# An Approach to the Notion of "Linguistic Minority" in the Light of the Identificatory Relation between a Group and Its Minority Language

Alain Viaut

► To cite this version:

Alain Viaut. An Approach to the Notion of "Linguistic Minority" in the Light of the Identificatory Relation between a Group and Its Minority Language. Multilingua, 2019, What do minority languages mean? European Perspectives, 38 (2), pp.169-185. 10.1515/multi-2018-0029. hal-02553916

HAL Id: hal-02553916

https://univ-pau.hal.science/hal-02553916v1

Submitted on 27 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
MULTILINGUA

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL
AND INTERLANGUAGE COMMUNICATION

EDITOR

Ingrid Piller
Department of Linguistics
Macquarie University, Australia

EDITORIAL BOARD

Deborah Cameron
Oxford University, UK

Alexandre Duchêne
Université de Fribourg, Switzerland

Huamei Han
Simon Fraser University, Canada

Adam Jaworski
University of Hong Kong,
P. R. China

Sinfree B. Makoni
Pennsylvania State University, USA

Luisa Martín Rojo
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
Spain

Ikuko Nakane
University of Melbourne, Australia

Jirí Nekvapil

Charles University in Prague,
Czech Republic

Joseph Sung-Yul Park
National University of Singapore,
Singapore

Richard Watts
Tegna, Switzerland

Jie Zhang
Zhongnan University of Economics
and Law, P. R. China
**ABSTRACTED/INDEXED IN** Baidu Scholar · Clarivate Analytics: Arts & Humanities Citation Index; Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition; Social Sciences Citation Index; Web of Science · CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) · CNPIEC · De Gruyter: Germanistik; IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences); IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences) · EBSCO (relevant databases) · EBSCO Discovery Service · Elsevier: SCOPUS · ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) · ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences) · Gale/Cengage · Genamics JournalSeek · Google Scholar · Index Copernicus · International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest) · J-Gate · JournalGuide · JournalTOCs · KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders) · Linguistic Bibliography · Linguistics Abstracts Online · Microsoft Academic · MLA International Bibliography · Naviga (Softweco) · Primo Central (ExLibris) · ProQuest (relevant databases) · Publons · ReadCube · SCImago (SJR) · Sherpa/RoMEO · Summon (Serials Solutions/ProQuest) · TDNet · UB Frankfurt: BLL Bibliographie Linguistischer Literatur; OLC Linguistik · Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb · WanFang Data · WorldCat (OCLC)

The publisher, together with the authors and editors, has taken great pains to ensure that all information presented in this work reflects the standard of knowledge at the time of publication. Despite careful manuscript preparation and proof correction, errors can nevertheless occur. Authors, editors and publisher disclaim all responsibility for any errors or omissions or liability for the results obtained from use of the information, or parts thereof, contained in this work.

ISSN 0167-8507 · e-ISSN 1613-3684

All information regarding notes for contributors, subscriptions, Open access, back volumes and orders is available online at www.degruyter.com/journals/multilin

**RESPONSIBLE EDITOR** Ingrid Piller, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia, Email: ingrid.piller@mq.edu.au

**JOURNAL MANAGER** Sofie Schenkel, De Gruyter, Genthiner Straße 13, 10785 Berlin, Germany, Tel: +49 (0)30 260 05-381, Fax: +49 (0)30 260 05-250
Email: sofie.schenkel@degruyter.com

**RESPONSIBLE FOR ADVERTISEMENTS** Claudia Neumann, De Gruyter, Genthiner Straße 13, 10785 Berlin, Germany, Tel.: +49 (0)30 260 05-226, Fax: +49 (0)30 260 05-264, Email: anzeigen@degruyter.com

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

**TYPESETTING** Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd., Pondicherry, India

**PRINTING** Franz X. Stückle Druck und Verlag e.K., Ettenheim

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

FSC
www.fsc.org

MIX
Paper from
responsible sources
FSC® C107500
# Contents

## Special issue: What do minority languages mean? European Perspectives

Guest-editors: Malika Pedley and Alain Viaut

### Editorial

Malika Pedley and Alain Viaut

What do minority languages mean? European perspectives — 133

### Articles

Wilson McLeod

The nature of minority languages: insights from Scotland — 141

Juan Jiménez-Salcedo

A minoritized language on both sides of the border: legal framework and language policy of Catalan in Andorra and Catalonia — 155

Alain Viaut

An approach to the notion of “linguistic minority” in the light of the identificatory relation between a group and its minority language — 169

Paolo Coluzzi

The new speakers of Lombard — 187

Kutlay Yagmur

The concept of minority/minorities in the European national and supranational EU discourse — 213
Alain Viaut*

# An approach to the notion of “linguistic minority” in the light of the identificatory relation between a group and its minority language

https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2018-0029

**Abstract:** The notion of “linguistic minority” not only incorporates the concept of group but also serves to define that group. Yet the relation between language and group can be considered in various ways. The primary function of language being that of communication, this will necessarily play a key role in defining the contours of any group whose language is different from neighbouring languages. Regardless of whether a group is established in a territory, for as long as it practises and asserts its language, the identificatory relation between that language and that group, and its consequences, implies different degrees of awareness.

