Jump to content

Language secessionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language secessionism(also known aslinguistic secessionismorlinguistic separatism) is an attitude supporting the separation of alanguage varietyfrom thelanguageto 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 Catalansociolinguistics[1]but it is attested in other parts of the world.

In Arabic[edit]

Sociolinguistic background[edit]

TheArab Worldis characterized bydiglossia:local dialects dominate the sphere of daily communication, whileStandard Arabiccarries high prestige and is used in formal writing and speaking.[2]

This situation has important political and social implications.Modern Standard Arabicis the official language of allArab countries,and enjoys the status of a global language. Standard Arabic is also thelingua sacraofIslam,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 spokenvernacularsand 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 theEgyptian dialect) is theEgyptian Arabic Wikipediaalso 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 asSalama Musa,Bayyūmī Qandīl,Muḥsin Luṭfī as-Sayyid, and theLiberal 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 asBayyūmī Qandīl,substantiate their political demands with pseudoscientific claims.[4]

Linguistic separatism remains a fringe movement within Egyptian society. The idea remains particularly attractive toCoptic Christiansand liberals, who seeEgyptian nationalismas an alternative toPan-ArabismandPan-Islamism.[4]

In Catalan and Occitan[edit]

Common characteristics[edit]

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

  • A breakaway from the tradition of Occitan and Catalan 19th centuryrevivalist movements,which usually support the internal unity of each of these languages.
  • An often deliberate ignorance of the tradition ofRomancelinguistics.[6]
  • An exacerbation of thecultural identitylinked to dialects,which secessionism considers as separate languages.
  • A lack of success (or a very marginal position) inlinguisticscientific research.[7]
  • An activelobbyingin regional political circles.
  • The support of awriting systemor of any prescription, which breaks up linguistic unity and exaggerates dialectal particular features.

In Catalan[edit]

InCatalan,there are three cases:

  • Valencian languagesecessionism, orblaverism,appeared during thedemocratic transitionof 1975–1981, after the fall ofFrancoism.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 byInstitut d'Estudis CatalansandAcadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua), while "Blavers" (partisans of blaverism) mostly write Valencian using an alternative standard called "Normes del Puig"(codified by theRoyal Academy of Valencian Culture).
  • Balearic languagesecessionism 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 thestandardizationof Catalan.
  • InFranja de Ponent(a Catalan-speaking strip in easternAragon), language secessionism is quite marginal. It appeared during the 2000s. It is supported only by a fraction of the already minority pro-Aragonesemovements, who overstate a so-called Aragoneseancestryin the Catalan spoken in Aragon.

In Occitan[edit]

There are three cases inOccitan:

  • In theAuvernhatdialect, language secessionism has been supported since the 1970s byPierre Bonnaud,who founded theBonnaudian norm,the groupCercle Terre d'Auvergneand the reviewBïzà 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 Occitanclassical norm) and secessionism (associated withBonnaudian norm).
  • In theProvençaldialect, 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 theMistralian 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 bothMistralian normandclassical norm) and the secessionist vision (supported by one some users of theMistralian norm). The Regional Council ofProvence-Alpes-Côte d'Azurvoted 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 theGascondialect, 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 theclassical normand the other one is a nonstandard spin-off from theMistralian norm.Gascon cultural circles almost unanimously support the unitary vision of the Occitan language. InAran Valley(a little Gascon Occitan-speaking area in Spain),Aranese,the local variety ofGascon,is officially recognized as a part of theOccitan language.The status of semi-autonomy of Aran Valley (1990) presents GasconAraneseas "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 ofCatalonia,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

InAndalusia,there isa fringe movementaimed at promoting theAndalusian dialectas a separate language fromSpanish.[8]

In Hindi and Urdu[edit]

