What do you think?
Rate this book
Language, Nation and Power: An Introduction
Language, Nation and Power provides students with a discussion of the ways in which language has been (and is being) used to construct national (or ethnic) identity. It focuses on the processes by which a language can be planned and standardized and what the results of these processes are. Particular emphasis is given to the historical and social effects which nationalism has had on the development of language since the French Revolution. For students of linguistics, sociology and politics.
- GenresLanguage
241 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
39 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 25, 2024
It's supposedly Max Weinreich who said that a language is a dialect with an army and a navy. As a scholar of Yiddish, which has neither, Weinreich was in a good position to recognise the force of the witticism, which if nothing else helps people bear in mind the main point: that the words ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ do not have any formal meaning in linguistics. Generally, when people distinguish them, they're making a social or political assertion rather than a statement of objective fact.
Of course, sometimes people want to make such assertions. This is particularly the case in countries which are very new and/or trying to define themselves against former overlords, larger neighbours, old colonial powers, or sudden ethnic enemies. Serbo-Croatian used to be a language; now, Serbian and Croatian are promoted as separate languages, even though they're completely mutually intelligible and indeed both based on the same underlying dialect. And that's before you get on to Montenegrin, the ‘language’ of a country which didn't even exist when this book came out in 2005.
Similarly, it's unlikely that Occitan and Catalan would be considered different languages if it weren't for the fact that an international border slices through the area. Innumerable other examples could be cited, and Millar cites several; the point in this book is to consider ways in which to describe, assess and categorise such situations.
Unfortunately, you have to wonder how productive many of these solutions actually are. Like most sociolinguists, Millar follows the German linguist Heinz Kloss in distinguishing between ‘abstand’ and ‘ausbau’ languages, the former being those which show a genuine linguistic ‘distance’ (Abstand) from their neighbours, and the latter being those which have undergone a period of deliberate political ‘construction’ (Ausbau) to secure their status. Since so many languages involve both these paradigms, I've never been totally convinced of the value of this distinction.
It is a model of lucidity, though, compared to the so-called ‘algebraic’ formulae of Stanford's Charles Ferguson, who proposed comparing languages by means of a radical shorthand of features – so that Ethiopia in the 1960s, for example, can be expressed as
while stately Norway, by contrast, renders down to
I think it goes without saying that this offers no advantage (beyond physical space) over explaining yourself in actual words. It remains true, unfortunately, that many linguists are much more adept at studying language than using it.
Though there are interesting case studies in here of Turkey, Central Asia and East Africa, the bulk of the material, perhaps inevitably, comes from Europe. It is particularly instructive to compare the situation of languages like Scots and Norwegian, which both had to define themselves against the related language of a more privileged political power (though Millar doesn't make these comparisons easy, keeping these examples well apart in the book). ‘Norwegian’ managed to carve an identity of its own compared to Danish, admittedly not without some struggle and fracturing; Scots, meanwhile, despite a long literary tradition, is still barely recognised by many people in Scotland who, even while using it, may consider it a dialect, or even a corruption, of English.
It's particularly piquant reading this from Switzerland, which faces many of the same issues: the spoken language in Germanophone Switzerland is a form of Alemannic, which (as with Scots) is used for speaking but not for writing. Many Swiss refer to their language as a ‘dialect’, misleadingly in my view: a great many Swiss, faced with a foreigner who doesn't speak Swiss German, would rather switch to English than Standard German. And it has many dialects of its own. An apple core is called a Bütschgi where I live, but if I drive for half an hour in different directions I can hear it called Bixi, Bitzgi, Gütschi, Bäxi, Bätzgi or Güürbsi, and that's without going any further afield (in the Valais apparently they call it a Murmutz).
In any case, Millar's general point is well made – that at ‘the heart of the spread of monolingualism lie power differentials’. Historically speaking, social polyglottism was the norm, but ever since the spread of nationalism, monolingualism has become more and more central to the idea of what a country means, sometimes with disastrous consequences for ‘minority languages’.
