Jump to content

Language secessionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language secessionism (also known as linguistic secessionism or linguistic separatism) is an attitude supporting the separation of a language variety from the language to which it has hitherto been considered to belong, in order for this variety to be considered a distinct language. This attitude was first analyzed in Catalan sociolinguistics[1] but it is attested in other parts of the world.

In Arabic

[edit]

Sociolinguistic background

[edit]

The Arab World is characterized by diglossia: local dialects dominate the sphere of daily communication, while Standard Arabic carries high prestige and is used in formal writing and speaking.[2]

This situation has important political and social implications. Modern Standard Arabic is the official language of all Arab countries, and enjoys the status of a global language. Standard Arabic is also the lingua sacra of Islam, which further increases its importance. However, a claim could be made that it is no one's first language, since Arab children acquire their local dialect in the natural process of generational language transmission, and learn Standard Arabic later, when they begin formal education.[3] Proficiency in Standard Arabic provides insight into a vast literary tradition spanning over 1,500 years. However, proponents of recognizing local Arabic dialects as official languages claim that the discrepancy between spoken vernaculars and Standard Arabic is just too wide, rendering proficiency in Standard Arabic unattainable for most.

In Egyptian Arabic

[edit]

Egyptian linguistic separatism is the most well-developed linguistic separatism in the Arab World. The most popular platform diffusing the idea of the Modern Egyptian Language (rather than the Egyptian dialect) is the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia also known as Wikipedia Masry or Maṣrī. It was the first Wikipedia written in one of the many Arabic dialects. Importantly, the idea of Egyptian linguistic separatism goes further back, to thinkers such as Salama Musa, Bayyūmī Qandīl, Muḥsin Luṭfī as-Sayyid, and the Liberal Egyptian Party.[4]

Egyptian linguistic separatism does not simply claim that Egyptian Arabic should become the official language of Egypt, which in and of itself is a matter decided by politicians, not linguists. However, proponents of Egyptian linguistic separatism, such as Bayyūmī Qandīl, substantiate their political demands with pseudoscientific claims.[4]

Linguistic separatism remains a fringe movement within Egyptian society. The idea remains particularly attractive to Coptic Christians and liberals, who see Egyptian nationalism as an alternative to Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism.[4]

In Catalan and Occitan

[edit]

Common characteristics

[edit]

In the Occitano-Romance languages, language secessionism is a quite recent phenomenon that has developed only since the 1970s. Language secessionism affects both Occitan and Catalan languages with the following common features:[5]

  • A breakaway from the tradition of Occitan and Catalan 19th century revivalist movements, which usually support the internal unity of each of these languages.
  • An often deliberate ignorance of the tradition of Romance linguistics.[6]
  • An exacerbation of the cultural identity linked to dialects, which secessionism considers as separate languages.
  • A lack of success (or a very marginal position) in linguistic scientific research.[7]
  • An active lobbying in regional political circles.
  • The support of a writing system or of any prescription, which breaks up linguistic unity and exaggerates dialectal particular features.

In Catalan

[edit]

In Catalan, there are three cases:

  • Valencian language secessionism, or blaverism, appeared during the democratic transition of 1975–1981, after the fall of Francoism. It is supported by some conservative circles of the Valencian society, which are branded as "post-Francoist" by its rivals who consider Valencian and Catalan one and the same language. It has variable impact in the population: Valencian people usually name their language "Valencian" but are divided about the unity of Catalan: some people agree in that "Valencian" is just the regional name for "Catalan" but other people think that "Valencian" would be a distinct language from "Catalan". Blaverism has very little impact in the community of linguists. Valencian institutions and Valencian partisans of Catalan unity use the official norm of Catalan (as codified by Institut d'Estudis Catalans and Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua), while "Blavers" (partisans of blaverism) mostly write Valencian using an alternative standard called "Normes del Puig" (codified by the Royal Academy of Valencian Culture).
  • Balearic language secessionism vis-à-vis Catalan is quite marginal and is supported by a few cultural groups. It has very little impact in the population. It is included in a wider (but unorganized) tendency called "gonellisme", which struggles against the standardization of Catalan.
  • In Franja de Ponent (a Catalan-speaking strip in eastern Aragon), language secessionism is quite marginal. It appeared during the 2000s. It is supported only by a fraction of the already minority pro-Aragonese movements, who overstate a so-called Aragonese ancestry in the Catalan spoken in Aragon.