Further information:Hindi–Urdu controversy

Thenational languageof Pakistan andofficial languagesin many parts of India, theDelhi dialecthas become the basis ofModern Standard HindiandModern Standard Urdu.Grammatically, Hindi and Urdu are the same language,Hindustani,but they differ in their literary and academic vocabulary. Hindi tends to adoptSanskritwords andpurgesliterary words borrowed fromPersian,while Urdu does the opposite. In essence, apart from their scripts, thelexiconis what distinguishes Urdu and Hindi. There are additionalIndo-Aryan languagesthat are counted as Hindi but are not the same as Hindustani. They are consideredHindi languagesbut 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 ofMoldovais identical toRomanian.However,Vasile Stati,a local linguist and politician, has asserted his opinion that Moldovan is a separate language in hisDicționar moldovenesc-românesc(Moldovan–Romanian dictionary).[9]

During the Soviet era, the USSR authorities officially recognized and promotedMoldovansandMoldovanas a distinct ethnicity and language from Romanians. ACyrillic Alpha betwas introduced in theMoldavian ASSRandSSRto reinforce this claim. Since 1989, the official language switched to theLatin scriptand underwent several of the language reforms of Romanian.

Nowadays, the Cyrillic Alpha bet remains in official use only on the territories controlled by the breakaway authorities of thePridnestrovian 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;andYugoslavism

Serbo-Croatianhas a strong structural unity, according to the vast majority of linguists who specialize inSlavic languages.[10][11]However, the language is spoken by populations that have strong, different, national consciousnesses:Bosniaks,Croats,Montenegrins,andSerbs.

Since thebreakup of Yugoslaviain 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,MontenegrinandSerbian.This process has been accused of being grounded onpseudoscientificclaims fueled by political agendas.[12][13]

Indeed,linguistsandsociolinguistshave not ceased to speak of a common Serbo-Croatian.[14][15]It is apluricentric language[16][17][18][19][20]being cultivated through four voluntarily divergingnormative varieties,[21]Croatian,Bosnian,MontenegrinandSerbian,which are sometimes consideredAusbaulanguages.[22]However,Ausbaulanguages must have different dialect basis,[23]whereas standardized Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian have the same dialect basis (Štokavian,specifically theEastern Herzegovinian dialect).[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 contrastsAusbaulanguages not only withAbstandlanguages 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 "Ausbaulanguages"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 southerncountysplit from theKingdom of Galiciaand fief of theKingdom of León,was created byAfonso I of Portugalin 1126 and expanded towards theIslamic south,like its neighbouring kingdoms. That part of Galicia, named Portugal, became independent while the northern part of the country remained under theKingdom of Leónduring the 12th century and early 13th century. Northern Galicia would later be ruled by theKingdom 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 greatprestigeduring theLow Middle Ages.In the late 15th century, Castilian domination became more severe,banishing their languagein all official uses, including thechurch.

Galician-Portuguesesurviveddiglossicallyfor the following centuries among the peasant population, but it experienced a strong Spanishinfluenceand had a different evolution.[citation needed]Meanwhile, the same language (by thereintegrationistview) remained fullyofficialin Portugal and was carried across the world byPortuguese explorers,soldiers andcolonists.

During the 19th century arevival movementarose. This movement defended the Galician language, and created a provisional norm, with a Castilianorthographyand manyloanwords.When autonomy was granted, a norm and orthography (based inrexurdimentowriters) (Galician literature) for a Galician language was created. This norm is taught and used in schools anduniversities 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 achievingpolitical autonomyand beingread 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 theReal Academia Galega,which supports the official norm.

Reintegrationist and Lusist groupsare protesting against this so-called language secessionism, which they call Castrapism (fromcastrapo,something like "patois") orIsolationism.Unlike in the case ofValencianBlaverism,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,velarizationof/l/andnasal vowels,and some speechregistersof it adhered toyeísmo,all making it phonologically closer to Spanish. For example,European Portuguesehad splits that created two newvowelphonemes,one of them usually anallophoneonly in the case ofvowel reductionand the other phonetically absent in any other variant. Some dialects had a merger of three of its oraldiphthongsand another three of its nasal vowels, and together withBrazilian Portugueseabsorbed more than 5000 loanwords from French as well as 1500 from English.

