Natalia Bichurina
Trans-border communities in Europe
and the emergence of “new” languages:
From “Francoprovençal patois” to “Arpitan” and “Arpitania”
Doctoral degree dissertation
Supervisors:
Prof. Christian LAGARDE
Université de Perpignan Via Domitia (France)
Dr. Caroline LIPOVSKY
University of Sydney (Australia)
Prof. Federica VENIER
Università degli studi di Bergamo (Italy)
Thesis presented for public defence
at the Institut Franco-Català Transfronterer, Casa dels Països Catalans,
University of Perpignan via Domitia
2016
1
Declaration of good academic conduct
I Natalia Bichurina, hereby certify that this dissertation, which is 148 512 words in length,
has been written by me, that it is a record of work carried out by me, and that it has not
been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. All sentences or passages
quoted in this dissertation from other people’s work (with or without trivial changes) have
been placed within quotation marks, and specifically acknowledged by reference to author,
work and page. I understand that plagiarism – the unacknowledged use of such passages –
will be considered grounds for failure in this dissertation and in the degree programme as a
whole. I also affirm that, with the exception of the specific acknowledgements, the
following dissertation is entirely my own work.
Signature of candidate
2
Abstracts
Trans-border communities in Europe and the emergence of “new” languages:
From “Francoprovençal patois” to “Arpitan” and “Arpitania”
The thesis examines the current phenomena of the emergence of “new” languages
and trans-border proto-national communities in Europe. It is demonstrated how a set of
idioms on the borderland between France, Italy and Switzerland, which had been
considered as patois, ЛecКme recognТsed Кs К unТque “lКnguКge”: tСe FrКncoprovenхКl
language, and the trans-border linguistic space became identified as Arpitania. Conceived
as cross-disciplinary, the study combines methods of anthropology and sociolinguistics,
drawing more particularly on critical discourse analysis and studies on nationalism. The
findings are based on extensive fieldwork in which priority was given to the ethnographic
method of participant observation (five months-stay in the Francoprovençal-speaking areas
of France, 10 months in those in both Switzerland and Italy). The observation was
combined with in-depth sociolinguistic interviews (60 interviews of 1-3 hours in length).
Besides, the study includes analysis of written discourse: scientific and journalistic printed
sources, manifestos, internet blogs, etc.
Key words: minority languages, Francoprovençal, Arpitan, Arpitania, trans-border
communities, nationalism, language policy, critical discourse analysis
Communautés transfrontalières et émergence de "nouvelles" langues : des
patois francoprovençaux à l'arpitan et à l'Arpitania
LК tСчse porte sur les processus d’цmergence de nouvelles lКngues et des
communautés transfrontalières proto-nКtТonКles fondцes sur ces lКngues dКns l’Europe
occТdentКle d’Кujourd’СuТ. L’КnКlвse se centre sur le frКncoprovenхКl (ou КrpТtКn), parlé
entre la FrКnce, l’ItКlТe et lК SuТsse : dans « l’espКce Кutour du Mont BlКnc », ainsi que
l’ТdentТfТent ses locuteurs eux-mшmes. EpТstцmologТquement, Тl s’КgТt de lК dernТчre-née
des langues gallo-romanes, quТ vТent s’Кjouter р l’opposТtТon trКdТtТonnelle lКngue d’oc vs.
lКngue d’oэl, et quТ est en trКТn d’шtre reconnue comme langue à part entière dans les
législations régionales, nationales et européenne. Conçue au croisement de la
3
socТolТnguТstТque et l’КntСropologТe, lК tСчse prТvТlцgТe les КpprocСes de l’КnКlвse critique
du discours et celles des études sur le nationalisme. La méthode ethnographique de
l’oЛservКtТon pКrtТcТpКnte (le vцcu dКns les troТs pКвs de lК гone frКncoprovenхКle) К цtц
complцtцe pКr 60 entretТens КpprofondТs d’une durцe de 1-3h et un corpus des textes écrits
(manifestes, blogs etc.) L’цtude met en цvТdence un fossé entre les pratiques
communicatives quotidiennes, avec les sens sociaux qui leur sont attribués, et l’ТdцologТe
linguistique et politique.
Mots clés : langues minoritaires, francoprovençal, arpitan, Arpitania, communautés
transfrontalières, nationalisme, politique linguistique, analyse critique du discours
4
1
“StrКnge Song,” written in 1976 by Jozé Harrieta for Luis de Jyaryot’s disc La Noëla Tradixon (“TСe Neа
TrКdТtТon,” 1978):
I do not want to sing anymore
Of cows and shepherds,
Of mountain flowers
And tender love affairs,
Of the snow and the glacier,
And the games of the spring.
1
I rather want to sing
Of sad drolleries,
About the poor conditions
Of so many young people,
About the tears and pleasures
Of people of today.
5
Acknowledgements
Gramacì, Merci, Grazie, С
си
, Thank you
A tsКqueun de cТce que m’Кn prцТtр lo lor ten, que l’Кn pКrtКdjр le lor Тdцe e
sèntemèn.
A tcСeut cТce que m’Кn predjр lК lengК, e Кvouц quТ n’Т КpprчТ-la eunco mè.
A quТ m’К fц trouvц, Кprч tКn de tsemeun К trКver lo mondo, eun Кtro mТtcСo, eun
atro « entsé mè », e mКgКrК co eun’КtrК mч.
A cТce de Sen NТcolр que m’Кn КccueТllывК. A DКvТde Sapinet, lo Sentecco de SaintNicolas, a Bruno Domaine, lo Présidan dou Centre d’цtudes frКncoprovenхКles e surtout К
CСrТstТКne Dunoвer, lК sТnК DТretrТce, que m’Кn ТnvТtКвe К reustц К Sen NТcolр, вou dгe sТ
ara a terminé ceutta tése – lo pi dzen cadó que se pou fére a eun tsertseur ! A Rosito e a
Henri, e a tcheut cice de la méison queummeuna. A vo tcheut pe tan de discuchón e tan de
dzen moman ensemblo. A Joëlle pe lo café ginseng que baille le forse pe écrire. A Diego
que m’К fц cognТtre tКn de vКldotчn К trКvчr lК VКllКвe. A Raffaella e Jean, a Mauro e
Valérie. E eunco a Ornella que m’К fц cognТtre le vКllКвe frКncoprovensКle dou PТцmont.
A cice de Saint-Colomban-des-Villards, a Arnaud, Martine, Manet, e a tcheut les
atre que dze pouí pa énuméré, a tcheut cice que l’Кn pКrtКdjр Кvouц mч le momКn de
conversachón, en « patoué ». A Eric pe ma premièra cogneissansa avoué lo mondo arpitan
en France, dza quase sat an fé.
A Nicole, Manuel, Maude e co Dzakye pe no discuchón londze i « Café vaudois ».
Grandmercé tanben a toteТ dКu monde occТtКn, que m’Кn fКcС descuЛrТr lК reКlТtКt
lingüistica e culturala occitana. Aquesta tèsi seriá jamai estada la méma sensa aquela
experiéncia, emai siguèsse pКs Кu centre de l’estudТ.
6
To Nikolay Vakhtin,
–
,
,
,
.
Н
,
.
To Anthony Lodge who during my being a Master student at Saint-Andrews made
me interested in language policy issues, which eventually brought me to study the topic of
this dissertation. A l’InstТtut PТerre GКrdette р Lвon, р ClКudТne FrцcСet et JeКn-Baptiste
MКrtТn quТ m’ont КccueТllТe pour un stКge de recСercСe, en Кutomne 2009, ce quТ m’К offert
р l’цpoque lК possТЛТlТtц d’цffectuer mon tout premТer sцjour de terrКТn dКns le domКТne
francoprovenхКl. A PКtrТck SцrТot quТ m’К ТnvТtцe р LКusКnne et m’К КccueТllТe pendКnt un
an au sein de son centre de recherche CRECLECO, ce quТ m’К permТs de dцcouvrir le
monde francoprovençal en SuТsse et КussТ d’КЛorder les proЛlцmКtТques sur lesquelles je
trКvКТlle d’un nouvel Кngle de vue. I BREL e a Saverio Favre, pe me baillé a disposichón
de documan e de livro. Cette tСчse n’КurКТt pКs цtц possТЛle sКns toutes ces eбpцrТences.
GrКгТe FederТcК, mercТ CКrolТne et CСrТstТКn pour КvoТr cru р ce projet et m’avoir
accompagnée avec vos conseils à travers les différents stades de cette thèse, et aussi à
travers les continents.
Aux membres du jury qui ont accepté de lire cette thèse.
To the EMJD Interzones that made this PhD research possible.
The PhD research was conducted with the European Union doctoral scholarship.
La thèse a été effectuée grâce à la bourse doctorale de l’Union Européenne.
7
Table of Contents
Declaration of good academic conduct ......................................................................................... 2
Abstracts ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 6
General Introduction: How do languages and nations emerge? .......................................... 12
Vignette: the shadows of regional languages in the world of French cultural diplomacy........ 17
Ethical considerations; relevance and novelty of the study..............................................................19
On critical studies in the Francoprovençal context ...........................................................................22
Data collection methods ........................................................................................................................25
An outsТder’s КpproКcС ............................................................................................................. 31
Speaking the language .............................................................................................................. 34
Data analysis method: critical discourse analysis ..............................................................................36
Main theoretical premises of the study ...........................................................................................38
1.
What is a language? .....................................................................................................................38
Language vs. dialect ................................................................................................................. 38
A structural approach to the language vs. dialect delimitation ................................................. 39
A functional approach to the language vs. dialect delimitation ................................................ 39
A synchronic vs. diachronic approach: dialects becoming languages ...................................... 40
Language as an object of policy and education ........................................................................ 40
Subjective approach: language as a fiction ............................................................................... 42
Discussion: languages, legitimising instances and language policy ......................................... 43
2.
Language policy in the Francoprovençal area .........................................................................43
Language policy in Italy and the status of Francoprovençal .................................................... 43
Language policy of France and the status of Francoprovençal ................................................ 51
Language policy in Switzerland and the status of Francoprovençal ........................................ 55
3.
Imagined communities and communities of practice .............................................................56
Dissertation plan.....................................................................................................................................62
Notation ...................................................................................................................................................63
Part I. From a ‘Francoprovençal linguistic type’ to the ‘Arpitan nation’ in the discourse
of linguists and activists .......................................................................................................... 64
Chapter 1. The 1870s: Graziadio I. Ascoli and the birth of ‘Franco-Provenzale’................66
1.1 AscolТ’s tСeorв of lКnguКge Кnd nКtТon......................................................................................66
8
1.1.1 ‘A nКtТonКl Тnterest, grКnd Кnd prКctТcКl’: К neа nation-state in need of a nation and a
national language ...................................................................................................................... 66
1.1.2 ‘TСe most solТd Кnd poаerful unТtв of lКnguКge tСКt СКs ever resonКted on eКrtС’ ........ 70
1.1.3 The pen and the region of thought................................................................................... 72
1.1.4 ‘NКturКl selectТon’ ........................................................................................................... 74
1.1.5 Monolingualism vs. bilingualism .................................................................................... 75
1.1.6 ‘LКnguКge’ vs. ‘dТКlect’ ................................................................................................... 76
1.2 TСe ТdentТfТcКtТon of ‘Franco-provenzale’ ...............................................................................78
1.2.1 ‘PКrtТculКr comЛТnКtТon’ Кnd tСe dТКlect contТnuum ........................................................ 78
1.2.2 AcКdemТc reКctТon to tСe ТnventТon of ‘Francoprovençal’ Кnd ТmplТcКtТons for FrКnce . 82
1.2.3 French linguistic ideology ............................................................................................... 85
1.2.4 TСe receptТon of ‘FrКncoprovenхКl’ Тn tСe nortС vs. the south of France ........................ 88
1.2.5 Implications for the Aosta Valley (Italy) ......................................................................... 91
Chapter 2. The 1970s: Arpitania and the Arpitan language .....................................................94
2.1
Political roots of the Arpitan movement ......................................................................... 95
2.2 Renaming Francoprovençal and a new identity construction: a pre-Indo-European
language spoken by prehistoric people ................................................................................... 102
2.3
TСe mКТn goКls of tСe (H)КrpТtКn movement: lКnguКge Кs К ‘pТllКr’ for К neа polТtв .. 109
2.4
LТnguТstТc stКndКrdТsКtТon: ‘lТnguТstТc metКЛolТsm’ Кnd ‘КssКssТns dТsguТsed Кs doctors’
112
Chapter 3. The new millennium ............................................................................................ 117
3.1 The Arpitan Cultural Alliance, a new identity and proto-national symbols .......................117
3.2 2013-2014: ‘ArpТtКnТК’ refrКmed ..............................................................................................122
3.2.1 ‘ArpТtКnТК’ Кnd tСe ‘ArpТtКns’ Тn 2013- 2014 .................................................................123
3.2.2 Global and local ..................................................................................................................129
3.2.3 The role of the Arpitan language ......................................................................................130
3.3 From language to nation: two Arpitan movements in the 2010s ..........................................133
Discussion.............................................................................................................................................138
Part II. Concurring models of linguistic, socio-political and cultural devisions in the 21st
century: Francoprovençal/Arpitan/Savoyard language and identity .............................. 140
Chaper 1. Concurring geographic delimitations: ‘wide’ vs. ‘narrow’ models of language
and community ...................................................................................................................................140
1.1 TСe ‘FrКncoprovenхКl lКnguКge’: tСe mвtС of Тsoglosses ........................................................145
1.2 TСe ‘SКvoвКrd lКnguКge’: one regТon, one lКnguКge, one nКtТon ...........................................149
9
Chapter 2. Naming as an act of social magic ........................................................................ 152
2.1
TСe ‘ЛКptТsm’ of Кn ТdТom Кnd Тts ЛТrtС Кs К language .........................................................152
2.2 The stock of names ........................................................................................................................156
2.3 From patois to a name for a language.........................................................................................157
2.4 “FrКncoprovenхКl”: an insufficiently substantial argument? ...................................................159
2.5 ‘SКvoвКrd’: logТcКl Кnd sТmple? ..................................................................................................160
2.6 ‘ArpТtКn’ vs. ‘FrКncoprovenхКl’: political slogan or publicity stunt? ....................................161
2.7 ‘ArpТtКn’ vs. ‘SКvoвКrd’ and the legitimacy of Rhône-Alpes .................................................167
2.8 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................................169
Chapter 3. The writing system ............................................................................................... 170
3.1
Development of literacy and turning a dialect into a language...........................................170
3.2 Orthography and socio-political claims......................................................................................174
3.3 Two approaches to the standardisation of Francoprovençal ....................................................177
3.4 The Occitan example ....................................................................................................................178
3.5 A referential orthography for Arpitan .........................................................................................181
3.5.1 The original argument .................................................................................................... 181
3.5.2 ReseКrcСers’ crТtТcТsms of tСe ORB: ‘КmКteurs’ vs. ‘scТentТsts’ .................................... 186
3.5.3 The activist stance: orthography as a political issue ...................................................... 190
3.5.4 Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................... 192
Discussion: geography, naming, orthography, and the role of linguists ...............................193
Part III. Francoprovençal as a social and cultural practice ................................................ 196
Chapter 1. The conceptual framework ................................................................................. 200
1.1 Diffuse and focused settings ........................................................................................................200
1.2 On tСe ‘lТfe’ Кnd ‘deКtС’ of lКnguКges ........................................................................................201
Chapter 2. Francoprovençal in diffuse settings .................................................................... 206
2.1 Diffuse language practices ...........................................................................................................206
2.2 Construction of social meaning ...................................................................................................211
2.2.1 Political connotations ..................................................................................................... 211
2.2.2 Social connotations ........................................................................................................ 212
2.3 ‘Neа speКkers’ Тn К dТffuse setting ..................................................................................... 214
Chapter 3. Language use in a focused setting....................................................................... 217
3.1 ‘LКte speКkers’ ...............................................................................................................................218
3.1.1 LТnguТstТc ЛТogrКpСв of tСe ‘lКte speКkers’: scСool Кnd tСe lКnguКge of tСe КnТmКls ... 218
10
3.1.2 TСe ‘treКsure Сunt’: keepТng Кn unknoаn lКnguКge Кnd culture ................................... 222
3.2 ‘Neа speКkers’ ..............................................................................................................................227
3.2.1 Linguistic biography and motivations for learning Francoprovençal ............................ 227
3.2.2 ‘Neа speКkers’ Кnd lКnguКge КcquТsТtТon ...................................................................... 229
3.3 The concurrency of legitimacy between different types of speakers .....................................233
3.3.1 Language true and false: the language of the people and the language of young
intellectuals ............................................................................................................................. 234
3.3.2 The Arpitan conflict: new speakers and linguists .......................................................... 236
3.3.3 Speakers and linguists: a concurrency of legitimacy ..................................................... 240
Chapter 4. When interlocutors play different games: diffuse and focused practices in
contact .................................................................................................................................... 242
4.1 Example 1: A game of Qui a deut? .............................................................................................243
4.2 Example 2. Debating politics .......................................................................................................245
Chapter 5. Arts and festivities................................................................................................ 247
5.1 Language and identity in performing arts ..................................................................................247
5.1.1 The Occitan model .....................................................................................................................248
5.1.2 AlternКtТve models: К ‘reКl’ self vs. К ‘rurКl’ self ..................................................................252
5.1.3 Francoprovençal performing arts .............................................................................................253
5.1.4 Theatre in Francoprovençal in focused settings ............................................................ 254
5.1.5 Theatre in Francoprovençal in diffuse settings .............................................................. 259
5.2 The International Fest of Francoprovençal ................................................................................263
Discussion: diffuse vs. focused settings of Francoprovençal ............................................... 268
General discussion and conclusions ....................................................................................... 271
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................................271
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................282
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 286
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 299
Appendix 1. List of Figures ................................................................................................................299
Appendix 2. List of Tables .................................................................................................................300
Appendix 3. Résumé en langue française .........................................................................................301
11
General Introduction: How do languages and nations emerge?
Or l’essence d’une nation est que tous les
individus aient beaucoup de choses en
commun, et aussi que tous aient oublié bien
des choses. Aucun citoyen français ne sait s’il
est Burgonde, Alain, Taïfale, Visigoth; tout
citoyen français doit avoir oublié la SaintBarthélemy, les massacres du Midi au XIIIe
siècle.
Ernest Renan, Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?
(1882)
“The essence of a nation is that all of its individual
members have a great deal in common and also that
they have forgotten many things. No French citizen
knows whether he is a Burgund, an Alain, a Taifala, or a
Visigoth. Every French citizen has forgotten St.
Bartholomew’s Day and the 13-century massacres in the
Midi.” – Ernest Renan, What Is a Nation? (1882)2
The title of this introduction may seem strange. Today, in the early 21st century,
when discussing the contemporary world situation, it is usually assumed that languages
“die” as opposed to being “born.” Moreover, the very language this study deals with is
generally considered to be endangered – indeed dead, as far as many of its varieties are
concerned – but in no way emerging. However, these two processes do not exclude each
other, although the metaphors that would traditionally describe them make them seem
contradictory. One of the central arguments of my study lies in the fact that today the
spread of discourse on “lТnguТstТc dТversТtв,” “endangered languages” and “lКnguКge
death,” and the corresponding language policies at both European and national levels are
transforming what used to be considered patois Тnto “minority languages,” while actual
communТcКtТon prКctТces Тn tСese “languages” are disappearing. Accordingly, what I am
2
Translated by Ethan Rundell: http://ucparis.fr/files/9313/6549/9943/What_is_a_Nation.pdf
12
interested in is not how idioms “die,” but how they become established as languages in
their own right.
Most languages we know today – such as English, French, Russian, etc. – became
established as distinct languages so long ago that the common representation is that they
have always existed. Today new languages are emerging right before our eyes, which
allows us to examine how this process takes place. Studying the process allows us to
understand what it means today for an idiom to be a language, at the beginning of the 21st
century.
The emergence of languages often coincides with the emergence of nations. Thus,
contrary to what Ernest Renan maintained in the late 19th century in his famous lecture on
the nature of the nation (Renan 1882, see the epigraph to this introduction), today, in the
21st century, FrencС cТtТгens СКve suddenlв “recКlled” аСo tСeв “reКllв Кre.”3 It should be
emphasised that this is essentially a modern process which is brought about by today’s
issues and needs to be inscribed within the contemporary context. As O’Reilly underlines:
“The rise of ethnicity is not a “return” to the atavistic, but rather a concept that has been
developed and applied in particular ways during the late 20th centurв” (O’Reilly 2001: 3).
This dissertation is focused on the emergence of the concepts of the
Francoprovençal or Arpitan language and Arpitania. When selecting this specific case
study I was guided by the following three criteria. Firstly, the chosen research problem
dictates that the idiom the study is focused on should have been either traditionally
considered as a dialect, or a set of dialects of a national language, or not singled out of the
linguistic continuum at all, in order to acquire the status of a language in its own right
today. This is the case of Francoprovençal, which is, as will be shown, the lastborn of the
Gallo-Romance languages in terms of its becoming a named part of a linguistic continuum
and an object of language policy. Traditionally, the Gallo-Romance continuum had been
divided into two languages: the language of Oïl, or French, and the language of Oc, or
Occitan (formerly generally referred to as Provençal). It was only in the late 19th century
that a third language situated between the two, hence Francoprovençal, fТrst “Тntruded” Тnto
3
Namely Renan, when speaking of the massacre that took place in the 13th century in the south of what was
to became France, referred to as the Albigensian Crusade. Today’s Occitan activists also refer to it in their
discourse.
13
this dichotomy. Its first political recognition, as a minority or regional language (depending
on the country), dates only to the beginning of the 2000s.
Secondly, I was specifically interested in trans-border idioms, i.e. those spoken in
several countries at once. There are two reasons that make the border issue of essence. On
the one hand, it allows us to consider the question of what proves to be more important in
the present-day European context for speakers of minority languages: national affiliation
within a specific country or a regional and trans-border identity in which national borders,
all but disappearing physically within the European Union, lose their significance; whether
these two types of identity are mutually exclusive or able to coexist. On the other hand,
studying trans-border languages allows the consideration of whether the linguistic situation
of a given idiom would change according to the sociopolitical and economical context of a
specific country, and whether the representation of and discourse about the language would
be the same or different. The Francoprovençal language is spoken in three countries:
in France: in the southeast of the country (the départements of the
Ain, Isère, Loire, Rhône, Savoie, Haute-Savoie, and the Metropolis of Lyon in
the ex-Rhône-Alpes region, now the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region as of
January 2016).
in Switzerland: in the cantons of Vaud, Geneva, Fribourg, Valais,
and Neuchâtel, i.e. the entire French-speaking part of Switzerland except Jura.
in Italy: in the northwest of the country (the Autonomous Region of
the Aosta Valley, hereafter VDA, and some of the alpine valleys of Piedmont).
It is also spoken in an enclave in Apulia, namely in the municipalities of Faeto
and Celle, but these are beyond the scope of this dissertation, as the enclave
does not participate in the sociolinguistic dynamics of the main Alpine transborder area.
(See Figure 1).
14
Figure 1. The Francoprovençal linguistic area. Source: Centre d’цtudes frКncoprovenхКles
« René Willien »
The three countries where Francoprovençal is spoken seem crucially different in
terms of their sociopolitical and sociocultural organisation. France is a nation-state par
excellence, traditionally seen as monolingual and monocultural. Having a different
language and a different culture, or an identity coexisting with the French, is more or less
unthinkable in the opinion of the majority. Italy, on the contrary, is known for its
outstanding linguistic and cultural diversity, while Switzerland is known for its official
multilingualism. At the same time, Switzerland is a confederation featuring cantons with
extensive autonomy; France is its exact opposite, a highly centralised state. Italy is
somewhat in between, as it copied the French nation-state model, and yet the main
Francoprovençal-speaking area there, the Aosta Valley, is an autonomous region. All this
makes a comparison pertinent: will these differences have an impact on the way the
language is perceived; will they influence the linguistic situation and in what way?
In the course of this study, I will compare the Francoprovençal situation with those
of other languages in the world. Special attention will be paid to the Occitan case. First of
15
all, the Occitan example serves as a model for Francoprovençal language advocates in their
attempts to make К “lКnguКge” out of К set of “pКtoТs.” BesТdes, comparing the situations of
both languages and related movements is instructive, inter alia, due to significant
differences between the two. Occitan (the language of Oc) was first singled out as a
language in the Middle Ages; the distinction was also studied by Dante (namely in De
vulgari eloquentia, around 1303-1304). Francoprovençal was first identified as a distinct
linguistic type half a millennium later, in the late 19th century. The Oc language revival
movement is one of the oldest in Europe: namely, the Félibrige movement was founded in
1854 by a group of Provençal poets, among whom was the future Nobel laureate Frédéric
Mistral. The Francoprovençal movement is one of the youngest: it first appears in the
aftermath of May 1968, but it has existed in its present-day version only since the early
2000s, without any direct affiliation between the two. In this respect, as will be shown in
this dissertation, many phenomena that are emerging now in the Francoprovençal language
revitalisation movement are largely similar to what has already happened in the case of
Occitan. At the same time, significant differences can also be seen as to the availability of
various arguments that would serve for an idiom to be considered a language: especially,
the existence of a highly prestigious literary tradition in Occitan (the oeuvre of medieval
troubadours and that of the Nobel Prize winner Mistral and the Félibrige) vs. a mostly
unknown literature written in Francoprovençal.
Finally, the third criterion for my choice of a particular case study concerned
working on Romance idioms spoken in France, the country initially meant to be central to
my research. This was not an arbitrary choice, either objectively or subjectively.
Objectively, as mentioned above, France is known as an example of a nation-state par
excellence. This is a country where a single official language – French – has existed since
the 16th century, and more importantly, where ever since the revolution of 1789 a single
idiom has been permitted the title of a language (the French language), while all the rest
are considered to be various patois. Today France remains one of the few countries that
refuses to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages or adopt a
nation-level law on regional or minority languages. Finally, this is the country where,
within this context, a revolutionary event took place in 2008 pertaining to linguistic policy
and language ideology. Namely, an amendment was introduced to the country’s
constitution to address the issue of the so-cКlled “regТonКl lКnguКges” tСКt “belong to the
Republic’s cultural heritage” (Constitution of the French Republic, article 75-1): suddenly
it stipulated tСКt, Тn КddТtТon to “tСe FrencС lКnguКge,” otСer languages do exist in the land.
16
Hence my belief that France can serve as an interesting case study for the research problem
of the emergence of languages.
There are also personal reasons behind the choice of France. I was well acquainted
with French culture and politics before I started this study, namely thanks to my work for
the French diplomatic services in St. Petersburg (2006 to 2012), including as Assistant
Cultural Attaché of France to the Russian Federation and as a coordinator of the Institut
Français’s cultural projects in St. Petersburg and northwest Russia in preparation for and
holding the France-Russia Year 2010, a year of cultural exchange between the two states.
As part of that work I also participated in the French Foreign Ministry’s traineeship
programmes for French cultural agents abroad. This allows me to combine the views found
on fieldwork sites with an insider’s view of cultural policy-makers.
Vignette: the shadows of regional languages in the world of French cultural
diplomacy
In tСe аorld of “СТgС” Кnd СТgСlв ТnstТtutТonКlТsed French culture, such as seen and
promoted by the Parisian authorities, regional languages and cultures have never been “Тn
focus.” Вet tСeв have always been there, as a reality which does not fit the official image
of a “single and indivisible nation” (Кs tСougС “ТndТvТsТЛle” meКnt “Сomogenous”), аСТcС
nevertheless does exist. Hidden most of the time, they would reemerge at most unexpected
moments and in the most unforeseen manners.4
In one of my first months in charge of cultural projects of the Institut Français, a
famous artist, in his late thirties, based in Paris, came to St. Petersburg on a preliminary
visit to prepare his exhibition in the city. We were walking in a deserted old factory, which
was in the process of being transformed into a contemporary art centre. In one small room
the walls were painted white. In the exterior wall two small holes – smaller than you would
expect windows to be – had been made, who knows for what purpose. It was one of the
rare sunny days in St. Petersburg, so the sun penetrated through the holes, producing the
effect of a camera obscura: on a white wall the building in front of the one where we were
was projected inverted, with the sky on the level of our feet, and the ground near the
ceiling. The effect was breathtaking. As a somewhat subversive response to the extensive
4
What I am concerned with here is not the official policy, but my personal encounters with the regional
lКnguКges Тn tСe mТlТeu of “СТgС” culture Кnd culturКl dТplomКcв.
17
modern use of technology, in artistic installations and beyond, the artist had then imagined
Кn “ТnstКllКtТon” in which the projection would actually be made by nature itself. It was
only about adjusting the holes in the exterior wall to get the maximal effect. I agreed that
the conception was beautiful; the only inconvenience was that statistically there are but 72
sunny days a year in the city, spread throughout the calendar. Shocked by the idea, the
artist mentioned that he had been born in Perpignan, where it was sunny nearly all the time.
At this point, I said something about Catalan and, right as we were walking in that
abandoned half-ruined factory, he started recalling songs in Catalan, which his
grandmother from Villefranche-de-Conflant, a mountain town near Perpignan, would sing
to him when he was a child. As I learnt from him later, he had actually spent most of his
childhood and teenage years in Savoie, but he would prefer to mention his Catalan
background instead, since, as he thought, it was better to be seen to be a Catalan than a
Savoyard.
Soon Кfter tСТs fТrst “КppeКrКnce” of regТonКl lКnguКges Тn mв professional life, the
head of one of the most important Parisian museums, in his early fifties, told me how he
had been appointed as a head of a museum in Marseille. Once, shortly after his arrival in
Marseille, he was in a traffic jam at the old port. The windows in his car were closed, so he
could not hear what fishermen were talking about to each other. He was observing their
gestures, and he realised that he was unКЛle to “reКd” tСem: tСe meКnТng of the gestures
was completely unclear to him. Later in his museum’s archives he found some 18th- or 19thcentury drawings by unknown and not-so-talented artists who had made sketches of
fishermen and bakers with exactly the same gestures. His conclusion was that the Occitan
language that had disappeared verbally (in his opinion), lived on as body language. Later, I
found myself at a small internal reception talking to a colleague from the Consulate
General of France in St. Petersburg, who recited me some popular poetry in this
presumКЛlв “deКd” OccТtКn. He СКppened to knoа Тt ЛecКuse Кs К cСТld Сe аould spend СТs
summers in a castle near Toulouse, and people in the surrounding village would speak
Occitan. Then another ex-colleague of mine was appointed as head of the castle of
Carcassonne. He revealed to me that his staff would often speak Occitan to each other,
which was for them a kind of voluntКrв recuperКtТon of К “forgotten” lКnguКge, presumed
to СКve once Лeen “tСeТrs.” Some of tСem Кlso СКd tСeТr cСТldren Тn a calandreta, an
Occitan immersive school. There was also a cineaste from Brittany who spoke Breton to
his brother on the phone in my presence, since he came from the countryside and Breton
had been the language they used when they were children.
18
The examples were later multiplied, although Francoprovençal was never
mentioned. These were small drops of this otherwise hardly noticeable reality, hidden
behind the official discourse of the French language as an instrument and the embodiment
of national cohesion – and, of course, tСКt of FrencС Кs Кn Тnstrument of “cТvТlТsТng” otСer
peoples. One might think of the famous expressions like “rayonnement de la langue/de la
culture française” (“tСe rКdТКnce of tСe FrencС lКnguКge/culture”), “diffusion de la langue
et de la civilisation française” (“tСe spread of the French language and civilisКtТon”) Кnd
other concepts that originated in the colonial era and are still in use by many French
diplomats throughout the world at the beginning of the 21st century – although luckily
exceptions are now becoming numerous too, and the official discourse, according to
Parisian regulations, is now supposed to Лe КЛout “ЛТlКterКl cooperКtТon,” “dТКlogue” Кnd
“eбcСКnge,” rather than КЛout unТlКterКl “promotТon.”
