easily learned), suitable only for communication within the local peasant community (STRACZUK 1999, 54-60). Straczuk’s informants fairly consistently distinguish between their language and Belarusian (although many do not regard the latter as a ‘proper’ language, either) and do not associate it with a specific national identity; rather, the language of religious life, Polish (or Lithuanian) for Catholics and Russian (along with Church Slavonic) for Orthodox, is the primary criterion for belonging to a specific nacja. It is tempting, of course, to speculate that the glottonym prosty jazyk in reference to modern Belarusian dialects of the Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian border region derives from the term prostyj (ruski) jazykъ, the East Slavic written koiné (variously referred to by modern Slavists as Old Belarusian, Old Ukrainian or Ruthenian) that served as the administrative, and to a more limited extent, literary language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the late 14th to the 17th century. However, as DANYLENKO (2006, 106) points out, there are significant sociolinguistic and structural differences between the modern Belarusian dialects referred to by their speakers as prosty jazyk (pa-prostu) and the late medieval/early modern prostyj (ruski) jazykъ of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, making it difficult to establish a direct connection between the two glottonyms. 230 Curt Woolhiser Hajnówka, who states: “Tut kruhom żywut naszy ludzi, prawasłauny. Palakou u nas mało, haworat wany pa naszamu, ale da cerkvy ni xodziat, da kośćoła da Narauki jeździat.”4 Thus, the definition of “our people” in Podlasie is dependent not so much on language as on religion; Sajewicz’s informant notes that the local Poles (i.e. Roman Catholics) also speak the same dialect, but according to traditional local conceptions of group boundaries, this is not a sufficient condition for regarding them as naszy ludzi. Many of the traditional disparaging terms for speakers of neighboring dialects, usually based on a specific dialect feature, are still encountered, particularly among the older generation. For example, in the area to the south of the river Narew, in the vicinity of Hajnówka, one can still hear the designation cepruki used in reference to speakers of dialects with the typically Belarusian phonetic feature of cekanne/dzekanne, or affrication of dentals: “Z tymy ciaprukamy ny dohoworyszsia, ano 'ciaper', 'ciaper', ny skaże jak czołowiek 'teper' (Hajnówka region, SAJEWICZ 2008, 35).5 According to SAJEWICZ (2008, 35), speakers of transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian dialects in the vicinity of Czeremcha (southeast of Hajnówka next to the Belarusian border), whose dialects have the Ukrainian-like interrogative form ščo ‘what’ rather than što, refer to speakers of dialects with the latter form as štokmany. Speakers of dialects with the features of cekanne/dzekanne and akanne to the north and east of the Bielsk-Hajnówka region frequently comment on the “hard pronunciation” (twarda wymowa) of their neighbors to the south and west, referring to them as dekały (lit. “those who say de ‘where’ (instead of dz’e) or Padlaše ‘Podlasians’ a designation based on the post-1569 border between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Troki Voivodeship) and the Podlasie Voivoideship of the Kingdom of Poland, which coincided to some extent with the cekanne/dzekanne - dispalatalization isogloss (SAJEWICZ 2008, 36). Another interesting example of folk linguistic taxonomy in the region is the term “xaxlackaja mova,” which is used in reference to the dialects of the Bielsk and Hajnówka regions and further to the south, which as I have noted are structurally closer, particularly in terms of phonology, to Ukrainian than Belarusian. While the term “xaxlackaja mova” is sometimes applied by speakers of Belarusian-like dialects to their neighbors speaking Ukrainian-like dialects, the latter also sometimes use it in a non-pejorative way in reference to their own dialect. As DRZAZGOWSKI (1992) notes, what is particularly striking in this term is not only its neutral semantics, particularly when used by speakers of these dialects themselves, but also the fact that it is often used in explicit contrast to the glottonym Ukrainian. Evidently the term entered local usage 4 5 “All around here live our people, Orthodox. There aren't many Poles here, they speak our way, but they don't go to the Orthodox church, they go to the Catholic church in Narewka.” “You can't have a normal conversation with those ciapruks, nothing but 'ciaper' [now], they can't say 'teper' like a human being.” Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 231 in the late 19th or early 20th century, possibly through military service of local men in the Tsarist Russian army, where they were told they speak like xaxly (the derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians), or during the traumatic forced evacuation of much of the Orthodox population of this region into the heart of Russia during WWI, an episode that is still widely recalled locally using the Russian word beženstvo. While we see some signs of continuity in folk linguistic taxonomy in the Podlasie region, there is evidence that over the last half century the glottonyms “Belarusian” and “Ukrainian” have become increasingly common in referring to local language varieties, both regarding the speech of others and villagers’ own speech. It is true that in some cases, speakers of the dialects of the BielskHajnówka type, generally those who clearly identify themselves as Belarusian, refer to their local dialect as Belarusian, without associating it with any specific linguistic indices. However, in other cases, speakers appear to explicitly link these glottonyms with certain linguistic features, for example, in the following statement by a villager from Lewkowo Nowe, a village near Narewka where the local dialect has both akanne and cekanne/dzekanne: “U nas kała Narauki to tak Charoszcz [the local pronunciation of the place name Choroszcz – CW] ludzi havorat, tak bolsz pa-biłarusku, a tam za lesom to troszku inaksz, tak twardziej (Lewkowo Nowe, SAJEWICZ 2008, 35).”6 Here, the speaker implies that saying Charoszcz is “more Belarusian” than “Choroszcz” (i.e. without akanne), and contrasts this “more Belarusian” way of speaking with the “harder” pronunciation of the dialects spoken on the other side of the Białowieża forest, further to the south (“hard” in this community being the common folk linguistic description of the feature of dispalatalization of consonants before /e/ and /i/). In some cases, the glottonym “Ukrainian” is used by speakers of dialects with cekanne/dzekanne and akanne in reference to the dialects with Ukrainian-like dispalatalization of consonants before /e/ and /i/: “Tam pad Hajnaukaju, kała Kliszczel to uże tak schwatujut pa-ukrajińsku (Lewkowo Nowe, SAJEWICZ 2008, 35).7 The category of native language (Polish język ojczysty, Belarusian rodnaja mova), as reflected in censuses and surveys, is not one that normally occurs in local discourses in rural Podlasie. In a sense, it could even be argued that this concept, at least in the Podlasian context, is largely the creation of the modern Polish state.8 When asked about their “native language,” local residents often 6 “Here around Narewka people say Charoszcz [local pronunciation of the place name Choroszcz – CW], more in the Belarusian way, while down there, beyond the forest, they speak somewhat differently, kind of harder.” 7 “Down there around Hajnówka, near Kleszczele [south of Hajnówka – CW], they already have a Ukrainian way of talking.” 8 As noted in Section 3, however, the category of “native language” was not included in Polish national censuses during the communist era, and although it may have been propagated through the educational system, it was not institutionalized to the 232 Curt Woolhiser give answers that at first glance are somewhat surprising. Thus, in a sociolinguistic survey I carried out in the region in 1999, a 49-year-old Orthodox villager in Cisówka, east of Białystok, stated “Maja rodna mova – pol’ska, ale havaru pa-svojamu.”9 How are we to interpret such statements? In general, in responses of this type, which are most common in the predominantly Catholic areas to the north of Białystok, we see reflected an emerging folk linguistic notion that the language of the state, the national language, automatically becomes the “native language” (język ojczysty). It would appear, thus, that elite notions of a coterminous relationship between nationality and native language have been to some extent internalized, at least on a theoretical level, by the inhabitants of the Podlasie region.This common tendency to equate the official language of the nation-state with the “native language” can be considered an example of what KALOGJERA (1985, 99) terms a “secondary language attitude,” originating not in the local speech community, but rather being imposed from above through the national educational system and other state institutions. 5. Ethnocultural Identities and the Perceptual Dialectology of Podlasie: Some Preliminary Findings In this final section I will provide an overview of my ongoing research in the Podlasie region, which focuses on the role of language use, locality and ethnic identity as independent variables influencing informants’ perceptions of the characteristics and spatial distribution of different language varieties in their immediate environment and in other parts of their native region. The informants for this project, which I began in February 2013, are high school students of local origin, representing a variety of ethno-national orientations, including Polish, Belarusian and Ukrainian, as well as various hyphenated versions thereof. They include both speakers of East Slavic dialects and largely monolingual speakers of the regional variety of standard Polish, whose grandparents, and in some cases parents, are speakers of local East Slavic dialects. The informants were recruited for me by teachers at a number of high schools in different parts of the Podlasie Voivodeship, representing areas with Orthodox or Roman Catholic majorities, as well as areas with a mixed population. The participants in the study were asked to fill out a questionnaire, including questions regarding their national identity, religious affiliation, family language background, familiarity with the names of different 9 same degree as the concept of “native language” (Russian rodnoj jazyk) in the Soviet Union. In the context of Soviet censuses, “native language” (rodnoj jazyk) often referred to the language associated with an individual’s ethnic heritage, regardless of the extent to which he or she actually spoke it. “My native language is Polish, but I speak our own way.” (Grzegorz Łuksza, farmer, Orthodox, age 49, Cisówka, Podlasie region; interview conducted for the author by Maria Panasewicz, January 1999). Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 233 languages and dialects of the Podlasie region, what characteristic features or examples they can cite, and their attitudes toward the non-Polish language varieties spoken in their communities. The questionnaire also included sample texts in a variety of dialects from the Podlasie region, including two texts representing dialects from its northern portion, where there is a Catholic majority and the dialects are relatively close to the Belarusian standard language, and two texts from southern Podlasie, where transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian and Ukrainian-like dialects are spoken. In this section, the students were asked to identify the language samples and indicate, to the extent they were able, where they are spoken. In the final portion of the questionnaire the student informants were given a map of the Podlasie Voivodeship and asked to draw the approximate geographical distribution of different languages and dialects, as far as they are aware, and indicate the names they associate with these language varieties. The questionnaire and dialect identification and map drawing experiments were designed to provide answers to three key sets of questions: 1) how do folk conceptions of linguistic differentiation in the region square with dialectological data, and to what extent do they reflect the ongoing process of language shift in the region?; 2) how do individuals’ language use and ethnolinguistic identity influence their perceptions of the interaction of language and dialect boundaries, ethnic and religious boundaries and political boundaries (i.e. the contemporary Polish-Belarus border) in the eastern Podlasie region; and 3) how do local folklinguistic notions reflect or run counter to the language ideologies underlying three competing national identity projects: the Polish, the Belarusian, and, in the southern part of the region, the Ukrainian movement? As of March 2013, I had received only a fraction of the total projected number of questionnaires, 72 in all, from three predominantly or exclusively Roman Catholic communities north of Białystok, Suchowola (pop. 2,500), Dąbrowa Białostocka (pop. 6,147) and Sokółka (pop. 18,888), as well as from the city of Białystok (pop. 294,399) and from the town of Hajnówka (pop. 21,583) southeast of the regional capital. In this paper I will focus on the data from four communities: Suchowola, Sokółka, Białystok and Hajnówka. As we see in the table in Figure 7 below, the informants from the schools in Suchowola and Sokółka are all Roman Catholic and all identify as Polish. The students in Białystok were selected specifically from among the Orthodox minority (making up about 13% of the city’s population according to recent estimates), and either attend schools where Belarusian is taught as a subject or are from families involved in local Belarusian cultural organizations. The students from Hajnówka all attend the Belarusian lyceum, where Belarusian is taught as an obligatory subject and the majority of pupils are Orthodox. As shown in Figure 7, among the Orthodox pupils in both Białystok and Hajnówka, we find a greater variety of ethno-national identities than 234 Curt Woolhiser among the Catholic pupils, which is consistent with broader patterns of ethno-national identification in Podlasie. However, thus far none of the respondents in my study whose families originate in the southern part of Podlasie have claimed Ukrainian ethnicity, which is not altogether surprising given the small numbers of self-identified Ukrainians in the region. Roman Catholic, Polish Orthodox, Polish Orthodox, Belarusian Orthodox, Polish and Belarusian Other Suchowola (n=25) 100% Sokółka (n=9) 100% Białystok (n=9) 0 Hajnówka (n=9) 0 0 22% (2) 56% (5) 0 0 56% (5) 22% (2) 0 0 22% (2) 0 0 0 0 11% (1) 11% (1) (“no nationality”) Figure 7. Reported religious affiliation and ethnicity (narodowość) of respondents In the data on reported language use in the family, shown in Figure 8 below, we see evidence of progressive language attrition across three generations in all four communities. There are, however, some interesting differences both in terms of the rate of attrition, and the names of the language varieties reported by the respondents. First of all, if we focus on the Catholic communities in the sample, Suchowola and Sokólka, we find that, not surprisingly, use of the local East Slavic dialects is more common among the grandparents’ generation in the smaller of the two communities, Suchowola. What language do your grandparents speak to each other? Suchowola Sokółka Białystok (Orthodox) Hajnówka P – 8% Po prostu – 92% P – 67% Po prostu – 33% P – 11% Po swojemu/ PLd 22% BR / BRd – 67% Polish – 0% Po swojemu/ PLd – 33% P-BR – 22% BR / BRd – 45% Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps What language do you speak with your grandparents? P – 64% Po prostu – 36% P – 89% Po prostu – 11% P – 11% Po swojemu/ PLd – 11% BR / BRd – 78% What language do your parents speak to each other? P – 64% Po prostu – 36% P– 78% Po prostu – 22% P – 33% Po swojemu/ PLd – 11% BR / BRd – 56% What language do you speak with your parents? Po – 92% Po prostu – 8% P – 89% Po prostu – 11% P – 33% Po swojemu/ PLd – 11% BR / BRd – 56% 235 P – 33% Po swojemu/ PLd – 11% P-BR – 22% BR / BRd – 34% P – 45% Po swojemu/ PLd – 22% P-BR – 11% BR / BRd – 22% P – 78% Po swojemu/ PLd – 0% P-BR – 22% BR / BRd – 0% Figure 8. Reported language use in the family (P = Polish, BR = Belarusian, BRd = Belarusian dialect. PLd Podlasian dialect) A larger percentage of high school students from Suchowola also report use of the local dialects with their grandparents than their counterparts in Sokółka. As for the respondents in Białystok, who as I have already noted, represent a sub-group of the larger Orthodox population who attend schools with Belarusian language instruction and/or whose families are involved in Belarusian cultural organizations, we find that reported use of East Slavic varieties within the family is still quite high among the younger generation. In Hajnówka, although language attrition is slower than in the Catholic communities, as far as the language used with parents is concerned, Polish is rapidly displacing the local East Slavic dialects. In terms of the glottonyms employed by respondents in reference to the local East Slavic varieties, we find that there is an important division between the Catholics and Orthodox in Podlasie. In the mainly Catholic communities of Suchowola and Sokólka, the most common terms employed are the ethnically neutral terms po prostu or gwara (dialect) (in the table, the responses using gwara were combined with those of po prostu). Among the Orthodox respondents in Białystok and Hajnówka, on the other hand, we find a broader range of designations. Among the Białystok informants, which include a majority of self-identified ethnic Belarusians, the ethnically marked terms “Belarusian” or “Belarusian dialect” prevail over the ethnically neutral terms po 236 Curt Woolhiser swojemu (our own way of speaking) or gwara podlaska (Podlasian dialect). Among the Orthodox respondents in Hajnówka, we also find a sizable percentage of responses using the terms “Belarusian” or “Belarusian dialect,” despite the smaller percentage of self-identified ethnic Belarusians among the respondents. As regards the questionnaire data on attitudes toward the East Slavic dialects of the Podlasie region shown in Figure 9 below, we find significant differences between Catholic and Orthodox respondents. Thus, it is only in the Catholic communities that from roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the respondents feel that the folk dialects of Podlasie are simply “a rural language that should have been displaced by correct Polish a long time ago.” Not surprisingly, the strongly Belarusian identified respondents in Białystok all felt that the folk dialects are “an important part of regional identity that should be preserved and developed,” and a majority of respondents in Hajnówka shared this opinion. However, even in Suchowola approximately a quarter of respondents felt that the local dialects represent an important part of local identity, while in Sokółka, over half of the respondents held this view. In light of the fact that reported dialect use among all generations is lower in Sokółka than in Suchowola, it could be that this more favorable attitude toward the dialect is a reflection of an incipient “third generation” phenomenon among local Catholic youth in Podlasie. A rural language that should have been displaced by correct Polish a long time ago Suchowola Sokółka Białystok (Orthodox) Hajnówka 32% 22% 0 0 A tradition that should be continued by folk ensembles, 44% 22% 0 33% folk art groups, etc. An important element of regional identity that should 24% 56% 100% 67% be preserved and developed. Other response: 0 0 0 0 Figure 9. Attitudes toward the local dialects: What do the folk dialects of Podlasie represent to you? For the dialect identification experiment, the students were given four texts representing different dialect areas of Podlasie. The texts were written in Latin script, following for the most part Polish orthographic conventions; this is due to the fact that knowledge of Cyrillic is nowadays very limited among the younger generation in Podlasie, and is indeed of little relevance to the ex- Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 237 perience of most Roman Catholics in the region. The first two texts, reproduced in (1) below, along with student responses, represent dialects from the predominantly Catholic areas to the north of Białystok. Text A, a recipe, was taken from the website Podlaska Cyberwioska (Podlasian Cybervillage), and shows characteristic features of the dialects from the area to the north of Sokółka. Text B is from a fairy tale recorded in a Catholic village to the south of Suchowola in the late 19th century by the Polish ethnographer Michał Federowski. (1) Language/dialect identification experiment, part 1 Can you tell what language the following texts are written in? If so, where do people speak that way? Text A CZYRWONY BORSZCZ Z USZKAMI : na zupu: 5 burakoŭ, 1 morkwa, 1 pietruszka, kawałak salera, 10 zieran czornaho piercu, 2 zierna anhielskaho ziela, 1 zubok czosnyku, 1 babkowy listok, sol, cukar, sok z cytryny, 80 hramoŭ suszonych hryboŭ na ciesto: 15 dekahramoŭ mukie, 1 ijko, 1 łożka wade na farsz: hrybe uwaranyja u zupi, 1 cybula, łożka tartaj bołki, 1 ijko, sol, pierac Hrybe umyć, namaczyć praz nocz i uwaryć u hetaj ża samaj wodzi, u jakoj maczylisa. Warywa abłupić, uwaryć razam z abłuplenymi i parezanymi u dziażki burakami i pryprawami. Adcedzić hrybe i warywa. Wadu, u jakoj warylisa hrybe i waryva ulić da adnaho harszczka. Kab zupa mieła piekniejszy koler, możno dadać kryszku buraczanaho kancentratu. Daprawić solaj, piercam, sokam z cytryny, czosnykam i jeśli trebo cukram. Padhreć, ale ni waryć, kab zupa ni zhubiła swajeho koleru. Zrabić farsz da uszkoŭ. Hrybe i cybulu drobnieńko parezać, padskwaryć na maśli, dadać tartu bołku, ijko i pryprawy. Wymieszać. Z mukie, ijka i haraczoj wade zahnieści ni wielmi ćwiorde ciesto, tonko jaho razwalać i parezać na maleńkija kwadraty. Na każdym kwadraciku pałażyć farszu, złażyć na pałowu i zlepić bierahie. Patom zlepić prociŭlehłyja rahie. Uszka waryć u asobnym kipiatku. Kiedy wypłynuć na wierch, waryć jaszcze chwilinu i wyciahnuć z wade. Uszka ułażyć na hłybokich talerkach i zalić haraczym borszczam. Czyrwony borszcz najlepszy paśla troch - czatyroch dzion. (Source: Padlaska Cyberwioska (recipes written in normalized dialect from northern Sokólka region) http://cybervioska.w.interia.pl/infarmacyi_1.htm) Responses: i. Pupils from Liceum Ogólnokształcące in Suchowola (north of Białystok) 1. “Białoruski, przy granicy z Białorusią” (Belarusian, near the border with Belarus) 238 Curt Woolhiser (age 19, f., Roman Catholic, from village of Karpowicze, 5 km west of Suchowola) 2. “Tak mowią w okolicach Sokółki – po prostu z domieszką białoruskiego” (They talk that way around Sokółki – po prostu mixed with Belarusian) (age 18, m., Roman Catholic, from Domuraty, approx. 15 km north of Suchowola) 3. “Po prostu lub po rusku, przy granicy” (Po prostu or Ruthenian, near the border) (age 18, f., Roman Catholic, from Małowista, approx. 20km northeast of Suchowola) ii. Pupils from Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Mikołaja Kopernika, Sokółka (northeast of Białystok, close to the Belarusian border) 1. “U mnie np. jest taki język i my nazywamy to śledzikowanie. Troche podobne jest do języka rosyjskiego lub białoruskiego” (In my village, for example, there is this language and we call it śledzikowanie. It’s a little bit like Russian or Belarusian) (age 17, f. , Roman Catholic, from village of Puciłki, 6km northeast of Sokółka) 2. “Język polski, gwara podlaska. Podlasie” (Polish language, Podlasian dialect, Podlasie) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from village of Sidra, 18 km north of Sokółka) 3. “J. ukraiński/ Na Ukrainie” (Ukrainian, in Ukraine) (age 16, f. Roman Catholic, parents born and raised in Sokółka) 4. “Jest to gwara śląska” (That’s the Silesian dialect) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from Babiki, 9km east of Sokółka, close to Belarusian border) iii. Pupils from Zespół Szkół z Dodatkową Nauką Języka Białoruskiego, Hajnówka 1. “Białoruski” (Belarusian) (age 18, f. Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 2. “Ukraiński” (Ukrainian) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 3. “Chyba po Ukraińsku, wsie mieszczące się pod Bielskiem Podlaskim” (Must be in Ukrainian, villages located near Bielsk Podlaski) (age 18, m., Orthodox, from Białowieża) 4. “Jest to napisane „po swojemu” (Pa swajomu). Używany jest na wioskach, między innymi w Dubiczach Osocznych i okolicach, a także używają go starsi ludzie z Hajnówki (najczęściej wyznania prawosławnego)” (It’s written “po swojemu”. It is used in the villages, among others Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 239 in Dubicze Osoczne and the surrounding area, and it is also used by older people from Hajnówka (most often of the Orthodox faith)” (age 18, m. Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 5. “Gwara białoruska, okolice Lewkowa, Narewki” (Belarusian dialect, vicinity of Lewkowo and Narewka) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka, grandparents from area between Hajnówka and Bielsk) iv. Orthodox pupils from schools in Białystok 1. “Jest to dialekt, w którym mówią m.in. mieszkańcy Lewkowa.” (This is the dialect spoken by, among others, the residents of Lewkowo) (age 18, f., from Białystok, father from near Narew, SE of Bialystok, mother from Malinnki, near Orla, III Liceum Ogólnokształcące 2. “Dialekt okolic Sokółki, Gródka” (The dialect from the vicinity of Sokółki and Gródek) (age 19, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, parents from Hajnówka and Bielsk) 3. “Wygląda na język ukraiński, ale prawdopodobnie jest to gwara używana przez Polaków mieszkających przy granicy z Ukrainą.” (Looks like Ukrainian, but probably that is the dialect used Poles living along the border with Ukraine) (age 17, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, grandparents from near Sokółka and Michałowo, II Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Anny z Sapiehów Jabłonowskiej) Text B Było u baćka try syne: dwuoch razumnych, treci dureń, a byli biednyje, tak najstarszy paszuoŭ da czarounika na służbu. Prasłużyŭ ruok, daŭ jemu czaroŭnik takoho baranaczka, co jak strasianuŭszy skazać: „baranku straśnisie"! to nasyplecsie zołata bez miery. Zajszoŭ juon da karczmy, luoh spać i każa da szynkarki: „Tylo ni każecie na jeho: baranku straśnisie". Tak jeje, wiadomo, ciekawaść uziała i jak tylo zasnuŭ, skazała, aż tut zołata nawaliłosie puoŭna chata! Jena to zaraz na miesco hetaho padstawiła swaho baranka, a juon uziaŭszy, paszoŭ sabie. Source: Fairy tale recorded in Chodorówka, 6km south of Suchowola (FEDEROWSKI 1902, 144) Responses: i. Pupils from Liceum Ogolnokształcące in Suchowola (north of Białystok) 1. “W naszych okolicach” (In our area) (age 19, f., Roman Catholic, from village of Karpowicze, 5 km west of Suchowola) 240 Curt Woolhiser 2. “Po rusku” (Ruthenian) (age 18, f., Roman Catholic, from Małowista, approx. 20 km northeast of Suchowola) ii. Pupils from Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Mikołaja Kopernika, Sokółka (northeast of Białystok) 1. “Język polski, gwara podlaska. Podlasie” (Polish, Podlasian dialect. Podlasie) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from village of Sidra, 18 km north of Sokółka) 2. “Język białoruski” (Belarusian) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from Babiki, 9 km east of Sokółka, close to Belarusian border) 3. “J. rosyjski/ w Rosji” (Russian / in Russia) (age 16, f. Roman Catholic, parents born and raised in Sokółka) iii. Pupils from Zespół Szkół z Dodatkową Nauką Języka Białoruskiego, Hajnówka 1. “Po białorusku. Wsie otaczające Białystok.” (Belarusian. Villages surrounding Białystok) (age 18, m, Orthodox, from Białowieża) 2. “Białoruski” (Belarusian) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 3. “Gwara podlaska” (Podlasian dialect) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) iv. Orthodox pupils from schools in Białystok 1. “Język białoruski, Podlasie, okolice Siemianówki” (Belarusian, Podlasie, vicinity of Siemianówki) (age 16, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, father’s family from near Siemianówka, 52km SE of Białystok, mother’s family from villages near Bielsk; Publiczne Gimnazjum nr 7, Białystok 2. “Tak mówią mieszkańcy Gródka na Podlasiu.” (That’s the way people who live in Gródek in Podlasie speak) (age 18, f., from Białystok, father from near Narew, SE of Bialystok, mother from Malinniki, near Orla, III Liceum Ogólnokształcące 3. “Dialekt okolic Siemianówki, Narewki” (Dialect from the area around Siemianówka and Narewka) (age 19, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, parents from Hajnówka and Bielsk) 4. “Dla mnie jest język białoruski, albo jakaś polska gwara, która jest do niego bardzo podobna” (For me it’s Belarusian, or some Polish dialect that is very similar to it) Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 241 (age 17, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, grandparents from near Sokółka and Michałowo, II Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Anny z Sapiehów Jabłonowskiej) As expected, students who reported using Podlasian dialects with grandparents and/or parents were on average more likely to be able to provide an approximate identification of the language varieties closest to those they speak at home. Thus, as we see in the sample responses in (i) and (ii) above, dialect-speaking students from Suchowola and Sokółka were able to provide fairly accurate geographical coordinates for the varieties represented in the texts. Significantly, some of the respondents distinguish between po prostu and Belarusian, considering text A to be a mixture of the two, or even a mixture of po prostu, Belarusian and Russian. Also noteworthy is the use of the older glottonym ruski (Ruthenian) by some of the Catholic respondents, and the fact that one respondent from Sokółka considers text B to represent a Podlasian dialect of Polish. In general, the respondents from Sokółka, who reported less use of the local dialects in their families, had more difficulty identifying all four dialect texts, including those representing varieties spoken in their own immediate region. Thus, in examples 3 and 4 in group (ii) above, pupils from Sokólka identified text A as either “Ukrainian” or even “Silesian,” that is, associating it with language varieties geographically and linguistically quite distant from the language they encounter in everyday life. The Orthodox respondents from Hajnówka and Białystok (groups iii and iv), whose families come primarily from villages in southern Podlasie, had more difficulty identifying the northern Podlasian variety represented by text A, some of them considering it “Ukrainian” (despite the presence of typical Belarusian phonological features) or erroneously identifying it as a dialect spoken in their own immediate region. Two of the Orthodox respondents, one from Hajnówka and the other from Białystok, identified the dialect in text A as that spoken in the vicinity of Lewkowo and Narewka, southeast of Białystok, which indeed shows a number of typically Belarusian features such as akanne and cekanne/dzekanne that are absent in the dialects of southern Podlasie. What is striking, however, is that only one respondent from Białystok (group iv, example 2 above), was able to place the dialect closer to its actual place of origin in the Sokółka region. The Orthodox respondents were somewhat better at placing the dialect represented in text B above, for the most part placing it in the dialect area with typically Belarusian features. However, those who provided a more specific location, such as Gródek, Siemianówka or Narewka, chose Belarusian-speaking areas with Orthodox majorities. We may speculate that for most of the Orthodox respondents, the predominantly Roman Catholic areas to the north and northeast of Białystok simply do not exist as part of the Belarusian speech territory. 