In Occitan

[edit]

There are three cases in Occitan:

  • In the Auvernhat dialect, language secessionism has been supported since the 1970s by Pierre Bonnaud, who founded the Bonnaudian norm, the group Cercle Terre d'Auvergne and the review Bïzà Neirà. It has negligible impact in the population, where knowledge of the language is in any case at best residual. Auvernhat cultural circles are divided between the unitary vision of Occitan (associated with the Occitan classical norm) and secessionism (associated with Bonnaudian norm).
  • In the Provençal dialect, language secessionism appeared during the 1970s with Louis Bayle and has been reactivated since the 1990s by Philippe Blanchet and groups like "Union Provençale" and "Collectif Provence". This secessionism supports the Mistralian norm (but it does not represent all Mistralian norm users, since some of them claim traditionally the unity of Occitan). It has little impact in the population, whose knowledge of the language is anyway residual. Provençal cultural circles are divided between the unitary vision (supported by users of both Mistralian norm and classical norm) and the secessionist vision (supported by some users of the Mistralian norm). The Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur voted a resolution on 5 December 2003 that approved the principle of the unity of "Occitan or Langue d'Oc" and the fact that Provençal is a part of it.
  • In the Gascon dialect, language secessionism is claimed since the 1990s by Jean Lafitte, who created during the 2000s a group called "Institut Béarnais et Gascon". It has negligible impact in the population. Lafitte's secessionism supports two original writing systems: one is a nonstandard spin-off from the classical norm and the other one is a nonstandard spin-off from the Mistralian norm. Gascon cultural circles almost unanimously support the unitary vision of the Occitan language. In Aran Valley (a little Gascon Occitan-speaking area in Spain), Aranese, the local variety of Gascon, is officially recognized as a part of the Occitan language. The status of semi-autonomy of Aran Valley (1990) presents Gascon Aranese as "Aranese, the variety of the Occitan language peculiar to Aran ("Er aranés, varietat dera lengua occitana e pròpia d'Aran"). Similarly, the status of autonomy of Catalonia, as reformed in 2006, confirms it with the following expression: "The Occitan language, which is named Aranese in Aran" ("Era lengua occitana, denominada aranés en Aran").

In Spanish

[edit]
See also: Andalusian language movement

In Andalusia, there is a fringe movement aimed at promoting the Andalusian dialect as a separate language from Spanish.[8]

In Hindi and Urdu

[edit]
Further information: Hindi–Urdu controversy

The national language of Pakistan and official languages in many parts of India, the Delhi dialect has become the basis of Modern Standard Hindi and Modern Standard Urdu. Grammatically, Hindi and Urdu are the same language, Hindustani, but they differ in their literary and academic vocabulary. Hindi tends to adopt Sanskrit words and purges literary words borrowed from Persian, while Urdu does the opposite. In essence, apart from their scripts, the lexicon is what distinguishes Urdu and Hindi. There are additional Indo-Aryan languages that are counted as Hindi but are not the same as Hindustani. They are considered Hindi languages but may not be close to the Delhi dialect.

In Romanian

[edit]
Further information: Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova

The official standard language of Moldova is identical to Romanian. However, Vasile Stati, a local linguist and politician, has asserted his opinion that Moldovan is a separate language in his Dicționar moldovenesc-românesc (Moldovan–Romanian dictionary).[9]

During the Soviet era, the USSR authorities officially recognized and promoted Moldovans and Moldovan as a distinct ethnicity and language from Romanians. A Cyrillic alphabet was introduced in the Moldavian ASSR and SSR to reinforce this claim. Since 1989, the official language switched to the Latin script and underwent several of the language reforms of Romanian.

