Coulmas Handbook of Sociolinguistics / Part 3 - Linguistics dimensions of Society / part 3 - 17. Language Conflict

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 1 of 11

17. Language Conflict

PETER HANS NELDE

DOI: 10.1111/b.9780631211938.1998.00019.x

Introduction

Throughout history, ever since the Tower of Babel was left unfinished, contacts between different languages have inevitably resulted in conflicts between speakers of those languages. These contacts between languages make up the domain of “contact linguistics.” This paper discusses the principal issues in current research in language contact, and then addresses various conflicts among communities that are related to the phenomena of contact linguistics. We then outline a possible program of research based on an analysis of these conflicts, suggesting a pragmatic typology of language conflict. Any such discussion would be incomplete without also presenting some suggestions for the resolution of conflict, and we therefore conclude with some suggested strategies for the neutralization of language conflict.

1 History

During the past 20 years a marked change of emphasis has been noticeable in linguistics. The illusion of a completely homogeneous, Chomskyan linguistics community has given way to one which takes into account social, psychological, and individual components. The emphasis on purely formalistic, descriptive features has given way to a diachronic, sociocultural, political science of language, in short, one which incorporates nonlinguistic factors as well. Consequently, multidimensional strategies are replacing the (frequently) unidimensional “systemic linguistics.” In place of the technical difficulties of describing the field of semantics, for example, new problems arose, namely those of variation and model diversification.

The inclusion of numerous related disciplines such as sociology and psychology, as well as discussion of speech act theories, areal linguistics, and the problems of language barriers pertaining to socialpolitical issues, all led to a spectrum of methods whose potential for variation was both a strength and a weakness. Soon one of the central themes of variational linguistics included that of contact research or contact linguistics, whose historical tradition dates back to the nineteenth century. This area, depending on one's point of view, uses the methods of sociolinguistics or the sociology of language. It originated in the United States, where Weinreich's, Fishman's, and later Labov's work revived what had been frowned upon for a long time: field research of an empirical nature. At the same time completely new areas of socially dependent semi-, bi-, and multilingualism were (re-) discovered, including previously analyzed bilingual contacts in conflict zones (for example, French and English in Quebec). With the aid of the diglossia concept developed and expanded by Fishman, which replaced to a certain extent the idea of bilingualism as having pedagogical-historical significance, attention was now paid to the sociopolitically motivated difficulties of dialect speakers, socially underprivileged city dwellers, and monoor multilinguals in language conflict zones who were handicapped in their chances for professional advancement.

In this context, creole and pidgin languages became the center of interest among linguists as full-

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 2 of 11

fledged means of communication. In the United States, substratum and semi-languages of members of different classes were sociolinguistically described, and numerous forms of diglossia and/or triglossia were discovered in Europe: Not only are all European countries with the exception of Iceland multilingual, but they are also predominantly dialectal.

1.1 Contact linguistics

Contact linguistics in its narrow sense goes back to the early fifties (U. Weinreich, 1953). During the previous decades, cultural-linguistic contacts such as lexical borrowing had stood at the forefront of research. In Europe, the analysis of the linguistic contacts of classical languages and their effects had prevailed for a long time. Sociological and psychological aspects were first introduced by Weinreich, Fishman, and Haugen, who accorded special emphasis to external linguistic factors. In this way, the originally interlingual character of research shifted towards interethnic contacts, with interference and transference analyses, social and situational elements of language configurations, areas of language use (domains), attitudes, and stereotypes all brought forward.

1.2 Present topics in contact linguistics

Language planning and language politics have repeatedly called upon the research of contact linguists during the last few years, since the assumption has been made, for example, that multilingualism, as well as second and third language acquisition, may be of use to peace and cooperation between nations. Intensity, vitality (Haarmann, 1980, 1), and the dynamics (Auburger, 1979; Breton, 1990; Labrie, 1990) of language contacts currently dominate discussion on the one hand, and phenomena such as multilingualism (see chapter 18) and language shift (see chapter 16) are being analyzed on the other.

In this way, the rapidly developing linguistics of the seventies and the eighties has opened up new dimensions. A renewed interest in diachronic aspects alongside predominantly synchronic features, its interdependence with numerous related disciplines, and its obvious relationship to political, historically motivated, and ideological situations and contexts create more opportunities for research in language contact and conflict. At the same time, they make the field of contact linguistics a challenging task which is worth dedication and effort. This has been, above all, to the advantage of linguistic minorities and threatened and endangered language communities.