242 Curt Woolhiser As for texts C and D (see (2) below), representing the Ukrainian-like and transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian dialects of southern Podlasie, we find that, not surprisingly, the Orthodox respondents with family ties to that region are able to provide fairly accurate geographical locations, often citing specific villages. Also noteworthy is the Orthodox respondents’ use of the glottonyms “Ukrainian” or “Belarusian-Ukrainian” in reference to these varieties. Significantly, however, “Ukrainian” in reference to these dialects is used by respondents whose families originate in other parts of southern Podlasie, that is, “Ukrainian” is not typically used by speakers of these dialects themselves in reference to their own speech. (2) Language/dialect identification experiment, part 2 Text C To buło w pjatnyciu, o czetwertuj hodyni po obiedy Ja chotyw jiechaty na hryby, ale natiahło takuju chmaru, czornu. Puszła bokom, ale ja zlekawsia i ne pojiechaw. Siw koło okna w kuchni i ot, taka siweńka stała stowpeczka – zaszumyło, zahuło. Chlaś i uże po szybi. A mni, jakby Pani skazała “odyjdy od okna”, ja odyjszow. Skul toj eternit rwało i nesło po szybach – ja ne znaw. Wybiło szybu. Eternit buw u chaty. Kob sydyw koło okna mene skaliczyło b. Odczynyw dwery do pokoju, a tak chlaś i po szybach, a okna buli zakryty. Ja perechrystywsia i dumaju uże – szczo bude? To moment. Chwila. Tut hrusza stojała, wywaliło. Tut jabłyniu wywaliło. Wychodżu na pudworok. Hlanuw na swuj plac: siako-tako wyhledaje. Hlanuw czerez huliciu, a tam rujina. Wsio znesiane – i obory, i kłunia, wsio.. Jelonka, gmina Dubicze Cerkiewne, local resident recounting a cyclone that destroyed much of the village in 2004; published in Nad Buhom i Narvoju, Ukrajins’kyj časopys Pidljašša (publication of the Union of Ukrainians of Podlasie); http://nadbuhom.pl/art_0332.html Responses: i. Pupils from Zespół Szkół z Dodatkową Nauką Języka Białoruskiego, Hajnówka 1. “Gwara, inny region Podlasia, wieś Mochnate” (Dialect, other region of Podlasie, village of Mochnate) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 2. “Ukraiński” (Ukrainian) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 3. “Gwara ukraińska- Kleszczele, Dubicze Cerkiewne” (Ukrainian dialect, - Kleszczele, Dubicze Cerkiewne) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka, grandparents from area between Hajnówka and Bielsk) Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 243 ii. Orthodox pupils from schools in Białystok 1. “Jezyk białorusko-ukraiński, Podlasie, okolice Orli” (Belarusian-Ukrainian language, Podlasie vicinity of Orla) (age 16, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, father’s family from near Siemianówka, 52km SE of Białystok, mother’s family from villages east of Bielsk; Publiczne Gimnazjum nr 7, Białystok) 2. “Tak mówią w Koszelach, na Podlasiu” (They talk that way in Koszele, in Podlasie) (age 18, f., from Białystok, father from near Narew, SE of Białystok, mother from Malinnki, near Orla, III Liceum Ogólnokształcące) 3. “Dialekt południowego Podlasia” (Dialect of southern Podlasie) (age 19, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, parents from Hajnówka and Bielsk) 4. “To również wygląda na język ukraiński, i myślę, że w nim jest napisany tekst.” (That also looks like Ukrainian, and I think that’s what the text is written in) (age 17, f., Orthodox, from Bialystok, grandparents from near Sokólka and Michalowo, II Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Anny z Sapiehów Jabłonowskiej) iii. Pupils from Liceum Ogolnokształcące in Suchowola (north of Bialystok) 1. “Hajnówka, rosyjski” (Hajnówka, Russian) (age 19, f., Roman Catholic, from village of Karpowicze, 5 km west of Suchowola) 2. “W okolicach Bielska Podlaskiego – po prostu” (Around Bielsk Podlaski – po prostu) (age 18, m., Roman Catholic, from Domuraty) 3. “Po rosyjsku” (In Russian) (age 18, f., Roman Catholic, from Małowista) 4. “Białoruski, okolice Hajnówki” (Belarusian, around Hajnówka) (age 18., m. Roman Catholic, from Suchowola) iv. Pupils from Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Mikołaja Kopernika, Sokółka 1. “Język polski, gwara podlaska. Podlasie” (Polish, Podlasian dialect) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from village of Sidra, 18 km north of Sokółka) 2. “J. Białoruski/ Na Białorusi” (Belarusian /In Belarus) (age 16, f. Roman Catholic, parents born and raised in Sokółka) 244 Curt Woolhiser Text D (...) Odrazu na druhi deń rano wiêďma zamknuła Jasia v kliêtci. Potum nakazała Małgosi, kob taja dobre waryła jiêsti swojomu bratowi, bo jomu treba trochu potłustiêti. Małgosia płakała, ale niczoho ne mohła zrobiti, musiła słuchatisie wiêďmy. Wiêďma każnoho rana pudychodiła do kliêtki i kazała Jasiowi, kob wôn czerez prutki prosowuwaw palcia. Prowirała, jak Jaś tłustiêje. Ale Jaś use wysowuwaw obhryzianu kôstku i staraja wiêďma, kotora wże dobre ne baczyła, ono diwowałasie, szto chłopeć ciêły czas taki chudy. Po sztyroch dniach wiêďmi skônczyłasie terplivosť i wona ne chotiêła wže dowsz czekati. Nakazała Małgosi, kob taja postawiła wody na plitiê i napaliła v peczê. „Zahlań do peczê, czy tam dobre pudłożano,” — skazała do Małgosi. Ale diêvczynka wdawała, szto ne wiêdaje, jak siête zrobiti, i chlipała: „Ja ne znaju, jak siête robitsie.” (...) Source: translation of Czech fairy tale into normalized version of southern Podlasian dialect (svoja mova) by Jan Maksymiuk, from village of Lachy (NW of Hajnówka); from the site Svoja.org (http://svoja.org/1115.html); orthography adapted to Polish spelling Responses: i. Pupils from Zespół Szkół z Dodatkową Nauką Języka Białoruskiego, Hajnówka 1. “Białoruski” (Belarusian) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) 2. “Gwara ukraińska” (Ukrainian dialect) (age 18, f., Orthodox, from Hajnówka) ii. Orthodox pupils from schools in Bialystok 1. “Język białoruski, Podlasie, okolice Bielska Podlaskiego, język moich dziadków” (Belarusian, Podlasie, vicinity of Bielsk Podlaski, the language of my grandparents) (age 16, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, father’s family from near Siemianówka, 52km SE of Białystok, mother’s family from villages east of Bielsk; Publiczne Gimnazjum nr 7, Białystok) 2. “Dialekt z okolic Bielska Podlaskiego i Hajnówki” (Dialect from around Bielsk Podlaski and Hajnówka) (age 19, f., Orthodox, from Białystok, parents from Hajnówka and Bielsk) 3. “Niewątpliwie to któryś z języków słowiańskich, ale nie mam pojęcia który, może słoweński, używany w Słowenii” (Undoubtedly that is one of the Slavic languages, but I have no idea which, maybe Slovene, used in Slovenia) Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 245 (age 17, f., Orthodox, from Bialystok, grandparents from near Sokólka and Michalowo, II Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Anny z Sapiehów Jabłonowskiej) iii. Pupils from Liceum Ogolnokształcące in Suchowola (north of Bialystok) 1. “Litewski, Sejny” (Lithuanian, Sejny) (age 19, f., Roman Catholic, from village of Karpowicze, 5 km west of Suchowola) iv. Pupils from Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Mikołaja Kopernika, Sokółka 1. “Język polski, gwara podlaska. Podlasie” (Polish, Podlasian dialect) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from village of Sidra, 18 km north of Sokółka) 2. “Kaszuby” (Kashubia) (age 16, m., Roman Catholic, from Babiki, 9km east of Sokółka, close to Belarusian border) 3. “Język słowacki/ Na Słowacji” (Slovak / In Slovakia) (age 16, f. Roman Catholic, parents born and raised in Sokółka) As was anticipated, the Catholic pupils from northern Podlasie had more difficulty identifying the provenance of texts C and D. Interestingly, a number of respondents were able to place text C in the vicinity of Hajnówka or Bielsk, but some identified the language variety as “Russian” (rosijski) rather than Belarusian or Ukrainian. Indeed, among the Catholic respondents (groups iii and iv), the glottonym “Ukrainian” in reference to the dialects of southern Podlasie is altogether absent. Text D, perhaps due to the presence of a single non-Polish grapheme, the circumflex ê representing an unrounded mid-high front vowel, seems to have caused the greatest confusion among the respondents from northern Podlasie, some identifying it as Slovene, Lithuanian, Kashubian or Slovak. Obviously, there are some legitimate questions regarding the use of written texts, rather than sound recordings, for dialect identification experiments, particularly in communities where there has been little to no exposure to standard Belarusian, much less local dialectal varieties, in writing. In the next stage of this research project I intend to supplement these results with a language/dialect identification experiment employing sound recordings, asking informants to identify the provenance of the provided speech samples. Let us now proceed to the findings from the pilot map drawing experiment. For this experiment, the students were given a map of the Podlasie Voivodeship and asked to draw the approximate geographical range of different languages or dialects spoken in Podlasie and beyond the country’s eastern border, indicating also the names of these varieties. As it turned out, only a quarter of the respondents submitted maps, as many lacked access to a 246 Curt Woolhiser scanner to send their hand-drawn maps as e-mail attachments. Of the maps I have received to date, the majority are from Sokółka and Dąbrowa Białostocka in northern Podlasie, thus leaving the predominantly Orthodox, linguistically transitional Belarusian-Ukrainian areas of southern Podlasie underrepresented. Nonetheless, some interesting observations concerning the perceptual dialectology of Podlasie emerge even from these incomplete data. Despite the prevalence of the glottonym prosty język/po prostu as a local designation for the indigenous East Slavic dialects of Podlasie, especially in the predominantly Catholic northern area, few of the participants in the map drawing experiment labeled their maps with variants of this term. For the most part, those respondents who did not use the term “Belarusian” for varieties spoken in their communities employed terminology based on territorial/administrative divisions, either “Podlasian dialect” (gwara Podlaska) (maps in Fig. 10-13) or “Sokółka dialect” (gwara Sokólska) (Fig. 13). On only one map did an informant, from Dąbrowa Białostocka in the extreme northernmost portion of the East Slavic dialect territory in Podlasie (Fig. 14), employ the term gwara prosta (“simple/plain dialect”) to label the dialects of his native Sokółka region. Why, despite the fact that in the questionnaire on language use most Roman Catholic respondents reported prosty język/po prostu as the home language spoken by their families and/or neighbors, is this term not used more widely in the map drawing experiment? This reluctance to assign any specific geographical correlates to the glottonym prosty język/ po prostu suggests that for local populations it relates above all to social rather than geographical space; in other words, prosty język/po prostu refers primarily to a socially restricted speech variety limited to the home and immediate community. Belarusian, to the extent that it exists at all for most of these informants, is associated mainly with the predominantly Orthodox areas south of Białystok, often being represented as centered in Hajnówka, considered the unofficial capital of the Belarusian minority in Poland. It is striking that the first three maps also show a relatively large Lithuanian-speaking area in the vicinity of Sejny in northern Podlasie, although Lithuanian dialects are in fact now spoken only in the vicinity of Puńsk on the Lithuanian border.10 It is interesting to note that the maps in Figures 10 and 12 are the only ones indicating that the “Podlasian dialect” and “Belarusian” are also spoken to the east of the Polish-Belarusian border. While for the most part, the respondents tend to underestimate the geographical extent of the East Slavic dialects of Podlasie, one respondent from Dąbrowa Białostocka, in the map in figure 15, identifies a “Belarusian” area as extending as far west as the vicinity of Mońki, 10 It is true, however, that Lithuanian influence in toponymy and to some extent the local Polish dialects extends further west. Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 247 where in fact Polish Mazovian dialects, albeit with some East Slavic contact features, were historically prevalent. The map in figure 16, drawn by an Orthodox student from Hajnówka, reflects the fact that for many residents of this part of Podlasie, Belarusian is limited to those areas, roughly from Gródek to Hajnówka, that have an Orthodox majority and where Belarusian minority institutions are based. Interestingly, this informant identifies a separate “Ukrainian” area centered around Bielsk Podlaski, although the dialects with the greatest number of “typically Ukrainian” features are spoken further to the southeast, in the vicinity of Dubicze Cerkiewne, Kleszczele and Czeremcha along the border with Belarus. This respondent’s perception of the Bielsk area as linguistically Ukrainian could be due to the fact that the Union of Ukrainians of Podlasie is based in Bielsk, where the majority of its public events are held. 248 Curt Woolhiser Figure 10. Map drawn by Catholic respondent from Sokółka Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps Figure 11. Map drawn by Catholic respondent from Sokółka 249 250 Curt Woolhiser Figure 12. Map drawn by Catholic respondent from Sokółka Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps Figure 13. Map drawn by Catholic respondent from Sokółka 251 252 Curt Woolhiser Figure 14. Map drawn by respondent from Dąbrowa Białostocka Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps Figure 15. Map drawn by Catholic respondent from Dąbrowa Białostocka 253 254 Curt Woolhiser Figure 16. Map drawn by Orthodox respondent from Hajnówka 6. Conclusions The preliminary findings of this study provide evidence of both continuity and change in the perceptual dialectology and folk linguistic taxonymy of Poland’s Podlasie region. Traditional exonyms based on specific linguistic indices, such as cepruki, dzekaly, sakaly, štokmany, etc. as well as those based on pre-modern political divisions, e.g. Padljaše/Korol’oŭci vs. Litviny (Lytvyny), are unfamiliar to many younger residents of Podlasie. Religious identity, which to a significant extent correlates with ethno-national identity in the re- Linguistic variation, identity and mental maps 255 gion, continues to play an important role both in the choice of glottonyms in reference to the East Slavic dialects still spoken in local rural communities, with Roman Catholics overwhelmingly using the ethnically neutral glottonym prosty jęyzk/po prostu in reference to Belarusian-like dialects spoken in the northern Podlasie region, while a significant percentage of Orthodox respondents employ the newer glottonyms “Belarusian,” “Ukrainian” or “Belarusian-Ukrainian” in reference to the vernacular varieties spoken in their families and communities. Not surprisingly, among the high school-age subjects of this study, individuals identifying as ethnically Belarusian, as well as Orthodox respondents more generally, have more favorable attitudes toward local East Slavic dialects than their Roman Catholic peers who self-identify as Poles, although favorable attitudes toward the dialects among the latter in predominantly Catholic communities such as Sokółka are more common than had been initially expected.11 However, due to the ever-increasing role of Polish as the default language of communication outside the community, as well as ongoing language attrition, among the younger generation there appears to be little awareness of the geographical distribution and internal differentiation of other East Slavic varieties in Podlasie outside most informants’ immediate sub-region. REFERENCES BRITAIN, D. 2004. Geolinguistics – diffusion of language. In: Ammon, U. / Dittmar, N. / Mattheier, K. / Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Vol. 1. Berlin and New York: 34-48. DANYLENKO, A. 2006. On the Name(s) of the Prostaja Mova in the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth. Studia Slavica Hungarica 51/1–2: 97–121. DRZAZGOWSKI, M. 1992. O nazwie chachłacka mowa. In: K. Handke (ed.) Słowiańskie pogranicza językowe. Warsaw: 29-35. DURNOVO, N. N. / N. N. SOKOLOV / D. N. UŠAKOV. 1915. Opyt dialektologičeskoj karty russkogo jazyka v Evrope s priloženiem očerka russkoj dialektologii. Moscow. FEDEROWSKI, M. 1897-1903. Lud białoruski na Rusi Litewskiej. Materyały do etnografii słowiańskiej zgromadzone w latach 1877-1894. 3 vols: vol 1 (1897), vol. 2 (1902), vol. 3 (1903). Cracow. 11 As PAWLUCZUK (2006, 45) notes, it is not out of the question that young people in the predominantly Catholic areas north of Białystok may come to reevaluate their communities’ traditional attitudes toward the relationship between language, religion and identity. We might expect such a “third generation phenomenon” to be expressed in more favorable attitudes toward the East Slavic dialects of the region as well as perceptions of dialect and language boundaries. 256 Curt Woolhiser GLINKA, S. / A. OBRĘBSKA-JABŁOŃSKA / J. SIATKOWSKI (eds.). 1980. Atlas gwar wschodniosłowiańskich Białostocczyzny. 2 vols. Wrocław. GUS (Główny Urząd Statystyczny). 2012. Wyniki Narodowego Spisu Powszechnego Ludności i Mieszkań 2011. Warsaw. — 2008. Wyniki Narodowego Spisu Powszechnego Ludności i Mieszkań 2002 w zakresie deklarowanej narodowości oraz języka używanego w domu. KALOGJERA, D. 1985. Attitudes toward Serbo-Croatian language varieties. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 52: 93-109. KARSKIJ. E. F. 1903. Belorusy. Vol. 1: Vvedenie v izučenie jazyka i narodnoj slovesnosti. Warsaw: Tipografija varšavskogo učebnogo kruga. KLIMČUK, F. 1999. Dialektnye tipy Poles’ja na obščeslavjanskom fone. In: Slavjanskie etjudy. Sbornik k jubileju S. M. Tolstoj. Moscow. KURASZKIEWICZ, W. 1938. Najważniejsze zjawiska językowe ruskie w gwarach między Bugiem i Narwą. Sprawozdania Komisji Językowej Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego 31, z. 2,wydział 1: 104-119. MACKEVIČ, J. F. et al. 1979-1986. Sloŭnik belaruskix havorak paŭnočna-zaxodnjaj Belarusi i jaje pahraničča (5 vols.). Minsk. PAWLUCZUK, W. 2006. Belarusians: political, local and others. Annus Albaruthenicus 7: 31-50. PRESTON D. 1989. Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Dordrecht. SAFAREWICZ. J. 1974. The distribution of local geographical names in –iszki over the Slavic-Lithuanian borderlands. In: Linguistic Studies. The Hague: 275-276. SAJEWICZ, M. 2008. Zagadnienie przynależności etniczno-językowej prawosławnych mieszkańców Powiatu Hajnowskiego na Białostocczyźnie. In: Stepaniuk, M. (ed.), Gwary połnocnego Podlasia. Bielsk-Puchły: 23-39. STRACZUK, J. 1999. Język a tożsamość człowieka w warunkach społecznej wielojęzyczności. Warsaw. RECONSIDERING OUR LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY FROM MIRANDESE: THE “LATEST” 1 AND THE “LEAST” AMONG ROMANCE LANGUAGES Satoshi Terao (Miyazaki) 1. Introduction Mirandese was legally recognized as a language during the late 1990s by the parliament of the Portuguese Republic, under National Law 7/99 (1999), following the recent trend in Europe, especially in Spain, to view ‘rural linguistic minorities’ as ‘communities which use a regional language’. However, compared to its neighboring languages, the Mirandese language has certain unique characteristics, such as the process of its establishment and its typological features. In addition to the above-mentioned characteristics of Mirandese, this paper will also consider lessons to be learned from the experience of Mirandese in order to reconsider linguistic diversity, especially in East Asia. 2. Description of the Mirandese language 2.1. Geographical situation The Mirandese language was originally spoken on the right bank of the midstream of the Douro River in the northwest part of the Iberian Peninsula (see Map 1). In this area, the Douro River forms a deep canyon, which defines the border between Portugal (right/west bank) and Spain (left/east bank, where this river is known as Duero). The nearest city with a population of more than 100,000 is Salamanca (151,658 in 2011), located southeast of the town of Miranda de l Douro.2 The border zone defined by the Douro/Duero River is called ‘Douro/Duero Internacional’3 and extends 112 km from north to south. The northern half of this zone is called ‘Terras de Miranda’ on the west bank or Portuguese territory and ‘Sayago’ on the east bank or Spanish territory.4 Most of the northern half of the ‘Terras de Miranda’ is the original zone where Mirandese was spoken.5 Administratively, 1 2 3 4 5 This paper is based on TERAO (2009; 2010) and widely modiflied and updated. The nearest city with a population of more than 10,000 is Zamora (65,417 in 2011), located upstream of the Duero River in Spain, approximately 55 km east of the town of Miranda de l Douro. In Portugal, the nearest city with a population of more than 10,000 is Bragança (35,341 in 2011), approx. 85 km from the Miranda town. In Spain, this is also called Arribas del Duero. Arribas del Duero is simultaneously treated with feminine gender as las Arribas del Duero in the Province of Zamora and with the masculine gender in the Province of Salamanca, i.e., los Arribes del Duero. CABAÑAS (1985) defined Borrasao as a variant of Leonese in Terras de Miranda; however, this term is not common in Portugal. On the other hand, some papers read it as Terra de Miranda instead of Terras de Miranda. In the northern half of Terras de Miranda, the western zone, which includes the principal area of the municipality of Vimioso and the easternmost area of the municipality of Bra- 258 Satoshi Terao this area includes most of the municipality of Miranda de l Douro6 and three Juntas de Freguesias (JF) towns of the municipality of Vimioso,7 which forms the westernmost part of the original zone. The relief of this zone, where the altitude varies from 450 m to 800 m, is mainly a plateau (Planalto mirandês) separated by valleys, namely, to the east by the Douro River and to the west by the Angueira River, though there is no topological obstacle to the north (the border with Spain) or to the south. Most of the original area is used for agriculture, pasturage8 and forestry, though its productivity is relatively low because of the aridity of the land. In some villages there are small-sized industries, namely, metalworking and cask making in Palaçuolo (Palaçoulo in Portuguese) and winery and olive oil making in Sendin (Sendim in Portuguese, the southernmost and largest village in the original area of the Mirandese language). These are considered important as model cases for the development of the local economy, not only in the zone of the Mirandese language but for the whole Trás-os-Montes region,9 which includes the Terras de Miran- 6 7 8 9 gança (Outeiro de Miranda), the Mirandese language is not actually spoken. There is, however, a strong linguistic and cultural influence of the Mirandese language, and it may be seen as a corridor which links the area of the Mirandese language and some Juntas de Freguesias (JF) towns and hamlets where ‘variants’ of the Astur-Leonese language are spoken, namely, Deilão, Petisqueira, Guadramil and Rio do Onor. Moreover, to the south of Terras de Miranda, some Juntas de Freguesias (JF) towns and hamlets alongside the border with Spain at the northernmost of the municipality of Mogadouro, namely, Urros, Bemposta and Lamoso, are counted as historical areas of the Mirandese language by some linguists in Portugal. In the municipality of Miranda de l Douro, the main town of Miranda de l Douro is not considered to be included in the area of the Mirandese language, though four hamlets in the JF of Miranda de l Douro are. Moreover, Atenor (JF), which is located southwest of the municipality, is also considered to be outside the original area of the Mirandese language. Specifically, Angueira, Caçarelhos and Vilar Seco are included. In the case of Caçarelhos, it was once believed that the Mirandese language had already disappeared, however, my own fieldwork in 2005 established that there still remain speakers of the Mirandese language. Moreover, in the municipality of Vimioso, parish towns and hamlets such as Avelanoso, Vila Chã de Ribeira, Campo de Viboras, São Joanico, Serapicos and Vale de Frades are considered by A. Mourinho as areas in which Mirandese is historically spoken. Famous for vaca mirandesa (the Mirandese Cow) for cultivation and beef. After the recognition of the Mirandese language, the language itself and indigenous cattle are the main resources for tourism in this area. Trás-os-Montes means ‘the backside of the mountains’. Thus, Trás-os-Montes is the remotest region from Lisbon or the coastal zone (which is considered as a developed area) of Portugal. Though historically the name Trás-os-Montes had been used as an administrative unit, it is still used for the name of this area, even if it is not the actual unit. Actually, Terras de Miranda consists of the easternmost part of the District of Bragança as administrative unit in Portugal, which does not correspond with EU territorial units, used for statistical references. In this case, Terras de Miranda is the easternmost part of Alto Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 259 da as the eastern border (bounded by the Douro River). However, the geographical character of the Mirandese language can be defined not only as a rural language as mentioned above, but also as an urban language resulting from emigration from this area. Mirandese speakers have emigrated mainly to the coastal zone in Portugal (Lisbon, Porto, etc.), France (Paris, Bordeaux, etc.), and Spain (Madrid, Bilbao, etc.), but also to Brazil, Canada (Toronto, etc.), the Republic of South Africa, Australia, and even to Kobe City in Japan. It is considered that the population of emigrants from the original area of the Mirandese language is far larger than the population located in the original area. This factor makes it very difficult to calculate the number of speakers, adding to the decline of the language’s use. This has been further complicated by immigration into the Mirandese area.10 This is the main reason it has been complicated to apply to the European Union’s scheme for the protection and promotion of ‘Lesser-used languages and Minority languages,’ since there is little consideration for languages like Mirandese, which are not based only on region (such as Welsh or Catalan) but at the same time also contain ‘newcomer’11 characteristics (such as Arabic, Ukrainian, etc.) in urban areas. In other words, the study of the Mirandese language can be seen as a model case for how to deal with the common issues of minority languages, originally located in rural areas of underdeveloped countries, which have suffered a sharp decline of speakers both through underuse of the language and as a result of emigration, rural exodus or diaspora. 2.2. Phonology With respect to the principal differences of the Mirandese language in comparison to neighboring languages, one may begin with phonological facts (refer also to Table 1): 1 Mirandese keeps the Latin intervocalic consonants -n- and -l-, different from Portuguese (but similar to Astur-Leonese/Spanish) (lhuna for Portuguese [Pt.] lua, salir for Pt. sair). 2 It exhibits the palatalization of Latin -nn-, -mn- and -ll-. (cundanhar, canha, ampolha, cabalho) Trás-os-Montes (NUTS III), which belongs to Região Norte, i.e., the North Region (NUTS II). 10 Immigration into the area began with an influx of workers involved in the construction of two dams in the municipality of Miranda de l Douro in the 1950s and was accelerated by the development of tourism and commercial industry after the opening of the border in 1977. Nowadays, there is a notable influx of elderly people – mostly pensioners – coming not only from the big cities of Portugal but also from Germany and France. 11 This term is used as a pair with the opposite concept of ‘old-timer.’ However, whether ‘newcomer’ and ‘old-timer,’ its definition is quite relative, thus, the borderline of classification for these categories changes according to each standpoint. 260 Satoshi Terao 3 The existence of double vowels with rising diphthongs -ie- (sierra; common in Spanish) and -uo- (puonte, fuonte; instead of -ue- in Spanish) 4 The existence of lh- [ʎ] at the beginning of the word, originated by the palatalization of the Latin initial l-. (lhado, lhume) 5 The tendency for nonexistence of high atony vowels at the beginning of the word itself. When appearing above vowels at the beginning of words, they form falling diphthongs (eigreija, eidade, oureilha, oubrigar). If they start with nasal vowels, they will not be as high and/or changed to double vowels (amportante for Pt. importante, ounir for Pt. unir). 6 When the second syllable begins with a consonant, des- is reduced to a sibilant sound, which is a voiced (z-) or voiceless (ç-) sibilant, depending on the following consonant (znudo, çcalçar). 7 Latin Cl- and [nasal(n)+cl-] or Latin Pl- and [nasal(m)+pl- ] are normally pronounced as [tʃ], and written as ch (chave, mancha, cheio, incher), instead of [ʃ], as in Portuguese, and occurs more frequently than in Spanish, which pronounces these Latin scripts as [tʃ] in some cases as well. 8 The independent sibilant sound in the first syllable is not preceded by a vowel (E-). (star), which is different from Portuguese or Spanish (estar); however, colloquial pronunciation in the Lisbon area also drops the initial E- in this case. 9 The Latin suffix -­‐rius/‐rium is changed to ‐iro (neçairo, dicionairo). 10 Case of palomba (dove): One of the major characteristics distinguishing western Ibero-romance languages from eastern Ibero-romance languages is the maintenance of Latin -mb-. For example, Columbus > Colombo (Portuguese))/Colón (Spanish [Sp.]), plumbum > chumbo (Pt.)/plomo (Sp.) and palumba > pomba (Pt.)/paloma (Sp.). In the meantime, with respect to Latin palumba, in Portuguese, as a typical phenomenon of the western Ibero-romance, -l- is dropped (pomba), however, in Mirandese, kept as palomba. This is one piece of evidence that Mirandese retains features of the prototype of Ibero-romance languages. 2.3. Morphology Important morphological features are: 1 The utilization of the pronoun bós (vós in Portuguese and Spanish; the second person plural) as a form of honorific treatment for the second person in both singular and plural, instead of modern Portuguese and modern Spanish (but similar to medieval Portuguese/Spanish). 2 The predominant utilization of single tense instead of compound tense, which differs from modern Spanish (but is similar to the Portuguese/Galician/Astur-leonese/Spanish spoken in the western regions of Spain). 3 The possibility to construct negative phrases through negative indefinitive. (see Table 2) Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 261 4 The gender of the following nouns: la calor (feminine [f.] ), l12 fiebre (masculine), la fin (f.) 5 The utilization of a personal infinitive different from Spanish (but similar to Portuguese). Resolbírun cortar la lhéngua de un bicho para la lhebáren a la mal cumo proba. (from MARTINS 2004, my italics) 2.4. Lexicology Important lexicological characteristics are: 1 The presence of a diminuitive suffix ‐ico Historically, this suffix frequently appeared in the mountainous area of the north-central part of the Iberian Peninsula, i.e., in northern Meseta, from the southern foot of the Cantabrian Mountains to the north bank of the Tagus River. However, as centuries passed, Castilian/Spanish spread over the whole area of this region with the typical diminutive suffix ‐ito. In Mirandese, the presence of ‐ico is considered as a unique phenomenon. Meanwhile, in Zaragoza, it is said that the ‐ ico suffix is the most typical proof for Zaragozan. That means the ‐ico suffix remains at both edges of the original distribution.13 2 Original vocabulary In the following, I give some examples from Mirandese vocabulary thought to be typical of this language. Some of them have a distribution similar to that of the original area of Mirandese, however, most of these words are also understandable around the surrounding villages, which are officially considered outside of the linguistic area. adego (at that time); anguelgue/enguelgue (Acer monspessulanum L.); boubielho (hoopoe Upupa epops; mad); cachico (a little bit); çamarra (leather); canhona (sheep); ende (there); garunho (mean); sarta (bead); scanho (coach)14; soto (small store); tabafeia (sausage of wheat with a little meat); tagalho (flock [of sheep]) In conclusion, at the linguistic basis of the Mirandese language, one can see the 12 The masculine article in Mirandese is written as l, different from o in Portuguese or el in Spanish. 13 Original distribution of the diminutive suffix ‐ico is indicated by FAUST (1979). In the meantime, URRUTIA and ALVAREZ (1988) indicate the actual presence of this suffix in Aragon, Murcia and Granada, instead of the typical suffix ‐ino of Astur-leonese with ‐uco type as its oriental range. As IZUI (1968) pointed out in the case of the alteration of Petrarca from his family name Petracco, the -co type suffix in Vulgar Latin or Romance languages had been regarded as coarse. 14 This word stands for a pair of long couches normally placed facing one another in front of a fireplace. 262 Satoshi Terao trace of the prototype of western Ibero-romance language. Thus, many archaic vestiges can be observed, as will be elaborated on later. However, as a matter of fact, we can also easily find similarities with surrounding Romance languages such as Portuguese or Spanish, derived from the same branch of Romance languages. Map. 1 Original area of Mirandese (Courtesy: Ms. Megumi Sasaya for digital drawings) Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 263 Spanish Latin Portuguese (Astur-)Leonese Mirandese spell. -c- Ex. ficus , Sanabr. Lisbon Mgdo. Sendin Mlhd. Cnst. Snbr. Valld. [g] [g] -- [g] [g] [g] [g] vesica #f– filĭus [f] [f] [f] [f] [f] [f] -- #l– lāna , [l] [l] [l] [λ] [λ] [λ] [l] lūna -lĭ- filĭus [λ] [λ] -- [λ] [λ] [λ] [x] -n- lāna , -- -- [n] [n] [n] [n] [n] [v] [b] [b] [b] [b] [b] [b] lūna #v– vāsus Table. 1 Phonetic comparison of Mirandese and surrounding languages Abbreviations: Mgdo.: Mogadouro, Mlhd.: Malhadas, Cnst.: Custantin, Snbr.: Sanabria, Valld.: Valladolid 264 Satoshi Terao Mirandese --- Tenga agarrado ningua delor de Barriga Portuguese Não tenha apanhado --- dor de Barriga Not Have caught nothing ache of Stomach ‘I hope you won’t get a stomach ache.’ Table. 