Nowadays, the Cyrillic alphabet remains in official use only on the territories controlled by the breakaway authorities of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (most commonly known as Transnistria), where it is named "Moldovan", as opposed to the Latin script version used elsewhere, which the local authorities call "Romanian".

In Serbo-Croatian

[edit]
Further information: Pluricentric language § Serbo-Croatian
See also: Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian; Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro; Declaration on the Common Language; Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language; and Yugoslavism

Serbo-Croatian, as a standardized form of the Shtokavian dialect, has a strong structural unity, according to the vast majority of linguists who specialize in Slavic languages.[10][11] However, the language is spoken by populations that have strong, different, national consciousnesses: Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and Serbs.

Since the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991, Serbo-Croatian has lost its unitary codification and its official unitary status. It is now divided into four official languages which follow separate codifications: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. This process has been accused of being grounded on pseudoscientific claims fueled by political agendas.[12][13]

Indeed, linguists and sociolinguists have not ceased to speak of a common Serbo-Croatian.[14][15] It is a pluricentric language[16][17][18][19][20] being cultivated through four voluntarily diverging normative varieties,[21] Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian, which are sometimes considered Ausbau languages.[22] However, Ausbau languages must have different dialect basis,[23] whereas standardized Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian have the same supradialect basis (Shtokavian with regional differences).[24]

The problems of the so-called Ausbau-languages in Heinz Kloss's terminology are similar, but by no means identical to the problems of variants. In Ausbau-languages we have pairs of standard languages built on the basis of different dialects [...]. The difference between these paired Ausbau-languages and standard language variants lies in the fact that the variants have a nearly identical material (dialectal) basis and the difference is only in the development of the standardisation process, while paired standard languages have a more or less distinct dialect base.[25]

Kloss contrasts Ausbau languages not only with Abstand languages but also with polycentric standard languages,[26] i.e. two variants of the same standard, such as Serbo-Croatian, Moldavian and Rumanian, and Portuguese in Brazil and Portugal. In contrast, pairs such as Czech and Slovak, Bulgarian and Macedonian, and Danish and Swedish, are instances of literary standards based on different dialects which, at a pre-literate stage, would have been regarded by linguists as dialects of the same language.[27]

On the contrary, the Serbo-Croatian kind of language secessionism is now a strongly consensual and institutional majority phenomenon. Still, this does not make it legitimate to say that such secessionism has led to "Ausbau languages" in the cases of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian, because such diversion has not taken place:[28][29][30]

The intercomprehension between these standards exceeds that between the standard variants of English, French, German, or Spanish.[31]

The four varieties - Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian - are all totally mutually comprehensible [...] What there is, is a common, polycentric standard language - just like, say, French, which has Belgian, Swiss, French, and Canadian variants but is definitely not four different languages. [...] Linguistic scientists are agreed that BCSM is essentially a single language with four different standard variants bearing different names.[15]

In Galician-Portuguese

[edit]

Portugal, a former southern county split from the Kingdom of Galicia and fief of the Kingdom of León, was created by Afonso I of Portugal in 1126 and expanded towards the Islamic south, like its neighbouring kingdoms. That part of Galicia, named Portugal, became independent while the northern part of the country remained under the Kingdom of León during the 12th century and early 13th century. Northern Galicia would later be ruled by the Kingdom of Castile, which would become the core and ethnic base for the future Spain; but the culture was the same on both sides of the political border. Galician-Portuguese culture attained great prestige during the Low Middle Ages. In the late 15th century, Castilian domination became more severe, banishing their language in all official uses, including the church.

Galician-Portuguese survived diglossically for the following centuries among the peasant population, but it experienced a strong Spanish influence and had a different evolution.[citation needed] Meanwhile, the same language (by the reintegrationist view) remained fully official in Portugal and was carried across the world by Portuguese explorers, soldiers and colonists.