1.3 Contact linguistics and multilingualism

Surprisingly enough, contact linguistic research in countries with linguistic minorities tends to be infrequent (in Europe: France, Russia; in Asia: China, Pakistan). However, linguistic investigations in multilingual countries are indispensable since political decisions are frequently based on regional linguistic situations. Above all, language must often remain the decisive criterion for judgment, since the population of multilingual areas cannot, in many cases, be differentiated from its neighbors by other means.

2 Defining Contact Linguistics

The term “contact linguistics” was introduced at the First World Congress on Language Contact and Conflict, held in Brussels in June 1979. An interdisciplinary branch of multilingual research, contact linguistics can be described as a triad of the following standpoints: language, language user, and language sphere.

Research in contact linguistics incorporates linguistic levels like phonology, syntax, and lexicon as well as discourse analysis, stylistics, and pragmatics. In addition, there are external factors such as nation, language community, language boundaries, migration, and many others. 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.

The structuring of social groups is of crucial importance to the language user. Besides the

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 3 of 11

conventional differences of age, sex, and social relationship, minority status receives special attention from researchers in multilin-gualism.

Above and beyond these factors, all the sectors responsible for the social interplay of a language community play an essential role. In the last few decades sectors such as technology, industry, city, and administration, and most recently also media, advertising, and data processing, have been added to the traditional fields of religion, politics, culture, and science. In the educational/cultural sector the schools occupy a special place and are constantly exposed to new forms and models of multilingual instruction, for example, from North America and Canada. The question of whether bilingual and multilingual education can interfere with a child's right to use his or her mother (home, first, colloquial) tongue depends mainly on the integration intentions of language planners, with conformity and integration instead of language maintenance constituting the motivating forces behind multilingual instruction. To oversimplify the issue, the underprivileged have to submit to “bilingual” education and thus assimilation, while “foreign language” instruction is available to the sociological elite (see chapter 24). Contact processes that have concerned researchers in multilingualism since the beginning are partly diachronic, partly synchronic in nature. Besides language change, borrowing processes, interference, and language mixing, there are linguae francae, language shift, language maintenance and loss, code-switching (see chapter 13), and pidginization and creolization (see chapter 14).

The effects of such language contact processes can be registered by measuring language consciousness and attitudes. Language loyalty and prestige play a decisive role in the linguistic identity of any multilingual person, and extreme care must be taken in the interpretation of so-called language statistics (censuses and public opinion surveys).

Language spheres in which considerations of multilingualism have become indispensable extend over numerous areas of study. To name a few: language policy (see chapter 27), language planning, language ecology, language contact in multinational industries and organizations, language care and revitalization among minorities, as well as specific issues such as the strengthening of national languages.

A first synchronic overview of all areas of contact linguistics is given in the two volumes of the international handbook on Contact Linguistics; the first deals with theoretical and methodological issues, the second applies theoretical notions and prerequisites to all situations of language contact and conflict in Europe (Nelde et al., 1995).

3 Contact and Conflict

3.1 Ethnic conflict and sociology

Most contact between ethnic groups does not occur in peaceful, harmoniously coexisting communities. Instead, it exhibits varying degrees of the tension, resentment, and differences of opinion that are characteristic of every competitive social structure. Under certain conditions, such generally accepted competitive tensions can degenerate into intense conflicts, in the worst case ending in violence. However, given the fact that some ethnic groups do live peacefully together, the assumption of some sociologists that ethnic contact inevitably leads to conflict appears exaggerated. The possibility of conflict erupting is, however, always present, since differences between groups create feelings of uncertainty of status, which could give rise to conflict. 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. Conflicts can arise relatively easily if – as is usually the case – interests and values have an emotional basis.

The magnitude and the development of a conflict depend on a number of factors determined by the level of friction between two or more ethnic groups, the presence of equalizing or mitigating

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 4 of 11

elements, and the degree of uncertainty of all the participants. Thus a one-sided explanation of the conflict, or one based on irrational prejudices, will fail. Very different factors influencing each other reinforce and “escalate” to cause group conflict. This group conflict is part of normal social behavior in which different groups compete with each other, and should therefore not be connoted only negatively, since in this way new – and possibly more peaceful – forms of coexistence can arise. On the other hand, tensions between ethnic groups brought about by feelings of intimidation can give rise to new conflicts at any time, conflicts which can be caused by a minority as well as by a majority group. As long as society continues to create new fears, because of its competitive orientation, the creation of new conflicts appears unavoidable.

