The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights

Testo completo

(1)The protection of linguistic diversity through fondamenta! rights. By Bruno De Witte. Volume I Volume II Volume III. January 1985.

(2) De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.



(5) LAW Fhm9. WIT. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. I of. thè. owe a debt to all thè professors and researchers. Law Department of thè European University Institute,. and particularly to professor Cappelletti, my supervisor, and professors. Mény. and Weiler, for their intellectual stimulus. and personal encouragement.. To. me,. ^. thè European University Institute, despite. its. many temptations, has offered ideal research conditions,. for. which. I. feel. grateful. to all persons involved in ics. creation and present running.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.


(7) Outside especially. thè. Paolo. Institute,. Carrozza. I. would. (Firenze). and. like. to. Antoni. thank Milian. (Barcelona) for their invaluable documentary help.. Mijn er. voortdurend. dank aan. ook aan Veerle en Floris, omdat zij mij herinnerden. dat. er, behalve thesissen. schrijven, ook nog wel andere dingen bestaan.. Firenze, 31 January 1985.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.


(9) TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction. PART ONE : LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY. Chapter One : The Concept of Linguistic Diversity. Sect. 1: A Definition Sect.. 2: A Description. Chapter Two ; Historical Overview of Linguistic Diversity. Sect. 1 : The Emergence of Linguistic Nationalism A. Ideological Origins B. Social-Economic Origins Sect.. 2: The Decline of Linguistic Diversity. Sect.. 3: A Re-Emergence ?. A. Ethnic Mobilisation B. Migrations C. European Integration. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(10) Chapter Three : Linguistic Conflicts and Policies. Sect.l : Elimination or Protection ?. <»r U. { A. Territorial Change. B. Population Transfer C. Assimilation. <<3. ^ D. Pluralism. r<ti. Sect. 2 : The Case for thè Protection of Linguistic. se. Diversity ^ A. Protect. for thè Sake of thè Politicai System ^. SI. B. Protection for thè Sake of thè Individuai lo. Section 3 : Instruments of Protection -y A. Federalism and Regionalism. lì. B. Consociationalism. 2S ;. C. Fundamental rights. Sì. PART TWO : FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. Chapter One ; A Concept of Fundamental Rights. 38. SS. Sect. 1 : Rights. 1 ol. Sect. 2 : Fundamental Rights A. National Fundamental Rights. i. B. International Fundamental Rights. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(11) Chapter Two : Which Fundamental Rights ?. Sect. 1 : At thè National Level. A%5 A 2.5*. A. Fundamental Rights v Linguistic Rights. A 2.S". B. Beyond thè Dichotomy. A3&. Sect. 2 : At thè International Level. -4 4?. A. Minority Protection after thè 1.World War. A. B„ The Shift from Minority to Human Rights. -A&A. Protection C. Development of thè Human Rights Program. ^ é S". D. Survival (and Revival ?) of thè Minority. A ?C>. Approach. Chapter Three : The Enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 4 ?S. Sect. 1 : Enforcement of National Constitutional Rights A. Judicial Review. '. 1XA. B. Problems of Standing Sect. 2 : National Enforcement of International. 2.0-1. Human Rights A. Domestic Status. 2.0 i. B. Rank. of thè International Treaties. 2.0 4. C. Caveat and Conclusion Sect. 3 : International Enforcement. 9 Aà. 2A Q. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(12) A. State Reports. '. i '1£. 9. B. Inter-State Disputes. £13. C. Individuai Petitions. PART THREE : FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. 23T. Chapter One : Comparative Constitutional Law. and LanguageUse. 23Q. Sect.. 1 :Freedom of Expression. Sect.. 2 :Limitations to Free Language Use. 25 T. Sect.. 3 :Positive State Action. 275. under Freedomof. 23 £. Expression Sect. 4 : Free Expression in thè Broadcasting Media. 2 SS. A. The Role of Freedom of Expression. 9.^0. B. Linguistic Diversity in thè Broadcast Media. 3o^. Chapter. Two : International Law. Sect. 1 : Does Freedom of Expression Include thè. 3 -1£". 3 AC. Freedom of Language Use ? Sect.. 2 :The Limits of Freedom of Expression. 32.0. Sect.. 3 :Freedom of Expression and Positive State. 33 4. Duties Sect.. 4 :The Special Regime of thè Communication Media. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803. 3 3T.

(13) Sect. 5 : The Free Circulation of Information. PART FOUR : EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS. Chapter One : Comparative Constitutional Law. 3 39. 3 53. 3 S"3. Sect. 1 : Language and Education. 3 5*4. Sect. 2 : Freedom of Education. 3 63. A. The Constitutional Recognition ofPrivate. 3£4. Education B. Claims to State Subventionsand their. 3 >5*. Consequences for Language Use Sect. 3 : The Right to. Education. 3 ?S*. A. General Guarantees of Educational Rights. 3 Sé. B. Other Guarantees of Language Use in. 3*76. Public Education C. Conclusion. Chapter Two ; International Law. 4 "1&. Sect. 1 : The European Convention. 4 7£. A. The Right to Education. 418. B. Freedom of Education. ^3o n JC.0. Sect. 2 : Universal Human Rights Conventions A. The Right to Education. ^36. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(14) 433. B. Freedom of Education. PART FIVE s SQUALI TY. ^44. Chapter One ; Comparative Constitutional Law. 4 4 5". Sect. 1 : The Scope of Equality. 4 5“. A. Equality before thè Law or Equal Protection of thè Laws ? r. B. Control on Differentiations and Equiparations? 4^0 Sect. 2 : The Meaning of Equality. 4Xo. A. General Remarks. ^ 5*0. B. Non-Discrimination. 4 3C. C. Pluralistic Equality. IT4 O. 5*4 ?. D. Affirmative Equality. Chapter Two : International Law. G &3. Sect. 1 : The European Human Rights Convention. 50»^. A. Scope of thè Principle of Non-Discrimination. S'C 5. B. Meaning of thè Non-Discrimination Principle. £8%. Sect. 2 : European Community Law. 1. A. The General Principle of Equality B. Specific Non-Discrimination Provisions Sect. 3 : Universal Human Rights Instruments. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803. &03 G ^J.