During the 19th century a revival movement arose. This movement defended the Galician language, and created a provisional norm, with a Castilian orthography and many loanwords. When autonomy was granted, a norm and orthography (based in rexurdimento writers) (Galician literature) for a Galician language was created. This norm is taught and used in schools and universities of Galicia. But most writers (Castelao, Risco, Otero Pedrayo) did not support the traditional Galician forms;[clarification needed] some of them based on Spanish orthography even if they recognized the essential linguistic unity, saying that the priority was achieving political autonomy and being read by the population. Other writers wrote with a Portuguese-like orthography (e.g. Guerra da Cal and Carvalho Calero).

Reintegrationists claim that the official norm (released in 1982) was imposed by the Spanish government, with the covert intent of severing Galician from Portuguese. But this idea is rejected by the Real Academia Galega, which supports the official norm.

Reintegrationist and Lusist groups are protesting against this so-called language secessionism, which they call Castrapism (from castrapo, something like "patois") or Isolationism. Unlike in the case of Valencian Blaverism, isolationism has no impact in the scientific community of linguists, and it is supported by a small number of them but still has clear political support.

Galician-Portuguese linguistic unity until the 16th century seems to be consensus,[citation needed] as does both Galician and European Portuguese being closer to each other, and also closer in the 19th century than in the 20th century and now. In this period, while Galician for the most part lost vowel reduction, velarization of /l/ and nasal vowels, and some speech registers of it adhered to yeísmo, all making it phonologically closer to Spanish. For example, European Portuguese had splits that created two new vowel phonemes, one of them usually an allophone only in the case of vowel reduction and the other phonetically absent in any other variant. Some dialects had a merger of three of its oral diphthongs and another three of its nasal vowels, and together with Brazilian Portuguese absorbed more than 5000 loanwords from French as well as 1500 from English.

It seems that the debate for a greater integration among Portuguese-speaking countries had the result of a single writing standard (1990 Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement), often shunned by some segments of Portuguese media and population but long waited and cheered by Brazilians despite occasional criticism to some aspects and that changed the spelling of between 0.5% and 1% of the words in both former varieties, with minor respect to major dialect phonological differences. The other debate, whether Galician should use the same standard of Portuguese (Lusism), a standard with minor differences (Reintegrationism), a re-approximation of both through another Lusophone spelling agreement that would give particular regional differences such as that of Galician as well as major diverging dialects of Portuguese (especially in South America) more room (Reintegrationism), or the present standard based on the Spanish orthography, still did not cast official attention of government authorities in any of the involved countries, even if Lusophone support is expected to be strong in any of the first three cases.

A point often held by minorities among both Reintegrationists/Lusists and Lusophonists is that Portuguese should have a more conservative and uniform international speech standard that at the same time respects minor phonological differences between its variants (such as a free choice between the various allophones of the rhotic consonant /ʁ/, [a ~ ɐ ~ ɜ ~ ə] for /a ~ ɐ/ or [s ~ s̻ʲ ~ ʃ ~ ɕ] for the voiceless allophone of /S/) that would further strengthen Lusophone integration, but this is not especially welcomed by any party in Europe.

In Tagalog

[edit]

Republic Act No. 7104, approved on August 14, 1991, created the Commission on the Filipino Language, reporting directly to the President and tasked to undertake, coordinate and promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and other Philippine languages.[32] On May 13, 1992, the commission issued Resolution 92-1, specifying that Filipino is the

...indigenous written and spoken language of Metro Manila and other urban centers in the Philippines used as the language of communication of ethnic groups.[33]

Though the Commission on the Filipino Language recognizes that a lot of the vocabulary of Filipino is based on Tagalog, the latest definition given to the national language tries to evade the use of the term Tagalog.

