DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SUMMARY
Title

Linguistics and Language Planning from the Viewpoint of the Uncountabilityof Languages: A Case of Minority Languages in PolandAuthor

Kazuhiro Sadakane

Affiliation Tokyo University of Foreign Studies
Graduate School of Global Studies

This doctoral dissertation has the following objectives:
1.

In 2005, the Republic of Poland established a legal document for minorities and theirlanguages called the Minority Act. The author reveals the types of influence theMinority Act has had on the linguistic discussion in Poland.

2.

The author is also engaged in critical analysis of the Minority Act, especially its purposeof attempting to control language in Poland.

This dissertation constitutes four chapters in order to achieve the objectives specified above.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Linguistic Classification of Languages
Chapter 3: Political Classification of Languages
Chapter 4: Conclusion

Chapter 1: Introduction
Contemporary linguistics studies a language as an autonomous system of signs, and describes theinner construction of the system. However, even linguists have no specific criteria, that define thedistinction between “language” and “dialect.” No such criteria can be found inside the systemitself. In addition, the distinction and naming of language sometimes reflect the political situationand historical background outside of the language. Thus, languages are fundamentally
uncountable. In many cases, linguists do not regard this uncountability as a “purely linguistic”
problem. On the contrary, we generally treat languages as “countable entities.” This fact indicatesthat there are some criteria to count languages and, consciously or not, we accept them. There is
no doubt that linguistics, as an academic discipline, classifies (counts) languages into at least twogroups – “language” by itself, and “dialect” as a subordinate system of some superordinate“language.” If it were not for this process of categorizing, linguists could not be engaged inlinguistic description. Thus, the categorization of languages shapes units of linguistic study. This1

dissertation calls the classification of languages by linguists “linguistic classification.” On theother hand, language planning also carries out classification of languages, in the form of status
planning (e.g., confirmation of the status of a national language in legal documents). This type of
categorization is called “political classification” in this dissertation, and is based on the interestsof political subjects. A political classification decides the general orientation of language planning(e.g., monolingualism, multilingualism, and so on).
In summary, because linguistics and language planning classify languages in some way,each of them is dealing with the “uncountability” of languages. Although these two types ofclassification differ in purpose and background, there are some points that they have in common:authority and collectivity. On the premise of this similarity, this dissertation investigates: (1) theinfluence of political classification on linguistic classification; (2) the aim of politicalclassification, which is generally not written in a legal document itself.
In order to achieve these goals, the author analyzes minority languages in Poland,
especially the Kashubian, Silesian, and Lemko languages as research sample. Generally, Poland
is said to be a monolingual state. This fact, however, does not mean that there is no social
discussion on minority issues in Poland. On the contrary, the intention of status planning to control
language appears strongly because of the linguistic “sameness.”

Chapter 2: Linguistic Classification of Languages
In Chapter 2, the author reveals how Kashubian, Silesian, and Lemko have been classified in thehistory of linguistic study. The historical background and political situation are reflected in thelinguistic classification of these languages.
The problem of linguistic classification of Kashubian has existed since the second halfof the 19th century. Thus, we observe the long-term confrontation between the “Kashubianlanguage” and the “Kashubian dialect (of Polish).”In the case of Silesian, the idea of “Silesian language (on its own),” appeared in thebeginning of the 1990s, when freedom of speech was established in Poland after the collapse of
the Communist regime. Furthermore, the name, “Silesian language,” [Pol. język śląski] was firstused in the public sphere with regard to the matter of Silesian ethnicity; in fact, the name, “Silesianlanguage,” is not a category of linguistic classification and cannot be neutral because of its
political origin. Some scholars are accepting the new term “ethnolect” to designate Silesian. It
seems that this term is useful to avoid the problem of classification; instead, the term “ethnolect”
is sometimes adopted to declare pro-Silesian sentiment.
2When it comes to the classification of Lemko, we should consider two categories: a“dialect of Ukrainian,” and a “regional variant of Rusyn language.” The former is traditional fromthe viewpoint of Ukrainian dialectology. The latter is based on the relationship between Lemko
and Rusyns subgroups in other central European countries (e.g., Serbia, Slovakia). Lemko isconsidered to be one of the regional variants of the Rusyn language in Poland. However, the name,“Rusyn language,” is of only generic character and not based on a specific corpus, because there
is no such language as “standard Rusyn.” The idea of “Lemko language (on its own)” has existed
since the 19th century, but has only recently (after the 1990s) been accepted as a category oflinguistic classification, mainly in Poland.

Chapter 3: Political Classification of Languages
In Chapter 3, the author analyzes the aim and intentions of the Minority Act of Poland (2005).
Each of the three languages (Kashubian, Silesian, and Lemko) possesses different political status.
This difference can be understood as a reflection of the views and interests of the majority(Poland) regarding minorities.
Kashubian is classified as a “regional language” in the Minority Act. It is importantthat the concept of “regional language” is defined differently from “minority language” in the Act.
The Minority Act of Poland is based on the policy of the Council of Europe (CoE). Comparing
the Minority Act with the policy of the CoE, the author concludes that the category of “regionallanguage” was established especially for Kashubian.
Silesian is not given any legal status in the planning of Poland. However, the newest
census indicates that the 2.18% of the population declare Silesian identity – a number larger thanany other “officially recognized” minorities. Additionally, some political parties in Silesia, suchas Silesian Autonomy Movement, profess a radical argument for separatism. Summarizing thesefacts, Silesian is ignored in the Minority Act, since Silesian (specifically political arguments
surrounding Silesian) is regarded as some kind of “threat” by the Polish majority.
Historically, Lemkos have been regarded as the subgroup of Ukrainians by the Polishmajority. Despite this historical background, Lemkos, as an ethnic group, are recognized in theAct; thus, the Lemko language is de facto regarded as a “minority language.” Comparing Lemko
with Kashubian and Silesian, the Minority Act seems to have no influence on Lemko language,
only ratifying the status quo. This ratification of the Minority Act, however, also can be observed
as a political control over a minority. The Minority Act was established to appeal to the CoE andEuropean Union (EU) before Poland became a member of the EU. Thus, the status of the “Lemko3

language” can symbolize the minority protection policy of Poland. Also, Lemkos in Poland are
not considered a political “threat” like Silesians are. In the case of Lemko, the interests of theminority group (Lemkos) and status planning match each other.

Chapter 4: Conclusion
Study of languages can be influenced by political power, because languages themselves aresubjects of political control. In this dissertation, we observe this kind of influence of politics onlinguistics. Linguistic classification sometimes ratifies the decision of status planning. In someways, “linguistic” classification is oriented to political decisions. Also, the intentions of status
planning (political classification), which is not written in the document itself, are revealed byanalyzing discussions on the linguistic classification.

4