3.2 Political language conflict

Along with sociologists, political scientists also assume that language contact can cause political conflict. Language conflicts can be brought about by changes in an expanding social system when there is contact between different language groups (Inglehart and Woodward, 1967). 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. While numerically weak or psychologically weakened language groups tend towards assimilation, in modern societies numerically stronger, more homogeneous language groups possessing traditional values, such as their own history and culture, prefer political resistance, the usual form of organized language conflict in this century. This type of conflict becomes especially salient when it occurs between population groups of differing socioeconomic structures (urban/rural, poor/wealthy, indigenous/immigrant) and the dominant group requires its own language as a condition for the integration of the rest of the population.

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. A small French-speaking elite, whose original goal was political opposition to the dominant English, ultimately precipitated the outbreak of the latent, socially motivated, language conflict.

Most current language conflicts are the result of the differing social status and preferential treatment of the dominant language on the part of the government. In these cases there are religious, social, economic or psychological fears and frustrations in the weaker group that may be responsible for the language conflict. However, a critical factor in the expansion and intensification of such conflict remains the impediment to social mobility, particularly of a disadvantaged or suppressed ethnic group (cf. the numerous language conflicts in multi-ethnic Austria-Hungary before 1918).

Language problems in very different areas (politics, economics, administration, education) appear under the heading of language conflict. In such cases, politicians and economic leaders seize upon the notion of language conflict, disregarding the actual underlying causes, and thus continue to inflame “from above” the conflict that has arisen “from below,” with the result that language assumes much more importance than it may have had at the outset of the conflict. This language-oriented “surface structure” is used to obscure the more deeply rooted, suppressed “deep structure” (social and economic problems). Furthermore, multilingual conflicts in Europe, especially in urban societies, show quite clearly that language conflicts are caused primarily by attempts on the part of the dominant group to block social mobility.

3.3 Language conflict and contact linguistics

Even in contact linguistics the term conflict remains ambiguous, at least when it refers generally to social conflict which can arise in a multilingual situation (Hartig, 1980: 182). The notion appears to us essential here that neither contact nor conflict can occur between languages; they are conceivable only between speakers of languages. Oksaar (1980) correctly points out the ambiguity of the term language conflict as either conflict between languages within an individual or as conflict by means of language(s), including processes external to the individual. Similarly, Haarmann (1980: II, 191) distinguishes between interlingual and inter-ethnic language conflicts.

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 5 of 11

Among the founders of modern research in language contact – running parallel to the rapidly developing sociolinguistics and sociology of language – e.g., Weinreich and Fishman, the term conflict rarely appears. While Weinreich views multilingualism (bilingualism) and the accompanying interference phenomena as the most important form of language contact, without regard to conflict between language communities on the basis of ethnic, religious, or cultural incompatibilities, Fishman (1972: 14) grants language conflict greater importance in connection with language planning. Haugen (1966) was the first to make conflict presentable in language contact research with his detailed analysis of Norwegian language developments. Indeed, even linguists in multilingual countries (the former Yugoslavia, Switzerland, Belgium) resisted, until the end of the 1970s, treating conflict methodically as part of language contact research, since such an “ideologicalization” of language contact appeared to them as “too touchy” (Fishman, 1980: XI). Although conflict consequently has no systematic history, and is mentioned in Weinreich (1953: 151) only as a marginal phenomenon among bilinguals, the term interference led to an emphasis on the interlinguistic aspects (language and the individual) rather than dealing with more extralinguistic aspects (language and community). One reason for the late discovery of a term indispensable in today's contact research is to be found in the history of contact linguistics itself: In traditional language contact research (as well as in dialectology and research on linguistic change), the emphasis tended toward closed, geographically homogeneous and easily describable socioeconomic groups, rather than urban industrial societies, ripe for social and linguistic strife, whose demand for rapid integration laid the groundwork for conflict. However, it is precisely in modern urban society that conflicts result essentially from the normative sanctions of the more powerful group, usually the majority, which demands linguistic adaptation to the detriment of language contact, and thus preprograms conflict with those speakers who are unwilling to adapt.