Ethical considerations; relevance and novelty of the study
I will introduce my approach to the field, to the fieldwork and analysis in a perhaps
somewhat unconventional way. Once, when I was starting this PhD programme, I was
listening more or less randomly to a Russian political analytical radio broadcast. The
subject of the broadcast itself had strictly nothing to do with my research. Yet, at some
point the journalist dropped a phrase which I found thought-provoking (or rather, she
simply put in an explicit way something that responded to the reflections I had at that
time). She was musing on why there were no Chinese activists in Greenpeace. It appeared
that, according to the journalist, a Chinese militant, known as tСe “fearless hero,” dТd Тn
fact work for the organisation, but he fought for the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef.
Whether it is true or not is not my concern here, just like the broadcast was not about
ecologв eТtСer. TСe conclusТon аКs ТmportКnt tСougС: “TСere Кre too mКnв ‘fearless
heroes’ in the world today, who leave Beijing polluted with smog to defend the Great
BКrrТer Reef Тn AustrКlТК.” The journalist was implying the sphere of civic activism and
perhaps journalism. Yet I believe that this observation and especially its implications can
also be extrapolated to academic research in social sciences and humanities. It is not only
literally about choosing the field, socio-geographically speaking, but also, and especially,
about choosing the main concern in this field. It is about going beyond the comfort zone of
both the researcher and – sometimes – of the informants, to uncover tensions in today’s
19
society, problematic issues that are of universal concern, not just those that are the concern
of a small community or of a small circle of specialists.
The “trКnsformКtТon” processes Тn аСТcС terrТtorТКl dТКlects turn Тnto languages in
their own right are typical of numerous European and world countries today. In this
context, this study provides an analysis of a particular case within a global trend. As far as
the field of nationalism and linguistically-based (at least, at the discursive level) separatism
is concerned, the Francoprovençal case is far from the most acute today. Yet it is an
overwhelmingly understudied one, although it concerns three countries in the middle of
Western Europe. Besides, studying this case allows us to address, at an early stage, the
same processes that can be found in a more acute phase elsewhere.
Scholarly literature has traditionally described Francoprovençal from the point of
view of structural linguistics in the framework of French dialectology. Apart from major
dialectological studies such as Schüle, Schüle, Telmon, Tuaillon (1978), Tuaillon (1983,
2007), or Martin (2005, 2011, 2014), Diémoz and Kristol (2006), Diemoz, Aquino-Weber,
Grüner and Reusser-Elzingre (2014), the vast majority of studies have concerned one very
particular and very locally-circumscribed linguistic aspect. Thus the vast majority of books
written on Francoprovençal Кre of tСe tвpe “TСe toponвmв of tСe munТcТpКlТtв Б,” or “TСe
names of plants of the municipality Y.” It would be no exaggeration to say that these
works often substitute analysis with data collection: in other words, the data collected are
represented there as results. The same tendency can be seen in anthropological and
ethnographic works. These are mostly limited to tСe tвpes “TСe КlpТne ЛuТldТngs of the
municipality of X,” “TСe trКdТtТonКl СeКlТng prКctТces of tСe munТcТpКlТtв of В,” etc. The
studies in history mostly concern the life of personalities, like the Dukes of Savoy, or those
of Aosta, or global political processes, e.g. the accession of Savoy to France. In other
words, research in the Francoprovençal field has mostly been concerned with
“comfortКЛle,” “nТce” issues that are pleasurable to study, discuss and read about. The
study of contemporary society in the Francoprovençal area, of its problems, tensions and
actual practices – including linguistic ones – are virtually non-existent.
Namely, if we look from a historical perspective at the process of a set of patois
becoming a language, to start with, no study has been yet done that would analyse the
emergence of Ascoli’s concept of “FrКncoprovenхКl” in the relevant socio-historical and
academic context (Italy in the direct aftermath of unification). No scholarly research at all
exists on the Arpitania movement of the 1970s, the first to claim that the Francoprovençal
20
“lТnguТstТc tвpe” аКs К lКnguКge Тs Тts oаn rТgСt Кnd moreover the language of a single
nation (Arpitania). The only, but notable, existing study of this period is a documentary by
Ch. Dunoyer called Harpitanya, la ferveur d’une idée (2012). Finally, no research has
considered today’s Arpitan movement. The criticism of Arpitanism found in professional
papers is no more than just an incidental aside (often put in footnotes). The Arpitanist
stance itself is based on the research by the linguist Dominique Stich (in particular, on the
supra-dialectal orthography he has developed for the language, [Stich 1998, 2003]), but
Stich himself does not mention the “ArpТtКn lКnguКge” Кnd, mucС lТke otСer scСolКrs
working in the Francoprovençal context, keeps his distance with respect to the subject of
his study. The few sociolinguistic studies of Francoprovençal that have appeared in recent
years have been focused on the so-called groupes patoisants (“pКtoТs-speКkТng groups”),
seeing them as though representing the whole linguistic community, probably as a legacy
of a long dialectological tradition (see e.g. the recent PhD dissertation by B. Pivot, which
provides important insights into the groupes patoisants around Lyon, in France, but which
is de facto exclusively about these, although the data is then extrapolated to the whole
Francoprovençal area and all types of speakers). If the studies would not consider the new
speakers of Francoprovençal, at the same time researchers also had surprisingly little
contact with speakers of Francoprovençal who simply speak the language without being an
activist of whatever kind. Indeed, these are generally considered either non-existent or
“pСКntom speКkers” (on tСe notТon of “pСКntom speКkers” of FrКncoprovençal see Bert et
al. 2009: 38-43). Among the only exceptions to this general rule are an article by R. Maître
and M. Matthey (2007) on the municipality of Evolène in Switzerland, an issue of the
Revue transatlantique d’études suisses on Francoprovençal in Switzerland edited by M.
Matthey and M. Meune (2012), an article by M. Meune on the Arpitan Cultural Alliance
(2014), and studies by Ch. Dunoyer on the new speakers of Francoprovençal in the Aosta
Valley (2010). In the spirit of studying all the existent profiles of speakers (native speakers,
“late speakers” Тn tСe groupes patoisants Кnd “new speakers”) К study on Francoprovençal
in Savoy was conducted in 2015 (Bichurina, Dunoyer, forthcoming).
It can also be noticed that the existing studies consider Francoprovençal to be an
endangered language (or even a dead language); I study it as an emerging language. Of
course, I do not deny that Francoprovençal is rarely spoken in many places in the
respective linguistic area, although I also do believe that its actual linguistic vitality has
been largely underestimated (see more details on this in Part III of the present dissertation
and also, in the example of the case of Savoy, in Bichurina, Dunoyer, forthcoming).
21
Nevertheless, as stated above, I argue that as the respective communicative practices
disappear, Francoprovençal emerges as a language: a bounded and legally acknowledged
object of reality, a concept, and a codified system with its ascribed name and standard
orthography. In other words, an idiom becomes referred to as a language when local
linguistic practices vanish from everyday use. It will be shown altogether how, in
accordance with modern linguistic ideologies, such languages-as-concepts/languages-aspolicy-objects eclipse actual linguistic practices, and the alleged needs of a language
overshadow the actual needs of its speakers (as if phonemes or graphemes could have
needs of their own).
On critical studies in the Francoprovençal context
Until now studies of Francoprovençal have been carried out within a research
paradigm that is totally different from the one adopted for studying other minority
languages spoken in the same countries.5 Thus, so-called Occitan-Catalan, peripheral, or
else local scholars’ (dels cercaires natius) sociolinguistics (see e.g. Lafont 1971, 1984,
1997) aims to study societal issues and namely the relations of domination existing in the
society (on the emergence of this approach and its socio-political and socio-cultural roots
see Lagarde 2012, Còsta 2016). As Lafont argued for the Occitan studies, the objective
was “not so much to reconquer speaking Occitan for itself, as to free a speech that is
socТКllв condemned” (“non pas tant reconquérir l’occitanophonie pour elle-même que
libérer une parole condamnée socialement,” Lafont 1971: 99), referring to the famous
slogan of 1968: Òme d’oc, as dreit a la paraula, parla! (“MКn of Oc, вou СКve tСe rТgСt to
speak, speКk!”) Besides, the fundamental research ethics principle of these studies is that
the researcher is to be engaged.
6
Nothing similar has yet been developed for
Francoprovençal studies.
5
On certain aspects of difference between the Francoprovençal and Occitan research paradigms see also
Bichurina 2013.
Sociolinguistic studies Кre perceТved Кs К “аeКpon”: “la sociolinguistique est une arme de désaliénation
d’КЛord, de moЛТlТsКtТon ensuТte en fКveur de lК normalisation de lК lКngue jusqu’Кlors domТnцe”
(“socТolТnguТstТcs Тs К аeКpon, fТrst of dТsКlТenКtТon, tСen of moЛТlТsКtТon Тn favour of the normalisation of a
lКnguКge Кt present domТnКted.” Boвer 2012: 81, ТtКlТcs Тn orТgТnКl). A socТolТnguТst Тs encourКged to “refuser
une fКusse neutrКlТtц en se portКnt К l’КvКnt-garde de la contestation militante du conflit et de la résistance
organisée en faveur de la langue menacée de substitution” (“reject fКlse neutrКlТtв Лв plКcТng tСemselves Тn
the vanguard of militant protest against [diaglossic] conflict and of organised resistance in favour of a
language in danger of a language shift.” Op. cit.: 83). Those opposing the Occitanist vision and namely
insisting on Provençal being a language in its own right among the languages of Oc, like Ph. Blanchet
6
22
Why this approach did not emerge in the Francoprovençal-speaking area when it
did elsewhere is another question. Probably the answer is to be found in the fact that, as in
many small societies (be it the one of Valle d’Aosta, or an aboriginal community in
Australia), the elites are a small group made up of the same people who, once become
active, perform various roles in the society. In the case of the VDA, until very recently the
same people embodied the legislative authorities (the ruling party, which furthermore has
remained unchanged ever since the region gained its autonomy in 1946), the government
body dealing with – or at least in a position to deal with – language policy related to
Francoprovençal (BREL, Bureau régional pour l’ethnologie et la linguistique), a research
centre and a cultural centre of Francoprovençal and Alpine ethnology (Centre d’études
francoprovençales “René Willien”), and also the Valdôtain association of audio archives
(AVAS, Association valdôtaine des archives sonores), the Valdôtain Federation of Popular
Theatres (Fédérachón Valdonténa di Téatro Populéro, FVTP) and so forth. Hence, when
in the 1960s-1970s research studying the minority languages from the angle of the
relations of social domination emerged elsewhere (for Occitan this was initiated in 1962
with the coal miners’ strike in Decazeville, see Lagarde 2012), it naturally could not be
adopted to Francoprovençal: researchers who themselves represented local power most
certainly could not study power relations, especially not from the point of view of the
dominated groups. Therefore, the research on Francoprovençal would always be restricted
to collecting testimonies of various patois destined to die, ignoring or neglecting all the
social issues at stake. The approach linking minority language issues to the concepts of
social dominance did emerge, at the beginning of the seventies, as, like any widelydiscussed idea, it eventually found fertile ground – but it emerged among activists (the
Arpitan movement). The fact of being rejected by official science (for the reasons
explained above) eventually became the strength of these theories: from that moment
activists’ publications on Francoprovençal, renamed Arpitan, became what we may call the
“lТnguТstТcs of resentment” (to Лorroа tСe term of P. SцrТot [see Sériot et al. 2008]). It had
at once hundreds of adepts, as it proposed to look at society from an angle that local
intellectuals had kept purposefully concealed (as an informant says, l’ire la folìa, tcheu le
dzovenno l’iran Arpitan, “it was craziness, all the young people were Arpitans”). Initially
radical, it preached physical violence as the means of the Francoprovençal-speaking
people’s liberation from the dominance of the French- and eventually Italian-speaking
(Blanchet 1992, 2002, 2004) support the principle of an engaged researcher similarly to their Occitanist
opponents: “SocТКl ТnterventТon Тs tСe most ТmportКnt tКsk of tСe ‘conscientious science’ in general and of
socТolТnguТstТc studТes Тn pКrtТculКr” (BlКncСet 2004: 32).
23
bourgeoisie (as will be shown in Part I). Most obviously too, a movement preaching
violence of which the elites would be the targets could not possibly be accepted by the
elites. The story has now become part of history, but it created a scientific tradition that has
lasted until today, according to which speaking about any social issues linked to language
use, or merely pronouncing the name of Arpitan, is a mauvais ton in Francoprovençal
scholarly circles.
It is not anecdotal to point out that the Autonomous Region of Valle d’Aosta was,
until 2015, one of the richest regions of Europe, with an average income amounting to
137%, if the European average is taken for 100% (Decime, Vernetto 2007: 22). Hence,
most publications by Gaston Tuaillon, the major French scholar who worked on
Francoprovençal, were issued in Valle d’Aosta with the financial, logistic and intellectual
support of the region. In other words, it may be suggested that critical studies on
Francoprovençal never emerged in France either because the academic careers of
researchers working on Francoprovençal in France were de facto closely linked to Valle
d’Aosta’s political and scholarly circles (which, as it was argued, were largely the same).
In Switzerland, in its turn, many of the social issues that were pressing elsewhere were
simply non-existent, Swiss Francoprovençal-speaking farmers having all the legal means
to speak for themselves.
Whatever the reasons, the long tradition of ignoring social issues linked to the
language in scholarly studies, together with that of not speaking about any problematic
issues, which exists as a cultural tradition in the society, resulted in studies of
Francoprovençal somehow missing the development that happened in the studies of other
minority language issues in the last half-century. By this I obviously do not mean to
diminish the importantce of dialectological studies, but to emphasise the fact that the
dialectological data produced about the language as a system was not complemented with
(sociolinguistic or anthropological) knowledge about the society that uses this language.
Today, when the above-mentioned constraints are largely a thing of the past, this lack of
serious research on modern Francoprovençal society still creates favourable grounds for all
sorts of pseudo-scientific or parascientific stances that, having no rivals, may seem
attractive.
24
Data collection methods
Conceived as cross-disciplinary7, the study combined methods of anthropology and
sociolinguistics. The findings are based on extensive fieldwork in which priority was given
to the ethnographic method of participant observation. Apart from short stays, I lived in
total for five months in the Francoprovençal-speaking areas of France, for 10 months in
those in Switzerland, and for 10 months in those in Italy. The observation was combined
with in-depth sociolinguistic interviews (60 interviews of 1-3 hours in length, see Figures
2-5), with speakers of different profiles (see Part III for details): 34 native speakers born
Лetаeen 1920 Кnd 1975; 10 “lКte speКkers” Лorn Лetаeen 1930 Кnd 1945; 11 “neа
speКkers” Лorn Лetаeen 1950 Кnd 1992, Кnd 5 pКssТve speКkers Лorn Лetаeen 1940 Кnd
1970. The interviews were held mostly in FP, unless preferred otherwise by the informant,
which allowed, apart from a greater proximity to the interlocutor, for the comparison of
representations about the language (in discourse) with actual language use (during the
interview). Besides, the study includes analysis of written discourse: scientific and
journalistic printed sources, manifestos, internet blogs, etc.
Figure 2. Map of fieldwork sites (Places where recorded interviews or substantial
informal conversations reported in the field journal were held are indicated.)
7
Which should be possible to realise thanks to my academic background (MA in general linguistics,
sociology, sociolinguistics and anthropology) together with my professional background in cultural
diplomacy.
25
Figure 3. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Aosta Valley
Figure 4. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Savoie
26
Figure 5. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Haute-Savoie and Switzerland
Generally, a discourse not directed at the researcher or in any case not initiated by
the researcher was preferred, be it spontaneous daily conversations, association meetings
or “ordТnКrв” people’s informal gatherings, festivals and celebrations, or written
communication in blogs, manifestos and other texts published by activists. I suppose I
should add conferences to the list too, strange as it might seem to see them among
fieldwork sites: it is nevertheless true that many trends in the linguistic community are
revealed at the conferences that take place in the Francoprovençal region itself and which
are attended by linguistic community members.
This methodological choice is based on the assumption that it is discourse of this
type that reveals the problems that exist inside the community: it raises questions that are
significant to the community itself, or to part of it, rather than imported from without by
the researcher. Thus, some topics I had not initially planned to consider in this dissertation
would emerge in the course of such conversations and prove to be especially significant to
the community as they would appear time and again in different conversations or blog
posts. The issue of relations between activists and linguists turned out to be one of the
topics of this type, and one that was acutely felt by the activists. This is why the discourse
on linguists has an important place in the final text of my study, even though initially it had
not been considered worthy of special attention.
27
These sorts of spontaneous conversations and public texts were complemented by
interviews, or more focused conversations in which I took the lead in proposing topics.
This allowed me better to define the informant’s point of view on a subject that they would
have brought up before, as well as to ask a number of questions that, while of interest to
the community and therefore to this study, are not usually discussed.
I consider the points of view of all sorts of social actors participating in the process
of establishment of Francoprovençal as a language: linguists, activists, political authorities.
TСe dТscourse of tСese socТКl Кctors Тs compКred on tСe one СКnd to tСКt of “ordТnКrв”
speakers, and on the other hand, to the actual linguistic practices in the region. A special
place is reserved for the study of language activists’ discourse, namely young urban
middle-class speakers, the so-cКlled “neа speКkers,” as far as the present day is concerned,
or that of the militants of Arpitania in the past (the 1970s). Two out of three parts of this
dissertation (Parts I and II) are dedicated to these, while the last part (Part III) is concerned
with profiling today’s speakers. This interest is due to the fact that these are the people
who influence changes in the linguistic situation and the legal status of the language. Of
course, when one mentions speakers of endangered languages, one usually means senior
village-dwellers rather than those who have only learned the language recently. However,
it is the latter who typically act (purportedly) on behalf or in the name of the former.
The chosen research methods imply certain limitations. Language activists are few,
compared with the general population of the respective regions. As for the Arpitan activists
specifically, their number is especially small, even in comparison with the total number of
Francoprovençal language advocates (mostly the so-called groupes patoisants). Therefore
a question may arise as to where the anthropology and sociology of language ends and the
psychology begins: where is the limit up to which one may call the selection to be
representative and maintain that one is dealing with modern linguistic ideologies rather
than the fancies of one or two leaders and a small circle of enthusiasts gathered around
them? Sociology describes psychological phenomena typical of a significant number of
people: e.g. the classical study of suicides by Emile Durkheim (Durkheim 1897). Suicides
are, however, more numerous than those who undertake the revitalising or creation of a
language. Nevertheless, I suggest that the phenomenon I consider here is important in spite
of these limitations because:
-
it makes a particular case of what is currently being observed all over the
world and in this respect has no aspect of a minority movement in quantitative terms;
28
-
as will be seen, the discourse of representatives of different, indeed mutually
opposing, trends is largely based on the same premises, which makes it clear that the
underlying language ideology is the same, although different movements articulate the
needs of different social groups;
-
finally, as suggested above, the importance of studying activist ideologies
lies in that they contribute to idioms becoming languages. Indeed, the study of language
advocates’ discourse concerns small groups of people, but language policy is not a
referendum, it is not done by large numbers. To give but one example, in the discourse
produced by a personality like Joseph Henriet, the author of the terms Arpitania, the
Arpitans and the Arpitan language, much is linked to his profile of a charismatic leader,
and perhaps to aspects of his personal biography. Yet it greatly influenced the
representations of the language, the discourse on it, and ultimately, to a certain extent,
the linguistic situation for at least 50 years that followed – both in terms of imagining
tСe set of аСКt used to Лe consТdered “pКtoТs” as a language in its own right and
imagining a trans-border community by some of the speakers, and in the practical
impossibility of speaking patois in public or writing it as the response of the élites and
the majority to this failed struggle.
Once one of the Valdôtains dropped a phrase in our conversation, saying that one
cannot work on Francoprovençal and pretend that they are counting the petals of a daisy.
He was implicitly referring to the research that has existed until today that is only
concerned with the strictly linguistic features of the language, excluding from its scope all
the social issues of the actual use of the language. Indeed, as will be shown through the
chapters of this dissertation, working on this language, for both language activists and
researchers, has always had a socio-political meaning and implications. The same
interlocutor of mine also pointed out that while of course the situation is not explosive at
the moment, this does not mean that tensions do not exist. He then specified that he meant
“eбplosТve” Тn К metКpСorТcal sense. And later another qualification: “No, I gТve tСТs
precision because you never know,” implicitly referring to some periods in the past when
there had been reason to fear a direct a more direct meaning of this. An anecdotal
conversation with another Valdôtain was quite thought-provoking to me too. We were
going from Valle d’Aosta to Piedmont by car, so we had some hours of road ahead to talk
about various things. At some moment I told him how when I was 20 years old and
preparing my second MA, in sociology, another girl enrolled in the same MA course chose
to study the journalists working in Chechnya. At that time an armed conflict was ongoing
29
there, labelled as either a war or an anti-terrorist operation (depending on who was
speaking). The subject implied several fieldwork trips to the conflict zone. As she
explained her project, I asked her whether she truly believed that an MA dissertation (that
no one would probably read apart from the supervisors) was worth risking her life for.8 At
the time I was working on linguistic minorities in Eastern Ukraine, where a civil war is
now underway: certain tensions were already present in society, but the region was
nevertheless a safe place to stay, though somewhat lacking in comfort. When I told this
story to the Valdôtain informant of mine, he remained thoughtful for quite a long while,
Кnd tСen Кsked: “Do вou reКllв ЛelТeve tСКt аСКt вou Кre doТng noа Тs so dТfferent from
what you were criticisТng?” He eventually agreed that perhaps at this particular historical
moment it was. Although I still do believe that the two settings are hardly comparable (if at
all), that the idea of me working on Arpitan could provoke such a feeling, at least in some
parts of the area where it is spoken, is eloquent testimony that despite the outward calm,
the situation is not as quiet as it might seem.
At some point during mв fТeldаork, tСe dТscourse Кround “dКngerous people”
emerged in my private conversations in the Arpitanist milieu. Namely some people would
tell me that I would only encounter “dКngerous people,” ТmplвТng tСКt I аould mostlв meet
all sorts of separatists from various periods from the last 40 years or so. If that was indeed
the case at that stage of my fieldwork, I found it crucial to meet these individuals in order
to uncover the complex ideologies that existed in the society and informed the present-day
situation. At the same time, the experience of living in the Francoprovençal area of the
three countries gave me daily opportunities to meet “ordТnКrв people,” tКlk to tСem, Кnd
get to know and understand them without having to conduct interviews with them (I
nevertheless did conduct interviews with them too). Indeed, the third part of this thesis is
dedТcКted mostlв to “ordТnКrв people” in order to underline the gap between ideologies and
actual practices. Yet most interviews quoted in this dissertation concern the so-called
“dКngerous people.” So let us return to those. As to these people ЛeТng “dКngerous,” the
question arises: to whom? Partly they are so to other language advocates who wish to
pretend that these issues have never existed or at least are non-existent today. This being
said, I should also make a note: I never sought specifically to meet tСese “dКngerous
people.” In all cases, either they would contact me (because they had read my articles,
because they had heard others speak about me, etc.), or I would meet them accidentally,
8
She explained that she was not intending to do that fieldwork in order to get her degree, but was doing the
degree in order to be able to carry out the field study. In other words, the degree was a socially acceptable
way of legitimising this otherwise suspicious and in any case rather suicidal curiosity.
30
while doing another type of research. 9 The latter alone suggests that they are significantly
more numerous than one might think.
In any case, what is true is that the society that speaks Francoprovençal is a society
that tends to avoid conflicts at all cost (tСe culture of “КvoТdТng conflТct” is often referred
to by informants from different parts of the Francoprovençal zone), and which therefore
tends to avoid potentially conflictual discussions as well. It is a society that is always
extremely welcoming and that seems extremely happy and healthy10, but that nevertheless
hides certain tensions that are tacit but for this reason even more acute. For indeed,
avoiding social issues does not make them non-existent: even though they are never
discussed, forming societal non-dits, they inform attitudes (language attitudes,
interpersonal attitudes etc.) and create a particular linguistic and socio-political reality.
With a past that haunts the present, these non-КdmТtted tensТons creКte К “ЛКckground
noТse” tСКt Тs КlаКвs present, КltСougС never Тn focus.
How to study issues that, according to a long cultural tradition, are never spoken
about, how to investigate a past experience that some would like to pretend never existed,
is another methodological question. My approach in this respect has two main aspects:
being an outsider and speaking the language.
An outsider s approach
My methodological approach is an outsider’s approach. As such, it corresponds to
what E. SКТd cКlled Кn “ТntellectuКl eбТle” Кs a metaphorical condition necessary for any
research:
The pattern that sets the course for the intellectual as outsider is best exemplified by
the condition of exile, the state of never being fully adjusted, always feeling outside
the chatty, familiar world inhabited by natives, so to speak, tending to avoid and
9
E.g. while conducting fieldwork in Savoy in summer 2015 I was looking especially to meet those who
simply speak the language because this is their first language, without being engaged in any language
association. And yet, even among those a significant number turned out to be Savoyard independentists.
10
And yet, e.g., of all the regions in Italy, Valle d’AostК regularly has the highest suicide rate proportional to
the number of inhabitants (the latest figures being 11.0 per 100,000 inhabitants, the Italian average being 7.2
per 100,000, see Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Salute nelle Regioni Italiane: Sanità e salute
http://www.istat.it/it/files/2015/12/C04.pdf, p. 147).
31
even dislike the trappings of accommodation and national well-being. (Said 1993:
117)
This means de-familiarising oneself with certain national ideological issues that
sometimes weigh on analyses, and thus liberating the analysis from its socio-political
context of enunciation. On the one hand, everything that locals would write on the subject
may be (and often is) interpreted as a political act, precisely because they are locals
(“citoyens comme les autres,” “cТtТгens lТke Кnв otСers” to quote one of mв ТnformКnts),
whereas this Тs not tСe cКse for Кn “outsТder.” On tСe otСer СКnd, the situation that I study is
not charged with any particular significance not only in Russia where I come from, but also
in the universities within which my research is carried out: just the same way as these
universities do not enjoy any particular connotations in the eyes of my informants.
Although one of them is in Italy (Bergamo) and another one in France (Perpignan), they
are not the ones that Кre seen ЛotС Кs references Кnd Кs “enemТes” Лв tСe communТtв (as
will be shown in the analysis as far as research centers with a tradition of studies on
Francoprovençal and researchers from the Francoprovençal area itself are concerned). The
“eбotТc” one, tСe UnТversТtв of Sвdneв, turned out only to amplify the importance of what
my Russian background had already conveyed to the community: for the speakers of
Francoprovençal it was a positive sign of a worldwide interest in their language and
culture.
Besides, I come from a majority culture, and I speak the most standard variety of
the Russian language that can be spoken (standard Russian being the language of St.
Petersburg intellectuals), which is thus all the more contrary to speaking patois. This
majority culture is nevertheless not the one that is dominant in the area that I study (I am
from neither Paris nor Rome). I have learnt 14 languages at various times in my life, yet
until the age of seven (when I started learning my first foreign language at school) I was
perfectly monolingual, and this is the contrary of the condition of those who are
multilingual from early childhood (like some children in Valle d’Aosta who speak from
two to six languages). Finally, I have lived in six different countries, without counting
regions and cities there, I am mobile and live “Тn-Лetаeen” (countrТes Кnd cultures), Тn tСe
“Тnterгones” (to Лorroа tСe nКme of tСe PСD programme), and in that respect I am
completely unlike my informants, who are local and connected to their land.11
11
This can be illustrated by a random conversation with a Valdôtain:
32
However despite being an outsider, I still came from a cultural context that is
comparable to the one under study, which made me a legitimate other: legitimate because
culturally close.12 At the same time, regular comparisons with Russia in my conversations
and interviews proved to be of particular importance. Ultimately, I think I was able to learn
all the crucial things about the most intimate, sometimes traumatising, and in any case,
normally hidden representations about language and society while talking about Russia. It
was also while speaking about the Republic of Karelia, part of the Russian Federation, that
I first heard a complete explanation of why the concept of Francoprovençal as a language
in its own right was taboo in Valle d’Aosta (see Part I Chapter 1); it was while speaking
about minority languages in Russia that I could see how patois was not seen as anything
akin to К “lКnguКge” Тn FrКnce or SаТtгerlКnd, Кnd Тn most cКses Тn VКlle d’Aosta and
Piedmont either.
The outsider’s position is also advantageous in that it invites local interlocutors to
disclose things that would never be put in an explicit way to another local: information that
is tacit, that is always presupposed, the knowledge that all the locals are supposed to share,
even though there might be a crucial difference in the way they understand it and in what
they actually think about it.
The transformation of my own place within the group is something that is
necessarily typical for any such type of research that involves extensive participant
observation. Later, once it had already happened to me, I read in A. Jaffe’s book on
Corsica:
I did not feel, for example, that I had an unlimited warrant to poke my nose into
some of the affairs which I became a part of without making some sort of
contribution, without revealing myself in the way I was asking (forcing?) Corsicans
NB: I could live anywhere where I have an interesting job.
A Valdôtain: I could do any job provided that I stay in my valley.
12
It is close in many ways, as my daily experience showed: namely in aspects that most of the time are not
reflected upon, but which at the same time constitute the basis of everyday life in a society. At times
throughout my fieldwork remarks were made on these similarities. This includes the basic skills for daily
activities: thus coming from a place with cold and snowy winters, I was well acquainted with using the snow
shovel etc. It includes the culture of not disclosing too much of one’s inner world and not being verbally
over-excited: e.g. in either culture, Russian or Francoprovençal, no one would normally answer the question:
“Hoа Кre вou?” wТtС sometСТng lТke “Verв аell” (I will return to this particularity in Part III). It also
includes a woman being self-sufficient and strong, not seeking to be taken care of in any particular way (and
projecting this identity and not that of being weak and dependent on male attention), etc.
33
to reveal themselves to me. I do not mean to say that I abandoned all efforts to be
neutrКl … [Лut] I аКs not К pКssТve collector of opТnТons; I СКd tСem, sСКred tСem,
argued them. The intellectuals I studied were not exotic creatures, they were who I
would be if I were Corsican. (Jaffe 1999: 5)
To a large extent I should admit that, as to the nature of my involvement with the
group, something similar happened in my case. It remains however true that speaking
about other minority contexts that I know and have worked on (in northwest Russia, in
eastern Ukraine where I have worked on several linguistic minorities before, even my
experience in Australia during this PhD programme) does provide a unique possibility to
be active in expressing opinions without suggesting any opinion on the situation that I am
studying. I will not claim that I consciously chose it as a methodological tool, but with my
fieldwork progressing I realised that being honest about complicated and emotionally
challenging issues in one’s own country implies, as an effect, getting an honest answer in
return about the hidden tensions in the interlocutor’s situation – the one that I was
studying.
At the same time, it should be emphasised that being an outsider does not mean not
having access to an insider’s view. Thus I could participate in all sorts of meetings of
various associations or of their boards, in the work of the municipal halls in some
municipalities where I stayed, and most of all, in the everyday life of the places where I
lived. For despite me being essentially an outsider, I was integrated in the local community
from the very first days of my stay, wherever this was throughout the Francoprovençal
area, and accepted there as being di noutre, “one of us.” This might be due to my sharing
with the community social practices like corvée (a day of unpaid common labor in a
community), dezarpa (festivities around the descent of the cows from alpine pastures),
grКpe СКrvest or pКtrons’ dКвs. Вet especТКllв, this was largely due to my speaking the
local (Francoprovençal) language.
