36. Language Conflict

Language planning and language politics have repeatedly called upon the research of contact linguists

during the last few years

Contact linguistics can be described as a triad of the following standpoints: language, language user, and

language sphere.

The type of language contact and multilingualism is also relevant, whether it manifests itself as individual, institutional, or

state bilingualism or as social multilingualism; as diglossia or dialect; or as natural or artificial

multilingualism, for which intermediate levels such as so-called semilingualism or interlingua also

must be considered. In the process it is helpful to make a basic, simplifying distinction between

autochthonous (indigenous) and allochthonous (migrant) groups, since language contact situations

can rarely be isolated as single phenomena, but usually appear as a cluster of characteristics.

When one language is spoken by more people than other languages in a nation, the use of the languages of smaller groups is reduced. This is true in Mexico, where the use of native languages is often taken over by Spanish.

The reasons for this are social, political, and cultural, but there is one that is foremost: If all Mexicans can speak Spanish, then those who speak different native languages can also speak to each other by using Spanish.

It is easy to understand why most people, including the speakers of native languages, believe that Spanish is the best language for the nation as a whole and for national and state governments to use in public administration, legal matters, and for higher education. But local communities must be permitted to decide how and when their native languages should be used within their own areas.

In some communities, the native language is now used only in the home, by children when they play, and, in some cases, in religious ritual. In others, however, the native language continues to be the only language spoken, except in school, until a visitor arrives who does not understand it. Even in school, the use of the native language is often a help to the younger children, as they begin their formal elementary education.

Sociologists who have dealt

with contact problems between ethnic groups define conflict as contentions involving real or apparent

fears, interests, and values, in which the goals of the opposing group must be opposed, or at least

neutralized, to protect one's own interests (prestige, employment, political power, etc.) (Williams,

1947). This type of conflict often appears as a conflict of values, in which differing behavioral norms

collide, since usually only one norm is considered to be valid. Conflicts between ethnic groups,

however, occur only very rarely as openly waged violent conflicts, and usually consist of a complex

system of threats and sanctions in which the interests and values of one group are endangered.

Along with sociologists, political scientists also assume that language contact can cause political

conflict. Belgium and French Canada are examples of this. The reasons for such a situation are the following: A dominant

language group (French in Belgium, English in Canada) controls the crucial authority in the areas of

administration, politics, and the economy, and gives preference in employment to those applicants

who have command of the dominant language. The disadvantaged language group is then left with

the choice of renouncing its social ambitions, assimilating, or resisting. Although in the case of French-speaking Canada, English appeared to be the necessary means of communication in trade and business, nearly 80 percent of the Francophone population spoke only French, thus being excluded from social elevation in the political and economic sector.

Language contact – as we explained before – exists only between speakers and language

communities, not between languages. Comparison of one and the same language in different

contexts is therefore possible only in a quite limited way.

Language conflict arises from the confrontation of differing standards, values, and attitude structures, and strongly

influences self-image, upbringing, education, and group consciousness. Thus conflict can be viewed

as a form of contact or, in terms of a model, as a complementary model to the language contact

model.

Contact linguistics, at the same time, makes it clear that conflicts should not be condemned

as only negative, but rather, it proves that new structures which are more advantageous than

earlier ones, especially for minority speakers, can often result from conflicts.

5.1 “Natural” language conflict

Natural language conflicts are those situations that have traditionally existed between indigenous

majorities and minorities.

This type of conflict can be found, for example, in Europe along the Germanic–

Romance and the Slavic–Germanic linguistic boundaries, and in Canada involving the French-speaking

minority and among a few indigenous peoples. Natural language conflicts can become problematic

when ideology on either side – not only the majority but the minority as well – is used to intensify the

differences that exist, and peaceful coexistence between language communities can easily be

threatened when the banner of language is hoisted as the defining symbol of a people.