2 Example of the construction of negative phrases through negative indefinitive 3. Taxonomy in Romance languages As mentioned above, the difference between Mirandese and surrounding languages is not very great, compared to the striking contrasts among neighboring non-European languages distributed in Asia or in Africa. In addition, most of such relatively minor differences are not peculiar to Mirandese, and the switch of linguistic characters to the neighbor languages is one of gradation. Supposing Mirandese were not in the family of Romance languages, it might be classified as a dialect or even a sub-dialect or a patois of the larger-distributed language. In Japan some linguists have repeatedly maintained that, linguistically speaking, the difference between Spanish and Portuguese is not great enough to consider them languages, but dialects. Thus, the nomination of these languages is due to national borders, a situation different to that of dialect usage in Japan. This explanation provides an excuse for Japanese dialectologists to affirm that, for example, the languages of the Ryukyu Islands are a kind of Japanese dialect. However, we must also remember the detailed taxonomic order of languages in comparative linguistics is made and based on the classification of Romance languages from the 18th century up to today, and the accumulation of such analyses has made a great contribution to the evaluation of linguistic differences among languages. Following these results, linguists consider that the division of relative languages is not always determined by political borders or ethnic characteristics, but also by the linguistic features themselves or even by the feeling of linguistic autonomy, as in the case of Mirandese. Peter Trudgill, in his article ‘Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe’ (TRUDGILL 2004), describes such change of linguistic nomination on the Iberian Peninsula as a sort of Ausbau language.15 In the following section, I will analyze the transition of such taxonomic trends, focusing on the Mirandese language. 15 The theory of Ausbau for the establishing of language was introduced by KLOSS (1967). Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 265 4. Is Mirandese a language? 4.1. Originality in the process of language establishment: A long road to recognition of the Mirandese language. As mentioned earlier, Mirandese was legally recognized as a language in 1998 by the parliament of the Portuguese Republic. Nevertheless, there is a rumor among the Portuguese that the Mirandese language was invented all of a sudden by Portuguese linguists anticipating EU aid for minority languages. However, the establishment of the Mirandese language was anything but sudden. Apart from languages such as Romany, East-European, African, etc., spoken by the agricultural laborers in the rural areas of Portugal, only Romance languages may be heard, to which Portuguese belongs.16 The change of language on Portugal’s mainland is geographically continuous, shifting gradually. In this situation it is rare that the division of one linguistic phenomenon corresponds to that of other cases. However, there are some extreme locations containing a lot of differences compared to Portuguese spoken in Lisbon or in Coimbra, which is thought of as standard Portuguese in Portugal. Around the beginning of the 19th century, some Portuguese intellectuals, who were influenced by Central Europe Romanticism, started to examine linguistic diversity in Portugal. From the latter half of this century, this movement was succeeded by French philologists (interested in linguistic geography) as well as German Romanists. One of the most enthusiastic scholars in Portugal concerning this issue was José Leite de Vasconcelos (1858-1941). Although the linguistic ‘discovery’ of Mirandese was made by Vasconcelos, the linguistic uniqueness of this area had been noticed since the 16th century. These characteristics had first been observed on the other bank of the Douro River (i.e., the east bank or Savago/Spanish side), where it was known as Sayaguese. Sayaguese was quite similar to the language spoken on the Portuguese side of the river, however, the Portuguese side was relatively isolated and had few contacts with other people. Sayaguese itself was often characterized as the most boorish patois of the whole Iberian Peninsula. Cervantes himself even twice described it in his Don Quixote (Part II, 1615) as follows.17 At first, Sayagese appeared in a mundane conversation between Don Quixote and Sancho: Don Quixote (quoth), ‘thou misappelier of good language, whom God confound.’ ‘Pray, sir, be not so sharp upon me,’ ansewered Sancho; ‘for you know I was not bred at court, nor have studied in Salamanca, to know whether I add to, or take a letter from my words. As God shall save me, it is unreasonable to expect, that the Sayagues should speak like the Toledans; nay, there are Toledans, who are not over nice in the business of speaking politely.’ (Chapter 19, my italics) 16 In this paper, the above-mentioned minorities of rural area will be referred to as ‘rural minority,’ and the contrastive term will be ‘urban minority.’ 17 In this paper, I have used the English translation version of World’s Classics paperback (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992), translated by C. Jarvis. 266 Satoshi Terao And repeated in the following passage, in which Don Quixote has just been awoken from a long daydream: ‘So she would most certainly,’ answered Don Quixote, ‘had not the misfortune, which lately befall her, blotted her idea out of my mind; such a misfortune, that I am in a condition rather to bewail than to describe her; for your grandeurs must know, that, going a few days ago to kiss her hands, and receive her benediction, commands, and licence for this third sally, I found her quite another person than her I sought for. I found her enchanted, and converted from a princess into a country wench, from beautiful to ugly, from an angel to a devil, from fragrant to pestiferous, from courtly to rustic, from light to darkness, from a sober lady to a junmping Joan; and, in fine, from Dulcinea del Toboso to a clowinsh wench of Sayago.’ ‘God be my aid’, cried the duke at this instant, with a loud voice: ‘who may it be that has done so much mischief to the world?’ (Chapter 32, my italics) As mentioned earlier, the first linguistic description of Mirandese was written by Vasconcelos in 1882, who treated it as a co-dialect. His ‘discovery’ – that is, his estimation that Mirandese was a direct descendant of Latin rather than merely a poor dialect – was widely recognized after publication of his famous work at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century (VASCONCELOS 1900-1901). From then on Mirandese was always treated as a dialect. Moreover, after renowned Spanish philologist MENÉNDEZ PIDAL (1906) deemed it to be a sub-dialect of the (Astur-)Leonese dialect, it was considered to belong to the Spanish language, and Vasconcelos himself gave up his notion of co-dialect, reclassifying it according to the ordinary taxonomic order of languages. However, in Portugal, Mirandese was treated as an authentic dialect18 of the ancient Leonese language, and not in the sub-order of the 18 The concept of authencity sometimes classifies the difference between languages and dialects, however, this concept could divide dialects into different categories. Thus, SCHIRMUNSKI (1930) categorized dialects by two orders, i.e., ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ dialect, repeated by COSERIU (1980). Utilizing this category, for example, BURR (2001) divided Iberian Romance variants into primary dialects (Asturian, Castilian or Aragonese) and secondary dialects (Andalusian or Canarian). However, such categorization could raise further questions, i.e., the timing of the borderline of this classification. The secondary dialects are defined as those dialects which appear after the fixation of the standard language on which the dialects are based. However, the historical period of fixation of standard language is quite changeable, by each parameter, as the first appearance of standard script, first appearance of legal document, etc. Moreover, in the case of variants regarded as secondary dialects, some of them are formalized without or with less influence of standard language or standard script to which these dialects are indicated to belong. Thus, though almost all variants were made before the establishment of the educational system of the standard language, the feeling of authenticity by such categorization could bring discrimination for variants for which it was difficult to prove their primary nature. In Portugal as well, the main reason that Mirandese could be regarded as a language or at least a primary dialect is the categorization mentioned above; but for the same reasons, variants such as Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 267 actual (Astur-)Leonese dialect, which is a result of the political and cultural decline of the Leonese language after the integration of the Kingdom of Leon into the Kingdom of Castilla. After the boom of interest in linguistic geography on the entire Iberian Peninsula, both Spain and Portugal suffered from authoritarian governments from the 1930s, which forcibly denied any cultural diversity, including in linguistic matters, in the respective countries. Thus, each government forced a ‘one country, one language’ policy, even on people living near the periphery of their land. In this difficult situation, Mirandese survived not only due to the very low rate of literacy (especially among women) in Terras de Miranda, but also due to the struggles of a parish father by the name of António Maria Mourinho. His concept was to harmonize the Mirandese culture with the Portuguese authoritarian system by promoting its folklore dance and music as ‘one of the ornamental flowers’ of portugalidade, or so-called ‘Portugality.’ One of the important items for his movement was the Mirandese ‘dialect.’ The dictatorship itself also sympathized with his idea, because the uniqueness of Mirandese posed little threat to the system, due to its demographic size and low educational situation. This close relationship between Mourinho and the authorities became more solid after the year 1960. People called this year ‘the year of Africa’ because of the rush toward independence by ex-British and ex-French colonies in Africa. At that time, Mirandese culture was used as a small and safe showcase to camouflage Portuguese colonialism, which continued up to 1974, and was put forward as an expression of the generosity of Portuguese society towards cultural diversity, against international opinion criticizing the Portuguese autocracy’s out-of-date colonial policy. After the overthrow of the authoritarian government during the Carnation Revolution in 1974,19 renewed influence came from the drastic change in attitudes toward cultural and linguistic diversity in Spain, which had also experienced modification of its political system due to the death of Franco. The movement to regain linguistic rights extended to the east corners of the Peninsula; i.e., the Basque and Catalan languages’ linguistic uniqueness, which is strongly linked with their ethnicity, had been reclaimed from long years ago. Thereafter, this movement shifted to Galicia, at the northwest corner of the Peninsula, i.e., next to Portugal. These three languages were recognized officially and ultimately stimulated such neighboring regions as Valencia, Aragon and Asturias. In Asturias there is a small-sized but active movement to gain recognition for Barranquenho (spoken in Barrancos town, on Spanish border in Alentejo) are not treated as a language. 19 It is also worth noting that from this period traditional Mirandese folklore music (with the Mirandese verses) was widely adopted into the Portuguese folk music movement. This adoption was introduced by José Manuel Cerqueira Afonso dos Santos (Zeca Afonso, 1929-87) and contributed greatly towards wider recognition of the existence of the Mirandese language among Portuguese. 268 Satoshi Terao the language known as Asturian or Bable. However, in order to bolster its claim, it was necessary to retrieve and demonstrate its wider geographical coverage as Astur-Leonese, because there is a linguistic continuity both in the north (Asturias) and in the south (former Leon Region), at the foot of the Cantabrian Mountains. Without this extension of their movement, it would be quite difficult to gain wider recognition. Thus, they focused on Mirandese, which not only has cross-border evidence of the distribution of Astur-Leonese, but which is also better preserved than the Leonese language or southern Astur-Leonese area in Spain. In fact, in areas where Leonese is spoken, the local language use had diminished, due to intensive Spanish-based education in schools and pressure for linguistic unification by the authoritarian government. What’s more, the linguistic automonous mood was almost extinguished by an arbitrary reshuffling of regional units upon reform by the former government, because the León Region20 was scrapped and integrated into the Castilla-León Region.21 The Asturians’ interest in the ‘Mirandese dialect’ contributed to a wake-up call for linguistic rights among Mirandese intellectuals throughout the 1970s and ‘80s.22 The entry of Portugal into the European Community in 1986 had an impact on both the national government and the community itself. Around this period they began to crystallize their understanding of Mirandese as a language, and experimental education in Mirandese in Miranda de l Douro commenced under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. Just prior to legal recognition of the Mirandese language, approved by the parliament in 1998 and issued into national law in the next year, a group was formed to edit the Orthographic Convention of the Mirandese language. The group’s members included linguists and native speakers of Mirandese who had written literature in Mirandese, albeit each employing a rather arbitrary and personal orthography. This process accelerated the process of legal recognition, as it was spurred on by local enthusiasm, education in Mirandese, the eagerness of municipality staff as well as a feeling of solidarity and support by intellectuals living in big ci20 The former León Region comprised three provinces, namely, León, Zamora and Salamanca, from north to south. In the northern and western parts of the province of León and the westernmost area of the provinces of Zamora and Salamanca (i.e., with the border of Portugal), there is a distribution of the Leonese language. To the south, the distribution of Leonese penetrates into the northernmost area of the region of Extremadura. 21 The Castilla-León Region consists of nine provinces, with Valladolid as the regional capital, integrated with the three provinces of the former León Region on the western border. Thus, after this integration, the former León was marginalized both politically and economically. 22 Interest by Asturians in Mirandese has increased since its official recognition as a language by the Portuguese Republic. Asturians are willing to link with Mirandese as leverage for official recognition of Bable or the Asturian language. However, such Asturian activists tend to regard Mirandese as a controversial or outdated concept, i.e., not as a language but as a ‘dialect’ of Asturian. Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 269 ties, many of whose families had emigrated from the original zone of Miranda or from the Trás-os-Montes region. Thus, the recognition of Mirandese as a language was finally realized more than 100 years after Vasconcelos’ linguistic ‘discovery.’ 4.2. ‘Regional and minority language’ in Europe and Mirandese. There is no doubt that the European Union and the Council of Europe ultimately had the greatest impact on the eventual realization of legal recognition of Mirandese, and their constant support was essential in Mirandese language promotion efforts’ gaining momentum. However, there are also some further implications worth considering. For the EU or the Council of Europe, the target of protection or promotion is designated as a ‘regional and minority language’ or a ‘lesser-used language.’ In fact, this target has its traditional or historical territory of distribution with considerable dimension, as ‘regional,’ though a limited number of ‘traditional immigrant’ languages such as Yiddish or Romany could also be included in the scheme. Thus, under this scheme there is little consideration for the minority languages of ‘newcomers’ in Europe, especially in urban areas. Moreover, the languages of the ‘newcomer’ minorities in cities are among the targets of multilingualism under the whole scheme of multiculturalism or pluralism; however, 'excesses committed in implementing this policy are sometimes criticized as factors interrupting the process of integration into the ‘host culture.’ In order to overcome such criticism, some EU countries are making a trial of pluralingualism, asking ‘newcomers’ to respect the host language as well as their mother tongue. However, there is almost no consideration for minority languages brought by the ‘newcomers.’ For example, in Germany, there is some attention given to Turkish, Arabic, Vietnamese and Chinese; however, this is unlikely to extend to effective linguistic aids for the speakers of a minority language from Africa. A similar situation may be observed in Lisbon. In a 2006 interview I found a large number of African immigrants who claimed to be speakers of various minority languages distributed in the former Portuguese colonies of Africa, such as Guinea-Bissau, Angola, Mozambique, etc. However, these languages are ignored by Portugal’s educational system. That means that the actual pluralingualism policy only extends to the host language and majority languages among them. If terms such as regional or minority language are interpreted in a narrow sense, the Mirandese language could be considered marginal, according to the categories mentioned above. First, Mirandese does not have sufficient territory and demographical condition as a regional language, an important factor for inclusion in the scheme under EU policy. Second, Mirandese could also be excluded from the category of minority language because of its character as a language of immigrants for most of Europe (and the world). However, regarding the first issue, the Mirandese language has been successfully included in the promotion scheme of the EU and the Council of Europe be- 270 Satoshi Terao cause of its long-standing efforts and legal recognition by the Portuguese government. With respect to the second point, Mirandese is gaining recognition as a minority language through a number of efforts. One of these can be seen as participation in l’Association Internationale pour la Défense des Langues et Cultures Menacées (AIDLCM), one of the historical groups contributing to improve solidarity towards endangered languages for 70 years. AIDLCM held its 22nd congress in Miranda de l Douro in July 2005. Furthermore, in 2011 the first full-length novel in Mirandese was published, titled La Bouba de la Tenerie, written by Amadeu Ferreira (1950-2015), a lawyer who had devoted himself as a defender and promoter of this language. This novel revolves around the inquisition of the Jews in the 16th century in the Planalto mirandês, which was one of the most important escape routes from Spain to the rest of the world. Descendants of Jews are still to be found in villages such as Argozelo, Carção (Vimioso) and Sendin (Miranda de l Douro, where the author was born). The Mirandese language itself (i.e., vocabulary) bears witness to the presence of Jews in this area, as does the cuisine of this region. “Tabafeia” or “alheira”, a sausage typical of this region, is a case in point. This sausage is made using the intestinal tract of sheep, chicken and wheat, without pork. This food was prepared by Jews living in the area who sought to deceive inquisition authorities checking whether they had truly renounced their Jewish culture. 5. Conclusion According to this investigation into Mirandese, the reason why this language did not die out is because of the scarcity of contacts with outsiders, however, nowadays, such languages are also directly affected by globalism. Let me illustrate my point by using the Mirandese language. Speakers of Mirandese have been leaving the area where the language was historically spoken, i.e., its ‘historical area of linguistic distribution.’ The destinations of this outflux of people extend not only to Portugal itself, but also to such major European urban centers as Paris. Their destinations also extend beyond Europe, to such countries as Brazil, Canada and Australia. Succeeding generations of speakers have scattered even further. For example, there was a couple who lived in Kansai Area in Japan, one born in France and the other in Canada, who frequented Miranda de l Douro in Portugal annually, for it was the birthplace of their parents. Nowadays, paying attention to transnational movements is becoming crucial in the investigation of former rural or so-called ‘local’ minority languages. Designing protective management for the language and finding ways to prevent further exodus of the remaining speakers from the original location are becoming indispensable in such research. However, it is also worth considering how investigation of these minority languages can provide useful benefits to the general public. Today, there are many studies dealing with multicultural issues under the banner of globalism. However, most of them are somewhat limited, for they do not step outside the framework of nationalism. For example, there has been a lot of research done investigating the native languages Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 271 of foreigners living in Japan, often taking into account only Japanese and the target language; i.e., they deal only with the relationship between two national languages, as if they were living in a world of binomial antagonism. In fact, there are great numbers of people who find themselves situated within multicultural contexts, not limiting their communication only to a national or standard code. Thus, an explanation under the context of binational dualism is quite far from the grasp of the current transnational multicultural situation. If we confine ‘non-national communication codes’ to the status of ‘dialects,’ however, neither investigators nor speakers themselves will be able to recognize the reality of such plurality. Since ‘dialect’ is treated as a sub-category of a language, when we discuss languages in contact, such sub-category issues should be omitted. As minority languages break free from the assertion of ‘dialects,’ under the conventional hierarchy of national languages, we can observe their unique role in the worldwide flux and mosaic-like patterns of languages. I would like to emphasize the importance of reflection towards the East Asian (my own) linguistic circumstance with the use of the minority languages discussed above. Though we sometimes consider our linguistic circumstance to be a monotonous and diversity-poor Japanese-monolingual society, by reflecting on ‘dialects’ as languages, we can in fact recognize our society as being polyglot in nature, involving not only foreign languages introduced by travelers and immigrants but also replete with domestic languages, most of which have been treated as ‘dialects’ up to now. As above, despite its small size and relatively recent recognition as a language, the experiences and lessons of the Mirandese language could be extended even to the case of East Asian linguistic diversity. REFERENCES ALVES, A. Bárbolo (coord.) 1999. Lhiteratura oral mirandesa: Recuolha de textos an mirandés. Porto. ALVES, F. M. [Abade de Baçal] 1910-1947. Memórias histórico-arqueológicas do Distrito de Bragança. 3rd. ed.: 2000 Bragança / Lisbon. BURR, E. 2001. Romance Linguistics and Corpora of French, Italian and Spanish Newspaper language. In: D. Fiormonte / J. Usher (eds.), New Media and the Humanities: Research and Applications. Proceedings of the first seminar Computers, Literature and Philology, Edinburgh 7-9 September 1998, Oxford: 85-104. CABAÑAS, C. 1985. Aproximación al dialecto leones de Zamora ciudad. Anuário 1985, Zamora: Instituto de Estudios Zamoranos ‘Florián de Ocampo’ (CSIC): 283-291. COSERIU, E. 1980. Historische Sprache und Dialekt. In: J. Göschel / P. Ivic / K. Kehr (eds.), Dialekt und Dialektologie. Ergebnisse des Internationalen Symposions ‘Zur Theorie des Dialekts’, Marburg/Lahn, 5. -10. Sept. 1977. Wiesbaden: 106-122. 272 Satoshi Terao FAUST, M. 1979. Tradición lingüistica y estructura social: El caso de las gentilitates. Actas del II coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la peninsula Ibérica: 435-452. FERREIRA, A. 2003. Statuto jurídico de la lhéngua mirandesa. Drets Lingüístics, Anclabes lhenguísticos na Ounion Ouropeia, V Simpósio de Lhénguas Ouropeias i Lhegislaçones. Barcelona: 65-86. — 2011. La bouba de la tenerie, Lisboa. FERREIRA, C. 2003. Ls chamadeiros cumo fuonte d’anformaçon. L caso de la tenerie de Sendin. El Filandar 14: 18-24. FERREIRA, M. Barros 2001. O mirandês no Ano Europeu das Línguas. In: M. H. Mira Mateus (ed.), Mais Línguas, mais Europa: celebrar a diversidade linguística e cultural da Europa, Colóquio 25 e 26 de Janeiro de 2001. Lisbon: 35-41. FERREIRA, M. Barros / RAPOSO, A. G. Domingos (eds.) 1999. Convenção Ortográfica da Língua Mirandesa. Miranda do Douro, Lisbon. FRÍAS CONDE, X. 1998. El sanabrés: caracterización del dialecto. Anuário 1998. Zamora: Instituto de Estudios Zamoranos ‘Florián de Ocampo’ (CSIC): 343- 387. IZUI, H. 1968. Languages in Europe [in Japanese], Tokyo. KLOSS, H. 1967. Abstand Languages and Ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9-7: 29-41. KRÜGER, F. 1991. La cultura popular en Sanabria. Zamora. MAIA, C. de A. 1996. Mirandés. Manual de dialectología hispánica. El Español de España, Barcelona: 159-170. MARTINS, C. 1994. O desaparecimento do mirandês na cidade de Miranda do Douro: uma leitura dos Estudos de filologia mirandesa de José Leite de Vasconcelos. Variação linguística no espaço, no tempo e na sociedade. Actas do Encontro Regional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Miranda do Douro, Setembro de 1993. Lisbon: 95-105. MARTINS, D. M. Mendes. 2004. Bozes de l Praino: Recuolha de testos an lhiteratura oural Mirandesa, Lisbon. MEIRINHOS, J. F. (ed.) 2000. Estudos Mirandeses. Balanço e orientações. Homenagem a António Maria Mourinho. Actas do Colóquio internacional: Porto, 26 e 27 de Março de 1999. Porto. MENENDEZ PIDAL, R. 1906. El dialecto leonés. Revista de archivos, bibliotecas, y museos 14. MOURINHO, A. M. 1987. A língua mirandesa como vector cultural do Nordeste português. Actas das Primeiras Jornadas de Língua e Cultura Mirandesa: 7587. QUARTEU, R. 2003. L mirandés: Ua Lhengua Minoritaria an Pertual. In: X. Frías Conde / Francesc González i Planas (eds.), De Linguis Iberoromanicis (As linguas iberorrománicas perante o século XXI). Romania Minor: 7-19. RAPOSO, A. G. Domingos. 1987. Vitalidade, valor e estudo da língua mirandesa. Reconsidering our linguistic diversity from Mirandese 273 Actas das Primeiras Jornadas de Língua e Cultura Mirandesa, Miranda do Douro. Câmara Municipal de Miranda do Douro: 55-59. SANTANA, M. O. Rodrigues. 2004. António Maria Mourinho: Uma vida pela língua e cultura mirandesas. Biblioteca Dr. António Maria Mourinho - Câmara Municipal de Miranda do Douro. SANTOS, M. J. de Moura 1967. Os falares fronteiriços de Trás-os-Montes. Revista Portuguesa de Filologia 12-2; 13/14. SCHIRMUNSKI, V. 1930. Sprachgeschichte und Siedlungsmundarten. GermanischRomanische Monatsschrift 18, 113-122, 171-188. SEGURA DA CRUZ, M. L., SARAMAGO, J. and VITORINO, G. 1994. Os falares leoneses em território português: coesão e diversidade. Variação linguística no espaço, no tempo e na sociedade. Actas do Encontro Regional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Miranda do Douro, Setembro de 1993. Lisbon: 281-293. TERAO, S. 2009. Researching Minority Languages in the Globalism Era: As the Mirror of Our Own Communication Circumstance. Research Arena 2-2: 6-7. — 2010. Mirandese as an Endangered Language. Journal of International Studies 35: 101-126. — 2011. Freedom of movement and conservation of the diversity of culture: The territoriality principle vs. the personality principle. Paper read at Kobe University Brussels European Centre Opening Symposium, 5th March, 2011. TRUDGILL, P. 2004. Glocalisation and the Ausbau sociolinguistics of modern Europe. Speaking from the margin: Global English from a European Perspective, Frankfurt am Main: 35-49. URRUTIA CÁRDENAS, H. / ALVAREZ ALVAREZ, M. 1988. Esquema de morfosintaxis histórica del español, 2nd ed., Bilbao. VASCONCELOS, J. Leite de 1900-1901. Estudos de Philologia Mirandesa. Lisbon. LANGUAGE PLANNING FOR ITALIAN REGIONAL LANGUAGES: THE CASE OF LOMBARD AND SICILIAN Paolo Coluzzi (Kuala Lumpur), Lissander Brasca (Bangor), Marco Trizzino (Vatican City), Simona Scuri (Milan) Introduction Italy is a multiethnic and multilingual country, boasting over 40 historical languages1 spoken on its territory, most of which are not recognized by the Italian State as minority or regional languages (COLUZZI 2008). The sociolinguistic situation of Italy is summarized in the following table: The Italian linguistic repertoire Standard Italian English Regional Italian Minority languages Regional languages Immigrant languages Notes Mostly used in written form and in the mass media Spoken mostly by young educated people, but often not fluently Spoken by the majority of Italians, even though with different registers. Different in every region for phonetic, lexical and sometimes even grammatical traits Both Romance and non-Romance (Germanic, Slavic, Greek and Albanian families). Law 482/1999 recognizes 12 of them.2 All Romance, by most Italians still known as ‘dialects’, a term that is even used by most Italian linguists working in Italy Belonging to several families from Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, spoken by the large number of immigrants living in Italy, some Italian citizens by now It is not an easy task to assess the level of prestige that a language enjoys, also considering that different languages may enjoy different degrees of prestige among different individuals and social groups. Based on our own research and observations, however, we have attempted to rank these languages                                                                                                                         1 2 By ‘historical languages’ we mean languages that have been present on the territory of Italy for many generations. Therefore, they do not include the languages of recent immigrants. The full text of the law is available at: http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/99482l. htm [last accessed on the 9th November 2016]. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 275 according to the prestige they seem to enjoy among the majority of their speakers (the varieties have been placed in descending order from top to bottom, according to the prestige they enjoy). The most prestigious varieties also tend to be the ones that enjoy more official support. The languages in italics occupy a low position in a diglossic relationship with Italian (in FASOLD’s (2001, 52-4) sense of ‘broad diglossia’) and are used mostly in non-official/family settings (however, some of the recognized minority languages and even a few of the unrecognized ones have begun to be used in a limited number of ‘high’ domains). In Italy the phenomena of code-mixing and codeswitching are not as widespread as in other parts of the world, but they are quite common among speakers of the ‘low’ varieties marked in italics, especially among their older speakers. Italian regional languages Two different terms are normally used in English (with parallel translation in many different languages) to refer to ‘small’ languages spoken only by a minority of the population of a country: minority languages and regional languages.3 Different interpretations of the two terms have been offered, but for this chapter we will call ‘minority languages’ those language varieties normally very different from Italian, in most cases belonging to different language families, whose speakers tend to have a strong ethnic/national identity that is different from Italian in ethnic and cultural terms. On the other hand, regional languages, which are still termed ‘dialects’ by most people and institutions (including academia) in Italy, historically tend to have a stronger relationship with Italian, whose speakers on the whole do not object to being seen as ‘Italians’ (and at the same time as ‘Lombard’, ‘Sicilian’, etc.). In short, speakers of regional languages tend to have a weaker distinct ethnic identity. However, from a strictly linguistic point of view, there is no difference between these two groups.4 Tomasz WICHERKIEWICZ (2001, 3) listed the following features for what he also calls ‘regional languages’:                                                                                                                         3 4 Other terms do exist, like dominated or minoritized languages, but their use seems to be more restricted, and our discussion will focus only on ‘minority languages’ and ‘regional languages’. For instance, Lombard, which is referred to as a ‘regional language’ of Italy in this article, is structurally very different from its corresponding majority language (Italian) (PELLEGRINI 1973, 57-86; DE MAURO 2014, 37-41). Similarity profiles resulting from dialectometrical studies show that Lombard and the other so-called GalloItalic varieties are closer to standard French than to standard Italian (GOEBL 2008, 43, maps 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8; TAMBURELLI / BRASCA forthcoming). 