Speaking the language
This is the first research on Francoprovençal carried out mostly in Francoprovençal
(together with another one conducted in 2015, concurrently with this one [Bichurina,
Dunoyer forthcoming]). This might seem normal for today’s research on minority
languages – on any languages for that matter – anywhere in the world, but somehow it has
34
not been the case for Francoprovençal. It should be specified here that the existing studies
of Francoprovençal presume a particular positioning of the researcher outside of the
community. Distancing oneself from the subject under study is maintained to be a
necessary condition of an objective study. Up to now, none of the Francoprovençal
researchers has positioned themselves as a language speaker.
At the same time, when I started this study I noticed a lack of similarity between
the representations of the linguistic situation in France and Switzerland with regard to
Francoprovençal by researchers on the one hand and by speakers from other
Francoprovençal regions on the other hand. Researchers would claim that nearly no one
speaks the language there any more, at least not in daily interactions: they would speak of
“pСКntom speКkers” аho would hide and deny their linguistic competence (Bert et al.
2009) or of Francoprovençal as a “postvernacular” lКnguКge in all the areas where it is
spoken, where the mere fact that something is said in Francoprovençal is more important
that what is being said (Pivot 2014). At the same time, many language speakers from the
Aosta Valley in Italy or from Switzerland told me that when they would go to Savoie and
Haute-Savoie in France they would always find some people with whom they could speak
Francoprovençal. Another conversation was thought-provoking too. A coffee trader from
the Aosta Valley who speaks Francoprovençal as his first language was at a coffee counter
at an international festival of Francoprovençal in Courmayeur (Valle d’Aosta). I asked him
afterwards what language Сe СКd Лeen speКkТng to customers from FrКnce. He Кnsаered: “I
tried to speak Francoprovençal. Often they would reply in French. But you know, anyway,
it’s certainly not among the associations that you would find [Francoprovençal] speakers
in France!”
Hence, the major differences in the two sources of testimonies on the
Francoprovençal linguistic situation lie in the fact that the studies do not approach the same
type of people (working mostly with the groupes patoisants), and that researchers do not
speak the language (one might think of a social group difference too, yet among those who
told me that they would always find speakers there was a Swiss TV presenter who in
“ordТnКrв” speКkers’ eyes must belong to the same social group as the researchers).
Researchers might begin with a pre-existing idea that Francoprovençal is no longer spoken,
so they do not learn it and therefore people would talk to them in French in an effort to be
polite. This seems to confirm the initial hypothesis, which brings them to say that the
language is no longer spoken (hence there is no need to think about its transmission, one
35
may only think of a valorisation of a language that has once existed). The linguistic reality
thus remains unknown: how is the language actually spoken, by whom, about what, for
which purposes and with what motivations? Another crucial issue is that trust can hardly
be earnt by a researcher who does not speak the language, which will have an effect even
on the chances of being provided with completely extralinguistic information. Taking the
trouble of learning the language implies a true interest in the subject and respect for the
community, while not doing so is too often interpreted as studying it merely for financial
reward, as I witnessed on numerous occКsТons Тn prТvКte conversКtТons аТtС “ordТnКrв”
speakers and activists.
Data analysis method: critical discourse analysis
One of the classics of sociolinguistics, Dell Hymes, once noted: “some social
research seems incredibly to assume that what there is to find out can be found out by
asking” (Hymes 1981: 84). Thus, interviews are only data, not results. That is, one has to
understand why the informants said, or wrote, what they did, where and when they did, to
root the discourse in its social setting of enunciation in order to understand the issues at
stake.
The main data analysis method used in this study is the critical discourse analysis
(hereafter CDA). As van Dijk (2001) suggests, CDA’s roots are mainly to be found in
critical linguistics, such as developed in the UK and Australia (Fowler et al. 1979). Today
CDA is a method combining the approaches of several academic disciplines: “Тt requТres
true multidisciplinarity, and an account of intricate relationships between text, talk, social
cognТtТon, poаer, socТetв Кnd culture” (vКn DТjk 1993: 253). Namely, the disciplines
concerned are critical sociolinguistics, social sciences and anthropology, sometimes
psychology.
The fundamental principles of CDA were developed and presented by Norman
Fairclough and Ruth Wodak using the example of their analysis of a Margaret Thatcher
radio interview (Fairclough, Wodak 2010 [1997]). One can distinguish several basic
concepts of CDA that are of importance to this study. Firstly, language or language use are
not considered separately or for their own sake but as a part of social, cultural, and political
processes: “…tСe keв clКТm of CDA Тs tСКt mКjor socТКl Кnd polТtТcКl processes Кnd
movements … СКve К pКrtlв lТnguТstТc-discursive character” (Op. cit.: 101). CDA
36
emphasises the discursive nature of power relations in modern society: power relations are
ЛuТlt Кnd “negotТКted” аТtСТn dТscourse. EКcС speecС Кct reproduces Кnd/or trКnsforms
certain notions as to the structure of the world, society, and culture; discourse reflects
particular linguistic ideologies. Fairclough and Wodak provide the following definition of
ТdeologТes: “Ideologies are often (though not necessarily) false or ungrounded
constructions of society (for example, gender ideologies that represent women as less
emotТonКllв stКЛle tСКn men)” (Op. cit.: 105). Ideologies reflect both the notion of reality
and, at the same time, the construction of identity. It concerns in particular the collective
identity: that of a people, of a nation, of a certain group.
BesТdes, КccordТng to tСe CDA КpproКcС, “dТscourse Тs not produced аТtСout
conteбt Кnd cКnnot Лe understood аТtСout tКkТng tСe conteбt Тnto consТderКtТon” (Op. cit.:
106). The notion of context contains two main components. The first is socio-cultural
knowledge. The interpretation of a discourse, just as discourse generation, is not carried
out via a tabula rasa: the listener/reader interprets the discourse according to their feelings,
preferences, and knowledge (Op. cit.: 108). The second important component of the
discourse content is its intertextuality, its relation to another discourse, be it a precedent,
concurrent, or following one.
CDA aims at bridging tСe “gКp” Лetаeen the micro and macrolevels of the social
order, bringing together language use, discourse and verbal interaction, which traditionally
belong to the microlevel of analysis, with the issues of social groups, power and
dominance, which are traditionally studied at the microlevel of analysis (van Dijk 2001:
354). “In everвdКв ТnterКctТon Кnd eбperТence tСe mКcro- and microlevel (and the
ТntermedТКte “mesolevels”) form one unТfТed аСole” (Ibid.).
Finally, CAD is primarily interested in the actual social issues. At the same time,
unlike politicians and activists, critical discourse analysts go beyond the immediate,
serious or pressing issues of the day. Their structural understanding presupposes
more general insights, and sometimes indirect and long-term analyses of
fundamental causes, conditions and consequences of such issues. (van Dijk 1993:
253)
37
Main theoretical premises of the study
The conceptual framework for specific parts of my analysis will be explained in the
respective chapters of this dissertation. However, two crucial issues need to be discussed
ЛeforeСКnd: аСКt Тs understood Сere Кs К “lКnguКge” Кnd аСКt Тs understood Кs К “nКtТon.”
Volumes of academic literature have been dedicated to these much-debated questions, and
it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to review all the existing approaches. However
the approach informing my analysis needs to be specified. I will first start with the term
“lКnguКge” Кnd tСen move on toаКrds tСe “nКtТon.”
1. What is a language?
Language vs. dialect
In what has long been regarded as classic research, Einar Haugen points out that the
taxonomy of linguistic descriptions is made complicated by the ambiguity and vagueness
of the terms language and dialect:
The simple truth is that there is no answer to these questions, or at least none that
will stand up to closer scrutiny. … it is inherent in the very terms themselves that
no answer can be given. They represent a simple dichotomy in a situation that is
almost infinitely complex. … The use of these terms has imposed a division in what
is often a continuum, giving what appears to be a neat opposition when in fact the
edges are extremely ragged and uncertain. (Haugen 1972 [1966]: 97)
Indeed, in sociolinguistics, a dialect is usually understood as a variety of a
language: geographical (a regional dialect), social (a sociolect), or ethnic (an ethnolect). A
language then represents the sum of its dialects. However, a practical application of this
theory raises the problem of delimitation between languages and dialects (two dialects of
the same language vs. two different languages). While determining the border between two
standard languages does not present any difficulty, establishing limits within a continuum
of non-standardised – most often, spoken – varieties is always problematic. One may recall
the example provided by Uriel Weinreich: it is easy to say where standard Dutch ends and
standard German begins, but it is impossible to determine unequivocally where regional
Dutch dialects end and regional German dialects begin (Weinreich 1972 [1954]: 315). The
same can be said about the Romance linguistic continuum.
38
A structural approach to the language vs. dialect delimitation
Traditionally, dialectologists would study isoglosses to establish dialect boundaries:
they would select either an isogloss considered to be especially significant, or sufficiently
dense isogloss clusters to draw a border between two dialects. Nevertheless, Uriel
Weinreich labelled such research methods as belonging to the past as early as 1954: “It is
evident that no unambiguous concept of dialect could emerge … any more than a society
can be exhaustively and uniquely divided into ‘groups’.” He also stipulated:
“Classificatory procedures of this type are today virtually passé. Dialectologists have
generally switched to extra-structural criteria for dividing the folk-language continuum”
(Weinreich 1972 (1954): 316). The “extra-structural criteria” are purported to mean
peculiar geographical (such as mountains/plains), climatic, or historical features; lexical
differences may also be added to the “traditional” phonetic ones. Finally, statistical
methods may be used. I should note here that although the quoted paper was written over
half a century ago, not only СКs tСe metСod of “the most significant isoglosses” been
traditionally used to define Francoprovençal since the moment it was first identified as a
distinctive linguistic type by Ascoli in the late 19th century, but it also remains the main
method up to now (as discussed more in detail in Part II).
A functional approach to the language vs. dialect delimitation
In addition to the structural dimension of the delimitation between language and
dialect, which is what linguists and dialectologists deal with, a functional or sociolinguistic
dimension can also be distinguished. Haugen notes that in fact, the modern use of the term
dialect presupposes either a rural speech or that of a lower social class. Thus, one can
speak about a Lancashire dialect or an Irish dialect – but never about a London dialect or a
Bostonian dialect unless it is the dialect of London or Boston working classes that is
meant: “As a social norm, then, a dialect is a language that is excluded from polite society”
(Haugen 1972 [1966]: 100). In other words, a dialect is “a language that ‘did not succeed’”
(Ibid., quoted from Auguste Brun, personal communication).
Besides, according to one of the possible meanings, a dialect is seen as an
“underdeveloped lКnguКge”: “It is a language that no one has taken the trouble to develop
into what is often referred to as a ‘standard language’” (Op. cit.: 103). In reality, as Haugen
emphasises, an idiom’s being underdeveloped only means that it is not used to perform all
the functions that a language can perform. To jump ahead, note that this is precisely the
39
role assumed by today’s language activists and by some of the linguists: making a
language out of a patois or a dialect by developing its functions.
A synchronic vs. diachronic approach: dialects becoming languages
A language can be defined either in a synchronic or in a diachronic sense:
In a descriptive, synchronic sense “language” can refer either to a SINGLE linguistic
norm, or to a
GROUP
of related norms. In a historical, diachronic sense “language”
can either be a common language on its way to dissolution, or a common language
resulting from unification. A “dialect” is then any one of the related norms
comprised under the general name “language,” historically the result of either
divergence or convergence. (Haugen 1972 [1966]: 99)
Modern linguistic ideologies relate the existence of nations and nation-states to the
existence of national languages: “Every self-respecting nation has to have a language. Not
just a medium of communication, a “vernacular” or a “dialect,” but a fully developed
language. Anything less marks it as underdeveloped” (Haugen 1972 [1966]: 103). The
development of a dialect into a language proves to be closely related to the development of
literacy and the rise of nationalism and is, consequently, perceived as a threat to a nationstate. Haugen specifically mentions France, which is known for its rigid language policy.
The post-revolutionary ban on the use of local idioms or today’s proclamation of the
question about one’s native language in population censes to Лe “КntТ-constТtutТonКl” are
particularly connected to the danger that the emergence of other languages beside French
poses to the French Republic: “The dialects, at least if they threaten to become languages,
Кre potentТКllв dТsruptТve forces Тn К unТfТed nКtТon…” (Op. cit.: 104) It is namely on such
dialects tСКt “tСreКten to Лecome lКnguКges” – or, more precisely, are in the process of
establishing themselves as languages – that this dissertation is focused.
Language as an object of policy and education
In a work titled What is a language? (Le Page 1997 [1988]), Le Page stipulates that
language as an object of policy and education is essentially a “written artefact” (Op. cit.:
24). Different countries’ political ideologies turn out to be quite similar to each other and
amount essentially to the following postulates:
40
-
that it is essential to impose national unity through the sole recognition of a
homogeneous national language;
-
that the precise form of that language – the rule-system, its grammar,
vocabulary, and orthography – can be legislated for; and
-
that its homogeneous use can be achieved through the education system
(Op. cit.: 24).
Le Page notes that “French seems to be among the most clearly reified, totemised
and institutionalised of languages” (Ibid.: 24). The stereotype of the standard French
language plays the same role in France as the monarchy plays in Britain (Ibid., according
to Jean-Michel Carpentier, personal communication). Nevertheless, the French language is
specifically a “social stereotype which has been felt to be essential to national unity” (Op.
cit.: 25). In fact, the French language is only used (or strived to be used) by highly
educated citizens on formal occasions; undereducated or provincial people are considered
to be speaking a regional dialect/language. In the same way, e.g. the Italian language can
Лe defТned Кs “a standard lКnguКge Тn seКrcС of speКkers” (Op. cit.: 27): when it was first
proclaimed the national language at the time of the Unification of Italy in 1861, it was the
written language of 2.5% of the country’s population, but even these people did not use it
for oral communication.
In more recent history, the creation of the European Union and the process of
European integration played an important part for minority language policies, proposing a
multilingual model instead of the traditional monolingual one:
The EU has come out strongly in support of multilingualism, paradoxically because
of the strong monolingualism of its member states. It is the great importance that
EU member states attach to their national languages which has necessitated the
linguistic pluralism of the EU. Whatever the original motivation, the emphasis on
linguistic and cultural diversity has provided an opening for minority language
groups to make their case. (O’Reilly 2001: 13)
Thus the European Union has provided a new discourse favourable to minority languages,
new institutional structures through which minority language groups can make their claims
and also new possibilities for trans-border collaboration, which is namely an important
development for divided communities like the Francoprovençal one. Laitin (1997) argues
that a future European state will have multiple cultural identities, where a sense of
41
Europeanness
will
coexist
with
regional/ethnic
and
state/national
identities.
Simultaneously language competence will grow, according to Laitin, towards a 2 ± 1
model as a norm (mother tongue + English, or mother tongue + State language + English
for the speakers of minority languages).
Subjective approach: language as a fiction
The problem of delimitation between languages and dialects, or between two
languages, may also be considered from a completely different angle: not starting from
abstract systems that would exist as if outside of their speakers, but from what speakers
actually use to communicate and how they perceive these linguistic means. Out of
convenience I will call this approach based on speakers’ representations subjective – as
opposed to the objective structural approach. On the one hand, as noted by N.B. Vakhtin
based on his research in northeast Russia, when a linguistic choice functions especially as
an identity marker in comparison with other language functions, “К lКnguКge vКrТetв mКв
have but minimal divergence from another, while perceived by language speakers as a
‘separate language’” (Vakhtin 2001b: 285). On the other hand, speakers who use several
idioms can fail to distinguish where the borders between the idioms lie: this may be the
case even with idioms structurally belonging to different language groups or families, let
alone that of closely related idioms within the same linguistic continuum (Le Page,
Tabouret-Keller 1985).
Opposing himself to notions of the idealised speaker-listener in a homogenous
community and of closed and finite rule-systems that allow the generation of an infinite
number of phrases, Le PКge stКtes: “It Тs not Тn tСe nКture of СumКn lКnguКge for sucС
oЛjects to eбТst” (Le PКge 1997 [1988]: 32). And he proposes an alternative approach:
But suppose аe stКrt, not from reТfТed dТscrete sвstems lТke “EnglТsС” Кnd “FrencС”
but from observable human beings using language, is it possible to create and
preserve К tСeoretТcКl frКmeаork for tКlkТng КЛout lКnguКge, КЛout “ЛТlТnguКlТsm”
or “dТglossТК” or “lКnguКges Тn contКct” аСТcС, аСТle not denвТng tСe force of tСese
cultural stereotypes, nevertheless preserves intact the fact that the individual is the
sole existential locus of language, and that the only universal source of
differentiation, of discreteness in linguistic systems, lies between one individual
and another? (Le Page 1998 [1992]: 71)
42
In this study I compare the discourse about a language and its emergence as an object of
policy-making (Parts I and II) with the actual linguistic practices observed and the way
they are subjectively perceived by the speakers (Part III).
Discussion: languages, legitimising instances and language policy
As we have seen, the category of “lКnguКge” Тs used Лв ЛotС lТnguТsts Кnd lКвmen,
by politicians and language activists (who, in turn, can either be linguists or not) in order to
divide the linguistic, socio-political and geographic continuum, according to the principles
that they find relevant. Depending on the legitimising instance, these principles can differ.
DТКlectologТsts used to prefer tСe “oЛjectТve” prТncТple of Тsoglosses, КltСougС sucС К
division can be irrelevant for speakers themselves. This was precisely the case of the
borderlands of the Francoprovençal area in both Italy and France (the borders between
Francoprovençal and Occitan), as delimited by dialectologists: speakers would speak in
patois with their friends from neighbouring villages, although dialectologically-speaking,
they were speaking varieties of another language, Occitan (see also Bert, Costa 2014 on the
situation in France). At the same time, poets in Francoprovençal areas of all the three
countries, France, Italy and Switzerland, were members of Félibrige: for them their idiom
was just another variety of Provençal.13 Some political authorities, in their turn, prefer the
“suЛjectТve” prТncТple of communities’ self-identification (self-ascription), although
sometimes this has strictly nothing to do with the observable linguistic behaviour in the
respective communities. An eloquent case which is of direct interest for this study is that of
Piedmont in Italy, which will be discussed in the following section.
2. Language policy in the Francoprovençal area
Language policy in Italy and the status of Francoprovençal
While Italy is known for its linguistic diversity, ever since the Unification of Italy
(1861) only one idiom, Italian, has been considered to be К “lКnguКge,” аТtС others being
seen as “dТКlects.” After the Second World War, three border regions, among others, –
13
There is also a letter (signed Maillane, April 6, 1907) that F. Mistral addressed to Octave Chambaz, a poet
from the Swiss canton of Vaud (hence, from the Francoprovençal area), in which Mistral refers to the variety
spoken Тn VКud Кs “cette lКngue romКnde quТ vous lie р lК Provence” (“tСТs RomКnce lКnguКge tСКt binds you
to Provence”).
43
Valle d’Aosta, Trentino-Alto Adige and Friuli-Venezia Giulia – obtained a degree of
autonomy that allowed them, inter alia, the use of another co-official language (French in
the case of Valle d’Aosta). However, a crucial change in national language ideologies
occurred with the law on minority languages adopted in 1999 (Law 482/1999), which
recognised 12 “lКnguКges Кnd cultures” on Italy’s national territory: Albanian, Catalan,
German, Greek, Slovene, Croatian, French, Francoprovençal, Friulan, Ladin, Occitan and
Sard. This much controversial law was met with a lot of enthusiasm in some communities,
but with scepticism by many scholars and with anger by several communities speaking
non-recognised varieties, like Venetian and Piedmontese (Dal Negro 2005: 115). Indeed,
according to the law, only idioms that do not belong to the Italo-Romance linguistic group
аere consТdered to Лe “mТnorТtв lКnguКges,” while those belonging to the group were seen
merelв Кs locКl “dТКlects.” Besides, the purpose of the language policy is not clear, as
underlined by Dal Negro:
Whether it is meant to allow citizens to use their native language in all domains
(emphasis on democratic issues), to protect minority languages from decay and
eventually from extinction (emphasis on linguistic issues), or to recognise officially
the existence of the historical linguistic diversity of Italy (emphasis on political
opportunity). (Dal Negro 2005: 123)
According to Dal Negro, the last goal Тs tСe most proЛКЛle: “tСe ТnsТstence on tСe couplet
‘language and culture’ allows many communities in which a minority language or dialect
has ceased to be spoken decades ago to take part in this language policy and thus obtain
support to promote tСe studв of trКdТtТons” (Ibid.). Besides, promoting mostly written,
essentТКllв sвmЛolТc use of tСe lКnguКge, “tСТs polТcв Тs especially compatible with tourism
and economic development while it is least threatening to the political ideology of an
idealised nКtТonКl unТtв” (Ibid.) (on Law 482/1999 see also Perta 2008; Toso 2006: 64-74).
Hoаever, tСe dТscrepКncТes Лetаeen polТtТcКl recognТtТon of К “mТnorТtв lКnguКge”
and its actual use go beyond situations in which the idiom has ceased to be spoken. In
many cases, it has never really been spoken by the respective community at all. Indeed,
another particularity of the law lies precisely in the definition of communities as speaking
these minority languages: it is based exclusively on the municipal authorities’ selfdeclaration. Hence, a comparison of a political map of the minority languages and a
dialectological map shows that a lack of correspondence is typical. Figure 6 presents such
a comparison for the case of Francoprovençal in Piedmont.
44
Figure 6. Francoprovençal in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 28). Municipalities:
Far from being a case of Francoprovençal alone, the situation is typical for all the
“mТnorТtв lКnguКges” tСus defТned. Namely, in PТedmont four “mТnorТtв lКnguКges” аere
45
recognised: Francoprovençal, Occitan, Walser and French. To compare, let us see the
sТtuКtТon аТtС “OccТtКn,” “WКlser” Кnd “FrencС.”
Figure 7. Occitan in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 29). Legend as above.
46
Figure 8. Walser in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 27). Legend as above.
Figure 9. French in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 30). Legend as above.
47
The data can be summarised in the following table (see Table 1).
TКЛle 1. “MТnorТtв lКnguКges” Тn PТedmont according to Law 482/1999. Based on figures
in Allasino et al. (2007: 31).
Municipalities where
the respective minority
lКnguКge Тs…
spoken according to
dialectologists
declared to be spoken
(and therefore they are
politically recognised
as minority languages)
spoken but not
declared
declared but not
spoken
Francopro
vençal
Occi
tan
Wals
er
Fren
ch
Tot
al
52
81
5
19
42
103
12
15
15
7
17
214
15
3
0
10
28
5
25
7
6
43
Several observations can be made. The most obvious and the most important one for this
discussion is that a “mТnorТtв lКnguКge” Кs Кn oЛject of polТcв Кnd dТscourse mКв Лe
sometСТng completelв dТfferent from К “mТnorТtв lКnguКge” Кs Кn КctuКl oЛservКЛle
practice. Another suggestion would be that the discrepancy depends on the prestige
КscrТЛed to tСТs “lКnguКge”: something labelled Кs “OccТtКn” conjures up more posТtТve
connotations (one might think of an outstanding literary history from the troubadours
onwards) than something labelled Кs “FrКncoprovenхКl” (аСТcС, Кs К mКtter of fКct, dТd not
mean anything outside linguistic circles before the law was adopted). Hence, only three
municipalities where Occitan is actually spoken did not declare it, whereas 25 of those
where it is not, declared themselves to belong to the Occitan minority. On the contrary, the
respective figures for Francoprovençal are 15 and five (the reverse tendency).15 Speaking
patois, implying being rural, poor and backward, instead of relatively wealthy, urban and
progressive, appears to be more important in the Francoprovençal context than whatever
posТtТve fТnКncТКl outcomes of speКkТng К “mТnorТtв lКnguКge” lКЛelled “FrКncoprovenхКl”
may have. Walser is the only language in Piedmont for which the category “spoken but not
14
Data for April 2005. From 2005 to 2015 the municipalities self-declared as Francoprovençal reached 50
and those self-declared as Occitan reached 109 (Mas, Giordano 2015).
15
On the application of this policy within the work of the local linguistic services (sportelli linguistiche) for
Francoprovençal and Occitan see the comparative study by Mas and Pons (forthcoming).
48
declКred” Тs non-existent: this is probably due to the linguistic discontinuity that makes the
difference particularly remarkable. Thus it is the only non-Romance (Germanic) idiom,
surrounded by Romance varieties (Italian, Piedmontese and the three above-mentioned –
Francoprovençal, Occitan and French).
Another observation can be made when comparing the situation in Piedmont and in
Valle d’Aosta. In Piedmont, road signs were installed in accordance with Law 482/1999,
welcoming drivers to tСe “FrКncoprovenхКl” VКlleвs (see FТgure 10).
Figure 10. “Welcome to tСe ‘Francoprovençal’ Valleys.” RoКd sТgn Тn PТedmont
(Italy).
In contrast, in the Aosta Valley, the autonomous region of Italy where Francoprovençal is
spoken by the majority of the population (in 2001 67.35% of the regional population
declared themselves as speaking Francoprovençal, see Fondation Chanoux 2003; Cavalli
2003) not a single road sign like this has been made. Indeed, the regional identity is
constructed there by now nearly disappeared French-speaking practices, rather than by
speaking the patois recently rebranded as “Francoprovençal” (more details on the sociopolitical reasons for such a choice will be given in the analysis throughout the dissertation).
At tСe sКme tТme, Тn mКnв of tСe vКlleвs ТdentТfТed Кs “FrКncoprovenхКl” Тn PТedmont tСТs
language is no longer, or simply not, spoken (although there are also those with a high
level of linguistic vitality, namely the Lanzo, Orco and Soana valleys16). Thus there is no
16
See also Mas, Giordano 2015: 35 on the difference of linguistic vitality of Francoprovençal in Piedmont.
49
correllation between the language as a part of a recognised local cultural heritage and a
language as a practice.
Finally, as far as the Francoprovençal language policy in Italy is concerned, a
pКrtТculКr cКse of tСe “FrКncoprovenхКl” ТnsulКr vКrТetТes Тn Apulia can be mentioned.
According to Law 482/1999, the language is spoken there in two municipalities: Faeto and
Celle. Traditionally local speakers would call their language Provençal and identify
themselves with the Provence region in France, instead of the Alpine trans-border region
(Puolato 2013: 183 - 184). The 1999 law brought the name Francoprovençal to the
community, together with the idea that local varieties linguistically belonged to the alpine
zone between Italy, France and Switzerland – and with obvious implications as to the
“ontologв” of tСe group (К medТevКl mТgrКtТon from tСe Alps).17 Puolato (2013) states that
in the aftermath of the 1999 law, the local varieties stКrted ЛeТng consТdered К “lКnguКge,”
not just К mere “dТКlect.” As one of Сer informants underlТnes: “dialetto? lingua
minoritaria!” (“DТКlect? A mТnorТtв lКnguКge!”, op. cit.: 184). Similarly an informant from
Celle (71 years old) says: “pКrlТКmo l’italiano dialettale … con tutti gli altri paesi che non
hanno una lingua” (“аe speКk Тn dТКlectКl ItКlТКn … аТtС Кll tСe otСer pКrts аСo do not
have a language,” emphasis mine, op. cit.: 186, footnote 8). Thus a legislative act, simply
by calling the local vКrТetТes К “lКnguКge,” seems to СКve consТderКЛlв Кugmented their
prestige in the eyes of their speakers. A new desire to transmit the idiom to children is
dТrectlв lТnked to tСТs neа ТdeК of possessТng К “lКnguКge,” Кs opposed to otСers аСo onlв
СКve “dТКlects” (op. cit.: 184). Other excerpts of interviews provided (op. cit.:
186,
footnotes) sСoа tСКt todКв speКkers аould Кlso sКв “(pКrlo, esprТmo) Тn lТnguК”/“lК nostrК
lТnguК”/“lК mТК lТnguК” (“I speКk Тn tСe lКnguКge/Тn our lКnguКge/Тn mв lКnguКge”), tСe
аord “lТnguК” (“lКnguКge”) tСus functТonТng Кs К suЛstТtute for tСe glottonвme.
17
However, according to Puolato (2013 : 181), even today:
…les Кutres locuteurs du frКncoprovenхКl … ne jouТssent d’ailleurs d’aucun rôle dans l’ТmКgТnКТre
linguistique de nos locuteurs. Les minorités apuliennes ne s’insèrent donc pas dans un système
d’échanges culturels et linguistique susceptible de générer une conscience identitaire plus dilatée et
un sentiment d’appartenance à un univers de traditions proprement francoprovençales.
…otСer speКkers of Francoprovençal … do not play any role in the linguistic imagination of our
speakers. The Apulian minorities do not fit into a network of cultural and linguistic exchanges that
could generate a more dilated identity consciousness and a feeling of belonging to a universe of
traditions that are truly Francoprovençal.
50
Language policy of France and the status of Francoprovençal
Contrary to Italy, which is known as a particularly linguistically diverse country,
France is known for its rigid monolingualism. Indeed, it is known as a nation-state par
excellence. Much has been written on the famous one language-one nation republican
model and the quasi-sacred role attributed by the state ideology to the French language (see
in particular Lodge 1993 and 2004; see also Bichurina, Dunoyer forthcoming, on its impact
on the Francoprovençal-speaking area in historical perspective). In this section I will only
draw on the most recent developments of the language policy in France.
French remains the only official language of the country. In this sense, similar
regulations have existed in France for nearly 500 years, since the French language – that is,
at the time, that of Île-de-France, the region surrounding Paris – was established as the
single national language by the Royal Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts in 1539. In presentday law, the same provision is expressed in Article 2 of the Constitution of the French
Republic:
Article 2 : La langue de la République est le français.
The language of the Republic is French.
The phrase was introduced into the French Constitution in 1992. In the same year, the
Council of Europe adopted the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.18
The Charter seeks to protect and develop the European cultural heritage, language diversity
being recognised as one of its key elements. Since the language situation varies
substantially between European countries, the Charter allows the countries significant
flexibility in the implementation of its provisions. Thus, each country may select the
provisions of the Charter it is ready to implement (provided that they make at least 35 out
of a total of 68 obligations). It was presumed that member states of the Council of Europe
would gradually, over a period of several years, determine the lists of their regional
languages, ratify the Charter, and start implementing it in their respective territories (for an
analysis of the Charter’s provisions see Tabouret-Keller 1991). In France, Bernard
Cerquiglini, the director of the National Institute for the French Language, produced in
1999 a report to the Minister of National Education, Research, and Technologies and the
18
The English text of the Charter can be found at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/148.htm
51
Minister of Culture and Communication, in which he proposed К lТst of 75 “lКnguКges of
FrКnce” (Cerquiglini 1999) 19 . Based on the report, the Charter was signed but the
Constitutional Council declined to ratify it, citing the conflict between the Charter and
Article 2 of the French Constitution.
