Versione stampabile

Ksenija DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD

Language planning from the bottom up: Contributions and issues for pluralism as a sociocultural and glottopolitical ecology

Ksenija Djordjević Léonard
University Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3
Dipralang EA 739
F34000, Montpellier, France
ksenija.leonard@univ-montp3.fr

Résumé

Depuis trois décennies, la situation des minorités linguistiques, dans nombre de pays, n’a cessé de se dégrader, par bien des aspects, en dépit des bonnes intentions déclarées dans le cadre du libre-échange généralisé et du multilatéralisme – dont le pluralisme linguistique et culturel était censé être l’un des fleurons les plus tangibles. Ainsi, par exemple, dans de nombreuses régions du bloc ex-communiste, il est devenu inévitable de parler de « désaménagement linguistique ». Cette tendance n’est guère compensée par l’explosion d’une myriade d’usages individuels décomplexés des langues minorées ou minoritaires (notamment à travers les nouveaux moyens de communication connectés), qui génèrent certes une forte densité d’échanges multilingues ou bilingues, mais de manière éminemment volatile, qui ne remplace en rien la valorisation du statut et l’élaboration du corpus des langues minoritaires avec une vision à court, moyen et long termes. D’autre part, les aménagements et politiques linguistiques en faveur des langues minoritaires tendent globalement à prendre deux formes, du point de vue de la responsabilité et de l’engagement des Etats-nations : une marchandisation et une politique de façade, qui ne fait que brosser la surface des besoins réels, et une disqualification de facto de la valeur d’usage et de la valeur d’avenir de ces langues, avec, comme lingua franca dominante l’anglais global, redoutable concurrent pour un « bilinguisme d’avenir », ou « un bilinguisme rentable ».
Hormis quelques exceptions locales, çà et là, face à ce désinvestissement de fond des Etats-nations, le champ de praxis sociale où les langues minoritaires connaissent un soutien réel s’avère être l’aménagement linguistique "de par en bas" : la valorisation du statut et l’élaboration du corpus par des agents multiples de la société civile, à travers une floraison de maisons d’éditions alternatives, de médias et d’institutions éducatives locales et régionales, en parfaite adaptation avec les conditions de postmodernité technologique et sociopolitique. Ces actions sont menées en réseaux, le plus souvent de manière volontaire et quasiment bénévole, par des acteurs sociaux locuteurs natifs ou néolocuteurs des langues minoritaires, dans un esprit pluraliste et démocratique. Dans cette communication, nous présenterons de multiples exemples de cette modalité de défense et promotion de langues et cultures minorées, de leur mode opératoire, de leur capacité d’adaptation, de leur contribution au débat démocratique et à la paix sociale.

Introduction

In the last three decades, the status of language minorities across a number of countries has continued to deteriorate. Despite the good intentions of policy defined by free trade and multilateralism (of which linguistic and cultural pluralism was a supposed flagship of the most tangible order), this deterioration has taken many forms, such that, in certain countries, we are now dealing with language 'dismanteling'1. This tendency is partially compensated for by the explosion of uninhibited personal use of minority and rare languages, most notably through social networks, which while generating dense bi- and multi-lingual exchange, remains markedly volatile and cannot replace the short and longer terms visions entailed by the validation of language status and the development of corpora of minority languages. What is more, minority language planning and policy tend globally to take two forms from the point of view of nation-state institutions: commercialized interests and superficial policy-making that only responds to surface needs, and the de facto disqualification of the use and the future of these languages, while positioning International English as a lingua franca, a most formidable competitor for “bilingualism of the future” or “profitable” bilingualism.

With few exceptions, the area of social praxis where minority languages experience real support while in the face of massive state funding withdrawals, is in fact through what we call 'bottom-up language planning' - or the validation of language status and the development of corpora by multiple parties of civil society, notably through the engagement of alternative publishers, media and local or regional institutions of education. These actions are supported by networks of volunteer, usually unpaid social actors, and native and non-native speakers of minority languages, often in an atmosphere of democratic pluralism. In this article, we will examine three examples selected from the former communist bloc that exemplify this approach of protecting and promoting rare and minority languages and cultures through their operational methods and their adaptive capacity. We will then consider their contributions to the debate on democracy and social harmony.