Despite a less than ideal research situation essentially limited to empirical case studies of language conflict, the following statements can be made. Language conflict can occur anywhere there is language contact, chiefly in multilingual communities, although Mattheier (1984: 200) has also demonstrated language conflicts in so-called monolingual local communities. 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 linguists have either described conflict research as an integral part of language contact research (Nelde, 1983) or have dealt with special topics from the perspective of conflict. The methods used are heterogeneous and come from numerous neighboring disciplines (psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics, communication research, sociology, etc.). For lack of its own methods, this research still employs predominantly empirical procedures. Along with interview and polling techniques, privileged informants and representative sampling, prejudice research and stereotype and attitude observation, the past few years have seen combined investigation models such as socioprofiles and ethnoprofiles (Nelde, 1984a; Enninger and Haynes, 1984), community and polarity profiles (Wölck, 1985).

4 Essential Principles of Conflict Linguistics

These observations on language contact and conflict situations lead to some basic premises of contact linguistics, which, despite their occasional seeming triviality, merit consideration at this juncture:

1 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.

2 The statement that there can be no language contact without language conflict (“Nelde's Law”) – K. de Bot in his GAL (Gesellschaft für angewandte Linguistik) presentation in Göttingen on January 10, 1989) – may appear exaggerated, but there is in the realm of the European languages at present no imaginable contact situation which cannot also be described as language conflict.

3 Contact linguistics usually sees language as a significant secondary sign of fundamental

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 6 of 11

causes of conflict of a socioeconomic, political, religious, or historical sort. Thus, in a way, language conflict appears to be the lesser evil, since apparently it can be more easily corrected and neutralized than primary sociopolitical conflicts.

4 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 Typology of Conflict

The current language conflicts in Europe, North and Central America, Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa can be viewed as situations of either natural or artificial language conflict.

5.1 “Natural” language conflict

Natural language conflicts are those situations that have traditionally existed between indigenous majorities and minorities. The extensive literature of language conflict abounds with examples of this type, particularly those of minorities pitted against official national or regional languages. Conflict has frequently arisen in these situations of language contact because the linguistic minority was not in a position to assimilate. 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.

The conflict between Belfast and Connemara, for example, involves considerably more than just language: An urban, Protestant, working environment in fact has little if anything in common with a rural, Catholic region of high unemployment. The issue of language only exacerbates these differences.

A similar situation is reflected in the ideologically motivated opposition between Afrikaans and English in Namibia and in South Africa. The vast majority of the Namibian populace, regardless of race or social status, speaks or at least understands Afrikaans. The country's official language, however, is English, cast as the “language of freedom,” though fewer than 3 percent of the population speak it as their first language. Afrikaans, the former language of instruction and administration, remains the “language of oppression.”

More recently, the study of Russian has witnessed a rapid decline in the former Eastern-bloc countries, and one can only speculate on the relationship between the sudden lack of interest in Russian and the “de-ideologicalization” of that language in the new republics. In the Croatian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina (“Herzeg”), all mentions of the term “Serbo-Croatian” have been expunged from schoolbooks and replaced, not on linguistic but on ideological grounds, by the term “Croatian.” Shakespeare was not the last to ask,” What's in a name?”

5.2 “Artificial” language conflict

Artificial, or self-imposed, conflict arises out of situations of compromise in which one or more language communities are disfavored. These situations have existed in every society from Babel to Brussels. Symmetric multilingualism, in which equal numbers of speakers are invested with equal right and in which both language prestige and linguistic identities are congruent, is impossible, since one of the language groups will always be subject to stigmatization and/or discrimination, with conflict the inevitable result.

Artificial language conflict occurs especially when, motivated by the need for rapid international communication, politically influential economic powers export their languages (and their resulting socioeconomic influence) to their trading partners. Thus Russian (before 1990) and English have become languages of great economic expansion, despite a noteworthy lack of formal educational planning. Secondary schools in Strasbourg, for example, have abandoned study of the native German dialect for English (as the first “foreign language”), with the result that German is being lost as a local working language. It is offered as a second “foreign” language only to students over 12 years old, with

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 7 of 11

the result that a passive knowledge of the mother tongue is now all that remains.