The largest number of regional and minority languages among European countries
was at the time recognised by Germany and Croatia: seven languages each. Against this
background, and given the general context of France’s language policy, the proposal to
recognise 75 languages seemed excessively radical. Besides, according to a reservation
made in the Cerquiglini report, the Charter provides for a territorial delimitation of
lКnguКges, аСТcС “contrКdТcts tСe FrencС RepuЛlТcКn prТncТples, КccordТng to аСТcС К
language as an element of culture belongs to national heritage; thus, the Corsican language
is the property of the nation rather than of tСe regТon of CorsТcК” (“s’oppose … aux
principes républicains français, qui tiennent que la langue, élément culturel, appartient au
patrimoine national ; le corse n’est pas propriété de la région de Corse, mais de la
Nation.” Cerquiglini 1999). The territorial principle is held to be obsolete, “stemming from
the German Romanticism that used to inspire linguistics in the 19th centurв” (“issue du
romantisme allemand qui inspira la linguistique du XIXe siècle”): it contradicts, on the one
hand, linguistic science, since all languages existing in France, including French, are of
foreТgn orТgТn, Кnd “tСe true terrТtorв of К lКnguКge Тs Тn tСe ЛrКТn of Тts speКkers” (“le vrai
territoire d’une langue est le cerveau de ceux qui la parlent”), and on the other hand, the
sociolinguistic reality (as, due to social mobility, regional languages are spoken
everywhere). Therefore, Cerquiglini advised signing tСe CСКpter аСТle “reducТng the
tendency towards territorialisation” (“en minorant la tendance à la territorialisation”), and
“to recall that only French, the language of the Republic, is the language of all, all other
languages … being therefore tСose of mТnorТtТes” (“rappeler enfin que seul le français,
langue de la République, est la langue de tous et que toute autre langue […] est, de fait,
minoritaire.” Ibid.)
Among tСe 75 lКnguКges, tСe CerquТglТnТ report lТsts “FrКncoprovenхКl.” He also
lists “OccТtКn,” and this case is interesting as it gives us insights into the procedures by
which languages are delimited. Indeed, unlike other languages whose existence is merely
acknowledged by the researcher, he provides an extensive explanation of singling out
Occitan, comparing the linguistic situation of Oc in the South of France with that of the
19
See also Cerquiglini 2003.
52
languages of Oïl in the north. According to Cerquiglini, Oïl idioms such as Franc-Comtois,
Walloon, Picard, etc. are now so different from standard French that they can no longer be
considered its dialects.20 In contrКst to tСТs sТtuКtТon, “OccТtКn Тs К sum of Тts vКrТetТes …
even Тf ТnternКl dТvТsТons cКn Лe dТstТnguТsСed Тn Тt” (“l”occitan [est] la somme de ses
varieties … même si une diversité interne est perceptible.” Cerquiglini 1999). This
statement provoked a heated debate and an acutely negative reaction from supporters of the
recognition of Provençal as a separate language within the Oc language group.
In spite of the Constitutional Council’s ban on the Charter’s ratification, the report
and the signing of the Charter had an effect (albeit minimal) on the situation of regional
languages. Thus, the General Delegation for the French Language and the Languages of
France (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France, DGLFLF)
was created in 2001 under the Ministry of Culture and Communication to replace the
former General Delegation for the French Language. 21 In May 2008, nine years after
Cerquiglini had presented his study, the National Assembly discussed introducing an
amendment to Article 1 of the Constitution, which would take into account the existence of
regТonКl lКnguКges Тn FrКnce (“RegТonКl lКnguКges Лelong to FrКnce’s culturКl СerТtКge”).
The French Academy vehemently opposed it: a declaration unanimously adopted by all its
memЛers Кnd puЛlТsСed on June 12, 2008 notes tСКt “For over fТve centurТes, tСe FrencС
language has forged FrКnce” (“Depuis plus de cinq siècles, la langue française a forgé la
France”) Кnd urge tСe NКtТonКl AssemЛlв to revoke “tСТs teбt, аСТcС does not Лelong Тn
tСe ConstТtutТon, КltСougС Тts eбcellent ТntentТons mКв Кnd sСould Лe eбpressed elseаСere”
(“ce texte dont les excellentes intentions peuvent et doivent s’exprimer ailleurs, mais qui
n’a pas sa place dans la Constitution.” Déclaration de l’Académie française,
http://www.academie-francaise.fr/actualites/la-langue-de-la-republique-est-le-francais).
Later on, on July 23, 2008, the amendment was adopted, but it was to Article 75-1 rather
than the Article 1 of the Constitution:
Article 75-1 : Les langues régionales appartiennent au patrimoine de la France.
Regional languages belong to France’s cultural heritage.
20
In Cerquiglini’s opinion, this holds true whether standard French is, as is commonly believed, a Francien
dialect that overcame other dialects or a supra-dialectal or trans-dialectal language that was initially created
as a written one (according to the proposition put forward in Cerquiglini’s oаn аork: see Cerquiglini 1991)
21
http://www.dglf.culture.gouv.fr/
53
Thus regional language became a constitutionally recognised legal term in France.
It is important to emphasise that French society perceived this step to be revolutionary. In
the ensuing years, the necessity of a national-level law on regional languages that would
regulate their use in various spheres was discussed, but never voted for. However, the 2008
amendment to the constitution and the announcement of a language bill being prepared
initiated or significantly increased interest towards regional languages in France. Research
programmes were launched; regional authorities started mentioning regional languages in
their publications, tourist information booklets, etc. In July 2009, one year after the
constitution had been amended, the Rhône-Alpes region formally recognised two idioms,
Occitan and Francoprovençal, as its regional languages (Rapport n° 09.11.450 Culture).
Neither idiom had been recognised by the regional authorities before. The decision was
made based on a study initiated by the region to address requests from activists belonging
to the Occitan and Francoprovençal language associations and carried out in 2006-2009.
The results of the study were formally presented in July 2009 (Bert et al. 2009), and
Occitan and Francoprovençal were recognised as regional languages at the level of the
Rhône-Alpes regional administration (Deliberation 2009). Thus, the regional-level
recognition of Francoprovençal (and Occitan) as a language in its own right proved to a
large extent to be a result of the work of language activists. This was legitimised by a
scientific study and, consequently, by a regional regulatory act. One should note that at the
same time, when linguists came to interview speakers of the two languages they would
explain that they were carrying out their study on behalf of the regional government in
view of a possible adoption of a law on regional languages. Therefore, the very fact of
carrying out the study created expectations that either had not existed before or had not
seemed realistic. This provoked an outburst of activity by language associations as well as
the appearance of new publications in regional languages. 22 Yet in the Rhône-Alpes region
the number of speakers of either language, Francoprovençal or Occitan, represents less
than 1% of the regional population (Bert et al. 2009). It is not by chance that the language
policy in favour of these languages is most actively developed in the places where the
issues at stake are mostly symbolic, potentially touristic and economic (compare with the
Aosta Valley where, as mentioned above, over 67% of population declared themselves as
speakers of Francoprovençal, and yet no regular language policy exists).
22
It is symptomatic that in autumn/winter of 2009 when I first started working on Francoprovençal
(and on Occitan) none of my informants from the Rhône-Alpes region failed to mention the study
of Bert et al. (2009) in their interviews.
54
Language policy in Switzerland and the status of Francoprovençal
There is not much to be said about Switzerland in terms of language policy relevant
for the Francoprovençal case. Despite the Confederation’s official multilingualism, the
country’s being multilingual does not imply that its citizens should be multilingual too.
Indeed, language policy is legislated for at the level of cantons. Historically, in the 19 th
century, the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland imitated the language policy of
France, banning the use of patois at school. Today only the canton of Valais provides a
certain assistance for activities involving Francoprovençal (“pКtoТs”), namely for its
teaching and publishing, yet it does not have any official status. As for the federal level,
the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was signed and ratified by the
Confederation. However, Francoprovençal is not included.
It is often argued that in Switzerland the аord “pКtoТs” does not have negative
connotations. Although it is true that its connotations are generally somewhat less
pejorative than in France, it is nevertheless also true that patois Тs seen Кs К “non-language”
as opposed to French, which Тs К “lКnguКge” (Кnd to otСer “lКnguКges”: GermКn, ItКlТКn
and Romansh). Thus the explanation given by the Swiss authorities when refusing to
protect Francoprovençal under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
is particularly eloquent, as it stipulates: “La promotion des dialectes n’est pas une tâche de
la Confédération” (“TСe promotТon of dТКlects Тs not Кmong tСe ConfederКtТon’s tКsks”)
(Réponses de l’Office fédéral de la culture à vos questions23). Francoprovençal is thus but
a dialect of French. Let us look at some excerpts from the official reply in more detail:
Aux termes de l’article 4 de la Constitution fédérale, l’allemand, le français,
l’italien et le romanche sont les langues nationales de la Suisse. Cet article part
d’une conception générale et globale de la notion de langue nationale: on entend
par là l’ensemble des formes des 4 langues susmentionnées, écrites et orales, y
compris leurs différents idiomes et dialectes. L’art. 70 qui énonce les grandes
orientations de la politique fédérale dans le domaine se réfère aux formes standard
de ces langues.
According to the terms of Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, German, French, Italian and
Romansh are the national languages of Switzerland. This article is based on a general and global
23
http://www.patwe.ch/data/files/Interpellation%20de%20M.%20Couchepin/Mounier%2012.5.07_FR.doc
(Accessed on 25-06-2015)
55
conception of the notion of language: it means all the forms of the four abovementioned languages,
written and oral, including their different idioms and dialects. Article 70, which stipulates the
general direction of federal policy in this field, refers to the standard forms of these languages.
La question de la promotion des patois romands n’a jamais fait l’objet de débat au
plКn fцdцrКl …
The question of the promotion of the Romand patois has never been subject to debate at the federal
level …
La Confédération considère que tous les dialectes parlés dans notre pays
représentent une partie essentielle de notre patrimoine linguistique et culturel. Il est
certainement regrettable que les patois romands aient été systématiquement
étouffés parce que les politiques d’éducation des 19e et 20e siècles les considéraient
comme un obstacle à la bonne maîtrise du français écrit. (Italics mine).
The Confederation considers that all the dialects spoken in our country represent an essential part of
our linguistic and cultural heritage. It is certainly regrettable that the Romand patois have been
systematically stifled because the educational policies of the 19th and 20th centuries considered them
an obstacle to proficiency in written French.
Thus “the Romand patois” (“les patois romands”), a denomination implying
Francoprovençal, Кre opposed to tСe “written French.” They are but a particular case in a
general policy line in which “various idioms and dialects” of “national languages” Кre
contrasted with their “standard forms.” Nevertheless, as suggested by the experts
committee from the Council of Europe, a commission is presently working on analysing
the case of Francoprovençal, to see whether it should be considered as a language of
Switzerland worthy of protection.
3. Imagined communities and communities of practice
TrКcТng tСe ЛoundКrТes Лetаeen “lКnguКges” pКrtТcТpКtes Тn creКtТng socТКl
difference. Often these linguistic boundaries are then naturalised, made into ethnic
56
boundaries and serve to delimit what starts to be seen as nations and potential political
entities (nation-states). Thus language revitalisation movements are often linked to a form
of nationalist or proto-nationalist discourse (among the most prominent examples today are
Catalonia or Corsica. See Jaffe 1999 on how speaking Corsican indexes a nationalist
political position), although this is not always the case. In a similar way, speaking
Francoprovençal in some contexts is seen to index a nationalist (more precisely separatist)
position, as will be discussed in the following chapters (Parts I and III). Therefore it is
important to discuss the understanding of nations and nationalism adopted in this
dissertation.
In this section, I present different theoretical views that one may adopt to approach
a community like the one under study here. These different visions are traditionally
separated between their respective disciplines: imagined communities appear in studies of
nations and nationalism, mostly in political sciences, social anthropology and sociology;
speech community and community of practice are notions used in sociolinguistics when
studying the speech behaviour of specific groups. For me, both approaches are relevant, the
first one for studying the discourse produced by social groups, and the second one for
studying the actual social practices (including the linguistic ones) of the same groups.
In the studies of nations and nationalism several approaches have been
distinguished, mainly the primordialist (connecting ethnic ties with kinship ties),
instrumentalist (ethnicity as a resource) and constructivist approaches. What I am mostly
interested in here is the latter and namely the famous definition of the nation as an
imagined community Лв BenedТct Anderson: “It is imagined because the members of even
the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear
of them, yet in the minds of eКcС lТves tСe ТmКge of tСeТr communТon” (Anderson 2006
[1983]: 6). Thus, the nation is imagined, and moreover, it is imagined as a community:
…Тt Тs ТmКgТned Кs К community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and
exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep,
horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over
the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as
willingly to die for such limited imaginings. (op. cit.: 32)
Today two types of nationalism are distinguished: the civic and the ethnic. At the
same time, as O’Reilly (2001: 1) emphasises:
57
the power of nationalist ideology derives at least in part from the potent
combination of the ideal of popular sovereignty and universal citizenship (the civic
element), and the ideal of shared culture as an agent of political legitimisation and
mark of authenticity (the ethnic element). Although often portrayed as ideal types,
the two work in combination in real world situations.
This is precisely the case that is to be found in the Arpitanist political ideology (see
Part I Chapters 2 and 3), althogh at different periods different components would prevail.
The imagined character of the nation is not to be understood as falseness since,
according to Anderson’s concept, “all communities larger than primordial villages of faceto-fКce contКct (Кnd perСКps even tСese) Кre ТmКgТned” (op. cit.: 6). They only differ in the
manner in which they are imagined, in what makes the basis of the notion of community.
Anderson gives the example of the French ancien régime aristocracy, which can now be
represented Кs К clКss: “Лut surelв Тt аКs ТmКgТned tСТs аКв onlв verв lКte. To tСe question
‘Who is the Comte de X?’ the normal answer would have been, not ‘a member of the
aristocracy,’ but ‘the lord of X,’ ‘the uncle of the Baronne de Y,’ or ‘a client of the Duc de
Z’” (op. cit.: 32). Just as being imagined does not mean being false, in a similar way,
though ethnicity can be and often is a political resource, this instrumentalist vision of it
should not hide the fact that it may still have, and often does, identity implications that are
felt as crucial for members of the ethnic group:
The cultural features that are chosen to mark boundaries between ethnic groups
often have fundamental, persistent and deep meanings for the people concerned,
Кnd cКnnot Лe ЛrusСed КsТde Кs mere mКnТpulКtТon to serve tСe КТms of elТtes. … It
is true that ethnic identity can be politicised; indeed, it can be consciously created
for expressly political purposes in some instances (Hanf 1995), but this does not
necessarily mean that ethnic identity is shallow or without significance for
members of the group in question. (O’Reilly 2001: 4)
Thus, although in the following parts of this dissertation special attention will be
paid to how ethnicity/nationhood is constructed and instrumentalised, it should not be
forgotten that these questions often provoke deep personal emotions or drama, as many of
my interviews and conversations with language advocates have shown.
58
In the recent years, the development of the EU, which played an important part for
the minority languages policy, as discussed above, has also had an impact on divided
nations:
The claim that the European single market has softened borders throughout its
territory, particularly within the Schengen countries and the Eurozone, is, of course,
relatively uncontroversial. The passage of goods and people has become far easier
(with service sectors less flexible thus far). This in turn has made it easier for
individual members of divided nations to mix with each other.24 (Mabry et al. 2013:
351)
Since the beginning of the 1990s trans-border cooperation has been intensified. This holds
true for the trans-Лorder КlpТne regТon Лetаeen FrКnce, ItКlв Кnd SаТtгerlКnd (“ArpТtКnТК”).
It should be noted that, out of the three states under consideration, the nationalist
ideology is mostly relevant for the Italian case. It does exist in France too, and especially
has been very present in Savoie and Haute-Savoie ever since the beginning of the 1970s.
However it may be seen as marginal when measured against the total number of
Francoprovençal speakers in France. As Friend (2012: 154) argues,
None of the minority regions in France has been able to build a strong positive
identity based on its history or mythology, and all have been affected by past
association with right-wing ideas – or worse, association with France’s enemies, or
with recent violence. The mythology and reality of French centralisation has instead
prevailed. The steadily dwindling number of speakers of non-French languages has
not destroyed regional identities, but those identities are cultural rather than
political.
As for Switzerland, minority language-based nationalist ideologies are nearly absent there.
AltСougС, Кt tСe sКme tТme, “tСe softenТng of Лorders СКs not КlаКвs Лeen posТtТve for dТvТded nКtТons” (op.
cit.: 352), Кs tСe cКse of tСe BКsque countrв suggests. NКmelв, “some FrencС BКsques feКr tСКt softer Лorders
will fКcТlТtКte economТc domТnКtТon Лв SpКnТsС entrepreneurs or tСe Тmport of BКsque ‘nКtТonКlТst
eбtremТsm’” (Ibid.).
24
59
Barth (1969: 33) describes three strategies that can be adopted by the local elites in
polycultural or polyethnic societies, and their organisational implications for ethnic
boundaries.
In their pursuit of participation in wider social systems to obtain new forms of value
they can choose between the following basic strategies: (i) they may attempt to pass
and become incorporated in the pre-established industrial society and cultural
group; (ii) they may accept a “minority” status, accommodate to and seek to reduce
their minority disabilities by encapsulating all cultural differentiae in sectors of
non-articulation, while participating in the larger system of the industrialised group
in the other sectors of activity; (iii) they may choose to emphasise ethnic identity,
using it to develop new positions and patterns to organise activities in those sectors
formerly not found in their society, or inadequately developed for the new
purposes.
In the Francoprovençal case the actual choice of local elites throughout the
Francoprovençal area has always been the first one. Its consequences were very much
those predicted by Barth:
If the cultural innovators are successful in the first strategy, their ethnic group will
be denuded of its source of internal diversification and will probably remain as a
culturally conservative, low-articulating ethnic group with low rank in the larger
social system. (Ibid.)
This might explain why the Francoprovençal situation developed in a different way with
respect to the other minority situations in Europe. To compare, in the Catalan case of the
Generalitat de Catalunya (that today’s Arpitans often envy), it was the third strategy of
emphasising the Catalan identity that was chosen by the local elites. According to Barth:
“TСe tСТrd strКtegв generКtes mКnв of tСe ТnterestТng movements tСКt cКn Лe oЛserved
todКв, from nКtТvТsm to neа stКtes” (Ibid.). In the most recent years, the start of a shift
towards this third strategy may be observed in the Francoprovençal area as well, if the
young Arpitan activists are to be considered representatives of new elites.
Nationalist (or proto-nationalist) movements are organised discursively as if
expressing the will of the whole imagined community. However they essentially express
the interests of one particular group of population, sometimes one social class, the
60
“nКtТonКl outfТt” mКskТng reКl socТetКl tensТons. Criticising “the tendency to treat ethnic
groups, nations and races as substantial entities to which interests and agency can be
КttrТЛuted” (Brubaker 2004: 35), R. Brubaker argues that agency, just like boundedness,
coherence and interest, belongs to organisations (op. cit.: 41). Hence, “the chief
protКgonТsts of etСnТc conflТcts … are not ethnic groups as such but various kinds of
organisations, broadly understood, and their empowered and authorised ТncumЛents” (op.
cit.: 41). Brubaker suggests that “by invoking groups, they [the ethnopolitical
entrepreneurs] seek to evoke them, summon them, call them into being” (op. cit.: 37). In
other words, defining the ethnic groups, the leaders of ethnic movements “contribute to
producing what they appКrentlв descrТЛe or desТgnКte” (op. cit.: 37). This point, linked to
Bourdieu’s argument on naming practices of groups, languages and regions (Bourdieu
1980), is, in my sense, of primary importance. Therefore a whole part of this dissertation
(Part II) is dedicated to the way the groups and languages come into being in the process of
their geographical delimitation, naming and creating a unique writing system for them. At
the same time, studying these processes of tracing the ethnic boundaries (in the sense of
Barth 1969), it is essential to see not only how they are traced, but also and especially why:
By the close of the tumultuous and often violent twentieth century, it was clear that
ethnicity and nationalism had become the primary political idioms, displacing class
and overshadowing other issues and other possible modes of political organisation.
During the last 100 years we have become all too familiar with the destructive
potential of ethnic nationalism, and while the politics of ethnicity and identity have
been a liberating force in some cases, they have also been used to mask or deny
relations of power and ideology which underpin inequality and conflict in much of
the world. (O’Reilly 2001: 1, Italics mine)
It is therefore important to uncover the actual issues hidden behind an ethnic
nationalistic discourse. At the same time, just as in tСe cКse of tСe “lКnguКge” tСere cКn Лe
two understandings of the community under study. In the two first parts of this dissertation
аСere К dТscourse on lКnguКge Кnd nКtТon Тs concerned, tСe notТon of К “nКtТon” Тs more
relevant. At the same time, I believe that the description of language practices and the
norms of linguistic behaviour can be built more efficiently not by considering speakers of a
language as a linguistic minority or as members of a single ethnic group or nation as they
often tend to represent themselves, but rather by representing them as members of a single
speech community or a community of practice, without any ethnic or national connotations.
61
Indeed, as will be shown in Part III, which addresses actual Francoprovençal practices, it is
barely possible to speak of a single Francoprovençal community, despite the structural
unity of the language.
Penelope Eckert (Eckert 2006) emphasises that from the point of view of
sociolinguistics, the value of the notion of community of practice lies in the fact that it
aggregates groups not based on general abstract characteristics such as social class, gender,
etc. (I would also add ethnicity or nationality to this list) or the simple fact of presence in
the same place (neighbours, coworkers), but based on a common activity, or shared
practice. In situations that are of interest to this study, it is a common activity (aiming to
“safeguard,” to “mКТntКТn,” or to “revitalise” an idiom) that unites activists into a
consolidated community. Eckert notes that in the course of their common activities,
members of such a community develop certain common views, values, and, notably,
speech communication methods that they may or may not accept according to their place in
the community and the place of the community in a wider social context. Inside such
communТtТes, lТnguТstТc customs Кre formed. “The importance of the community of
practice lies in the recognition that identity is not fixed, that convention does not pre-exist
use, Кnd tСКt lКnguКge use Тs К contТnuКl process of leКrnТng” (Eckert 2006: 684-685).
Dissertation plan
The first part of this dissertation studies tСe process of К set of “pКtoТs” becoming a
“lКnguКge” Тn К СТstorТcКl perspectТve. Namely, it provides an analysis of discourse on
Francoprovençal at three major periods in this process (the 1870s, 1970s and 2000s2010s). The second part focuses on today’s concurrent models of division of the linguistic
and socio-political continuum in the Francoprovençal area: the notions of the
“FrКncoprovençal language,” tСe “ArpТtКn lКnguКge,” the “Savoyard language,” the
respective geographical reference areas and orthographies ascribed to these. Finally, the
third part describes actual linguistic practices in the Francoprovençal area, to demonstrate
the gap between language as an object of policy and discourse (as studied in Parts I and II)
and language as a social practice (Part III).
62
Notation
When analysing the data, I use the terms preferred by respective informants under
dТscussТon (tСe “emТc” descrТptТon). In general descriptions of linguistic situations, for the
sake of convenience, I use the term Francoprovençal due to its being so far the only one
accepted in scholarly literature.
Quoted informants are identified with their conventional initials, an approximate or
exact year of birth, and, when appropriate, their allegiance to a specific view of the
linguistic situation. The following abbreviations are used:
Arp – Arpitan
Fp – Francoprovençal
Pat - Patois
Sav – Savoyard
Other notations used when quoting excerpts from the interviews are as follows:
– a shorter pause
. a longer pause
? a question
! an exclamation
underlining an emphasis
… a lacuna
Italics, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are used to accentuate the parts of a
statement that are especially important for my analysis.
63
Part I. From a Francoprovençal linguistic type to the Arpitan
nation in the discourse of linguists and activists
Francoprovençal is the youngest among the Gallo-Romance languages and one of
the youngest RomКnce lКnguКges: not from Кn “ontologТcКl” perspective, but in terms of its
becoming a named part of a Romance linguistic continuum, an object of study and
discourse. The argument that the idioms spoken on the borderland between Italy, France
and Switzerland form a specific “linguistic type” was first pronounced in 1870s by the
Italian linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli; the argument tСКt tСТs “linguistic type” is a
Romance language in its own right, and that it forms a particular nation, is yet much more
recent, dating to the 1970s. In Part I I will trace the history of the notion of
“Francoprovençal” and study the evolution of metalinguistic discourse about it in order to
see how a group of linguistic varieties that before the end of the 19th century had never
been distinguished as either a particular “linguistic group,” or К “dialect,” or К “language,”
ended up becoming К “lКnguКge” at the beginning of the 21st century. Namely, I will study
the metalinguistic discourse about Francoprovençal during three major periods of its
“ЛecomТng К lКnguКge”:
-
1870s: Ascoli’s research in the newly created Kingdom of Italy and
the emergence of tСe notТon of tСe “Franco-Provençal linguistic type”;
-
1970s: The renaming of the idiom as Harpitan/Arpitan and its
promotion as a language in its own right, together with the idea of Arpitania and the
Arpitan people, by a separatist named Joseph Henriet in the Aosta Valley;
-
2000s: TСe recognТtТon of “FrКncoprovenхКl” Кs К “mТnorТtв” or
“regТonКl” lКnguКge Лв tСe polТtТcКl КutСorТtТes Тn ItКlв, FrКnce Кnd Switzerland (as
discussed in the introduction to this dissertation). The creation of a trans-border
Arpitan Cultural Alliance in Switzerland in 2004 and the emergence of a new transborder Arpitan political movement in 2013-2014.
I will examine for each period how the discourse about Francoprovençal is
influenced by both scientific paradigms of the moment and linguistic and socio-political
ideologies; why this discourse appears when it does and how it is used afterwards. I will
also study how the discourse on language is never really about language, and how
language activists’ movements and language conflicts reflect deeper conflicts of a socioeconomic and political nature.
64
As far as the first period is concerned, the identification of Francoprovençal by
Ascoli has never been considered within the socio-political context of its enunciation.
However, I will argue that understanding the underlying socio-political motivations of the
different parties involved is crucial for our understanding of why the identification of
Francoprovençal was rejected on both sides of the Alps, and why a century had to pass
before the notion of Francoprovençal could start to become more and more accepted.
As for the second period, the study is based upon the texts of that time, including
rare materials that were made available to me thanks to J. Henriet himself, and also thanks
to Ch. Dunoyer, as well as on two in-depth interviews with Henriet held in February 2014
(each three hours long, one registered and another one reported in the field diary),
completed by an informal meeting with him in 2016 and by a number of informal meetings
with other former members of the Harpitanya movement. It should be noticed here that
Henriet had never given any interviews of this kind before. This material allows us to
clarify the intents and ideology of the movement.
More importantly, perhaps, the study of these two first periods in the development
of the Francoprovençal/Arpitan concept allows us to explain the consequences of these
earlier ideologies for today’s situation. Thus it helps us to understand, for example, why
speaking about Francoprovençal as a distinct language and speaking about the necessity of
its standardisation was taboo in the Aosta Valley up until recent years, and why its
standardisation still remains a highly sensitive topic today (which is translated in a specific
language policy in the VDA, proscribing 71 variants of norms for the VDA alone in an
attempt to avoid standardisation). Apart from investigating the emergence of a new
“language” as such, the interest of its history is therefore in clarifying the tacit conflicts
that cross the community today.
Finally, the analysis of today’s discourse on Francoprovençal is based upon
interviews with language advocates held in the three countries and extensive fieldwork in
the Francoprovençal area (see details in the Introduction).
65
Chapter 1. The 1870s: Graziadio I. Ascoli and the birth of FrancoProvenzale
The argument about К pКrtТculКr “Franco-Provençal lТnguТstТc tвpe” was first
pronounced by Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1829 – 1907)25, one of the major scholars in the
field of Romance studies, who is now seen as the founder of Italian dialectology and Italian
linguistics. Research on Francoprovençal has never, it seems, questioned the conditions
within which the idea of Francoprovençal first emerged. By the term “conditions,” I mean
here both the intellectual (scholarly) and socio-political contexts which brought about the
very interest in such studies and had an impact on the way Francoprovençal was defined.
On the other hand, scholars (nearly exclusively Italian ones) working on Ascoli’s studies,
whether in the framework of the history of Italian dialectology or of that of Italian
linguistics or Romance studies, would rarely mention Ascoli’s work on Francoprovençal.
Yet science is always made at a specific moment. Not only does it reflect scientific
paradigms, but also the socio-political preoccupations and assumptions of that particular
period of time. Therefore, for our understanding of how a group of idioms became a
“lКnguКge” it seems crucial to investigate the period of its initial identification in detail.
1.1 Ascoli s theory of language and nation
1.1.1 A national interest, grand and practical : a new nation-state in need of
a nation and a national language
The argument of “Francoprovençal” was announced in 1874 (Ascoli 1878 [1874]),
in the aftermath of Italian unification (Risorgimento). Thus on March 17, 1861 the creation
of the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed, followed by a series of annexations in the mid1860s; in October 1870 Rome became part of the kingdom and in 1871 by becoming the
capital symbolically accomplished the process of Italian unification (even though today’s
Italian borders only date back to the end of World War I). It is worth mentioning here that
the capital was initially Turin, then Florence from 1864, before being definitively
transferred to Rome in 1871. The initial choice of Turin as capital of the new kingdom
“Isaia” or “G.I.” was what the scholar himself referred to as a literary pseudonym, whereas his official
name was Graziadio Ascoli (cf. Lucchini 2008: VIII).
25
66
underlined the continuity of the new Italian dynasty with that of Savoy.26 As for Florence,
the city will be recurrent in the debates that we will study in this chapter.
The famous aphorism of the period (ascribed to either Massimo D’Azeglio or
Cavour) was the following: “Abbiamo fatto l’Italia, ora dobbiamo fare gli italiani” (“We
have made Italy, noа аe СКve to mКke tСe ItКlТКns”). A political entity was created, and
the new and urgent task was to create the nation27. Therefore, following the models of
other European nation-states (and more specifically France as a nation-state par
excellence28), in order to make the Italians there was a need to create an Italian language.
Two major questions then imposed: which idiom should become the language of the new
nation-state and, subsequently, how it should be made into such a language.
The first question was not itself new: the debates on what should be the Italian
language had continued for centuries. However, at that moment it obtained a new –
practical and political – dimension. In 1868 a commission was formed by the Ministry of
Public Education in order to define the measures for К common knoаledge of К “good
language and good pronunciation” (“della buona lingua e della buona pronunzia”). TСe
president of the commission, Alessandro MКnгonТ, prepКred К report “On the Unity of the
Language and on the Means of Disseminating It” (“Dell’unità della lingua e dei mezzi di
diffonderla”, published in La Perseveranza, on March 5 1868, and in Nuova Antologia,
VII, pp. 425-441). Manzoni proposed to choose the contemporary idiom of educated
Florentines as the Italian language and to impose it as a national language for the entire
nation, the same way as, in his opinion, the idiom of Paris had become the French
language29. In his report he wrote:
Una nazione dove siano in vigore vari idiomi, e la quale aspiri ad avere una lingua
in commune, trova naturalmente in questa varietà un primo e potente ostacolo al
suo intento. (Manzoni 1868)
26
As does the name of King Victor Emmanuel II: called the second, thus marking the continuity of the Savoy
dynasty, and not the first, as he could have been called, being the first King of Italy.
27
See Barbour, Carmichael 2000.
28
See Lodge 1993.
29
On the emergence of the French language see Lodge 1993 and Lodge 2004.
67
A nation where several idioms coexist, and which aspires to have a language in common, naturally
finds in this variety the first and powerful obstacle to its intention.
TСe vКrТetв of “ТdТoms” Тs tСus opposed to К “lКnguКge Тn common,” and is seen as
an obstacle to be destroyed. By speaking about variety and uniformity Manzoni means first
of all the oral language, which is the main novelty of the debate on the Italian language: a
debate which had started with Dante, but which had ever since concerned the written
language in particular.
Another crucial novelty of the debate is the socio-political significance ascribed to
the question of the unity of language: thus Manzoni thanks the minister Broglio for having
“substituted the social and national question for К ЛuncС of lТterКrв ones” (“ha sostituita la
questione sociale e nazionale a un fascio di questioni letterarie,” Ibid.). He proposes a set
of practical solutions: to send teachers from Tuscany to all the regions of Italy, to arrange
trips to Florence for the best students, who are supposed to become teachers themselves
later on, to arrange for books to be written or, at least, reviewed by Tuscan authors, and
finally to publish a dictionary of the Italian language (op. cit.: 440).