(15) PART SIX : THE RIGHT TO USE ONE'S LANGUAGE. Chapter One ; ComparativeConstitutional Law. Q35. Chapter Two ; International Law. Qs 1. Sect. 1 : Beneficiaries. 6^2. Sect. 2 : Contents. Conclusion. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(16) De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(17) I. INTRODUCTION. This contribution. study. aims. thè. legai. to. at. being,. analysis. first of of. all,. thè problem. a of. linguistic diversity within states. As such, it arises from a dissatisfaction treated. by. sciences,. with. large there. thè. part. way. this. problem. is. currently. of scholarly writing. In thè social. is. widespread. interest. in ethnic. and. linguistic movements, and thè politicai behaviour in relation to. them; fewer studies concentrate on thè influence of those. movements on governmental policies and institutions, and they refer. mainly. to. instruments of conflict regulation such as. consociationalism. and. regional autonomy. There is little or. no interest in thè role of individuai rights as an element of ethnic. politics. and. policies.. This. theme is left to more. outspokenly legai studies.. There fundamental role. in. this. applies. members. is. rights. generai play. agreement in legai writing that. an important, and even increasing,. thè protection of minorities. Yet, it is added that. do. above all for common values, in which minority not. structurally. differ. from. thè rest of thè. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(18) II. population, assimilate. as. well. as. for. minorities who are willing to. in thè mainstream. Now, this is typically not thè. case with language minorities, thè main object of this study. In. matters of language use at least, they want to be treated. differently mother in. from. tongue,. thè. fundamental. in. order to be able to use their. in addition to thè language of thè majority,. educational. broadcasting,. them;. others,. system,. etc.. Therefore,. rights,. granted. thè it to. public. administration,. is usually said, generai all, are of little use for. what they need are institutional measures of autonomy,. and special language rights.. There I. will. view. attempt,. and. fact,. is. to. play. a. large. measure of truth in this. Yet,. in this study, to relativise this accepted. show that 'generic' fundamental rights can, in a. very. meaningful. role. in. thè protection of. linguistic diversity. A number of rights that can be found in all. Constitutions. expression,. and. educational. Bills. of. rights. Rights, namely freedom of and. equality,. provide. important guarantees against linguistic assimilation, and may display, explicit. potentially language. at. least, thè same positive impact as. rights.. Because. their. linguistic. consequences are largeiy implicit, they tend to be overlooked in. legai. writing and adjudication. Yet, this study wants to. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(19) Ili. prove. thè. existence. of. those. aspects and to situate them. within thè generai theory of fundamental rights.. Bringing fundamental. rights. methodological thè. linguistic. two. entrenchment. rights. responds. essential. reach. of. to. is. thè. attributes. day-to-day. substantive. generai. of view, thè sharp distinction between. of. certain. within. theory has a doublé advantage : from thè. point. types. rights. level. of. unsatisfactory, same. of. human. politicai protection. legai. as. their. need of placing. dignity beyond thè. decision-making. On of. thè. linguistic diversity,. special minority rights have thè disadvantage of appearing as supplementary needing an. measures,. as derogations from a basic pattern. some special justification. They do not benefit from. aura. of. fundamental. 'inherent rights. rights. such. argumentation, but. are. a. of. strong. man'. which. weapon. in. makes. of. politicai. considered as strictly dependent on. thè peculiarities of a given country.. At be. a. thè same time, I hope that this study may also. contribution. rights.. Through. problem. (linguistic. explicit rights. right,. to. thè. I. thè. generai. theory. of fundamental. investigation of a particular societal diversity) rather than a particular and. want to show that thè single fundamental. complete each other into a relatively coherent whole,. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(20) IV. and. can. thereby. display some unanticipated consequences in. less traditional fields.. In different. trying. to. prove those points, I have used two. legai disciplines : comparative constitutional law. and public international law.. The aptly. virtues. described. elaboration. bridges law. a. thè. comparative method have been. others, and need therefore no extensive. Suffice. to. and. by. of. it. to say that thè comparative method. certain extent thè dichotomy between positive. naturai law : it remains safely within thè bonds of. existing. positive. systems,. it points automatically to possible improvements of. thè. single. law,. national. but. by comparing thè various legai. norms. But. thè. specific. type. of. comparison used in this study needs perhaps more explanation. I. have. not. representative. made. a. systematic. countries,. to. study. of. a. number. of. be exhaustively analysed from. thè viewpoint of thè protection of linguistic diversity. this would. not. privileging. only once. be. rather. again. tedious,. thè. same. but. runs thè risk of. group of 'classical' and. well-known plurilingual systems. I chose rather to center thè comparison. around. certain. substantive. various. (thè single. fundamental. rights. and. ccmponents),. and. illustrate each theme with an eclectic. to. their. issues. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. dimesnions. DOI: 10.2870/73803. and.