Any linguistic minority draws on structures of its own which are perceived as its own. To be able to categorise it, will mean emphasising the identificatory relation between language and group. In contrast concepts such as “minority language” rely primarily upon the territorialised legitimacy of a language or upon its demo-linguistic data. This link with the group can reinforce linguistic consciousness with the help of its own structures, support that “minority language” does not necessarily imply.

**Keywords:** linguistic minority, national minority, council of Europe, roofing language, language dynamics

## 1 Introduction

The term “linguistic minority” stems from the combining of two concepts, group and language, with two notions, minority group and minority lan- guage. “Minority” implies that the group under consideration is numerically smaller in relation to others. In addition, this attribution of minority derives

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Alain Viaut, CNRS, UMR 5478 Iker, CNRS-Université Bordeaux Montaigne-UPPA, PESSAC cedex, France; Dynamics of languages in a minority situation, Institute of Modern Languages, Intercultural Communication and Migration, RUDN University, Moscow, Russia, E-mail: Alain.Viaut@msha.fr
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-1856</footnote>
from the group's use of one language which may either itself be a minority language, or one that happens to be in a minority situation. Without wishing to consider all the nuances of meaning which “minority” refers to here, we assume at the very least that the former covers languages considered to be minority languages from a demolinguistic point of view in one or several countries or political-administrative territories. It also covers other languages which are not actually minorities in all cases, being in one or even several cases a minority language, while in another or several other cases, the majority language. Nonetheless this attribution of minority derives also from the status, actual or legal, adhering to that language. The sociolinguistic, statistical and statutory circumstance of the group being identified as a minority, whether viewed on the inside or from the outside, pertains to its unique linguistic practice. Nonetheless that minority may at the same time be a user of another language which may be a majority language elsewhere. This cultural or identity-based character of the language specifying the group is thus quite distinctive.

Moreover, definitions of a linguistic minority have long occupied centre-
stage in the fields of human rights and language rights. Thus, within the
limits of the present approach, I will examine a number of wordings from the
legal domain as well as from the broader sphere of language policies and
representations.

2 International legal wordings on the relation
between the group and its language

We will now first consider the Council of Europe whose primary historic concern has been the sphere of human rights, and whose wordings match those of other international juridical bodies.

## 2.1 The council of Europe

The only official or legal definition issued to date which covers, peripherally, the terms of this relation between the group concerned (a minority) and a language (either a minority language or a language in a minority situation), is that given in the Council of Europe in the *Explanatory Report* accompanying the application of the *European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages* (henceforth ECRML):
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. (Council of Europe 1992: § 18)

Two major configurations emerge here. Underlying the first section is the personal relation to the language (the language is spoken by “persons”), but this remains too neutral to proclaim an identity-based relation. However, the framework here clearly seeks to be geographical by indicating that one of the principal configurations is the case where speakers are more or less dispersed over the territory of a State. This lack of density (“are not concentrated on a specific part of the territory of a State”) implies that the speakers in question are numerically smaller than those who use the majority language of the State. From this, one can infer that, in the areas where they are settled these speakers form sparse groups of rather small size, and practise the minority language among themselves, habitually or for the majority of the time.

Then follows in the second part of the definition, the underlying relation of a “group of persons” to a territory, not to a State which is taken as reference-point in the preceding section, but to one of its parts. That group of persons is itself “numerically smaller than the population in this region which speaks the majority language of the State”. Clearly, this approach, while maintaining its geographical approach, reflects the identity-based trait of the language while relying on a statistical mode. In any given territory there are two groups of speakers, the larger group who speaks the majority language of the State, which is of higher status and more prestigious, and the numerically smaller group who uses another language. This group has no State structure of its own and is presumed to be partially or in its majority, bilingually instrumental enough to survive in the country in question. Having thus a language of its own, this group then has an identity-based relation to that language, of the kind posited above and inferred as subjacent or implicit.

In both strands of this definition which apply to the minority language itself, just as central is its reference to the group that makes use of that language. Elsewhere, this relation to the group has been correlated with an awareness of belonging. This is highlighted in the second consideration of Recommendation 285 (1961) of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe regarding *Rights of national minorities*: “Having regard to the fact that, in various member States of the Council of Europe, there exist non-dominant groups conscious of belonging to a national minority”. In other texts issued from the same body, one can find later reference to the same awareness of belonging articulated by its members in their wish to protect and value their language. This was the case in
the following definition of national minority given by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1993, the year following the adoption of
the *European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages*, in Recommendation
1201 entitled *Additional protocol on the rights of minorities to the European
Convention on Human Rights*:

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the expression “national minority” refers to a group of persons in a state who:

a. reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof;

b. maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that state;

c. display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics;

d. are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of that state or of a region of that state;

e. are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language.