276 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri – close genetic relationship to the corresponding majority language5 of the state; regiolects are often regarded as being ‘only’ dialects of a majority/state language; – relatively long history of common development, especially sociopolitical, of the regional and corresponding majority language; – lacking or not fully shaped feeling of national separateness within the group of speakers; however, strong regional and/or ethnic identity, with the language constituting the main constituent of the identity/regional ethnicity; – high dialectal differentiation within the regiolects, which, hence, can be often classified as dialect clusters or L-complexes; – lacking an adopted uniform literary standard or literary norm, or the standard being in statu nascendi; – rich, often very ancient, literary tradition of dialectal/regional literature; – relatively low social prestige of a regiolect, often lower than in the past; – underdeveloped status language planning methods; – sometimes a confessional separateness of the regiolect speakers; – opposition within the group against being perceived and officially treated as [a] national minority group, often a paradoxical resistance against being seen as minority group at all; an ‘embedded’ national/linguistic identity. There are some Italian regional languages to which all of the above features apply, and others to which most of them apply. Going back to the term ‘dialects’ (dialetti), which is still in common use in Italy to refer to its regional languages, even though we are aware that the term is sometimes used to refer to non-recognized local languages, we are strongly opposed to its use, as the term is not precise on the one hand, and carries negative connotations on the other, referring to a language variety that is spoken only in low domains by a restricted number of people, often with low levels of education. Another feature that the term ‘dialect’ seems to imply is that the language varieties referred to in such a way do not possess any economic value. In addition, we believe that a language variety considered to be a ‘dialect’ has a much lower possibility of being maintained and revitalized. We could thus state that there are at least 12 minority languages spoken in Italy, those protected by Law 482/1999,6 and some regional languages whose                                                                                                                         5 6 Lombard offers an example of the relative importance of this feature. Indeed, all the scholarly literature describes Lombard and the other so-called Gallo-Italic varieties as Western Romance, and in particular as Gallo-Romance, not Italo-Romance varieties (PELLEGRINI 1973, 65-9). Therefore Lombard is as genetically distant from Italian/Tuscan as Occitan, Franco-Provençal, Catalan and, most important, Ladin and Friulian are. However, all these languages are officially recognized and defined, unlike Lombard, as ‘minority’ and not ‘regional’ languages of Italy. In reality the number of minority languages spoken in Italy is higher. For example, under ‘German’, we find the standard as well as Alemannic, Bavarian and Language plannig for Italian regional languages 277 number is quite variable according to political considerations and the isoglosses considered, though most scholars would agree to the number’s being in the range of 15 (see LEPSCHY 1994, 9). Obviously, the distinction between minority and regional languages is blurred, with some saying that Friulian and Sardinian (which are included in Law 482/1999) should be considered regional languages, and others of the opinion that varieties like Sicilian, Venetan or Piedmontese, just to name a few, should gain the status of minority languages. We consider this distinction to be rather flexible and accept the possibility that a regional language may become a minority language whenever the appropriate conditions arise. In this paper we focus on the language planning carried out so far for two of Italy’s regional languages – Lombard, spoken in northern Italy, and Sicilian, spoken in the southernmost of Italy’s two large islands.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Carinthian varieties – that is, at least four languages instead of one – and similar considerations apply to other minority languages, particularly Slovene, Romany and Sardinian. Moreover, some argue that the Gallo-Italic dialects spoken in some areas in the south of Italy and Tabarchino, spoken on the Sulcis Islands in southern Sardinia, would need to be added. 278 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri   Figure 1: The historical areas in Italy where Lombard (A) and Sicilian (B) are spoken. Lombard Lombard is one of the languages of the Gallo-Italic group or, perhaps better, of the Gallo-Romance-Cisalpine group (cf. BEC 1970-1971, 316) belonging to the Western Romance family of Indo-European languages, linguistically closer to the French and Occitan varieties than to Italian. According to the la- Language plannig for Italian regional languages 279 test 2006 ISTAT (The National Institute of Statistics) survey, about 3.5 million people in the Lombardy region can speak Lombard, i.e., 35.7% of the regional population. However, speakers of related varieties in bordering areas such as eastern Piedmont, Canton Ticino and the southern valleys of Chantun Grischun in Switzerland and most areas in western Trentino, should also be added to this figure. In any case these 3.5 million speakers (and we don’t know how proficient in Lombard they may be) are on the decrease – even just comparing this figure with the results of the ISTAT survey carried out only six years earlier, we can see a decrease of almost 3 percentage points, from 38.6% in 2000 to 35.7% in 2006. We could reasonably assume that Lombard, in the same way as other Italian regional languages, is losing at least a quarter of its speakers in every successive generation, which clearly places Lombard on the list of endangered languages (COLUZZI 2009). In fact, according to EGIDS (Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale), one of the most well-known scales for the assessment of language vitality, developed by LEWIS / SIMONS (2010), Lombard, like many other Italian regional languages, may score, depending on the area, between 6b and 8a. 6b corresponds to the label ‘threatened’: ‘The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children’, whereas 8a corresponds to ‘moribund’: ‘The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.’ Only two more grades separate the latter grade from the last, 10 ‘extinct,’ and this is another clear sign of the predicament Lombard finds itself in. This means that if nothing is done, Lombard is bound to disappear in the not-sodistant future. Luckily there are some signs of a resurgence of interest in Italian regional languages in general and in Lombard in particular, as will be shown in this paper. Sicilian Sicilian is one of the languages of the Italo-Romance family belonging to the Eastern Romance family of Indo-European languages. According to the latest 2006 ISTAT survey, a similar number of people as in Lombardy speak Sicilian in their own region,7 i.e., about 3.5 million people, 71.7% of the regional                                                                                                                         7 The territorial delimitation of the Sicilian language remains controversial. The international classifications mostly used as points of reference (e.g., Ethnologue, UNESCO Atlas) have the siculophone area coincide with the ‘dialetti meridionali estremi’ (extreme meridional dialects) group’s diasystem. This includes Sicilian, central-southern Calabrese, and Salento parrati (dialects). Nevertheless, as it is possible to trace a direct influx from Messinese Sicilian in the linguistic mutation process of southern Calabrese (from Greek to Romance; the model could only have been the Messinese one, for Neapolitan was too distant (see FANCIULLO 1996, 112)), southern Calabrese dialects could indeed be classified as Sicilian varieties. However, we would exclude Salento dialects from such classification in this article, even 280 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri population, a much higher percentage than in Lombardy. However, these 3.5 million speakers (and we do not know how proficient in Sicilian they may be) are on the decrease – comparing this with the results of the ISTAT survey carried out six years earlier, we can see a decrease of almost 4 percentage points, from 75.3% in 2000 to 71.7% in 2006. Even though Sicilian is spoken more than Lombard, it is to be considered endangered to a degree, although its EGIDS grade may be a little higher than for Lombard. In fact, Sicilian may score, according to the area, between 6a (vigorous) and 6b (threatened). ‘Vigorous’ is defined as: ‘The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.’ Even though, as things stand now, Sicilian seems to find itself in a less critical situation than Lombard, if current legislation is not enforced and more wide-ranging language planning strategies are not put into place, speakers of the language and the domains where it is used will gradually decrease together with its level of vitality. The local varieties of Lombard and Sicilian In most books and articles on the subject, Lombardy is said to feature two main varieties: western Lombard (spoken in the provinces of Varese, Como, Lecco, Sondrio, Milan, Monza, Pavia and Lodi, in addition to Novara and Verbania in Piedmont and Canton Ticino in Switzerland) and eastern Lombard (spoken in the provinces of Bergamo, Brescia and Northern Cremona). However, even though there are some phonetic and lexical differences, and even a few grammatical ones, the features these varieties have in common by far outweigh them, and they can definitely be considered to be one language, sharing common origins, though historical developments and lack of official status and standardization have led to their distancing. As Glauco SANGA wrote (1997, 253): ‘There was a time when a basically Milanese type extended from Novara up to Trento and across to Verona;8 and it is this common base that constitutes the unity of the Lombard dialect group, whereas differences are due to later more superficial developments’. Whereas there are minority languages that happen to be quite uniform in the territory where they are spoken, many others find themselves in the same situation as Lombard: ‘communities of dialects’ whose many varieties may be somewhat different from each other, but which still share most structural and lexical features, in addition to an historical territory (which is sometimes reflected in the present-day regional subdivision, although imperfectly as in the case of Lombardy), a culture, etc. Basque, Occitan and Welsh, to name just a few, are all lan-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 8 though the numerous isoglosses in common with Sicilian are nonetheless acknowledged. This extension abundantly includes both of what we have just defined as western and eastern Lombard speaking areas. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 281 guages that are not very uniform, actually less so than Lombard. On the other hand, all varieties of Lombard are perfectly mutually intelligible. So we may still refer to two (or more) varieties of the Lombard language if needed, or even to Milanese, Bergamasco, Bresciano, etc., but always bearing in mind they are varieties of the same language. We feel that treating all those varieties of Lombard as representatives of just one regional language by the name of Lombard is the only way for them to survive, because independent language planning for a large number of subvarieties has little chance of being effective and keeping regional ways of speaking in Lombardy alive. As far as Sicilian is concerned, the language appears to be relatively uniform, and it seems as if most speakers do not object to their variety being called Sicilian. In the literature, there are a large number of studies, such as RUFFINO (1984), that have pointed out the complexity involved in achieving a univocal and precise classification of the main varieties of Sicilian. Therefore, any attempt at a single definition based exclusively on isoglosses seems rather inadequate (MATRANGA / SOTTILE 2013, 236). Somewhat surprisingly though, the perception that Sicilian, with all its varieties, is a relatively homogeneous language is widespread among its speakers, to the extent that ‘it is reasonably easy to proceed from one dialect to another since the dialects are essentially mutually intelligible’ (BONNER, 2003b, 30).9 Therefore, the traditional classification of Sicilian varieties posited by Giorgio Piccitto, closely followed by Pellegrini in the Carta dei dialetti d’Italia (which includes the Sicilian varieties in the broader context of the dialetti meridionali estremi), still presents many limitations from a lexical, morphosyntactic and ethno-anthropological perspective. So much so that, albeit useful and justifiable in many respects, speaking of one western Sicilian in contrast to one central-eastern Sicilian turns out to be imprecise and misleading, from a variational, diachronic and sociolinguistic point of view. Agreeing with RUFFINO (2001, 30) in that la nozione di dialetto siciliano finisce col risultare astratta rispetto alla concretezza delle numerose parlate locali [The notion of Sicilian dialect turns out to be abstract when compared to the concreteness of the numerous local parlances] and having established that                                                                                                                         9 Naturally, this does not exclude the fact that speakers of a single Sicilian dialect may be convinced that ‘the true Sicilian’ is that spoken in loco. Similarly, it does not exclude that it may be impossible to communicate using ‘the same Sicilian’ from one end of the island to the other. Nor that all speakers speak in Sicilian, yet a Sicilian that varies drastically – depending on their perception – at a distance of a few kilometers, or even between one neighborhood and another of the same town. 282 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri è più opportuno parlare di (una pluralità di) dialetti invece che di (un solo) dialetto [It is more appropriate to speak of (a plurality of) dialects rather than (only one) dialect] (MATRANGA / SOTTILE 2013, 230), a plurality which possiede, dunque, una sua unità di fondo in virtù di una serie di tratti comuni significativi e in qualche misura esclusivi [features its own core uniformity by virtue of a series of significant, and to some degree exclusive common traits] (ibid.), it seems reasonable to refer to the totality (i.e., the plurality) of such dialects as language, held together also by extralinguistic (and by no means less significant) factors. Language planning The aim of language planning is to stop the language shift that a language may be experiencing and to increase the number of speakers and, if possible, domains these languages are used in. This is done through three main phases, normally known as corpus planning, status planning and acquisition planning. Corpus planning deals with the language itself, trying to come up with a standardized version or at least with a common writing system; the aim of status planning, on the other hand, is specifically to raise the prestige of a language by increasing the domains where it is used, particularly written domains, whereas the purpose of acquisition planning is to increase the number of speakers through the teaching of the language. Let us now look at each of these three phases to see what has been done so far with regards to Lombard and Sicilian by associations and individuals, as very limited promotion efforts have been carried out so far by public institutions. Corpus planning Some form of standardization has been carried out for some of the Lombard varieties, and in fact various grammars can be found in book format and even online. However, a standard form of Lombard does not exist. Who knows, perhaps if the language acquires some degree of official status within the region, the need for a standard variety for the whole region may arise one day, but for the time being each Lombard variety is carrying on with its own grammatical, phonetic and lexical features. One way to give a sense of unity to these varieties may be through the introduction of a common writing system that could be employed for all varieties. A prototype of such a writing system will be briefly described below. So far, each Lombard variety has been written using different writing systems, some more phonetic, some more etymological. For example, the western variety of Lombard, and more speci- Language plannig for Italian regional languages 283 fically Milanese, has been written so far using two main systems: the classical one, more etymological,10 and the modern one, more phonetic, also used in Switzerland. The two systems differ mainly in the way vowels are represented (see table 1). IPA ɔ u ø y Classical ò ó (or ‘o’ if unstressed) oeu u Modern o u ö ü Table 1. The main differences between traditional Milanese orthography and the modern system as far as vowels are concerned. However, as stated before, a new writing system devised by linguist Lissander Brasca about ten years ago and published in 2011, is currently used by a dozen activists and ‘freely’ interpreted/adapted by others. The system has been called ‘Scriver Lombard’ and defined as a local-polynomic orthography, and its aim is to allow speakers of all Lombard varieties to write every word of their own local variety in a graphic form very similar or even identical to the form in which the speakers of any other Lombard variety would write it, i.e., in such a way that the identity and meaning of the words would be easily recognized by speakers of other varieties. This implies that the system cannot reflect directly all the phonetic features of any variety, and the speakers of each variety will need to learn how to write using this system, that is necessarily the most etymological (deep) and least phonetic (shallow) among the ones used so far. Not very many writing systems in the world are in fact completely phonetic, and some may distance themselves considerably from the actual pronunciation, although without creating particular problems for readers who are used to that system. English comes up as a notable example, and in fact speakers of different varieties of English (American, Australian, Scottish, etc.) can easily use the same orthography by pronouncing certain items in different ways. The same applies to the local-polynomic system for Lombard. This means that if, on the one hand, new speakers may find it difficult to learn how to read and write the language at the initial stages (but not particularly those who already speak it), the great advantage will be that they will be able to read and understand all Lombard varieties, and the sense of unity of the language will be enhanced. This also means that it will be possible to publish more copies of any written document, from poetry to novels to maga-                                                                                                                         10 ‘Classical Milanese’ writing was originally conceived as a phonetic system, but it has become more etymological with time, as spoken Milanese changed, while the written form was maintained, thanks mostly to the prestige of the poets who had used it. 284 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri zines and scientific books, enlarging the audience and reducing costs. An example of the same sentence in the Milanese variety written using the classical, the modern and the local-polynomic system may be seen in table 2. In addition, we should mention three other writing systems developed for the Lombard language: Jørgen Giorgio BOSONI’s (2003, phonetic) and Claudi MENEGHIN’s two proposals (2006, etymological, based on the Alpine Lombard varieties; 2007, etymological). English Italian Classical system Modern system Local-polynomic system The little boy heard thunder coming down from the sky Il bambino ha sentito un tuono venire giù dal cielo El fioeu l’ha sentuu on tron vegnì giò del ciel El fiöö l’ha sentüü un trun vegnì giò del cel El fiœl l’ha sentud un tron vegnir jo del ciel Table 2. The same sentence written using the different writing systems. Whereas a Milanese speaker would read the last three sentences in the same way, the last one could be easily read by a speaker of Bergamasco, for example, and understood just by knowing that ‘fiœl’ is the word used in western Lombard for the Bergamasco word ‘s’ciet,’ meaning ‘little boy’. In fact, the same sentence in the Bergamasco variety would be written like this: ‘Ol s’ciet l’ha sentid un tron vegnir jo del ciel,’ perfectly understandable by a Milanese speaker, for instance. The list of frequent words which appear completely different in the different varieties is not long and could be learnt very easily.11 As far as modernization of the language is concerned, in addition to the pioneering work of dictionary compilers and the Circolo Filologico Milanese, the Lombard Wikipedia, and talks delivered in various Lombard varieties organized by Simona Scuri of CSPL Italy (Committee for the Protection of the Linguistic Heritage, an association established in 2010 which is now at the forefront for the defense and promotion of Italian regional languages) and by Lissander Brasca are now helping to add modern terminology to Lombard. The case of Sicilian is that of a language which never developed into a commonly accepted standard form, despite having served as both official and literary language for centuries. Historically, Sicily’s linguistic model has never been centralist, but the three main political and cultural centers of the island – Catania, Messina and Palermo – have played the role of ‘irradiation centers’ within their respective districts (VARVARO 1988, 718). When ‘standard Sicilian’ is (rarely) referred to in academic publications, what is meant is simply the ‘least common denominator’ present among the various Sicilian                                                                                                                         11 The first monolingual dictionary of Lombard, using the polynomic orthography ‘Scriver Lombard’, is now available on the web at: http://dizionarilombard.eu5.net [last accessed on the 13th November 2016]. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 285 varieties. However, over the course of time, a form of illustrious regional koiné arose, the origins of which are not directly attributable to any particular urban setting.12 The issue with Sicilian is exactly this: featuring a rather solid literary written tradition, yet, at the same time, lacking a single widely accepted orthographic system. The questione posed itself since the beginning of the 19th century, a time during which the climate of Risorgimento bestowed the hearts of the population with a renewed enthusiasm for the national (state) language and culture, thus relegating Sicilian to the inferior status of a ‘dialect’ (see for example VECCHIO 2013). Faced with such circumstances, scholars from the emerging demo-ethno-anthropological and linguistic sciences painstakingly devoted themselves to collecting as much data as possible (often transcribing entirely dialectal texts) to prevent the linguistic and cultural heritage of Sicily from falling into oblivion. In 1870 highly distinguished intellectuals such as Leonardo Vigo, Giuseppe Pitrè, Salvatore Salomone-Marino, Antonio Traina and Michele Amari organized a Conference for Sicilian dialect scholars, with the overt aim of sorting out an orthography for Sicilian. The successive results, however, were disappointing, even among the scholars themselves. During the 1900s, an academic dispute arose – on the one hand there were those who, like Piccitto, supported a ‘dialectological criterion’, based on graphic choices that would highlight the morphemic and/or phonemic structures of the diatopic varieties. On the other were those who preferred the adoption of an orthography based on the authority of tradition, represented by established texts in ‘literary Sicilian’, common to the whole island, to the disadvantage of the ’local dialects’. Neither of the two proposals prevailed; even the monumental work by Piccitto, the Vocabolario Siciliano, published in five volumes from 1977 to 2002, was not consistently edited from an orthographic perspective (See MATRANGA 2013, 1386-7).                                                                                                                         12 TROVATO (2006, 133): ‘Per quanto riguarda la Sicilia, la koinè viene per lo più identificata col siciliano dei poeti del Sei e del Settecento: una lingua che non ebbe il tempo di formare una tradizione e che oggi appare nulla più che una sorta di italiano vestito di forme siciliane; una lingua il più delle volte senza coloriture locali, uguale in tutte le province e ancora in attesa del grande poeta che, col suo prestigio, la imponga a modello [As far as Sicily is concerned, the koine is mostly identified with the Sicilian of the poets from the 17th and 18th centuries, a language that did not have the time to form a tradition, and that appears today as nothing but a sort of Italian dressed with some Sicilian garments. A language mostly devoid of local hues, one and the same for all the provinces, and that still awaits the great poet that may establish it as a model with his prestige].’ 286 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri Arba Sicula CAMILLERI 2002 CIPOLLA 2013 BONNER 2001 Kademia du Krivu LinguaSiciliana.org (LSU) PAPPALARDO 2014 PICCITTO 1947 MATRANGA 2013 Scn.Wikipedia StuporMundi TROVATO 2007 LEONE 2005 tri jorna tri iorna tri-gghiorna isula bedda granni ìsula beddha granni ìsula beḍḍa granni ìsula bbedda granni ìsula beddha ranni tri jorna ìsula bedda granni tri-ggḩiorna ìsula bbeddha granni ìsula bedda ranni TerraLab.it tri ghiorna isula beddha ranni VS I VS II VS III VS IV tri-gghiorna VS V tri-gghiòrna ṭṛi-gghjorna lingua siciliana ìsula bbeḍḍa ǥranni lìngua siciliana linghua sishiliana lingua [liṅṅua] siciliana lìṅġua siciliàna Table 3. The expressions ‘tre giorni’ (three days), ‘isola molto/abbastanza grande’ (quite big island) and ‘lingua siciliana’ (Sicilian language) according to the main Sicilian orthographies. VS stands for ‘Vocabolario Siciliano’ (PICCITTO et al. 1977-2002) More recently, the need for the elaboration of a common orthographic system (something very different from a ‘common language’) to be used for different purposes has begun to be felt. These purposes may be literary (poetry and texts in ‘dialect’), dialectological (transcriptions of speech in ‘dialect’), lexicographic (publication of new Sicilian dictionaries, such as the new Conciso), and editorial (from local associations publishing short promotional texts in Sicilian to catchy advertisements in newspapers). Other reasons may be found in the realm of publishing, particularly of articles and magazines entirely written in Sicilian, such as Arba Sicula, and not less important, in channels such as text messages, chats, emails, and the web in general (e.g., websites like Wikipedia,13 which has a version entirely in Sicilian). With regards                                                                                                                         13 Wikipedia, for instance, is based on the orthographic choices adopted by BONNER (2001), as well as those by CAMILLERI (2002). Another two orthographic proposals Language plannig for Italian regional languages 287 to academia, the recent exchanges found in some of the contributions by Alfonso Leone and Salvatore Carmelo Trovato (see LEONE 2005 / TROVATO 2007) are worth mentioning, as well as the exemplary and often decisive interventions by Vito Matranga (although some of them may be debatable).14 Status planning Status planning employs a number of common strategies to expand the scope of one language in order to increase the number of domains where it is used. They include specific legislation (e.g., as to which languages are to be used in public offices, local government bodies, place names), language requisites for public posts, advertising (promotional campaigns), economic support to individuals, institutions, publishers, etc., literary and musical competitions, CDs with songs in the language to be promoted, radio and TV programs, DVDs, films, modern and appealing newspapers, magazines, literary, scientific and technical works and translations from other high-status languages, mini courses on popular periodicals, public signs, stickers, posters, t-shirts, summer camps for children where the minority language is used, holidays for children in countries or areas where the minority language is also spoken, festivals centered around the local language and culture, etc. Another strategy pertaining to status planning is showing people that the given language is used by the elites, whether they are politicians in power, actors, singers, etc. Very little of all this has been put into practice for Lombard so far, which is not surprising considering the lack of official status and the lack of financial resources. The regional law recently passed (see ‘conclusions’) may, one hopes, change this. However, in the last decade we have witnessed a revival of Italian regional languages, Lombard included. Before that, only a few books, dictionaries, magazines, radio programs and language courses were available for some of the Lombard varieties, particular for western Lombard, partly thanks to Canton Ticino and to associations like the Circolo Filologico Milanese. Lombard has even had its own Wikipedia since 2005, which currently has 34,365 entries (last accessed on 8th October 2016). It must also be pointed out here that some Lombard varieties have been used for centuries for literary purposes, particularly from the 15th century onwards, mostly for poetry and theater, but with some examples of fiction as well. Authors such as Carlo Maria Maggi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 are available at the following web addresses: http://linguasiciliana.com/comescrivere-in-siciliano/ [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]; http://www.siciliainformazioni.com/redazione/559249/nasce-laccademia-dellalingua-siciliana-adesioni-poeti-attori-studiosi-cantautori [last accessed on the 5th March 2017]. 14 Especially with respect to the use of a number of graphemes or, more specifically, to the choice made by the author of distancing as little as possible from the Italian orthographic system. To this regard, see REGIS (2012). 288 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri (1630-1699), Carlo Porta (1775-1821) and, to mention a more recent one, Franco Loi (born in 1930), are known by anybody having a good knowledge of Italian (meaning ‘written on the territory that would become Italy’) literature.15 Such a vast corpus of literature gives prestige to the language and strengthens claims that it should be considered an out-and-out language, not a ‘dialect’. However, the recent revitalization movement does not seem to place literature at the center of its revitalization efforts. Rather, translations of prestigious literature from Italian and other languages and the use of the language for conferences on various topics or on YouTube seem to be the main revitalization strategies carried out at the moment. Nowadays much more is available in Lombard. Table 4 shows some of the recent initiatives that have been carried out by activists and artists to promote Lombard. Music Books Singer song writers: La Cantina di Ermete (BS), Davide van de Sfroos (CO), Diana Ceriani (VA), Enzo Iannacci (MI), Francesco Magni (MB), Gianluca Gennari (CR), Gio Desfaa (VA), Luciano Ravasio (BG), Ornella Fiorini (MN), Piergiorgio Cinelli (BS), Roberto Sironi (MI), Trenincorsa (VA), Bepi and the Prismas (BG), I Luf (BS), Vad Vuc (Ticino), Charlie Cinelli (BS), Lissander Brasca (MI), Teka-p (MI), Mario Burghiner (VCO), Piero Cucchi (SO). Folk: Aghi di Pino (BG), Baraban (MI), Dindelon (MI), Malghesetti (BS), Rataplan (BG), Samadùr (BG), Smorfiàcc (BG), Vent Negru (Ticino), Vox Bleni (Ticino), Elsa Albonico (VA), Ticin Cantal (PV), Tantapaja (MI), I fio dla nebia (PV) Rap: Dellino Farmer (BS) Blues: Fulvia Consuelo (MI) Pop/rock: I Saltamartin (MB), Sulutumana (CO) Heavy Metal: Ul Mik Longobardeath (MI) Others, mixed: Nanni Svampa (MI), Cantamilano (MI), Ciaparatt (MI), Scarp da Tennis (Ticino), Stramilano (MI), Walter di Gemma (MI). Short stories: El Casciaball (Simone Milesi) (MB), An bris d'argot (Clelia Letterini) (CR), Cumè na pastòcia (Clelia Letterini) (CR), Stori da Très (Romano Tinelli) (MI), Milàn passaa present fantasii (AAVV) (MI), La vita è una schiscetta (Giorgio Guaiti, parallel texts ItalianMilanese) (MI), Fiur d’urtiga (Enrico Portalupi) (NO) Poetry: Sogn de carta (Giuliana Bernasconi) (BS), Gira girasul (Velise Bonfante) (BS), Gazaboi: Poesie in dialetto cremonese (Giovanni Lonati) (CR), Sarà sü... N la libertà (Paolo Cominotti) (TN) Non-fiction: Scriver Lombard, un'ortografia polinomeg-local per la                                                                                                                         15 For an overview of Lombard (and Sicilian) literature see HALLER 2002. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 289 lengua lombarda (Lissander Brasca) (MI), Pavia e la so’ storia (Ugo Bensi) (PV) Translations: The Four Gospels, The Divine Comedy (Dante Alighieri), Le petit Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry), Amleto e compagni all’ombra del Duomo (William Shakespeare), Dracula (Bram Stocker), The prophet (Kahlil Gibran), Le avventure di Pinocchio (Carlo Collodi), Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Lewis Carroll), I promessi sposi (Alessandro Manzoni), Andersen Grimm Perrault in lengua lombarda (CD), 101 Favole di Esopo (CD), Fliça (graphic novel by Emilio Manzotti and Edoardo Arzani). Magazines Terra Insubre. Cultura del territorio e identità (quarterly, about 9 pages in the western Lombard variety). Giopì (fortnightly, about 2 pages in Lombard in the Bergamasco variety). El Nost Paes (available at: http://elnostpaes.eu, Milanese variety). El Sciroeu de Milan (available at: http://www.sciroeu.it/ultimonumero-1.html, Milanese variety). Radio RSI Radiotelevisione Svizzera: Dialett in sacocia (Ticinese variety), Radio Meneghina (Milanese variety), Radio Padania. programs TV Teleticino: ‘Dimalami’ (Ticinese variety), ‘A vivi dapermi’ (Ticinese variety). programs Films ‘Ona strada bagnada’ by Lamberto Caimi (MI), ‘Desmentegass’ by Lamberto Caimi (MI), ‘El prét nöf’ by Ettore Bonetti (BS), ‘Matrioskar’ by Ettore Bonetti (BS), ‘La palmira ul film’ by Alberto Meroni (Ticino), ‘Frontaliers’ by Commissione Cinema Giovani (Ticino), ‘Se ta cati ta copi’ by Yor Milano (Ticino), ‘Duu testimoni scomod’ by Yor Milano (Ticino), ‘A duu pass da l'eternità’ by Yor Milano (Ticino), ‘Na bela tosa par tri dotor’ by Yor Milano (Ticino), ‘Do tosan e tré valiis’ by Yor Milano (Ticino), ‘Il mattino sorge a Est’ by Stefano Tagliaferri (LC), ‘Panasce’ by Stendhal Syndrome (Ticino), ‘Elvira’ by Ornella Fiorini (MN), ‘La Pimpa: na giurnada fòra du solit’ by Altan/Smallcodes (Ticino). 16 Table 4. Recent status planning strategies for the Lombard language. Sicilian may find itself in a worse situation as far as status planning is concerned. While in the musical field a conspicuous number of artists and bands use Sicilian in their compositions, continuing the folk musical tradition constantly revived by the evergreen figure of the cantastorie (SOTTILE 2013, 43),                                                                                                                         16 The abbreviations refer to the following provinces. Lombardy: BS (Brescia), CO (Como), VA (Varese), MI (Milan), MB (Monza and Brianza), CR (Cremona), BG (Bergamo), MN (Mantua), LC (Lecco), SO (Sondrio), LO (Lodi), PV (Pavia); Piedmont: NO (Novara), VCO (Varbano Cusio Ossola); Trentino: TN (Trento). 290 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri the same does not hold for the use of Sicilian in the media and publishing sectors. In the 18th century, the literary tradition had made Sicilian the language of a most refined poetic production (TROVATO 2002, 872), able to ‘dialogare alla pari con le tradizioni egemoni galloromanze’ (to converse on a par with the hegemonic Gallo-Romance traditions) (DI GIROLAMO et al. 1996, 31). During that time Sicilian was employed for official, diplomatic, academic and religious purposes, yet today written language use is confined to a limited number of domains. The main one is the still thriving poetic literary production (TROVATO 2002, 875); others are the new computer-mediated communication channels, mostly used by the younger generation, such as the web, text messages, emails and social networks. While there have been cases of its use in advertising and even electoral campaigns (D’AGOSTINO / PATERNOSTRO 2013, 473), Sicilian appears to be almost totally absent from broadcasting, both in TV and radio programs (ALFIERI et al. 2013, 716-9). Also, very few books and magazines have been published – mostly translations – with the exception of the valuable initiatives carried out by Arba Sicula and its members.17 No consideration has been given in this chapter to publications that make use of the so-called ‘italiano regionale di Sicilia’ (regional Italian of Sicily), a contact variety of Italian and Sicilian. Prime examples of these are Camilleri’s novels, which have been adapted for television as well. Sicilian can also boast its own edition of Wikipedia, active since 2004. With about 25,000 entries, it ranks among the top 100 editions for the number of words, and among the main projects written in an Italian regional language.18 Finally, we would like to highlight the existence of a vast lexicographic production, heir to a felicitous tradition dating back to the 16th century (see TROVATO 2002, 861-6). Its culmination is represented not only by the above-mentioned Vocabolario Siciliano in five volumes by Giorgio Piccito, but also by the historic-etymologic vocabulary by Alberto Vàrvaro, as well as by the prestigious volumes of the collection Lessici Siciliani, published by the Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani (Centre for Sicilian Philological and Linguistic Studies, henceforth CSFLS). The latter will soon be enriched by the publication of the Nuovo Vocabolario Siciliano (Conciso) and of an Italian-Sicilian version. Music Singer songwriters: Francesca Incudine (EN), Mario Incudine (EN), Carlo Muratori (SR) — Folk: Agricantus (PA), Akkura (PA), Francesca Amato (ME), Calandra e Calandra (TP), Cantunovu (SR), Sara Cappello (PA), Alfonso Gagliardo (AG), Francesco Giunta (PA),                                                                                                                         17 To our knowledge, the only paper in Sicilian that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal is BONNER (2003a). 18 On scn.wikipedia ‘Sicilian language’ has a rather broad connotation, which includes southern Calabrese and Salento varieties. See above. Language plannig for Italian regional languages Books Magazines TV programs Films 291 I Beddi (CT), Serena Lao (PA), Lautari (CT), Malanova (ME), Nkantu d'Aziz (PA), Sciroccu (SR), Taberna Mylaensis (ME) — Funk: Qbeta (SR) — Rap: Supremo Don Mikaelo (CT), Dante (PA), Nakrìa (AG), Combomastas — Reggae: Shakalab (TP), Original Sicilian Style (CT), Jaka (TP), Trinakriù — Blues: Strimpella Blues Band (AG), Sissy Castrogiovanni (USA-CT) — Pop/rock: Tamuna (PA) — Others, mixed: Brigantony (CT), Tinturìa (AG). Translations: La Divina Commedia by Dante Alighieri (Santo Bellia, Domenico Canalella, Tommaso Cannizzaro, Franco Rosario Corsaro, Rosa Gazzara Siciliano, Giovanni Girgenti, Filippo Guastella, Alberto La Maestra, Vincenzo Mirabella Corrao), Aeneid by Virgil (Giuseppe Cavallaro, Rosa Gazzara Siciliano, Giovanni Girgenti), Odyssey by Homer (Rosa Gazzara Siciliano), I Sepolcri by Ugo Foscolo (Giovanni Girgenti), Gospel of Luke (Marianna Lipani), Gospel of Matthew (Luigi Scalia, Alessio Patti), Gospel of John (Alessio Patti), Le Petit Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Arba Sicula. Rivista di folklori e littiratura siciliani (biannual/annual journal, about 150 pages in ‘Standard Sicilian’) — Sicilia Parra (biannual newsletter, about 20 pages in ‘Standard Sicilian’). Stupor Mundi (TVM Palermo), 'U Tiggì (Agrigento TV). ‘Baarìa’ by Giuseppe Tornatore (PA), ‘La bella società’ by Giampaolo Cugno (SR), ‘Il dolce e l'amaro’ by Andrea Porporati, ‘Nuovomondo’ by Emanuele Crialese, ‘Placido Rizzotto’ by Pasquale Scimeca (PA), ‘Respiro’ by Emanuele Crialese, ‘Il ritorno di Cagliostro’ by Daniele Ciprì and Franco Maresco (PA), ‘Rosso Malpelo’ by Pasquale Scimeca (PA), ‘La scomparsa di Patò’ by Rocco Mortelliti, ‘Terraferma’ by Emanuele Crialese, ‘La Terramadre’ by Nello La Marca (AG). Table 5. Recent status planning strategies for the Sicilian language.19 Acquisition planning Acquisition planning is the phase of language planning concerned with maintaining or enlarging the pool of speakers of a threatened language through its teaching. Very little has been done so far in Lombardy to teach Lombard, and most of the initiatives have targeted adults who can already speak some Lombard                                                                                                                         19 The abbreviations refer to the follwoing provinces: EN (Enna), SR (Siracusa), PA (Palermo), ME (Messina), TP (Trapani), AG (Agrigento), CT (Catania). 292 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri variety but want to improve their reading and writing skills in their heritage language. For example, the Circolo Filologico Milanese has run courses for years, including Milanese literature. Other associations that have organized courses of some Lombard varieties are the Accademia del Dialetto Milanese (Milanese), G.A.T.a.L. (Amatourial Group for Theatrical Activities in Lombardy), the Antica Credenza di Sant’Ambrogio (Milanese), the Ducato di Piazza Pontida (Bergamasco), the Academia dal Rison (Novarese), the Compagnia dij Pastor (Verbano Cusio Ossola and Novarese), among others. As remarked above, most of these courses have targeted people who could already speak the local variety. For beginners self-learning is an option, but teaching material is very scarce – there is some material online, including two courses on YouTube (‘Lezion de lengua lombarda’ and ‘Corso online di dialetto milanese’) and a course on the radio (Radio Meneghina), and grammars and dictionaries can be found for some varieties but not for others (including two phrasebooks in Milanese: ‘A Milano si parla così’ (BUCCINI / COMOLETTI 2001) and ‘Viaggio nel dialetto milanese’ (CAPROTTI 2013)). However, two recent publications may show a change in trend: for the first time two publications are available for children. One introduces a basic Milanese vocabulary: ‘Il Milanese per tutti/El milanés per tùcc’, edited by Fabio MAURI (2014), while the other is an out-and-out textbook for kindergarten and primary school children divided into three volumes: ‘La nòsta lèngua’, a course of Lombard (Bergamasco variety) written by Giancarlo GIAVAZZI (2008, 2009, 2010) and published by ALP (Padanian Linguistic Association). The point is Lombard cannot easily acquire new speakers (particularly children) if the language is not taught properly by trained teachers using good language materials similar to those available for other ‘small’ languages like Friulian or Piedmontese in Italy or Galician and Basque in Spain, so that it can become a modern instrument of literacy for the new generations. This obviously implies good financing and official recognition of the language. If little has been done for Lombard, even less seems to have been done for Sicilian in the area of acquisition planning. Some initiatives are in fact taking place, however, they are mostly amateurish in nature. Among these initiatives, mention must be made of the annual series of conferences Lingua, cultura e storia di Sicilia (Language, culture and history of Sicily), organized by the cultural association Amicizia fra i popoli, located in Palermo, Sicily. The focus of these conferences is on Sicilian lexicon, phonetics and morphosyntax. Outside Sicily, university modules on Sicilian language and culture are being held at the University of Pennsylvania, USA, and (soon to be activated) at the University of Manoube, Tunisia. In 2012 the University of Rosario, in Argentina, inaugurated the Centro de Estudios Sicilianos (Centre for Sicilian Studies), dedicated to dialectologist Giovanni Ruffino. The aim of the Centro is that of ‘promoting the knowledge and dissemination of the values proper to Sicilian culture, which are Language plannig for Italian regional languages 293 deeply present among the population, especially in Rosario, where the majority of the ethnic Italian community has Sicilian origins.’20 Courses on Italian linguistics and Sicilian language and culture are also active, some of which are held by lecturers from Sicilian universities. Also worth mentioning is the recent publication, ‘Mparamu lu Sicilianu/Learn Sicilian’, by G. Cipolla, Emeritus Professor at Saint John University, New York. This is a comprehensive, interactive course of 336 pages, which includes a DVD containing exercises and extra materials (CIPOLLA 2013). As mentioned earlier, online dictionaries and courses are indeed available. Unfortunately, more often than not, these take the form of mere word lists, general grammatical descriptions, or brief guides showing how to write Sicilian ‘correctly’. The website linguasiciliana.org offers various lessons, divided by topic and available in numerous languages (Sicilian, English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Serbian, and Portuguese).21 Other initiatives have been taken by the Kademia du Krivu, which has even put forth its own original Sicilian orthography, as well as liturgical texts that have been used for the celebration of sacred functions. They also offer various learning materials, among them exercises on grammar and orthography, available at linguasiciliana.com. In addition, ilsiciliano.net also proposes a brief course of Sicilian language.22 In general, despite the number of websites purporting to offer a solid grammatical foundation for the Sicilian language, what is actually found is a series of rather simplistic notions, which are not always reliable. Similarly, it is not rare to find videos on YouTube apparently offering courses in Sicilian, which actually consist of either mere lists of nouns (often rare or in disuse) or, even worse, of clips using Sicilian for playful and lampooning purposes. We should also mention the presence of Facebook groups and pages ‘for anyone who wants to learn or speak Sicilian’ (Speak Sicilian!), which are often not real courses but simply an opportunity ‘to discuss its history, live use and evolution, as well as its relationship with Italian and other languages’ (Parramu Sicilianu ‘We Speak Sicilian’). The group Nzignammuni lu sicilianu ‘Let’s learn Sicilian’ is connected with a blog of the same name, featuring what may be called a sketch of a Sicilian course, to date limited to some les-                                                                                                                         20 The Centro de Estudios Sicilianos ‘promueve el conocimiento y la difusión de los valores de la cultura siciliana que están muy presentes en la ciudadanía, especialmente en Rosario, donde la mayoría de la colectividad italiana pertenece a la región de Sicilia’ (http://www.unr.edu.ar/noticia/5491/centro-de-estudios-sicilianos) [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]. 21 http://www.linguasiciliana.org/category/cursu-sicilianu/sicilian-grammar-inenglish-inglisi/ [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]. 22 http://ilsiciliano.net/page31_sicilian_language_course.php [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]. 294 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri sons on articles and nouns.23 In conclusion, although Sicilian can boast numerous lexical resources (also available online for a quick and wider consultation), as described in the preceding paragraph, the number of grammars stricto sensu is definitely low. Conclusions As we have seen, Lombard and Sicilian are endangered languages with a highly contested status. Even though initiatives aimed at their maintenance (but sometimes only with artistic and expressionist purposes in mind) are not lacking, these are clearly insufficient to stop or reverse the language shift towards Italian. Obviously, the lack of resources and institutional interest are important obstacles that could only be overcome, we believe, if Lombard, Sicilian and, in fact, all Italian regional languages were to become co-official with Italian in the regions where they are spoken, along lines similar to how Friulian is protected by State Law 482/1999. If not added to this law, at least a new and adequately funded law for the protection and promotion of Italian regional languages should be considered, and this should be a bipartisan law sustained by open-minded politicians of all political backgrounds, without any manipulation and politicization, but with only pure concern for the linguistic rights of the people who still speak these languages and for Italy’s diversity and cultural heritage. At the regional level, a new law for the protection and promotion of Lombard (Regional Law 130/2016) has been approved recently, and we believe that in spite of its limitations it is a good document that will, it is hoped, help the maintenance and promotion of the Lombard language.24 As for Sicilian, a regional law for the promotion of Sicilian was passed in 2011.25 Nevertheless, five years after the law was passed, very little has been done for its proper implementation, with the only exception being                                                                                                                         23 http://nzignamunniusicilianu.blogspot.it/ [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]. 24 Heading IV (‘Protection of the Lombard language through its local varieties’) of the Law of the Regional Council no. 130 ‘Regional policies in the cultural area – regulatory reorganization’, passed on the 27 October 2016 and available at: http://www.consiglio.regione.lombardia.it/banchedati/elencogeneraleatti?p_p_id=m otorericercaatti_WAR_motorericercaatti&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p _mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_count=2&_motorericercaatti_ WAR_motorericercaatti_method%3AactDetail&_motorericercaatti_WAR_motoreri cercaatti_actId=workspace%3A%2F%2FSpacesStore%2Fc44cf8c1-5600-445aa7e3-53581726faf3&p_auth=YP82OzQa [last accessed on the 17th October 2016]. 25 Regional Law 9/2011 ‘Norme sulla promozione, valorizzazione e insegnamento della storia, della letteratura e del patrimonio linguistico siciliano nelle scuole’ (Norms for the promotion, valorisation and teaching of Sicilian history, literature and the linguistic heritage in schools). The text, published on the Gazzetta Ufficiale della Regione siciliana, is available at: http://www.gurs.regione.sicilia.it/ Gazzette/g1124/g11-24.pdf [last accessed on the 21st September 2016]. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 295 the proposals put forth by the CSFLS. This Sicilian institution has in fact organized many activities – from the setting up of teacher training courses to the publication of an encyclopedic work in two volumes on Sicilian ethnodialectal culture (RUFFINO 2013). In addition to numerous school projects, conferences and events, CSFLS has created an online portal (Diálektos: Lingue e culture in Sicilia)26 that offers the possibility of engaging in discussion forums, and has also established an association of teachers interested in the proper implementation of the regional law. However, despite their undoubtedly scientific value, the projects described above still give the impression of a museum-like attitude towards the local language, which is seen as a mere heritage of an ancient world which no longer exists. The idea of linguistic revitalization is totally lacking, the emphasis being on the relationship between ‘language’ (Italian) and ‘dialect’ (Sicilian). This is due to various factors, but the main one is probably the fact that the language is still widely used for oral communication, leading most people to think that it does not need to be revitalized; viewing Sicilian as a ‘dialect’ and not a language also contributes to this attitude of ‘benign neglect’. Such attitudes betray the spirit of the law, which states clearly that the safeguarding and promotion of the Sicilian linguistic heritage are to be implemented. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the issue of revitalization has been outlined and discussed in academic terms for two of the Italian regional languages. This is also one of the few academic papers published to date that rejects the label ‘dialect’ for Lombard and Sicilian (and for all the other Italian regional languages). As has been explained, the label is confusing and unclear. Most important, it has negative connotations that, we believe, favor language shift. The authors do hope that more academic research in this area will be published in the future, referring to Italian linguistic varieties of Latin origin for what they are: regional languages. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Fulvio Baravalle for providing them with the map of the areas where Lombard and Sicilian are spoken. Marco Trizzino would particularly like to thank Andrea Musumeci (visiting lecturer in Audiovisual Translation at Middlesex University London and City University London and currently pursuing a PhD in Translation Studies at UCL) for his help with the English version of the sections on Sicilian, and Fonso Genchi for suggesting Sicilian singers and groups for table 5.                                                                                                                         26 www.dialektos.it [last accessed on the 13th November 2016]. 296 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri REFERENCES ALFIERI, G. et al. 2013. Storia politico-sociale e storia degli usi linguistici. In: G. Ruffino (ed.), Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 voll.). Palermo: 568-763. BEC, P. 1970-1971. Manuel pratique de philologie romane. Vol. 2. Paris. BONNER, J.K. 2001. Introduction to Sicilian grammar. Brooklyn / Ottawa / Toronto. — 2003a. Diffirenzi principali ntra i parrati siciliani: parti I. Varii diffirenzi fonuloggichi. Ianua. Revista Philologica Romanica 4: 17-28. — 2003b. Principal differences among Sicilian dialects: part I. Phonological differences. Ianua. Revista Philologica Romanica 4: 29-38. BOSONI, J.G. 2003. Una proposta di grafia unificata per le varietà linguistiche lombarde: regole per la trascrizione. Bollettino Storico Alta Valtellina 6: 195-298. BRASCA, L. 2011. Scriver Lombard, un’ortografia polinomeg-local per la lengua lombarda. Monça/Monza. BUCCINI, M. / C. COMOLETTI. 2001. A Milano si parla così. Milan. CAMILLERI, S. 2002. Grammatica siciliana. Catania. CAPROTTI, G. 2013. Viaggio nel dialetto milanese. Milan. CIPOLLA, G. 2013. Learn Sicilian = Mparamu lu sicilianu: a comprehensive, interactive course. Ottawa. COLUZZI, P. 2008. Language planning for Italian regional languages (‘dialects’). Language Problems & Language Planning 32-3: 215-236. — 2009. Endangered minority and regional languages (‘dialects’) in Italy. Modern Italy 14-1: 39-54. D’AGOSTINO, M. / G. PATERNOSTRO. 2013. Parlanti e società dall’Unità ai nostri giorni. In: G. Ruffino (ed.), Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 vols.). Palermo: 413-493. DE MAURO, T. 2014. Storia linguistica dell’Italia repubblicana: dal 1946 ai nostri giorni. Bari. DI GIROLAMO, C. et al. 1996. La letteratura dialettale siciliana. In: Lingua e dialetto nella tradizione letteraria italiana. Atti del Convegno di Salerno (5-6 novembre 1993). Rome: 359-393. FANCIULLO, F. 1996. Fra oriente e occidente. Per una storia linguistica dell’Italia meridionale. Pisa. FASOLD, R. 2001. The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford. GIAVAZZI, G. 2008, 2009, 2010. La nòsta lèngua. Bergamo. GOEBL, H. 2008. La dialettometrizzazione integrale dell’AIS: presentazione dei primi risultati. Revue de Linguistique Romane 285: 25-113. HALLER, H. 2002. La festa delle lingue: La letteratura dialettale in Italia. Rome. LEONE, A. 2005. Ragionando sul modo di presentare il siciliano entro l’ortografia italiana. Quaderni di Semantica 26-2: 335-341. Language plannig for Italian regional languages 297 LEPSCHY, G, 1994. How many languages does Europe need? In: M. M. Parry / W. V. Davies / R. A. M. Temple (eds.), The changing voices of Europe. Cardiff: 5–21. LEWIS, P. / G. SIMONS. 2010. Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique/Romanian Review of Linguistics 2. http://www.lingv.ro/resources/scm_images/RRL-02-2010Lewis.pdf MATRANGA, V. 2013. Scrivere il dialetto. In: G. Ruffino (ed.), Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 vols.). Palermo 2013: 1382-1410. MATRANGA, V. / R. SOTTILE. 2013. La variazione dialettale nello spazio geografico. In: G. Ruffino (ed.), Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 vols.). Palermo: 215-274. MAURI, F. (ed.) 2014. Il milanese per tutti/El milanés per tùcc. Argelato. MENEGHIN, C. 2006. Ricostruzione di una ortografia sintetica di tipo letterario per la lingua Lombarda (ISO 639-3) a partire dalle varietà dell’alta Valtellina, del Grigioni e della val San Giacomo, con una versione alpina della parabola del figliuol prodigo. Bollettino Storico Alta Valtellina 9: 195-218. — 2007. Rebuilding the Rhaeto-Cisalpine written language: guidelines and criteria. Part I: ORS-Orthography. Ianua: Revista Philologica Romanica 7: 37-72. PAPPALARDO, G. 2014. Scrìviri. Una guida al dialetto siciliano. Palermo. PELLEGRINI, G.B. 1973. I cinque sistemi linguistici dell’italo-romanzo. Revue roumaine de linguistique 18: 105-129. PICCITTO, G. 1947. Elementi di ortografia siciliana. Catania. PICCITTO, G. / G. TROPEA / S. C. TROVATO (eds.). 1977-2002. Vocabolario siciliano (5 vols.). Catania-Palermo. REGIS, R. 2012. Verso l’italiano, via dall’italiano: Le alterne vicende di un dialetto del Nord-ovest. In: T. Telmon / G. Raimondi / L. Revelli (eds.), Coesistenze linguistiche nell’Italia pre- e postunitaria. Atti del XLV Congresso internazionale di studi della Società Linguistica Italiana (Aosta/Bard/Torino 26-28 settembre 2011). Rome: 307-318. RUFFINO, G. 1984. Isoglosse siciliane. In: A. Quattordio Moreschini (ed.), Tre millenni di storia linguistica della Sicilia. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Palermo, marzo 1983. Pisa: 161-224. — 2001. Sicilia. Rome-Bari. — (ed.) 2013. Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 voll). Palermo. SANGA, G. 1997. Lombardy. In: M. Maiden / M. Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy. London/New York: 253-259. SOTTILE, R. 2013. Il dialetto nella canzone italiana degli ultimi venti anni. Rome. TAMBURELLI, M. / L. BRASCA. Forthcoming. Revisiting the classification of Gallo-Italic: A dialectometric approach. 298 P. Coluzzi, L. Brasca, M. Trizzino & S. Scuri TROVATO, S. C. 2002. La Sicilia. In: M. Cortelazzo et al. (eds.), I dialetti italiani. Storia struttura uso. Turin: 834-897. — 2006. La fiera del Nigrò. Viaggio nella Sicilia linguistica. Palermo. — 2007. Sull’ortografia del siciliano. Considerazioni in margine a uno scritto recente. Quaderni di semantica 28-2: 397-404. VARVARO, A. 1988. Italienisch: Areallinguistik XII. Sizilien. In G. Holtus / M. Metzelin / C. Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (vol. IV). Tübingen: 716-731. VECCHIO, S. 2013. Da lingua a dialetto. Percorsi dell’ideologia linguistica in Sicilia. In: G. Ruffino (ed.), Lingue e culture in Sicilia (2 voll.). Palermo: 1306-1329. WICHERKIEWICZ, T. 2001. Becoming a regional language – A method in language status planning? (Paper presented at the 2nd European Conference on Language Planning, Andorra 14–16 November 2001). LOCAL IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION IN DUTCH LIMBURG THROUGH DIALECT FORMS, USE AND POPULAR CULTURE Leonie Cornips (Amsterdam / Maastricht) 1. Introducing Dutch Limburg and dialect use Limburg is a province located in the southeast of the Netherlands. „Most of its borders are with Germany and Belgium (212 and 139 kilometers respectively), while its borders with other Dutch provinces (North-Brabant and Gelderland) are only 113 kilometers” (CORNIPS / KNOTTER 2017, 71). The province has a strange, elongated form, as illustrated in Map 1. Figure 1: Map of the Netherlands   (taken from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_Netherlands#/media/File:Map). 300 Leonie Cornips In the Dutch context, Limburg used to be peculiar for being homogeneously Catholic (CORNIPS / KNOTTER 2017). Maastricht, in the deep south, is its capital and the seat of the provincial government building, the so-called Gouvernement. In 2011 the province counted some 1,200,000 inhabitants on a surface of 2,200 square kilometers. Limburg in its present territorial form has only existed since 1839. It had never been a territorial entity before then. Between 1815 and 1839 it was part of a larger territorial entity by the same name, which was divided into a western Belgian and an eastern Dutch part after the Belgian Revolt (1830-1839), separating the United Kingdom of the Netherlands (since 1815) into Belgium and the Netherlands. Since then there are two provinces called Limburg, one in Belgium and one in the Netherlands (CORNIPS / KNOTTER 2017). This paper restricts itself to Dutch Limburg. In Limburg, a strong sense of regional identity, attached to this territory, is expressed by its inhabitants in daily life, and is (re)produced through ‘talk about talk’ (JOHNSTONE 2004), pop culture (CORNIPS 2015, COUPLAND 2011), traditional and social media (ANDROUTSOPOLOUS 2006, LEPPÄNEN 2012). The inhabitants of Limburg consider themselves linguistically and culturally quite distinct from other Dutchmen (KNOTTER 2009, THISSEN 2013). Moreover, they attach great importance to speaking local dialects (cf. CORNIPS 2013). This becomes, among other indicators, visible in an online investigation by the daily provincial newspaper De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad of a representative sample of 1,078 inhabitants in Limburg presenting questions about which characteristics are perceived as typical of Limburgian culture and identity. De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad is the fourth largest newspaper in the Netherlands, according to the number of subscribers, and has various editions for the different areas in Limburg. This investigation was conducted in early 2016: 66% of the respondents stated that they very strongly agree and 30% stated that they agree with the statement that speaking a dialect is characteristic of the Limburgian culture/identity (total agreement 96%). Other characteristics of a perceived unique Limburgian culture in decreasing percentages of total agreement are the celebration of carnival [cf. CORNIPS / DE ROOIJ 2014 (96%: 64% agree very strongly and 32% strongly)], the eating of vlaaj ‘sweet tart (96%: 62% agree very strongly and 34% strongly), shooting bands (88%: 50% agree very strongly and 38% strongly), the landscape (88%: 40% agree very strongly and 48% strongly), brass bands (80%: 29% agree very strongly and 51% strongly), the dialect pop band Rowwen Hèze (see §5) (80%: 40% agree very strongly and 40% strongly), burgundian life-style which is characterized by “relaxed lifestyle, good eating and drinking” (cf. CORNIPS / DE ROOIJ 2014, 81; 78%: 29% agree very strongly and 49% strongly), another dialect pop band Carboon that sings about coalmining (54%: 25% agree very strongly and 29% strongly), sense for community building (51%: 15% agree very strongly and 36% strongly, and the Catholic religion (50%: 12% agree very strongly and 38% strongly). The Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 301 selection of these features (pop, brass and shooting bands, religion, pastry, landscape, language) for the questionnaire was informed by common discourses in the past, which demonstrates the meanings attached to them and the importance of these practices in constructing a Limburgian identity (cf. WIJERS 2009). With respect to dialect use, a large-scale study by DRIESSEN (2012) analyzed developments in the reported use of dialect versus the standard variety from 1995 to 2011 throughout the Netherlands. He contacted 400 Dutch primary schools, involving a sample of 6,000 or 7,000 pupils per measurement, using data from the national cohort study Primary Education (PRIMA, 1995; 2001) and cohort research (2011). His study shows that respondents in Limburg report among the highest use of dialect between parents in the Netherlands from 1995 onwards. Table 1 presents the different percentages for the use of dialect according to different role-relations in the home domain in Limburg and the Netherlands. It is the parents within the home domain who use dialect most frequently. However, it is clearly visible that the percentages of dialect use decrease between the years 2001 and 2011: Limburg The Netherlands Role relations mother-father child-mother child-father child-siblings child-friends mother-father child-mother child-father child-siblings child-friends 1995 63 50 51 50 42 27 13 14 13 12 2001 64 49 50 51 40 18 8 9 9 7 2011 54 39 38 36 31 11 5 6 5 4 Table 1: Dialect use in the home domain in Limburg and the Netherlands from 1995 until 2011 (in %) According to DRIESSEN (2006, 109), parents in Limburg with higher levels of education use the dialect as well. He also investigated the relation between speaking a dialect and general language proficiency by means of the results of the primary school children on standardized comprehension tasks administered in all Dutch primary schools.1 Children speaking a Limburg dialect show the highest command of standard Dutch (DRIESSEN 2006, 109). The research question in this paper is how do people in Limburg construct local identities through language practices and what empirical domain, i.e., morphosyntax and phonology, is exploited in this identity formation? Crucial                                                                                                                         1 www.cito.com 302 Leonie Cornips in social identity formation is how one defines oneself (self-description) and how others define one (by ascription) (BARTH 1969, 13). Identities are not inherited and passed on; they are collectively constructed as a result of social interaction, mediatization and communication. This paper will start out with the latter part of the research question by discussing some phonological and morphosyntactic characteristics (section 2) and current (domains of) dialect use in Limburg (section 3). Sections 4 through 8 deal with local identity construction in Limburg. Section 4 details how people evaluate a Limburgian accent in Dutch, which is important in answering the question of how others define Limburgers by how they speak (process of ascription), and sections 5 and 6 discuss acts of self-description in Limburg through language practices on social media (Facebook) and popular music. 