The dictionary was indeed published in 1870, edited by Giovan Battista Giorgini
(Manzoni’s son-in-law and disciple) and Emilio Broglio (Minister of Public Education):
Nòvo vocabolario della lingua italiana secondo l’uso di Firenze (The new dictionnary of
the Italian language according to the use of Florence). In total four volumes were issued
between 1870 and 1897. The Italian dialectologist Grassi underlines the main novelty of
Manzoni’s work, which corresponds to the innovation underlined by Manzoni himself (see
above):
…per lК prТmК voltК, nellК dТЛКttutТssТmК e plurТsecolКre questТone dellК lingua
italiana, si teneva conto delle esigenze pratiche di un’intera nazione giunta
all’unità politica, e non soltКnto dТ quelle relКtТve Кl “Лello stТle” e КllК normК
grammaticale di una ristretta cerchia di letterati. (Grassi 1975: XII. Italics mine)
…for tСe fТrst tТme Тn tСe mucС-debated and centuries-old question of the Italian language were
taken into account the practical needs of an entire nation come to political unity, and not only the
needs of “bello stile” [lit. “beautiful style”] and of a grammatical norm of a restricted literary circle.
This is the time when Ascoli entered the debate, creating, in 1873, his review
Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI, the Italian Glottological Archive), in which he would
defТne tаo “neа” RomКnce “lТnguТstТc tвpes”: “Ladino” (Ascoli 1873) and “Franco68
provenzale” (Ascoli 1878 [1874]). In the Preface to tСe AGI (“Proemio”, dКted MТlКn
September 10, 1872, Ascoli 2008 [1873]: 3 – 44), which became the most famous part of
it, Ascoli explains his views on language and studies of language with respect to the Italian
linguistic and socio-political situation of his time. Since the Proemio constitutes a general
introduction and an explication of the raison d’être of the review in which
Francoprovençal was described, I found it crucial to study it in further detail here (although
scholars working on Francoprovençal would only refer to the article on Francoprovençal
itself): indeed, I will argue that the emergence of the concept of Francoprovençal can be
understood only with respect to its context of enunciation.
Ascoli starts the Proemio by referring implicitly to the Nòvo vocabolario (“A
dictionary that has been published in Florence under tСe most glorТous КuspТces” – “Un
vocabolario che si viene stampando in Firenze sotto auspicj gloriossimi…”, op. cit.: 5-6),
and remarks that it is called nòvo instead of nuovo, thus reproducing the modern Florentine
pronunciation that it proposes to impose as a norm for the whole of Italy. Thus from the
first phrase it becomes clear who Ascoli’s imagined opponent is (Manzoni, although never
named, and his disciples30) and what the debate is on (the question of what should be
considered the Italian language and how it should become the language of the Italians).
Ascoli points out specifically that, for the authors of the Nòvo vocabolario, the issue under
question is far from being a linguistic one – instead, the whole debate is essentially
political:
Ma questi principj, e quindi l’opera sua, risguardano, egli pensa, ben altro e
tutt’altro che non sia la storia o la filosofia della lingua. Si tratta di un interesse
nazionale, grande e pratico … Si tratta di dare all’Italia una lingua, poiché ancora
non l”ha … (Ascoli 2008 [1873]: 10. Italics mine)
However those principles and therefore his work concerns, as he thinks, something other, and
completely other, than the history or the philosophy of language. It is about a national interest,
grand and practical … It is about giving to Italy a language, since it does not have one вet …
Indeed, AscolТ’s criticisms do not КlаКвs concern MКnгonТ СТmself Лut СТs dТscТples’ ТnterpretКtТon of
MКnгonТ’s ideas, to which “the Master” (“Тl MКestro”) Тs often eбplТcТtlв opposed in the Preface: e.g. cf. op.
cit.: 29-31 for К refleбТon on “mКestrТ”/“Тl MКestro” (mКsters or tСe MКster) Кnd “dТscepolТ” (dТscТples).
30
69
1.1.2 ‘The most solid and powerful unity of language that has ever resonated on
earth’
The debate reveals the complex linguistic ideologies of its participants.31 First of all,
Ascoli agrees that Italy needs a common language:
Ora il dialettologo non nega di certo il male, cioè la mancanza dell’unità di lingua
fra gli Italiani, e se ne risente, per ragioni che non monta confessare, più di quanto
altri mai possa; né, per conseguenza, egli sa imaginare opera più meritoria di quella
che valga a minorare questo male od a sanarlo. (Ascoli, op. cit.: 11)
Now the dialectologist certainly does not deny the pain, i.e. the lack of unity of language for the
Italians, and he is himself affected by it, for reasons that he cannot manage to confess, more than
others could ever be; nor could he, consequently, imagine a more meritorious work than the one that
serves to diminish or to cure this pain.
And also later on:
…ч cСТКro cСe l’Italia non abbia l’unità de lingua, perché le son mancate le
condizioni fra le quali s’ebbe altrove, e insieme è chiaro che il non averla debba
molto dolere agl’ItКlТКnТ … (Ascoli, op. cit.: 29)
…Тt Тs cleКr tСКt ItКlв does not СКve tСe unТtв of lКnguКge, ЛecКuse Тt mТssed tСe condТtТons аСТcС
made it possible elsewhere, and it is altogether clear that not having this unity causes the Italians
much hurt …
Thus, at first glance, as in the creation of other western nation-states after the French
model, the linguistic ideology lying behind this assumption is: one state – one nation – one
language, where a common language is supposed to consolidate the nation and is therefore
perceived as a key element in the building of the state. Yet Ascoli’s position is much more
nuanced than that. Ascoli studies the examples of French and German: the languages of
two neighbouring and powerful states that have just been at war with one another, and with
31
Born and raised in Gorizia, then an Italian-speaking part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Ascoli was
Italian by choice – or so it seems according to his notes. Thus in September 1848, in the aftermath of a failed
revolution, in a political article entitled Gorizia italiana, tollerante, concorde. Verità e speranze nell’Austria
del 1848 (Italian Gorizia, tolerant, harmonious. Truth and hopes in the Austria of 1848), he explained the
separatist tendencies in Lombardo-Veneto, yet limiting his own claims to those of a linguistic autonomy. In
his personal notes in May 1848 Сe аКs more cКtegorТcКl: “The political events upset my soul ... Why am I
Italian? Because I feel the rightness of the Italian side. Why do I desire for Gorizia to become Italian? ...
Because I see the German part show not a German soul, but a mean and mockТng one ...” (“GlТ КvvenТmentТ
politici mi sconvolgono l’КnТmo … Perché son io italiano? Perché sento il diritto della parte italiana. Perché
desidero che Gorizia italiana diventi? ... Perché veggo il partito tedesco mostrar non animo tedesco, ma vile e
ЛeffКrdo …”. Quoted in Lucchini 2008: XIV).
70
each of which he has close ties. His question is why these two stКtes ЛotС СКve “a solid
unity of language” (‘salda unità della lingua”), аСereКs ItКlв does not, Кnd аСetСer tСeТr
models could be used for Italy.
He starts with the example of France: the obvious one, since it has served as an
ideal of nation-state building for many (see Barbour and Carmichael 2000), including his
Italian opponents. Ascoli rejects Manzoni’s Florentine solution: for him, the dialect of
contemporary Florence could not become the Italian language in the same way as the
language of Paris became the French language, because 19th-century Florence lacked the
intellectual and cultural prestige that Paris had in France. The crucial distinction between a
“language” Кnd К “dialect” in this context lies in the presence or absence of a cultural
prestige that it would obtain as a result of a social group’s self-determination at a specific
historical moment. And, Ascoli argues, had Florence been КЛle to Лecome “Paris,” its
language would have most certainly changed too:
Se Firenze fosse potuta diventare Parigi, tutti i culti italiani oggi avrebbero
sicuramente l’identico linguaggio dei fiorentini; ma è altrettanto sicuro, che il
linguaggio di siffatta capitale dell’Italia non sarebbe il fiorentino odierno, e forse
non si potrebbe pur dire un dialetto toscano. (op. cit.: 13)
If Florence had been able to become Paris, today all the educated Italians would certainly have the
same language as the Florentines; but it is also certain that the language of this capital of Italy would
not have been the Florentine of today, and perhaps not even a Tuscan dialect.
Instead of the French example, Ascoli proposes to follow the German one, since the
German socio-political situation seems closer to the Italian:
La Germania, alla sua volta, non ha mai avuto un centro monarchico o civile da
potersi pur lontanamente paragonare con Parigi; è stata scissa, nell’ordine politico,
malgrado le apparenze di unità, in modo non meno barbaro di quello che fosse
l’Italia; mantenne inoltre, e in parte ancora mantiene, tal disgregamento fra i ceti
diversi della sua società civile, che di certo l’Italia non conobbe o conosce il suo
uguale; subì per giunta la separazione delle chiese, alla quale l’Italia ha avuto la
fortuna o la sfortuna di sottrarsi; e pur possiede, malgrado l’infinita varietà de’ suoi
dialetti, la più salda e potente unità di linguaggio che abbia mai risonato sulla
terra. (op. cit.: 14. Italics mine).
71
Germany, in its turn, has never had a monarchical or civil centre that could even remotely be
compared to Paris; it was split, in the political order, despite appearances of unity, in a no less
barbaric way than Italy was; besides, it maintained, and partly still maintains, such a disintegration
among the various classes of its civil society, that Italy certainly did not and does not know;
moreover it suffered the separation of churches, which Italy had the fortune or misfortune of having
escaped; and yet it has, despite the infinite variety of its dialects, the most solid and powerful unity of
language that has ever resonated on earth.
Thus, on a political level, Italy, like Germany, historically did not have a centre,
whereas on a societal level, in terms of social stratification and religious divisions, the
Italian situation seemed even more favourable than the German one. But of equal
importance for the preference of the German way, besides the similarity of the existing
socio-political and cultural situation, was a crucial difference between the German and the
French solutions, although not put explicitly: the French language was imposed at the
expense of other varieties spoken in France (see Lodge 1993), whereas the German
language was disseminated in addition to other varieties. As we can see in the quotation
above, Тn tСТs ТdeКl eбКmple tСe “vКrТetв of dТКlects” does not contradict a “unity of
language”: the argument Тs even stronger tСКn tСТs, Кn “ТnfТnТte vКrТetв of dТКlects” cКn
coeбТst аТtС “the most solid and powerful unity of language that has ever resonated on
earth.”
1.1.3. The pen and the region of thought
In the German case the unity of language and unity of the intellectual space, as we
may call it, were initially due, as it is well known, to Luther’s translation of the Bible.
Ascoli argues:
Il genio di Lutero, signoreggiato un idioma aulico, greggio ed instabile, ne
plasmò quella miracolosa versione della Bibbia, che ruppe l ’unità della fede
e creò l’unità della nazione (op. cit.: 15. Italics mine).
The genius of Luther, having ennobled the language of the court, crude and instable, formed out of it
that miraculous version of the Bible, which broke the unity of faith and created the unity of the
nation.
“The unity of nation” is thus precisely the unity of intellectual thought, beyond all
the differences of views that could exist (including those brought about by the Reformation
72
in the German case, see the allusion in the previous quotation). Ascoli argues that the
unity of a written language gives the possibility for every useful study, every
important thought to be disseminated in the whole nation, that, in its turn, is
created precisely becКuse of tСe eбТstence of tСe “densТtв of tСougСt.” Thanks to
this common written language and common intellectual space, “[the Germans]
have all become citizens of a city that does not exist” (“[i tedeschi] son tutti
diventati cittadini di una città che non esiste,” op. cit.: 16). 32
Opposing himself to the authors of the Nòvo vocabolario, Ascoli argues that it is
true that a national language can appear in interactions, like those authors suggest,
however:
l’organo dello scambio non è sempre necessario che sia la glottide; può
anche essere la penna, purché si sappia scrivere; e quando milioni di menti
agitano o hanno agitato la penna operosa, lo scambio si fa così rapido,
complesso, nobile ed efficace, la suppellettile messa in comune si allarga, si
affina, si afforza così mirabilmente, che l’agglomerazione o associazione di
uomini, tra cui lo scambio avviene, può innalzarsi di fase in fase nella
regione del pensiero (che non è poi una regione artificiale). (op. cit.: 16.
Italics mine)
the organ of exchange should not necessarily always be the glottis; it can also be the pen, as long as
one knows how to write; and when millions of minds agitate or have agitated the laborious pen, the
exchange becomes so rapid, complex, noble and effective, the instruments put in common use
expand, get refined, get stronger in such an admirable way, that the agglomeration or association of
men between whom the exchange takes place can grow from phase to phase in the region of thought
(which is not an artificial region).
In the case of Italy, in Ascoli’s views, the genius writer (“scrittore di genio”),
like Luther was for Germany, was Dante, and the model of the Italian language by
right of chef d’oeuvre should thus be that of Dante’s Divine Comedy. It is important to
underline here that the right of chef d’oeuvre should be understood far beyond the strictly
literary importance of the Comedy: its spiritual (religious) importance and its link to the
32
In Italy, besТde tСe “loа densТtв of culture” (“la scarsa densità della cultura,”op. cit.: 29), one of the main
obstacles for achieving a unity of language аКs, КccordТng to AscolТ, Кn “excessive preoccupКtТon аТtС form”
(“l’eccessiva preoccupazione della forma,” Ibid.), аСТcС led to tСe “cКncer of rСetorТc” (“cancro della
retorica,” op. cit.: 31).
73
Catholic Church (mentioned several times by Ascoli throughout the Proemio as a unifying
factor for the Italian nation) makes it comparable in this respect to Luther’s translation of
the Bible.
Opposing himself to the Manzonian solution, Ascoli takes the example of
the Alpine regions (the regions that he will work on in particular):
[Chiede] che di Toscana, o da Firenze, debbano a furia farsi uscire legioni
intiere di maestri elementari, i quali si spargano a educar tutta l ’Italia; egli
vuole alle Alpi un apostolo qualunque della pronuncia e della frase
fiorentina, laddove l’Europa dice, che l’Italia politica e pensante debba
piuttosto far calare gli Alpigiani nel circondario di Firenze, a diffondervi la
lingua della penna. (op. cit.: 33. Italics mine).
[MКnгonТ/ “tСe MКster” Кsks] tСКt from TuscКnв, or from Florence, sСould Лurst entТre legТons of
primary school teachers, disseminated in order to educate the whole of Italy; he wants in the Alps
some apostle of the Florentine pronunciation or phraseology, whereas Europe says that the political
and thinking Italy should rather make the Alpine people go down to the district of Florence in order
to defend there the language of the pen.
Thus the opposition here is the pronunciation or the syntax of the oral language of
the modern Florentine dialect vs. the written standard used by the elites. Another criticism
though concerns here the “legions” of teachers imposing the language of Florence: the use
of ЛotС mТlТtКrв (“legТons”) Кnd relТgТous (“Кpostle”) vocabulary underlining the criticism
of the forced way of teaching a variety and teaching it as the only acceptable variety.
1.1.4. Natural selection
For Ascoli, a national language could not be imposed but should emerge as a result
of К long process of “natural selection” (a vision clearly inspired by Darwin’s theory).
TСus Сe speКks of К “process of intellectual fusion, and therefore linguistic and civil
fusion” (“un processo di fusione intellettuale, e quindi idiomatica e civile ,” op.
cit.: 19) that Italy can have if it follows the German example: primacy is given
here to the creation of a common intellectual space, to a cultural development that
must come prior to the creation of the language and the civil society or the nation,
and that should bring about the latter. Later on he criticises his opponents:
74
L’Arte, che crede aver pronta una forma squisita, non può di certo
aspettare, che la progredita cultura rifaccia la nazione, e poi surga un teatro,
non veneziano o piemontese o fiorentino, ma di lingua parlata che sia
propriamente italiana; vuole la comedia prima della nazione; intende il
linguaggio, non come una cute che sia il portato dell’intiero organismo
della vita nazionale, ma come una nuova manica da infilare … (op. cit.: 34)
Art, which believes in having ready an exquisite form, certainly cannot wait until the
progressed culture could remake the nation, and until a theatre emerges which would be
not the Venetian or Piedmontese or Florentine, but that of the spoken language that would
be properly Italian; it wants the comedy before the nation; it imagines the language not as a
skin that is the fruit of the whole organism of national life, but as a new sleeve to put on …
Once again, we find here the idea of a necessary cultural development in order for
the language and nation to evolve, instead of imposing a “prepared” lКnguКge to have the
nКtТon “ready” at once.
1.1.5 Monolingualism vs. bilingualism
As it was discussed earlier, the ideal model for Ascoli – that of Germany –
supposes a coexistence of a “variety of dialects” Кnd К “unТtв of lКnguКge.” Indeed, in his
opinion the best option for Italy is bilingualism, as opposed to Manzoni’s monolingual
ideal:
Così ci parlano dei gran danno che sia il mantenere i nostri figliuoli quasi
bilingui, lasciando loro cioè il dialetto materno e costringendoli a studiare,
al modo che si fa d’un idioma estraneo, la lingua che si dice nostra, con
tanto spreco, aggiungono, delle loro intelligenze, e in tanto bisogno di far
tesoro di ogni più piccol briciolo delle facoltà mentali della nazione; come
se la scienza e l’esperienza non dimostrassero in cento maniere, che è anzi
una condizione privilegiata, nell’ordine dell’intelligenza, questa dei
figliuoli bilingui, e come se in casa nostra fosse affatto chiaro che
l’incremento della cultura stia in ragion diretta della prossimità o della
maggior vicinanza fra parola parlata e parola scritta, laddove il vero è
precisamente l’opposto. (op. cit.: 31. Italics mine).
75
Thus they [Manzoni’s disciples] tell us about the great harm of keeping our children
almost bilingual, i.e. leaving them their maternal dialect and forcing them to study, the
same way as is done for a foreign language, the language that they declare ours, with so
much waste, they add, of their intelligence, and in such a need of making a treasure out
of every little crumb of the mental faculties of the nation; as if science and experience
had not demonstrated in a hundred ways that being bilingual for children is indeed a
privileged position for their intelligence, and as if in our place it had been absolutely
clear that the development of culture depends directly on a proximity or greater affinity
between the spoken language and the written language , whereas the truth is exactly the
opposite.
Thus, according to Ascoli, and contrary to the most common views of his time
(which largely persist today) not only is being bilingual not an obstacle, but it also
contributes to the development of children’s mental capacities. Bilingualism in this case
supposes speaking two codes, one of аСТcС Тs “tСe mКternКl dТКlect” and another “tСe
Italian language,” the distance between the two being profitable for the development of
culture, which is the ultimate goal.
The last important opposition to clarify is precisely the one between К “dТКlect” Кnd
К “language.”
1.1.6 Language vs. dialect
Ascoli’s main objection to the proposed linguistic policy of Italy does not concern
the Florentine dialect as such: he positions himself against the introduction of any
institutionalised hierarchy of contemporary Italian dialects, and Florentine is, for him, in
no way better than any other existing variety.
I would Кrgue tСКt tСe coeбТstence of “dialects” Кnd К “lКnguКge” was possible in
Ascoli’s opinion precisely because “dialects” and “language” in his vision must not be
confused (contrary to Manzoni’s view of a language as a dialect that succeeds): dialects
would be suitable for domestic (affective) use whereas a language would serve for critical
thinking, Кnd especТКllв tСКt of К “modern nation,” with its multiple social groups and a
large number of non-native members. Thus Ascoli argues that dialects are good for the
intimacy of conversations at home or in a municipality, yet any text by Humboldt
translated into a dialect would seem ridiculous (op. cit.: 23).
76
TСe opposТtТon Лetаeen “dialects” Кnd К “language” is linked to the one between
“ТnstТncts” Кnd “reflection,” between the “almost infantТle Кge” (“età quasi infantile”) of
tСe nКtТon Кnd Тts “Кge of reflectТon” (“età della riflessione”):
Di certo, gli idiotismi, i tratti popolarmente vividi, non possono e non devono
mancare ad alcuna letteratura, o lingua scritta che dir si voglia; ma parte risalgono a
quel primo fondo dialettale che servì a mettere in comune il lavoro intellettivo della
nazione, cioè spettano all’età quasi infantile, all’età del cieco assorbimento, all’età
meramente mnemonica della nazione rinnovellata; parte ne inocula piú tardi o ne
infonde irresistibilmente la virtú sovrana dell’Arte o il giovanile ribollimento di
un’attività comune; ma sempre si tratta di fenomeno come istintivo, e l’istinto tanto
può meno quanto più la riflessione può, né alcuno forse aveva prima d’ora mai
imaginato che un vocabolario [i.e. Nòvo vocabolario] avesse a sfidar la riflessione e
a inocular l’istinto. (op. cit.: 23-24. Italics mine)
Certainly, idioms, traits that are alive in popular culture, cannot and should not be missing in any
literature, or written language, if you prefer; but they come partly from that primary dialectal fund
which has served to put together the intellectual work of the nation, i.e. they belong to the age which
is almost infantile, to the age of blind consumption, the merely mnemonic age of the renewed
nation; in part they later inoculate or irresistibly inspire Art’s sovereign virtue or the youthful
bubbling of a common activity; but it is always a somewhat instinctive phenomenon, and instinct
cannot do as much as reflection can, and none have perhaps ever imagined that a dictionary [i.e.
Nòvo vocabolario] would have to stand against reflection and to inoculate the instinct.
Thus what Ascoli proposes is what we would call today diglossia (Fergusson 1959,
Fishman 1967): with the Italian language (that of DКnte) Кs tСe “СТgС” (mostly written)
variety, and local dialects (like the one of Florence, or else, like Alpine varieties that he
will identify in his Archivio Glottologico Italiano – “Ladin” Кnd “Franco-Provençal”) Кs
tСe “loа” varieties, especially oral and linked to everyday life and the private sphere.
National unity should be brought about by the existence of a common “high” standard and
a unity of ТntellectuКl spКce, аТtС аСТcС “dialects” have little to do. 33
33
SТmТlКrlв lКter, Тn “DКll’ItКlТК dТКlettКle” (1882-85), Ascoli wrote:
[Manzoni] aspira a quell’КssolutК nКturКleггК del lТnguКggТo letterКrТo, К quell’КssolutК ТdentТtр trК Тl
lТnguКggТo dellК conversКгТone e quello deТ lТЛrТ, cСe lК generКlТtр degl’ItКlТКnТ non potreЛЛe conseguТre e
mКntenere se non connКturКndosТ lК vТvК fКvellК dell’odТernК Firenze (Ascoli 2008 [1882-85]: 60).
[Manzoni] aspires to that absolute naturalness of literary language, to that absolute identity between the
language of conversation and that of books, which the majority of the Italians could not achieve and
maintain if not making natural for themselves the living speech of modern Florence.
77
1.2.
The identification of Franco-provenzale
1.2.1 Particular combination and the dialect continuum
It is considered in the Italian dialectological tradition that Italian dialectology itself
emerges with Ascoli’s first volume of the Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI) in 1873.
“Glottology” (“glottologia”) in the name of the review refers to a science having as its
objective a complex study of language, of which Ascoli is considered to be the founder34.
The AGI was especially aimed at studying the contemporary dialects of Italy: since
they were both available for direct empirical research and had a common and known
source (Latin), their study was expected to contribute to a better understanding of the
development of human language in general. Within the scope of elaborating this new
general linguistic science called “glottologia,” Ascoli describes two linguistic groups that
had never been identified before: first, the Ladin one (“saggi ladini,” AscolТ 1873) and then
Francoprovençal (“schizzi franco-provenzali,” Ascoli 1878 [1874]). The main intellectual
objective of tСe “discovery” of Francoprovençal is thus the creation of a scholarly study of
language.
Ascoli defines Francoprovençal in the following way:
Chiamo franco-provenzale un tipo idiomatico, il quale insieme riunisce, con alcuni
suoi caratteri specifici, più altri caratteri, che parte son comuni al francese, parte lo
sono al provenzale, e non proviene già da una tarda confluenza di elementi diversi,
ma bensì attesta la sua propria indipendenza istorica, non guari dissimile da quella
per cui tra di loro si distinguono gli altri principali tipi neo-latini (Ascoli 1878
[1874]: 61. Italics mine).
I call Franco-Provençal a linguistic type, which brings together, with some of its own specific
characteristics, other characteristics, which are partly common to French, and partly to Provençal,
and which does not come from a late confluence of different elements, but rather testifies to its own
historical independence, not at all different from the one that distinguishes other principal neo-Latin
types among themselves.
34
A Greek-rooted translation of the German term (Allgemeine) Sprachwissenschaft, later translated by
Ferdinand de Saussure with a Latin-rooted one: Linguistique générale (General linguistics).
78
Francoprovençal is thus defined as a linguistic type (tipo idiomatico) characterised
by the co-existence of linguistic features belonging to French and those belonging to the
Provençal idioms, this coexistence not being a product of late linguistic interferences, but
part of its initial linguistic system. It should be noticed that such a coexistence should refer
to what later became known in (socio-)linguistic theory as the language (or dialect)
continuum (Bloomfield 1935).
Ascoli defines Francoprovençal’s territory as the borderland of three states, Italy,
France and Switzerland, аСere tСТs “Francoprovençal” is spoken, specifying however that
for a rigorous geographical definition further studies are needed. For him, despite an
“ample multitude of dialects” (“l’ampia distesa dei dialetti”) tСКt constТtute
Francoprovençal, one cКn stТll speКk КЛout К sТngle “linguistic type,” sТnce tСeв form “К
continuum” (“un tutto continuo”) (Ibid.) The terms used in order to refer to his object of
study are: “linguistic type” (“tipo idiomatico”) or “Francoprovençal tвpe” (“tipo francoprovenzale,” p. 74), “Francoprovençal compleб” (“complesso franco-provenzale,” p. 61,
63), “linguistic family” (“famiglia d’idiomi,” p. 62, 63 etc.), “serТes of vernКculКrs” (“serie
di vernacoli,” p. 61); for its varieties: “Francoprovençal vernКculКrs” (“vernacoli francoprovenzali,” p. 63, 73 etc.), “dТКlects” (“i dialetti,” p. 61 etc.) or “the Romance dialects”
(“i dialetti romanzi,” p. 62). Ascoli never refers to Francoprovençal Кs К “lКnguКge,” since,
as we have seen, a “lКnguКge” is for him something completely different.
He suggests that, even though the parallels between different patois had been
noticed (like those of Savoy and of Switzerland, or those of Valle d’Aosta and of Val
Soana), no one had conceived a whole Francoprovençal linguistic zone. Based on existing
scholarly and literary sources on various patois and his own fieldwork data collected in
Valle d’Aosta, he observes how idioms gradually change, starting from Gascony in France
and moving through the Oc linguistic zone towards that of Oïl to arrive as far as Wallonia
in Belgium. This detailed linguistic journey allows him to define a zone where the features
of two linguistic groups, Oc and Oil, coexist.
In order to distinguish the Francoprovençal “linguistic type,” AscolТ uses К metСod
of “pКrtТculКr comЛТnКtТon”: Сe consТders tСe “particular combination” of two linguistic
traits, one of which cannot belong to the langue d’oïl (but which exists in the langue d’oc),
and another that cannot belong to the langue d’oc (but exists in the langue d’oïl). Namely,
the criterion used for comparison is the evolution of Latin “A,” since for him:
79
L’antitesi più decisiva, tra idioma provenzale e idioma francese, si manifesta nei
riflessi dell’A latino, così in accento, come fuori di accento (op. cit.: 70)
The most decisive antithesis between the Provençal and French idioms is manifested in the
reflections of the Latin “A”, both stressed and non-stressed.
The definition of Francoprovençal is based on the following observations:
-
in a non-stressed position the Latin “A” became e in French, but
remained a in Provençal (aimer, aimée vs. amar, amada); at the end of the word
“A” being non-stressed, it became mute in French, but remains in Provençal
(pronounced as o in most of its contemporary varieties: couronne, aimée, chantes
vs. corona, amada, cantas) (op. cit.: 70);
-
in a stressed position when positioned after a palatalised consonant it
became the diphthongs ie or e in French, but remained a in Provençal (chien,
amitié, moitié vs. can, amistat, mitat) (op. cit.: 71-72; the Occitan analogues in this
example are mine);
-
in Francoprovençal in a non-stressed position the Latin “A”
remained a as in Provençal, including in the non-stressed last syllables; in a
stressed position it either became the diphthong ie, or i, or e, as in French, when
positioned after a palatalised consonant, or it remained a as in Provençal, in all
other linguistic contexts. Ascoli does not provide examples for this rule. If we take
a Valdôtain variety of the Ascolian period (since Ascoli did his fieldwork in Valle
d’Aosta), i.e. the Dictionnaire du Patois valdôtain précédé de la Petite Grammaire
by Abbé Jean-Baptiste Cerlogne (Cerlogne 1907, written over a period of 50 years
beginning in the 1850s, the only written source we have on the Valdôtain varieties
of that period), the translations for the Ascolian examples are the following : (1) FR
aimer, aimée vs. PROV amar, amada vs. Francoprovençal amé, amàye (amà for
the masculine); (2) FR couronne, aimée, chantes vs. PROV corona, amada, cantas
vs. Francoprovençal corona, amàye, tsante (Op. cit.: 32); FR chien, moitié vs.
PROV can, mitat vs. FP tsin, meitsà. We can see that the Ascolian rule does not
work regularly in these cases (which must be linked to the extensive linguistic
variation in the Francoprovençal area: several features can be observed in some
varieties, but be absent in some others).
80
As the Austrian linguist Hans Goebl (Goebl 2010) suggests, the epistemological
(typological) tradition which Ascoli’s method follows should be traced back to that of two
natural sciences: biology and geography. Namely in biology it is that of Charles Linné
(1707-1778) and Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707-1788), and in geography that of
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) and Carl Ritter (1779-1859) (Goebl 2010: 148 –
149). Thus the method of “particolar combinazione,” i.e. of particular combination of
selected features, used to defТne ЛotС “lТnguТstТc tвpes,” Ladin and Francoprovençal,
corresponds exactly to the geotypological method, as Goebl qualifies it, used by Ritter,
which the latter calls ‘synchorische Vereinigung” (the “sвncСronТc comЛТnКtТon” of
selected geographical attributes).35
Ritter’s classification is a polythetic and quantitative one, based upon a number of
empirically obtained attributes. Ascoli’s method СКs tСe sКme cСКrКcterТstТcs: “In Ascoli’s
thought the inductive construct of the ‘type’ was always a quantitative one and had a finely
grКduКted structure” (“Nel pensiero dell’Ascoli il costrutto induttivo del tipo era sempre di
stampo quantitativo e disponeva di una struttura finemente graduata,” Goebl 2010: 151). I
should underline however that this kind of description of linguistic types does not at all
mean for AscolТ tСКt “dialects” exist as separate entities with clear-cut boundaries. In An
Introduction to Romance Philology, Lorenzo Renzi (Renzi 1992) summarises Ascoli’s
impact on Romance studies, and more largely on linguistics, by saying:
Ma il dato più inquietante che emerge dagli studi dell’Ascoli, e dagli studi
dialettologici in generale, è il modo sfumato con cui le parlate si differenziano le
une dalle altre, senza confini netti. Davanti alla rappresentazione dialettologica
concreta, l’idea di lingua può sembrare un’astrazione. Dove sta l’italiano, dove sta
il francese, lo spagnolo? Davanti a noi c’è un continuum dialettale che si
differenzia via via (Renzi 1992: 64. Italics mine).
