Table of Contents
Tomasz Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi, and Catherine Gibson........................... v
Preface

Part One: Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe:
A Conceptual Framework
Acknowledgments.............................................................................................. 3
Yukiyasu Arai..................................................................................................... 5
Reflecting on the Project Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central
EuropeEmmanuel Brunet-Jailly.................................................................................... 9
Languages, Nation and States, Border and Borderlands: A CriticalAssessment

Catherine Gibson............................................................................................. 27
Ethnolinguistic Atlases: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections

Tomasz Kamusella........................................................................................... 35
Language in Central Europe’s History and Politics: From the Rule ofcuius regio, eius religio to the National Principle of cuius regio, eiuslingua?

Tomasz Kamusella........................................................................................... 55
The Concept of the Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central
EuropeMichael Moser................................................................................................. 75
A Few Words on Tomasz Kamusella’s Atlas of Language Politics inModern Central Europe

Part Two: Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe:
The Sample Maps
Tomasz Kamusella........................................................................................... 83
The Completed Maps: Bibliographies

Tomasz Kamusella
The Completed Maps

A. The Dialect Continua Series
A1. Dialect Continua in Central Europe, 9th Century...................91
A2. Dialect Continua in Central Europe, c 1050..........................92
A3. Dialect Continua in Central Europe, c 1570..........................93
A4. Dialect Continua in Central Europe, c 1910..........................94
A5. Dialect Continua in Central Europe, c 2009..........................95
B. Maps to Be Developed into Separate Series
B1. Linguistic Areas (Sprachbünde) in Central Europe,c 1930..........................................................................................96
B2. Central Europe’s Writing Systems in 2009 and the Past.......97
C. The Isomorphism Series
C1. Isomorphism of Language, Nation, and State in Central
Europe, c 1930.............................................................................98
C2. Isomorphism of Language, Nation, and State in Central
Europe, 1974-1989......................................................................99
C3. Isomorphism of Language, Nation, and State in Central
Europe, 2009.............................................................................100
D.

D1. Non-State Minority, Regional and Unrecognized
Languages, and Written Dialects in Central Europe,
19th – 21st Centuries.................................................................101
D2. List of Non-State Minority, Regional and Unrecognized
Languages, and Written Dialects in Central Europe,
19th – 21st Centuries.................................................................102

List of Contributors........................................................................................ 103

PrefacebyTomasz Kamusella, Motoki Nomachi and Catherine Gibson
During the 1980s, Central Europe re-emerged as a concept of socio-political analysis
in samizdat publications brought out in the region when the Cold War division of thecontinent into Eastern and Western Europe still stood fast. This concept of a newly
found self-definition among Central Europe’s literati and dissidents was brought tothe wider attention of the West in 1984 by the Czech(oslovak) writer Milan Kunderain his seminal essay published in the New York Review of Books (Kundera 1984). To
some it was a revelation that Central Europe could be a world unto itself, while others
criticized this concept as a political delusion. More nationally-minded critics also saw
it as a tool for a potential renewed German domination over the region. They reiterated
how during the First World War Mitteleuropa had been a blueprint for building an
economic-cum-political bloc in Central Europe under the joint control of Germany andAustria-Hungary (Naumann 1915).
The breakup in 1989 of the Soviet bloc gave a lease of political reality to Central Europe. However, following the 1993 founding of the European Union (EU) theregion’s freshly postcommunist states applied for membership in this union, seen as asynonym of the West or, more exactly, of Western Europe. The Central European wishto join the European Union was a desire to become part of Western Europe. The curiously changing membership of the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA)
vindicates this view. Founded in 1992 by Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland, theoriginal member states promptly left it when they joined the EU in 2004. Nowadays,
CEFTA embraces Albania, Moldova, and the post-Yugoslav states that have not joined
the EU yet.
Apart from politics and wishful thinking, it appears that the difference between
Central Europe and the western and eastern sections of the continent lies in the unusually high politicization of language that prevails in the region. This politicization oflanguage in Central Europe is clearly visible in the widespread normative perception oflanguage as the foundation of national identity and the indispensable cornerstone of any
legitimate national statehood. According to this view, for a nation-state to be a proper
polity it must possess its own unique national language not shared with any other stateor nation. This equation of language, nation, and state has been sometimes evoked
across the entire continent of Europe, but never so consistently as in Central Europe.
Hence, the national language of the interwar Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes(since 1929, Yugoslavia) had to be Serbo-Croato-Slovenian in order to embrace andmeld in the Yugoslav nation all the three ethnic groups that featured in the polity’s original name. Likewise, the protracted 1991–2008 breakup of Yugoslavia necessitated thesplit of Serbo-Croatian into Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian, so that eachof the post-Yugoslav nation-states could be supplied with its own unique and unsharednational language.