(21) V. view. of. thè. various. time. an. other. set. I. national solutions, highlighting each. of. legai. systems,. according to their. specific relevance.. The advantage of thè latter method seems to be that many. more. countries can be examined; language diversity is,. despite. many. superficial. problem. which. is. opinions. confined. to. thè contrary, not a. to a few classical multilingual. countries, like Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Finland, but is a problem with which practically every country is confronted. Apart from Iceland, Portugal and tiny Liechtenstein, there is no Member state of thè Council of Europe which is immune from problems. arising from thè fact that it is not linguistically. horaogeneous. is. no. Indeed,. longer. traditional,. linguistic diversity in Western Europe. caused. exclusively. by. thè. existence. of. endogenous ethnic minorities, but also, in some. formerly unilingual states like thè Federai Republic of « Germany, by thè mass immigration of migrant workers and their families. experiences few is a. I. felt would. countries.. that get. thè. richness. of all those various. lost in a comparison restricted to a. Reference to a large number of legai systems. also inspired by thè purpose, mentioned above, of showing common. linked. to. approach. to. pluringualism in constitutional law,. common conceptions of fundamental rights. Because. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(22) VI. of thè particular instrument of protection which I selected fundamental European. rights states. fundamental In. - thè study has been restricted to those that. are. liberal. democracies. in. which. rights have an effective legai function to play.. addition, I made also references to thè United States and. Canada who share thè same problem of linguistic diversity and thè same doctrine of fundamental rights.. The is. therefore. single of. rigour. not that of. legai system,. thè. meaning. linguistic. on which this study wants to be judged. of. diversity,. thè systematic presentation of any. but that of thè exhaustive exploration thè. various. through. fundamental. rights. for. thè inclusion of as large as. possible a sample of national problems and solutions.. The second legai discipline from which I have drawn in. .thè. study. particularly. is. international. sense,. international. domain. like. and. main. rights. public. law. international. law,. and. more. human. rights. law. In a certain. piays. only a secundary role in a. this. At thè substantive level, thè formulation. theoretical elaboration of thè various fundamental. occurs mainly. in thè national legai orders, and thè. international instruments contain only an (often feeble) echo of. them.. At. a. procedural. level,. this. study. privileges. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(23) I. VII. judicial. enforcement. as. thè. criterion. for. thè effective. existence of rights; this criterion derives from national law and. is. only. sparingly met at thè international level. Even. international. human rights have thè national courts as their. main forum of enforcement.. At thè same time, thè international law part seemed an. indispensable. has. perhaps. and. linguistic. treaties of. been. after. thè. addition. Substantively, international law. more. more aware of thè special needs of ethnic. minorities. in. society,. and. thè. minority. thè first world war have been thè forerunner global. and. ambitious post-war human program;. moreover, thè philosophy behind thè minority treaties has not entirely. died. procedural of. out. level,. in. present. international. law.. At thè. one should not underestimate thè capacity. international courts (especially at thè regional European. level) (not. to. supervise. necessarily. protection. on. national. 'minimum'). law and to impose a 'common' standard. of. human. rights. thè states who are lagging behind. There is a. dialectical relation between national and international law : common new. trends. standards. at thè national level lead to thè adoption of at. thè level of international norm-making or. adjudication, which in turn influence thè evolution of single national absence. systems. of. Furthermore,. judicial. review. of. in thè. certain. countries. constitutionalitv. thè of. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(24) Vili. (national). legislation,. and thè simultaneous recognition of. thè supremacy of international law, makes international human rights. more. effectively enforceable than thè similar rights. contained in national Constitutions.. After. this. short. thè. regarding. I. give. of. presentation. of its contents. In Part One, I will sketch thè. analysis. which. and will. will. now. historical. background. follow. thè. in. of. a. thè. methodology. socio-political. thesis,. introduction. thè. short. legai. rest of thè study. In. presenting. thè. 'problem' of linguistic diversity, I did not. aspire. any. originai. to. or innovatory approach, but merely. attempted to give a succinct but faithful presentation of thè existing. academic literature on thè subject. The last pages,. describing thè various institutional responses to thè problem of. linguistic. parts. of. diversity,. thè. gradually. introduce to thè legai. study; they also situate 'fundamental rights'. among thè other, competing, instruments for thè regulation of language conflicts.. In for. all. thè. fundamental. Part. Two,. I will set t'ne generai legai scene,. following Parts, which will deal with specific rights.. Part. Two. will. consider three generai. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(25) IX. preliminary. questions. arising for a study of thè protection. of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights : 1.. As. 'fundamental. defined. meaning,. rights. from. rights'. is no term of art with a well-. what criteria does one use to delimit such. other. legai norms, both in thè national and in. thè international legai order ? 2.. Which, among all thè fundamental rights thus defined, are. relevant. to. linguistic to. thè. particular. object. of. thè. study, namely. diversity ? Because of thè traditional reluctance. recognise. fundamental. thè. implicit. rights,. this. language. aspects. of. generic. selecting process is particularly. important. 