This definition is not to be found in earlier documents, neither in the *Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities*, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1995, nor, as it was to turn out, in the additional protocol initially planned but which was rejected by this organisation's Committee of Ministers. The definition sheds nonetheless revealing light on the wordings being selected to address this issue in a still relatively recent period and at international level. The "group" here is brought into main focus quite naturally and is explicitly correlated with what follows to characterise it as such.

While language is specified here as one of the main components of a
common identity as in other similar texts, more significantly the issues of
representivity and of will at a language level are raised, thus bringing it within
the concerns of the realm of sociolinguistics. It is clear in this definition that the
terms "national minority" and "linguistic minority" are at times synonymous.
Furthermore, we would argue that the primary or identity-based relation to a
language specified in sub-clause c ("distinctive (...) linguistic characteristics"),
to which we would add "non-exclusive of cultural or even identity-based ties to
another language", is closely allied to both the representivity of the said group
(sub-clause d) and to its collective will to preserve its language (sub-clause e).
Francesco Capotorti, in his definition of "minority" also grounds it on this
collective will of a "group numerically smaller than the rest of the population"
while specifying that its members "display, even implicitly, a sentiment of
solidarity for the purpose of preserving their culture, their traditions, their
religion or their language" (Capotorti 1979: § 568). Now seen to extend from
the auto-awareness of the group to its will to preserve its language, the weight
and support from the community for its language raises the question about the
efficacy of such a configuration compared to one based primarily on the lan-
guage itself. While this points to language awareness being a factor of identifi-
cation for an “original language invested with a fundamental symbolic function”
(Billiez 1985: 99), what can we say about the place of a communication code
whose functions are in fact more than just communicational or instrumental
within the whole set of cultural traits linking the group to itself?

In binding all or any relation to the language with the preservation of a
common identity as underlined in the preceding definitions, it is however usual
for the said “persons” to be identified as “speakers”. The same goes for persons
speaking a minority language. According to the definition in the *Explanatory
Report to the* ECRML (see above) these persons are taken to be the incarnations
of that language and thus themselves the real subjects of the law. The reality of
the language, its real presence, is likewise envisaged on the basis of a demon-
stration, unquestionably essential, which corresponds to their actually speaking
it. This manner of hypostatising a language in a minority situation through a
group of speakers, may well give some account of an observable reality using
the fact of speaking, but not if that means relativising its consistency and effects,
given that the language’s own existence can also be measured by means of other
demonstrations (see Section 3.3).

These texts of international legal relevance do not go into such details, and
their choice of the verb “to use” whose broadest sense corresponds to a concrete
speaker-based usage, is largely appropriate. Thus for example, Article 10.1 of the
*Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities* of the Council of
Europe adopted in 1995 stipulates that the States undertake to recognise the
right of any person belonging to a national minority “to use freely and without
interference his or her minority language, in private and in public, orally and in
writing”. Similarly, Article 2.1 of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Persons
Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities adopted in
1992, had previously stipulated the right of persons belonging to national
minorities to “use their own language, in private and in public, freely and
without interference or any form of discrimination”.

As the results show, it turns out that group and language are indissociable
and that the choice, in the linguistic string, of “group” or “language” will also
depend on the political framework of reference and on usage historically
anchored in the subject. Paradoxically, although the ECRML protects only
languages and not a “linguistic minority” as is specified in its *Explanatory
Report* (Council of Europe 1992: 11), it does appear that its referring to the
linguistic minority as a framework of reference for regional or minority lan-
guages can also leave room for disengagement from certain uses of that term.
Thus Austria, for example, after ratifying the ECRML in 2001, identified these
languages as those asserted by persons – of Austrian nationality – belonging to
a national minority registered as such in that country, despite the risk of
breaching a ruling which covers the rights of the entirety of all European
Union nationals (Guset 2017: 115–123).

## 2.2 The universal declaration of linguistic rights

Another declaration of universal relevance focusing, like the ECRML on language rights, is the *Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights* (henceforth UDLR) which was drawn up and presented in 1996 under the auspices of the International Pen Club, the *Escarré International Centre for Ethnic Minorities and Nations* (CIEMEN, Barcelona) and UNESCO. Although this declaration, unlike the ECRML, has not since led to any legislation being implemented, it is worth noting that it relies from the outset on a wording that places the group to the very forefront by using among others, instead of the notion of linguistic minority, those of “language community” and “language group”. Both of these linguistic strings might appear to be more neutral as they do not underline the reductive sense of the word “minority”. But equally, they indicate diversification, a sign of specialisation suiting a more technical treatment of the issue. The language community is thus here tied to a territory in which it is historically settled, that is,

ii. when they have been historically established in a small geographical area surrounded by members of other language communities; or iii. when they are established in a geographical area which they share with the members of other language communities with similar historical antecedents. (UDLR, Article 1.3).