2. Some linguistic characteristics of dialect varieties in Limburg 900,000 Limburgers, which is about 75% of the total population, claim to speak a dialect, showing the high value people attach to speaking their dialects (DRIESSEN 2006). In 1997, the dialect varieties of Limburg were granted recognition as a regional language under the label ‘Limburgish’ by the Netherlands, a signatory to the 1992 European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. Since then, public funds have been made available for promoting the use of Limburgish, as well as protecting the language rights of its speakers. In compliance with this recognition, the Raod veur ’t Limburgs (Council for Limburgish/Limburgian) was founded by the province together with a language policy officer. The Raod serves as an advisory committee of the Provincial Council, and its most important aim is to “take care of Limburgish”2 and to design a language policy for the dialect varieties in Limburg and to study the effects of recognition. Since then, all dialect varieties spoken in the province of Limburg are categorized and labelled Limburgian regional language. Despite labelling as ‘Limburgish,’ the dialect varieties spoken in Limburg are naturally heterogeneous systems, and although they are very similar, they also reveal distinctive grammatical properties. The territorial and administrative borders that constitute the provinces of Limburg do not correspond with linguistically bound entities (cf. BAKKER 2016, CORNIPS 2013, HERMANS 2013). According to dialectologists, Limburgian dialects belong to South Low Frankish (Südniederfränkisch) or East Low Frankish (Oostnederfrankisch in Dutch tradition) and are only spoken in a part of the province of Limburg.3 South Low Frankish is spoken between the isoglosses of the Benrath Line                                                                                                                         2 3 http://www.hklimburg.nl/organisaties/raod-veur-lt-limburgs.html This section is taken from HERMANS (2013). Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 303 and the Uerdingen Line, that both delineate the Second Germanic Consonant Shift (see HERMANS 2013, 336-356 for an extensive discussion and BAKKER 2016 for a different view on the Uerdinger Linie). The dialect area in the north of the province finds itself north of the Uerdingen Line (orange and green in Map 2) and belongs to the so-called Kleverland dialect varieties; it is argued that it has too much of a Brabantic flavor to be categorized as Limburgish (HERMANS 2013). The dialect area in the southeastern part of Limburg, where the Ripuarian dialect varieties are spoken (purple in Map 2), finds itself east of the Benrath Line, and these dialect varieties are considered to be a branch of High German (HERMANS 2013).   Map 2: Limburg with three major isoglosses dividing the various dialect areas (the Benrath Line, Uerdingen Line, and the Panningen Line). The map is made by the Amt für Rheinische Landeskunde in Bonn, Germany as commissioned by the Raod veur ’t Limburgs. Historically, speakers of Limburgish, in the meaning of South Low Frankish, have been influenced, to various degrees, by speakers in the east (the Ripuarian dialects) and by speakers in the west (the Brabant dialects), while being 304 Leonie Cornips more separated from the north (Uerdingen line) and south. In fact, three dialect areas in Limburg can be distinguished in terms of eastbound and westbound on the basis of the Benrath and Uerdingen Line (HERMANS 2013, 1) a transitional area between the Ripuarian dialects and the Limburg dialects; 2) East Limburg dialects, and 3) Central Limburg dialects. According to HERMANS (2013, 336-56), there are two phenomena that may be called ‘Limburg phenomena par excellence,’ since they occur in most Limburg dialect varieties categorized as South Low Frankish and are nowhere else to be found, namely lengthening before voiceless consonants in closed syllables, and the preservation of Accent2 before intervocalic voiced consonants. Almost all Limburg and Ripuarian dialects have a contrast between two tonal accents: Accent1 and Accent2. Phonetically, the two accents are distinguished as a timing difference. In words with Accent1 (denoted by the superscript 1) the pitch switches of the intonational melodies are realized early in the stressed syllable; in words with Accent2 they are realized much later (HERMANS 2013). An example for lengthening in closed syllables is [kɑf] ‘chaff’ in the dialect spoken in Kerkrade (Ripuarian dialect) against [ka:1f] in the West Limburgian dialect of Hasselt in Belgium. An example for the preservation of Accent2 is the verb ‘to write,’ in which there is a shift to Accent1 in the Ripuarian dialects, as in the dialect of Cologne [∫ri:1vəә]. The original Accent2, however, is preserved in the Limburgian dialect of Kerkrade [∫ri:2vəә], Maasbracht [∫ri:2vəә] and Hasselt [sxre:2vəә]. More distinctive, but not exhaustive, features that can be found in Limburg are morphosyntactic in nature. The dialects of Limburg, as well as the regional spoken Dutch in that province, differ from Dutch in the possibility of forming reflexive constructions with inchoative meaning from transitive change-of-state verbs, such as bewijzen ‘to prove,’ krullen ‘to curl’ and veranderen ‘to change,’ buigen ‘to bend’ (CORNIPS / HULK 1996): (1) Het riet buigt zich the reed bends REFL ‘The reed is bending completely’ Another type of reflexive construction that may occur in the dialect varieties and in regional Dutch in Limburg is the dative zich construction in (2). Similar to the reflexive construction in (1), the dative zich construction in (2) denotes a state of affairs that can be described as the end-point of the action (CORNIPS / HULK 1996): (2) Jan eet zich een boterham Jan eats REFL a sandwich ‘Jan eats a (whole) sandwich completely’ Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 305 The various types of reflexive middle constructions constitute a final example, namely, the transitive, impersonal and adjunct middle, illustrated in (3a), (3b) and (3c), respectively (CORNIPS 1996, 2013): (3) a.Dit boek leest zich gemakkelijk this book reads REFL easily ‘This book is easy to read’ b. In dej zaal zingt 't zich goed in this hall sings it REFL well ‘One can sing well in this hall’ c. Dae zâl zinkt zich gôd this hall sings REFL well ‘This hall has good acoustics’ From a linguistic perspective, dialect varieties categorized as Limburg (South Low Frankish) do not follow the provincial and national borders of Limburg, since they exclude the dialect varieties belonging to Kleverlands (north) and Ripuarian (east). Laypeople, however, may search for linguistic phenomena – a specific combination of, in particular, lexical and phonological elements – that are considered unique for the entire province of Limburg and which have become enregistered as Limburgs. As the traditional dialectological categorization for ‘Limburgish’ (South Low Frankish) already revealed, the geographical scale that is used is fixed and predetermined. Speakers, and the linguistic features or varieties they use, are assumed to be representative or reflective of the place in which they live (AUER 2013, 8). 3. Current (domains of) dialect use in Limburg The interest in dialect consolidated itself at a time when the primacy of the national language, Dutch, was far from obvious, and was challenged by the use of German (along the Eastern border) or French (mainly in the regional capital Maastricht, cf. KESSELS-VAN DER HEIJDE 2002). This allowed, up to the present day, a far stronger social and cultural position of dialects than anywhere else in the Netherlands. Dialect speakers in Limburg are no longer monolingual dialect speakers anymore, as was often the case before the 1970s (CROMPVOETS 1989), with the exception of the former coal mining district around Heerlen, from where the pop band Carboon (see 1. above) originates (CORNIPS 1994). Nowadays, dialect-speaking children in Limburg also grow up bilingual, acquiring Dutch and dialect simultaneously. The major attitudinal studies discussed in the literature reveal that speaking dialect is omnipresent in current Limburg (CORNIPS 2013, see also 1. above). However, the percentages of the major studies differ considerably, depending on who is involved in the research in which role; that is, pupils and their parents interviewed in a school context reveal lower percentages of dia- 306 Leonie Cornips lect use than subjects who were interviewed using a general questionnaire. Data for subjects at the national level reveal lower percentages of dialect use than voluntary, self-recruited subjects interested in local, Limburgian issues (CORNIPS 2013). According to research4conducted by the newspaper De Limburger/ Limburgs Dagblad (see 1. above), 66% (n=712) of the respondents answered the question in the affirmative, when asked whether he/she was exposed to dialect from birth onwards, whereas 9% (n=98) claim to be raised partly in dialect. Moreover, 59% of the respondents claim to be highly proficient in speaking the dialect of their birthplace, 46% highly proficient in speaking the dialect of the current place, and 69% highly proficient in understanding the dialect of the village where they currently live. 26% (n=280) of the respondents report that they speak better dialect than Dutch; 28% (n=302) respond that they speak better Dutch than dialect, and 45% claim that they speak both Dutch and dialect equally well. The latter shows the extent of bilingualism, or rather, bidialectalism in this province. However, 60% claim to prefer to speak the dialect (n=526 have a strong and n=118 a light preference), whereas the percentage is 27 for respondents who prefer to speak Dutch: strong (n=224) and light (n=61) preference. It goes without saying that the choice between dialect and Dutch is strongly dependent on the situational context; that is, dialect is spoken most with one’s own partner at home (64%), with one’s children at home (62%), with one’s parents (66%) and with friends (71%). In contrast, Dutch dominates at the workplace or at school (53%), civil services (65%) and in the hospital (75%). 60% of the respondents report raising their child or the desire to raise their child in dialect: 52% are certain about that and 8% respond that it is very likely. Dialect use is also present on social media: 23% use dialect on Whatsapp (16% report doing so often, 7% always); 14% use it on Facebook (often 10%, always 4%), 9% on Snapchat (7% often, 2% always); 5% on Twitter (3% often, 2% always), 5% on Instagram (3% often, 2% always) and 1% on Linkedln. Finally, within Limburg, speaking a dialect is perceived as a (positive) expression of regional or local loyalty. 66% of the respondents consider the use of dialect as characteristic of the Limburgian culture or identity (see also CORNIPS et al. 2012). As I will show in more detail in the following section, the linguistic features that characterize Limburgish index specific meanings about the province’s inhabitants, attributing an identity – both self-ascribed and ascribed by others – of what it means to be a Limburger.                                                                                                                         4 The questionnaire consists exclusively of questions with closed answers in the form of ‘excellent’ and ‘very well’. It should be noted that respondents’ interpretations of these two categories may differ considerably and can only be ascertained by means of future oral investigation. Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 307 4. Speech evaluation of a Limburgian accent in Dutch PRESTON conceives of folk linguistics as “the comments that nonlinguists make about linguistic topics but also the reactions they have to varieties of language and language use, including overt as well as subconscious responses” (2011, 15). The construction of Limburg as a linguistic space entails that being from Limburg (in)directly affects how people sound, via particular choices ((sub)consciously strategic) about what local or regional-sounding speech forms can mean (JOHNSTONE 2004, 74). Every act implies the (de)selection of specific linguistic elements, and these incessant obligatory choices are inscribed with social meanings. This production of meaning is based on the accumulation of experiential knowledge of specific co-occurring linguistic forms, specific (groups of) people and specific places (CORNIPS et al. 2012, PRESTON 2011). The (de)selection of linguistic elements is never socially neutral, and every linguistic act implies a stance toward received social categorizations. Indeed, all studies about attitude-shaping dimension show how regional accent triggers social categorization (GRONDELAERS et al. 2010, 109). Various speech evaluation experiments have shown that the ways of speaking in the south of the Netherlands, including the provinces of Brabant and Limburg, are recognizable to listeners throughout the Netherlands. According to VAN BEZOOIJEN (2005), the south of the province of Limburg is a region with almost exclusively uvular /r/. This is in contrast with the Randstad, where approximant /r/ is very common, next to alveolar /r/ and uvular /r/. A matched guise experiment with a speaker reading the same text with four different (combinations of) /r/-variants showed that many listeners had the idea that uvular /r/ speakers were from the southern provinces of Brabant (mean 36.9%) or Limburg (mean 22.0%) (VAN BEZOOIJEN 2005, 27). In addition, the listeners in Limburg (Geleen) had more diverging ideas than the Dutch listeners outside Limburg about the geographical origin of the speaker when using approximant /r/. Their identifications were scattered over a larger number of provinces, revealing they were not able to place geographically a speaker outside Limburg with approximant /r/ in more precise detail. GRONDELAERS et al. (2015, 3) note, referring to their previous study, that when respondents were asked to determine the regional origin of the speaker, they were able to correctly identify accents in Dutch from Limburg in the range between 75.8% to 90.8%. Although on speaker status measures listeners downgraded speakers from Limburg, the Limburg accent itself was not considered inappropriate for formal communication (GRONDELAERS et al. 2015, 3). According to GRONDELAERS et al. (2015), the southern accent (Limburg) was indexed a rich social meaning, since, at the same time, these accents were upgraded in personal integrity and rated as the most ‘euphonic’ of the investigated varieties (Randstad, north – Groningen – and mid – Gel- 308 Leonie Cornips derland), and this accent was awarded a higher norm status than any of the other western accents. 5. Limburg-Holland opposition on social media CORNIPS / KNOTTER (2017) address the question of how we can explain the strong identification of the inhabitants of Limburg with their province. Originally a geopolitical anomaly without a common history, Limburg became a province with a strong regional identity by recognizing itself as a deviation from the national norm. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Limburg defined common economic interests, language, religion, habits, character, and culture in opposition to a perceived outsider, generally designated as ‘Holland’. National integration and regional identification were and still are two sides of the same coin. In this dialectical process the Limburgers became aware of certain commonalities and started to think and behave in this way. As was described above (see 1. and 3), language, that is, the speaking of dialects, as well as the use of dialect features, was and still is a crucial practice in the construction of a Limburgian identity. According to KNOTTER (2009), “the construction of a regional identity in Limburg can be considered a case of negative integration: as a regional Limburg identity was constructed in opposition to ‘Holland’ (= the rest of the Netherlands), it could only develop because Limburg became part of that country. From the viewpoint of the historical participants, this may appear as a matter of differentiation, but from the viewpoint of the observer, it can be recognized as a form of integration. While becoming Dutchmen, the Limburgers simultaneously discovered that they were a group of people with a character of their own.” An example of more conscious identity work from the Limburg perspective is shown in the two memes, that is, multimodal signs in which images and texts are combined below, taken from the Facebook website called NineGag op z’n Limburgs ‘Nine-Gag going Limburgs’ (see Figures 1 and 2 to be discussed in more detail later). There exist many different 9gag websites on Facebook created by various sorts of actors with the aim of making fun with memes with accompanying text. The particular Nine-Gag op z’n Limburgs’ website was created by two Limburgers, who target an exclusive Limburgian audience, and was founded on December 12, 2012.5 For about 1.5 years, this website mostly consisted of memes. New media, such as social media, lead to new mediations, new modalities, and hence to new language practices. Social media have changed the traditional one-directional ‘read-only’ media consumption towards a ‘read-write’ culture (LEPPÄNEN / HÄKKINEN 2012): the distinction between linguistic consumption and production on the one hand and between speaking and writing on the other has become blurred.                                                                                                                         5 See https://www.facebook.com/9gaglb/?fref=ts (accessed January, 2 2016; 47,345 likes) Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 309 In sociolinguistic research, social media are commonly considered as a global infrastructure only, allowing actors to ‘escape’ their local context through the use of more than one language, register, style, and genre (LEPPÄNEN 2012). Therefore, most sociolinguistic research about social media focuses on the process of language mixing (for instance with English as a global language) and linguistic hybridity (ANDROUTSOPOLOUS 2006, HEYD / MAIR 2014, MOLL 2014). However, even though social media owe their rise and popularity to their global spread, it should not be assumed that all new media practices are in fact global; they interact with local scales as well (LEPPÄNEN et. al. 2009, 1081). Importantly, the two memes below (re)produce locality through dialect use. In addition, they visualize Limburg-Holland oppositions with rich indexical meanings on a local scale. With respect to the images, VARIS / BLOMMAERT argue that memes typically enable intense resemiotization in that “original signs are altered in various ways, generically germane – a kind of ‘substrate’ recognizability would be maintained – but situationally adjusted and altered so as to produce very different communicative effects” (2014, 8). Let us consider the two memes in more detail and how they provide rich data to examine local identity construction.6 Figure 1                                                                                                                         6 Both memes were downloaded on September 23, 2016.   310 Leonie Cornips Figure 2   Figure 1 shows the image of a bare-chested man with long hair and a beard chewing on a blade of grass while leaning against a truck in a nonchalant way. The accompanying text in Limburgish, that is a Limburgian dialect, informs the reader: Hollenjer zeivert euver mien dialek ICH HAUW ‘M ‘T LEECH OET DE FITTING ‘Hollanders who nag about my dialect I WILL KNOCK HIM ALL OVER.’ This meme was placed on June 2013: it received 1,200 reactions and was shared 426 times. The meme in Figure 2 shows an image taken from the Disney movie Toy Story and presents a scene in which a cowboy looks frightened by the thought of massive arrivals of aliens and monsters. This image was placed with the accompanying text in Limburgish, that is a Limburgian dialect: HOLLENDERS HOLLENDERS UUVERAL ‘Hollanders Hollanders everywhere’ on July 2013 and received 321 likes, was shared 45 times and received 7 reactions. The humor is all about the process of Selving and Othering, in which the Limburger is the Self and the other Dutchmen the Other. From that perspective, the aliens and monsters are replaced by Hollanders, who are everywhere.7 The next section shows how the Holland-Limburg distinction is also reproduced through popular music. 6. The construction of local identities through popular music Popular music is one of the means crucial as an ongoing (meta)cultural practice to (re)produce local identity constructions. The perceived uniquely Limburgian identity is mediated and reproduced in popular culture. Popular music in dialect, and its (mass) mediation, is a pervasive characteristic of social meaning making (COUPLAND 2011, 297), with language variation as a constitutive semiotic resource. Limburg has many artists singing in dialect (GRIJP 2007), and some of them, like Gé Reinders and the pop band Rowwen Hèze, reproduce the Hol-                                                                                                                         7 I would like to thank Lotte Thissen for pointing out this meme to me (cf. CORNIPS / THISSEN 2014). Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 311 land-Limburg distinction discursively. Rowwen Hèze is named after a local figure from America, a rural community within the historically impoverished De Peel region in the north of the province, best known economically for the extraction of peat (CORNIPS 2015; BAUER 2015). According to BAUER (2015), the conscious decision of Rowwen Hèze to use a dialect, which is only really understood by a closely localized population, designates this pop group as a willful symbolic representation of its community. In this way, Rowwen Hèze produces a response by a marginalized community to the powerful, mainstream practices of the dominant area in the Netherlands (Holland). In this way, the group attracts a separate, but deeply loyal fan base and establishes a meaningful response against the mainstream culture. The band Rowwen Hèze was the strongest brand of Limburg in 2012 (CORNIPS 2013). Pop music was also the most crucial in the cultural image of the province of Limburg, according to Brand Consultancy, that questioned a representative sample of 15,700 respondents throughout the Netherlands about their opinion as to who or what is most decisive for the cultural image of the Dutch provinces.8 The respondents had to choose from varieties of brands. In 2015, the Pinkpop Festival, which is a large, annual music festival usually held on the Pentecost weekend in Landgraaf, in the southeast of Limburg, was on top, followed by Rowwen Hèze.9 The fact that Rowwen Hèze sings in dialect makes them, according to their fans, authentic, and fans identify via their music not with an exact place but with the stereotypical images of Limburg: warmth, mutual bonding, a positive and burgundian view on life, and coziness (CORNIPS 2013). Rowwen Hèze is well known for one specific song, called Limburg (1990), in which they ironically sing about the day that all Dutch people will talk in Limburgish, reproducing the Holland-Limburg opposition: ’t is een kwestie van geduld rustig wachten op de dag dat heel Holland Limburgs lult ‘it is all a matter of patience, we will calmly wait for the day that the entire Netherlands will jabber in Limburgish’ Another famous singer is Gé Reinders (born 1953 in Helden, Limburg). Reinders started as a pop singer, singing in English, but was recruited by the Limburg radio broadcast in the eighties to write and sing in dialect. Nowadays, he is one of the rare Limburgian artists, like Rowwen Hèze, who perform in theaters in every part of the Netherlands (OP DE COUL 2011). Reinders wrote a song in dialect called Sjtómme Limburger met een zach-                                                                                                                         8 9 http://www.hendrikbeerda.nl/cultuursector-per-provincie-1 (accessed September 24, 2016). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkpop_Festival 312 Leonie Cornips te G ‘Stupid Limburger with a soft G.’ In this song, from a folk linguistic perspective, the so-called soft G (see below for a phonetic description) is indexical for the shame that ‘Limburgers’ feel when speaking and hearing their Dutch in confrontation with others speaking with a ‘Holland’ accent. In speech evaluation experiments (see 4. above) the provinces of Limburg and Brabant were evaluated as the south. Importantly, there is a selection of one linguistic feature which functions as ‘the’ shibboleth to perceive and imagine people as Limburger both in identification processes by others as well in selfidentification. The shibboleth is linked to place and distinguishes people in Holland from Limburg: the former are perceived to produce the so-called ‘hard’ (g) only; that is, the uvular and unvoiced /χ/ (GRONDELAERS / VAN HOUT 2010, 223) in onset and coda position and the latter the so-called ‘soft’, velar and voiced fricative [ɣ] in onset and velar and unvoiced fricative /x/ in coda position. By discursive practice and mediatization, the perceived softness or hardness of the fricative, respectively, has become iconic of the ‘softness’ of the Limburger and the ‘hardness’ of the Hollander (CORNIPS / DE ROOIJ 2014; CORNIPS in press), with accompanying stereotypes. Let us examine the lyrics of the song Sjtómme Limburger met een zachte G ‘Stupid Limburger with a soft G’ in more detail (THISSEN / CORNIPS 2014). The first lyrics introduce the protagonist, the I-figure – a locally constructed character coming from Limburg – who is sailing in a rich boat, with rich people near the land of freedom, the United States. Everyone is feeling great, people are relaxing, they talk in a friendly and intimate manner in English: In Amerika ging ich zeile, bie rieke luuj op eine rieke boot. Veur hadde radar, veur hadde cocktails, veur hadde cashew-neutjes, veur hadde ’t good. I went sailing in America, with rich people in their rich boat. We had radar, we had cocktails, we had cashew-nuts, we had a good time together Ich zoot dao gezellig te aajhore in ’t Ingels mit die luuj. Veer zeilde veur ’t landj van de vrieheid, in dit land begint idderein opnuuj I was talking in a cozy way in English with those people. We were sailing nearby the land of freedom, in this country everyone starts all over The protagonist continues his small constructed story. The intimate atmosphere changes due to the hostess. Suddenly, she makes herself known as a Dutch woman and in doing so she starts to talk in Dutch. In the eyes of the protagonist, she rapidly transforms into a posh lady from Haarlem. Haarlem is not chosen randomly; it is the place where people are perceived to speak the ideal kind of standard Dutch: Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg Plots vertelde de gasvrouw det ze in Nederlandj waar gebaore. In de oorlog had ze neet meer truuk gekós en noe woonde ze dao al sinds die jaore. 313 Suddenly, the hostess told us that she was born in the Netherlands. She couldn’t return during the war and that’s why she lived there for years. Ze ging Hollands kalle en waerde She started to talk Dutch and opins ‘n Haarlemse kakmevrouw. suddenly became a posh lady from Haarlem. In the following lyrics, the protagonist is confronted with the ‘other’, the Hollander speaking the perfect kind of Dutch. He speaks three sentences in Dutch but feels that both the hostess and he change on the spot. Therefore, he interrupts himself: “If you don’t mind, I’d rather talk English now”: Ich höb drie zinne Nederlands gekald, I said three more sentences in veulde ós allebei ter plekke verandere Dutch, felt that we both changed en zag: and said: ‘If you don’t mind, I’d rather talk English now’. The protagonist wants to continue the conversation in English since, in contrast to his hostess, he speaks a marginalized kind of Dutch, i.e., Dutch with a Limburg accent, in particular his pronunciation of the fricative. He feels a stupid Limburger. He describes his emotions: he feels like a soggy southerner, soggy as old wish-wash tea. The protagonist doesn’t like these feelings, but it is beyond his power. The feelings sit deep in his blood: Want ich veulde mich weer eine Because I felt a stupid Limburger sjtómme Limburger mit miene zachte G. again with my soft G. Zónne kleffe zuiderling, Such a soggy southerner klef wie aje sjlappe thee. Soggy as old wish-wash tea Ich vinj det geveul neet good I don’t find this feeling ok Maar ’t zit heel deep in mien blood. But it sits very deep in my blood. In the lyrics above, the protagonist constructs an opposition between the hostess’s speaking Dutch located in Haarlem and producing a standard Dutch uvular and unvoiced [χ]) and his speaking Dutch located in Limburg, pronouncing the velar and (un)voiced [ɣ]/[x]. The process of iconization is at work in the imagination of the protagonist only. The feelings of being a ‘stupid Limburger’ and ‘a soggy southerner, as soggy as wish-wash tea’ don’t come about due to explicit comments by the hostess. On the contrary, the hostess is silent, but it is the protagonist, who, as a speaker of a marginalized Dutch, in interaction with a speaker from Holland, experiences – noting the 314 Leonie Cornips adverb weer ‘again’ – the same feeling of being a stupid Limburger over and over again. In the following lyrics, the protagonist continues his story: his father painted away the name of the regional newspaper, The Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad, on his bike bags when he was about to leave the province for his study. Although the father doesn’t want to explain this activity to him, the listener from Limburg knows that the father is carefully protecting his son from all the jocular comments he will certainly receive when being ‘abroad’ due to his soft g: Ich ging wied weg sjtudere en ich had I went far away to study and I fietstasse van ‘De Nieuwe Limburger’, had bike bags with ‘the Nieuwe Limburger’ zo hoot toen de krantj. on it, the title of the newspaper Mien vader verfde dae naam weg, ich My father painted away that vroog woróm, hae zag: ‘Zo maar, nieks name, I asked why, he said: aan de handj’. ‘nothing to worry about.’ The protagonist notes that a friend of his also went abroad to study, but that he adapted his speech according to the Holland (Amsterdam) norms: Meine vrundj vertrok nao Groninge My friend left for Groningen, he dao deej d’r Frans. Wie d’r truuk kwoom, studied French there. When he returned, he kalde d’r opins Amsterdams suddenly talked Amsterdams The couplet now explicitly states that Limburgers are all stupid Limburgers because they are afraid of their soft G: Allemaol sjtómme Limburgers bang veur häör zachte G Kleffe zuiderlinge, klef wie sjlappe aje thee Ich vinj det geveul neet good Maar ’t zit heel deep in oos blood All stupid Limburgers afraid for their soft G Such soggy southerners, Soggy as old wish-wash tea I don’t find this feeling ok But it sits very deep in our blood The protagonist continues. He lets us know he listened to a famous disk jockey – Felix Meurders – speaking dialect located in Limburg (Maastricht) on the national radio. This makes him cry, since the broadcast of Limburgish on national radio seems to support the idea that speaking dialect in the national public space is tolerated and accepted. Therefore, the last couplet ends with the saying that there is nothing wrong with Limburgers’ using a soft G. Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 315 They are just southerners, just southerners with a soft G, without the accompanying stereotypes: Ich heurde Felix Meurders plat kalle op de radio en kreeg de traone in mien ouge. As-of ’t móch, as-of ’t good waas, as-of veur kinne douge. I heard Felix Meurders talking in dialect on the radio and got tears in my eyes. As if it was allowed, as if it was ok, as if we are ok. Limburgers met hun zachte G. Gewone Zuiderlingen, niks mis mee. Det geveul deej mich good deep, heel deep in mien blood. Limburgers with their soft G Just southerners, nothing wrong with that feeling deep, very deep in my blood A song in dialect like ‘Stupid Limburger with a soft G’ reveals that differences between ways of speaking are not socially neutral. Limburg’s political and cultural specificity vis-à-vis dominant standard Dutch ensures that social signification in cultural and language practices takes a stance toward received social categorizations and stereotypes (CORNIPS et al. 2012). Limburg is defined in the use of dialect and dialect features – soft G and accompanying feelings as ‘soggy southerner, soggy as old wish-wash tea’ in opposition to a perceived outsider, designated as ‘Holland’ and in this particular song as Haarlemse kakmevrouw ‘posh lady from Haarlem’. The song circulates and reproduces ideologies of language, place, and groups of people, in particular, the indexicalities of (un)voiced, velar and uvular fricative. Taken together, the performance of the song gives form and meaning to what is considered the uniqueness of the ‘own’ region, and constructs a Limburgian identity by linguistic and cultural practices (CORNIPS et al. 2012). 