According to some Filipinologists (people who specialize in the study of Filipino as a language), the main reason that Filipino is distinct from Tagalog is that in Filipino, there is a presence of vocabulary coming from other Philippine languages, such as Cebuano (such as bana – husband), Hiligaynon (such as buang – insane) and Ilocano (such as ading – little brother). They also maintain that the term Tagalog is the language of the Katagalugan or the Tagalog Region and puristic in a sense. It lacks certain phonemes like /f/ and /v/, which makes it incapable of producing some indigenous proper nouns Ifugao and Ivatan.[33] Curiously, proponents of language secessionism are unable to account for the glaring absence of long vowel, phonemic in Tausug, in Filipino phonology or for the absence of a schwa. Arguments for secessionism generally ignore the fact that the various languages of the Philippines have divergent phonologies.

In Chinese

[edit]

Mandarin versus other dialects

[edit]

Among Chinese speakers, Yue Chinese (Cantonese),[34] Hokkien and other varieties of Chinese are often referred to as dialects (Chinese: 方言), instead of languages (simplified Chinese: 语言; traditional Chinese: 語言), despite the fact that those varieties are not mutually intelligible with Mandarin, spoken by the majority of Chinese. However, the languages are reportedly significantly more mutually intelligible in written form as all varieties continue to use the same set of Hanzi (Chinese characters); i.e. Yue and Mandarin differ primarily in tonal differences and different pronunciations of various sounds which would be largely negated in writing.[citation needed]

In Hokkien

[edit]

In the Hokkien topolect (Chinese: 閩南語), which is widely used in Fujian, Taiwan, and in the Chinese diaspora, it is debated that whether Taiwanese dialects (Chinese: 臺灣閩南語) should be separated from the Hokkien language as the Taiwanese language (Chinese: 臺灣話 or 臺語),[35][36] although people from Fujian and Taiwan can communicate with each other despite some differences in vocabulary. Such debates may be associated with politics of Taiwan.[37]