3.. Under. which conditions can tnose fundamental rights have. an. effective. impact. on. thè. human. problem. of linguistic. diversity ? What is, in other words, thè judicial enforcement regime of fundamental rights, both before national and before international courts. The 'secundary' rules described in this chapter, treaty of. and. which. vary. from. country to country and from. to treaty, are a necessary complement to thè analysis. thè. 'substantive' content of thè fundamental rights, to. which thè following parts are devoted.. It that three. are. will. be argued that generai fundamental rights. significant. principal. in language matters can be grouped in. categories : first of all, there is freedom. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(26) X. of. expression which, although this feature is seldom spelled. out. in. thè. literature,. protects thè freedom to choose thè. language. of. one's. choice. Three);. secondly,. there. are. which. linguistic. content of thè education (thè educational process. absolutely. is. thè. (Part right. evolution. cruciai. some. and thè right to. implications. as. to thè. for thè maintenance of linguistic. Four); thirdly, and most importantly, there to equality, which has undergone an important. and. important). have. education. rights,. education,. both. of. educational. of. identity). freedom. thè. consisting. being. thè. in all 'private' relations (Part. can. rule. no. of. longer formai. be. restricted to thè (stili. non-discrimination,. but. also. implies thè need for special 'positive' measures in favour of certain groups, among which thè linguistic minorities. In thè final. Part. specific. Six. then,. I. constitutional. incorporated fundamental. in. thè. rights,. will have a quick overview of thè. language above. but. rights,. three. really. which. categories constitute. cannot be of. generic. supplementarv. rights limited to certain minorities in certain countries.. Each two. Chapters. of. those. 'subs t a n t ive' Parts will consist of. : thè first (and normally thè longest) dealing. with comparative constitutional law; thè second with thè same right as it is guaranteed under international law. This order expresses. thè. subsidiary. function. of. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. thè. international;. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(27) XI. protection show any. : thè analysis of thè national Constitutions will. thè countries which fall behind thè generai standard on specific. point, and for which thè international 'common. standard' raay therefore be specially meaningful.. At do. not. free. claim. from. already. to present a 'pure' scientific study which is. any. ideological. This. thè. scheme. thè. choice. personal attitude is. of. thè subject and thè. bias. may. be. tempered,. and. thè. study become. also for persons who do not share it, by thè choice object for. protection existing. from. bias. My. on thè protective role which fundamental rights may. readable of. end of this introduction, I may add that I. apparent. emphasis play.. thè. of. of a. thè study : I do not propose a grand new better. constitutional. and. international. language values, but only want to present thè. positive. law. in. a new way. My conviction is that. generai fundamental rights theory is a goldmine which has too rapidly been abandoned by thè minority champions, and that it is stili possible to extract some valuable nuggets from it.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(28) De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(29) 1. P A R T. L I N G U I S T I C. ONE. D I V E R S I T Y. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(30) ** >■ ^. v"*' T. ^ v'*, J* ' , “ J » * •iiM. ,,. v•■" f <ìb |* ^ * 'â i V j?., ' *t■' * ^ 1j ^ J. I . i‘ * 1S 4>1 1! . f ^ W * , V> ' % - W * ,. ^. '[,‘1. dn-X « 1. kil. i. (. f. W■ f^„3K-ì'. v. }. ~ * t-1'1 » ^ , ,,,. At,> -O* *., 4,> , ■,f5r * 1 ^ * i* \ 1 ^ * ' ‘ I t*V s «il *4 *v*' * t~-f . -!'••», # «£i ^ '* r * / V **«4 „ '. .. "%. ^. fi '1 ft* «P5 -»*. V'. »J#. A t -iJ — ’•jf1. ^ ’ \* ' .; r jV-'--1. v “’ i ’* 1,^ '^( ff * « » , l ,*•6, i fift » -n \k" ” * ■4 £> . ì {1 ,i i t* ^r I e i* %* *t 'ì c- «, * ^ i! -1* 4A *>* i** ~ ». * t ' 1 5 1 % „ . * j . V » % l ! < ^ V-w t * ? ■ ^ *w P ^ t 4 1 ^ *K! ^ ? A ‘. » »*■ . . r v * '. 41 A. ^. *#. **. ^. 1. 6. -,4^ + 11 ” 1 W L •,-c r ■ >* < > \f Itt»"*». ". ^ ^ >,« * r ^. ». 5"*. :.. z1!,'j. .il...^..^.1.. »f.._...! * 5 1 ’ "f ? r+ , ^ ,, •» f 1 h »W *r. * '■' ? ■* § h i? *, ■ • !f f jy f “*f ^ i V I *** i?«1 > v * r ' ^ ^!V A^ «>■» , S, , 1r1"* '>‘f ^ ^ u » !v J‘ > 1 w V ’ r T ' * ^J » *■ - 5 ■ * -«1 ^ -5f ^ f * 7 -*• * vi.*> -jUf. « ^1/,;»■ ^..*. ..... .f *.. l „.. ». ............J... ..; 11 -*•■<• % 1 ■* ^ F* * » - •• . v -11 ^ w r j ^ - *• 'u ! ** X- V - «VI '-■“‘t -«■. V > \ * '.-#«.> & # V .. fc f t A r f * $. *. L-,>.* i'. '•' ’. .t <- ‘f *. v ■ '(■ H. fi. ^ --v. V ^ ^. M.. r. „■<•. '. ,.. ■ *> v *. 1> H. ^. rV >. *. :. 1. IfT^. ^ uy r f V i ^ ^ ^V. >(* i* M ' f ,1! ^ vr; t r h ^ ^ t\i -*X - : ìli§ >J j ; s ' M ^ *t » ^ 15 * 4 ; ^ H t'"H,; Af « I ^ .*, 1 ' ■* ‘ A 1 1 » '^-r ‘’c V “ ► . *. ^ ! 'L‘ t ^ 1 % M r w^t ; , „ <« \ *t> * -.* * ' V **1 ‘ r1 -J ^ «-<if' » H V fili’fj'f X k ^ <t -j.f * ■» j « i s1 'j A ^ ^ 4^ ^ v * ^ **t *> ^ ^ 1 a + * ** > ^ f ^ **“ t ^ * r "V * *5 i -.N "”>!«>■ i *» f» td ^ rs. r,& t fì -$ U> (\. t 1* ^ ? ' * ^ i » , » J * r f ?,*■! ^ * -nj ■*3”’ t ì, 1/ i>* n '•f'* *#; Vi ,:i\<A *'?'.'+■.•■•a‘*;‘i?><ì.^-i.i>.i.i*-i>.'*-jji' •s » f ^ | ? " f 1 K. l * r Pjj ' V. •'. '? •. ìS ,. ;. *. -. * •. '. / n ’'V; tj ? * *'! / ,, *k «hfsli" HI J ^ '+ *(, ^ ' ^ f 1 ,).«» , ^ ^ ~ 4 Ih , „4 f ^ : . «W ifc. ^ ^ 1 *» < "{** r f-ifWW * ■•'? ^ " M ^ ^ %<* L ^ Jt - ^5U, rr ^^ * ^ftÉi 3,„ * <3**.} •> ■ * \ $fj£}tn '4 >i' "a? ■ S »J1” H,ff^ c *^Sj*» V. "’- ’< ‘'fe, fi kV .wfv. (' f ^ |iî F. -. #. 4. r. k I ^ " * ,1. ' ,,!>! 5 ’ f »i<t-v " c - >, , ,* ^ * / S* ‘*’'11'**'’■->* « ls * ■*^ \ w l? f «.. f“ $.***/n ^. -K ., «*?/>. f<*" *. 1 : >'■>*„■■.! Jb i\. tf » *M. V-.' ‘ . ,'‘r-\ ‘ , J r ì> “ '.•' .'1«fi' ' *** i t ”t £ ' ! , ? t f è«.»fè*f^ iDew -Witte, Q i *Bruno ^ r r protection r« vì? (1985), *M The kt■’vof linguistic diversity through fundamental rights I*. European University Institute. Mf« '& ■ , Hì. vf>” ^ < < - J, ^. lV ‘ tWi’ ^. .. DOI: 10.2870/73803. f ì !a. *.,!< /,. ,.

