What makes a language

Camiel Hamans
Adam Mickiewicz University,
Poznań, Poland
 Why this topic
• The discussion about the ECRM in Georgia led to a highly politized
debate, especially about the status of Megrelian, Svan and Laz.
• Arguments were used that resembled 19th century debates about the
relation between ‘nation’ and ‘language’, ‘Volk’ and ‘Sprache’.
• For instance: “One nation should speak one language.”
(Gvantseladze 2003: 174)

• The 19th century debate was a consequence of 19th century nation

formation, just as the Georgian debate has relations with nation
formation.
 Sapir –Whorf argument
• “Formation of an ethnos (nation) is possible only by means of a language
(language system) due to the fact that we perceive the world – see, hear, feel,
and the most important, think only with the help of a language.” Putkaradze, Dadiani &
Sherozia (2010: 209)

• “A native language and an ethnos [nation] are interdefinitive concepts.” ibid: 228

• “Language and nation function as mutually defining terms.” ibid: 291

 Language and Nation

• “A language is the most fundamental manifestation of national self-

consciousness: it is logical to consider a language as the most basic
characteristic of a nation, because the unity, consolidation of any
nation is indeed determined by availability of the shared language”
Jobernadze (1989: 170)
 Impossibility of Social Multilingualisme

• “It is impossible for a single ethnic – linguistic entity to possess more

than one mental linguistic system”
Putkaradze, Dadiani & Sherozia (2010: 209)

• However, what about Switzerland with four national languages,

Luxemburg with three or the situation in Africa where most people
are multilingual or in Southern- and Middle America where people
speak up to three, four (non-foreign) languages?
 Denial of social multilingualism
• Effect of Russian (Tsarist + Soviet) colonialism of Georgia (and of the
Baltic States).
• Russian occupation and annexation from 1801-1990 (except 1918-
1920).
• Russian authorities aimed at disintegration of Georgia by divide et
impera.
• Russian authorities recognized Megrelian, Svan and Laz as separate
ethnic groups with their own identity and language in order to
undermine the ‘national’ identity of Georgia and the solidarity of the
Georgians.
 Comparison with 19th century
• Germany was a conglomerate of bigger and smaller states and
independent cities.
• However, on the whole territory of Germany a German language was
spoken (not exactly the same everywhere).
• 1807 Germany occupied by Napoleon Bonaparte.
• A desire for independence and national unity arose.
 Johann Gottlieb Herder
• 1772: Abhandlung über den Ursprung der Sprachen
• It is its potential for diversity that makes language into a uniquely and
characteristically human feature.
• Variation is the essence of what makes humanity human.
• The diversity between societies and nations, each with their own
language, their own outlook, their own literature, their own place in
creation makes humanity.
• Herder’s romantic nationalistic philosophy is the basis for national
identity politics, which became the mainstream of 19th century
European politics
 Johann Gottlob Fichte
• Reden an die deutsche Nation (1808).
• Presented during the French occupation!
• The nation is a moral and transgenerational community, comparable
to an extended family.
• Loyalty to the nation (Stamm or Volk) is more or less a ‘family value’.
• The German nation is superior to all other nations, since the German
nation has a continuous bond with its past and its traditions via its
language. The customs and language of the Germans can be traced
back to the times of Tacitus.
 One nation one language
• Fichte’s ethnic nationalism led to the identification of nation and
language.
• The slogan ‘one nation one language’ (eine Sprache ein Volk) became
a useful weapon in the fight for emancipation and in 19th (and 20/21th)
century nation formation and consolidation of statehood.
• ‘One nation one language’ implies that there is no room for diversity,
which led to a serious discussion about the distinction between
language and dialect, which was so far hardly a serious topic.
 Reaction Ernest Renan
• 1882 Qu’est – ce qu’une nation (What is a nation)
• Presented after the Franco-Prussian war, which was lost by France.
• A nation is a daily referendum.
• Nations are based as much on what people jointly forget as what they
remember.
• European nation formation is a result of the mixture of races, origins
and religions.
• Nation and language are not synonymous. See the successful Swiss
nation with 3 or 4 languages.
Joep Leersen: National Thought in Europe
(2006)