1. Language planning and sustainable development

1.1 Operational concepts

One of the richest fields of sociolinguistics in terms of theoretical reflection based on empirical study is that of language planning and language policy, in its broad form. Whether it be staunchly democratic and pluralist, driven by historical reparations, resulting from a multi-state context in a federal nation, linguistic policies are necessarily motivated by the language diversity of a territory and the necessity for planning. In the field of language policy, theoretical work is plentiful. Without going into the details of each concept linked with language management, e.g. policy, planning, glottopolitics, normalization (cf. Haugen 1959; Guespin & Marcellesi 1986; Calvet 1999a; Boyer 2010, etc.), we will simply focus our own use on the term that is most commonly used today: language planning. Initially proposed by sociolinguists from Quebec (Corbeil 1980), and in following the Austrian sociolinguist, Heinz Kloss, (1969), this term englobes the status of languages (use, presence in public and administrative spaces, public education learning, etc.), and the corpus of languages (development or modification of writing systems, enhancement or adjustment of orthographic conventions, creation of grammars and dictionaries, etc.).

When the question of language planning was first being formulated (coinciding with the development of sociolinguistics as a discipline), it was often question of a top down, or institutional approach to language planning, though other forms have been theorized and developed in the interim, as Henri Boyer notes:

“[...it should not be forgotten that action taken on the language(s) question has not been the prerogative of states: local grassroots structures, non-governmental organizations, territorial collectives like those found in certain regions of France (through dedicated public policy supporting 'minority' and 'regional' language initiatives) have, in the specific case of possibly widespread social issues linked with language, constituted very viable forms of militant or regulatory action on a given sociolinguistic case” (Boyer 2005: 67).2

Indeed, beyond institutional, top-down approaches in language planning, another notion has emerged in the realm of glottopolitics: 'bottom-up language planning'. This idea will be interpreted as the set of initiatives coordinated and undertaken by a given civil society towards the protection and promotion of minority languages, in opposition to institutional language planning which emanates from official or governmental structures. The role of scholars is intermediary in the sense that they are often employees of state institutions, that is universities, though they may maintain the possibility of activism alongside bottom-up planners. This intermediary role remains undefined as other actors, for example organizations specialized in regional planning, are also intermediaries on the vertical scale of power that may also maintain access to decision making and fund allocation. In order to characterize this domain of action, we have proposed the idea of 'mid-level' language planning (LÉONARD & DJORDJEVIĆ 2010).

As for sustainable development as a notion, the 1980's marked a period of serious thinking and conceptualization of this idea, which can be defined as “a mode of development that responds to the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to respond to their own needs” (BRUNDTLAND 1987)3. Louis-Jean Rousseau notes that the development of 'language planning' as a concept took place in the framework of preliminary discussions on global expansion and its cultural and linguistic implications:

“The cultural aspect of development is due to the role that languages play in a number of practices that share a common function as a tool of perception and denomination of reality; as a tool of elaboration and transmission of knowledge; as a tool of communication; as means for technical and economic cooperation; and as a vector of appreciation in the economy of knowledge, and, in a more general sense, in the social and economic development of language communities” (ROUSSEAU 2005: 93).