v

Tomasz Kamusella has researched the rise and the dynamics of this specificallyCentral European politics of language during the last two centuries from the vantageof political science. Motoki Nomachi has delved into the importance of extralinguistic
elements in the standardization and emergence of languages in the region, especiallyin the Balkans. Catherine Gibson meanwhile has probed into the uses of cartography
for nation and state building. In this volume, they present an interdisciplinary portrait of Central Europe in the form of an in-depth reflection on Tomasz Kamusella’s
work-in-progress, Atlas of Language Politics in Modern Central Europe. This Atlas, bymarrying the insights of history, linguistics, and social sciences, aspires to show how,
especially during the last two centuries, the use of languages and scripts has evolved inCentral Europe, how the political and the social have impinged on these languages andscripts, and how linguistic factors exerted influence on the social reality and politics inthis part of Europe. The discussion chapters are followed by a presentation of the 11maps (roughly a quarter of the planned total) that have already been completed.
Five maps (A1–A5) present historical changes in the use of languages throughCentral Europe’s history at the level of dialect continua. Map six (B1) reflects on theclassification of the region’s languages in the form of linguistic areas prior to WorldWar II. In contrast to the purely linguistic concept of dialect continuum, linguistic
areas tend to take into consideration extralinguistic features such as political and socialchanges and events. Map seven (B2) has a synoptic look at the changes in the use ofdifferent writing systems in Central Europe during the last millennium. Three furthermaps (C1–C3) focus squarely on how ethnolinguistic nationalism utilized language
for building and legitimizing nation-states in the region during the 20th century, whichbrought about This process marginalized all the many languages that were not selected
for these successful national projects. The last map (D1–D2, that is, consisting of twoplates) is devoted to these forgotten languages and their speech communities, many ofwhich survive to this day.
The aforementioned maps and the presentation of the project of the Atlas of Language
Politics in Modern Central Europe constitute a platform for critical reflection on the work-inprogress and its methodology. For this task, we invited four specialists from Canada, Austria,
Japan, and Italy (Britain) to share their thoughts on the Atlas. Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly firstoffers a general reflection on the subject of language and politics. Michael Moser delves into
the assumptions and methodology of the proposed Atlas and offer comments and suggestions for improvement. Yukiyasu Arai reflects on the Atlas from the perspective of historicalatlases. Last but not least, Catherine Gibson reflects on the topic of ethnolinguistic atlases.
In light of the findings presented in the Atlas, it appears that official and everyday multilingualism (or more correctly, polyglossia) and multiscriptualism (the use ofmany scripts) was the norm across the breadth and length of Central Europe until the ageof nationalism. From the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries, Central Europe was split
among ethnolinguistic nation-states with their specific national-cum-official languages.
This development did not reduce the multilingualism of Central Europe as a whole, butlargely did away with polyglossia and multiscriptualism. In most cases, the aforesaid
nation-states were founded as normatively monolingual entities, meaning that in a nationstate only one language is permitted and it must be written in a single script.