What's often not really understood by people who see interest and value in all languages – and I consider myself one of those – is that a lot of people fundamentally couldn't give a shit about preserving languages like Cornish or Friulian. Many speakers of minority languages are more than happy to give them up in order to speak something more ‘useful’ – i.e. more global and with more employment opportunities. And who will tell them they're wrong? Linguistic delight tends to fight a losing battle against pragmatism, and in the end – as academic books like this suggest – academic interest may be all some languages can claim.
Of course, sometimes people want to make such assertions. This is particularly the case in countries which are very new and/or trying to define themselves against former overlords, larger neighbours, old colonial powers, or sudden ethnic enemies. Serbo-Croatian used to be a language; now, Serbian and Croatian are promoted as separate languages, even though they're completely mutually intelligible and indeed both based on the same underlying dialect. And that's before you get on to Montenegrin, the ‘language’ of a country which didn't even exist when this book came out in 2005.
Similarly, it's unlikely that Occitan and Catalan would be considered different languages if it weren't for the fact that an international border slices through the area. Innumerable other examples could be cited, and Millar cites several; the point in this book is to consider ways in which to describe, assess and categorise such situations.
Unfortunately, you have to wonder how productive many of these solutions actually are. Like most sociolinguists, Millar follows the German linguist Heinz Kloss in distinguishing between ‘abstand’ and ‘ausbau’ languages, the former being those which show a genuine linguistic ‘distance’ (Abstand) from their neighbours, and the latter being those which have undergone a period of deliberate political ‘construction’ (Ausbau) to secure their status. Since so many languages involve both these paradigms, I've never been totally convinced of the value of this distinction.
It is a model of lucidity, though, compared to the so-called ‘algebraic’ formulae of Stanford's Charles Ferguson, who proposed comparing languages by means of a radical shorthand of features – so that Ethiopia in the 1960s, for example, can be expressed as
5⁺ Lmin (Sei, 4Vg, {V}),
while stately Norway, by contrast, renders down to
5L = 2Lmaj (Sow, So) + 2Lmin (S:Vg, Sg) + 1Lspec (Ssi)
I think it goes without saying that this offers no advantage (beyond physical space) over explaining yourself in actual words. It remains true, unfortunately, that many linguists are much more adept at studying language than using it.
Though there are interesting case studies in here of Turkey, Central Asia and East Africa, the bulk of the material, perhaps inevitably, comes from Europe. It is particularly instructive to compare the situation of languages like Scots and Norwegian, which both had to define themselves against the related language of a more privileged political power (though Millar doesn't make these comparisons easy, keeping these examples well apart in the book). ‘Norwegian’ managed to carve an identity of its own compared to Danish, admittedly not without some struggle and fracturing; Scots, meanwhile, despite a long literary tradition, is still barely recognised by many people in Scotland who, even while using it, may consider it a dialect, or even a corruption, of English.
It's particularly piquant reading this from Switzerland, which faces many of the same issues: the spoken language in Germanophone Switzerland is a form of Alemannic, which (as with Scots) is used for speaking but not for writing. Many Swiss refer to their language as a ‘dialect’, misleadingly in my view: a great many Swiss, faced with a foreigner who doesn't speak Swiss German, would rather switch to English than Standard German. And it has many dialects of its own. An apple core is called a Bütschgi where I live, but if I drive for half an hour in different directions I can hear it called Bixi, Bitzgi, Gütschi, Bäxi, Bätzgi or Güürbsi, and that's without going any further afield (in the Valais apparently they call it a Murmutz).
In any case, Millar's general point is well made – that at ‘the heart of the spread of monolingualism lie power differentials’. Historically speaking, social polyglottism was the norm, but ever since the spread of nationalism, monolingualism has become more and more central to the idea of what a country means, sometimes with disastrous consequences for ‘minority languages’.
What's often not really understood by people who see interest and value in all languages – and I consider myself one of those – is that a lot of people fundamentally couldn't give a shit about preserving languages like Cornish or Friulian. Many speakers of minority languages are more than happy to give them up in order to speak something more ‘useful’ – i.e. more global and with more employment opportunities. And who will tell them they're wrong? Linguistic delight tends to fight a losing battle against pragmatism, and in the end – as academic books like this suggest – academic interest may be all some languages can claim.
Displaying 1 of 1 review