In examining the ties between language planning and sustainable development4, what becomes clear is the necessity for languages to be equipped with the necessary terminology to effectively communicate. This entails its widespread diffusion to properly informed and literate speakers present across national institutions and diverse social sectors (ROUSSEAU 2005: 94). If these conditions can be met, the languages concerned have a chance to play an active role in sustainable development at a global level, possibly contributing to their own advancement at a local level. Were things to progress otherwise, it would be difficult to imagine viable and endurable progress without a genuine consideration of plurilinguistic and pluriculturalist programs that would integrate, at least at varying levels, all linguistic varieties, and in particular those with the least reach. As such, it is first necessary to ensure the survival and maintenance of these minority languages. According to Nettle and Romaine, this necessitates a bottom-up approach (at the grassroots level involving local micro-groups with particular attention to the transmission of languages in the home), in addition to a top-down approach (through the preservation of languages coupled with greater ecological movements, or as a result of language policy from local, regional, and international levels) (NETTLE & ROMAINE 2000: 189-191; 213). Glottopolitical and sociocultural ecology5 has incorporated this double-pronged interventionism in the field of language management. Still, none of this is viable nor sustainable without the appropriation of said actions on the part of speakers. Here we find Yona Friedman's third and final prerequisite of 'achievable utopias': (1) demand technical solutions to social issues, (2) technical solutions should be put forward by experts or educated and informed activists, (3) these solutions must be appropriated in order to be organically integrated into the social tissue (FRIEDMAN 1975).

1.2 Does language planning in Eastern Europe present a particular case?

While the notion of a plural nation-state may appear strange in a French context given the assimilatory foundations of this country, heterogeneous models are entirely possible. Indeed, plurality can be accepted as a constituent element in the construction of national identity rather than as a contradiction to national unity. As it is, the homogeneity of the French state remains ostensive in the face of growing recognition of the country's internal diversity in the last thirty years. This movement is exemplified by e.g. the teaching of Occitan, Breton, Corsican, etc., which has steadily become permitted and even encouraged at the local level; and the founding of organizations specialized in monitoring and supporting the diversity of the languages of France alongside Standard French, such as the DGLFLF6. Put another way, the French tradition of centralization builds its construction of society through consent and a program of assimilation that, while having progressively entered a transitional phase of compromise through the previously cited examples, has not reexamined assumptions of the republican conception of national unity.

In our opinion, Western Europe constitutes a different vantage point in politics and language planning as conditioned by geo-strategic factors and different national and supranational programs. The linguistic space of Central and Eastern Europe, after the birth of nations, the creation of confederations and supranational coalitions like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, or the USSR, has undergone phenomena of a similar nature: languages that emerged across Central and Southeast Europe were the subject of language planning in a federative supranational framework and in which efforts were made toward standardization, or these languages were targets of different reform projects that were more or less achievable, and then more or less achieved. These multi-state bodies soon dissolved and fragmented into new glottopolitical units that subsequent language policy at times broke up or reinforced into new units of language use.

Yet another phenomenon is observable that is common to parts of Europe, Western and Central or Eastern alike: the participation of an active civil society. This form of action counters a hegemonic and ideological schema of governance, whether it be federal-imperialist like the Soviet Union, federal-Balkan like Yugoslavia, Central European like Czechoslovakia or united and indivisible like the French nation-state's universalist vocation. This participation is an operation of communities of practice (ECKERT & WENGER 1994) that, through innovative and creative projects in Veps territory, in Prešov or Subotica7, for example, are decisive against a hegemonic state by cultivating sociocultural pluralism and practices of community organizing and communication through a blend of differentialism and universalism that we will refer to as glocalization8, partially for its technological aspect.

In the following, we will explore the different operational modes of these communities of practice through three case studies on minority languages of Central and Eastern Europe: Veps, a Finno-Ugric language spoken in Russia and Bunjevac (Serbia) and Rusyn (Slovakia) both Slavic varieties.

2. Case Studies

The three case studies examined in this article serve as models of promotional tactics and codification, of standardization and literary and scholarly creation, all of which are central to our study with the added enrichment of experience from the field (Russia and Serbia) and second hand sources (Slovakia)9. We will be focusing on the rich potential of glottopolitics, as well as varying phenomena of sociolinguistic resilience, and the development or even regeneration of corpora and stature of these languages through a multifaceted consideration of ideology, of socio-educational approaches, of technique in terms of praxis, of savoir-faire and of operational modes. The glottopolitical conditions experienced by minorities can be as diverse and fine grained as illustrated by these case studies.

2.1 Veps (Russia)

Movements of socio-economic transition and the geo-strategic reconfigurations of the post-Cold War period provided an abundance of sociolinguistic 'dismantling' or 'deteriorated' language planning, which might otherwise be called the unraveling of preexisting pluralist structures. This was in reality a constant breakdown of various infrastructures that, under Communism, had, in a certain way, ended up encouraging a certain continuity in minority cultures and languages.