This principle is nonetheless extended also to “nomad peoples within their areas of migration and peoples established in geographically dispersed locations as language communities in their own historical territory.” (UDLR, Article 1.4) On the other hand, the language group is in this case constituted by immigrants, refugees, deported persons or members of diasporas established in “the territorial space of another language community” (UDLR, Article 1.5). However, one notable difference in detail appears between the designation of a group’s “own language” as applied here to the community (equally designated in this text as “language proper to a territory”) and that of their “own language” as applied here to the group. The UDLR does not take account of the legal status of languages considered (UDLR, Preliminary text: 2. The Context). However, it should not be forgotten that the first designation of the juridical term “lengua propria”, meaning “a group’s own language” was in a context geographically restricted to Spain, where it has an intrinsic vocation to be also an official language. The second
attribution of “a group’s own language” calls for “respect and protection”, echoing the wording of the Spanish constitution: “The wealth of different linguistic modalities of Spain is a cultural heritage which shall be subject to special respect and protection” (Article 3.3).

While this dichotomy comprises a hierarchy which gives clarity while still guaranteeing a minimum of rights to the group, it does run the risk of over limiting the rights of the latter by granting pre-eminence to the territorial ties of the community. And yet the introductory text of this Declaration considers that language communities and groups are placed at the same level in that they are characterised by the inseparability and interdependence of collective and individual dimensions of linguistic rights, “for language is collectively constituted within a community; it is also within this community that people make a personal use of it” (UDLR, Preliminary text: 2. The Context). Such an affirmation endorses the intrinsic role of the language as involving actual practice, produced by real speakers, by contrast with a minority set of human beings that simply recognises itself as an entity aware of itself by its very relation to this linguistic fact. The fecundity for offshoots characterising the relation between linguistic minority, minority language and identity will be further highlighted by several elements considered in the next Section.

## 3 The limits of linguistic minority

In considering the above points we need to also look at factors such as a minimal societal base, conscious and diglossic distancing in relation to another language within a state-national framework and the importance of territory (of historical settlement, of reference for diasporas and immigrant groups, of effective administrative management) (Viaut 1997). From this point of view we will now look at linguistic minority in the broad sense of its being characterised more by a language than by the fact of its constituting a group of persons speaking it. That perspective would mean in order to assign any minority its linguistic identity, both speaking practices as well as attitudes towards a language would need to be taken into consideration, and not merely the number of speakers. While “minority” would still play its role as head within this expression, the said group of persons, sufficient in number to confer the minority taken as a whole with its founding mark of identity, would, in that case get its primary characteristic from a common linguistic denominator. This would incorporate an awareness of and an attitude which was loyal and active towards the language through which it determined itself in the first place. In other words, it would be a matter of
approaching the quantitative and qualitative limit on the basis of whether or not
the set of persons related by this language were consistent enough to confer its
linguistic identity upon such a minority group.

## 3.1 Speakers and awareness of the language

Any attitude of active loyalty so envisaged would necessarily comprise an
array of particular attitudes. These would range from those indicating profi-
ciencies, matched by usage covering primary functions (i.e. understanding,
speaking, reading, writing) in that language, to those attesting, whether in
advance or at a later stage, of speakers' identification with it. This would be
accompanied by an overall skill more or less partial and or positively oriented
towards it in the public domain or in education in particular. However, among
these functions, that of speaking in an effective manner will involve at least
those of understanding, but the capacity for speech, though essential, is not
necessarily bound to an attitude of active loyalty. Manifesting that speech
capacity obviously constitutes one of the primary realities of a language but
it may just as well be a sign of passive loyalty towards it. So that from this
perhaps restricted viewpoint, the fact of speaking a minority language such as
Occitan in France at the turn of the twentieth century would certainly not have
been sufficient criteria in order to be able to identify a set of speakers as
members of a linguistic minority.

In fact, there is some debate about the actual numbers of Occitan/French
bilinguals at this time and some argue they were in the majority in the terri-
tories concerned. And yet, any awareness of belonging to this linguistic and
cultural reality, given the French context conferring such enormous prestige
upon the official language, was only present among a small minority.
Comparing this example of Occitan at the beginning of the twentieth century
to more recent times, today's groups of speakers of a minority language are
generally smaller and thus show more deficient demolinguistic profiles. There
are obviously cases of renewal both in terms of interest and language practice,
encouraged and stimulated by favourable language planning (Basque, Catalan
and Welsh, for instance). Nonetheless, whether within this type of configura-
tion or in one with a diminishing number of speakers, the present trend would
appear to show that in European contexts language awareness has grown.
These attitudes are being relayed increasingly, over and above voluntary asso-
ciation-type networks, by public bodies like regional councils or para-public
bodies like, as in recent years in France, the Public Boards for Basque or for
Breton and, since March 2016, for Occitan.
## 3.2 The self-identification by language as fundamental parameter