7. Conclusion The research question in this paper was how do people in Limburg construct local identities through language practices and what empirical domain, i.e., morphosyntax and phonology, is exploited in this identity formation? Crucial in social identity formation is how one defines oneself (self-description) and how others define one (by ascription). Identities are not inherited and passed on; they are collectively constructed as a result of social interaction, mediatization and communication. In this paper I have shown how available linguistic resources are exploited in constructing regional identities, that is (re)producing a Limburgian identity. The use of Limburgish is not only reported in questionnaires as crucial in this identity construction, but a Limburgian identity is constructed in opposition to Holland. This opposition is manifest in speech evaluation experiments, in folk linguistics, and in popular pop culture. For instance, memes on Facebook visualize Limburg-Holland oppositions 316 Leonie Cornips with rich indexical meanings on a local scale. Importantly, people evaluate and experience a specific linguistic feature as indexical for being a Limburger, namely the velar and voiced fricative [ɣ] in onset and velar and unvoiced fricative /x/ in coda position. By discursive practice and mediatization, the perceived softness of the fricatives became and is still iconic of the ‘softness’ of the Limburger versus the ‘hardness’ of the Hollander. This linguistic feature is not only crucial when speaking Limburgish but also when speaking Dutch. A popular song by a Limburgian singer shows that just one ‘tiny’ linguistic feature can do all the identity work. The velar (un)voiced fricative is indexical for a ‘soggy southerner, soggy as old wish-wash tea.’ Taken together, linguistic evaluations, reported language use, popular pop songs, and memes on Facebook sites circulate and reproduce ideologies of language, place, and groups of people. They give form and meaning to what is considered as the uniqueness of the ‘own’ region. REFERENCES ANDROUTSOPOLOUS, J. 2006. Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites. Journal of Sociolinguistics: 520-547. AUER, P. 2013. The geography of language: Steps towards a new approach. Freiburger Arbeitspapiere zur Germanistischen Linguistik (FRAGL): 16 (8). [https://portal.uni-freiburg.de/sdd/fragl/2013.16] BAKKER, F. 2016. Waar scheiden de dialecten in Noord-Limburg? Een dialectometrisch onderzoek naar het gewicht van isoglossen. Unpublished Dissertation, Radboud University, LOT BARTH, F. 1969. Introduction. In: F. Barth (ed.) Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Boston: 9-38. BAUER, E. 2015. Cross-cultural ‘Oomphah-Rock’ identities: stylistic unification and common background in the music of Rowwen Hèze and Los Lobos. In: L. Cornips / B. Beckers (eds.), Het dorp en de wereld. Over dertig jaar Rowwen Hèze. Nijmegen: 172-180. CORNIPS, L. 1994. Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, IFOTT 6. — 1996. The spread of the reflexive adjunct middle in the Limburg dialects: 1885-1994. In: C. Cremers / M. Den Dikken (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996. Amsterdam: 49-60. — 2013. Recent developments in the Limburg dialect region. In: F. Hinskens / J. Taeldeman (eds.), Language and Space: Dutch. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Berlin/Boston: 378-399. — 2014. Rowwen Hèze. De Limburger/Limburgs Dagblad (October, 18). Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 317 — 2015. Dertig jaar Rowwen Hèze – Auteurs en bijdragen in vogelvlucht. In: L. Cornips / B. Beckers (eds.), Het dorp en de wereld. Over dertig jaar Rowwen Hèze. Nijmegen: 11-16. — in press. Social meanings of the north-south divides in the Netherlands and Limburg and their linkage to standard Dutch and dialect varieties. Language Variation and Change: Regard and Contact. (eds). Betsy E. Evans, E. Benson, J. Stanford. Cambridge. CORNIPS, L. / A. HULK. 1996. Ergative reflexives in Heerlen Dutch and French. Studia Linguistica 50-1: 1-21 CORNIPS, L. / V. DE ROOIJ, 2014. Belonging through language cultural practices in the periphery. The politics of carnival in the Dutch province of Limburg. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 24-1: 83-101. CORNIPS, L. / V. DE ROOIJ / I. STENGS. 2012. Carnavalesk taalgebruik en de constructie van lokale identiteiten. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 1-1: 15-40. CORNIPS, L. / A. KNOTTER. 2017. Inventing Limburg (The Netherlands): Territory, history, language, and identity. In: H. Christen / P. Gilles / C. Purschke (eds.) Räume, Grenzen, Übergänge. Akten des 5. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD). Stuttgart [ZDL, Beihefte, 170], 71–91, 377. CORNIPS, L. / L. THISSEN. 2014. Taalcultuur in Limburg: Lokale constructies van ‘wij’ en ‘zij’. Paper presented at Maastricht University, Parcours of Art and Science (PAS), Avond van Kunst en Kennis, Studium Generale (September 13, 2014). COUPLAND, N. 2011. Voice, place and genre in popular song performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15-5: 573-602. CROMPVOETS, H. 1987. Dialekt en standaardtaal in Nederlands Limburg. Mededelingen van de Vereniging voor Limburgse Dialect- en Naamkunde 43: 1-22. DRIESSEN, G. 2006. Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2003. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 751: 103-113, 118. DRIESSEN, G. 2012. Ontwikkelingen in het gebruik van Fries, streektalen en dialecten in de periode 1995-2011. ITS, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. GOEMAN, A.C.M. 1999. Dialects and the subjective judgments of speakers: remarks on controversial methods. In: D. R. Preston (ed.) Handbook of perceptual dialectology: Vol. 1. Amsterdam: 135-144. GRIJP, L. P. 2007. Singing in Dutch dialects: Language choice in music and the dialect renaissance. In: J. P. Margry / H. Roodenburg (eds.), Reframing Dutch culture: between otherness and authenticity. Hampshire: 225244. 318 Leonie Cornips GRONDELAERS, S. / R. VAN HOUT. 2010. Is Standard Dutch with a regional accent standard or not? Evidence from native speakers’ attitudes. Language Variation and Change 22: 221-239. GRONDELAERS, S. / R. VAN HOUT / M. STEEGS. 2010. Evaluating regional accent variation in standard Dutch. In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29-1: 101-116. GRONDELAERS, S. / R. VAN HOUT / S. VAN DER HARST. 2015. Subjective accent strength perceptions are not only a function of objective strength. Evidence from Netherlandic Standard Dutch. Speech Communication 74: 1-11. HERMANS, B. 2013. Phonological features of Limburgian dialects. In: F. Hinskens, / J. Taeldeman (eds.), Language and Space: An international handbook of Linguistic variation. Vol. 3: Dutch. Berlin: 336-356. HEYD, TH. / CHR. MAIR. 2014. From vernacular to digital ethnolinguistic repertoire: The case of Nigerian Pidgin. In: V. Laoste / J. Leimgruber / T. Breyer (eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin/New York: 244-268. JOHNSTONE, B. 2004. Place, globalization, and linguistic variation. In: C. Fought (ed.), Sociolinguistic Variation. Critical reflections. Oxford: 6583. KESSELS-VAN DER HEIJDE, M. 2002. Maastricht, Maestricht, Mestreech. De taalverhoudingen tussen Nederlands, Frans en Maastrichts in de negentiende eeuw. Hilversum. KNOTTER, A. 2009. Limburg bestaat niet. Paradoxen van een sterke identiteit. In: A. Knotter (ed.), Dit is Limburg!: 263-277. LEPPÄNEN, S. 2012. Linguistic and generic hybridity in web writing: The case of fan fiction. In: M. Sebba / Sh. Mahootian/ C. Jonsson (eds.). Language mixing and code-switching in writing: Approaches to mixed-language written discourse. London: 233-254. LEPPÄNEN, S. / A. HÄKKINEN. 2012. Buffalaxed superdiversity: representations of the other on you tube. Diversities 14-2: 17-33. MOLL, A. 2014. Authenticity in dialect performance? A case study of “Cyber-Jamaican”. In: V. Lacoste / J. Leimgruber / Th. Breyer (eds.), Indexing authenticity: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin/New York: 209-243. OP DE COUL, H. 2011. “There where a kiss is a muulke:” Paper presented at the NIAS workshop Constructions of local identities through culture and language, December 2011. PRESTON, D. R. 2011. The power of language regard – Discrimination, classification, comprehension, and production. Dialectologia, Special Issue 2: 9-33. THISSEN, L. 2013 The Ambiguities of Limburgerness: Language, Place, and Belonging in Limburg, the Netherlands. Etnofoor 25-2: 119-143. Local identity construction in Dutch Limburg 319 THISSEN, L. / L. CORNIPS. 2014. Sjtómme Limburger met een zachte G. In: A. Andeweg / L. Wesseling (eds.), Wat de verbeelding niet vermag! Essays bij het afscheid van Maaike Meijer. Nijmegen: 295-300. VAN BEZOOIJEN, R. 2005. Approximant /r/ in Dutch: Routes and feelings. Speech Communication 47: 15-31. VARIS, P. / J. BLOMMAERT. 2014. Conviviality and collectives on social media: Virality, memes and new social structures. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 108. Tilburg University. WIJERS, C. 2009. In één hand de rozenkrans, in de andere hand een glas bier’. De Limburgse identiteit onder de loep. In: A. Knotter (ed.), Dit is Limburg!: 127-149. EDUKACJA KASZUBSKA WCZORAJ I DZIŚ Jaromira Labudda (Linia) 1. Uwarunkowania i początki edukacji kaszubskiej Edukację kaszubską należy rozpatrywać w powiązaniu z kondycją języka polskiego, w kontekście wydarzeń społeczno – politycznych, które warunkowały jej rozwój bądź stanowiły pretekst do jej zahamowania. Ważne wydarzenia z przeszłości ukazujące postrzeganie języka kaszubskiego jako pożądany lub szkodliwy element kultury i edukacji polskiej ilustruje fragment zaczerpnięty z pracy Adeli Kożyczkowskiej i Kazimierza Kossak-Główczewskiego – pracowników naukowych Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego – Edukacja języka i kultury kaszubskiej na terenie Kaszub. Wybrane konteksty. Egzemplifikacja pierwsza. Język kaszubski w okresie zaborów pojmowany był jako synonim języka polskiego (jako odmiana dialektologiczna). Dlatego też utrzymanie języka kaszubskiego w codzienności oraz języka polskiego w szkole i kościele stanowiło ważny element oporu w walce z germanizacją1. Język kaszubski miał zaświadczać o polskości i przynależności Kaszub do Polski. (…) Zachowanie zatem tożsamości kaszubskiej było w dobie zaboru pruskiego pojmowane jako sukces zabiegów edukacyjnych. Egzemplifikacja druga. W roku szkolnym 1969/70, w powiecie puckim w grupie 7500 dzieci w wieku szkolnym, aż 780 zostało zakwalifikowanych do szkolnictwa specjalnego z powodu niedorozwoju umysłowego2. Lokalna służba zdrowia zaniepokoiła się „tą” epidemią „niedorozwojów umysłowych” i postanowiono zbadać jej przyczyny. Za „czynnym i wyrozumiałym poparciem władz partyjnych i państwowych powiatu puckiego” – jak pisze Stanisław Sikorski, ówczesny ordynator oddziału dziecięcego Szpitala Powiatowego w Pucku – zwrócono się o pomoc do Akademii Medycznej w Gdańsku (AMG). W konsekwencji zaplanowano i zrealizowano badania. (…) „Badania naukowe” potwierdziły „niedorozwój umysłowy u około 70 % badanych dzieci. U pozostałych 30 % stwierdzono bądź ociężałość umysłową, bądź pograniczne normy niedorozwoju”3. Za jedną z przyczyn niedorozwoju umysłowego uznano fakt,                                                                                                                         1 2 3 Por. Obracht-Prondzyński (2006, 31), Burzyńska-Wentlandt (2009, 31-45), Bolduan (1974, 10). Patrz także: Cenova w Radijo Polskjim. „Zrzesz Kaszëbskô. Cządnjik Kaszebskjich Zajmov. V Mjono Boskji Narodni Vzejnik” 1937, nr 5, s. 5. Klënjôcz, Chto Polsce dôł morze? „Zrzesz Kaszëbskô. Cządnjik Kaszebskjich Zajmov. V Mjono Boskji Narodni Vzejnik” 1937, nr 5, s. 3. Sikorski (1973, 17). Tamże, s. 18-19. Edukacja kaszubska 321 że dzieci socjalizowane były w języku i kulturze kaszubskiej, i w momencie gdy rozpoczynały naukę szkolną nie posługiwały się językiem polskim4. (…) I tu kryje się sedno tajemnicy: dzieci kaszubskie, które socjalizowane były w języku kaszubskim, i mówiły tylko w języku kaszubskim. Logiczne zatem, że nie znały języka polskiego (szczególnie języka literackiego, który używany był/ jest w szkole) i jednocześnie – co już przeczy logice edukacyjnej – język polski nie był przez nauczycieli traktowany jako obcy w tych konkretnych przypadkach edukacyjnych odnoszących się do dzieci kaszubskojęzycznych. Często dopiero szkoła stwarzała dziecku i konieczność, i możliwość nauki języka polskiego. Tymczasem proces diagnozy realizowany był przy użyciu narzędzi skonstruowanych w języku polskim i standaryzowanych dla dzieci, które socjalizowały się w języku polskim. Same zaś wyniki badań interpretowane były poprawnie, bo zgodnie ze wzorcami rozwojowymi typowymi dla dzieci w określonym wieku rozwojowym. Całe postępowanie badawcze byłoby zgodne z zasadami metodologicznymi, gdyby nie błąd w użyciu narzędzi: dostarczały one bowiem fałszywych danych. (…) Tożsamość kaszubska była przez wiele lat polityki edukacyjnej okresu powojennego rozumiana jako szkodliwa i była postrzegana jako niedopuszczalny efektem [sic] aberracji genetyczno-społecznej i wobec tego zadaniem szkoły było za wszelką cenę – przy użyciu dostępnych środków oddziaływań – usunąć bądź przynajmniej zminimalizować jej społeczną obecność. Należy do powyższych rozważań dodać napiętnowanie i kary cielesne stosowane w szkołach wobec uczniów mówiących po kaszubsku w okresie międzywojennym i po II wojnie św. (jeszcze w latach 70-tych i 80-tych ubiegłego stulecia), by mieć pełny obraz, w jakim krystalizowała się edukacja regionalna. Już w I połowie XX w. nauczyciele Aleksander Labuda i Jan Trepczyk na swoich zajęciach wykorzystywali elementy regionalne. Na długo przed powstaniem pierwszych szkół z językiem kaszubskim postulowali konieczność nauczania języka rodzimego w szkole. Labuda, jako bardziej radykalny w swych poglądach, niezależnie od sytuacji politycznej (okres zaborów, okupacja, system komunistyczny), rozmawiał z uczniami na lekcjach i przerwach po kaszubsku, wiedząc, że naraża się na represje władz. „Kiedy Niemcy zorganizowali szkołę w Mirachowie zaangażowali go jako nauczyciela (był nim z zawodu). Ponieważ był zakaz nauczania po                                                                                                                         4 Tamże, s. 19-20. 322 Jaromira Labudda polsku Aleksander Labuda nie chcąc uczyć po niemiecku uczył dzieci po kaszubsku. Mogą to zaświadczyć byli jego uczniowie.”5 Impulsem do takiego działania stały się osobiste przeżycia z lat dziecięcych i młodzieńczych. Znamiennym przykładem zagubienia i tragizmu dziecka w czasie rozbiorów (początek XX w.) oraz w czasach ustroju komunistycznego (II poł. XX w.) jest napisany później przez niego wiersz: JIWER DZECKA Co dzéń jô witajã szkòłową chëcz Z ksążkama pòd pôchą jak kôże zwëcz. Szkólny, czej pòcznie mie pëtac Rechòwac, pisac i czëtac, Wszëtkò jô mògã, le gadac I z dzejów pòlsczich òpòwiadac Drãgò, a czemù? Jô nie wiém. Le co mie dzywno – jô pòwiém: Szkólny nóm wszëtkò rozpòwiôdô, Le mòwë naj’ nie wëkłôdô – Gwës nie je ze zemi naszi, Co òn tak dzëwò pòlaszi. Co dzéń jô witajã szkòłową chëcz, Nié naszëznë ùczą – stôrô to zwëcz. KŁOPOT DZIECKA Co dzień witam szkolny dom Z książkami pod pachą jak każe zwyczaj. Nauczyciel, gdy zacznie mnie pytać Liczyć, pisać i czytać, Wszystko umiem, tylko mówić I z dziejów polskich opowiadać Trudno. A dlaczego? Ja nie wiem. Lecz co mnie dziwi – powiem: Nauczyciel nam wszystko opowiada, Ale mowy naszej nie wykłada – Na pewno nie jest z ziemi naszej, Że tak dziwnie polonizuje. Co dzień witam szkolny dom, Nie swojszczyzny uczą – stary to zwyczaj.6 Labuda wspomina też działania germanizacyjne polskich nauczycieli: Pewnego dnia na trzeciej lekcji przerabialiśmy piękny wierszyk pt. Die Muttersprache (…). Nauczyciel umiejętnie wykorzystał treść wiersza w celu wychowawczym. Zapalał w nas miłość i uszanowanie mowy ojczystej (oczywiście, niemieckiej). Po przerwie nauczyciel zaczął nas karcić, besztać i szkalować:                                                                                                                         5 6 List zamieszczony w artykule Aleksander Labuda nie był „volksdeutschem”, [w:] „Głos Wybrzeża”, nr 173, z dn. 1 września 1981. Pod listem widnieje 8 nazwisk świadków. Tłumaczenie: Jaromira Labudda. Edukacja kaszubska 323 - Już niejednokrotnie zakazywałem wam mówić w szkole i podczas przerwy tą waszą obrzydliwą mową. To jest coś wysoce odrażającego, kiedy na cały głos krzyczycie: Janie, pojle – ejle – tejle – wejle! Nieraz już w ten sposób wydrwiwał naszą mowę, ale tym razem zareagowałem: - Panie nauczycielu, przecież to jest nasza mowa ojczysta, którą należy miłować i szanować… Pamiętam jak dziś, nauczyciel zapłonął na policzkach i bez słowa wyszedł z izby lekcyjnej; może poszedł po trzcinkę? Ale nie. Dopiero po dłuższym czasie wrócił do nas i oznajmił nam przerwę. Od tego czasu przestał wydrwiwać naszą mowę (Labuda 1986, 209). Powyższe przykłady ilustrują proces germanizacji i polonizacji dzieci kaszubskich. W okresie międzywojennym w szkole istniał przedmiot „nauka o regionie”. Ten fakt wykorzystywali nauczyciele-Kaszubi, wprowadzając w tok nauczania elementy własnego regionu. Jan Trepczyk uczył dzieci wierszy i pieśni kaszubskich. Po II wojnie światowej prowadził chór szkolny, ucząc dzieci wielu utworów ludowych. Wykorzystywał również twórczość własną, był bowiem autorem tekstów i melodii.7 W latach 70-tych razem z żoną popularyzował pieśni kaszubskie, występując na licznych imprezach kulturalnych. W tym czasie stał się znanym poetą i kompozytorem, toteż jego utwory znalazły się w repertuarze wielu zespołów śpiewaczych oraz regionalnych zespołów ludowych. W okresie powojennym dzieci w domu oraz w szkole posługiwały się językiem kaszubskim. Nauczycielami byli często pedagodzy z innych regionów Polski. Labuda był świadom nieporozumień, jakie pociąga za sobą niedostateczna znajomość języka: polskiego – ze strony uczniów i kaszubskiego – ze strony napływowych nauczycieli. Dlatego w 1960 r. opublikował „Słowniczek kaszubski”, który miał służyć pomocą zarówno jednej jak i drugiej społeczności w celach edukacyjnych. Jednak zaraz po edycji stał się mało dostępny, ponieważ znaczną część nakładu przeznaczono do archiwum. Szkolnictwo lat 70-tych cechowało powszechne rugowanie elementów kaszubskich. Zakazywano używania języka nawet na przerwach, twierdząc, że jest to „zepsuta polszczyzna” i wmawiając uczniom, że posługując się nią, nigdy nie nauczą się języka polskiego. Jednocześnie wprowadzano pieśni oraz tańce innych regionów, zgodnie z miejscem pochodzenia nauczyciela. Nieliczni Kaszubi uczący w szkołach oraz działacze kulturalni starali się równoważyć te działania, powierzając dzieciom kaszubskim recytację wiersza lub wykonanie piosenki kaszubskiej na imprezach pozaszkolnych. W latach 80-tych ubiegłego stulecia możliwe stało się wprowadzenie elementów regionalnych w treści nauczania języka polskiego oraz utworzenie                                                                                                                         7 Informacje podane przez Z. i E. Kamińskich. 324 Jaromira Labudda tzw. Koła Regionalnego. Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko - Pomorskie opublikowało broszurę, w której obok wybranych treści programowych z języka polskiego wprowadzono propozycję dodania podobnych zagadnień regionalnych (np. polski hymn narodowy – hymn kaszubski). Tego typu innowacje zależały od dobrej woli kierownika szkoły. W tym samym czasie z inicjatywy nauczyciela Witolda Bobrowskiego powstało „Drësztwò szkólnëch”. Była to organizacja zrzeszająca entuzjastów kaszubszczyzny dążących do wprowadzenia nowego przedmiotu nauczania. Jej prezes był również uczestnikiem zebrania nauczycieli pod auspicjami Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego, na którym omawiano możliwość wprowadzenia kaszubszczyzny do szkół. Jednak na nauczanie języka kaszubskiego trzeba było czekać jeszcze kilka lat, do czasu upadku ustroju komunistycznego (1989 r.). Inicjatywa wyszła oddolnie. Od września 1991 r. dyrektor Szkoły Podstawowej w Głodnicy – Witold Bobrowski – reaktywował placówkę i wprowadził edukację dwujęzyczną. Wszystkie przedmioty nauczania (prócz języka polskiego i języka angielskiego) były wykładane – przynajmniej częściowo – po kaszubsku. Ponadto zaistniał przedmiot o nazwie język kaszubski. Owo nowatorskie działanie nie obyło się bez trudności. Kaszubszczyzna nie posiadała jeszcze statusu języka. Po wielu zabiegach udało się dyrektorowi przekonać Ministerstwo Oświaty oraz Główny Urząd Statystyczny do swoich zamierzeń. Przepisy prawne nie uwzględniały takiej możliwości, nie było więc ani zezwolenia, ani zakazu nauczania kaszubszczyzny. Sama lokalizacja szkoły sprzyjała takiemu przedsięwzięciu. Głodnica to mały przysiółek z ludnością rdzennie kaszubską, wielopokoleniową, w której powszechnie używano języka kaszubskiego. Również wszystkie dzieci posługiwały się tym językiem. W małej szkole łatwo było osiągnąć stuprocentową przychylność rodziców dla takiej inicjatywy. Równolegle ze szkołą głodnicką wprowadzono język kaszubski w Kaszubskim Liceum Ogólnokształcącym w Brusach. Dyrektor placówki – Tadeusz Lipski – był również uczestnikiem wspomnianego wcześniej zebrania nauczycieli-regionalistów. Stopniowo wyzwanie podejmowały inne szkoły, głównie podstawowe. W 1997 r. na zamówienie Ministerstwa Edukacji Narodowej zostały opracowane i opublikowane dwa pierwsze programy do nauczania języka kaszubskiego autorstwa Tadeusza Lipskiego i Jaromiry Labuddy. W 2000 r. ukazał się pierwszy podręcznik - elementarz Witolda Bobrowskiego i Katarzyny Kwiatkowskiej. Były to ważne pozycje, bowiem stanowiły pomoc dla nauczycieli uczących do tej pory „po omacku”, na zasadzie intuicji i własnych kompetencji pedagogicznych. Ważnym aktem prawnym dla edukacji kaszubskiej stał się dokument Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej i Sportu z dnia 3 grudnia 2002 r. mówiący, że szkoły i placówki publiczne umożliwiają uczniom należącym do mniejszości narodowych i grup etnicznych podtrzymywanie i rozwijanie poczucia tożsamości narodowej, et- Edukacja kaszubska 325 nicznej, językowej i religijnej oraz własnej historii i kultury m. in. poprzez naukę języka mniejszości narodowej lub grupy etnicznej. Obecnie z każdym rokiem obserwuje się wzrost liczby szkół z nauczanym językiem kaszubskim oraz coraz większą ilość uczniów objętych nauką kaszubszczyzny. Rok szkolny8 Szkoła podstawowa Gimnazjum 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/119 Ilość szkół 1 2 2 4 8 16 33 40 48 64 71 82 99 126 163 182 197 Ilość szkół 2 5 6 8 10 17 20 26 37 46 52 60 Ilość uczniów 24 28 32 173 471 980 2070 3062 3482 3928 3640 3715 3839 4933 6986 8182 8883 Ilość uczniów 144 266 432 445 544 614 639 722 912 1151 1257 1383 Liceum szkoła ponadgimn. Ilość Ilość szkół uczniów 1 250 1 267 1 295 1 325 1 346 2 393 2 296 3 298 4 272 3 204 3 158 3 148 3 137 4 142 5 201 5 187 Jak wynika z powyższego zestawienia, najwcześniej j. kaszubski został wprowadzony do szkół podstawowych oraz jednej szkoły ponadgimnazjalnej. Wciąż utrzymuje się tendencja wzrostu ilości placówek z j. regionalnym. Na ogół też wzrasta ilość zainteresowanych uczniów. Wyjątek stanowią szkoły ponadgimnazjalne, gdzie obserwuje się wzrost, a następnie spadek liczby uczniów.                                                                                                                         8 9 Dane GUS i Systemu Informacji Oświatowej [w:] Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie, Nauczanie języka kaszubskiego w szkołach ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem wydatkowania i przekazywania przez jednostki samorządu terytorialnego subwencji na naukę języka kaszubskiego, 2010, s.18. Dane na rok szkolny 2010/11 według stanu wykazanego w SIO na dzień 30 września 2010 r. 326 Jaromira Labudda 2. Edukacja kaszubska współcześnie Obecnie naukę języka kaszubskiego organizuje dyrektor szkoły na pisemny wniosek składany przez rodziców lub opiekunów prawnych dziecka (w szkołach ponadgimnazjalnych, od 16. roku życia – na wniosek ucznia). Obejmuje on jeden etap edukacyjny (okres 3 lat). Obowiązują 3 lekcje tygodniowo, z czego jedna godzina może zostać przeznaczona na wycieczki, spotkania z twórcami itp. Grupa objęta nauczaniem języka kaszubskiego musi liczyć co najmniej 7 osób. Nauczanie jest organizowane w grupach klasowych, międzyoddziałowych lub międzyklasowych (3-14 uczniów). Ocena otrzymana przez ucznia z języka kaszubskiego jest wliczana do średniej ocen. Nauczanie języka kaszubskiego stanowi wysokie źródło dochodów dla szkoły, bowiem subwencja przyznawana na 1 ucznia może nawet o 150 % przewyższać finansowanie dziecka nieobjętego edukacją regionalną. Innymi słowy: im więcej dzieci objętych nauką języka regionalnego, tym więcej środków finansowych pozyskuje szkoła. Istnieją programy nauczania dla wszystkich typów szkół i kilka podręczników przeznaczonych dla różnych grup wiekowych (od wieku przedszkolnego po osoby dorosłe). Podręczniki dla szkoły podstawowej są najbardziej zróżnicowane, bowiem na tym etapie uczniowie posiadają różny stopień znajomości kaszubszczyzny. W klasach młodszych przeważają treści związane z domem rodzinnym, szkołą oraz najbliższym otoczeniem i koncentrują się na czynnościach manualnych, twórczych, aktywności dzieci. Na drugim etapie kształcenia istnieje możliwość nauczania od podstaw lub poszerzania wiedzy. Z uwagi na zróżnicowanie kompetencji językowych uczniów w różnych szkołach oraz potrzeb edukacyjnych istnieje możliwość wyboru podręczników. Dokonuje tego zespół nauczycielski powołany przez dyrektora. Każdy przedmiot nauczania podlega podobnym procedurom. Nauczyciele języka kaszubskiego pracują w Zespole Humanistycznym. Od 2013 r. wprowadzono dodatkowy przedmiot w wymiarze 1 godzina tygodniowo pod nazwą „Własna historia i kultura”. Nauczyciele uczą na podstawie posiadanych kwalifikacji: 1. 2. 3. 4. Studium nauczania języka kaszubskiego. Specjalność kaszubistyczna Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. Uprawnienia nadawane przez stowarzyszenie regionalne (Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie). Etnofilologia kaszubska (od października 2013 r.). Dane z roku szkolnego 2013/14 pokazują, że języka kaszubskiego uczyło się 17.147 dzieci w 419 placówkach.10                                                                                                                         10 Informacje podane przez R. Mistarz, konsultanta do spraw edukacji kaszubskiej ODN w Gdańsku. Edukacja kaszubska Typ placówki przedszkole szkoła podstawowa gimnazjum szkoła ponadgimnazjalna Liczba placówek 21 5,01% 272 64,92% 103 24,58% 23 5,49% 327 Liczba uczniów 455 2,65% 13394 78,11% 2691 15,69% 607 3,54% Edukacja pozaszkolna odbywa się poprzez korzystanie z podręczników dla dorosłych, kursy, programy telewizyjne i radiowe, miesięcznik „Pomerania”, czasopisma lokalne oraz portale internetowe. Osoby dorosłe mogą korzystać z oferty Uniwersytetu Ludowego, mogą brać udział w zespołach teatralnych i kabaretowych, festiwalach, zespołach śpiewaczych bądź ludowych. Swoje umiejętności sprawdzają poprzez dyktanda, konkursy literackie, recytatorskie i gawędziarskie itp. Z możliwości nauki lub pogłębiania znajomości języka korzystają głównie nauczyciele i pasjonaci, ale zdarzają się również osoby spoza regionu, powodowane ciekawością lub zafascynowane jego brzmieniem. Rodowici Kaszubi posiadają umiejętności werbalne, natomiast trudności sprawia im czytanie i pisanie, ponieważ mieli nikły kontakt z regionalną literaturą. 3. Problemy współczesnej edukacji Sytuacja lingwistyczna ucznia rozpoczynającego naukę języka kaszubskiego jest na ogół zróżnicowana. Praktyka szkolna dowodzi, że możliwe są trzy warianty: 1. 2. 3. Wyłączne posługiwanie się językiem polskim. Wyłączne posługiwanie się językiem kaszubskim. Bilingwizm. Edukacja wczesnoszkolna winna wyrównać zaistniałe różnice w zakresie sprawności językowej. Dlatego już na początkowym etapie nauki niezbędne jest dobre rozeznanie nauczyciela w tej dziedzinie oraz praca indywidualna z dzieckiem wymagającym czynności wyrównawczych. Obecnie wyłączne posługiwanie się językiem kaszubskim należy do rzadkości, jeśli w ogóle takie zjawisko istnieje. Uczniowie z obszarów wiejskich posiadają bierną znajomość kaszubszczyzny wyniesioną z domu rodzinnego od dziadków (rzadziej od rodziców) lub ze środowiska, przy czym nie zdają sobie sprawy, iż taką znajomość posiadają. Przyczyn owego stanu należy upatrywać w niechęci do języka regionalnego narzucanej rodzicom przez cały cykl ich edukacji. W rezultacie komunikacja rodzice-dzieci odbywa się wyłącznie w języku polskim. Wiadomo również, że polszczyzna – jako język oficjalny – ułatwia awans społeczny i zawodowy. W środowiskach miejskich raczej nie używa się na co dzień języka kaszubskiego, zatem sytuacja takich 328 Jaromira Labudda dzieci jest trudniejsza. Nie posiadają nawet biernej znajomości kaszubszczyzny. Bilingwizm jest zjawiskiem częstszym. W rodzinach wielopokoleniowych dzieci rozmawiają z rodzicami po polsku, z dziadkami i pradziadkami – po kaszubsku. W tym ostatnim przypadku są to najczęściej lakoniczne wypowiedzi stosowane w celach humorystycznych bądź traktowane przez młodzież jako szczególny rodzaj sprawienia przyjemności rozmówcy. Na ogół młode pokolenie posługuje się wyłącznie językiem polskim. Kaszubszczyznę traktuje jako relikt językowy w stanie agonalnym. Przyswajanie kaszubszczyzny z punktu widzenia ucznia przypomina naukę języków obcych. W świetle powyższych spostrzeżeń istnieje konieczność dalszych zmian w regionalnym systemie edukacyjnym, podejmowania takich działań, które by przyniosły trwałe efekty nakierowane na zachowanie języka dla następnych pokoleń. Z punktu widzenia ucznia winny przynosić przyszłe profity dla niego samego i ukazywać praktyczny cel edukacji wobec wszechwładnej polszczyzny. Problemy współczesnej edukacji kaszubskiej z perspektywy ucznia: - brak dostatecznej ilości literatury dla młodzieży gimnazjalnej (atrakcyjnej dla tej grupy wiekowej, powiązanej z zainteresowaniami współczesnej młodzieży) - język kaszubski jest realizowany na ostatnich godzinach lekcyjnych (uczniowie czują się zmęczeni; inne dzieci idą do domu i spędzają czas zgodnie z indywidualnymi zainteresowaniami) - brak dostatecznej motywacji dla całego cyklu edukacyjnego (znajomość kaszubszczyzny nie ma znaczenia przy przyjmowaniu do pracy, z wyjątkiem zawodu nauczyciela tego języka) - uczniowie często kończą naukę na 1 etapie edukacyjnym (co 3 lata częściowo zmienia się lista dzieci i edukacja musi się odbywać od podstaw lub na dwóch poziomach do czasu wyrównania zaległości) Problemy współczesnej edukacji kaszubskiej z perspektywy nauczyciela: - brak dostatecznej ilości pomocy dydaktycznych - brak podręczników do niektórych klas - niedobór materiałów metodycznych dla nauczycieli - niewystarczająca ilość godzin w celu przygotowania językowego nauczycieli (większość zajęć na kursach i studiach podyplomowych dotyczy innych sfer) - nauczycielem języka kaszubskiego może zostać nauczyciel każdego przedmiotu po zaliczeniu egzaminu (bez przygotowania filologicznego) - z uwagi na migracje uczniów oraz miejsce pochodzenia ich rodziców nauczyciel musi znać podstawowe odmiany języka Edukacja kaszubska 329 - brak informacji dla nauczycieli na temat zmian ortograficznych i wypracowanych norm językowych przez komisję do tego powołaną - niedostateczne uświadomienie społeczeństwa przez media oraz środowiska naukowe w kwestii rangi małych języków (Kaszubszczyzna w czasach komunistycznych była rugowana, zawstydzana, zwalczana. W związku z powyższym przez niektórych rodziców dzieci jest postrzegana jako prymitywny, kompromitujący język świadczący o zacofaniu. Skutki tego procederu są odczuwalne do dziś.) - edukacja nie osiąga zamierzonego celu: zachowania języka dla przyszłych pokoleń. Uczniowie poza lekcjami rzadko posługują się kaszubszczyzną. Wynika to ze stereotypów oraz z trudności (dzieci uczą się kaszubszczyzny jako obcego języka, brak przekazu międzypokoleniowego w domu) - brak formalnych zapisów, że subwencja przyznawana na język kaszubski ma trafiać w całości do szkół i zostać wykorzystana w procesie nauczania tego języka oraz innych czynności związanych z podtrzymywaniem dziedzictwa kulturowego. Edukacja regionalna odbywa się na zasadzie dobrowolności. Z lekcji języka kaszubskiego korzystają osoby chętne. Istnieje więc dylemat: czy objąć nauką wszystkich uczniów z terenu Kaszub, by zastąpić przerwany przekaz międzypokoleniowy, czy nie wprowadzać zmian, by nadal wybrani uczniowie z własnej woli uczestniczyli w takich zajęciach? Proces zaniku języka można by zahamować poprzez zwiększoną możliwość awansu zawodowego i społecznego, proporcjonalnie do kompetencji językowych. Wydaje się sprawą oczywistą, iż instytucje związane z działalnością na rzecz regionu winny promować Kaszubów poprzez zwiększenie liczby zatrudnienia takich osób. Zdecydowanie należy przeprowadzać akcje uświadamiające na temat konieczności ratowania języka i kultury oraz korzyści wynikających z edukacji. Dotychczas takie rozmowy z uczniami i ich rodzicami były prowadzone w szkołach w czasie naboru na nowy rok szkolny. Należałoby jednak zwiększyć krąg odbiorców oraz cyklicznie edukować społeczeństwo poprzez media i uznane autorytety. 