vi

Until its progressive breakup between 1991 and 2007, the sole Central European
polity that escaped this fate of parallel monolinguaization and monoscripturalization
was federal Yugoslavia with its two official scripts (Cyrillic and Latin) and its numerous official languages (the dominant Serbo-Croatian, and alongside it, Albanian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Slovak, Slovenian, Romanian, and Rusyn). In the wake of thedestructive wars of Yugoslav succession, however, the polity had been replaced by theturn of the 21st century with monolingual nation-states or national polities aspiring
to such monolingualism. This development required the splitting of Serbo-Croatian
into (thus far) the state languages of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian, andBunjevac. Bunjevac is a community language with a semi-formal status in Serbia’sVojvodina.
At present, only one fully recognized polity remains officially bilingual in Central Europe, defined here as the vertical midsection of the continent, namely Finlandwith Finnish and Swedish as its co-official languages. Furthermore, Cyrillic-based
Moldovan, Russian, and Ukrainian are all official in the de facto polity of Transnistria. Otherwise, multilingualism is relegated in Central Europe to autonomous regions
submerged within their home states, for instance, to Italy’s Trentino-Alto Adige (SouthTyrol), Moldova’s Gagauzia, Serbia’s Vojvodina, or Ukraine’s Crimea. Bosnia is officially trilingual, while Kosovo enjoys two official languages. Yet, in both the aforementioned cases, it is more a case of “compartmentalized multilingualism.” Namely,in different, geographically separate areas of the state, as apportioned to this or that
ethnic or national group, the languages of these groups are used to the exclusion of any
other. As a result, in an officially multilingual polity, the normative monolingualism isinstituted in its nationally specific regions.
When it comes multiscripturalism, only Montenegro is officially biscriptural,
its official and national language of Montenegrin written in the legally equal Cyrillicand Latin alphabets. In this small way, the tradition of the biscriptural Serbo-Croatiancontinues, though otherwise Montenegro is officially monolingual in Montenegrin
only (however, with some concessions for minority languages at the regional level).
Apart from the multilingual and biscriptural autonomous Vojvodina, Serbia is officiallymonolingual and monoscriptural. The 2006 Constitution recognizes Cyrillic as the sole
official script for writing the nation-state’s official language of Serbian. But in reality,
roughly half of printed matter produced in Serbia is in Latin characters. A degree ofmultiscripturality in Latin and Cyrillic letters is observed in Moldavia’s autonomous
Gagauzia and Ukraine’s autonomous Crimea thanks to the official use of Cyrillic- andLatin script-based languages side by side. However, in 2014 politics intervened Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea led to the gradual limitation of the use of theCrimean Tatar language that is written in the Latin alphabet.
The two aforementioned legally and de facto multilingual polities in today’s
Central Europe, the bilingual Finland and the trilingual Transnistria, are fully monoscriptural, the latter employing exclusively Cyrillic and the former the Latin alphabet.
This again leaves the multiscriptural Bosnia and Kosovo as a category in its own right.
Regionally-based official monolingualism in different languages, as observed in the twopolities is complemented by a similar spatial compartmentalization of scripts. Only onevii

script, in which a given official language is written, is employed in a specific nationallyconstrued autonomous area of Bosnia or Kosovo. These two officially multilingual andbiscriptural polities, practice de facto monolingualism and monoscripturalism in theirnationally delineated autonomous regions.
For better or worse, nationally construed monolingualism and monoscripturaism
are the political norm of today’s Central Europe of ethnolinguistic nation-states. Fora polity to be deemed a “true” nation-state in the region, it must be a home to one
nation only, this nation composed from—ideally, all—the speakers of a given nationallanguage. And in turn, this language must be written in a single script, which is emotionally deemed as “true” to the language’s national and historic character. Until today,the borders and territories of nation-states have been drawn and redrawn in Central
Europe in agreement with this principle.
Sapporo, February 2017
Revised: St Andrews, Sapporo, Florence, March 2017

A Note on the TextReaders should bear in mind that the majority of texts in this volume were written in2009, hence new relevant developments from the period 2009–2017 are not covered inthis book.

References
Kamusella, Tomasz. 2009. The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central
Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Kundera, Milan. 1984. The Tragedy of Central Europe (pp 30–38). New York Review of Books.
Vol 31, no 7, Apr 26.
Naumann, Friedrich. 1915. Mitteleuropa. Berlin: Reimer.

viii

Central Europe Through the Lens of Languageand Politics: On the Sample Maps from the Atlasof Language Politics in Modern Central Europe
発行日： 2017年11月20日
編集者： T. カムセラ, 野町素己, C. ギブソン
発行者： 仙石学
発行所： 北海道大学スラブ・ユーラシア研究センター
060-0809 札幌市北区北9条西7丁目
Tel. 011-706-2388 Fax. 011-706-4952
http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/