Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Language revitalization, modernity, and the Csángó mode of speaking

Csanád Bodó
  • Institute of Hungarian Linguistics and Finno-Ugric Studies, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Noémi Fazakas
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Applied Linguistics, Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania, Târgu-Mureș, Romania
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ János Imre Heltai
  • Institute of Hungarian Linguistics, Literary and Cultural Studies, Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Budapest, Hungary
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-09-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0016

Abstract

This study points out that language revitalization is closely connected to the discourse of language endangerment that objectifies languages considering them countable, regarding them separable from both the speaker and their use while speaking. It argues that this “modernist” approach of language defines the nature and, implicitly, the results of language revitalization actions. Using the example of the Moldavian Csángó Hungarian Educational Programme in North-East Romania, the article shows that while this language teaching movement unfolded within the framework of modernity, it came into conflict with the local ideologies surrounding language and speaking. Although the latter were not created by the discourses of the nation state, they are not independent notions as late modern changes had a significant impact on them. The authors analyse language ideologies prior to modernity and the way they have changed as a result of more recent developments, particularly in the context of the standardization of the Moldavian Csángó mode of speaking.

Keywords: language endangerment; standardization; Csángó Hungarian of North-East Romania; language ideologies; nation-state

References

  • Agha, Asif. 2007. The object called „language” and the subject of linguistics. Journal of English Linguistics 35. 217-235.Google Scholar

  • Bauman, Richard, Charles Briggs. 2003. Voices of modernity: Language ideologies and the politics of inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Blommaert, Jan, Ben Rampton. 2016. Language and superdiversity. In Arnaut, Karel, Jan Blommaert, Ben Rampton, Massimiliano Spotti (eds.), Language and Superdiversity. New York, London: Routledge, pp. 21-48.Google Scholar

  • Cameron, Deborah. 2007. Language endangerment and verbal hygiene: History, morality and politics. In Duchene, Alexandre, Monica Heller (eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages. New York, London: Continuum, pp. 268-285.Google Scholar

  • Deumert, Ana. 2010. Imbodela zamakhumsha - Reflections on standardisation and destandardisation. Multilingua 29. 243-264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Duchêne, Alexandre, Monica Heller. (eds.), 2007. Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages. New York, London: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Nicholas. 2001. The last speaker is dead - long live the last speaker. In Newman, Paul, Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250-281.Google Scholar

  • Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing language shift. Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) 2001. Can threatened languages be saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar

  • Gal, Susan. 2006. Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications for the study of practices and publics. Social Anthropology 14(2). 163-181.Google Scholar

  • García, Ofelia. 2014. Becoming Bilingual and Biliterate. Sociolinguistic and Sociopolitical Considerations. In C. Addison Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, G. P. Wallach (eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 145-160.Google Scholar

  • Grenoble, Lenore A., Lindsay J. Whaley. 2006. Saving languages. An introduction to language revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grenoble, Lenore. 2016. A response to ‘Assessing levels of endangerment in the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) using the Language Endangerment Index (LEI)’, by Nala Huiying Lee, John Van Way. Language in Society 45. 293-300.Google Scholar

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayden, Sara. 2003. Family metaphors and the nation: Promoting a politics of care through the Million Mom March. Quaterly Journal of Speech 89. 196-215.Google Scholar

  • Heller, Monica. 2001. Critique and sociolinguistic analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21(2). 117-141.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heller, Monica. 2010. Language as a resource in the globalized new economy. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization. Malden, US, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 349-365.Google Scholar

  • Heller, Monica. 2013. Repositioning the multilingual periphery: Class, language and transnational markets in Francophone Canada. In Pietikäinen, Sari, Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds.), Multilingualism and the Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-34.Google Scholar

  • Heltai, János Imre. 2014. Nyelvcsere és a nyelvi tervezés lehetőségei Moldvában. Budapest: Magyar Nyelvtudományi Társaság.Google Scholar

  • Hill, Jane. 2002. ‘Expert rhetorics’ in advocacy for endangered languages: Who is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 12(2). 119-133.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1990. Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Irvine, Judith, Susan Gal. 2000. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities and identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 35-83.Google Scholar