(31) JHAPTER ONE. THE CONCEPT OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY. Section 1. A Definition. Linguistic diversity will be defined, for thè purpose of this. study,. as. ;one language I jspoken - at languages;. relation because. least I. of. on. since will. thè. not. languages. earth. speak, and have always. Tower. consider in. thè. of. Babel-. this. absolute,. numerous. phenomenon but. of. only in. to a given state. This restriction seems meaningful linguistic. influence. policies,. linguistic. supranational more. group. Men. yet. multiplicity. thè existence, within a state, of more than. directly. level; to. i.e. interventions tending to. diversity,. usually. do not occur at a. or, to put it in another way, relating. thè. subject. of. this study, fundamental. rights protecting linguistic diversity can be invoked against action. by. state authorities (or lower bodies or individuals. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(32) 3. within. that. state),. transnational. but. organs. or. normally. not. against. action by. foreign states, thè main exception. being thè European Community.. A.. In. preliminary given. conceptual. above.. diversity, infinite. this. First. one number. I. problems. of. must. section,. be. shall. raised. consider. by. thè definition. all, in order to speak of able. to. some. distinguish,. linguistic among. thè. of idioms, between full languages and other. idioms. that. can be called dialects. This distinction is not. to. made. just. be. because. important. will. be. some. rights,. large in. seen. in like. for thè sake of intellectual clarity, but legai. consequences may hinge upon it. As. thè course of this study, thè exercise of e.g. freedom of expression, do not, to a. extent, imply thè necessity of such a distinction; but. many. other cases, especially where positive state action. is involved, thè benefit of a certain right is made dependent on whether thè claimant belongs to a reai 'language' group or not (1). Indeed, downgrading a given idiom to thè status of a dialect has been a favourite device of policies of linguistic assimilation in recent history (2).. How obvious. then. possibility. is is. this. distinction. to use. to. scientific. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. be made ? Arr and supposedl^. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(33) 4. 'neutral' criteria which have been elaborateti in linguistics♦ Jnfortunately,. there. is. nothing. like an unfallible method. here. One classical indicator is 'mutuai intelligibility1 (3) % when thè idioms spoken by two persons are understandable to. both. of. them,. between The. they. belongr to. a same language. The limit. two languages is where this intercomprehension ends.. main. weakness. seemingly. of. objective. this. :. criterion. "between. is. total. that it is only. incomprehension and. total comprehension there is a large twilight zone of partial comprehension" thè. (4). All depends, also, on thè circumstances,. persons. involved. and. thè. subject. of. conversation.. Moreover, it flies in thè face of social reality : there is a large. degree. of intelligibility between people speaking two. undisputedly. separate. Occitan. Catalan; while on thè contrary a Bavarian and a. and. languages. like. Czech and Slovak, or. Schleswegian,. or a Tuscan and a Sicilian will not understand. each. other's. locai idiom, though they will not question thè. fact. that. both speak, respectively, German and Italian (5).. This. lack. of. another. certainty. linguistic. has. criterion. led certain authors to prefer based. on. thè. presence. of. selected characteristic linguistic features (6). A borderline can. then. again lines.. in. admittedly many. be. drawn in a fairly neutral way, but. cases against all socially accepted dividing. Also, none of these purely linguistic theories has an. explanation. for. thè emergence of one of thè related idioms,. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(34) 5. within. a language cluster thus defined, as thè 'cultural' or. 'high'. language,. while all others remain with thè status of. dialects.. An dialect,. accurate. therefore,. criteria,. but. distinction. can. has to. not. between. stick. take. into. language and it". purely linguistic. to. account. sociolinguistic. factors. The status of language is then "a reflection of thè societal success of thè argument presented rather than of thè r. distance between any variety of reference and any other" (7). There. is. dialect, some. which. is not. in thè naturai order of things - as. *essentialist' theories. rather, of. a qualitative distinction between a language and a. pressure (8), which may be challenged at any time. countervailing. therefore. forces. The. not. fixed. controversies.. In. consensus But. make believe - but is,. thè present outcome of historical circumstances, and. social. by. would. if. once. number. of. languages. is. and far all and may give rise to. practice,. there. is. usually. a. large. on whether a given idiom is a language or dialect. one. compares. given. in. three. finds. disagreement. Luxemburgian, Sardinian,. thè. lists of West European languages. specialised on. Alsatian,. Piemontese,. thè. works nature. Scots, Friulan,. on thè subject (9), one of. some. ten. Greenlandian, Ladin,. Occitan. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. idioms : Corsican, and. DOI: 10.2870/73803. even.