However, for certain endemic languages, the post-Cold War period witnessed a number of initiatives that led to important results from the linguistic and sociolinguistic points of view. This is the case of the Veps language.

As we have previously described (DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD 2013; 2014a), Veps was codified and standardized in the 1930's as was the majority of minority languages in the Soviet zone. This was done in an effort to build recognition for national cultures in a perilous atmosphere for researchers who were in constant danger of being labeled nationalist or traitors to the country (Филимончик 2011: 22-23). The codification of Veps using the Latin alphabet was concluded in 1931 in the southern central region of the Veps culture area in the oblasts of Leningrad and Vologda, south of the modern-day Republic of Karelia. The first Veps schools were opened and the first Veps primers were printed in this same region. The development of a literary language were halted at the end of the 1930s with the obligatory transition from the Latin to Cyrillic alphabet followed by a series of repression against intellectuals and cultural actors.

The second period of cultural and linguistic expansion to take place was in the 1980s, though this time in the southern parts of the Veps cultural area in Karelia. In 1989, the writing system was newly codified, pointedly using a Latin alphabet. The development of the language resumed where it had left off fifty years before. Of the accomplishments dating from this era, the most notable are the creation of the Society of Veps Culture and a chair of Veps language and culture at the University of Petrozavodsk, the founding of the publishing house Periodika, and the newspaper Kodima, as well as local radio and television stations, the establishment of early language learning programs in nursery schools, the publishing of school textbooks, the flourish in literary production, the appearance of bilingual signage, etc. These achievements are that much more impressive when we consider the fact that this language counts no more than several thousand speakers. While visiting a northern Veps community in the spring of 2013, we observed that these programs are still actively being pursued, providing a powerfully heuristic example of language revitalization in which the language begins to function anew. This revitalization is being led by a small number of native and non-native speakers seeking to re-socialize or reintegrate the language through a series of actions based in Petrozavodsk and other villages along the coast of Lake Onega. Here, remaining speakers and interested parties come together in a common space to support Veps language and culture, like Paginklub, a discussion club and one of the hubs of Veps revitalization where different groups can connect and exchange. This discussion club is a space where newly published material in Veps language can be shared and enjoyed, and where issues in Veps education can be deliberated alongside language teachers, or where people can quite simply speak to one another in Veps. This is a permanent and productive dynamic where ideas and initiatives circulate towards the same goal: promote language, restore its status, continue the development of corpora. As we noted in Léonard & Djordjević Léonard (2014), practically all those who are involved in the revitalization of Veps know one another, working regularly in a veritable network inhabited by speakers from urban and rural areas. In an observation that is both comforting and worrying:

“while it is certainly reassuring to note a certain synergy between the academic, urban and rural worlds where each speaker counts and each speaker is valued, it is troubling to observe that the Veps speaking world is restricted to a relatively closed circle where new speakers are rare. In reality, this language is rapidly declining” (LÉONARD & DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD 2014: 10-11).

While Veps may be counting its days, the language certainly has not had its 'last word', notably thanks to the efforts in bottom-up and intermediary language planning led by activists and planners. As, while Veps has been maintained in northwestern Russia, this is less due to top-down linguistic policy (even though a certain level of official recognition does exist, it remains symbolic10) and more thanks to bottom-up planning. This approach covers most of the principal domains that are essential to language survival today: administration, education, research, information, publishing, culture, and new technology, and this thanks to the commitment and efforts of language activists, some of whom are among the last native speakers. The reduced territory of Veps does not take away from the breadth of the enterprise that these activists have undertaken: rejuvenate a minority language in a ethos of consensus, pluralism and democracy.

2.2 Bunjevac (Serbia)

Our second case study treats a language variety11 from northern Serbia spoken by the Bunjevci from the 'triangle of Baja'12. This variety is part of the Serbo-Croatian language continuum, based on the Shtokavian-Ikavian dialects13.