This parameter addressing the relative weight of the number of real speakers had been previously accounted for by Erik Allardt (1992) in his approach to the linguistic minority, where he showed the importance of a group's “self-categorisation” which does not apply, in our view, only to those using the language in an effective manner (see Section 3.2 end). In examining the traits enabling a linguistic minority to be characterised as such, Allardt considers that the group's own awareness as a group must be retained as paramount, along with its recourse to historical legitimacy. Group self-identification would therefore be a criterion adding to those of awareness of belonging or of common will, as we have noted above, based on a juridical approach. From such a perspective, a minimum degree of formal recognition from the supervisory authority at State or infra-State level would then equally need to be taken into consideration. Some minimal threshold of external recognition could in that case be useful to legitimise group self-identification by the linguistic minority (Allardt 1992: 46) under the pretext of management of difference or of linguistic diversity now become a greater concern today. Allardt even went as far as placing this group self-identification, synonymous with “self-categorisation”, at the very top of his list of four fundamental criteria for identifying the existence of a linguistic minority (Allardt 1992: 51). “Self-categorisation (self-identification), common ancestries, traits both linguistic as well as those culturally and historically tied to the language, and social organisation of interaction between linguistic groups, placing those groups in a minority position” (Allardt 1992: 51). While taking a flexible understanding of how these criteria actually functioned, he concedes the following:

> What we can say for certain, on the other hand, is that in every linguistic minority, a few members at least are related to the group by each and all of these fundamental criteria and that each member is related to the minority by one of these criteria (Allardt 1992: 51).

In every case, the sociolinguistic attitude aiming to maintain, spread or reintroduce the language into the group, meaning to ensure its social dimension, remains a fundamental criterion of the linguistic minority seen from the perspective of this self-identification (Allardt 1992: 52). This will mean that the minority can contain within it a minority which is defined by the language in which it is purported to possess large or manifest competence. The rest of that community on the other hand may show an interest that is more or less obvious for this language, its practise becoming a relative element, yet binding in terms
of a referential and socialised practice in the group concerned. Once again, this
will need assessing in terms of the threshold below which the linguistic minority
could lose its identity as such.

The linguistic minority, from this viewpoint, may well accordingly satisfy
itself with a “minimal” language on the basis of an explicit or tacit agreement by
which the group continues to justify its own particularity. For example, at local
or regional levels, Occitan, would appear in our view to function like this in the
Béarn, Périgord and Provence, despite actual use of the language being greatly
diminished there. In fact the different names for the language are themselves
regional and used either solely or associated with the name of Occitan. In
addition, the language is valued ever more greatly and heightened ever more
symbolically, the more marked its decline. Another example is the putting up of
street name signs written in versions of the original Oc language in several Oc
territory towns in France (be they small - though greater in number- or big) or
cities (including Toulouse, Montpellier and Pau) where Occitan is no longer the
daily language. The same goes for road signs marking borough entrance bound-
aries by many communes in zones concerned by the language. The language
remains in that case a central reference, even at minimum, while also centrally
at stake is its survival and the validation of its functionality or instrumentality,
perhaps not in economic terms but at least socially and symbolically. Here again
it is worth quoting Allardt:

> There are very militant linguistic minorities in which the majority do not speak the language of its own group. The Basques and the Irish are the most compelling examples of this in Europe today. A linguistic minority could not exist, of course, if its specific language were not accepted and if absolutely no one practised it. (Allardt 1992: 53).

The notion of linguistic minority thus entails identification – self and exo-
identification – by a group distinct from others numerically greater, as well as
by others in nature like itself, and it comprises among its semes, strong ties to a
language the whole set of persons making up that group feels culturally
attached to. If we validate Allardt’s claim, we then have to recognise that
acceptance of that “specific language” is a matter for the whole or at least the
majority of the population deemed as making up the community in question,
even if only a minority within that minority actually practise it.

3.3 The demolinguistic and territorial parameters

We have suggested in the previous section that it becomes appropriate to now
examine the very nature of the relation to the language and discern the
diversity of the forms this can take. Along with Allardt, we will reject the
property of linguistic minority being applied to any case where the language
concerned, though believed to be still present in representations having sym-
bolic offshoot content, had reached the point of disappearing as a commu-
nication tool (see Section 3.2). There would nonetheless remain the issue of
specifying the threshold from which it might be estimated that a global
practice of that language – and which type(s) of practice? – could justify the
categorisation of any community as a linguistic minority. As mentioned above,
it would be difficult to envisage a linguistic minority auto-identifying itself by
means of a language that had become absent, inactive or dead, or merely a
common symbolic reference for the group being considered. From there on, the
unavoidable sociological dimension of the language, no matter what the extent
of its minority might be, requires taking into account the group defining itself
as a minority via that language, which must be grounded on a minimum of
solid elements.

