Part_four

Geographical diversity we have thus far considered in its ideal form, where different areas correspond to different languages. This was perfectly justifiable, in that geographical separation is the most general of the factors involved in linguistic diversification. We must now consider secondary facts which may disturb this correlation, resulting in the coexistence of two or more languages in the same area.

This is not a question of an actual, organic mixture or interpenetration of two languages, bringing about a change of system (as e.g. with English after the Norman conquest). Nor is it a question of several languages clearly separated territorially, but included within the political boundaries of a single state (as e.g. in Switzerland). We shall be concerned only with the fact that two languages may live side by side in the same place, and coexist without merging. This frequently occurs; but two types of case must be distinguished.

First, it may happen that the language of a new population is added to the already existing language of an indigenous population. Thus in South Africa, alongside several African dialects, we have Dutch and English from two successive colonisations. In the same way, Spanish has taken root in Mexico. It must not be supposed that linguistic encroachments of this kind are peculiar to the modern period. At all times nations have mingled without merging languages. To realise this, it suffices to take a look at a map of modern Europe. In Ireland, Celtic and English are spoken: many Irish people know both languages. In Brittany, Breton and French are in use. In the Basque country, French or Spanish are used along with Basque. In Finland, Swedish and Finnish have coexisted for a long time, and Russian has arrived more recently. In Courland and Livonia, Lettish, German and Russian are spoken. German, imported during the Middle Ages by colonists coming under the auspices of the Hanseatic league, is confined to a certain class of the population, and Russian was subsequently brought in by conquest. In Lithuania, which was formerly united with Poland, Polish has become established alongside Lithuanian, and there is also Russian, the outcome of incorporation in the Muscovite empire. Until the eighteenth century, Slavic and German were in use throughout the region of Germany east of the Elbe. In some countries, the linguistic hotchpotch is even more varied. In Macedonia one finds any number of languages – Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Albanian, Rumanian, etc. – mingling in various ways in different regions.

[266]

In the cases we are considering, the languages in question are not always uniformly distributed: their coexistence in a given area does not rule out the possibility of certain territorial distinctions. For example, it may happen that one language is spoken predominantly in the towns and another in the country; but the relative distribution may not always be clear-cut.

In antiquity, similar phenomena are to be found. If we had a linguistic map of the Roman Empire, it would show facts quite similar to those of more recent times. In Campania, for example, towards the end of the Roman republic, the languages in use included Oscan (as the inscriptions of Pompeii bear witness), Greek (the language of the colonists who founded Naples and other towns), Latin, and perhaps even Etruscan (which had been spoken predominantly in this region before the arrival of the Romans). In Carthage, Punic or Phoenician had survived beside Latin and was still alive at the time of the Arab invasion, while Numidian was also certainly spoken on Carthaginian territory. It would hardly be going too far to say that in antiquity one-language countries were the exception rather than the rule around the Mediterranean.

[267]

Usually this superimposition of languages is the result of invasion by a stronger people. But there is also colonisation, a form of peaceful penetration, as well as wandering peoples bringing their language with them. This happened in the case of the gipsies, who settled mainly in Hungary, where they have established compact communities; but a study of their language shows that they must have come from India at some unknown time in the past. In Dobrudja at the mouth of the Danube one finds a number of Tartar villages scattered here and there, small specks on the linguistic map of the region.

§2 Literary language and local dialect

There remains to consider the fact that linguistic unity may disintegrate when a spoken language undergoes the influence of a literary language. That happens without fail whenever a people reaches a certain level of civilisation. By ‘literary language’ is here to be understood not only the language of literature but also in a more general sense every variety of cultivated language, whether official or not, which is at the service of the entire community. Left to its own devices, a language has only dialects, which do not overlap. Thus it is destined to infinitesimal subdivision. But as civilisation in the process of development increases communication, a kind of tacit convention emerges by which one of the existing dialects is selected as the vehicle for everything which is of interest to the nation as a whole. The choice depends on a variety of factors. Sometimes preference is given to the dialect of the region where civilisation has progressed further than elsewhere. Sometimes a court imposes its speech upon the nation. Once promoted to the rank of a common, official language, the privileged dialect rarely remains what it was. It assimilates dialect features from other regions. It becomes increasingly composite, yet without entirely losing its original character. Thus in literary French one can recognise still the dialect of the Ile-de-France, and likewise Tuscan in common Italian. In any event, a literary language does not become established overnight, and a large proportion of the population finds itself bilingual, speaking the common language as well as the local dialect. This can be seen in many regions of France, such as Savoy, where French is an imported language and has not yet stifled the country dialects. It is also a common state of affairs in Germany and Italy, where dialects survive everywhere alongside the official language.

[268]

The same thing has happened at all times whenever a people reaches a certain level of civilisation. The Greeks had their koinè or common language, based on Attic and Ionic, with local dialects continuing alongside it. Even in ancient Babylon it is thought to be demonstrable that there was an official language as well as regional dialects.

Does a general language of this kind necessarily presuppose writing? The Homeric poems appear to prove the contrary: for although they emerged at a period when there was little or no writing, their language is conventional and exhibits all the characteristics of a literary language.

[269]

The facts discussed in this chapter are so common that they might seem to be normal in the history of languages. However, we shall here set aside everything that obscures a clear view of natural geographical diversity, in order to consider the basic phenomenon unalloyed by any importation of foreign languages or formation of a literary language. This schematic simplification may seem to distort reality; but the natural state of affairs must first be studied in its own right.

In accordance with the principle to be adopted here we shall, for example, say that Brussels is Germanic, because it is situated in the Flemish part of Belgium, and although French is spoken there, all that matters from our point of view is the line of demarcation separating Flemish from Walloon. On the other hand, from the same point of view Liège will be Romance because it is in Walloon territory: the French spoken there is a foreign language superimposed upon a dialect of the same family. Brest likewise belongs linguistically to Breton: the French spoken there has nothing in common with the indigenous language of Brittany. Berlin, where High German is spoken almost exclusively, will be assigned to Low German.