4. Edukacja języka nieskodyfikowanego 4.1. Różnice dialektalne i gwarowe Język kaszubski cechuje bogactwo odmian. Różnice występują nawet między miejscowościami oddalonymi o kilka kilometrów. Problem pojawia się wówczas, gdy nauczyciel posługuje się innym dialektem niż uczniowie. Dla dzieci osłuchanych z miejscową odmianą języka mowa nauczyciela jest czymś nowym, nieznanym i trudnym, przede wszystkim w warstwie fonetycznej i leksykalnej. Konsekwencją takiego stanu rzeczy bywa zatarcie granic norm językowych u podopiecznych. Dlatego ważne jest, by nauczyciel wywodził się 330 Jaromira Labudda ze środowiska posługującego się odmianą języka używaną w domu rodzinnym uczniów. Z kolei uczeń przybyły do takiego środowiska z innego obszaru dialektalnego bywa poprawiany przez dzieci. Czuje się zdezorientowany i niedouczony. Również w tym przypadku ważna jest rola nauczyciela, by uświadomić uczniom, że jest to inna, ale pełnoprawna odmiana języka. W związku z powyższymi problemami istnieje konieczność takiego przygotowania nauczyciela, by posiadł znajomość podstawowych odmian języka oraz potrafił je odróżnić od błędów językowych. 1. Zróżnicowanie akcentu wyrazowego Kaszubszczyznę cechuje różnorodność akcentowa. Na północy występuje akcent ruchomy, na południu – inicjalny, na obszarze Kaszub centralnych – akcent kolumnowy11. òn chòdzyl – òna chodzëla (pn) kapelusz, jaskùłka, Kòscerzëna (pd) Miejsce przycisku wyrazowego różni się nawet w sąsiednich miejscowościach odległych o 3 km w obrębie tej samej gwary: pòdeńdze (Tłuczewo) – pòdeńdze (Linia) Akcent w języku kaszubskim może padać na różne sylaby, od 1 do co najmniej 7 od końca, np. lepin, pòrechòwelëbësmë. W niektórych przypadkach od akcentowanej sylaby zależy znaczenie wyrazu. gòdzynka (godzina) – gòdzynka (biedronka lub śpiew kościelny) czëpùszk (wierzchołek) – czëpùszk (kucki) sklënic (przywłaszczyć sobie) – sklënic (błyszczeć) 2. Różnice fonetyczne W kaszubszczyźnie występują znaczne rozbieżności fonetyczne. gãs – a nosowe (pn), o (śr, okolice Sierakowic), o nosowe (śr, gwara strzepska) gôdô – ö (śr, pd), o (śr), e (śr), y (pd), u (pd) 3. Leksyka Różnice leksykalne najbardziej uwidaczniają się między dialektami. W dialekcie północnokaszubskim występuje znaczna ilość germanizmów, podczas gdy na południu przenikają do języka wyrazy pol-                                                                                                                         11 Breza / Treder (1981, 20-1). Edukacja kaszubska 331 skie. Dość często zdarza się, że użytkownik języka nie rozumie znaczenia danego słowa, ponieważ ma ono zasięg lokalny. trus – kaninka drzewò – bóma patelnia – panewka szasé – sztrasa – gasa pies – tósz – tusk kòt – pùjk Bernard Sychta, autor „Słownika gwar kaszubskich”, podaje synonimy słowa „biedronka” oraz ich geografię12. Badacz zgromadził kilkadziesiąt przykładów. Oto niektóre z nich: bòżô krówka, gòdzynka, patrónka, bòrowô matka, coteczka, mróweczka, katarinka, panieneczka mòróweczka, czerwionô panienka, gagùlinka, pani lëtewka, krëpniczka, kruszka mùszka, malëneczka, pòdlecuszka, mòtileczka 4. Morfologia W kaszubszczyźnie występują alternatywne formy osobowe czasowników typu: gôdóm – gôdajã, czëtóm – czëtajã, pòznóm – pòznajã. Inne różnice: pisc - piãsc pińc – piãc wicy – wiãcy Stosuje się też formy skrócone: dała – da pòwiôdała - pòwiôda kamiéń – kam rzemiéń – rzem Ten sam rzeczownik może mieć inny rodzaj gramatyczny: ten céń – ta céniô ten slép – to slépiã                                                                                                                         12 Sychta (1990, 164-8). 332 Jaromira Labudda 5. Składnia W dziale o składni autorzy Gramatyki kaszubskiej13 przytaczają fragment z Gramatyki historycznej języka polskiego Z. Klemensiewicza, T. Lehr-Spławińskiego i S. Urbańczyka: „Składnia gwarowa swymi zasadniczymi cechami […] nie wybiega poza ogólnopolską składnię tak dzisiejszą, jak i staropolską. W pewnych punktach będzie ona dość bliska temu, co widzimy w zabytkach staropolskich”. Autorzy opracowania gramatyki kaszubskiej wskazują m. in. kalki składniowe z języka niemieckiego. Zaznaczają również, że składnia w gwarach wymaga szczegółowego zbadania. 4.2. Różnice ortograficzne Do tej pory Kaszubi nie doczekali się wydania słownika ortograficznego. Podstawowym źródłem informacji ortograficznej są zasady pisowni kaszubskiej z 1974 r. zmodyfikowane w r. 1996 oraz słownik polsko-kaszubski i kaszubsko-polski. Jednak poprawny zapis niektórych form wyrazowych stwarza trudności zarówno nauczycielom, jak osobom piszącym po kaszubsku. Niektóre wątpliwości ortograficzne rozstrzyga Rada Języka Kaszubskiego, która działa od 2006 r. przy Zrzeszeniu Kaszubsko-Pomorskim. Zajmuje się wszelkimi sprawami dotyczącymi używania oraz rozwoju języka kaszubskiego. Do jej podstawowych zadań należy: - analiza i ocena stanu języka - upowszechnianie wiedzy o języku - wskazywanie potrzeb z zakresu wydawnictw - rozstrzyganie wątpliwości językowych, ustalanie zasad ortograficznych i interpunkcyjnych - opiniowanie języka używanego w życiu publicznym, - opiniowanie nowych nazw - otaczanie szczególną opieką kultury języka kaszubskiego w nauczaniu szkolnym, w tym także analiza i ocena programów nauczania Organem Rady jest Komisja Standardyzacji i Normalizacji. Do jej zadań należy m. in.: - diagnozowanie stanu i potrzeb normalizacji we wszystkich aspektach: pisownia, fonetyka, fleksja, słowotwórstwo, składnia i słownictwo (z frazeologią) - normalizacja kaszubszczyzny mówionej i pisanej                                                                                                                         13 Breza / Treder (1981, 141). Edukacja kaszubska 333 - normalizacja ortograficzno-fonetyczna nowych zapożyczeń - normatywność a wariantowość w sferze fleksji - normalizacja nazw własnych W skład Rady wchodzą osoby uznane za kompetentne w zakresie używania języka kaszubskiego, powołane przez Zrzeszenie. Wśród jej członków zasiadają naukowcy, dziennikarze, nauczyciele, literaci, wydawcy. Od roku 2007 Rada cyklicznie wydaje biuletyn, w którym zamieszcza uchwały dotyczące poprawności językowej oraz referaty. Ponadto normę językową upowszechniają dwa słowniki: reedytowany „Słownik języka pomorskiego czyli kaszubskiego” S. Ramułta pod red. J. Tredera (wyd. 2003, 2006, 2011) oraz „Kaszëbsczi słowôrz normatiwny” E. Gołąbka (2005). 5. Podsumowanie Postrzeganie kaszubszczyzny było uzależnione od sytuacji politycznej Polski. Pierwsze regularne próby wprowadzania treści regionalnych do edukacji można datować na lata 80-te ubiegłego wieku, zaś nauczanie języka kaszubskiego sensu stricto przypada na lata 90-te. Potrzeby i zadania stojące przed edukacją regionalną są ogromne. Mimo ciągłych postępów w zakresie normalizacji języka nauczyciele wciąż napotykają trudności, które muszą przezwyciężać w dużej mierze na drodze samokształceniowej. Przemiany ostatnich dziesięcioleci w Polsce i Europie otworzyły nowe możliwości, ale i wyzwania, jakim powinniśmy sprostać. Należy stwierdzić, że z uwagi na krótki okres istnienia literatury kaszubskiej (135 lat od opublikowania pierwszego dzieła), kondycja edukacji regionalnej jest zadowalająca. Jednak w porównaniu z dokonaniami szkolnictwa innych euroregionów mamy dużo do nadrobienia, zwłaszcza w sferze świadomościowej samych Kaszubów. Spis używanych skrótów: pn – Kaszuby północne śr – Kaszuby środkowe pd – Kaszuby południowe BIBLIOGRAFIA BOLDUAN, T. 1974. Wszystko jest anachronizmem. Pomerania 1974, nr 2: 912. BREZA, E. / J. TREDER. 1981. Gramatyka kaszubska. Zarys popularny. Gdańsk. BURZYŃSKA-WENTLANDT, L. 2009. Strajki szkolne w Prusach Zachodnich w latach 1906-1907. Gdańsk. GŁOS WYBRZEŻA. 1981. Aleksander Labuda nie był „volksdeutschem”. 173:3. 334 Jaromira Labudda GRZĘDZICKI, Ł. / M. LEMAŃCZYK. 2010. Raport: nauczanie języka kaszubskiego w szkołach ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem wydatkowania i przekazywania przez jednostki samorządu terytorialnego subwencji na naukę języka kaszubskiego. Stan prawny na 15 października 2010 r. Gdańsk: Zrzeszenie Kaszubsko-Pomorskie. LABUDA, A. 1996. Kaszëbsczim jesmë lëdã. Gdynia. — 1986. Moja droga kaszubska. W: Drzeżdżon, J. (red.), Współczesna literatura kaszubska. Warszawa: 208-226. OBRACHT-PRONDZYŃSKI, C. 2006. Zjednoczeni w idei. Pięćdziesiąt lat działalności Zrzeszenia Kaszubsko-Pomorskiego (1956-2006). Gdańsk. SIKORSKI, S. 1973. Wpływ gwary kaszubskiej na początki nauczania polskiego. Pomerania 1973, nr 1: 16-21. SYCHTA, B. 1990. Twórcze zdolności językowe Kaszubów. W: Lipski, T. (red.), Remusowi króm. Wypisy z literatury kaszubskiej. Gdańsk: 164-168. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LATIN SPELLING SYSTEM FOR PODLACHIAN Jan Maksymiuk (Prague) Introduction In this paper I will present a way for standardizing the orthography of some East Slavic dialects in Podlachian Province in Poland based on a modified version of the Latin alphabet. Before describing this proposal, I will briefly discuss several issues involved with the localization of Podlachian dialects, the number and ethnic affiliation of their users, and also earlier attempts to develop a single Podlachian orthography. I will also touch upon some problems involved with preserving the traditional names of localities in Podlachia. Lastly, I will cite present-day efforts to stimulate the use of Podlachian dialects among the Belarusian minority in Poland. Speakers of Podlachian The generic term Podlachian language (Podlachian: pudlaśka mova), which I first proposed in April 2005 (MAKSIMJUK 2014, 103-8), refers to a group of East Slavic dialects spoken in the territories between the Narew and Bug rivers in Podlachian Province (Polish: województwo podlaskie) in Poland (see Fig. 1). Linguists divide these dialects into three groups: a) Belarusian-Ukrainian transitional dialects (Polish: gwary przejściowe białorusko-ukraińskie); b) dialects with Ukrainian traits (Polish: gwary o cechach ukraińskich); c) Ukrainian dialects (Polish: gwary ukraińskie) (GLINKA, S. / OBRĘBSKA-JABŁOŃSKA, A. / SIATKOWSKI, J. 1980; see Fig. 2; Podlachian dialects are located in the lower part of the map, around the cities of Hajnówka, Bielsk Podlaski and Siemiatycze). The East Slavic dialects to the north of the River Narew are classified as Belarusian and will be omitted in the present paper. While linguists tend to see most of the East Slavic dialects between the Narew and Bug rivers in Podlachian Province as Ukrainian, the perception of their native speakers is notably different. According to my estimate based on the 2002 census in Poland, which for the first time after World War II included a question about ethnicity (Polish: narodowość) and another one about language spoken at home (Polish: język używany w kontaktach domowych), some 33,000 Podlachian dialect speakers declared their ethnic affiliation as Belarusian and formally identified their vernacular as Belarusian. Fewer than 1,500 said they were Ukrainians and spoke Ukrainian at home (MAKSIMJUK 2013a).1 1 There was another census in Poland in 2011, which also included questions about ethnicity and languages spoken at home. However, the 2011 census differed in methodology from the one in 2002. First, the polling did not include the country’s en- 336 Jan Maksymiuk It should be noted, however, that, in informal situations, the speakers of Podlachian dialects do not refer to their mother tongue as Belarusian or Ukrainian, for the most part using the adverbial term po-svojomu ‘in our own language’ to describe their speech instead. They are well aware that their language is neither literary Belarusian nor literary Ukrainian, but they continue to utilize these imprecise identifiers in formal situations, in accordance with their ethnic affiliation. I, as a native speaker, classify Podlachian as a stand-alone language. On the one hand, such a classification stems from my desire to find a satisfying resolution of the 2002 census’s paradox when people from the same language community put two conflicting labels on their common language. On the other hand, I see the wider use of Podlachian dialects in a standardized written form as a means to reinforce ethnic identity and to invigorate the cultural life of Poland’s Belarusian minority, to which I belong (MAKSIMJUK 2013b). The importance of a standardized Podlachian spelling The need for developing and approving an accurate writing system for Podlachian became publicly evident in 2005, when Poland adopted the “Law on national and ethnic minorities and a regional language” (Ustawa o mniejszościach narodowych i etnicznych oraz o języku regionalnym).2 This law provides for the introduction of the so-called “supporting language” (Polish: język pomocniczy) in written and oral contacts between the local administration and citizens in the areas where minorities constitute no less than 20 percent of the population. The 2005 law also allows such minorities to place “additional names” on road signs of towns and villages in a minority language besides Polish official names. The Belarusian minority managed to tire population but a sample of just 20 percent of its inhabitants. Second, respondents in 2011 were asked not only about their ethnicity but also, as an extra option, about whether they have “a sense of belonging to another nation or another ethnic community.” Thus, the census findings about ethnicity in 2002 and 2011 are not directly comparable. Moreover, the size of the polling sample raised objections among Polish Belarusians as to the reliability of these findings regarding such tiny communities as Belarusians and Ukrainians in Podlachian Province. According to the 2011 census, there were 38,300 Belarusians (46,400 in 2002) and 2,200 Ukrainians (1,500 in 2002) in Podlachian Province. No data regarding the geographical distribution of Belarusians and Ukrainians in Podlachia in 2011 (and, consequently, the distribution of Podlachian speakers in the region) have been published to date. (The official data on ethnicity and languages spoken at home from the 2002 census: http://stat.gov.pl/spisy-powszechne/narodowe-spisy-powszechne/narodowy-spispowszechny-2002/wyniki-narodowego-spisu-powszechnego-2002-narodowoscioraz-jezyka/; the official data on ethnicity from the 2011 census: http://stat.gov.pl/spisy-powszechne/nsp-2011/nsp-2011-wynikiwstepne/przynaleznosc-narodowo-etniczna-ludnosci-nsp-2011,1,1.html). 2 http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20050170141 A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 337 establish bilingual road signs only in the Orla commune (Polish: gmina Orla) in Podlachian Province. Regrettably, 15 out of the 25 officially approved village names distorted their actual pronunciation in the dialect. Figure 1. Podlachian Province (województwo podlaskie). Communes with Podlachian speakers are in the lower part of the map: Narew, Bielsk Podlaski, Hajnówka, Czyże, Orla, Dubicze Cerkiewne, Kleszczele, Czeremcha, Boćki, Milejczyce, Nurzec-Stacja, Mielnik. Source: http://pl. wikipedia.org/wiki/Województwo podlaskie. 338 Jan Maksymiuk Figure 2. Main phonetic division lines between the East Slavic dialects in Podlachian Province. Source: GLINKA, S. / OBRĘBSKA-JABŁOŃSKA, A. / SIATKOWSKI, J. 1980. The Podlachian standardization project discussed in this paper is based on dialects in the area that includes the cities of Bielsk Podlaski, Hajnówka and Siemiatycze (lower part of the map). A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 339 Podlachian diphthongs Arguably, the most difficult problem in rendering Podlachian speech in writing is posed by the three Podlachian diphthongs that do not exist in either Standard Belarusian or Standard Ukrainian: [uo], [ɨe], [ie]. People who tried in the past to write down their Podlachian vernacular in Cyrillic script usually represented the diphthong [uo] by the digraph ‹уо› after consonants and the digraph ‹юо› or the trigraph ‹йуо› in isolated (iotified) positions. Thus, we could see spellings like these: куонь ‘horse,’ буок ‘side,’ юом/йуом ‘he (locative),’ твоюом/твойуом ‘your (locative).’ The diphthongs [ɨe], [ie] were denoted after consonants by the digraphs ‹ыэ›, ‹іэ/ie› respectively, while in isolated (iotified) positions the diphthong [ie] was represented by the trigraph ‹йіэ/йіе›: шыэсть ‘six,’ рыэчка ‘river,’ піэч/піеч ‘oven,’ свіэт/свіет ‘world,’ йіэсті/ ‘to eat,’ мойіэ/мойіе ‘my.’ Similar devices were also used by those who tried in the past to accommodate the Podlachian diphthongs by means of Latin (Polish) script: kuoń, buok, juom, tvojuom, szyesť, ryeczka, piecz/piyecz, swiet/swiyet, jiesti/jiyesti, mojie/mojiye. Some Podlachian writers utilized a diacritic in both Latin and Cyrillic spellings – the so-called top ligature – over the digraphs to emphasize their diphthong nature: k͡uoń, p͡iecz, ш͡ыэсть, св͡іет. The top ligature makes the meaning of a Podlachian word with a diphthong easier to grasp for readers, but the diacritic is rather unwieldy and difficult to produce for writers on standard computer keyboards. Fig. 3, 4, 5 show three past strategies for representing Podlachian diphthongs in writing. Fig. 6 depicts the orthographic strategy developed by the author of this article. The Svoja.org standardization approach to Podlachian spelling A systematic approach to Podlachian as a stand-alone language with its own orthographic and grammatical rules was first proposed by the Svoja.org website (http://svoja.org), which was created by Jan Maksymiuk and Aleksander Maksymiuk in March 2008. The Svoja.org standardization approach to Podlachian uses a modified version of the Latin alphabet, which has long been known among Belarusian scholars and writers under the informal name of “Belarusian Latin alphabet” (Belarusian: беларуская лацінка).3 The key reason behind the choice of the Latin script is the observation that the younger generations of Podlachian speakers are primarily familiar with the Polish alphabet and spelling, which automatically makes it easier for them to recognize and understand Podlachian texts in a Latin-based orthography. Their practical knowledge of Cyrillic script is either very weak or nonexistent. 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Latin_alphabet. 340 Jan Maksymiuk Fig. 3. The diphthongs are represented by ‹уо›, ‹іэ›. Source: САЧКО 1991. Fig. 4. The diphthongs are represented by <͡уо›, <͡юо›, <͡іе›. Source: САЧКО 1995. A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 341 Fig 5. The diphthongs are represented by ‹uo›, ‹ye›, ‹iye›. Source: STACHWIUK 2006. Fig 6. The diphthongs are represented by ‹ô›, ‹iê›, ‹ê›. Source: MAKSIMJUK 2014. 342 Jan Maksymiuk Since the “Belarusian Latin alphabet” includes the symbols ‹č›, ‹š›, ‹ž›, the Svoja.org chose to represent the Podlachian diphthongs [uo], [ɨe], [ie] – for reasons of both graphic unity and visual clarity – by the circumflexed symbols ‹ô›, ‹ê›, ‹iê› respectively.4 Thus, anybody familiar with the Polish language will have no problems in recognizing the meaning of Podlachian words with diphthongs in this notation: Podlachian English Belarusian Ukrainian Polish dôm house дом дім dom łôžko bed ложак ліжко łóżko siêm seven сем сім siedem hrêch sin грэх гріх grzech Table 1. Comparison of Podlachian notation with Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish. We needed to expand the “Belarusian Latin alphabet” with two more graphemes to accommodate the two Podlachian phonemes that do not appear in the Belarusian phonological system: /tj/ – ‹ť›, /dj/ – ‹ď›. Otherwise, the correspondence between the phonemes and graphemes in our version of the Podlachian alphabet follows that in the “Belarusian Latin alphabet”. The vowels: /a/ – ‹a›, /e/ – ‹e›, /i/ – ‹i›, /o/ – ‹o›, /u/ – ‹u›, /ɨ/ – ‹y›, /uo/ – ‹ô›, /ɨe/ – ‹ê›, /ie/ – ‹iê›. The consonants: /p/ – ‹p›, /b/ – ‹b›, /f/ – ‹f›, /v/ – ‹v›, /m/ – ‹m›, /n/ – ‹n›, /nj/ – ‹ń›, /t/ – ‹t›, /d/ – ‹d›, /dz/ – ‹dz›, /dzj/ – ‹dź›, /ʦ/ – ‹c›, /ʦj/ – ‹ć›, /s/ – ‹s›, /sj/ – ‹ś›, /z/ – ‹z›, /zj/ – ‹ź›, /l/ – ‹l›, /ɫ/ – ‹ł›, /ʃ/ – ‹š›, /ʒ/ – ‹ž›, /ʧ/ – ‹č›, /ʤ/ – ‹dž›, /r/ – ‹r›, /j/ – ‹j›, /k/ – ‹k›, /g/ – ‹g›, /x/ – ‹ch›, /ɣ/ – ‹h›. We completed this set with the symbols ‹q›, ‹w›, ‹x›, which appear only in foreign proper names and are not used in Podlachian words. Thus, our Podlachian alphabet comprises 43 symbols, representing the 39 Podlachian phonemes. Five of the 43 Podlachian symbols are digraphs: ‹iê›, ‹ch›, ‹dz›, ‹dź›, ‹dž›. There seem to be two major advantages of our standardization approach to Podlachian orthography in comparison with previous attempts to work out a satisfactory writing system for Podlachian, based on either Cyrillic or Latin script. First, the Svoja.org orthography solves the problematic and usually cumbersome notation of Podlachian diphthongs by introducing the symbols ‹ô›, ‹ê› and ‹iê› – they can be easily produced by means of a word processor with standard keyboard layouts. Second, our spelling conventions make the meaning of Podlachian words immediately recognizable to readers familiar with Polish orthography, which is the case with the overwhelming majority of Podlachian speakers.5 4 It should be noted that the symbol <ô> in the Slovak alphabet denotes a diphthong similar to the Podlachian [uo]. 5 A wide-ranging review of Podlachian spelling rules and grammar can be found in MAKSIMJUK (2014), while Podlachian vocabulary, phonetics and morphology are comprehensively surveyed by PIETRUCZUK (1977) in his PhD dissertation presented A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 343 The rendering of traditional names in the Orla commune As noted earlier, a phonologically adequate and publicly accepted Podlachian writing system could prove very helpful to the Belarusian minority in Podlachian Province in preserving their historical and cultural legacy that manifests itself in the traditional names of places and localities. In accordance with Poland’s 2005 law on national and ethnic minorities, Podlachia’s 12 communes, where Belarusians account for no less than 20% of the population, have the right to put up bilingual road signs. However, in 10 of these 12 administrative units, people speak Podlachian dialects at home, not Belarusian ones. Therefore, the traditional names in these communes are Podlachian — that is, they are significantly different in their phonetical and morphological traits from Standard Belarusian. So far, from among Podlachian-speaking communes, only the Orla commune has managed to establish bilingual road signs. In September 2009, utilizing the Cyrillic alphabet in its Belarusian version, Orla councilors approved a list of 25 additional names. The list was endorsed by the Ministry of the Interior in November 2010, and the bilingual road signs in the Orla commune were established in September 2011. Yet this move has raised objections from both local residents (MAKSIMJUK 2014, 109-36) and academic circles (TRACJAK 2014), because 15 out of the 25 officially approved village names distorted their actual pronunciation in the local dialect. Let us show some of these misrepresentations: Polish Belarusian Podlachian Approved misrepresentation Orla Орля Vôrla Орля6 Moskiewce Москаўцы Móskuvci Москоўцы7 Koszele Кашалі Košeliê Кошэлі8 Oleksze Алякшы Olekšê Олекшы9 Table 2. Examples of local name misrepresentations in the Orla commune. at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin in 1977. Pietruczuk’s research focused on the vocabulary, phonetics and morphology of the dialect spoken in his native village, Kuraszewo in Podlachia. Since Kuraszewo lies in the area that was taken as a basis for the orthographic project discussed in this paper, most of Pietruczuk’s findings and conclusions can be extended to the Svoja.org version of “Standard Podlachian.” 6 The initial v is omitted; the diphthong ô [uo] is misrepresented by o. 7 The vowel u is misrepresented by o; the consonant v is misrepresented by the semivowel ў [w]; the final i [i] is misrepresented by ы [ɨ]. 8 The final diphthong iê [ie] is misrepresented by i [i]. 9 The final diphthong ê [ɨe] is misrepresented by ы [ɨ]. 344 Jan Maksymiuk It is hard to guess what phonetical and/or morphological considerations underlay the resolution of the Orla commune council to approve such defective spellings, most of which do not reflect the pronunciation of traditional names in either Standard Belarusian or the local dialect. It is even more puzzling as to why such a massive misrepresentation of traditional names in the Orla commune received an endorsement from linguistic experts of the Ministry of the Interior. The aforementioned 2005 “Law on national and ethnic minorities and a regional language” explicitly stipulates that “determining an additional name in the minority language shall be in accordance with the spelling rules of this language” (Article 12). I asked the linguistic commission of the Ministry of the Interior in January 2011 for explanations regarding its decision on the Orla commune (MAKSIMJUK 2014, 122-5) but have not received an answer to date. Whatever reasons lay behind the official decision on the Orla orthographic controversy, it is already evident that imitating this decision with regard to other Podlachian communes will hardly be possible. Apart from Orla, there are 9 other Podlachian-speaking communes that are entitled by law to place additional names of their localities on road signs: Narew, Czyże, Bielsk Podlaski (rural commune), Bielsk Podlaski (urban commune), Hajnówka (rural commune), Hajnówka (urban commune), Dubicze Cerkiewne, Kleszczele, and Czeremcha. However, following the officially approved distortions of names in the Orla commune, no other commune between the Narew and Bug rivers in the Podlachian Province has so far ventured to install bilingual road signs. Therefore, it seems advisable for both the state authorities and local communities in Podlachia to find a mutually acceptable linguistic compromise that would allow them to represent the traditional Podlachian names correctly. Placing Podlachian on the list of Poland’s regional languages would certainly be a move in the right direction. For the time being, this list comprises only Kashubian, and some efforts have been made to include Silesian as well. Prospects for standardized Podlachian Although the Belarusian minority activists in Podlachian Province primarily use Standard Belarusian to support and promote their ethnic and cultural identity, there were also limited instances of literary creativity and publishing initiatives in Podlachian dialects in the past. In particular, the Belarusian Literary Association Biełavieža – an organization uniting Belarusian-language writers in Podlachia – published several collections of poetry in Podlachian (SAČKO 1991 & 1995; STACHWIUK 2002). Earlier, during Poland’s communist era, the Belarusian-language weekly Niva in Białystok, which was sponsored by the communist government, sporadically published poems in Podlachian; however, there were no official book publications in Podlachian in Poland before 1989. A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 345 The 21st century has witnessed a surge of interest in Podlachian dialects seen as both the markers of Belarusian ethnic identity and the means to convey important educational and cultural messages within and outside Poland’s Belarusian minority. One of the incentives for such a development may be the general tendency in Poland to cultivate linguistic and ethnographic regionalisms after the end of the communist rule in 1989. The post-1989 efforts to revitalize and reinforce Poland’s Kashubian, Lemko (Rusyn) and Silesian languages are good indicators of this tendency. In the case of Podlachian Belarusians, however, the dominant reason for turning to their heritage language in recent years seems to be the continuing lack of real and potential benefits resulting from knowledge of Standard Belarusian in public life. The PolishBelarusian border, which is the outer border of the EU’s Schengen area, is as impermeable to cultural, linguistic and other interactions between Belarusians of Podlachia and those of the Republic Belarus as it was in the communist era. Besides, the present-day government of the Republic of Belarus, with its policies of linguistic and cultural Russification, acts as a strong disincentive to cultivating the Belarusian language by Podlachia’s Belarusians. Therefore, the public role of Standard Belarusian in Podlachian Province remains practically limited to Belarusian classes at school and Belarusian-language broadcasts by local radio and TV. True, the Podlachian dialects do not have any significant public role either — they are not even taught at school. Yet the speakers of Podlachian dialects outnumber the speakers of Belarusian dialects by four to one: it can be inferred from the 2002 census that out of the 46,400 declared Belarusians in Podlachian Province, 32,000 (69%) spoke Podlachian dialects, 7,900 (17%) spoke Belarusian dialects, and 6,500 (14%) spoke Polish at home (MAKSIMJUK 2013a). In fact, the existence of Standard Belarusian in Podlachia is being supported by the educational system rather than by native speakers. Following the publication of the 2002 census results, the author of this paper was the first person to publicly urge compatriots in Podlachian Province to adopt a written standard based on Podlachian dialects and use it on a par with literary Belarusian as a tool for supporting the Belarusian ethnic identity in the region (MAKSYMIUK 2005). The response was not impressive, but it has produced some tangible and valuable results. Doroteusz Fionik, a Belarusian cultural and educational activist from Bielsk Podlaski, published a Podlachian-Polish dictionary in 2008. The dictionary, compiled by Mikołaj Wróblewski, a trained philologist, on the base of vocabulary in his native village Chraboły, contains some 19,000 Podlachian words (WRÓBLEWSKI 2008). Fionik also wrote and published an educational book in Podlachian on the importance of cities in the history and culture of Podlachia’s Belarusians (FIONIK 2013). Doroteusz Fionik, who uses the same standard of written Podlachian as the Svoja.org website, employs his own spelling based on the Cyrillic alphabet (MAKSIMJUK 2014). 346 Jan Maksymiuk Viktor Stachwiuk, apart from writing poems and prose in both Podlachian and Belarusian, published a book in Podlachian on the history, folklore and musical tradition of his native village, Trześcianka (STACHWIUK 2006). The standardized version of Podlachian can also be heard on the theatrical stage (MAKSIMJUK 2014, 145-62). In July 2011 young actress Joanna Stelmaszuk-Troc gave the first professional performance in Podlachian, staging the monodrama, Ja j u poli verboju rosła [‘I grew like a willow in the field’], based on a story by Ukrainian author Oksana Zabuzhko (the story was translated into Podlachian by Jan Maksymiuk).10 The actress subsequently performed her monodrama more than 50 times in Podlachia and across Poland, also presenting it at an international theatrical festival in Prague in the Czech Republic. In September 2013 Joanna Stelmaszuk-Troc and Julianna Dorosz, another young actress of Belarusian ethnic origin, staged a new performance in Podlachian, based on the play Yerma by Spanish author Federico Garcia Lorca (the play was translated into Podlachian by Jan Maksymiuk).11 An auspicious event took place in December 2012, when several young language activists launched the Howorymo po swojomu ‘We speak our own language’ community on Facebook,12 with the declared goal of promoting the wider use of Podlachian dialects in speech and writing. The Howorymo po swojomu community, which mustered nearly 9,000 friends and followers by the end of 2016, adopted the symbols ‹ô›, ‹ê› and ‹iê› to render the Podlachian diphthongs in writing and follows most of the orthographic rules worked out for Podlachian by the Svoja.org website. Last but not least, the public Polish Radio channel in Białystok, within the framework of its Belarusian-language broadcasts to the Belarusian ethnic minority in the region, in January 2015 inaugurated a 15-minute monthly program in Podlachian. The moderator of the program speaks Podlachian in the version standardized by the Svoja.org website. Nevertheless, despite the growing interest of the younger generation of Belarusians in public use and promotion of spoken and written Podlachian, it is apparent that any significant accomplishments in this endeavor will be possible only after the Podlachian language’s inclusion in the list of Poland’s regional languages. Such a step would make it possible for Podlachian to receive at least a small measure of official recognition and support that the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages currently enjoy in Podlachia. 1112 REFERENCES FIONIK, D. 2013. М͡іеста в гісторыjі і кул’туры пудл’яшскіх біелорусув. Музіеj малеjі батькувшчыны в Студзіводах. 10 11 12 http://svoja.org/1268.html http://svoja.org/1378.html https://www.facebook.com/howorymoposwojomu?fref=ts A Latin Spelling System for Podlachian 347 GLINKA, S. / OBRĘBSKA-JABŁOŃSKA, A. / SIATKOWSKI, J. (eds.). 1980. Atlas gwar wschodniosłowiańskich Białostocczyzny I. Wrocław-Warszawa. MAKSIMJUK, J. 2013a. Movna sytuacija biłorusuv Pudlaša. České vědomí Bělarusi. Univerzita Karlova v Praze: 99-104. — 2013b. Kodyfikacija pudlaśkoji movy jak prôba pudderžki biłoruśkoji identyčnosti v Pôlščy. Studium Carpato-Ruthenorum 5. Prešovská univerzita v Prešove: 79-85. — 2014. Čom ne po-svojomu? Biłostôk. MAKSYMIUK, J. 2005. An Unclaimed Creative Potential or the Trilingual Belarusians of Podlachia. Annus Albaruthenicus 6. Białystok: 97-104. — 2014. The Standardization of a Latin-Based Orthography for Podlachian. Dialogue on Dialect Standardization. Cambridge: 39-54. PIETRUCZUK, J. 1977. Słownictwo wsi Kuraszewo koło Hajnówki. Unpublished PhD thesis, Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie. SAČKO, Z. 1991. Над днём похіляна. Беласток. — 1995. Шчэ одна вэсна. Беласток. STACHWIUK, V. 2002. Багровы цень. Беласток. — 2006. Siva zozula. Biłostuok. TRACJAK, V. 2014. Двухмоўныя назвы на Беласточчыне. Acta Albaruthenica 14: 257-268. WRÓBLEWSKI, M. 2008. Słownik gwary bielsko-podlaszskiej. Bielsk Podlaski.