We must here clarify that, even apart from any perception of an inevitably
quantitative nature, the reductive acceptance of the term “minority” applies
equally to minority languages which are not necessarily the object of any
discriminatory treatment as well as to others effectively being minoritised. But
external intentionality, negative or depreciative, which can affect or may have
already affected the linguistic minority and contribute to its being considered as
undervalued as well as to its being a minority language, is sufficiently present in
the semantic history of the term for us to keep it in mind. The linguistic minority,
characterised by its use, of a minority language or one in a minority situation,
reiterates a demographical and demolinguistic reality just as it testifies to a
process of linguistic minoritisation. As a result, the linguistic minority can
therefore be an actual state of things as they stand, marked simply by a set of
cardinal points (Italian in Switzerland, German in Belgium). In addition, it can
be the result of a process of minoritisation, whether additionally or differently.
Whatever the case, a group’s “own” language or one “proper to” a linguistic
minority, which is either a minority language or in a minority situation in
relation to another present by majority on the same territorial entity, will be
supposed to canopy by hypernymy, diverse categories of languages all having
the quantitative trait of “minority”. This is the case for the historically rooted
language as for the “language of self-identification” or first language, and
possibly “habitual” language, of migrant groups. These notions of “language
of self-identification” and “habitual language” were used in sociolinguistic
studies carried out in Catalonia in recent years by the Institut d’Estadística de
Catalunya or Idescat (Statistics Institute of Catalonia). The “language of self-
identification” (*llengua d’identificació*) is the one the speaker feels closest to,
while the “habitual language” (*llengua habitual*) corresponds to that most fre-
quently used, without necessarily being at the same time the “language of self-
identification” (Generalitat 2011: 25).

A regional language, as stated in the ECRML (Council of Europe 1992: 18), is
limited by reference to a given territory. In contrast, apart from having a mini-
mum societal footing, the linguistic minority is not. In the framework of a State,
it refers most frequently to a population that identifies itself with one language
and at the same time as a delineated space within which it has developed and
maintained itself. However, this type of attachment will also apply to languages
not enshrined as traditional, just as indeed the ECRML also states with regard to
a minority language (see Section 2.1). This means that either such a geographical
relation is not fundamental or commonly shared within the culture passed on by
the relevant speakers, for example in the case of the Romani people. On the
other hand, such a relation refers to a territory the group originally came from
which then confers on it the status of a background reference support. That
would mean it became just one other element of identity which can proceed by
de-reifying itself to the benefit of cultural activities and events which have
remained more solid than their original physical framework or context because
they are transportable, exactly like the language.

3.4 The complex order of group identity in relation to its language

We have argued that the very expression “linguistic minority” raises questions regarding the identification as a language one which may not necessarily be considered as such by a majority of the people concerned. This is the case for varieties of linguistic *continua* not always clearly identified as languages by the members of communities where they are in use. Low-German (*Niederdeutsch*), though categorised as a regional language in Germany since the ratification of the ECRML in 1998 by that country, is confronted with this problem. IN some cases a national border acts not just as demarcation but as separation. Such action can affect the representations of one territorially marginal variety of a language the main area of which identifies most strongly with a standardised official variety, as is the case for the relation between “Alsatian” on the French side, and German. This configuration-type can equally be found; with different parameters, in Norway for Kven in relation to Finnish, although, in this case, Kven was finally individuated by decision of the Norwegian government in April 2005 (Viaut 2012: 14), in relation to Finnish on the continuum which it nonetheless continues to be part of. Languages in a minority situation become so in
this or that State by chance or by historical turn of events, yet may also be in a
situation of pre-eminence and recognition that can be more favourable to them
in another State. For example, in France for constitutional reasons, the notion of
linguistic minority does not prevail, based on a strict interpretation of the
indivisible nature of the Republic i.e. banning the principle of recognising any
particular segment of the whole people for which it alone is the sole expression.
In this context how do we regard the Alsatian people or their first language
which, up to the beginning of this twenty-first century, at least a majority of
them has identified with? Their heritage of linguistic expression is taken account
of in France on the same footing as other languages declared as “regional” or
“of France” but what type of linguistic minority should their speakers be deemed
as forming today? And what about the similar case, also German-speaking, of
that in South Tyrol in Italy, officially a “linguistic minority” (minoranza linguis-
tica) ever since the legislation entitled *Regulations for the protection of historic
linguistic minorities* on December 15, 1999 (Articles 2 & 3.3)? In either case,
should “German-speaking” be understood here as a speaker using standard
German or as one feeling ties *with* it and accommodating these as constituting
his or her awareness of auto-identity? In fact, what happens is quite another
matter. The true situation is even more complex in Alsace with the general-
isation of standard French alongside the use of local vernaculars grouped under
the appellation “Alsatian” which, flowing back to standard German as structu-
rally the parent language, is both increasingly marginal and currently in decline
as a reference of identification for dialect speakers there. To quote Dominique
Huck in this regard:

> This situation is irreversible as all the main trends continue to assert themselves over time: at the beginning of the Twenty-First century, declared knowledge of this dialect became quantitatively one concerning a minority, there being a sort of autonomisation of “Alsatian” which was, we might say, “unhitched” from standard German (and inversely). In addition, knowledge of German as an endogenous language was replaced by a knowl-edge of German as an exogenous language, when knowledge of it is actually present. (author's translation) (Huck 2015: 442)