It seems that the debate for a greater integration amongPortuguese-speaking countrieshad the result of a single writing standard (1990 Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement), often shunned by some segments ofPortuguese mediaand 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 anotherLusophonespelling 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 itsvariants(such as a free choice between the various allophones of therhotic consonant/ʁ/,[a~ɐ~ɜ~ə]for/a~ɐ/or[s~s̻ʲ~ʃ~ɕ]for thevoicelessallophone 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 theFilipino Language,reporting directly to the President and tasked to undertake, coordinate and promote researches for the development, propagation and preservation of Filipino and otherPhilippine languages.[32]On May 13, 1992, the commission issued Resolution 92-1, specifying that Filipino is the

...indigenous written and spoken language ofMetro Manilaandother urban centersin the Philippines used as the language of communication ofethnic groups.[33]

Though theCommission on the Filipino Languagerecognizes that a lot of the vocabulary ofFilipinois based onTagalog,the latest definition given to the national language tries to evade the use of the termTagalog.

According to someFilipinologists(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 otherPhilippine languages,such asCebuano(such asbana– husband),Hiligaynon(such asbuang– insane) andIlocano(such asading– little brother). They also maintain that the termTagalogis the language of theKatagaluganor theTagalog Regionandpuristicin a sense. It lacks certain phonemes like /f/ and /v/, which makes it incapable of producing some indigenous proper nounsIfugaoandIvatan.[33]Curiously, proponents of language secessionism are unable to account for the glaring absence of long vowel, phonemic inTausug,in Filipino phonology or for the absence of aschwa.Arguments for secessionism generally ignore the fact that the variouslanguages of the Philippineshave divergent phonologies.

In Chinese[edit]

Mandarin versus other dialects[edit]

Among Chinese speakers,Yue Chinese(Cantonese),[34]Hokkienand othervarieties of Chineseare often referred to asdialects(Chinese:Phương ngôn), instead oflanguages(simplified Chinese:Ngôn ngữ;traditional Chinese:Ngôn ngữ), despite the fact that those varieties are not mutually intelligible withMandarin,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 ofHanzi(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 theHokkientopolect(Chinese:Mân Nam ngữ), which is widely used inFu gian,Taiwan,and in theChinese diaspora,it is debated that whetherTaiwanese dialects(Chinese:Đài Loan Mân Nam ngữ) should be separated from the Hokkien language as theTaiwanese language(Chinese:Đài Loan lời nói or đài ngữ),[35][36]although people from Fu gian and Taiwan can communicate with each other despite some differences in vocabulary. Such debates may be associated withpolitics of Taiwan.[37]