The European Union has provided interesting examples of artificial language conflict. In the debate over “Which language(s) for Europe?” the Danes years ago, in a spirit of genuine cooperation, opted to forgo the use of Danish. In retrospect, Denmark may appear to have resolved the issue in the early years of the European Union of reducing the number of official languages to at most two, with English and French destined to be the languages of international communication. The initial delight of London and Paris at this helpful suggestion was quickly dampened, however, since the Danes also suggested that the English should use French and the French should use English. After that suggestion, enthusiasm for the Danish solution quickly withered. The presence of several thousand translators and interpreters in Brussels suggests a return to the Tower of Babel. At the present time (1994), the 9 working languages of the 12 member states generate a total of (9× 8 =) 72 language combinations. The enlargement of the EU by four members (1995) and by six or more additional member states in the coming years, with nine new languages, leads to so many mathematical combinations (incorporating 18 languages with theoretically equal status) that no assembly hall in the world would be able to accommodate meetings for all the interpreters.

These few examples amply demonstrate that the language conflicts that threaten the peaceful coexistence of peoples are not always the consequence of long-standing historical conflicts among language minorities. The new orders and restructuring of recent years have also led to sources of conflict that were not fully grasped just a few years ago. In any event, neither natural nor artificial conflict should be judged only negatively; rather, we should hope that out of conflict there may ensue new alliances and new solutions that will function better than any of the efforts of the past.

6 Two Language Conflict Situations

6.1 Belgium

Until the beginning of the 1960s, the principle in effect in Belgium, with rare exceptions, was the personality principle, which permitted French speakers to use their mother tongue freely in most daily situations. It was not until the linguistic legislation of the years 1962–3 that a precise demarcation of linguistic territories was effected by administratively establishing a linguistic border. By virtue of this fact the principle of territoriality was adopted. Nonetheless, more than ten years had to go by before the modes of corresponding application led to a new linguistic constellation in the country. Since then it has been possible to distinguish different linguistic territories as a function of linguistic planning:

1 Monolinguistic territories, made up of the two large unilingual regions of the country, Flanders and Wallonia, subjected to strict unilingualism, with Dutch to the north and French to the south.

2 The bilingual territory of the capital, Brussels, where Dutch and French each have their own linguistic infrastructure, which in principle prevents one language from being favored to the detriment of the other.

3 Monolinguistic territories provided with linguistic facilities for the minority (for example, Fouron-Voeren, Comines-Komen, Mouscron-Moeskroen). Because the establishment of a strict linguistic boundary cannot perfectly take into account the minorities located on one side or the other of this boundary, Belgian linguistic policy includes protective measures for the Dutch, French, and German border minorities (North Old Belgium, Malmédy). The territory officially recognized as German-speaking in eastern Belgium (Eupen, St Vith) is equally affected by this ruling, which means that French enjoys certain rights in this German-language sector.

4 Monolingual territories without particular rights for autochthons. Despite the fact that wideranging protection was assured even to very small minority groups, certain sectors still exist which are deprived of any kind of linguistic protection. This is notably the case for German linguistic territories in Belgian Luxembourg like South Old Belgium (near the town of Arlon/Arel) and Central Old Belgium (near Bocholz-Beho north of the Grand Duchy). In these regions French was instituted as the sole administrative language.

This brief overview gives a picture of the modifications introduced by the territoriality principle in the

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 8 of 11

Belgian organization of linguistic territories. At the same time it reveals the limitations of this principle, the systematic application of which could well be the source of new conflicts.

One of the main consequences of this rigorous partition of linguistic territories is that a new understanding of multilingualism has developed in Belgium, contrary to the rest of Europe. In fact, while the principle of territoriality applied in former Czechoslovakia and in Switzerland is mainly limited to two domains (those of administration and education), Belgium introduced the domain of the language of the workplace, that is, a regulation of official language use between employers and employees. These three domains have become organized, even in an officially bilingual region like Brussels, in unilingual networks of the two languages of the city. Thus, while individual multilingualism may be desirable, it is not prescribed by linguistic legislation. That is why, since the introduction of the principle of territoriality in bilingual regions, institutionalized (not individual) multilingualism has developed. With respect to linguistic practices, this means that in the whole country there are only unilingual educational institutions (schools, universities, training institutes), and in fact, an administration equally unilingual, even in the multilingual regions. Multilingualism can become extremely institutionalized, as evidenced by the case of the Belgian army, which has units for the three languages of the country, German, French, and Dutch.