This linguistic micro-community from Vojvodina illustrates the complexity of different regional sociolinguistic configurations. By community, we mean a psychosocial construction of identity whose justification is glottopolitical (or rather micro-glottopolitical) rather than historical. This construction of a Bunjevac community14 is actively espoused by the learned elite working for the diffusion of the Bunjevac variety through bottom-up language planning, constituting a conceptually constructionist pair with the term minority. Such a situation mirrors that of a people looking for ways to individuate their variety. By individuation, we mean the emergence of a glottopolitical program in the name of dialectal variety or a minority language. Individuation can take a more or less formal incarnation, but takes shape as soon as distance is achieved in sociolinguistic representations within a minority group, as is the case with the Bunjevci of Serbia.

Recent work (DJORDJEVIĆ 2013) examines the complex position of this population's identity as a representation of cross-border issues between Serbia and Croatia. The corpus used was composed of archives from Bunjevačke novine, a local newspaper active from 2005-2010. This allowed us to treat the question of individuation and the standardization of new norms, as well as the central aspects of Bunjevci community, which we have defined as an ambivalent and resilient collateral identity. Indeed, among the Bunjevci, there are those who feel more Serbian, others who identify as Croatian, while yet others simply as Bunjevci. These different affiliations are intertwined in issues of identity and geo-politics, which further complicates the question of identity, and in the case of a lack of resilience, could lead to an explosive situation.

In terms of language policy, official recognition in Serbia occurred in 1991, whereas up until this point, the Bunjevci had been assimilated with Croatians. Results of this top-down recognition were multiple: Croatians were disgruntled at what they saw to be a loss to their greater community, while on the other hand, Bunjevac groups, including the elite, rapidly mobilized around projects promoting the language and culture. In other words, in this case, top-down language planning led to grassroots, or bottom-up language planning. The mobilization of civil society in coordination with regional and local Bunjevac institutions led to the creation of a National Council in 2003; the founding of Bunjevačke novine, a newspaper serving as a record of different iterations of Bunjevac identity over time; the option of learning the language in primary schools starting in 2007; radio and television shows; and a surge in publications, from literary to learning tools. The first decade of the 21st century was an important time for this community, marking the period when Bunjevac elite made decisions that cemented their form of community organizing as well as the future of the language (what variety would be taught, how was it to be written, etc.). These questions were treated by Chloé Dubois in her doctoral dissertation on the complex relationship between language and (ethno)national identity within a minority context among the Bunjevci and Bunjevac activists:

“[...] we are faced with a true example of small-scale language planning in the Serbo-Croatian domain, and moreover, one that seems to emanate from the bottom up of this very same ethnolinguistic community. While the state provides the community with structural, symbolic and financial support, it is the Bunjevci people themselves (at least some of them) who are seizing the opportunity to organize. This is done in conjunction with their national council, democratically elected by members of the national minority in order to defend and exercise their language rights” (DUBOIS 2016: 398).

Chloé Dubois rightfully points out that gains achieved by activists is partially due to the positive attitude of the Serbian state. However, it should also be noted that this benevolent regard, according to some, is driven by duplicity of sorts: the recognition of an additional ethnic dimension in the Serbo-Croatian continuum is that much better received in Serbia as it contributes to weakening the Croatian continuum. In any case, what is notable here, as in Veps territory, is the moderation with which the language community made their claims, these being associated with innovative and creative communities of practice15 that have enriched the already notable pluralism and pluriculturalism of Vojvodina, this southern province of Serbia.

2.3 Rusyn (Slovakia)

The third case study takes us to Slovakia, a western Slavic state. Here we will observe the status of the Rusyn language. Having emerged during the 20th century, the individuation of Rusyn can be understood through a number of political paradoxes, such as questions of autonomy; of legality, like official recognition; and of a psychosocial nature tied to speaker impressions (DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD 2014b). These questions are further complicated by the reality of multiple denominations that introduce discontinuity to a language or dialectal continuum. This is at the center of deliberation on classification that has long divided specialists: should Rusyn be considered a Ukrainian variety or an eastern Slavic language, distinct between the different countries (Serbia, Slovakia, Romania, Poland, the Ukraine) where speakers employ its different varieties (Rusyn, Ruthene, Lemko, Boyko, Hutsul)? Here, we are specifically addressing the Rusyn of Slovakia.

