Abstract
The European language world is characterized by an ideology of monolingualism and national languages. This language-related world view interacts with social debates and definitions about linguistic autonomy, diversity, and variation. For the description of border minorities and their sociolinguistic situation, however, this view reaches its limits. In this article, the conceptual difficulties with a language area that crosses national borders are examined. It deals with the minority in East Lorraine (France) in particular. On the language-historical level, this minority is closely related to the language of its (big) neighbor Germany. At the same time, it looks back on a conflictive history with this country, has never filled a (subordinated) political–administrative unit, and has experienced very little public support. We want to address the questions of how speakers themselves reflect on their linguistic situation and what concepts and argumentative figures they bring up in relation to what (Germanic) variety. To this end, we look at statements from guideline-based interviews. In the paper, we present first observations gained through qualitative content analysis.
Highlights
IntroductionThe prevailing language paradigm in Europe is oriented toward monolingualism and national languages (which in turn are oriented toward nation states) (Giddens 1987; Kamusella 2009, p. 29; Kraus 2008, pp. 89–93)
The prevailing language paradigm in Europe is oriented toward monolingualism and national languages (Giddens 1987; Kamusella 2009, p. 29; Kraus 2008, pp. 89–93)
The very existence of these minorities refutes the ideology of an identity of language areas and nation states that is still widespread in Europe
Summary
The prevailing language paradigm in Europe is oriented toward monolingualism and national languages (which in turn are oriented toward nation states) (Giddens 1987; Kamusella 2009, p. 29; Kraus 2008, pp. 89–93). They are seen as either migration-induced, acquired through foreign language teaching or grounded in regional variation (“inner multilingualism”, Löffler 2005) From our view, this mindset—which is reflected in and reinforced by public discourse—makes it difficult for laypersons to conceptualize other types of autochthonous multilingualism and to attribute a status to the varieties involved. We want to look at a scenario that is often disregarded by the literature on regional and minority languages, which are the Germanic varieties in East Lorraine, France. Complete political and cultural embedding in France, the dialects have long ceased to be (functionally) roofed by Standard German They have not developed an own standard variety nor do they fill an (autonomous) political–administrative unit where they could gain a certain validity from.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
