I think the story of the Basque language can be a good model on how to change the discourse for minoritized languages. It is quite inspiring how people creatively helped resuscitate Basque, so to speak. Interestingly, I think we see here another example of how standardization can aid in language survival, yet from another perspective, it can also discriminate (perhaps even minoritize) the non-standard form/s.

Thank you, Awatif. I look forward to your sharing of your research as well.

That is a difficult issue indeed. I will try to add my point through the case of Basque language. There are currently five Basque dialects, mutually understandable at a high degree. Fifty years ago, Basque was in a process of clear regression: half a million speakers (counting all the dialects together), no official status, no presence at media (excepting a few magazines) and no presence at school (excepting a few emerging private ‘ikastolas’ or Basque-medium schools). Then, a group of intellectuals pointed out that Basque language should be standardized in a common written form if it was to survive. They created the ‘Euskara Batua’ (unified Basque), which was rapidly adopted by the new schools, writers, emerging media and others. That way, when the political changes at the end of the seventies allowed the Basque Country to have its own government, with its media, schools, official language and so, the unified form was a key factor to extend the Basque language to all those new domains. Nowadays the number of speakers has risen to almost one million, most of the pupils attend schools were Basque is the medium of instruction, almost half of the university students study their grades in Basque, and there are some Basque language TV and radio channels, a daily newspaper and some other media. Basque is also among the 40-50 most used languages on the Internet. That has not been enough to get out from the list of endangered languages of UNESCO, but the progress is evident.

In the last fifty years there has been a concern, of course, about the rol that the unified standard and the dialects should have in the linguistic panorama. Dialects are mostly used as spoken language, and –quite interestingly- are entering the field of informal writing (social media chats for example), showing a great ability to adapt and to evolve. However, in spite of the tensions that arise between standard form and dialects (I have some discussions with my PhD. students who email me about their progress in informal but also vivid, creative and funny dialectal forms), there is a general agreement that having a standardized form has been crucial for the recovery of the language in all its varieties; and even that if dialects are still spoken, it is due to the fact that the standard form creates a favourable landscape for them too.

Probably the key for the success of this case is that the standardized form was not created and/or imposed by a political class as a way of legitimation of its social power. In fact it was the result of a popular movement of revitalization of the language against the power (which used Spanish and French). When a new Basque political power emerged (last seventies), the standard form was strong enough and widely accepted, and it kept that popular character.

Although I missed attending the presentation, I found this summary full of interesting information about Minority Languages.

looking forward to know more information about your Phd research .

Thanks so much Rahel for thoughtfully pointing out that relevant section in Ingrid’s book. As explained on page 50, the invention of a language with a name necessarily marginalises non-users of this language. By the same process, other languages may be minoritized as they are not accorded the same respect (to paraphrase Lippi-Green,2012).

Top of mind as an example is the debate over the invention of “Filipino” as the national language of the Philippines. Although largely based on Tagalog, one of the major languages of Luzon, the language was named “Pilipino” and later “Filipino” to create the ideology of a unified and unifying language. The promise is to develop it into a fusion of all the Philippine languages, but that project, which was conceptualised in 1973, has yet to be completed after nearly half a century. I think the ongoing campaigns championing minoritized languages can definitely put this project back on track.

Thank you for this excellent summary and extension of Josu Amezaga’s presentation, Pia.

It also brought the question back to my mind, how minority languages can be protected without minoritizing others. An important step, as Ingrid Piller expressed during the discussion after the presentation, is a change in discourse. In her Critical Introduction to Intercultural Communication (2017), the section ‘A language with a name’ in Chapter 4 is very relevant to this matter!

Thank you, Hongye Bai! I’m equally excited to discover the language experiences of Filipino migrants here in Australia. Extant literature has mostly concentrated on the health care professions like nurses. This time around I’d like to document the hidden linguistic narratives of Filipino accountants. I remember telling someone back home that this is what I wanted to do here. She quickly dismissed my interest with, “Of course, they use English at work. What do you expect?” She is right, of course. But it’s not the complete picture. One thing I’ve quickly learned in sociolinguistics is that language work is not straightforward and simple. It always involves a tricky and exciting process of negotiation. ^_^

Thank you Hoor Raj! It is fascinating indeed how promotion of a linguistic ideology can inspire contradictory consequences. Therefore, as you said, extra caution should be exercised when making language decisions. Now, I wonder if it is possible at all for any language plan to be tagged as “prejudice free” since linguistic implications often extend beyond policy makers’ original motivation.

It is you we should thank, Prof. Amezaga, for that informative and eye-opening lecture. I especially appreciate your final admonition to revalue minoritized languages not only as a matter of research interest but essentially as a moral obligation. More power to you and your worthwhile linguistic advocacy!

It reminds me about the territory principle well-described and critically analyzed in Ingrid’s book ‘linguistic diversity and social justice’, that how in terms of preserving one minority language in a particular region, a language is allocated to a particular state by giving it the legislation rights whereby the speakers of other languages in that region badly suffer. Therefore, preserving the minority languages must be a very well executed plan that nobody should suffer the prejudice!