The Rusyns, like Ukrainians, live in the north-east of Slovakia in the region of Prešov. After oscillating between diverse designations, that were for the most part assimilated with Ukrainians, Slovak Rusyns were able to use the upheaval of 1989 to their benefit. For example, the founding of “Rusyn Rebirth in Slovakia”; the re-opening of the national Ukrainian theater in Prešov as a Rusyn theater in 1990; or the codification of the language16 by the Institute of Rusyn Language and Culture in 1995, illustrate these efforts (MAGOCSI 1997: 420-421). These projects result from the shared engagement of journalists, writers, researchers, and cultural actors working from the very beginning through a cross-border lens, benefiting from each others' knowledge and experience. These achievements are that much more important when we consider that for most of the 20th century, only Yugoslavian Rusyns had reached any sort of individuation.

Today, the future of the language is once again in the hands of members of the civil society, be they speakers of Rusyn varieties from the countryside or the city or intellectuals who have been educated and awakened to questions about state and language:

“The existence of such a well-educated population that both produces high culture and depends on it is, […], the most important guarantee of the future survival of a Rusyn nationality” (MAGOCSI 1997: 428).

Beyond the language itself, the survival of a “Rusyn nationality”17 depends above all on a compromise with another part of the population. In this, the case of Slovak Rusyns is similar to those of Rusyns in other countries where, in claiming to be Rusynophones, do not maintain a distinction with Ukrainian origins. In fact, a population of speakers of this language variety does not necessarily identify with the concept of Rusyn ethno-genesis that certain prominent local activists have defended (BAUER 2011:217). As in the case of the Serbo-Croatian continuum having witnessed the birth of the Bunjevac variety, what is at stake in the Rusyn-Ukrainian continuum are the gains to be made through policy-making and the exclusion of others against obvious structural proximity. From a sociolinguistic point of view, tactics to promote the language and towards literary and scholarly output on the part of the non-profit world18 form an interesting set of examples of bottom-up language planning. Would that these efforts contribute to democratic debate and social peace in a country where populism continues to make in-roads.

Conclusion

In the face of rising populism, radicalism, nationalism and other forms of essentialism, these three case studies demonstrate topics of concern in current activist networks. From a logical and legitimate form of resistance that consists in not underestimating the weapons of one's adversary or another factor of adversity, may come competent, strategically motivated action that is at once intelligent and altruistic, examples of “quality” and “good management”. In this exact case, language planning from the bottom up appears in our eyes to be a reliable force for social change, one that politicians should consider without giving into the call of globalization or populism, often times more “profitable” than selfless social action and in the end more efficient than apolitical. To not do so would be risking the invasion of identitarian closure in the public space of some language community, which would only dilute achievements made by pluralist and creative planning in games of polarization and separation.

Through the examples of Veps, Bunjevac and Rusyn, we have sought to unravel the mechanisms and operational modes of these communities of practice, and to develop dynamic thinking about the creative solutions (including their pitfalls and limitations) developed by speakers on their own language competency, from the point of view of the emergence and consolidation of sociolinguistic repertories. The final objective was to illustrate the contributions and concerns of bottom-up language planning for development that is sustainable and humane while remaining deeply pluralist in form.

Far from claiming that bottom-up language planning is more or even equally efficient as its top-down iteration, our central claim is that these two operational modes are complementary. In this manner, even the construction of activism described for the case of Veps would be impossible if the federal and regional authorities did not favorably consider these initiatives. This being said, following current governing practices that favor programs of austerity and matters of public investment, grassroots planning is indispensable, now more than ever, proving at times the only possible solution. However, it would be shamefully disheartening for democracy and sociocultural pluralism if we were to continue with this compromise in organizing language and multicultural diversity by default. The goal of this article is to insist on the necessity of a synergetic approach between these two operational modes for the sake of a future where cohabitation with minorities can be peaceful and sustainable diversity, a factor of pluralism and tolerance, is viable.