The linguistic minority's ties with speakers and languages beyond the border
encompassed by standard German, while no longer felt as strongly as in the
past, need to be considered in a manner adapted to this particular context.
German is very much a majority language in demolinguistic terms and is endowed
with higher juridical status in several countries (official or co-official in Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Belgium, and co-official regional language in Italy, in
South Tyrol). This means we need to take into account parameters of intralinguistic
distance and linguistic individuation processes brought about, in some cases, by
border effects conditioned by the history of conflicts between France and Germany. But rather than individuation, would it not be more appropriate to speak of “linguistic particularisation” given that to date an objective of sociolinguistic dissociation for Alsatian as a language independent from standard German has not come about in any determined fashion, according to a linguistic elaboration process applying to the *Ausbau* languages (Kloss 1987). History itself, after the initial marginalisation in France of standard German during the post-World War 1 period, and then significantly after the Second World War, contributed to Alsace sustaining a relation to it which has since become both less obvious and less structural. Standard German (*Hochdeutsch*) was radically enforced during the period of annexation as the sole alternative official language by Nazi Germany to the exclusion of French and by depreciating the Alsatian dialect (Huck 2015: 204–208). Over the course of several decades following the return of Alsace to France, this negative representation of *Hochdeutsch* led to a fresh phase of the dialect’s marginalisation, in the public domain, until its comeback especially in school education where its presence has been part of language planning since the 1990s (Huck 2015: 420–429).

We find ourselves facing here a fairly complex case in which the relation
between a language and a group linked to a territory constituting a linguistic
fringe-type margin (Viaut 2012: 17–18) is through a dialect which is in the
process of gaining autonomisation, but without going as far as its emancipation.
In this context, we may refer to the analysis of Bothorel-Witz (2000: 9):

It is as if the speaker were seeking to reconstruct collective historical focal points which were in greater conformity with the vectors of modernity and the image they wished to give of themselves. To do so, dialects were unhitched from German and deprived of their historic umbrella language. This form of autonomisation is reflected too in the denomina- tion of the dialectal code: the glossonym Alsatian/*Elsassisch* has progressively taken over from German/*Ditsch* and from Alsatian German/*Elsasserditsch*. (author's translation)

This case of Alsatian helps to show how determining the dimension of the relation
between a set of cultural elements and the group perceiving these as its own or
habitual, can be. Yet such a relation applies at the same time for a territory
actually bearing these cultural elements and the language concerned. Here,
comprising these parameters, it functions with regard to a linguistic expression
which defines itself as dialectal. This is the case for what, along the *Mundartbund*
continuum, is basically German and for *Hochdeutsch* which has seen its role of
“umbrella language” (*Überdachung/Dachsprache*) (Muljačić 1996: 636) receding
progressively, especially since the 1940s. Despite the difficulties of maintenance
and of dynamics for the Alsatian dialect arising out of its subordinate actual and
legal status and its adaptation to modernity, this relation to the group has,
nonetheless, to go through that very group. It has acquired its own prestige and
occupies the largest portion of the space enshrined under the reference title of
cultural identity as “language of self-identification” (see Section X). The relation
between dialect and roofing language – here standard German – will tend
henceforth to be confined to school education where Standard German is the
written form of the “regional language in Alsace”. In the wording used by the
rector of the Strasbourg Academy, Pierre Deyon in 1985: “There is in fact only one
scientifically correct definition for the regional language in Alsace, which is the
Alsatian dialects whose written expression is German”. We would specify this by:
“standard German”. And this definition appears on the site of the Public Board for
the Language and Cultures of Alsace and Moselle (OLCA, https://www.olcalsace.
org/) as the reference for the definition of the “regional language of Alsace”.
Although the dialect is not absent from the didactic framework, it is *Hochdeutsch*
that is both the language-medium and target language and not the local varieties.
The identity-based relation to the standard form has now become instrumental
and lost much of its affective tenor. On the other hand, this relation functions
much more resolutely towards the dialect as a variety typically subordinated but
configured in such a way as to tend to, we might say, neutralise any relevance to
its historic “roofing language” (*Dachsprache*). Even if this situation is dependent
on the emphasis of the place of the linguistic code into the identity-based con-
figuration, it allows us to draw the hypothesis that the strength of this relation to a
dialect can be, in another context, even more powerful with regard to a linguistic
expression perceived as a language, whatever its degree of standardisation.

