Esperanto and Minority Languages

Esperanto and minority languages
Challenges and opportunities

Federico Gobbo
University of Turin, Italy
federico.gobbo@unito.it

1 of 26

$

BY:

C

CC

University of Liverpool, UK
October 17, 2013

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
The definition:
languages traditionally used within a given territory of a state by
nationals of that state who form a group numerically smaller
than the rest of the state’s population; they are different from
the official language(s) of that state, and they include neither
dialects of the official language(s) of the state nor the languages
of migrants. (ECRML, Art. 1 – Definitions)
Let us consider some consequences.

3 of 26

Only a matter of number of (native) speakers?
Wikipedia, our repository of common-sense knowledge, states that “a
minority language is a language spoken by a minority of the
population of a territor”. This is a half-truth.
The problem of the (false) equivalence ‘minority languages =
lesser-used languages’: where is the border of lesser-usage?
100,000 native speakers?
10,000?
1,000?
We need to re-engineer the concept of minority languages.

4 of 26

Italy, a multilingual nation-state (look only to colours!)

A taxonomy of minority languages
Let’s take Italy as the reference territory for further analysis.
Edwards [1] introduced a taxonomy of minority languages, where:
local-only minority languages are for example German, French,
Slovene (they are national language elsewhere);

6 of 26

unique minority languages are for example Piedmontese, Venetian
(settled only in Italy only in a minority status);

6 of 26

unique minority languages are for example Piedmontese, Venetian
(settled only in Italy only in a minority status);
non-unique minority languages: an example is Catalan (present in
more than one state but never at a national level);

6 of 26

The paradox of South Tyrol in Italy

From a state perspective German is a minority language, from the
provincial perspective it is not – paraphrasing Edwards [1].

Framing minority languages as a relational concept
In the prototypical situation, a minority language is always deﬁned in
contrast to a majority language settled in the same Sprachraum
(proper territory of the language):
there is a bilingual community, where the minority language
belongs to;

8 of 26

belongs to;
for historical and political reasons, a majority language superseded
the minority one;

8 of 26

belongs to;
the minority one;
the minority language is reserved for the informal and everyday
functions (called ‘low variety’ or L);

8 of 26

belongs to;
the minority one;
the minority language is reserved for the informal and everyday
functions (called ‘low variety’ or L);
the majority language, often perceived as an imposed second
language (L2), is reserved for the formal functions holding prestige
(‘high variety’ or H).
8 of 26

Is Esperanto a minority
language?

A somehow strange question. . .
Esperanto is proposed at an international level. However, there are
some sociolinguistic analogies between the Esperanto community of
practice and minority languages, put in evidence by Edwards [2],
Romaine [8] and Kimura [6].
Analogies:
both are lesser-used languages (minority in terms of numbers);

10 of 26

Analogies:
language activists are mostly volunteers – they do not earn a living
in practicing the language;

10 of 26

Analogies:
speakers consider the language of high value, while non-speakers
are indiﬀerent or even hostile, often for biases;

10 of 26

Analogies:
speakers consider the language of high value, while non-speakers
are indiﬀerent or even hostile, often for biases;
while Esperanto is clearly a non-ethnic language – rather an ethic
language! – there is a recent tendency to relax the bond between
ethnicity and minority languages (e.g., when learned as a L2).
10 of 26

. . . with a clear answer!
However, adopting our definition of minority language as a relation,
there is no individuable majority language in contrast to Esperanto,
nor a territory with a bilingual community.
For example, a Catalan can choose to be an Esperantist too, while it
cannot choose to be Welsh – unless adopted identity for instance by
marriage, but it is a completely different situation.
Taking the perspective of postmodern linguistics, the rhetorics (in a
technical, neutral sense) behind minority languages and Esperanto are
vey different.
That’s why Esperanto is not a minority language.
11 of 26