However the most unsettling finding that emerges from Ascoli’s studies and dialectological studies
in general is the blurred way in which idioms (parlate) differ from each other, with no clear
boundaries. Confronted with concrete dialectological data, the idea of language may seem an
abstraction. Where is the Italian, where is the French, where is the Spanish? In front of us there is a
dialect continuum with gradual differences.
GoeЛl suggests tСКt RТtter’s metСod ЛecКme knoаn to AscolТ tСrougС СТs colleКgue from tСe AcКdemв of
Milan, the geographer and ethnographer Bartolomeo Malfatti (1828-1892), who, in his own research, would
use RТtter’s metСod.
35
81
Thus the most important finding and concept attributed to Ascoli is that of the
linguistic continuum (an idea that would later on become one of the key ideas of
sociolinguistics). There are no clear-cut boundaries between idioms that are actually being
spoken, there is no clearly-defined Italian or French. In this context, studying the border
idioms like Francoprovençal, and more particularly, the name given to the idiom, FrancoProvenzale, can underline the idea of a continuum: it is neither French, nor Provençal, but
has features of both. Whereas today, as we will see further (Part II, Chapter 3.2), both
researchers and activists point out that the name that was originally given to the language
is not a good one, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the name does not suit
today’s objectives – to promote tСe ТdТom Кs К “lКnguКge” – precisely because these were
not Ascoli’s objectives.
1.2.2 Academic reaction to the invention of Francoprovençal and implications
for France
While the reaction to the concept of “Ladin” appeared only after Ascoli’s death in
1907 (criticism by Italian researchers), as far as the definition of Francoprovençal is
concerned, criticisms of Ascoli’s method appeared right after the Schizzi franco-provenzali
were published. The criticisms came from France, and first of all from Paul Meyer,
professor at the École des Chartes and editor-in-chief of the review Romania. Speaking
about the “discovery” of Francoprovençal, Meyer opposes himself to Ascoli’s method of
delimitation of linguistic types in general:
A mon sens, aucun groupe de dialectes, de quelque façon qu’il soit formé, ne
saurait constituer une famille naturelle, par la raison que le dialecte (qui représente
l’espèce) n’est lui-même qu’une conception assez arbitraire de notre esprit …
C’est que les phénomènes linguistiques que nous observons en un pays ne
s’accordent point entre eux pour couvrir la même superficie géographique. Ils
s’enchevêtrent et s’entrecoupent à ce point qu’on n’arriverait jamais à déterminer
une circonscription dialectale, si on ne se prenait le parti de la fixer
arbitrairement. … C’est pourquoi je suis convaincu que le meilleur moyen de faire
apparaître sous son vrai jour la variété du roman consiste non pas à tracer des
circonscriptions marquées par tel ou tel fait linguistique, mais à indiquer sur quel
espace de terrain règne chaque fait. (Meyer 1875. Italics mine).
82
In my view, no group of dialects, no matter how it is formed, could constitute a natural family, for
the reason that the dialect (which represents a species) is itself but a rather arbitrary conception of
our mind ... It is that the linguistic phenomena that we observe in a country do not correspond to the
same geographical area. They intertwine and intersect to the point that we could never come to
determine a dialectal division, if we did not take the decision to fix it arbitrarily. ... This is why I am
convinced that the best way to truly represent a variety of Roman is not to draw circumscriptions
marked by one linguistic fact or another, but to indicate in which area each fact reigns.
Thus, for Meyer a “dialect” (be it Francoprovençal or another) is not a “natural
species,” but an “artificial” one, a product of dialectologists’ minds. In this respect he
refuses the scientific paradigm that would regard languages and dialects as similar to
animal or vegetable species and that would use the same methods for identifying both sets
of phenomena. For Meyer “Francoprovençal” is a definitio nominis as opposed to a
definitio rei (a “definition of the name” and not a “definition of the thing”).
Some years later Gaston Paris, professor at the Collège de France, supported
Meyer’s approach: “We should make a geography not of dialects, but of linguistic
features!” (“Il faut faire la géographie non des dialectes, mais des traits linguistiques!”
Paris 1881: 606). The position of those two most influential linguists of France of that time
is based upon the empirical fact that diverse isoglosses rarely coincide, so that the idea of a
“dialect” seems an abstraction.
Ascoli reproduces Meyer’s criticisms in his new volume of the AGI, answering
them:
Un tipo qualunque, – e sia il tipo di un dialetto, di una lingua, di un complesso di
dialetti o di lingue, di piante, di animali, e via dicendo, – un tipo qualunque si
ottiene mercè un determinato complesso di caratteri, che viene a distinguerlo dagli
altri tipi. Fra i caratteri può darsene uno o più d’uno che gli sia esclusivamente
proprio; ma questo non è punto una condizione necessaria, e manca moltissime
volte. I singoli caratteri di un dato tipo si ritrovano naturalmente, o tutti o per la
maggior parte, ripartiti in varia misura fra i tipi congeneri; ma il distintivo
necessario del determinato tipo sta appunto nella simultanea presenza o nella
particolar combinazione di quei caratteri (Ascoli 1876: 387. Italics mine).
Whatever type, – be it the type of a dialect, of a language, of a complex of dialects or languages, of
plants, animals, and so on, – whatever type is obtained thanks to a determinate complex of
characters, which come to distinguish it from other types. Among the characters there may be one,
83
or more than one, that belong exclusively to this type; but this is not at all a necessary condition, and
it is often lacking. The single characters of a given type are naturally found, either all of them or
most of them, shared to varying degrees by congeneric types; but the necessary distinction of a
given type is precisely in the simultaneous presence or in the particular combination of these
characters.36
Thus reassuming the approach to the classification of dialects and languages as
similar to that of plants or animals, Ascoli agrees that there is a continuum of linguistic
features, but their “particular combination” creates definite linguistic types.
Ascoli argues that the criticisms are superficial (“unК crТtТcК d’ordine estrinseco”),
meaning that they are based merely on theoretical assumptions, without going into the
linguistic (dialectological) details of his study. Indeed, the heart of the typological debate is
ultimately, once again, political – or, at least, preferences in terms of classifications of
linguistic realities are informed by political preferences.
In his reply to Meyer, Ascoli argues:
…Тn quКnto К geogrКfТК, Тl sТgnor Meвer dТce proprТo cСe mКncСТ nel cКso mТo ognТ
unità geografica (le nouveau groupe n’offre aucune unité géographique); e quindi
non lascia neppur luogo a credere che egli volesse allegare la mancanza d’unità
politica; il che, del resto, come ognun vede, se sarebbe stato cosa vera, era però tal
verità che nel caso nostro non importava niente affatto. (Ascoli 1876: 390-391)
…Кs for geogrКpСв, Mr. Meвer sКвs precТselв tСКt Тn mв cКse Кnв geographical unity is missing (le
nouveau groupe n’offre aucune unité géographique); and thus he does not leave doubt to believe that
he would want to add the lack of a political unity too; which, after all, would have been true, as
anyone can see, yet this is a kind of truth that in our case does not matter at all.
36
A similar distinction was given by Hugo Schuchardt in 1870 in his classification of Romance dialects
(puЛlТsСed onlв Тn 1900): “Demnach besteht der Charakter eines Dialektes weniger in der Art seiner
Abänderungen als in der Wahl derselben. Nun werden Mundarten, je näher sie sich räumlich stehen, desto
meСr AЛтnderungen gemeТn СКЛen.” (“Thus, the character of a dialect consists less in the quality of its
attributes than in their selection. The closer dialects are geographically, the more attributes they will have in
common.” Schuchardt 1900 [1870]: 184). We can also add that Ascoli refers to Schuchardt as to the one
who “was ready to make himself the discovery [of Francoprovençal]”: “Lo Schuchardt, finalmente, che era
preparato, in cosi mirabil modo, a farla lui la scoverta [del gruppo franco-provenzale], si compiace, da buon
collega, che l’abbia fatto io…” (“At lКst, Schuchardt, who was prepared in such a marvellous way to make
the discovery [of Francoprovençal] himself, greets me, as a good colleague, for having done it... " Ascoli
1876: 395) In Schizzi franco-provenzali Ascoli also cites Schuchardt (Hugo Schuchardt, Ueber einige Fälle
bedingten Lautwandels im Churwälschen, Perthes, 1870) as far as Romance Switzerland is concerned:
„…dКs geЛТet [sic] der schweitzer patois [sic] …, аelcСe, untereТnКnder durcС geаТsse [sic] charakteristische
merkmale [sic] eng verbunden, die französischen mit den provenzalischen mundarten vermitteln” (“…tСe
area of Swiss patois... which, being closely connected among themselves by certain characteristic features,
are between the French and Provençal dialects,” cited in Ascoli 1878 [1874]: 62).
84
If the question of a political unity that would be attached to a linguistic one did not
matter at all for Ascoli, as he asserts, the idea of a coincidence of a political entity and a
linguistic one certainly did inform the discourse of Meyer. Before going any further, let us
see how the French linguistic ideology was formed.
1.2.3 French linguistic ideology
After the French Revolution of 1789 the concept of a French nation emerges,
represented as a just, equal brotherhood (as suggested in the motto “liberté, égalité,
fraternité”). The ideology of thТs neа FrencС nКtТon, “one and indivisible,” was based
upon the idea of a coincidence of the political, lТnguТstТc Кnd nКtТonКl spКces (“langue une,
nation une,” “one lКnguКge, one nКtТon”) (see Lodge 1993). Hence, in 1790, immediately
after the revolution, a study of idioms of France was undertaken by the Abbot HenriBaptiste Grégoire, a delegate of the National Convention. The results of the study were
presented in 1794 in the Rapport sur la nécessité et les moyens d’anéantir les patois et
d’universaliser l’usage de la langue française (Report on the Necessity and Means to
Annihilate the Patois and to Universalise the Use of the French Language, Grégoire 1794).
The report launched the policy of eradication of the patois – Кll “feudКl ТdТoms,” “tСe lКst
remnants of tСe КnnТСТlКted feudКlТsm” on French soil – and that of imposing French as a
language of the nation, the only one to have thenceforth the right to be called a language.
AЛЛц GrцgoТre notes tСКt аСТle FrencС Тs used Лв “tвrКnts Кnd courts” everваСere,
far beyond the limits of European countries, even in Canada and on the shores of the
Mississippi, and while it is this language in which for instance the peace treaty between
Turkey and Russia had recently been made, at the same time, a large part of France’s own
populКtТon does not speКk Тt. “It Тs onlв Тn КЛout 15 inland départements [out of 83] that
FrencС Тs spoken eбclusТvelв” (Il n’y a qu’environ quinze départements de l’intérieur où la
langue française soit exclusivement parlée), and even in those, large phonetic and lexical
dТscrepКncТes Кre to Лe oЛserved (sucС Кs dТstorted “pronuncТКtТon of аords” Кnd “the use
of ТnКpproprТКte Кnd oЛsolete terms”). AccordТng to GrцgoТre’s calculation, at least 6
million Frenchmen could not speak French, and about as many more were not able to carry
on a conversation in it. The number of speakers of the language did not exceed 3 million;
that of those able to write in it was smaller still. The language situation in France according
to Grégoire’s data is summarised in Table 2.
85
Table 2. Language situation in France in the late 18th century
Speaking French
Speaking French very poorly (habitually speaking
patois)
Not speaking French (only speaking patois)
Total
3 million
6 million
20%
40%
6 million
15 million
40%
100%
Out of 30 patois, those of the border territories that are of interest to this study
attract the special attention of Abbé Grégoire (Grégoire 1794: s.p.):
C’est surtout vers nos frontières que les dialectes, communs aux peuples des limites
opposées, établissent avec nos ennemis des relations dangereuses, tandis que dans
l’étendue de la République tant de jargons sont autant de barrières qui gênent les
mouvements du commerce, & atténuent les relations sociales. Par l’influence
respectТve des mœurs sur le lКngКge, du lКngКge sur les mœurs ; Тls empшcСent
l’amalgame politique, & d’un seul peuple en font trente.
Especially near the borders, dialects that are shared with neighbouring regions establish dangerous
relations with our enemies, while within the Republic such numerous jargons raise obstacles to
commerce and weaken social connections. Due to the influence that mores exert on language and
language upon mores, they obstruct political amalgamation and make 30 peoples out of a single one.
The abbot’s report pays special attention to Occitan as an obvious and potentially
dangerous rival of French:
Penserez-vous, m’a-t-on dit, que les Français méridionaux se résoudront facilement
à quitter un langage qu’ils chérissent par habitude & par sentiment ? Leurs
dialectes, appropriés au génie d’un peuple qui pense vivement & s’exprime de
même, ont une syntaxe où l’on rencontre moins d’anomalie que dans notre langue.
Par leurs richesses & leurs prosodies éclatantes, ils rivalisent avec la douceur de
l’italien & la gravité de l’espagnol : & probablement, au lieu de la langue des
Trouvères, nous parlerions celle des Troubadours, si Paris, le centre du
gouvernement, avoit été situé sur la rive gauche de la Loire.
Do you think, I was told, that the southern Frenchmen would easily consent to abandon the
vernacular they cherish out of habit and sentiment? Their dialects, fitting the genius of a people that
thinks deeply and expresses itself in the same way, have a syntax containing fewer anomalies than
our language. Their richness and their resonant prosodies rival the softness of Italian and the
forcefulness of Spanish; we could quite possibly speak the language of the Troubadours instead of
86
that of the Trouvères had only Paris, the centre of government, been located on the left bank of the
Loire (Ibid., my italics).
Of course, the name of the idiom – Occitan or the language of Oc – is never used in
the report; along with all other idioms, except French, it does not get to have a proper
name. It is however symptomatic that the term patois, used to denote all other idioms of
France except French, is not applied to it either: it is called vernacular (langage), dialect,
and finally, language. In the original, the demonstrative pronoun celle is used to replace la
langue (tСe lКnguКge): tСe ТdТom enters tСe trКdТtТonКl opposТtТon of “tСe lКnguКge of
Trouvères” vs. “tСe lКnguКge of the Troubadours,” Т.e. tСe lКnguКge of tСe north vs. that of
the south, with a border running along the Loire river, although the traditional antithesis of
“lКnguКge of Oc” vs. “lКnguКge of Oïl” Тs never eбplТcТtlв referred to. TСТs Тs tСe onlв
instance where the notion of language is used (apparently inadvertently – and only
replaced with a pronoun) to denote an idiom other than French. Besides, its speakers are
Кssumed to constТtute К sepКrКte “people,” СКvТng moreover К developed culture (tСe
dТКlects “fТt tСe genТus of К people…”) FurtСer on, AЛЛц GrцgoТre refutes this possible
critique when he states that it represents an insult to them: “they have condemned and
overcome political federalism; they shall apply the same energy to overcoming the
federКlТsm of ТdТoms” (“ils ont abjuré & combattu le fédéralisme politique; ils combattront
avec la même énergie celui des idioms”).37
In a France thus formed on the idea of French as the only language of the
Frenchmen, with a particular suspicion of the border (and trans-border) idioms and a
particular sensitivity to the Oc vs. Oïl distinction, the notion of Francoprovençal had little
chance to be welcomed (one may also recall that two decades after the annexation of
Savoy compulsory school education was introduced, which played an important part in
imposing the French language at the expense of patois, or in “annihilating the patois,” to
borrow Grégoire’s expression38).
As for the special place reserved for OccТtКn, tСe FrencС lТnguТst JeКn SТЛТlle cКlls OccТtКn tСe “Iron
MКsk”: Тt Тs, Тn К certКТn аКв, К СТdden tаТn of FrencС, “К СТdden fКce of LКtТn СerТtКge Тn FrКnce, tСe ‘Iron
MКsk’ of tСe FrencС lКnguКge” (SТЛТlle 2007: 2).
38
Its role is not to be overestimated either. For К crТtТcКl КnКlвsТs of tСe ТmpКct of Jules Ferrв’s compulsorв
school education on the vitality of patois see Lodge 1993.
37
87
1.2.4 The reception of Francoprovençal in the north vs. the south of France
In her recent PhD dissertation, B. Pivot argues:
…la proposition de l’italien Ascoli en 1873, de nommer une «nouvelle» entité
linguistique distincte du français et de l’occitan sur le territoire national juste après
la défaite avec la Prusse qui aura fait «perdre l’Alsace et la Lorrain » à la France,
est en soi une provocation qui va engendrer un discours donnant «naissance» au
francoprovençal. Une naissance scientifique, puis une naissance sociale. (Pivot
2014: 207. Italics are mine)
…the proposal of the Italian Ascoli in 1873 to name a͆new͇linguistic entity distinct from French
and Occitan on the national territory right after the defeat with Prussia, which would have made
France͆lose Alsace and Lorraine͇is in itself a provocation that will generate a discourse giving
“birth” to Francoprovençal. A scientific birth, then a social birth.
Langue inconnue, elle sera nommée par un linguiste italien en 1873 dans un
contexte où les débats sur l’existence, ou non, d’une nouvelle entité linguistique
entre la langue d’oïl et celle d’oc, à l’Est de la France, reflètent les conflits autour
de l’hégémonie du français sur le territoire national. (op. cit.: 209)
An uknown language, it will be named by an Italian linguist in 1873 within a context where the
debates on the existence, or not, of a new linguistic entity between the language of Oïl and that of
Oc in the east of France reflect the conflicts over the hegemony of French on the national territory.
Such a vision may be French- or France-centred, and seeТng tСe “discovery” of
Francoprovençal Кs К “provocation” would be ascribing it the wrong political context: i.e.
Ascoli did not mean it as a provocation, and the political context which brought about his
discourse on Francoprovençal was the Italian one, which he explicitly refers to at length in
his works, as we have seen. It is nevertheless true that this was the prism through which the
discovery was seen by French scholars, and, if we reformulate the statement, had Parisian
scholars followed Ascoli’s views, this could have been seen as a provocation39. Indeed,
France had just lost Alsace and Lorraine in the war with Prussia, their annexation being
legitimated politically by their German-speaking practices: a situation that brought about
One mТgСt Кlso tСТnk of AscolТ’s pСТlogermКnТsm Тn tСТs respect (see КЛove on СТs seeТng GermКnв Кs Кn
ideal example).
39
88
debates on the nature of the nation between Ernest Renan and David Friedrich Strauß,
which can be seen as prototypical for tаo constructТons of tСe “nation,” a subjective and
objective one (see also Sériot 1997: 188).
As Goebl reminds us, “the professors Meyer and Paris represented, at that period,
the culmination of French philological and literary intellectual circles and were outstanding
representatives of the contemporКrв FrencС pКtrТotТsm” (“i professori Meyer e Paris
rappresentavano, in quell’epoca, il culmine dell’intellettualità filologico-letteraria
francese ed erano insigni rappresentanti del pattriotismo francese contemporaneo,” GoeЛl
2010: 154). The political importance of dialectological divisions is clear in the famous
statement by Gaston Paris of 1888:
Et comment, je le demande, s’expliquerait cette étrange frontière qui de l’ouest à
l’est couperait la France en deux en passant par des points absolument fortuits?
Cette muraille imaginaire, la science, aujourd’hui mieux armée, la renverse, et nous
apprend qu’il n’y a pas deux Frances, qu’aucune limite réelle ne sépare les Français
du nord de ceux du midi, et que d’un bout à l’autre du sol national nos parlers
populaires étendent une vaste tapisserie, dont les couleurs variées se fondent sur
tous les points en nuances insensiblement dégradées. (Paris 1888: 435-436. Italics
mine)
And how, I ask, would we explain this strange border which would cut France in two from west to
east, passing through absolutely incidental points? Science, better armed today, denies this
imaginary wall and teaches us that there are not two Frances, that no real limit separates the
Frenchmen from the north from those from the south, and that from one end of the national territory
to the other our popular vernaculars extend a vast tapestry whose varied colours blend at all the
points in imperceptibly degraded nuances.
Both Meyer and Paris argue against any delimitation of dialect inside the Romance
continuum, so that linguistic boundaries could not contradict the political ones. Thus in
France, or more precisely in Paris, among the centralist elites, tСe “discovery” of
Francoprovençal contradicted the ideology of a “one and indivisible nation” (“nation une
et indivisible”). An allusion to this can also be seen in another of Ascoli’s statements, as far
as the acceptance of his discovery in France is concerned:
Pure, non è forse affatto superfluo il notare, come la povera scoverta del “francoprovenzale” sia andata incontro anch’essa a quella bizzarra varietà di sentenze, cui
89
sogliono andare incontro e le scoverte minute e grandi. La Francia meridionale me
ne remeritò con una medaglia d’oro; e dalla Francia del Nord me ne viene un
giudizio, che si ritorce un po’ convulsamente in sè medesimo, arrivando a
determinarsi nella curiosa proposizione negativa : “che debba sin parere non gran
fatto utile che la tesi si dimostri.” (Ascoli 1876: 394)
Perhaps, it is not at all superfluous to notice how the poor discovery of “Franco-Provenzale” was
received and that bizarre variety of assessments that meet small and big discoveries. Southern
France awarded me with a gold medal for it; and from Northern France comes to me a judgement,
which turns somewhat convulsively around itself, ultimately determining itself in a curious negative
proposition: “tСКt Тt аould not Лe Кt Кll useful tСКt tСe tСesТs sСould Лe demonstrКted.”
Indeed, in 1875 Ascoli received a médaille d’or of the Société des Langues
Romanes of Montpellier for his article “schizzi francoprovenzali.” Thus this medal comes
to negotiate the place (or the very existence) of varieties or languages other than French on
French territory: for the scholars of Montpellier, the studies of Francoprovençal could
especially legitimise the place of the Langue d’oc. Goebl argues that contrary to Meyer and
Paris,
i loro oppositori militano, con argomenti geolinguistici tipofili, in favoure di una
certa autonomia simbolica delle loro province: Joseph-Pierre Durand (de Gros) e
Charles de Tourtoulon per il Meridione nonché Charles Joret (1839-1914), il noto
filologo di origine normanna, per la Normandia. (Goebl 2010: 156)
their opponents militate, with geolinguistic typophilic arguments, in favour of a certain symbolic
autonomy for their provinces: Joseph-Pierre Durand (de Gros) and Charles de Tourtoulon for the
South, whilst Charles Joret (1839-1914), the famous philologist of Norman origin, for Normandy.
The view articulated by Meyer and Paris remained dominant for the century to
come. Nearly 100 years later, in 1969, at a conference on Francoprovençal dialectology in
Neuchâtel, Helmut Lüdtke Кsserted tСКt “Francoprovençal sТmplв does not eбТst” (“Le
francoprovençal tout court n’eбТste pКs”), explaining:
Le terme de francoprovençal ne désigne pas une donnée (ou un ensemble de
données) mais plutôt une notion. Cela veut dire que le francoprovençal a les
frontières qu’on lui assigne à titre de définition. (qtd. in Tuaillon 2007: 9)
90
The term Francoprovençal does not denote any data (or a set of data), but rather a notion. This
means that Francoprovençal has the borders that have been assigned to it as a definition.
This assumption perfectly corresponds to that formulated by Meyer a century
earlier. Simultaneously, other dialectologists tried to delimitate Francoprovençal as a
linguistic entity in a particular geographical space, refining the linguistic criteria used as
significant for such delimitations. They would refer to Ascoli as to the one who first
“discovered” Francoprovençal, yet “forgetting” all the context of that discovery and the
philosophy (or ideology) behind it. As for the Francoprovençal speakers, the name
“Francoprovençal” together with the idea of a certain linguistic unity of the
Francoprovençal zone first appears only in contact with dialectologists in the 1970s, and,
as we will see, even now is not shared by everyone.
1.2.5 Implications for the Aosta Valley (Italy)
In
Italy explicit
contemporary scholarly critics
of
Ascoli’s
work
on
Francoprovençal were non-existent. However the idea of Francoprovençal was no more
welcomed there than in France, for different, yet also essentially political, reasons. The
main political issue of the moment when the notion of “Francoprovençal” was announced,
as we have seen, was the creation of an Italian nation-state: a nation-state largely based on
an essentialised vision of a “nation” as a unity of language. In that context the Frenchspeaking tradition of the Aosta Valley represented an obstacle to the creation of the Italian
nation. Three major historical facts should be remembered at this point: first, in 1860 the
Duchy of Savoy and the County of Nice were transferred to France precisely for the reason
that these were French-speaking territories, i.e. their French-speaking tradition was used –
at an ideological level – in order to legitimise the annexation that had been promised to
France in 1858 as a compensation for the help given by Napoleon III to the Savoy dynasty
(Maison de Savoie) on their way to becoming Kings of Italy (namely for conquering
Lombardy – Veneto, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). The historian Celi (2004)
explains the motivations of the Savoy dynasty:
au niveau politique, les domaines transalpins constituaient un poids pour une
dynastie désormais totalement vouée à la conquête de l’Italie ; au niveau
idéologique, l’idée romantique et jacobine de l’unТtц «dТ lТnguК… dТ sКngue e dТ
cuor» (de lКngue… de sКng et du cœur) concevКТt mКl un RoвКume où
91
cohabiteraient deux langues riches de traditions et de littérature, comme l’étaient
justement l’ТtКlТen et le frКnхКТs… (Celi 2004: 71)
at the political level, the transalpine domains constituted a weight for a dynasty that from
that moment totally dedicated itself to the conquest of Italy; at the ideological level, the
romantic and Jacobin idea of the unity “dТ lТnguК… dТ sКngue e dТ cuor” (of lКnguКge… of
blood and of heart) could hardly conceive a Kingdom where two languages rich in
traditions and in literature would cohabit, as was precisely the case for Italian and French…
The second fact in the political context of Ascoli’s studies is the one already
mentioned above: in 1870 Alsace and Lorraine were annexed from France to Prussia
precisely for the same reason of their population’s speaking another language: in their case,
German and not French. Finally, the third fact was that the Unification of Italy itself was
achieved as a result of a series of annexations legitimised ideologically by the unity of
language and culture. Hence, whatever way was to be chosen in order to, proverbially,
“make the Italians” – whether the Manzonian way, or the Ascolian one40 – in any case, one
borderland region in the new Kingdom of Italy did not fit the model: the language of the
Aosta Valley was French. Conducting studies precisely in this region and declaring that, in
the reality, its idiom was not French, but “Francoprovençal” could be seen as a way to
relativise, or to deny, the role of the French language and thus to make illegitimate any
potential claims by the neighbouring French state on this territory.41
40
i.e. by imposing one Italian dialect as a standard language at the expense of all other dialects, or by
establishing diglossic situations with the Italian language as a written variety, the variety of “thought” and
reasoning, and “dialects” as oral varieties, those of “instinct” and everyday life (see the beginning of this
chapter).
41
To provide a parallel to this reading of the “invention” of Francoprovençal, we can think of the “invention”
of the “Karelian language” in the USSR under Stalin: a group of linguistic varieties on the borderland
between the USSR and Finland had been considered dialects of Finnish until the 1930s, when, as war
between the USSR and Finland loomed, a new concept of “the Karelian language,” distinct from Finnish,
emerged (Bubrikh 1932, Anttikoski 2006, Austin 1992). Anecdotally, once answering a question from a
Francoprovençal/Arpitan activist in the VDA about the linguistic situation in my region of origin (in
northwest Russia in and around St. Petersburg) I told him about the Karelian cКse. Mв ТnformКnt’s reКctТon
was that this was precisely for the same reason that speaking about “the Francoprovençal language” in the
VDA was taboo up until recently (until the beginning of the 2000s): the reply would always be that speaking
about the “Francoprovençal language” would be a danger for the region, since its autonomy is based on
92
From the moment the VDA became part of the newly created Kingdom of Italy, in
which it represented only an insignificant percentage of the national population, the
political elites of the VDA trТed to plКв tСe “French card” in order to obtain more power.
TСe regТon’s Statute of Autonomy, dating back to 1948 and granting extensive political,
economic and fiscal autonomy to the region, is explicitly based upon the French-speaking
practices in the region. In other words, “Francoprovençal” (as a concept, not as a practice)
was seen as a danger by the regional élites since it did not have any army behind it,
whereas French did: not in the famous metaphorical sense, but in the most direct one. It
should be underlined that Ascoli never mentions those tensions or intentions, yet these
were possible political implications of his findings. This was probably why they remained
purposely unnoticed in the region until a new discourse emerged in the 1970s and then in
the 2000s.
Therefore those advocating the idea of Francoprovençal as a language different
from French would belong to the most powerless groups of society and be separatists,
opposed to both central power and regional political élites. The first to insist that
Francoprovençal, renamed Arpitan, was a language in its own right was the Mouvement
Harpitanya, initially an extreme left-аТng sepКrКtТst movement. MКkТng “К lКnguКge of
culture” out of Francoprovençal was linked directly in its discourse to the social struggle of
tСe “oppressed clКsses” (peКsКnts speКkТng Francoprovençal) КgКТnst tСe “oppressors”
(bourgeoisie speaking French and eventually Italian) (see Edur-Kar 1973, Harrieta 1976).
This movement, claiming the local patois to be a “language,” and moreover the language
(the only true one) of the whole Francoprovençal zone, only appeared at the beginning of
the 1970s, 100 years after Ascoli’s research. The ideology of this Arpitan movement will
be studied in the next chapter, yet it is worth mentioning here the academic reaction to it,
because it might help us understand the reasons of the non-acceptance of Ascoli’s
“discovery” of Francoprovençal in the VDA. This reaction can be illustrated by an article
French, and that Ascoli was a “fascist.” The term “fascist” in that reported discourse is obviously misused,
since Ascoli died in 1907, before the National Fascist Party was even created. Yet the misuse of the term is
not in itself anything new (Orwell wrote as early as in 1944: “...Кs used, tСe аord ‘FКscТsm’ Тs Кlmost entТrelв
meaningless”; “By ‘Fascist’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant,
obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class.” See also: “...if you examine the press you will find that
there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organised body of any kind — which has not
been denounced as Fascist during the past 10 years” (Orwell 1944)). The use of this term shows however the
highest degree of the refusal of the notion of Francoprovençal by the Valdôtain intellectual elite.
93
by Alexis Bétemps, then Head of the Centre d’études francoprovençales R. Willen of
Saint-Nicolas, dated 1977 and published in 1981. His conclusion is eloquent:
Les journaux italiens aussi s’intéressent à leurs théories [des Arpitans]. Cela
ne leur semble pas vrai que, finalement, des Valdôtains aient épousé ces théories
qu’eux-mêmes avaient inspirées au cours de ce dernier siècle.
Ces journaux mettent en évidence le fait que des Valdôtains ne considèrent
plus le français comme leur langue maternelle et ils ironisent sur la nation arpitane
indépendante qui est la conséquence logique des prémisses linguistiques. Le plus
souvent, ils préfèrent ignorer ce deuxième point du programme arpitan.
The Italian newspapers are also interested in their [the Arpitans’] theories. It does
not seem true to them that, finally, the Valdôtains have espoused these theories that they
themselves have inspired during the course of the last century.
These newspapers highlight the fact that the Valdôtains do not consider French to
be their mother tongue any more, and they are ironic about the independent Arpitan nation,
which is the logical consequence of the linguistic premises. Most often, they prefer to
ignore this second point of the Arpitan programme.
Thus from the autonomist perspective of the author42, apparently advocating the
status quo, setting patois, under the name of Francoprovençal or Arpitan, against French, is
seen as a threat to autonomy and a long-desired benefit for the central power.
Chapter 2. The 1970s: Arpitania and the Arpitan language
One hundred years after Ascoli’s research, in 1972-1973, a new discourse on
Francoprovençal emerged. It had two main novelties: on the one hand, the idiom was rebaptised as Harpitan (Arpitan in 1976); on the other hand, for the first time the idea of a
certain linguistic unity of the territory on the borderland between three European states was
used in order to claim for this unity to be a “language” in its own right, and to claim
altogether, for the sake of this “language,” political rights of self-determination for the
respective linguistic community on its respective trans-border territory. This new discourse
42
Bétemps was also president of the Union valdôtaine, the ruling party of the VDA ever since its autonomy.