In Taiwan, there is a common perception that Hokkien preserves more archaic features from Classical Chinese than Mandarin, thus allowing poetry from the Tang dynasty to rhyme better. Amongst Hokkien nationalists in Taiwan, this perception is sometimes elevated into stronger claims about the identity of Hokkien and Mandarin. One common name for Taiwanese Hokkien in Taiwan, especially among elderly speakers, is Chinese: 河洛話; pinyin: Héluòhuà, derived from a folk etymological reading of Hok-ló, Ho̍h-ló, or Hô-ló.[38] The character reading is interpreted to be a reference to the Yellow River Map and the Lo Shu Square and taken as evidence that the ancestors of Hokkien-speaking people came from the Central Plain, and in preserving their identity over the centuries, Hokkien speakers have also better preserved their language. Some fringe scholars claim that modern Hokkien is a faithfully preserved archaic variety of Chinese once used in the imperial courts dating back as early as the Shang dynasty.[39] Another claim based on folk etymology is that the word Mandarin is based on the Mandarin pronunciation of the Chinese phrase Chinese: 滿大人; pinyin: Mǎndàrén; lit. 'important Manchu person or Manchu official'. This is taken as evidence that Mandarin has been corrupted by foreign influence from Manchu, Mongolian, etc. and is thus not fit to be the official language of a Chinese-speaking country.[40] This is in contrast to more mainstream views that Taiwanese Hokkien, as a variety of Southern Min, is a descendant of Proto-Min, a language that split from late Old Chinese, and Mandarin descended from Middle Chinese, and that it is not meaningful to say that one modern language is older than another.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ For example:
    • STRUBELL Miquel (1991) "Catalan in Valencia: the story of an attempted secession", Swiss Academy of Social Science Colloquium on Standardization: Parpan / Chur (Grisons) 15–20 April 1991
    • PRADILLA Miquel Àngel (1999) "El secessionisme lingüístic valencià", in: PRADILLA Miquel Àngel (1999) (ed.) La llengua catalana al tombant del mil·leni, Barcelona: Empúries, p. 153-202.
    • Article "secessionisme lingüístic", in: RUIZ I SAN PASCUAL Francesc, & SANZ I RIBELLES Rosa, & SOLÉ I CAMARDONS Jordi (2001) Diccionari de sociolingüística, coll. Diccionaris temàtics, Barcelona: Enciclopèdia Catalana.
  2. ^ Ferguson, Charles (1959). "Diglossia". Word. 15 (2): 325–340. doi:10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702. S2CID 239352211.
  3. ^ Versteegh, Kees, et al. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics / Vol. II, Eg-Lan.Brill, 2007, pp. 8-18.
  4. ^ a b c Nabulssi-Masełbas, Zuzanna (2023). Egyptian Linguistic Separatism. A Study in Wikipedia Masri (PDF). Warsaw University. pp. 65–74. ISBN 978-83-963626-2-9.
  5. ^ SUMIEN Domergue (2006) La standardisation pluricentrique de l'occitan: nouvel enjeu sociolinguistique, développement du lexique et de la morphologie, coll. Publications de l'Association Internationale d'Études Occitanes 3, Turnhout: Brepols, p. 49.
  6. ^ BEC Pierre (1970–71) (collab. Octave NANDRIS, Žarko MULJAČIĆ) Manuel pratique de philologie romane, Paris: Picard, 2 vol.
  7. ^ Georg Kremnitz, "Une approche sociolinguistique", in F. Peter Kirsch, & Georg Kremnitz, & Brigitte Schlieben-Lange (2002) Petite histoire sociale de la langue occitane: usages, images, littérature, grammaires et dictionnaires, coll. Cap al Sud, F-66140 Canet: Trabucaire, p. 109-111 [updated version and partial translation from: Günter Holtus, & Michael Metzeltin, & Christian Schmitt (1991) (dir.) Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. V-2: Okzitanisch, Katalanisch, Tübingen: Niemeyer]
  8. ^ "La extrema izquierda andaluza reivindica el 'andalûh' en el Senado". Libertad Digital (in Spanish). 27 September 2021.
  9. ^ Un monument al minciunii și al urii – 'Dicționarul moldovenesc-românesc' al lui Vasile Stati in Contrafort magazine, no. 7-8 (105-106) / July–August 2003
  10. ^ Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G., eds. (2002) [1st. Pub. 1993]. The Slavonic Languages. London & New York: Routledge. OCLC 49550401.
  11. ^ Bailyn, John Frederick (2010). "To what degree are Croatian and Serbian the same language? Evidence from a Translation Study" (PDF). Journal of Slavic Linguistics. 18 (2): 181–219. ISSN 1068-2090. Retrieved 9 October 2019.