  • Jaffe, Alexandra. 2007. Discourse of endangerment: Contexts and consequences of essentializing discourses. In Duchene, Alexandre, Monica Heller (eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages. New York, London: Continuum, pp. 57-75.Google Scholar

  • Laakso, Johanna. 2014. Hungarian Is No “Idioma Incomparabile”: The Hungarian Language Reform in European Comparison. Hungarian Cultural Studies. e-Journal of the American Hungarian Educators Association, Volume 7. http://ahea.pitt.edu DOI: 10.5195/ahea.2014.165 (accessed on 25 October 2016).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lajos, Veronika. 2015. Teaching and participant observation: Interconnections of culture and language in an Eastern-European local society. In Kovács, Magdolna, Petteri Laihonen, and Hanna Snellman (eds.), Culture, language and globalization among the Moldavian Csángós today. University of Helsinki, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, Helsinki. 85-110.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George. 1996/2002. Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Lane, Pia. 2015. Minority language standardisation and the role of users. Language Policy 14. 263-283.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Nala Huiying, John Van Way. 2016. Assessing levels of endangerment in the Catalogue of Endangered Languages (ELCat) using the Language Endangerment Index (LEI). Language in Society 45. 271-292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Makoni, Sinfree, Alastair Pennycook. 2007. Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In Makoni, Sinfree, Alastair Pennycook (eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Mattters, pp. 1-41.Google Scholar

  • Milroy, James. 2001. Language ideologies and the consequences of standardisation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5. 530-555.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Nettle, Daniel, Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Neustupný, Jiři V. 2006. Sociolinguistic aspects of social modernization. In Ammon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. vol. 3. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 2209-2223.Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a local practice. Oxford, UK: Routledge.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Péntek, János. 2008. A magyar nyelv erdélyi helyzete és perspektívái. In Fedinec Csilla (ed.), Értékek, dimenziók a magyarságkutatásban. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Magyar Tudományosság Külföldön Elnöki Bizottság, pp. 136-152.Google Scholar

  • Péntek, János. 2014. A moldvai magyarokról és a csángó elnevezésről. Magyar Nyelv 110. 406-416.Google Scholar

  • Pietikäinen, Sari. 2015. Multilingual dynamics in Samiland: Rhizomatic discourses on changing language. International Journal of Bilingualism 19. 206-225.Google Scholar

  • Pietikäinen, Sari, Helen Kelly-Holmes. 2013. Multilingualism and the periphery. In Pietikäinen, Sari, Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds.), Multilingualism and the periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-16.Google Scholar

  • Pietikäinen, Sari, Helen Kelly-Holmes, Alexandra Jaffe, Nikolas Coupland. 2016. Sociolinguistics from the periphery: Small languages in new circumstances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Pozsony, Ferenc. 2006. The Hungarian Csango of Moldova. Buffalo-Toronto, Corvinus Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Rampton, Ben. 2016. Foucault, Gumperz and governmentality: interaction, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303-328.Google Scholar

  • Scott, James. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1996. “Monoglot ‘standard’ in America”. In Brenneis, Donald, Ronald K. S. Macaulay (eds.), The Matrix of Language. Boulder. CO: Westview Press, pp. 284-306.Google Scholar

  • Tánczos, Vilmos. 2012. Language shift among the Moldavian Csángós. Cluj-Napoca: The Romanian Institute for Research on National Minorities.Google Scholar

  • Urla, Jacqueline. 2012. Reclaiming Basque: Language, nation, and cultural activism. Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar

  • Woolard, Kathryn A. 2009. Language and identity choice in Catalonia: The interplay of contrasting ideologies of linguistic authority. In Süselbeck, Kirsten, Ulrike Mühlshlegel, Peter Masson (eds.), Lengua, nación e identidad. La regulación del plurilingüismo en Espana y América Latina. Vervuert - Iberoamericana, Frankfurt am Main - Madrid, pp. 303-323.Google Scholar

  • Woolard, Kathryn A. 2016. Singular and plural: Ideologies of linguistic authority in 21st century Catalonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-11-15

Accepted: 2017-07-19

Published Online: 2017-09-02

Published in Print: 2017-08-28


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 327–341, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0016.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in