**4 Conclusion: From wordings to the facts**

Considering this importance of the human group which constitutes a minority as
an encompassing entity, made up of the sum of various cultural parameters at the
forefront of which stands a linguistic expression, one conclusive element should,
at this stage, be added to those listed: speakers' attitudes. This will combine
possible factors of minorisation discussed in previous sections with representa-
tions of prestige turning to widespread negativity resulting from that minorisation.
Apart from self-awareness, it is worth recalling that the parameter of pro-activity
in terms of attitudes of active loyalty is likely to follow on from this type of
consideration. We may well ask, for example, what type of diglossia experience
occurs for Franco-Provençal speakers spread over France, Switzerland and Italy?
Are they indifferent to this heritage language which is highly dialectalised? How
do they take on the linguistic profile they have inherited, one that is dispersed and
holding few claims? For example, Franco-Provençal, has been favoured by a new
awakening of awareness that has developed in recent years (Bichurina 2016). Officially a "language of France" on the French side, it appears legally under the category of "linguistic minority" (minoranza linguistica) in Italy, in the same category as Occitan and Friulian, since the legislation of December 15, 1999 entitled *Regulations for the protection of historic linguistic minorities*. In fact, apart from the appellation "historic linguistic minority" which does not include those who are immigrants, the concept underlying this categorisation takes account of, within a patrimonial framework, "the language and the culture" of the populations concerned (Article 1.2). On the one hand, the practical application of protection for the linguistic minority appears explicitly here via that of its language associated to its culture. On the other, by culture we can see an all-embracing and multiform expression of identity as providing, more directly than the language alone, a relation to the group. This actually contributes to relativising the notion of linguistic minority contained in this text. And, to the extent that the minorities in question, are further qualified by the linguistic trait ("historic linguistic minorities"), one might be tempted to perceive this notion as quasi-synonymous with minority language. Yet, though the Articles of this law do concern the languages and the cultures, the linguistic order remains clearly first or associated with other manifestations of the culture. Though not crucial, it is still noteworthy that the item *lingua* or *lingue* appears 32 times in the text of this law as against 13 times for the item *cultura* or *culture*. This factor of two also applies for the derivatives *linguistico* or *linguistiche* (16 times) and *culturale* or *culturali* (8 times). The difference is even more marked in the presidential decree n° 345 of 02/05/2001 for the application of this law showing absolute prevalence for language (*lingua* or *lingue*, *linguistica* or *linguistiche*: 49 occurrences; *cultura* or *culture*, *culturale* or *culturali*: 2).

In sum, we have seen that the various treatments of the notion of a linguistic minority examined here allow us to single out a prevailing position in the identificatory relation of the linguistic minority between the group and the language. We will conclude by tying this into the operational and dynamic perspective underlined in the *Euromosaic* report published in 1996 regarding the countries of the European Union, according to which the situation of linguistic minority should be addressed by means not of static notions such as "language maintenance" or "linguistic shift" but rather those of "reproduction, production and non-production of linguistic groups" (Nelde and Glyn 1996: 5). From this assertion, it follows that the linguistic minority should be envisaged as an ongoing process leading to what it has become now, pending its disappearance or its acquiring guarantees or improvement in its status. This may come about through an "endo-proactivity" articulated sometimes with an "exo-proactivity" coming from the dominant or ambient society. It is to be noted that, on
balance, the notion of linguistic group, hence one close to that of linguistic minority, was the one selected in the *Euromosaic* report, for its operability in terms of language planning.

## References

Allardt, Erik. 1992. Qu'est-ce qu'une minorité linguistique? In Henri Giordan (ed.), *Les minorités en Europe. Droits linguistiques et droits de l'homme*, 45-54. Paris: Kimé.

Bichurina, Natalia. 2016. *Transborder communities in Europe and the emergence of “new”-languages: From “Francoprovençal patois” to “Arpitan” and “Arpitania”*. Thèse de Sciences du Langage. Perpignan: Université Via Domitia Perpignan.

Billiez, Jacqueline. 1985. La langue comme marqueur d'identité. *Revue européenne des migrations internationales* 1(2). 95-103.

Bothorel-Witz, Arlette. 2000. Les langues en Alsace. *DiversCité Langues* V. http://www.teluq.uquebec.ca/diverscite/SecArtic/Arts/2000/bothorel/bothorel_txt.htm (accessed 25 October 2017).

Capotorti, Francesco. 1979. *Étude des droits des personnes appartenant aux minorités ethniques, religieuses et linguistiques. Rapport spécial de la Sous-Commission de la lutte contre les mesures discriminatoires et de la protection des minorités*. New York: Nations Unies.

Council of Europe. 1992. *Explanatory report to the European charter for regional or minority languages*. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16800cb5e5 (accessed 28 October 2017).

Generalitat, de Catalunya. 2011. *Enquesta d'usos lingüístics de la població 2008*. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya/Institut d'Estadistica de Catalunya. http://www.idescat.cat/cat/idescat/publicacions/cataleg/pdfdocs/eulp2008.pdf (accessed 25 October 2017).

Guset, Victor. 2017. *L'interprétation de la Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires. Contribution à l'étude de la construction juridique d'une politique publique linguistique*. Thèse de Droit public. Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux, Faculté de Droit.

Huck, Dominique. 2015. *Une histoire des langues de l'Alsace*. Strasbourg: La Nuée bleue.

Kloss, Heinz. 1987. Abstandsprache und Ausbausprache. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar & Klaus Mattheier (eds.), *Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society = Soziolinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft*, 302-308. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Muljačić, Žarko. 1996. Distance interlinguistique, élaboration linguistique et “coiffure linguistique”. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary & Wolfgang Wölck (ed.), *Kontaktlinguistik = contact linguistics = Linguistique de contact*, 634-642. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Nelde, Peter & William. Glyn. 1996. *Euromosaic: The production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union*. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.

Viaut, Alain. 1997. La minorité linguistique. *Lettre d'Europolis* 6. 11-16.

Viaut, Alain. 2012. Marge linguistique territoriale et langues minoritaires. *Lengas revue de sociolinguistique* 71. 9-28.