94
was produced in Valle d’Aosta by Joseph Henriet (also signed José Harriet, J. Harrieta or
Edur-Kar43). After a series of articles and booklets written in French between 1973 and
1975 (Edur-Kar 1973, Harriet 1974 & 1975), he exposed his theory in detail in his 1976
book (Harrieta 1976), written in Italian and entitled La lingua arpitana – The Arpitan
Language.
I will start this chapter with the political context of the emergence of the Arpitan
movement. I will then move on exploring the objectives of the main innovations proposed
by the movement, such as the new name for the language, the discursive construction of a
trans-border community called Arpitania after the language, and its linguistic
standardisation.
2.1.
Political roots of the Arpitan movement
The socio-political and cultural context within which the emergence of the Arpitan
movement became possible in Valle d’Aosta should be essentially looked for in France,
namely in the student demonstrations in Paris in May 1968. Bétemps (1981) argues that
“1968 is a starting point for the recent history of the autonomist idea in Valle d’AostК”
(“1968 est un point de depart pour l’histoire récente de l’idée autonomiste valdôtaine,”
Bétemps 1981: 26). More broadly, the intellectuКl clТmКte of tСКt perТod, Кn “ТntellectuКl
feКst” (according to P. Sériot, personal communication), was created by a series of events
that produced a new political reality: the end of the war in Algeria in 1962; student
demonstrations in Paris in May 1968; the end of the “trente glorieuses” (“the 30 glorious
years” of constant economic growth in France) with the considerable growth of oil prices
known as the “oil shock” in 1973; the Cold War, and the belief in the possibility of a
communist revolution in France (with two out of three main parties there being left-wing,
namely the socialist and the communist ones). The demonstrations in Paris opened a new
debate on national groups within multinational states. The concept of “ТnternКl
coloniКlТsm” emerged (cf. R. Lafont : La révolution régionaliste (1967), Sur la France
(1968), Décoloniser en France: les régions face à l’Europe (1971), etc. ; see also Lagarde
2012). The struggle of various such groups within European states (as well as around the
Henriet explains that “Edur-Kar” means “the snow on the mountain” in the language of the Salassi (“nella
lingua dei Salassi significa ‘la neve sulla montagna’,” Henriet, personal communication)
43
95
world) became more acute: especially the Basques and the Irish, but also that of the
Jurassiens, Occitans, Corsicans, and Bretons, to mention but a few in Europe.
Starting from the end of the 1960s and throughout the 1970s the press in the VDA
would often relate these struggles. As Bétemps suggests (1981: 26), the French debates did
not penetrate the VDA directly from France (although the region had traditionally had
close ties with the neighbouring country), but passed through (and were reinterpreted by)
the Italian universities of Turin and Milan. Simultaneously, the Italian media changed their
discourse on minorities: “terroristi baschi” (“Basque terrorists”) became “membri
dell’ETA” (“memЛers of ETA”) and so on, and gradually ethnic minorТtТes “became
fashionable” (“‘les minorités ethniques’ deviennent à la mode,” Ibid.). In the VDA,
especially from 1973 onwards, intellectuals and political parties started to address the
“etСnТc questТon.” TСe “fКsСТon” eбpКnded from urЛКn to rurКl КreКs, аСere cultural
centres appeared, which tried to renew their ties with Savoy in France and Valais in
Switzerland. At the same time, as in France, the Italy of the beginning of the 1970s
underwent an economic crisis that followed the “miracolo economic” (“economic
miracle”) of the 1960s: the economic crisis which, in turn, brought about a political crisis
of state institutions. The “intellectual feast” then gained the VDA, with a spread in round
tables and political debates, including or centred on the cultural and linguistic
particularities of the VDA (e.g. I partiti politici e la questione linguistica valdostana,
Gruppo di Ricerca in sociolinguistica di Aosta, December 22, 1973). In this context the
ТdeК of tСe “ArpТtКn lКnguКge” Кnd “Arpitania” was first pronounced.
Henriet’s very first source of inspiration was a secessionist movement in the Swiss
Jura at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s. Henriet was then a primary school
teКcСer Тn JurК Кnd could closelв oЛserve tСe “fТgСt for lТЛerКtТon of tСe JurКssТКn people”
in Switzerland, as he refers to it (in an interview he gave me in 2014). Namely, he worked
there beyond the pivotal moment when the claims of independence had started being based
– at a discursive level – on linguistic particularity: the French-speaking parts as opposed to
the German-speaking parts of the Canton of Bern. Indeed, from the beginning of the
struggle at the end of the 19th century, the right for independence was motivated in Jura by
a common history, separate from the rest of Bern, together with the confessional
difference: Catholic Jura vs. the Protestant rest of the Canton of Bern. However in 1959 a
plebiscite on independence and the creation of a new canton was held in six districts of the
96
historic Jura, then all parts of the Canton of Bern; its results showed that the three Germanspeaking districts were largely against independence, while the three French-speaking ones
were for it (Godat [s.a.]: 3). This forced the separatists (namely the Rassemblement
Jurassien) to Кdjust tСeТr dТscourse Кnd retrКce tСe “etСnТc” ЛoundКrТes so tСКt tСese
coincided not with the historical borders, but with the linguistic ones (op. cit.: 7). A few
years later, this struggle led to a plebiscite on the question of independence, on June 23,
1974, and subsequently to the creation of the Republic and Canton of Jura (la République
et Canton du Jura) on January 1, 1979 (on the so-cКlled “JurКssТКn questТon” see Кlso
Bassand 1976).
For Henriet, the same type of linguistic particularity could become the basis for a
secessionist movement in the VDA: French-speaking as opposed to the Italian-speaking
rest of the state. In an interview taken in February 2014 he explained to me:
J’ai compris, certainement la seule façon quand on va pas d’accord, quand y a des
contradictions, ben [c’est] lК sцpКrКtТon … et pourquoi en Val d’Aoste on ne se
sépare pas de l’Italie, il y a personne qui prêche la nécessité de se séparer de l’Italie
pour vraiment pouvoir défendre la francophonie du Val d’Aoste…
I understood that the separation is certainly the only way when there is a disagreement, when there
Кre contrКdТctТons … so аСв аouldn’t the Aosta Valley separate from Italy, why there is no one
speaking about the necessity of separating from Italy in order to truly defend Francophony in the
Aosta Valley…
Thus initially there was no question of Francoprovençal – the same way that in Jura
at that time there was no question of Franc-Comtois (a local variety of Oïl, or a local
language of Oïl, depending on the perspective), which emerged much later. In both
political contexts, the claims of particularity and therefore of independence were based on
the opposition of two “languages of culture” and education (French vs. German in Jura;
French vs. Italian in the VDA). The first movement was then formed in the VDA: ALPA
(Action de Libération des Populations Alpines). It aimed at the creation of a state
comprising the VDA, Savoy and Valais, with French as its official language.
Yet, a few вeКrs КfterаКrds, HenrТet “discovered that in the VDA French was an
imposed language, the same way that Latin had been before and Italian afterwards” (“J’ai
découvert que le français en Val d’Aoste était une langue – a été une langue imposée,
comme le latin avant et puis l’ТtКlТen ensuТte…” interview 2014), and that the true language
97
of its inhabitants (“notre langue à nous” – “our verв oаn lКnguКge”) was Francoprovençal.
This lack of awareness of Francoprovençal is noteworthy. It was then the first language of
the vast majority of the VDA population, yet a metadiscourse on it was (nearly) nonexistent. The locals would speak it, but they would not speak about it. TСТs “dТscoverв”
and Henriet’s subsequent theory of Francoprovençal re-baptised as “Harpitan” was due to
his acquaintance with Federico Sagredo (also known as Krutwig, De Sagredo, Fernando
Sarrailh de Ihartza, Serailh or Arno de Mandiguri): a leader of ETA and a writer
advocating the unification of the Basque language, who at that time had spent a year hiding
from the Spanish and international authorities in the VDA. Sagredo became Henriet’s close
friend and a sort of a mentor:
Il m’a, si tu veux, illuminé, il m’a [prêté] – des arguments – pour bâtir ce
mouvement - politique qui devait s’occuper aussi de la langue.
He enlightened me, if you like, he gave me arguments for building this movement – a political
movement that was to deal with the language as well.
This collaboration gave birth to Henriet’s (initially extreme-left) secessionist
movement called Movement Harpitanya and to a new theory of a language called
“Harpitan.” Starting from 1972, Arpitan became opposed to French.
Before studying the linguistic part of the Harpitanya movement, let us consider its
socio-political basis: as is argued here throughout the dissertation, any linguistic debates
cover deeper conflicts of a completely extralinguistic nature. Rather than proposing a
detailed and constructive project for the future, Harpitanya was essentially against:
Contre la classe dirigeante de l’époque, contre le stato-nationalisme, contre la
bourgeoisie valdôtaine considérée comme francophile et conservatrice, contre les
partis autonomistes au pouvoir identifiés comme l’expression de cette bourgeoisie,
contre le clergé accusé d’avoir trahi le peuple en abandonnant la lutte, contre les
partis nationaux, qu’ils soient de gauche ou de droite, contre l’élitisme culturel et
social, contre le conservatisme de la classe au pouvoir, contre la colonisation
culturelle, linguistique, économique, contre l’oppression du peuple entendu comme
98
classe dominée, prolétariaat urbain et prolétariat des campagnes confondu, contre sa
dépersonnalisation. (Dunoyer 2010: s.p.)44
Against the ruling class of its time, against stato-nationalism, against the Valdôtain bourgeoisie,
considered to be Francophile and conservative, against the autonomist parties in power identified as
the embodiment of that bourgeoisie, against the clergy accused of having betrayed the people
because of having abandoned the struggle, against the national parties, be they left-wing or rightwing, against cultural and social elitism, against the conservatism of the class in power, against
colonisation, cultural, linguistic and economic, against the oppression of the people seen as the
dominated class, be it the urban proletariat or rural proletariat, against its depersonalisation.
Being against, the Harpitanists “impose themselves with a wilderness and the
relentless determination of tСe oppressed, of tСose аСo СКve notСТng to lose” (“s’imposent
avec la sauvagerie et l’implacable détermination des opprimés, de ceux qui n’ont rien à
perdre,” Ibid.). Their voice is often anonymous but very present throughout the valley:
HARPITANYA, on voyait écrit sur les murs et les rochers de notre Vallée, mais
aussi VAL D’AOHTA LIBRA, LIBERAXON, de gros traits irréguliers, sur un
fond de rochers abrupts, tracés à la peinture blanche, une graphie insolite qui
épousait la sensation de mystère due au fait qu’on ignorait qui étaient les mains qui
avaient guidé ces pinceaux. (Ibid.)
HARPITANYA could be seen on the walls and the rocks of our Valley, and also VAL D’AOHTA
LIBRA [free Valle d’Aosta] and LIBERAXON [liberation], written with huge irregular lines, on the
steep rocks, with white pigment, an insolent writing that inspired the feeling of a mystery because no
one knew whose hands had directed the brush.
The general (extralinguistic) problematic issues addressed by Harpitanya are not
explicitely present in Harpitanya’s programmatic texts (books or articles), but can be found
clearly articulated elsewhere, e.g. in its songs. Namely, in the songs by the Harpitanist bard
Luis de Jyaryot (a pseudonym of Luigi Fosson), tСe “trouЛКdour” of tСe HКrpТtКn
revolution to come, as he says in one of his songs, reproducing a text that had been written
by an anonymous Valdôtain аrТter Тn 1942: “Chaque révolution // A eu son troubadour //
Je suis un troubadour // J’attends ma revolutТon” (“Everв revolutТon // Has had its
troubadour // I am a troubadour // I am waiting for my revolution.” – “Je rêve: 1942”, in a
home-published collection of songs called Li canson de nohtro peplo, “The Songs of Our
People”). He became an idol of the contemporary youth, his first album, La Noëla
44
From a booklet accompanying the documentary film Harpitanya, la ferveur d’une idée.
99
Tradixon (“The New Tradition,” 1978), having marked a whole generation of Valdôtains.
The title itself is eloquent: it was about a total rupture with the ways of life that had existed
before and creating a neа socТetв Кnd К neа “trКdТtТon.” It portrays all the multiple facets
of the contemporary Valdôtain society, providing a sometimes humorous but always direct,
and in that often violent, socio-political critique. The songs were written in 1976-78: 30
years after the VDA had become an autonomous region. Hence, among other societal
issues, the songs attack the party in power, which had remained unchanged for 30 years (as
it is still the case today), the corruption that had evolved, and the new bourgeoisie that had
appeared:
Ma faat cyantà i trent’an d’otonomie
We have to sing of the thirty years of
autonomy
Ke i an feyt da Valduhta ün bon
teren
That made out of Valle d’Aosta a good
ground
Pe tüt ci ke i ahon voya de robà,
For all those who wish to rob
So ‘Т eСpККle dТ “roecвo” trКvКвoer.
On tСe sСoulders of “rТcС” аorkers.
No faat cyantà i trent’an d’otonomie
We have to sing of the thirty years of
autonomy
Ki noz an alevà ‘na bourzywazie …
That brought up for us К ЛourgeoТsТe …
(L. de Jyaryot, “Trent’an d’otonomie” [“Thirty Years of Autonomy”]. In La Noëla
Tradixon)
Another song, written by Henriet himself, criticising, among other things, “lК popopoleteka // l’eternК repeЛlekК” (“tСe pop-politics // tСe eternКl RepuЛlТc”), may imply the
practice of buying electoral votes by the party (-ies) in power:
Yo canto li partì
I sing of the parties
Ke a twite li elexon
Who, at every election,
Ant sü trovei mwayen
Knew how to find ways
De todzor fahe lo pyen
To always fill the house
(J. HКrrТet, “CКnson droolК” [“TСe Strange Song”]. In La Noëla Tradixon)
Among the main societal issues, the issue of saving vs. selling the land: the poor
peasants selling their land, which generations had cultivated, to rich foreigners who come
100
to buy it without any intent to cultivate. Echoing the words of his contemporary
agricultural workers, L. de Jyaryot sings:
Ke vout te mai j’ant trop
What do you want, they have suffered too much
E l’et pà jest k’o fasen no
And it is not fair that we should do the same
Ora ke j’et pien de monsiè
Noа tСКt tСere Кre plentв of sТrs [“MessТeurs”]
Carjà de sot
Full of money
patì
(L. de Jyaryot, “LК terК” [“TСe LКnd”]) 45
Hence, he portrays the agricultural workers who sell their land, ignoring the inner
voice that tells them not to do so: “…sensa ehkotà // La voes ke te sentei deden te // Ke te
dit ‘a tera na!! vend-la pa.’”46 (“…аТtСout lТstenТng // to tСe voТce tСКt вou СeКr ТnsТde of
you // which tells you: ‘the land, no!! don’t sell it!’” “La tera” [“TСe LКnd”]).
Another major concern was the development of the tertiary sector at the expense of
the primary one:
Merci Bon Dieu
Thank you good Lord
Te nos at feit la Roja
You made us the Mont Rose
E la vendein
And we sell it
A Лokon Т “messТeurs”
Bв pТeces to “MessТeurs”
(L. de Jyaryot, “Merci Bon Dieu” [“TСКnk You Good Lord”] 47)
TСe recurrent reference to tСe “MessТeurs” (which is not itself an invention of
Harpitanya, but a ubiquitous expression in everyday language) also pictures the eternal
struggle of peasants vs. the ЛourgeoТsТe (“li graas kapitalista,” “tСe fat capitalists,” Кs
Henriet puts it in a Marxist way Тn tСe “CКnson droolК”), the oppressed vs. the oppressors.
45
Reproduced here from the collection of songs Li canson de nohtro peplo. It is written in a slightly different
ortСogrКpСв on tСe 1978 КlЛum cover: “Ke voy-toe mКв в’Кn trop pКtы, // e l’et pК jвoeбt ke o fКcКn noeв, //
orК ke в’et pвen de “monsвoe”// cвКrjвр de soot.”
Idem, on the 1978 album cover: “…sencК eСkutК // ca vwè ke te sentТб devenc te, // ke te doet ‘К terК nК!
venla pa !”
46
Idem, on tСe 1978 КlЛum cover: “Mersì bon Dyoe; te noz ye feyt la Ruzya // e la venden a bokon i
‘mosвoe’!”
47
101
Ultimately, tСe movement merges tСe etСnТc struggle (аТtС tСe ТdeКl of “etnokrКtekК,”
“etСnocrКtТcs,” Т.e. tСe etСТc group’s self-government) with the social struggle (with an
ideal of a socialist state where the classes that are now dominated will be in power): in the
same way as happened in the socialist revolution in Russia in 191748. Hence, in that period,
the oppressed classes were also those speaking Francoprovençal (as opposed to the Frenchor Italian-speaking bourgeoisie).
2.2.
Renaming Francoprovençal and a new identity construction: a pre-Indo-
European language spoken by prehistoric people
In one of Henriet’s first teбts ТntroducТng tСe notТon of “Harpitan,” the latter is
defined througС tСКt of “FrКnco-ProvenхКl”:
La langue ethnique de l’Harpitanie est le franco-provençal que nous nommerons
aussi désormais “harpitan” (Harriet 1974: 7).
The ethnic language of Harpitania is Franco-Provençal, which from now on we will also call
“HКrpТtКn.”
TСus “Harpitan” would be a new signifier for the same referent – the
Francoprovençal linguistic unity. The new term served to ЛuТld Кn “ethnic (and therefore
nКtТonКl) lКnguКge” (“langue ethnique (et donc nationale),” op. cit.: 8), that of Harpitan,
which would thus unite an ethnic group and a nation, also called Harpitan, related to the
country called Harpitania. In other words, the main objective of this re-naming was to
relate linguistic particularities described by dialectologists to notions of ethnicity and
nationhood, thus reproducing the romantic naturalistic model of European nation-state
building (see Barbour, Carmichael 2000).
The two terms, Harpitanya (Harpitania, Harpeitanya) and Harpitan, were originally
written with an initial H-, the subsequent omission of which probably began with Henriet’s
book La lingua arpitana, published in 1976. One of the possible considerations for this
change is the visual association: the language of the Alps – Arpitan – Arpitania. Among
other considerations, an anecdotal and very practical one was that terms with “H,” and
especially the iconic form for the related political claims – К ЛТg “H” – turned out to be a
48
The latter resulted in a system of a socialist ethnic federalism as a basis for the construction of the Soviet
Union.
102
bad “marketing tool,” so to speak: according to several testimonies, tСe sТgn of К ЛТg “H” in
open public spaces would be taken for a helicopter landing pad. TСe “rebranding” of the
language being largely a communication tool, such miscommunication could hardly be
tolerated.
The name of the language was seen as a crucial issue: Henriet starts his book
(Harrieta 1976) by pointing at pejorative connotКtТons of tСe term “patois”:
E’ necessario, al più presto, abolire l’uso del termТne “patois” e preferirgli, quando
si fanno discorsi sulla lingua, le seguenti parole: parlata, francoprovenzale o
arpitano, lingua arpitana (Harrieta 1976: 5).
It is necessary to eliminate as soon as possiЛle tСe use of tСe term “pКtoТs” and to prefer to it, when
one produces a discourse on the language, the following words: parlata (vernacular),
francoprovenzale (Francoprovençal) or arpitano (Arpitan), lingua arpitana (the Arpitan language).
The term parlata refers to the idiom of a particular localitв (e.g. “parlata di
Courmayeur,” CourmКвeur’s vernacular), whereas to refer to the language as a whole
Henriet Тntroduces tСe nКme “ArpТtКn.”
“Harpitanya”/“ArpТtКnТК” Тs defТned Кs “a vast region around Mont Blanc” (“une
vaste région autour du Mont Blanc,” Harriet 1974: 7), a definition that becomes recurrent
in Henriet’s own texts and that has survived until today, as we will see. Henriet specifies
the region: “Savoy, Valais, the north-western valleys of Piedmont, the AostК VКlleв…”
(“Savoie, Valais, Vallées nord-occidentales du Piémont, Val d’Aoste…”, Ibid.). Thus it
does not encompass the whole Francoprovençal linguistic area, but only its mountainous
regions. The same particularity is seen on the flag of Arpitania that Henriet also created
(see Figure 11). The flag is red and black, which are the colours of the Aosta Valley, and
has the Savoy cross in the centre, representing Arpitania in its historical link to the House
of Savoy. Three stars represent the three main Arpitan regions: the Aosta Valley, Savoy
and Valais. Indeed, the contrast of the high mountains vs. the valley is crucial in almost
any discourse on Francoprovençal/Arpitan, as it is assumed that in the mountains the
linguistic and cultural, or ethnic, particularity is better preserved.
103
Figure 11. The flag of Harpitanya (Arpitania)
An allusion to the new flag and its ideological content can be found in one of the
songs by L. de Jariot, in Li canson de nohtro peplo (see Figure 12).
Figure 12. LuТs de JКrТot “VКl d’AoСtК 1970…” in Li canson de nohtro peplo
(undated, around mid-1970s).
104
The lyrics are as follows:
The new Valdôtains are born
And they bring the new Word
They no longer speak about the race
They no longer say: we speak patois.
The new Valdôtains have understood
That they have never been an ethnic group,
That they have never been French-speaking
As so many people
Have wished to make them believe for so long.
They have understood that they are part
Of a whole that is bigger than them
Someone already calls it Fatherland
For us Harpitanya already exists.
People change
Times change
And Harpitanya should come back
Being for everyone only one country
The first European country.
But one day the young people will bear
On their shoulders a new cross,
And the colours of red blood,
And of the blackest of pains,
They will also have three stars,
Whiter than the white snow,
Symbol of the three regions
That turn around Mont Blanc
Without a possibility to give hands to each other,
Because for the sake of their internal issues
Two States decided this way
So that is is easier [for them]
To put there their teeth.
That day
We will finally be
One reunited people
With its language,
With its laws,
The first European country.
The song is written stylistically as a prophecy, and also uses the religious
vocКЛulКrв (“tСeв ЛrТng tСe neа Word,” tСe reference to tСe cross tСКt tСe neа Valdôtains
will bear on their shoulders, etc.). Many Arpitanist ideas are articulated here: the rejection
of the French language as an imposed one, the refusal to take what the Harpitans speak for
К “pКtoТs” (vs. “Тts lКnguКge” Кt tСe end of tСe song) Кnd tСe ТdeК of VКlle d’Aosta being
105
part of a trans-Лorder аСole cКlled HКrpТtКnвК. “TСe neа Valdôtains have understood //
TСКt tСeв never аere Кn etСnТc group” sСould refer to Henriet’s ideas, laid out in his 1974
КrtТcle entТtled: “L’ethnie valdôtaine n’К jКmКТs eбТstц… elle n’est que partie de l’ethnie
harpitane” (Harriet 1974), and is a revolutionary rupture with the ideology that had existed
until that day. The same rupture is iconically represented in the picture: a man wearing a
traditional Valdôtain costume, with a part of the VDA’s coat of arms on it, аСo Тs “deКd
from feКr” (Кs tСe writing on the drawing stipulates). Finally, as in the case of any
“Тnvented trКdТtТons” (see HoЛsЛКаm 1983), Harpitanya is represented here as something
tСКt СКs КlаКвs eбТsted: “And HКrpТtКnвК sСould come back // Being for everyone only one
countrв” (historically, indeed, Valle d’Aosta and Savoy used to belong to the same state,
ruled by the House of Savoy; yet its territory, on the one hand, went far beyond Valle
d’Aosta and Savoy – all the way to Sardinia at some periods in time – and on the other
hand, never encompassed the Swiss canton of Valais). The Harpitan people is thus
essentially a singular people, which has been separated by exterior powers and needs to be
“reunТted.”
Borrowing from the discourse on the Basque language, Henriet indicates that the
name HКrpТtКn derТves from “an old local language, a pre-Indo-EuropeКn lКnguКge”
(Harriet 1974). The latter, which would be a common ancestor of (H)arpitan and Basque, is
called in his other texts “Garalditan” (Harrieta 1976, 1977). Referring to F. Krutwig (his
mentor in independentism, as mentioned above), Henriet explains that “Garalditan” are
“Pre-Indo-European languages, living or dead, linked to the agricultural revolution of the
NeolТtСТc perТod” (“propone dТ cСТКmКre ‘garalditane’ le lingue pre-indoeuropee, viventi o
morte, legate alla revoluzione agricola del periodo neolitico,” Harrieta 1976: 44). The word
comes from gara – “mountain,” aldi – “region,” ea – feminine article (“la”), which form
Garaldea – “mountain region(s)”; Garalditan derives from Garaldea (op. cit.: 57). Henriet
quotes Krutwig who wrote, while staying in the VDA, that the primitive population of the
valley had belonged to the same pre-Indo-European group as the Basque one (Krutwig,
“Les noms prц-indoeuropéens en Val d’Aoste,” Le FlКmЛeКu No4 1973, cТted Тn: HКrrТetК
1976: 54). In a table of “Garalditan elements” in “the Arpitan language” (Op. cit.: 58-62)
we can find, inter alia, the root that was used in naming the language (op. cit.: 58):
-AR
106
[Senso] “pietra, roccia.”
[Esempi] Arpa/sotto le pietre (nome che si dà ai pascoli di montagna);
… deгARpК (gТorno dТ dТscesК deglТ КrmentТ);
ARpian/abitante dell’alpe (nome che si dà ai montanari che lavorano nell’alpeggio).
…
Il radicale AR, transformato in AL, si ritrova nel nome stesso della più importante
catena montuosa d’Europa: le ALpi.
-AR
[Meaning] “stone, rock.”
[Examples] ARPA/under the stone (a name given to the mountain pastures);
... DezARpa (day of the descent of herds);
ARpian/inhabitant of the Alpa (the name given to the mountain people who work in the
pastures).
...
The radical AR, transformed into AL, is to be found in the name of the most important
mountain chain of Europe: The Alps.
The word “Harpitan” is then composed of the alleged pre-Indo-European: HARPE
“under the rocks” + TAN “inhabitant.” Henriet had never done any linguistic studies and
the theory is based not on linguistics work, etymological or any others, but on his and
Sagredo’s reflections – based upon observed similarities between Francoprovençal and
107
Basque. The similarity of phonetics and semantics in a number of words is supposed to
prove a common “ontology,” i.e. the existence of a common pre-Indo-European source.49
Thus two key elements are central in defining the language and the community: the
first one is the semantics of the mountain, linked to the symbol of Mont Blanc; the second
is the idea of a continuity between the Harpitan language and the respective linguistic
community, on the one hand, and the language(s) and the area’s Neolithic inhabitants on
the other. In Henriet’s book La lingua arpitana (1976), a photograph of petroglyphs from
the Neolithic Age on the front cover of the book works as an iconic sign suggesting both
associations: the rocks or mountains, and a link between the prehistoric peoples and those
speaking this lingua arpitana – the so-called Arpitan language (see Figure 13).
Figure 13. The front cover of La lingua arpitana (1976)
49
At the same time, Sagredo, for his part, restrains himself from exaggerating the importance of this alleged
common pre-Indo-EuropeКn source. For СТm, “HКrpetКn” Тs К lКnguКge tСКt is more than two thirds part of
tСe “OccТtКno-Catalano-GКscon” group (Кs Сe refers to Тt) Кnd one tСТrd tСКt of Oïl and of the dialect group of
Val Padana (Sagredo de Ihartza 1976: 51). These linguistic particularities have a number of implications:
namely, the obvious one is the French language imposed in France and the French-speaking tradition of the
ЛourgeoТsТe of VКlle d’AostК; К less oЛvТous one concerns OccТtКn: “Aujourd’СuТ les ‘nКtТonКlТstes occТtКns’
tсcСent de s’Кnneбer les provТnces СКrpцtКnes et pour ce fКТre commencent р nТer l’eбТstence de l’etСnТe
harpétane. CependКnt l’etСnТe СКrpцtКne est dКns son ensemЛle plus vТvКnte que l’etСnТe provenхКle.”
(“TodКв ‘tСe OccТtКn nКtТonКlТsts’ are trying to annexe the Harpetan provinces and in order to do so start to
deny the existence of the Harpetan ethnos. However the Harpetan ethnos is, globally, more lively than the
Provençal ethnos.” Ibid.)
108
The metonymic – and mythogenic – function of the new name is to provide a
summary of the (alleged) ontology of the ethnic group or/and the nation, with reference to:
- a unique geographical space (the mountains around Mont Blanc);
- a traditional lifestyle (in Arpitan “arpian” means “shepherd”);
- mythological ancestors (the prehistoric people - the Garalditans);
- as well as to the uniqueness of the language itself (a pre-Indo-European language)
to which this name refers.
2.3.
The main goals of the (H)arpitan movement: language as a pillar for a
new polity
In Henriet’s view, the language is seen as closely connected to the cultural,
economic and social development of the respective linguistic community:
la rinascita sociale, economica e politica di un popolo passa attraverso il ricupero e
la rivalorizzazione della propria lingua; lingua che i dominatori considerano e
obbligano a considerare indegna del nome di «lingua», incapace di esprimere
contenuti modernТ, ТmpossТЛТle dК fТssКre nello scrТtto, condКnnКtК К morТre…
(Harrieta 1976: 7-8)
the social, economic and political revival of a people passes through the recovery and revalorisation
of their own language; the language that the oppressors consider and oblige to consider unworthy of
the title of "language,” unable to express modern content, impossible to be fixated in a written form,
sentenced to die...50
We can see here the typical idea of a primordial link between language and people,
inspired by 19th-century Romanticism: later Henriet argues that for the Arpitans (gli
arpitani) “their only and true language is the Arpitan language” (“la loro sola e vera
Henriet insists on this idea several times in the text. See Кlso: “The function of the language is thus
essential for the revival of the people” (“Essenziale è dunque la funzione della lingua nella rinascita di un
popolo,” op. cit.: 6); “The cultural, economic and social revival of a dominated people happens only with the
recovery of Тts lКnguКge” (“La rinascita culturale, economica e sociale di un popolo dominato avviene solo
nel ricupero della lingua proprТК,” op. cit.: 10).
50
109
lingua,” Harrieta 1976: 10) – even though one might notice that he somehow contradicts
his own statement, since his own book is written in the Italian language.
In Henriet’s view, an idiom will not die if the three following conditions are
fulfilled:
-
the status of a distinct “language”;
-
the existence of a written form;
-
the existence of a modern (modernised) lexicon, able to describe
contemporary life.
At the same time, all of those, and the language itself, are not seen as important for
themselves, but for the “revival” of a “people” that speaks this language. As far as the first
two conditions are concerned, Henriet refers to some “lТnguТsts” (without naming them)
who would consider Francoprovençal to be a language like French or Italian (op. cit.: 9)
and gives examples of texts written in Francoprovençal (Ibid.). As for being (or rather
becoming) able to describe modern reality and being (becoming) a living (una lingua viva)
and efficient language, this condition is considered to be missing (I will come back to this
issue in the next section). Interestingly, this kind of “language,” unified and appropriate to
speak about contemporary reality, is designed to “serve tСe ArpТtКn people” (servire al
popolo arpitano) in a particular way:
gli servirà, in modo particolare, a legger lo attuale mondo circostante, condizione
essenziale questa, per capire la realtà, metterci ordine, immaginare, dirigere,
cambiare : far politica, cioè. (op. cit.: 11)
it [the Arpitan language] will serve [the Arpitan people], particularly, for reading the surrounding
contemporary world, which is an essential condition in order to understand reality, to put oneself in
order, to imagine, to govern, to change: that is, to make politics.