In Taiwan, there is a common perception that Hokkien preserves more archaic features fromClassical Chinesethan Mandarin, thus allowingpoetry from the Tang dynastyto rhyme better. AmongstHokkien 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, isChinese:Hà Lạc lời nói;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 theYellow River Mapand theLo Shu Squareand taken as evidence that the ancestors of Hokkien-speaking people came from theCentral Plain,and in preserving their identity over the centuries, Hokkien speakers have also better preserved their language. Somefringe scholarsclaim that modern Hokkien is a faithfully preserved archaic variety of Chinese once used in the imperial courts dating back as early as theShang dynasty.[39]Another claim based on folk etymology is that the wordMandarinis based on the Mandarin pronunciation of the Chinese phraseChinese:Mãn đại nhân;pinyin:Mǎndàrén;lit.'important Manchu person or Manchu official'. This is taken as evidence that Mandarin has beencorrupted by foreign influencefromManchu,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 ofSouthern Min,is a descendant ofProto-Min,a language that split from lateOld Chinese,and Mandarin descended fromMiddle 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.S2CID239352211.
  3. ^Versteegh, Kees, et al. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics / Vol. II, Eg-Lan.Brill, 2007, pp. 8-18.
  4. ^abcNabulssi-Masełbas, Zuzanna (2023).Egyptian Linguistic Separatism. A Study in Wikipedia Masri(PDF).Warsaw University. pp. 65–74.ISBN978-83-963626-2-9.{{cite book}}:CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  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 StatiinContrafortmagazine, 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.OCLC49550401.
  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.ISSN1068-2090.Retrieved9 October2019.
  12. ^Kordić, Snježana (2010).Jezik i nacionalizam(PDF).Zagreb: Durieux. p. 16.ISBN978-953-188-311-5.
  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.Retrieved28 May2022.
  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.ISBN3-87690-885-X.OCLC56198470.SSRN3434516.CROSBI 430499.Archived(PDF)from the original on 1 June 2012.Retrieved13 April2019.(ÖNB)
  15. ^abTrudgill, Peter(30 November 2017)."Time to Make Four into One".The New European.p. 46.Retrieved23 January2024.
  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.OCLC238795822.
  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.ISBN978-953-188-311-5.LCCN2011520778.OCLC729837512.OL15270636W.SSRN3467646.CROSBI 475567.Archived(PDF)from the original on 1 June 2012.Retrieved1 August2019.
  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.ISBN978-953-313-086-6.LCCN2018048005.OCLC1061308790.S2CID150383965.
  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.ISSN0933-1883.S2CID244134335.Retrieved9 June2022.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).InNomachi, 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.ISBN978-0-367-47191-0.OCLC1390118985.S2CID259576119.SSRN4680766.COBISS.SR125229577.COBISS171014403.Archivedfrom the original on 10 January 2024.Retrieved23 January2024.
  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.ISBN978-3-929075-79-3.LCCN2009473660.OCLC428012015.OL15295665W.
  22. ^TheAusbau languageconcept was developed by linguistHeinz Kloss.See:
    • Kloss, Heinz(1967). "Abstand languages and Ausbau languages".Anthropological Linguistics.9(7): 29–41.JSTOR30029461.OCLC482264773.
    • 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.OCLC463148605.
  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.OCLC2598722.
  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.ISBN3-89913-253-X.OCLC51961066.
  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.OCLC26860931.
  26. ^Stewart, William A.(1968). "A Sociolinguistic Typology for Describing National Multilingualism". InFishman, Joshua A(ed.).Readings in the Sociology of Language.The Hague, Paris: Mouton. pp. 529–545.doi:10.1515/9783110805376.531.ISBN978-3-11-080537-6.OCLC306499.
  27. ^Cooper, Robert Leon (1989).Language Planning and Social Change(Print book.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.216.ISBN978-0-5213-3359-7.OCLC19624070.
  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.ISBN9783631599174.OCLC699514676.Retrieved9 August2012.
  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.ISSN0044-2356.OCLC680567046.SSRN3439240.CROSBI 436361.ZDB-ID201058-6.Archived fromthe originalon 4 August 2012.Retrieved2 March2014.
  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.Retrieved8 June2022.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.ISSN0080-2557.OCLC754204160.ZDB-ID208723-6.Retrieved13 April2015.
  32. ^"Commission on the Filipino Language Act".Chan Robles Law Library.Retrieved19 July2007.
  33. ^ab"Resolusyon Blg. 92-1"(in Filipino). Commission on the Filipino Language. 13 May 1992.Retrieved24 March2007.
  34. ^"Cantonese: Language or dialect? | Unravel Magazine".Unravel.Retrieved17 April2018.
  35. ^Dân coi tổng hợp kênh (23 May 2011),Đài ngữ thay tên “Mân Nam ngữ” học giả phê kỳ thị － dân coi tin tức,archivedfrom the original on 21 December 2021,retrieved17 April2018
  36. ^"【 dân báo 】 Đài Loan nam xã Đài Loan La Mã tự hiệp hội: “Đài ngữ chính là đài ngữ” không phải Mân Nam ngữ "(in Chinese (Taiwan)).Retrieved17 April2018.
  37. ^Storm.mg."Phương ngôn Bắc Kinh không phải quốc ngữ, đài ngữ cũng không thể kêu Mân Nam ngữ! Hắn như vậy lên án quốc dân đảng đối Đài Loan lịch sử ký ức thao lộng…- tin đồn môi"(in Chinese (Taiwan)).Retrieved17 April2018.
  38. ^"Hoklo".languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu.Retrieved24 March2020.
  39. ^"Thương ngữ toàn chu ngữ âm phát âm chi quan hệ The Relationship Between the Pronunciations of Characters in Siong's and Jiu's Languages".stat.sinica.edu.tw.Retrieved24 March2020.
  40. ^"Đài Loan lời nói ngọn nguồn".taiwanus.net.Retrieved17 April2018.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_secessionism&oldid=1235023297"