Bibliography

BAUER, Paul, "Discours des sciences et nationalité ruthène en Slovaquie après 1999", in BAUER, Paul, JAQUES, Christian, PLĖSIAT, Mathieu & ZOMBORY, Máté (dir.), Minorités nationales en Europe Centrale. Démocratie, savoirs scientifiques et enjeux de représentation, Prague, Cefres, 2011, p. 205-229.

BOYER, Henri, "Les politiques linguistiques", in Mots. Les langages du politique, n°94, 2010, published online 06 November 2012, consulted 30 September 2016. URL : http://mots.revues.org/19891 ; DOI : 10.4000/mots.19891.

BRUNDTLAND, Gro Harlem, Notre avenir à tous, 1987, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/sites/odyssee-developpement-durable/files/5/rapport_brundtland.pdf.

CALVET, Louis-Jean, La guerre des langues et les politiques linguistiques, Paris, Hachette, 1999a.

CALVET, Louis-Jean, Pour une écologie des langues du monde, Paris, Plon, 1999b.

CORBEIL, Jean-Claude, L’aménagement linguistique du Québec, Montréal, Guérin, 1980.

DJORDJEVIĆ, Ksenija,"Bunjevci: une identité collatérale discutée dans le triangle de Baja", in ELOY, Jean-Michel & OUZOUNOVA-MASPERO, Janeta (éd.), Langues collatérales en domaine slave, in Carnets d’Ateliers de sociolinguistique, n°7, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2013, p. 117-134.

DJORDJEVIĆ, Ksenija, "Frontière, territoire et enclaves linguistiques et culturelles: langues trans- et intrafrontalières", Montpellier, Lengas, n°60, 2006, p. 99-115.

DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Ksenija, "Dynamique sociolinguistique de la langue vepse", in VEIVO, Harri & NYIKOS, Julia (dir.), "Marges, interstices, contacts", Cahiers d’Etudes Hongroises et Finlandaises, n°19, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2013, p. 87-99.

DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Ksenija, "La mise en visibilité de la langue vepse", in DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Ksenija (dir.), Les minorités invisibles: diversité et complexité (ethno)sociolinguistiques, Paris, Michel Houdiard éditeur, 2014a, p. 221-232.

DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Ksenija, "Le ruthène vs l’ukrainien: les paradoxes d’une individuation", in Nadal Farreras, Josep Maria, Chabrolle-Cerretini, Anne-Marie & Fullana Noell, Olga (éds.), L’espace des langues, Paris, L’Harmattan, 2014b, p. 275-288.

DUBOIS, Chloé, "Construction nationale et revendications linguistiques en contexte minoritaire: le cas des Bunjevci de Bačka (Serbie)", PhD, Université Grenoble Alpes, 2016.

ECKERT, Penelope & WENGER, Etienne, "From School to Work: an Apprenticeship in Institutional Identity”, in Working Papers on Learning and Identity, Palo Alto, Institute for Research on Learning, 1994.

ФИЛИМОНЧИК, Cветлана, "Изучение вепсов в Карелии в 1920-1930-е гг.", inВепсы и их культурное наследие: связь времен (памяти Р.П. Лонина), Петрозаводск, Карельский научный центр РАН, 2011, p. 15-26.

FRIEDMAN, Yona, Utopies réalisables, Paris, Christian Bourgois, 1994.

GUESPIN, Louis & MARCELLESI, Jean-Baptiste, "Pour la glottopolitique", Langages, n°83, 1986, p. 5-31.

HAUGEN, Einar, "Planning for a standard language in modem Norway", Anthropological Linguistics, n°1(3), 1959, p. 8-21.

KLOSS, Heinz, Research possibilities on group bilingualism: a report, Québec, Cirb, 1969.

LÉONARD, Jean Léo & DJORDJEVIĆ, Ksenija, "Elaboration et aménagement linguistiques des langues d’oïl en France", in Primenjena linguistika / Linguistique appliquée, n°10, Beograd / Novi Sad, DPLS, 2010, p. 57-71.