  12. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam (PDF). Zagreb: Durieux. p. 16. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5.
  13. ^ Nakazawa, Takuya (2015). "The making of "Montenegrin language": nationalism, language planning, and language ideology after the collapse of Yugoslavia (1992-2011)" (PDF). Südosteuropäische Hefte. 4 (1): 127–141. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
  14. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2004). "Pro und kontra: "Serbokroatisch" heute" [Pro and contra: "Serbo-Croatian" nowadays] (PDF). In Krause, Marion; Sappok, Christian (eds.). Slavistische Linguistik 2002: Referate des XXVIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens, Bochum 10.-12. September 2002. Slavistishe Beiträge ; vol. 434 (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. pp. 97–148. ISBN 3-87690-885-X. OCLC 56198470. SSRN 3434516. CROSBI 430499. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2019. (ÖNB)
  15. ^ a b Trudgill, Peter (30 November 2017). "Time to Make Four into One". The New European. p. 46. Retrieved 23 January 2024.
  16. ^ Bunčić, Daniel (2008). "Die (Re-)Nationalisierung der serbokroatischen Standards" [The (Re-)Nationalisation of Serbo-Croatian Standards]. In Kempgen, Sebastian (ed.). Deutsche Beiträge zum 14. Internationalen Slavistenkongress, Ohrid, 2008. Welt der Slaven (in German). Munich: Otto Sagner. p. 93. OCLC 238795822.
  17. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2010). Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and Nationalism] (PDF). Rotulus Universitas (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Durieux. pp. 69–168. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3467646. ISBN 978-953-188-311-5. LCCN 2011520778. OCLC 729837512. OL 15270636W. SSRN 3467646. CROSBI 475567. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 June 2012. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
  18. ^ Šipka, Danko (2019). Lexical layers of identity: words, meaning, and culture in the Slavic languages. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 166. doi:10.1017/9781108685795. ISBN 978-953-313-086-6. LCCN 2018048005. OCLC 1061308790. S2CID 150383965.
  19. ^ Ćalić, Jelena (2021). "Pluricentricity in the classroom: the Serbo-Croatian language issue for foreign language teaching at higher education institutions worldwide". Sociolinguistica: European Journal of Sociolinguistics. 35 (1). De Gruyter: 113–140. doi:10.1515/soci-2021-0007. ISSN 0933-1883. S2CID 244134335. The debate about the status of the Serbo-Croatian language and its varieties has recently shifted (again) towards a position which looks at the internal variation within Serbo-Croatian through the prism of linguistic pluricentricity
  20. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2024). "Ideology Against Language: The Current Situation in South Slavic Countries" (PDF). In Nomachi, Motoki; Kamusella, Tomasz (eds.). Languages and Nationalism Instead of Empires. Routledge Histories of Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge. pp. 168–169. doi:10.4324/9781003034025-11. ISBN 978-0-367-47191-0. OCLC 1390118985. S2CID 259576119. SSRN 4680766. COBISS.SR 125229577. COBISS 171014403. Archived from the original on 10 January 2024. Retrieved 23 January 2024.
  21. ^ Gröschel, Bernhard (2009). Das Serbokroatische zwischen Linguistik und Politik: mit einer Bibliographie zum postjugoslavischen Sprachenstreit [Serbo-Croatian Between Linguistics and Politics: With a Bibliography of the Post-Yugoslav Language Dispute]. Lincom Studies in Slavic Linguistics 34 (in German). Munich: Lincom Europa. p. 451. ISBN 978-3-929075-79-3. LCCN 2009473660. OCLC 428012015. OL 15295665W.
  22. ^ The Ausbau language concept was developed by linguist Heinz Kloss. See:
    • Kloss, Heinz (1967). "Abstand languages and Ausbau languages". Anthropological Linguistics. 9 (7): 29–41. JSTOR 30029461. OCLC 482264773.
    • Kloss, Heinz (1978) [1st. Pub. 1952, Munich: Pohl]. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen von 1800 [The Development of New Germanic Cultural Languages Since 1800]. coll. Sprache der Gegenwart-Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 37 (in German). Düsseldorf: Schwann. p. 463. OCLC 463148605.