• “Our default image of Europe is a modular one, consisting of

countries neatly fitting together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, each
with its own colour and shape, each fitted snugly against
neighbouring pieces with different colours. The names of states, of
peoples and of languages in most cases are homonyms, which
reinforces this neat modular template: in Germany live the Germans
who speak German, in Portugal live the Portuguese who speak
Portuguese, in Denmark live the Danes who speak Danish, etcetera.”
 Leersen (2006), 2
• “Even though everyone realizes that this is a simplification (as
becomes immediately obvious from the cases of Britain, Belgium and
Switzerland), our knowledge of the non-congruence between states
and language areas is on the whole far less specific than it should be.
Of the European states, only a very few can be considered
monolingual: e.g. Iceland and Portugal. Practically all states have
different languages and language areas within their borders.”
Leersen (2006: 255)
 Fiction of homogeneity
• We usually believe in a fiction of a homogeneous society.
• In such a society all members behave in a similar way and speak the
same language.
• We accept that not everybody is exactly the same and speaks in a
identical way.
• However, this diversity is seen as marginal.
• Deviations of the standard are seen as inferior.
• That is why we try to describe deviant linguistic behavior in terms of
dialects, not of different languages.
 What makes a language or a dialect
• The term dialect:
• Historical: Romance dialects, such as Portuguese, Provencal, Spanish.
• Or Luxembourgish as a dialect of German or as a Germanic dialect till
1984.
• Modern dialects: West-Flemish, Tuscan, Hessian (Űberdacht (under
the roof of another, possibly the national language))

• The term language: official (state) language or national language

versus 5000 languages of the world.
 Max Weinreich 1945

• ‫ַא שּפרַאך איז ַא דיַאלעקט מיט ַאן ַארמיי און ֿפלָאט‬

• A shprach eez a deealekt mit an armee un flot

• A language is a dialect with an army and navy

Yivo Bleter (25:1): Jan/Febr 1945 (in Yiddish)
 Other ‘definitions’ of dialect
• “One man’s dialect is another man’s language.” (Haugen 1987:15)
• “A language is a dialect that got put up in the shop window.” (McWhorter
2016)

• “A language is a dialect with a nice radio and TV program, a written

history and a literature.” (De Graaf 2016)
• “In linguistics the term [dialect] is applied, often in a rather vague
way, to any speech variety which is more than an idiolect but less
than a language.” (Wells 1982:3)
 Relation language-dialect

• “Language relates to dialect as country relates to province or region,

or as species relates to race. While linguists have pointed out that
there are no fundamental differences between the classifications
‘dialect’ and ‘language’, people at large tend to make a distinction.
Leersen (2006: 261)
 Arguments used for a distinction
• Linguistic distance – Abstand – however, see Scandinavian languages.
• Ancestry – but how far? Romance languages all come from Latin.
• Less complicated/underdeveloped – English 5 verbal forms versus
Archi 1.502.839.
• Regularity versus exceptions – see Labov’s study of non-standard AE
• Mutual intelligibility – again Scandinavia, and Czech, Slovak and
Polish, but also Arabic dialects and dialect continua.
• Written – however, most of the 5000 languages of the world are not
written.
• Literature – Iliad and Odyssey originally were memorized poems.
 More arguments
• Standardization – is a standard/norm better (school uniforms)? Plus
indigenous languages are non-standardized
languages.
• Difference in functionality – dialects often used in personal or
informal sphere.
• Difference in geographical expansion – however, Bavarian has a much
wider expansion than Estonian.
• Difference in prestige – Plattdeutsch ‘flat’.
 Ranking evaluation
• “The difference between dialect and (standard) language appears to
reside primarily in a ranking evaluation, the dialect being viewed as
subordinate and regionally confined in relation to the (standard)
language as superordinate or overarching language.” (Van Coetsem 1992: 16)
 Identification
• Language is a means for self identification and especially for group
identification.
• That is why the subjective rating of the distance to the ‘standard’
language by the speakers of the variety themselves is so important.
• In a process of emancipation these speakers may want to see
themselves no longer as inferior and therefore may claim ‘linguistic
rights’.
• This does not imply autonomy automatically. Heteronomy, which is
the recognition and acceptation of diversity, is an obvious option.
 Identity theory
• Identity theory (psychosocial theory)
• Erik Erikson
• Sheldon Stryker
• Peter Burke
• Henri Tafjel
• Theory focuses on category based identities
• Language is a means of (group)identification
 Multiple identity
• Limburger
• Dutch
• European
• White
 Conclusion

• At the moment we accept that people have a multiple identity, there

is no need for ‘one nation one language’- thinking anymore.
მადლობა

Thank you

hamans@telfort.nl