(35) 6. Catalan.. How. can. one. reduce. thè. uncertainty. in. this. natter,for thè needs of this study ?. According idiom. or. to. G.Braga. 'linguistic custom' to a fully-fledged language or. 'linguistic. code’. interrelated. takes. social. place. and. work. engineering. state. policy,. achievement (12),. but. of. two. separate. and. time (through 'stabilisation'). This. is. what. but. Systematisation helps a certain ~x- u- —1 barriers of space (through. 'standardisàtion') cultural. through. processes___: _systematisation. institutionalisation_(11). — — — —— " ~ idiom to bridge thè. of. (10), thè evolution from an. can. result from a conscious. often, to a large extent, a personal. could be called 'language strategists'. who are specially qualified by their expertise (13) or. by their influence (14). Through institutionalisation, on thè other. hand,. certain idioms are given a privileged status in. legal-political terms, either within private groups or in thè public. sphere;. this concept needs no specific comment here,. as it constitutes thè very object of my study.. Both. i). processes usually coincide, but not always so. a language may be^systematised but not yet (or no longer). institutionalised Catalan, r\ î ,\t. has ce. :. thè. preceded -/a.. Ù. standardisation of, say, Hebrew or their. institutionalisation. as. A. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803. a.

(36) 7. language of public life. The fact that such a uniform code is nevertheless. not. systematisation whole. just. is. population,. an. proved which. erudite's by. its. fancy. but. a. reai. ready acceptance by thè. thereby indicates its desire for a. future institutionalisation. ii). a. language. standard. may. variety. also be officially recognised before a. has. emerged.. This. is e.g. thè case with. Ladin in South Tyrol and Rhetoromanic in Switzerland, closely related. to. each other and both divided in a number of locai. varieties with very slow progress towards standardisation.. When do. not. both criteria of identification of a language. coincide,. I. will. (institutionalisation), superiority difficulty study used to. not. precedence. because. of. to its. thè latter intrinsic. but because it suits better for my purposes. The that. will. be. encountered now and again in this. is that of interpreting thè concept of 'language' when abstractly. look. in a legai text; what better criterion than. which. recognised. languages. status. tautological (and. give. in. thè. definition,. possibly. have. been. effectively. given. a. legai order ? That this is not a. nor a fiat endorsement of officiai. 'imperialistic'). language. policies, „can be. proved by thè following arguments : a). once. particular. a. language. legai. text,. has then. been this. recognised. as such in one. status can no longer be. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(37) 8. -ienied This. for. rule. number. any other purpose within this same legai system. of 'in^ternaj. gonsistency ' might prove useful in a. of. circumstances;. a. variation upon it has recently. been used by thè Italian Constitutional Court (15); b). to. this can be added a rule of 'external causistency1 :. when a language is officially recognised in one country, then its status as a language cannot be denied in another country; this. might. apply. to. thè. Albanian. or. Croat. minority in. southern Italy, or to Basque and Catalan in France.. The solving and. a. idioms,. Finally, but. are,. status while. recognition languages. institutionalisation thus helps. number of uncertain cases : Catalan, Greenlandian. Faroese. officiai. criterion of. within. not and. :. beyond. doubt, acertain. officiai must. therefore. territory.. as. they. Some. have. other. benefit from some legai also. be. considered. as. Ladin, Luxemburgian, Occitan, Breton, Corsican.. some languages have. generai. (16),. languages. agreement on. only an embryonic legai status, their. separateness. in. purely. linguistic terms may dispel uncertainty ; Sardinian, Friulan. This leaves us with only very few really doubtful cases (17).. B.. Linguistic diversity, as defined at the_ outset,. requires not only an analysis of thè concept of language, but. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(38) 9. also. of. that. linguistically. of. language. diversified. group.. when. A. country. is. not. only one individuai or one. family has a distinct mother tongue; there rather should be a significant group of people speaking thè same language. I -"Vwill not deal here with thè, largely artificial, problem of thè. minimal. question. size. of. of. such. a. group,. but. rather with thè. identifying thè single members of such a group.. Again, this is not merely a theoretical question. Language is often used as a criterion for thè allocation of resources and benefits,. and. it. may then be cruciai to determine to which. language group a person belongs.. It "those. persons. sometimes also. may_seem obvious to define a language group as speaking a given language". Yet, it has been. suggested. include. that a linguistic group or minority may. a number (or even a majority) of people who do. not actually speak thè language, but who identify themselves, in. social. however. terms, with thè language community (18). It seems. advisable. to. reserve for such larger groups (think. for instance of thè Welsh or Basque case) thè term of 'ethnic group* or ’nation', which is based on a subjective feeling of identification, and. define. 'language. group*. in. strictly. objective terms.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(39) 10. Yet, such an obiective approach is not always easy, because language is not an immutable personal characteristic, like. some. gender.. other. It. socially. rather. relevant. depends,. to. traits such as race or. some extent, on a personal. choice. An individuai's adherence to a language may vary over time.. More. language e.g.. is. not. gender.. country come. importantly,. are. a. given. point of time,. open to such relatively easy assessment as. Indeed, not. language. groups. living. within. one. hermetically isolated from each other, but. necessarily. language. even^ at. in. contact,. contact.. analysed. in. This. social. phenomenon. of. thè classical work by Uriel. Weinreich (19), leads to linguistic conflict, thè competition for. scarce. language. resources groups.. definitional of. thè. (linguistic. But,. more. and. other). importantly. between thè for. present. purposes, this contact Jìlso leads to a blurring. dividing. lines between language groups. A number of. individuals will be bilingual, i.e. they will use alternately two. or more languages (20). Apart from 'isolated bilinguals*. (21),. whose. parents. e.g.. speak. different. languages,. bilingualism normally depends on società! factors ("necessity is. thè mother of bilingualism" (22)), and is more widespread. in. some. areas. thè. physical. but. also,. or countries than in other.. It may be due to proximity. more. often. or intermingling of thè two groups, than. not,. to. thè. existence. of a. diglossie pattern of linguistic coexistence.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(40) 11. Etymologically, 1diglossia* means of course nothing else. than 'bilingualism'; but it has been coined by Ferguson. in. 1959. (23),. and. ever. since,. literature meaning, (or. namely. widely as. accepted. in. sociolinguistic. a concept with its own specific. 'thè functional differenciation between two. more (24)) linguistic varieties', often in thè form of a. 'higher' and a 'lower' language. The relation between a full language in. and a locai dialect could be described as diglossia. thè. wide. phenomenon. relation forms. sense, In. thè. between. of. a. which. then. becomes a quasi-universal. narrow sense, diglossia is used for thè. two. full. language,. languages. (or two standardised. such as katharevusa and dhimotiki in. Greece, or perhaps standard English versus Caribbean Creole). It. may be a purely social phenomenon, opposing a prestigious. or. international language to a disparaged or small language,. but. more. frequently. entrenched locai. diglossie. relation. is. legally. ; language A, of current usage at home and in thè. community,. domains. thè. like. may be excluded in certain 'higher' social. public. administration,. thè. mass. media. or. educational. institutions, where only language B is accepted.. There. therefore. will. correlation society (26).. between. often thè. -. degree. but. not. always (25)- be a. of bilingualism in a given. and thè existence of a diglossie language domination The. percentage. of. bilinguals is likely to vary from. high to low according to thè following scale :. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute. DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(41) 12. - persons whose mother tongue has no recognised legai status; —. persons. whose mother. sxtent, is —. tongue,. while. recognised to. some. not an officiai languageof thè area;. persons. whose mother tongue is an officiai language with. small diffusion; —. and. persons. whose. mother. tongue. is. an. international. language.. How. to classify now a person who speaks a language. A at work and to his children, and language B to his wife and. in. thè. locai. complicated location. shops,. or. combination. any. other. possible. and. more. ? In legai practice, thè linguistic. of a person is made on thè basis of two alternative. principles : thè objective and thè subjective principle (27). The. objective. identity. principle. from. thè. assesses. outside,. a. either. person's through. linguistic an. ad-hoc. investigation for each relevant case (a very time- and moneyconsuming whose. practice). extreme. according. to. form which. or. through. a once-for-all assessment,. is thè so-called territorial principle, all. persons living in a given area are. considered to belong, for given purposes, to one and thè same language. group.. 'objective'. This. latter. method. is. of. course. only. in thè formai sense, as it does not intend to be ». a. true. reflection. of. linguistic. reality,. but has other,. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(42) 13. politicai. motivations. to. which. I. will come back at later. stages of this study (28).. The subjective principle, on thè other hand, leaves it. to. which. the._per.sans. .concerned (or their parents) to decide to language. distinguishes. group further. 'Gesinnungsprinzip' individuai. they. (who. want to be reckoned. Kloss (29). between. leaving therefore. an. absolute. entire might. form. or. to. thè. discretion make. a. declaration. contrasting with reality - a very reai hypothesis in cases of diglossia),. and. a. relative. form. or. 