  23. ^ Kloss, Heinz (1976). "Abstandsprachen und Ausbausprachen" [Abstand-languages and Ausbau-languages]. In Göschel, Joachim; Nail, Norbert; van der Elst, Gaston (eds.). Zur Theorie des Dialekts: Aufsätze aus 100 Jahren Forschung. Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie and Linguistik, Beihefte, n.F., Heft 16. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. pp. 310, 312. OCLC 2598722.
  24. ^ Blum, Daniel (2002). Sprache und Politik: Sprachpolitik und Sprachnationalismus in der Republik Indien und dem sozialistischen Jugoslawien (1945-1991) [Language and Policy: Language Policy and Linguistic Nationalism in the Republic of India and the Socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991)]. Beiträge zur Südasienforschung ; vol. 192 (in German). Würzburg: Ergon. p. 200. ISBN 3-89913-253-X. OCLC 51961066.
  25. ^ Brozović, Dalibor (1992). "The Yugoslav Model of Language Planning: A Confrontation with Other Multilingual Models". In Bugarski, Ranko; Hewkesworth, Celia (eds.). Language Planning in Yugoslavia. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers. pp. 72–79. OCLC 26860931.
  26. ^ Stewart, William A. (1968). "A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism". In Fishman, Joshua A (ed.). Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. pp. 529–545. doi:10.1515/9783110805376.531. ISBN 978-3-11-080537-6. OCLC 306499.
  27. ^ Cooper, Robert Leon (1989). Language Planning and Social Change (Print book.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-5213-3359-7. OCLC 19624070.
  28. ^ Kafadar, Enisa (2009). "Bosnisch, Kroatisch, Serbisch – Wie spricht man eigentlich in Bosnien-Herzegowina?" [Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian – How do people really speak in Bosnia-Herzegovina?]. In Henn-Memmesheimer, Beate; Franz, Joachim (eds.). Die Ordnung des Standard und die Differenzierung der Diskurse; Teil 1 (in German). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. pp. 100–101, 103. ISBN 9783631599174. OCLC 699514676. Retrieved 9 August 2012.
  29. ^ Kordić, Snježana (2009). "Plurizentrische Sprachen, Ausbausprachen, Abstandsprachen und die Serbokroatistik" [Pluricentric languages, Ausbau languages, Abstand languages and Serbo-Croatian studies] (PDF). Zeitschrift für Balkanologie (in German). 45 (2): 210–215. ISSN 0044-2356. OCLC 680567046. SSRN 3439240. CROSBI 436361. ZDB-ID 201058-6. Archived from the original on 4 August 2012. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
  30. ^ Mader Skender, Mia (2022). "Schlussbemerkung" [Summary]. Die kroatische Standardsprache auf dem Weg zur Ausbausprache [The Croatian standard language on the way to ausbau language] (PDF) (Dissertation). UZH Dissertations (in German). Zurich: University of Zurich, Faculty of Arts, Institute of Slavonic Studies. pp. 196–197. doi:10.5167/uzh-215815. Retrieved 8 June 2022. p. 196: Obwohl das Kroatische sich in den letzten Jahren in einigen Gebieten, vor allem jedoch auf lexikalischer Ebene, verändert hat, sind diese Änderungen noch nicht bedeutend genug, dass der Terminus Ausbausprache gerechtfertigt wäre.
  31. ^ Thomas, Paul-Louis (2003). "Le serbo-croate (bosniaque, croate, monténégrin, serbe): de l'étude d'une langue à l'identité des langues" [Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian): from the study of a language to the identity of languages]. Revue des études slaves (in French). 74 (2–3): 325. ISSN 0080-2557. OCLC 754204160. ZDB-ID 208723-6. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  32. ^ "Commission on the Filipino Language Act". Chan Robles Law Library. Retrieved 19 July 2007.
  33. ^ a b "Resolusyon Blg. 92-1" (in Filipino). Commission on the Filipino Language. 13 May 1992. Retrieved 24 March 2007.
  34. ^ "Cantonese: Language or dialect? | Unravel Magazine". Unravel. Retrieved 17 April 2018.
  35. ^ 民視綜合頻道 (23 May 2011), 台語更名「閩南語」 學者批歧視－民視新聞, archived from the original on 21 December 2021, retrieved 17 April 2018
  36. ^ "【民報】台灣南社 台灣羅馬字協會：「台語就是台語」不是閩南語" (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Retrieved 17 April 2018.
  37. ^ Storm.mg. "北京話不是國語、台語也不能叫閩南語！他這樣控訴國民黨對台灣歷史記憶的操弄…-風傳媒" (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Retrieved 17 April 2018.
  38. ^ "Hoklo". languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu. Retrieved 24 March 2020.
  39. ^ "商語皆周語字音發音之關係 The Relationship Between the Pronunciations of Characters in Siong's and Jiu's Languages". www.stat.sinica.edu.tw. Retrieved 24 March 2020.
  40. ^ "台灣話的由來". www.taiwanus.net. Retrieved 17 April 2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_secessionism&oldid=1258195045"