Despite all the negative criticism the principle of territoriality has given rise to in the past, it can now be affirmed that Belgium – as was the case with Switzerland – owes a certain sociopolitical and economic stability to the principle of territoriality. The vehemence and emotion of linguistic conflicts have shown an inverse tendency the past few years since the implementation of the linguistic law.

6.2 Canada and Quebec1

Unlike Belgium, Canada's official language groups are far from equal in size. The French-speaking population of Canada, concentrated in Quebec, is clearly a minority, at 26 percent of the Canadian population. What is more, it only represents about 2 percent of the population of North America (Canada and the USA) and is thus subject to strong pressure to assimilate.

But more than the demographic relationship, it is the political system of Canada which determines how the linguistic question is to be tackled, and in particular the application of the principles of territoriality and personality. Canada is a federation in which the governments, federal and provincial, have equal status. The member states, that is, the provinces, have conferred on the federal government limited power in certain areas of common interest, such as defense, foreign policy, and currency. The provinces, however, have retained complete autonomy in certain other areas, like health, employment, culture, and education.

Since language is not mentioned in the articles of the Constitutional Law of 1867, which established areas of jurisdiction, the federal and provincial governments are permitted to legislate jointly on language. First it must be determined whether the main object of the legislative measure touches a matter in the provincial or in the federal area of jurisdiction. This dual possibility of legislation on language has had the result that, as time goes by, different, if not opposing, concepts of the recognition of linguistic rights have developed between the federal and the provincial governments, especially in Quebec, but also in the other provinces.

Since 1963, the date of the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, whose goal it is to improve relations between the two founding peoples of Canada, the evolution of concepts has progressed by different stages under the impulse of collectivities.

French-speaking Canadians demand services in their language. Facing the threat of secession by French speakers disadvantaged by Canadian institutions after a century of federalism, equal status was accorded to the French and English languages in federal institutions (the Law Concerning the Status of Official Languages of 1969 and the Parliamentary Resolution on Language in the Public Service Workplace of 1973). These two measures adopted by the federal parliament had the effect of establishing institutional bilingualism. They provide the French-speaking minority with more access to services in French and more proportional representation in public service.

French speakers in Quebec demanded increased protection of their language. The linguistic problem posed in the 1960s was in the area of provincial jurisdiction, since it concerned the language of education. The system of education in Canada, divided on the basis of confession (Catholic or

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference Onli... Page 9 of 11

Protestant), offered a choice of language of instruction at the time. In fact, the laws of supply and demand gradually brought about the substitution of English for French, as new immigrants and some of the French speakers wanted to benefit from the upward mobility to be had with bilingualism, and so chose English as the language of instruction for their children. The debate about free choice led to the progressive elaboration of an exhaustive linguistic policy, which took 8 years.

The Law to Promote the French Language of 1969 provided for several measures to promote French as language of the workplace, but the legislation for free choice provoked so much discontent among French speakers that the government was voted out of office.

The Law Regarding the Official Language of 1974, which replaced the 1969 law, made French the official language of the legislature and the provincial court, of the administration and public utilities companies, of the professions, of the workplace, and of business. It therefore extended into several fields in which the province exercised its jurisdiction. Although French was reinforced as the official language in these different areas, bilingualism generally continued in the background. As to the language of instruction, the law made French school obligatory, except for the children of the English minority and for French speakers and immigrants who had a certain level of knowledge of the English language, which was measured with the help of tests. The effect of this law was to territorialize the notion of the official status of French, but it maintained bilingualism as a collective right. Like the preceding law, this law aroused the discontent of French speakers, and it also contributed to the defeat of the government that introduced it.

In 1977 the Charter of the French Language was passed, and is still in effect. This charter reinforced the official status of French in the different domains of provincial jurisdiction, in certain cases suggesting French unilingualism, although English continued to be accepted in most areas. In the matter of education, a compromise in favor of immigrants (compared to the preceding law) abolished the tests and allowed children to attend English school if one of their parents or their older brothers and sisters had attended English school. This provision is known by the name of the Quebec Clause. Note that the language laws in Quebec evolved from the laws of supply and demand, at first codified as they were by recognizing individual rights, which provoked rejection by the majority of French speakers. Since that time the language laws have evolved progressively toward a territorial concept, while taking care to respect collective rights.