'Selbstinterprationsprinzip', leaving to thè person concerned thè final choice in cases of reasonable doubt.. In between. thè. reality, two. various^ combinations. principles.. Thus,. one. are. possible. 'subjective'. declaration (e.g. at a population census) may be decisive for a as. whole number of other legai situations, where it then acts an 'objective' criterion (30). Or, a subjective choice is. allowed,. but. correspond. with. thè. express stipulation that it should. to reality, and this conformity can be checked by. public authorities (31).. Section 2. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(43) 14. A Description. After inherent. in. thè. thè. diversity,. I. approximate. short. apparently. will idea. legai. try,. of. ^ ---------- ------ ----. phenomenon. analysis of some of thè pitfalls simple in. thè. concept. this. of linguistic. section,» to. quantitative. dimension. give. an. of. thè. ---- ------ ........................... -. in West European countries. As this is a study of. norms,. full statistical accuracy is not aimecfat; thè. purpose of this section is merely to place thè legai analysis within. thè. deals,. perspective. and. to^suggest. of. thè human reality with which jlt. that. thè. problem. diversity is not marginai at all."-. Even on. if. linguistic. impossible. information. linguistic. '. one wanted to present accurate statistics. usage While. of. of. all. and. behaviour,. otherwise sorts,. we. this would largely be. flooded have. by. statistical. astonishingly. little. knowledge of these matters. As Petrella rightly observes : "Tout. ce. qui. a trait à la situation des langues reste. dans. un brouillard épais, comme si en savoir davantage,. de. facon. n ’intéressait si sur. systématique, guère. complète. et. régulière,. les responsables publics, pourtant. soucieux de recueillir tant de données quantitatives tant. d ’autres. aspects. de. nos. sociétés. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(44) 15. contemporaines. connaissance compétentes. On. se. demande. adéquate élaborent. des leurs. sur. quelles. problèmes. nos. politiques. bases de autorités. linguistiques. (...)" (32) .. As a. fairly. reasonable. consistency resident. far as immigrant language groups are concerned,. can. be. foreign. approximation. gathered. from. of. thè. population, which. their. numerical. statistics. on thè. exist for nearly every. country. Some caution is warranted however.. First of all, statistical accounts of thè number of foreigners. are. notoriously. inexact.. They. are. often. underestimated, due to thè large number of illegal entries on thè. state's. one. includes within thè household of foreign residents those. members. of. territory; they can also be overestimated, when. thè. family. who. stili reside in thè country of. origin.. Secondly, fully number. correlate of. thè. with. these. criterion that. foreigners. of. nationality does not. of language. On thè one hand, a may in fact speak thè national. language of their country of residence. Such a distortion can be corrected to a certain extent when there is a breakdown of thè. global. number. of. aliens according to their country of. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(45) 16. *jrigin; ome -of. thus, half of thè foreigners resident in Switzerland. from. Italy, Germany and France and therefore speak one. Switzerland's officiai languages. The correlation between. language and nationality is also inaccurate on thè other side : as. years go by, more and more immigrants will acquire thè. nationality. of. necessarily therefore in. their. shedding. only. countries. country. their. of. residence,. without. language of origin. Alienage is. a reliable criterion of linguistic diversity of. recent. immigration, as most West European. countries actually stili are.. One must take into account these various caveats in reading. Table 1, at thè end of this section, which gives thè. number. of. foreign. residents. in. thè. major. immigration. countries of Western Europe.. As. for. endogenous linguistic diversity, even less. reliable indications are available. In this case, no indirect criterion,. like. investigations data.. The. include. of. normal, a. population. alienage, language and. linguistic census.. can. This. be. used,. but. only direct. characteristics can offer valid. easiest mode of investigation is to question is,. in. thè. however,. periodic. generai. only rarely done in. Western Europe (in contrast to many East European countries).. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(46) 17. Officiai Switzerland, limited Italy. census. Finland,. data. Austria. on. and. language. exist. in. Ireland, as well as for. parts of thè United Kingdom (Wales and Scotland) and (South. plurilingual available. Tyrol countries. diversity. role.. this. available. Triest).. like. Spain. In. some. notoriously. and France, no data are. at all. And thè same even holds for Belgium, where. linguistic In. and. up. plays. country,. to. 1947,. such. an overwhelming politicai. linguistic and. statistics. are. only. thè language question has been. omitted from thè census since then for politicai reasons (33) : thè Flemings feared that a number of persons (especially in thè area around Brussels) might falsely declare to be Frenchspeakers that. because. language,. linguistic. of thè greater social prestige attached to and. status. thereby. provoke. some. localities. of. a modification of thè at. thè. linguistic. 'border'.. This apparent. objectivity,. indicator Because be. example. of thè. thè. shows is. that. a. census,. despite its. not always a neutral and reliable. linguistic composition of thè population.. system is based on self-ascription, persons may. tempted to disclaim their true linguistic status and join. thè. language. go_. As. group to which their aspirations or sympathies. was correctly pointed out, "In a bilingual situation. thè procedure of defining a person's linguistic status on thè. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(47) 18. basis. of. self-reported. extremely. vulnerable.. main. language renders thè minority. Answers. to. such. a question will be. mfluenced by social pressures and fashions of various kinds, and. sometimes. thè. answers will be given by others than thè. lindividuals concerned" (34). This may lead certain minorities to. boycott. population Slovene thè. thè census : thus, thè statistics on thè Slovene of Carinthia (Austria) are disputable, as several. organisations advised not to answer this question in. census. (35).. The. fallacy. of. census. results. is not. r. necessarily brought about by thè fact that thè declaration is gratuitous. and. has no practical consequences for thè person. involved.. In thè recent 1981 census in South Tyrol, concrete. benefits. did depend on one's language declaration. Access to. employment Italian. in. thè. province,. representation groups. upon. of. From. on thè. 1981. service thè. is. organised,. basis. German,. onwards,. of. Italian. a. in this. proportional. and Ladin language. thè census declaration decides. a person's linguistic membership for this -and possibly. other-. purposes.. allegedly. attributed. to. have. cpeakers. But this. is. precisely. why. thè. census. gave a. false picture : as there are generally less. German-speaking. might. public. candidates their. group,. beentempted in. order. for. to. to. thè. bilingual. civil. service. or Italian-speakers. deelare themselves as. stand. better. jobs. chances. for. Germanpublic. employment (36).. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(48) 19. That favour. of. thè. documented of. thè. thè results need not necessarily be tilted in numerically or socially dominant language is. in thè case of Ireland. In thè 1971 census, 28.3%. population. (816.000 persons) returned themselves as. able to speak Irish. Subsequent officially sponsored research found out that only 1.7% (57.000) were native Irish speakers, with. a. further. 7.4% (220.000) 'at least fairly fluent non. native speakers'. All thè others had apparently been moved by their. sympathy. for. thè. Irish. language. to overrate their. skills (37).. Much. confusion. also arises because of thè type of. : where. thè criterion is, like in Ireland,. question. asked. 'ability. to. speak',. language. at. thè. groups. can. But. here. thè. mother. Language. a. same. person. may. indicate more than one. time. Neat delimitations of language. only be obtained through exclusionary questions. again, thè results may differ whether one asks for tongue, thè home language, or thè main language.. groups. in. thè. process. of. assimilation may show. widely divergent numbers according to these various criteria. This. is. documented. by. studies. on. thè. census results in. Canada, thè only country where both thè mother tongue and thè habitual home language have to be declared at thè census. The percentage language. of they. people learned. who. habitually. speak. at. home. thè. as a mother tongue ranges from 98.8%. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(49) 20. ■for. English and 93.8% for French, to 5.9% for Indi-Pakistani. *nd 0.3% for Gaelic (38).. As. for thè countries (or parts of countries) where. :here exist no census data on linguistic usage, one must rely apon. estimates. that. juesses.. As. such. iriendly. authors. are. usually little more than informed. estimates. are. usually made by minority-. (thè others prefer to ignore thè existence. jf minority languages), they tend to exaggerate thè number of speakers of thè smaller languages. Moreover, it is not always specified. whether. :riterion, :an. be. or. vast. iituations.. one. takes. linguistic. skills. as. thè. actual linguistic usage. As said above, there differences. between both figures in diglossie. —. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(50) 21. Taking into account all those caveats, one can give a list of thè important linguistic minorities in Western Europe. with their"approximate number of speaker. 3.500.000 French and 70.000 German in Belgium - 1.000.000 German-Alsatian, Corsican,. 600.000 Breton,. 200.000 Catalan,. 180.000. 100.000 Dutch-Flemish, 80.000 Basque and an ind. nite number of Occitan-speakers in France - 1.000.000 Sar dinian, 500.000 Friulian, 300.000 German, 95.000 Albanese 75.000. Slovene, 70.000 French, 55.000 Occitan, 40.000 Ladj. 20.000 Greek in Italy - 300.000 Swedish in Finland -. -- '.......................... 300.000 Irish in Ireland - 500.000 Welsh and 89.000 Scott Gaelic in thè United Kingdom - 50.000 Faroese and 30.000 German in Denmark - 1.050.000 French,. 200.000 Italian and. 50.000 Romansh in Switzerland, 6.000.000 Catalan, 2.500.0 Galician and 600.000 Basque in Spain. ^39).. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803. !. I.