LÉONARD, Jean Léo & DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Ksenija, "Un terrain vepse", Paris, Etudes finno-ougriennes, n°46, 2014, p. 303-325.

MAGOCSI, Paul Robert, "Une nouvelle nationalité slave: les Ruthènes de l’Europe du Centre-Est", in Revue des études slaves, n°69, fascicule 3, 1997, p. 417-428.

NETTLE, Daniel & ROMAINE, Suzanne, Ces langues, ces voix qui s’effacent, Paris, Editions Autrement, 2000.

ROBERTSON, Roland, "Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity", in FEATHERSTONE, Mike, LASH, Scott & ROBERTSON, Roland, Global Modernities, London, Sage Publications, 1995, p. 25-44.

ROUSSEAU, Louis-Jean, "Terminologie et aménagement des langues", in Langage, n°157, 2005, p. 93-102.

1
We proposed this term to describe the status of minority language in Russia during the transition (DJORDJEVIĆ 2006).

2
The author is responsible for the translation of all quotes appearing in the text.

3
Cf. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/sites/odyssee-developpement-durable/files/5/rapport_brundtland.pdf.

4
Notably in considering ideas put forward at the conclusion of the conference on the development of terminology held by the International Network for Neology and Terminology (Réseau international de néologie et de terminologie or the RINT) in 1991-1992 (Rousseau 2005).

5
E. Haugen is credited with first using this concept, which studies “the relationships between languages and their evironment, meaning first the relationships between the languages themselves, then between the languages and society” (CALVET 1999b: 17).

6
The General Delegation of French and Languages of France or La Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France.

7
This is in reference to the three case studies that will be presented in the following section of this article.

8
This concept was developed by Roberston (1995) to designate a form of articulation between global and local in which local is valued as a component of diversity. The term glocalization can be understood as local being accessible through global, as well as global as a vector of local, in both cases democratically and without geographic limitations.

9
We are, however, no strangers to the Rusynophone world having had the chance to do fieldwork with the Rusyn community in Vojvodina for doctoral work and later for research on language planning in Vojvodina.

10
Veps does not have the status of an official or co-official language (alongside Russian), but it is recognized as a patrimonial asset alongside Finnish or Karelian.

11
The use of the term 'variety' rather than 'language' follows the fact that, while awaiting standardization, schools offer Bunjevac “dialect” classes rather than Bunjevac “language” (bunjevački govor instead of bunjevački jezik)

12
This terms designates an area between the villages of Subotica and Sombor in Vojvodina in northern Siberia and the village of Baja in Hungary.

13
While the Shtokavian dialect forms the base of standard Serbo-Croatian, Ikavian persists generally as a vernacular.

14
Bunjevačka zajednica.

15
Noticeable, for example, in the written corpus that is currently available.

16
The dialect chosen as the base for standard Rusyn is Medzilaborce, the northern variety from the region of Prešov (BAUER 2011: 206).

17
The creation of a Rusyn nation is bound to be different than a Ukrainian nation, which is precisely the stumbling block of this entire enterprise. The local variety can be standardized, defended and promoted towards cultural but not necessarily national objectives. Both of these tendencies are present in Slovak Rusyn institutions (BAUER 2011: 223-224).

18
Two organizations are particularly active: The Association for Rusyn Awakening (Rusinska Obroda) and the Association for Rusyn Knowledge (Združeníe inteligencie Rusínov). These groups are active in the cultural domaine through a number of projects and in the political domaine by defending Rusyn interests at the government level in Slovakia (BAUER 2011: 2019).

Per citare questo articolo:

Ksenija DJORDJEVIĆ LÉONARD, Language planning from the bottom up: Contributions and issues for pluralism as a sociocultural and glottopolitical ecology, Repères DoRiF n. 17 - Diversité linguistique, progrès scientifique et développement durable, DoRiF Università, Roma dcembre 2018, http://dorif.it/ezine/ezine_articles.php?id=417

Ritorna alla Barra di Navigazione