. . . with a clear answer!
However, adopting our definition of minority language as a relation,
there is no individuable majority language in contrast to Esperanto,
nor a territory with a bilingual community.
For example, a Catalan can choose to be an Esperantist too, while it
cannot choose to be Welsh – unless adopted identity for instance by
marriage, but it is a completely different situation.
Taking the perspective of postmodern linguistics, the rhetorics (in a
technical, neutral sense) behind minority languages and Esperanto are
vey different.
That’s why Esperanto is not a minority language. Two examples.
11 of 26

The typical discourse behind minority languages
Language activists talk about ethnical, cultural and historical
authenticity. An example from Menominee, an Algonquian language
spoken in norther Wisconsin and Michingan, studied by Bloomﬁeld,
Sapir and Skinner.
That’s why knowing our language is so important, because it
teaches us who we are; it’s not just a set of words. It’s about
our history, it’s about our heritage, it’s about our way of life
that our ancestors have fought and died for.
Karen Washinawatok,
Director of Menominee Language and Culture commission

12 of 26

The typical discourse behind Esperanto
Among others, Jordan [5] eﬀectively resumes the idea that moved
Zamenhof in planning Esperanto, an idea that is at the basis of the
Esperanto movement:
Zamenhof’s ideology treats languages as tools of
communication, and communication as a tool for improving
human welfare. These credos imply that a second-best language
the world can agree to use is better than a “best” language on
which the world cannot agree. They imply also that the peoples
of the world have much in common, so international
communication will contribute to friendship and peace, rather
than animosity and war.

13 of 26

An interlinguistic view of
minority languages

Esperanto as an ally of minority languages
How can Esperanto be an ally of minority language activists? What
are the common traits shared by these movements? Three domains:
1. Language as a value per se. Language activists learn, teach,
promote their languages as they give a value to the language in
itself – while outside the community the language is not considered
important.

15 of 26

important.
2. Ecological knowledge. As biodiversity is considered a value in our
contemporary world, also the variety of languages in the world is a
value.

15 of 26

important.
2. Ecological knowledge. As biodiversity is considered a value in our
contemporary world, also the variety of languages in the world is a
value.
3. A right-based discourse. Our post-second world war society is
founded upon human rights, where language rights are an
important part. Two examples: the International Mother Language
Day (21 feb) or the Girona Manifesto by the PEN International
Club.
15 of 26

The Language Endangerment Framework

In the last ten years, language planners and activists (both inside and
outside academia) were coordinated by UNESCO forming a panel of
experts assessing a Language Endangerment Framework, i.e., a
practical methodology for what Spolsky [9] calls language
management.
Esperanto should ﬁnd its way in every multilingual situation, being a
factor of equilibrium and fairness in communication.

16 of 26

The UNESCO guideline Language Vitality and
Endangerment (LVE) and Esperanto (1/2)
LVE assignes a value from ‘0’ (direst situation) to ‘5’ (optimal
situation) to nine domains of the minority language:
1. Intergenerational language transmission
2. Absolute number of speakers
3. Proportion of speakers within the total population
4. Shifts in domains of language use
5. Response to new domains and media
6. Availability of materials for language education and literacy
7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and
policies including oﬃcial status and use
8. Community members’ attitudes toward their own language
9. Amount and quality of documentation
17 of 26

The UNESCO guideline Language Vitality and
Endangerment (LVE) and Esperanto (2/2)
In which domains Esperanto could be more helpful?
1. Intergenerational language transmission
2. Absolute number of speakers
3. Proportion of speakers within the total population
4. Shifts in domains of language use
5. Response to new domains and media
6. Availability of materials for language education and literacy
7. Governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies
including oﬃcial status and use
8. Community members’ attitudes toward their own language
9. Amount and quality of documentation
18 of 26

The Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (1/2)
Fishman [4] deﬁnes the ‘minimum program’ of reversing language
shift in preserving the intergenerational mother tongue transmission:
Stage 8: Reconstruction and adult acquisition.
Stage 7: Interaction in the language are driven by older
generations, typically grandparents.
Stage 6: The language is used only orally and within the
community, e.g., families and neighbourhood, by three
generations.
Stage 5: The language is used also in written form, with classes
out of school lessons, without any support outside the
community.
In these dramatic stages, pertaining endangered languages, Esperanto
can play little role.
19 of 26

The Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (2/2)
Stage 4b: The language is compulsory in lower education,
under control of the minority group.
Stage 4a: The language is compulsory in lower education,
with a wider recognition, i.e., outside the minority group.
Stage 3: The region or local area of the language considers it
normal, so that also members outside the community use it as a
L2.
Stage 2: Public services by the government are provided in the
language, as well as the media usage.
Stage 1: The language is used also in contexts of higher
prestige, including higher education, media and work, within the
region and abroad.
Language acquisition at school (stage 4) is a strategic area to
promote the minority language: the propaedeutic eﬀect of Esperanto
could be tested appropriately.
20 of 26

Open problem: how to gather more support?

Romaine [7] recently has pointed out that sustainability is a fuzzy
concept: nowadays, mainstream takes care of what can be measured
in economic terms.
Perhaps language policy experts and language activists should turn to
welfare theory or other areas of economics – economics of
languages being an emergent research ﬁeld.

22 of 26

An example of language policy as a (missing) variable
The Sustainable Development Solutions Network is a global initiative
for the UN. It publishes a report every year about ‘world happiness’.
Facts worth a mention:
the questionnaire is translated – something controversial in the
literature, for the evaluation of the data;

23 of 26

An example of language policy as a (missing) variable
The Sustainable Development Solutions Network is a global initiative
for the UN. It publishes a report every year about ‘world happiness’.
Facts worth a mention:
the questionnaire is translated – something controversial in the
literature, for the evaluation of the data;
there is no explicit variable concerning the language(s) used in
everyday life as factors of happiness (or not), even if it is clear that
the repertoire strongly aﬀects many variables taken into
considerations, such as ‘freedom to make life choices’ or ‘household
income’.

23 of 26

A ﬁnal advice

The link between biodiversity conservation,
poverty reduction and language diversity
preservation is worth more investigation, also
for supporters and scholars dealing with
minority languages and Esperanto alike.
Joining forces could be a good win-win
strategy.
24 of 26

References
Edwards, J. 1992 , Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: Towards a Typology of Minority
Language Situations, John Benjamins, chapter 3.
In Fase et al. (eds).
Edwards, J. 2010 , Minority Languages and Group Identity, John Benjamins.
Fase, W., Jaspaert, K., Kroon, S., eds 1992, Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages, John Benjamins.
Fishman, J. A. 1991 , Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Assistance to Threatened Languages,
Multilingual Matters.
Jordan, D. K. 1987, ‘Esperanto & esperantism: symbols and motivations in a movement for linguistic equality’,
Language Problems & Language Planning 11(1), 104–125.
Kimura, G. C. 2012, ‘Esperanto and minority languages: A sociolinguistic comparison’, Language Problems &
Language Planning 36(2), 167–181.
Romaine, S. 2013 , ‘Language and sustainable development: Integrating the economics of language policy with
poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation’, Workshop on The Economics of Language Policy, Venice
International University, San Servolo.
Romaine, S. 2011, ‘Revitalized Languages as Invented Languages’, in Adams, M. eds From Elvish to Klingon,
Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009, Language Management, Cambridge University Press.

25 of 26

Thanks for your attention!

Questions?
For proposals, ideas & comments:

federico.gobbo@unito.it

Download & share these slides here:
http:/federicogobbo.name/en/2013.html

$

BY:

C

CC

26 of 26

Federico Gobbo 2013

Esperanto and Minority Languages

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Esperanto and Minority Languages (20)

More from Federico Gobbo (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Esperanto and Minority Languages