(51) 22. T A B L E. 1. NUMBER OF FOREIGN RESIDENTS IN SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND THEIR PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION. .. Total in 1000's Belgium Denmark France Germany Italy Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom. 912 102 5.680 4.492 287 539 82 414 945 4.100. Percentage. 9' 3 6.8 7.3 0.5 4 2 5 15 7. Sources : Latest Statistical Yearbooks of thè various countries. For France, see Population, 1984, p.688. For thè United Kingdom, see thè calculations in Population T r e n d s , 28, Sununer 1982. For Italy, estimates by thè Minìstry of thè Interior in 1981 ,'in Studi Emigrazione, n.71, 1983, p . 285.. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.


(53) 24. CHAPTER TWO. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY. Language places.. European. characterised under. diversity. a. history,. by. is in. of. all. times, and of all. particular,. has always been. thè coexistence of several language groups. conunon rule. But, until thè 18th-19th century, this. diversity did not become politically salient. "In most of thè closed thè. culture. often for. raicro-communities were. itself. of thè agrarian age, thè limits of. thè. limits of thè world, and thè culture. remained. unperceived and invisible" (1). Only. a limited number of persons and in specific contexts did. language take. one. Catholic. become. a. example,. meaningful factor of cateqorisation : to a. supranational. organisation. like thè. Church used to be divided, not along politicai, but. along linguistic lines, into 'nationes' (2). In thè formation of states, on thè contrary, linguistic considerations did not play any appreciable part, thè determining factors being war, marriage. and. succession.. characteristics assembled :. "a. of. social. and. cultural. population living in these casually. territories were of little importance to thè ruler. medieval. mystified. thè. The. by. thè. European notion. monarch. (...). would. have. been. that he should rule only, or even. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(54) 25. raainly, There. people is. of similar cultural origins as himself" (3).. even. St.Stephen,. a. striking. according. statement by thè Hungarian king. to whom "unius linguae uniusque moris. regnum imbecille et fragile est” (4).. This generally relaxed attitude towards linguistic diversity. was. different. made. possible. languages. consequences. as. by. thè. did. not. entail. today.. In. this. fact that thè use of thè. same. period. practical. of. limited. communication and mass analphabetism, linguistic and literary skills. only. played. a. which. only. administration, most. citizens.. In. restricting. thè. early;. most. thè. Cotterets. of. role. this. in. thè. domain. of. public. marginally affected thè life of field,. significantly,. measures. free use of languages have been taken quite famous. 1539. is certainly thè edict of Villers-. by which king Francois I made French thè \. exclusive was also. language. primarily prevented. tongues. to. Act. Union. of. provided thè. of. thè administration, a decision which. detrimental, thè. at thè time, to Latin but which. emergence of thè country's other native. thè status of officiai language. In Britain, thè of. 1536, imposing English law on Wales, also. that "from henceforth no person or persons that use. Welsh. speech or language shall have or enjoy any manner. of office or fees within thè realm of England, Wales or other thè. King's. dominions. (...) unless he or they use English".. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(55) 26. jln. 1716,. !imposed. a thè. similar. decision, thè 'decreto de Nova Pianta'. exclusive. use. of. Castillian. to. thè Catalan. administration.. Section 1. The Emergence of Linguistic Nationalism. Towards. thè. end of thè 18th century however, both. thè. ideological. climate. and thè social-economic conditions. for. linguistic diversity changed for thè worse, and cultural. homogeneity became now widely seen as a desirable thing for a state.. A. Ideological Origins. The. new. ideological. climate. was. that. of. thè. Enlightenment, which radically reconsidered all thè accepted criteria of state legitimacy based on tradition and theology, and harked back to a (variously defined) nature of man as. thè. foundation. thè. most. of. society.. I will mention here only two of. influential representatives of this new ideology, whose. theories - although widely divergent in other respects - both. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(56) 27. had. a. negative. impact. on. thè. acceptance. of. linguistic. plurality within a state.. 1. thè. In Rousseau's Social Contract, thè formation of. generai will (itself thè basis of politicai legitimacy). presupposes. thè. free. Citizen. his. own individuai will : "il importe donc pour. of. and. autonomous. expression. by every. avoir 'bien l'énoncé de la volonté générale qu'il n'y ait pas de. société. n'opine. que. groups. d'après. within. process.. dans. l'Etat. et. gue. chaque citoyen. lui"(5). The existence of intermediate. society. can. only. cloud. this. constitutive. The linguistic implications of this theory were not. spelled years. partielle. out later. by. Rousseau,. during. thè. but. were fully articulated some. French. Revolution.. After a short. initial period of relative liberalism, thè regional languages became as. increasingly stigmatised by thè revolutionary leaders. tools. used. by. anti-national. (and clerical) forces for. particular purposes, and as communication obstacles hindering thè. unity. of. Linguistic. purpose. homogeneity. expressed became. by. an. thè generai will (6).. essential element of thè. Jacobin nation-state concept.. 2. Herder, national. who. The other emblematic figure is Johann Gottfried has. been. philosophy. called. "thè. father. of. thè modern. of centrai and eastern Europe" (7). For. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(57) 28. him,. thè. will,. basis. but. a. of civil society is not an abstract generai. concrete. language.. Language. according. to. shared. plays. culture,. such. an. rooted in a common. important role because,. Herder, it is not a mere descriptive code, but. rather "thè living manifestation of historical continuity and thè. psychologiacl. distinctive. matrix. social. in. heritage. which is. man's awareness of his. aroused and deepened" (8).. Therefore, "for a man to speak a foreign language was to live an. artificial. life,. to. be estranged from thè spontaneous, e. instinctive reflects. sources. of. his. personality" (9). The language. thè ’Volksgeist', thè deepest essence of thè people. who speak it.. Again, consequences readily. from. accepted. Herder. himself. his. linguistic. thè. possibility. did. not. draw. philosophy;. politicai indeed,. he. of a pluralist politicai. System, where several cultures could freely develop (10). But soon. after. that. every language group needed a state of its own in order. to. him,. come to full fruition. In order to achieve this goal, thè. traditional. state. radicalisation of. philosophers like Schlegel and Fichte held. thè. French. has. constructions. had to be overthrown. This. partially been brought about as a sequel. Revolution. which. had. swept. away. thè old. legitimate order throughout Europe and unleashed speculations on. new. and revolutionary orderings of society; but thè very. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(58) 29. aggressiveness reaction. of. thè. French. foreign. policy. provoked. a. of defence in thè other countries and gave to these. speculations a distinctively nationalistic flavour.. B. Social-Economie Origins. Yet, evolutions of. thè. and politicai events, has been thè transformation. society. progressed. more important perhaps than these ideological. brought through. influential. coincidence same. moment. about. thè. industrialisation which. Europe in thè 19th century. According to. doctrine. that. by. of. Ernest Gellner (11), it is no. (linguistic). nationalism. appeared at thè. as industriai society. While thè identification. of culture and polity had been irrelevant or even undesirable to thè. agrarian. society,. it became of paramount importance for. functioning of thè new industriai society (12). Economie. rationality. and. social-economic. efficiency, model,. required continuous innovation and a. strong. mobility. stable. conditions of agriculture. To allow for this mobility. and. for. culture. thè was. of. thè dominant values of thè new. generai to. be. thè. labour. force,. availability. in contrast to thè. of workers, traditional. replaced by a new standardised culture,. imposed through 'exo-socialisation', i.e. "thè production and reproduction of men outside thè locai intimate unit" (13). In this. view,. nationalism is "thè fruit neither of ideological. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(59) 30. aberration, external. nor. emotional. manifestation. relationship is,. of. of. excess", a. deep. but. rather. adjustment. in. "thè thè. between polity and culture" (14) : "Nationalism. essentially, thè generai imposition of a high culture on. society, where previously low cultures had taken up thè lives of. thè. majority,. population.. and. in some cases of thè totality of thè. It means that generalized diffusion of a school-. raediated,. academy-supervised. requirements. of. reasonably. idiom,. codified. precise. for. bureaucratic. thè and. technological communication" (15).. Of a. smooth. course, this linguistic standardisation was not. and. populations. painless. whose. process,. especially with regard to. traditional idiom was very different from. thè new standard language. Sometimes, such minorities saw thè adoption. of. thè. promotion;. but. obstructed. by. was,. on. national very. thè. linguistic. minority. idioms. majority. group. soon,. a. means of social. often, either because assimilation was ruling classes themselves, or because it. sacrifice,. officiai. a. as. thè contrary, too ruthlessly imposed and required a. disproportional. by. language. generai thè. was. model. often. these. minorities. Paradoxically,. refused. thè. interest in thè. born among intellectuals of thè. who were "prompted by antiquarian motives or interest in philology and folklore" (16). But. minority groups themselves started making efforts. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(60) 31. to develop their idiom into an alternative standard language. The. role. of. 'language. strategists'. (17),. and of popular. literary works (18) has often been noticed in this regard.. Section 2. The Decline of Linguistic Diversity. Whatever result. is. of. doctrine. a. thè. exact. mix. of. causai elements, thè. uncontroversial : thè spread, all through Europe, of. linguistic. nationalism,. "whose. creed. cansists of a single article : politicai should coincide with linguistic. boundaries"(19). In thè historical reality of thè. nineteenth century, thè main trend identified by Gellner (thè centre. wanting. to. assimilate. counterreaction. it. surrender. cultural. other,. their. but. favouring. two. as. played. homogeneity. a. and. thè. refusing. to. have not annuiled each complementary. role. in. within states. Indeed, such. Charles Tilly points out, has been achieved. criss-crossing. attempts. of. subject. population. eventually,. (peripheries. identity). rather. cultural. homogeneity, "along. have. provoked. minorities). paths. :. (1) via thè deliberate. state-makers to homogenize thè culture of their through. educational. linguistic,. standardization. religious, (__);. and,. 2) via thè. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.

(61) 32. tendency. of. those. populations wide. to. states. survive. cultural. enclosing relatively homogeneous. and prosper, while those containing. disparities tended to stagnate or to explode". (2 0 ) .. We. find. established Denmark...) thè. thus,. on thè. one hand, solid. territorial. states. (France,. who. on. either into. minorities. thè. Britain,. Spain,. tried (and largely succeeded) to assimilate. linguistic. while. and long-. other. hand. living new. within their boundaries,. states come into existence,. through thè conglomeration of small historical states a. larger. unit. defined. Germany),. or. by. (Greece. in. 1830, and. breaking. away. carving. up. by. a common language (Italy,. thè erosion of large multinational empires much later. Bulgaria. and. Albania,. from Turkey; and, on a much larger scale, thè. of. Austria-Hungary. and thè western part of thè. Russian Empire after thè First World War).. The theoretical underpinnings of both processes are different. doctrine to. Only of. thè. second seems to be based on a coherent. linguistic nationalism sensu stricto, according. which politicai borders should be adapted to thè existing. language. divides.. As. to thè. first. process,. that. of. assimilation, it rests on a definition of thè nation which is not. based. on. objective. criteria such as race, religion or. De Witte, Bruno (1985), The protection of linguistic diversity through fundamental rights European University Institute DOI: 10.2870/73803.