English speakers in Quebec, as a minority who spoke an official language, demanded protection by way of bilingualism. At the time of the 1982 repatriation of the Canadian constitution from London, which was done without the backing of Quebec, the federal government inscribed fundamental linguistic rights into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Liberties, part of the Constitutional Law of 1982. In addition to Articles 16 to 22, which covered rights concerning the status of official languages in federal institutions, Article 23 ruled on the right to education in official minority languages, a domain traditionally reserved for the provinces. No sooner was the question of the Quebec Clause submitted by the Protestant school commissions of Quebec, than the courts recognized that Article 23 had been drafted expressly to counter the Charter of the French Language, but they were obliged to declare the Quebec Clause unconstitutional. From that time on it was the Canada Clause of the Charter of Rights that would prevail. This clause provided that parents who had received their education in the language of the minority (or whose child had received his or her education in that language) anywhere in Canada have the right to send their children to schools of their choice. This clause reduced the range of the territorial concept that had been previously adopted by Quebec.

The Charter of Rights served to protect minorities who spoke an official language, French speakers outside of Quebec as well as English speakers in Quebec. By their involvement, the English speakers of Quebec, recently made a minority in Quebec but still able to count on the fact that they belonged to the English-speaking majority of Canada, had succeeded in combating the territorial concept by the recognition of collective rights, where for about a century the French-speaking minorities of other provinces had been fighting a losing battle against the simple effects of the law of supply and demand.

These few examples culled from Canadian experience of recent years show the relationships of forces constantly involved in the process of normalization and substitution. For Quebec, the territorial concept represents the best way of favoring the normalization of French by way of institutionalized multilin-gualism. Since French speakers nevertheless wished to take collective rights into account, for

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007

17. Language Conflict : The Handbook of Sociolinguistics : Blackwell Reference O... Page 10 of 11

traditional reasons particularly connected with their constitutional history, several adjustments have been made in favor of the collective rights of the English-speaking minority. But the position of the latter has been to call for integral bilingualism as a means of protection for themselves as an official Canadian language minority. From this point of view, the English-speaking minority of Quebec is defending the primacy of individual rights over collective rights. These opposing positions might appear to be irreconcilable.

These examples of linguistic legislation in Belgium and Quebec show that the concepts of territoriality and personality always represent important stakes in countries considered to have an enviable tradition of linguistic coexistence.

7 Five Principles for Neutralizing Conflict

The most recent surveys in Belgium, Canada, and Quebec point to the conclusion that measures of language planning like the principle of territoriality are not sufficient for avoiding conflicts, but they can soften the repercussions in the socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic life of multilingual population groups. In this respect, the changes observed are less attributable to the principle of territoriality itself than to perspectives which are transformed when minority groups in the population are less stigmatized.

The Canadian and Belgian examples show that linguistic conflicts can be partially neutralized insofar as the following conditions are applied.

1 The introduction of the territoriality principle is limited to a few key areas like administration and education.

2 The institutional multilingualism that emerges leads to the creation of independent unilingual networks which grant equal opportunity of communication to minority and majority speakers and which exclude linguistic discrimination connected with the prestige language.

3 Measures of linguistic planning are not exclusively based on linguistic censuses carried out by the respective governments; they should genuinely take into account the situational and contextual characteristics of the linguistic groups.

4 Linguistic groups in a multilingual country are not judged primarily quantitatively. Because they are in a minority situation, they should, on the contrary, be awarded more rights and opportunities for development (“positive discrimination”) than would be due to them, based solely on their number and their proportion to the majority (for example, a lower number of pupils per class should be accepted for children of the minority).

5 The fact of according such quality to minorities by assuring them of more rights could, as suggested by the examples from Belgium and Quebec, result in fewer people adopting an ideological position or in a decrease in emotionalism at the moment of dealing with possible sources of linguistic conflict. Initial attempts permit at least a cautious measure of optimism.

1 This section owes a great deal to Normand Labrie. I am extremely grateful for his expert assistance.

Cite this article

NELDE, PETER HANS. "Language Conflict." The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Coulmas, Florian (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Blackwell Reference Online. 28 December 2007 <http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode? id=g9780631211938_chunk_g978063121193819>

Bibliographic Details

The Handbook of Sociolinguistics

Edited by: Florian Coulmas eISBN: 9780631211938

Print publication date: 1998

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9780631211938... 28.12.2007