Here the main issue is, once again, politics51. At the same time, the arguments are
all based upon the linguistic relativity hypothesis 52 , whether Henriet had read it in its
51
52
In 2014, in the interview that I took with him, he agreed that his main goal was a political one :
NB: Pour vous le but était avant tout politique, КvКnt d’шtre lТnguТstТque? (Was your goal first and
foremost political before linguistic?)
JH: Oui oui oui bien sûr bien sûr (Yes yes yes of course of course)
Compare with SКpТr Кnd WСorf’s studТes:
110
original – scholarly – version or (most probably) acquired it as a general idea that language
models a way of thinking, and (an appropriate) language should model an appropriate
understanding of reality. The latter nuance conjures up altogether the way in which
totalitarian regimes function, which might be not without relevance here, as Henriet’s
views were influenced (at least, to a certain extent) by the communist and Maoist
ideologies (in 1974 he translated into Arpitan two of Mao’s works). The idea of a language
as a vehicle for a particular ideology was put even more explicitly in Henriet’s first text
about Arpitan (in that version, Harpeitan), signed Edur-Kar:
Les révolutionnaires qui travaillent pour un monde de nouvelle démocratie, doivent
obligatoirement imaginer des systèmes linguistiques qui seront les piliers de
l’organisation politique future […] lК lКngue СКrpeТtКne devrК шtre une lКngue de
Nouvelle Démocratie. (Edur-Kar 1973: 28. Italics in the original)
The revolutionaries who work for a world of new democracy should necessarily imagine linguistic
systems that will be the pillars of the future political organisation […] tСe HКrpeТtКn lКnguКge
should be a language of New Democracy.
De ces parlers [francoprovençaux] sortira la langue harpeitane qui sera le moyen
de libération du peuple harpeitan, et sa future langue, base de culture. La langue
harpeitane accompagnera la renationalisation et la repersonnalisation des harpeitans
et elle sera la langue porteuse de l’idéologie de la libération de l’Harpeitanie. (Ibid.
Italics in the original)
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as
ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become
the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to
reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of
solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the “real
world” is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two
languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The
worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different
labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the
language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958: 69)
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we
isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the
face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be
organised by our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut
nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are
parties to an agreement to organise it in this way – an agreement that holds throughout our speech
community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit
and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing
to the organisation and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940: 213-214)
111
Out of these [Francoprovençal] idioms will emerge the Harpeitan language that will be the means
for the liberation of the Harpeitan people, and its future language, a basis for its culture. The
Harpeitan language will accompany the renationalisation and the repersonalisation of the Harpeitans
and will be the carrier of the ideology of the liberation of Harpeitanie.
This function of the Arpitan (Harpeitan) language conjures up the Orwellian Newspeak
(George Orwell 1984), created and controlled by a fictional Party in order to control
citizens’ thoughts and make them conform to the ideologies of the Party, so that other
worldviews become literally unthinkable. 53 Besides, the language is again a means for the
liberation of a community (and not an end in itself).
2.4.
Linguistic standardisation: linguistic metabolism and assassins
disguised as doctors
The relation between the terms “Arpitan” and “Francoprovençal” is not a very clear
one. At first, Henriet proposed “to substitute the term ‘Francoprovençal’ with the new one,
‘Arpitan,’ which derives from Francoprovençal itself and means literally an inhabitant of
the Alps or of mountains” (“Propongo di sostituire il termine ‘francoprovenzale’ con la
nuova parola, ‘arpitano,’ parola che deriva dal francoprovenzale stesso e che letteralmente
significa abitante dell’’alpe’ o della montagna,” Harrieta 1976: 6). Arpitan is then defined
as the language spoken by the inhabitants of the north-western Alps. Вet tСe term “ArpТtКn
lКnguКge” – la lingua arpitana – has a very specific meaning:
La lingua arpitana indica la koinè delle parlate arpitane (Ibid).
The Arpitan language indicates the koinè of Arpitan vernaculars.
Indeed, the necessity of linguistic modernisation, according to Henriet, is
complemented by another goal: that of linguistic unification, as the existing varieties
(parlate arpitane) are not mutually intelligible. At the same time, the writing system of
53
Namely, in "The Principles of Newspeak" we read:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and
mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism], but to make all other modes of
thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc –
should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. (George Orwell
1948: an appendix to 1984)
112
Arpitan should be different from those of French and Occitan (its two linguistically closest
neighbours, to which the academic name “Francoprovençal” refers):
…un travail de personnification de l’alphabet s’impose. L’harpeitan se servira
d’une graphie indépendante tant de la graphie française que de la graphie de
l’occitan. (Edur-Kar 1973: 30; Italics in the original)
… a work on a personification of the alphabet is imperative. Harpeitan will use a written form that
will be independent from either that of French or that of Occitan.
The koinè should be based, in Henriet’s view, on the idioms of the Lower Aosta
Valley (namely those of Montjovet, Evason, Issogne and Arnaz). He explains this choice
by referring to the Aosta Valley as “the stronghold of the Arpitan linguistic area” (la
roccaforte linguistica dell’area arpitana), implying that in other traditionally
Francoprovençal areas the idiom is no longer spoken by such a considerable part of
population in everyday life:
Questo fatto conferisce senz’altro alle parlate arpitane della Val d’Aosta il diritto di
diventare la base della futura lingua arpitana unificata (ibid.).
This fact certainly confers upon the Arpitan idioms of the Aosta Valley the right to become the basis
for the future unified Arpitan language.
Such a representation of the Francoprovençal linguistic situation was not in itself new.
Namely, dialectologists made similar statements at the same period – see, for instance,
Gaston Tuaillon (1978: 12):
la Vallée d’Aoste constitue, en 1978, la seule grande région du domaine
francoprovençal dont le dialecte pourra survivre longtemps encore, malgré la rage
de détruire le passé qui a accompagné la modernisation galopante du XXe siècle.
The Aosta Valley constitutes, in 1978, the only large region of the Francoprovençal area whose
dialect will be able to survive for a long time, despite the rage to destroy the past that has
accompanied the rapid modernisation of the 20th century.
The novelty in Henriet’s theory was the assumption that this commonly agreed upon
linguistic sТtuКtТon sСould gТve certКТn “rights,” namely the one to impose the idiom still
largely spoken upon the rest of a linguistic area where it had never actually been used. In
an interview that he gave me in 2014 he explained his position in the 1970s:
113
ma proposition [était] de prendre les parlers de lК ЛКsse VКllцe … ce sont les
variétés les plus КrcСКэques … et puis de les choisir et puis de l’imposer comme la
langue, un peu comme le florentin a été imposé, le parisien a été imposé.
my suggestion [was] to take the idioms of the lower valley … [because] those are the most archaic
vКrТetТes … and then to choose them and to impose it as a language, the same way as the Florentine
was imposed, as the Parisian was imposed.
The same way that the patois of Florence or patois of Paris (op. cit.: 12) became
“lКnguКges” through loans from the Greek and Latin languages, in order for Arpitan to
become a “language,” the patois of Arpitania should absorb, according to Henriet, words
from other languages. Henriet distinguishes various types of sources for loans (op. cit.: 1315):
-
“synchronic loans” (“prestito sincronico”):
o
vertical (from the two dominant languages: Italian and
French)
o
or horizontal (from the languages that are not dominant in
Arpitania: Spanish, German, English);
-
“diachronic prestige” (“prestito diacronico”) – “the loans from the
dead languages that had a certain role in the formation of the Arpitan language”
(“prestТto dКlle lТngue morte cСe СКnno Кvuto un ruole nellК formКгТone dellК lТnguК
arpitana,” op. cit.: 14):
o
Garalditan (la lingua garalditana) of which Basque is a
“living” example
o
Greek and Latin for most modern cultural terms.
Using a metaphor from the human body, HenrТet Тntroduces tСe term of “linguistic
metКЛolТsm”:
L’uomo, ogni giorno, fabbrica nel suo corpo cellule nuove, nutrendosi di
animali e di vegetali; non gi passa nemmeno per la testa l’idea di dover rifiutare le
nuove cellule, essenziali alla vita, sotto pretesto che, provenendo esse da un “corpo
straniero,” non sТКno degne dТ КllТneКrsТ con le prТme…
Simile deve essere l’atteggiamento dell’arpitanista che si pone come
obiettovo la lotta per la sopravivenza della propria lingua. (Op. cit.: 13)
114
Every day the man produces new cells in his body, feeding himself with animals and plants;
and it never occurs to him to have to reject new cells, essential to his life, under the pretext that they
come from a “foreign body,” and are not worthy of aligning with the first ones...
This should be the attitude of the Arpitanist who has as his objective the struggle for the
survival of his own language.
Beside a common idea of a similitude between a language and a biological organism, we
can find here what later became one of the reasons for a conflict pitting Henriet and his
Arpitanist followers on one side against the patoisants and – perhaps especially – the
dТКlectologТsts (“purists” in Henriet’s view) on the other side. For the two latter groups the
“survival” of one’s language means the maintenance of its varieties of a given community
(the so-cКlled “pure pКtoТs” of tСe munТcТpКlТtв Б or В), and not its replacement by a
supra-dialectal and modernised standard that is seen as “artificial.” In contrast, for Henriet,
“the Arpitan patois will be saved only if the Arpitan language emerges from tСem” (“…Т
‘patois’ arpitani si salverrano solo se da essi uscirà la lingua arpitana,” op. cit.: 14). The
“purists” become tСerefore “the аorst enemТes of our lКnguКge” (op. cit.: 16: “i peggior
nemici della nostra lingua”), since their (linguistic and metalinguistic) behaviour leads to
its death:
Impedendo il processo dТ metКЛolТsmo lТnguТstТco … Т purТstТ perseguono lК morte
della lingua di cui vogliono apparire come dei difensori illuminati. (op. cit.: 15)
By preventing the process of metabolism ... linguistic purists pursue the death of the language of
which they want to appear as enlightened defenders.
The expression “enlightened defenders” shows that the discourse refers mainly to the
researchers working on Francoprovençal. The same idea can be found in another of
Henriet’s texts:
Les théoriciens du mКТntТen du “pКrtТculКrТsme” de cСКque pКtoТs et quТ se
présentent comme les défenseurs de notre langue, sont dans les faits des assassins
déguisés en docteurs: ils s’opposent au métabolisme essentiel pour la vie des
langues et ils sont, par conséquent, les pires ennemis de notre langue et aussi du
peuple qui doit s’en servir. (Harriet 1975: 66-67)
The theoreticians of the maintenance of the “particularity” of each patois, who present themselves as
defenders of our language, are, in fact, assassins disguised as doctors: they oppose themselves to the
115
metabolism essential for the life of languages and, consequently, they are the worst enemies of our
language and also of people who have to use it.
As suggested in the introduction to this paper, from this time onwards, Arpitan
linguistics becomes what we may call the linguistics of resentment (I borrow the term from
Patrick Sériot, see Sériot et al. 2008), i.e. one opposed to the official science, and
legitimising itself precisely by the fact of this opposition:
Les promoteurs de ce qu’on peut appeler une linguistique du ressentiment se
sentent rejetés par la «science officielle», ce qui renforce en eux la théorie du
complot du silence et le sentiment que, si leurs idées sont repoussées, c’est la
preuve qu’elles sont vraies. (Sériot et al. 2008: 151)
The advocates of what one may call the linguistics of resentment feel themselves rejected by the
“offТcТКl scТence,” аСТcС reТnforces Тn tСeТr eвes tСe tСeorв of К conspiracy of silence and the feeling
that if their ideas are denied it is the proof that these ideas are true.
Indeed, the idea of researchers’ responsibility for language death reemerges in the
Arpitanist discourse today, as we will see in Part II.
Linguistic standardisation аКs seen Кs possТЛle onlв “as a result of the
revolutionary practice of the (H)arpitan popular movement” (1974: 8) with, as its ultimate
goal, the creation of an (H)arpitan federation in the area around Mont Blanc. This
“revolutТonКrв movement” was organised, following the Basque model, as a secret
organisation made up of small groups not knowing each other, federated by single
individuals who knew them all. With 300 members throughout Valle d’Aosta (according to
the person in charge of federating the efforts, personnal communication 2016) and a large
network of regularly maintained contКcts “from BКstТК to BelfКst” (idem.), this marked a
whole generation of Valdôtains.
Un mouvement dont personne n’a par la suite revendiqué l’héritage, dont un vaste
monde murmure l’appartenance, comme un charmant péché de jeunesse, à moitié
entre la nostalgie et la moquerie, souvent passé sous silence voire lourdement
sanctionné. Il est de bon ton d’être contre Harpitanya. (Dunoyer 2012: s.p.)
116
A movement of which no one later claimed the heritage, to which a large population whispers about
their belonging, like a charming sin of youth, half-way between nostalgia and mockery, often
ignored or СeКvТlв sКnctТoned. It Тs К “bon ton” to Лe КgКТnst Harpitanya.
Although unsuccessful (“ЛecКuse of tСe mКjorТtв’s lack of courage to make
changes,” КccordТng to tСe ArpТtКnТsts), it also influenced, in a certain way, the
development of the linguistic situation in the VDA for 50 years to come, as will be shown
in Part II and III. Finally, once imagined by Henriet as a language in its own right,
Francoprovençal kept this status in the minds of several activists until becoming officially
recognised as such at the turn of the new millennium.
Chapter 3. The new millennium
3.1. The Arpitan Cultural Alliance, a new identity and protonational symbols
At the beginning of the new millennium, the spread of discourse on “linguistic
diversity,” “endangered languages” and “language death,” and the corresponding language
policies at both European and national levels are transforming what used to be considered
“patois” into “minority languages.” As was shown in the introduction to this dissertation,
at the European level, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, signed
and ratified by Switzerland, and signed but yet not ratified by Italy and France, provides a
framework for a potential language policy in favour of Francoprovençal; and so at national
levels do the 1999 law on “linguistic minorities” in Italy and the constitutional amendment
of 2008 inscribing “regional languages” in the French Constitution (article 75-1). In the
aftermath of this change, language policy has been evolving at regional levels: the one
started by the VDA and Piedmont in Italy in the early 2000s, by the canton of Valais in
Switzerland in 2008, and by the Rhone-Alpes region in France in 2009. More specifically,
the discourse on “linguistic diversity” and “endangered languages,” which became
legitimised by scholarly research and subsequently by European language policy, was
made available to be adopted by activists in the early 2000s (on the contrary, the specific
“embodiment” of this discourse, i.e. the actual implementation of these declarations in
legislature and legal practices at regional levels in specific countries was largely influenced
by activists’ actions).
117
Founded in Lausanne in 2004, the Arpitan Cultural Alliance (Aliance Culturèla
Arpitana, hereafter ACA or the Alliance) includes representatives from three countries:
Switzerland, Italy, and France. Currently most active in France, the association is an
essentially linguistic and cultural association working on Arpitan’s promotion in status, a
goal it supposes can Лe КcСТeved Лв promotТng К unТque nКme for tСe lКnguКge (“ArpТtКn”)
and an orthographic standard (called Reference Orthography B, ORB). Thus the ACA
borrows from the Movement Arpitania the terms “Arpitan” and “Arpitania,” as well as part
of its arguments, namely, the definition of the linguistic community via the symbol of
Mont Blanc (as demonstrated below in this section). The Alliance’s goals also appear to
largely coincide with those of the Movement Arpitania. They include promoting the
Arpitan language as a language of culture, and for this, developing a standard orthography,
as already noted, and modern-day lexis (the Alliance publishes books and graphic novels in
Arpitan). As one of the ACA activists summarised its activities to me:
lo problema l’e de evolué la lenva, e de l’évolué dedeun la realità di dzor de oui,
pas dedeun la réalità de cent ans fé. Voilà cen que l’è l’Aliance culturèla arpitana,
l’è eun enstrumen que ballièn a – les arpitan, a cice qui predzon arpitan de evolué.
The problem is to develop the language and to develop it in the reality of today, not in the reality
of one hundred years ago. This is what the Arpitan cultural alliance is all about, it is an instrument
that we give – to the Arpitans, to those who speak Arpitan, in order to evolve.
The cardinal difference between the Alliance and its Aosta Valley predecessor lies in
waiving any political content in the term “Arpitan” and, therefore, in Arpitanist activities.
The ACA’s discourse will be studied in details in Part II. For the moment, I will only draw
on some “sТde КctТvТtв” of ACA’s members, which has political consequences.
The ACA’s activists always claim that their movement is nothing but cultural and
linguistic. Nevertheless, as linguistically-oriented as the Alliance could be, “Arpitania” is
paradoxically imagined within its project as a nation, with all the proto-national, or protonationalistic, symbols, such as a flag and an anthem. Both are newly created. The flag
represents la rodzeta, a symbol often found in the Alps as a rock drawing and therefore
seen as particular to a millennia-old alpine culture. It appears on a red and white
background: the colours of the House of Savoy. The rodzeta is surrounded by the
European stars, thus inscribing the movement into the process of European integration and
interregional cooperation, suggesting perhaps that regions and the EU can coexist, beyond
118
and without the nation-state. The flag thus brings together the pre-historic element and
modernity, the ethnic and the civic (see Figure 14).
Figure 14. The Arpitan flag (2000s)
At the same time, the flag borrowed from Henriet’s 1970s movement is sometimes used
too (see Chapter 2), but now, as the geography of reference has expanded, the three stars
are seen to represent Italy, France and Switzerland (instead of the Aosta Valley, Savoy and
Valais).
Hobsbawm traces the appearance of flags and anthems back to the 18th century as
part of the national movements that resulted in the appearance of nation-states:
…entТrelв neа sвmЛols Кnd devТces cКme Тnto eбТstence Кs pКrt of nКtТonКl
movements and states, such as the national anthem (of which the British in 1740
seems to be the earliest), the national flag (still largely a variation on the French
revolutionary tricolour, evolved 1790-4), or the personification of the “nation” in
symbol or ТmКge… (HoЛsЛКаm 1983: 7)
A language, in order to be spoken, and even in order to be recognised (if one thinks about a
politically and institutionally-oriented revitalisation approach), hardly needs a flag or an
anthem. Political institutions, in the process of the official recognition of a language, might
require a non-ambiguous name of that language or a writing system and a literary tradition,
as it is indeed the case in France (as we will see in Part II Chapter 3). Yet they would not
expect a language to have a flag or an anthem. Nation-states have these; multinational
states have these too (e.g. if we think of states like Switzerland or the Russian Federation,
where the flag refers to the state and its citizens, but not to any of their many languages);
stateless nations have these too, especially if they aspire to become nation-states (if we
think, for example, of Corsica or of Brittany, where the flag refers precisely to Brittany,
119
but neither to the Breton, nor to the Gallo languages). Languages do not have flags or
anthems. There is not one single flag which could represent the French language (the one
of France, Switzerland, Canada...?) or the English language (British, American,
Australian...?)54 In contrast, in the case of Arpitan, Arpitanists do not speak of the Arpitan
of France, the Arpitan of Italy or the Arpitan of Switzerland, the flag is always the same
for the whole language – or, more precisely, for the whole of Arpitania. The content of the
Arpitan anthem, created in April 2012, is also eloquent: it refers to Arpitania and the
Arpitans, not to the language:
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Nos sens tuès des Arpitans, des Arpitans
We are all Arpitans, Arpitans
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Tot u tôrn du Mont Blanc
All around Mont Blanc
Himno Arpitan (Aliance Curturèla Arpitana, www.arpitania.eu)
Hobsbawm underlines the novelty and importance of flags, anthems and personifications
of the “nation”: “The crucial element seems to have been the invention of emotionally and
symbolically charged signs of club membership rather than the statutes and objects of the
club” (op. cit.: 11). Similarly, what it actually means to be an Arpitan remains unclear,
since no cultural, historic or other references are used in the anthem, or explicitly given
elsewhere. The only reference that is actually used is the geographic one: “All around
Mont Blanc,” which could eventually function as a symbolic one too, with a quasi-sacred
mountain uniting the community.55
54
If we take an IT example, when one switches the keyboard settings on a computer, one can choose between
the French settings of France, the French settings of Switzerland or the French settings of Canada, etc., and
the little flag that will appear will then be French in the first case, Swiss in the second and Canadian in the
third, whereas the language will always remain French.
55
In recent history, the sacralisation of Mont Blanc as a geographic, cultural and ethnic centre, but also as a
refuge space from the dangers of modernity, started, most probably, with the novel by Saint-Loup La
République du Mont Blanc (“The Republic of Mont Blanc,” SКТnt-Loup 1982).
In the novel, as a response to an excessive immigration from the African countries seen as an African and
MuslТm “ТnvКsТon,” Кnd tСe fТnКncТКl ТmperТКlТsm of some petrol poаers, К group of severКl Сundred
separatists from Savoy, Valais and the Aosta Valley are gathered by those from Chamonix under the
slogan“La Savoie aux Savoyards!”(“SКvoв for tСe SКvoвКrds!” ТmplвТng tСe eб-subjects of the Duché de
Savoie).
Eventually, after committing a series of terrorist attacks, they escape to an altitude over 3,500 m (beyond the
altimetric level of tСe surroundТng stКtes’ Лorders) аСere tСeв creКte Кn Тndependent, etСnТcКllв-homogenous
120
As far as anthems are concerned, it can be noted that the anthem of the Republic
and Canton of Geneva, Сé qu’è lainô, composed around 160356 and relating the Escalade
of 1602, is apparently the oldest in Europe (contrary to what Hobsbawn suggested, see
quotation above) and it is written in Francoprovençal. It relates a failed attack on Geneva
by the troops of the Duke of Savoy in 1602. The Savoyard defeat is celebrated annually in
Geneva on December 11. These two characteristics, being the oldest and in
Francoprovençal, could have served for it to be borrowed by other parts of “Arpitania,” but
this did not happen. Perhaps this is because the project of Arpitania is all about
constructing new realities (a new geographical representation of community, new names, a
new orthography, a new flag, a new anthem); or, because Savoyards are inconveniently
represented as “bad” in the Geneva anthem. In Figure 15, we can see a self-criticising
parody of the Arpitan discourse by one of the Arpitanists, posted in the Arpitanist
Facebook group Arpitania abada.
Republic of Mont Blanc. While in the vКlleв tСe “end of Europe” Тs on Тts аКв, tСeв struggle to survТve Тn
their new free state.
One part of the Mont Blanc massif has a particularly symbolic meaning: Mont Dolent, the peak where lies
the border between the three states: France, Italy and Switzerland. It was for this reason that the Summits of
Mont Dolent (Sommets du Mont Dolent) were organised by the MRS (Mouvement Région Savoie, the Savoy
autonomist movement) and ALPE (the Autonomie-Liberté-Participation-Ecologie Movement from Valle
d’AostК) Тn 2010 Кnd 2011. TСe second one had Francoprovençal as its major discussion topic (together with
that of trans-border transport).
56
http://athena.unige.ch/athena/helvetia/cqlaino.html (Accessed on 30/04/15)
121
Figure 15. Reinterpreting history: The Savoy dynasty as Arpitan’s new
mythological ancestors vs. the Savoy dynasty as the enemy in the past as celebrated in the
Republic and Canton of Geneva
Lionnel tells Sara and his other friends the whole truth about the Escalade battle of
1602
Sara: Tell us all the truth about the Escalade Battle of 1602
Lionel: Well tСe SКvoвКrds аere not sucС cretТns… TСose аСo clТmЛed tСe ladders
were all Spanish soldiers. There were no Savoyards there...
It must be underlined that this tendency of reinterpreting history does not actually
exist in the ACA’s discourse, which is probably why the author of the parody paints
himself as a new Arpitan producing this new “truth.” Nevertheless, he proposes here a
logical development of Arpitanist ideas: making the Savoy dynasty into the mythological
ancestors of the Arpitans could potentially create a conflict with the Genevan mythologised
past in which the Savoyards are represented as enemies.
Working on language, but reproducing the ideology of nation-states in both the
discourse and the creation of proto-national symbols, Arpitanists from the ACA prepared
the ground for the emergence of a new political (separatist) Movement Arpitania in 20132014.
3.2. 2013-2014: Arpitania reframed
The Arpitan political movement saw its second birth in December 2013, when
Joseph Henriet put the idea of Arpitania as a sovereign federal state back on the political
agenda. 2013-2014 was a period marked by a number of referendums on independence
throughout Europe, challenging a Europe of nation-states. There were those much
anticipated, like in Scotland or in Catalonia, which both took place in autumn 2014, or
unexpected, like the one in Crimea in March 2014, and those in Donetsk and Lugansk,
which followed it, or the one in Veneto shortly afterwards. The last one was not strictly
speaking a referendum, but an electronic plebiscite. In case of the others too, the similarity
122
of procedure concealed crucial differences in terms of the factors that brought them about
and their legitimacy. However, the more legitimate ones served to legitimise others and
make the idea of independence itself (relatively) socially acceptable. In this context57, in
December 2013, a Charter for the Arpitan Independence (Carta de l’Independence
Arpitana/Carta dell’Indipendenza arpitana, hereafter “the Charter”) was written and a new
Movement for the Independence of Arpitania (Movimento per l’Indipendenza
dell’Arpitania) created.
3.2.1. Arpitania and the Arpitans in 2013- 2014
The discourse of the Charter refers to the same notions of the “Arpitan language,”
“Arpitan people” and “Arpitania,” promoted by the ACA; besides, in its Arpitan version,
the Charter is written using the supra-dialectal orthography promoted by the ACA, ORB, in
a slightly altered version. The latter is ironically referred to by one of its authors in our
conversation as ORC, thus inscribing this text in the logic of gradual improvement of the
supradialectal orthography, created by Stich as ORA – Orthographe de référence A – and
then further elaborated by him into ORB, Orthographe de référence B. The other
languages of the Charter are Italian, French and German, i.e. the actual languages used by
the majority of population in the region to which the Charter refers.
Yet the meaning of the terms “Arpitan” and “Arpitania” has changed, compared to
the one in the ACA’s discourse, as well as to the one in Henriet’s own 1970s texts. Indeed,
for the ACA, Arpitania is the territory where the Arpitan language is spoken, and the
Arpitans are the inhabitants of this territory, i.e. either actual or potential speakers. The
primary criterion for the definition is the linguistic one. For Henriet in the 1970s, it was
also the linguistic criterion, but closely connected to that of social class. The Arpitanist
claims were then based on Marxist ideology, setting local peasants and workers, who were
the speakers of the local idioms, against the French- and Italian-speaking bourgeoisie.
Hence, being Arpitan was speaking Arpitan and being altogether a representative of the
locКl “oppressed class.” Nowadays, the society of the regions referred to as Arpitania has
57
The relevance of these contexts for the new independentist movements in the region referred to as
Arpitania (be it the new Movement Arpitania or other emerging independentist movements) may be seen in
the references to these referendums in their discourse, as well as in the personal connections that the
advocates of independence from the region have with their colleagues, at least, in Catalonia and in Veneto
(while those have their connections in Scotland and in both Russia and Ukraine, to give but some examples).
123
changed, both in terms of its social composition and its linguistic practices. Thus, on the
one hand, the society of the VDA includes today a large number of migrants from other
parts of Italy and, to a lesser extent, from abroad. On the other hand, patois is less used in
everyday communication, and at the same time its promotion in status has crucially
changed the social profiles of its speakers, in such a way that today it can be used by
representatives of any social or ethnic group (the linguistic situation will be studied in
detail in Part III). Therefore the meaning of the term “Arpitan” has also changed.
Henriet had already re-thought his constructions of “Arpitania” and the “Arpitans”
in his 1996 book (Noi Saraceni delle Alpi, Henriet 1996). There he gives the following
definitions of these terms:
Arpitania (from HARPE “sotto le rocce” [“under the rocks”] + TAN “abitante”
[“inhabitant”]) – “l’insieme geo-КntropologТco delle vКlle КlpТne” (“a geoanthropological ensemble of alpine valleys”) (Henriet 1996: 5)
Arpitans (arpitani) – “glТ КttuКlТ КЛТtКntТ delle AlpТ cСe pКrlКno vКrТetр lТnguТstТcСe
indoeuropee: neolКtТne o germКnТcСe” (“today’s inhabitants of the Alps who speak
Indoeuropean linguistic varieties: Neolatin or German”).
Henriet explicitly specifies that instead of referring to the region around Mont
Blanc, as had been the case in his earlier works, the term “Arpitania” now refers to all the
Alps, whereas the part of the Alps around Mont Blanc is now called Graia. As for the
“Arpitans,” as we can see in the quotation above, the term now goes beyond an either
ethnic or linguistic definition: “Arpitans” are defined on merely geographical ground as the
inhabitants of the Alps. Henriet also refers to them as “le comunità montanare” (“the
mountain communities,” op. cit.: 7).
Elaborating further this new vision of Arpitania, the Charter distinguishes “la
Granta Arpitania” (“GreКter Arpitania”) vs. “la Hota Arpitania” (“High Arpitania”). It can
be assumed, even though it is not put explicitly, that the first one corresponds to the
Francoprovençal linguistic area. In contrast, the second one, “High Arpitania,” refers to the
high mountain regions, i.e. to the part of “GreКter Arpitania” around Mont Blanc, “which
history has maintained more culturally unified and homogenous, and which from this
moment we will simply call Arpitania” (“que l’histouere at mantenua culturelament ples
unia et homoena et que dês ora nos apeleront simplament Arpitania”). It is argued in the
124
Charter that political activity should be restricted to that second region, at least, in the
beginning. It appears that not only does the criterion of cultural homogeneity exclude a
considerable part of the Francoprovençal area, but also it includes an area that is not
Romance-speaking, namely, Oberlystal, “of German language and culture” (“de lengouК et
de culturК germКnТcК”).
There is no longer a discourse on Arpitan ethnicity or nationhood:
Lo Mouvement por l’Independence s’adrece a tos los habitents de la
societat arpitana, a tos los habitents de noutra Nacion, sens distinccion de race, de
lengoua, de religion, de provenyance geografica, d’apartenance politica ou de
posicion economica et o les envite a aderar u projet independentisto.
Lo Mouvement por l’Independence est formâ per totes les persones que
vivont sur lo territouero arpitan …
The Movement for Independence is addressed to all the inhabitants of the Arpitan society,
to all the inhabitants of our Nation, without the distinction of race, language, religion, geographical
background, political belonging or economic position, and invites them to adhere to the
independentist project.
The Movement for Independence is formed by all those who live on the Arpitan territory
…
The unusual expression “inhabitants of a Nation” assumes that the nation is
constructed exclusively on geographical grounds, as is explicitly stated later. Besides, the
use of a parallel syntaxic construction (“to all the inhabitants of the Arpitan society, to all
the inhabitants of our Nation”) suggests that “the Nation” is identical to “the society.” This
“nation-society” is explicitly not based on any distinctions of either cultural (linguistic or
religious), or political and economic nature.
In fact, the Charter is very pragmatic in the way it is open to the largest possible
parts of the population, since it has a very pragmatic goal:
la necessitat de rejuendre majoritat sociala necessera por obtenir la possibilitat de
lКncТer lo Referendom…
the necessity to gain the social majority, necessary in order to obtain the possibility of holding the
Referendum…
125
Hence, everyone in the electorate is Arpitan. A similar argument can be found in
one of the heated discussions, in which I participated in 2014, among Henriet (JH) and a
Valdôtain secessionist (DL), one of the leaders of an independentist movement in the VDA
in the 1990s. The cultural and somewhat ethicist position of the latter, close to Henriet’s
own views of the 1970s, is opposed to Henriet’s new political and pragmatic vision of
Valdôtains and Arpitans as all of those who have the right to vote:
JH : Qui son le valdotèn ? … Le trenta meulla calabrotte que son inque ? … Son
tcheu le valdotèn ou pa ?
DL: Pe me na!
JH: E portan son inque! E l’an lo pouvoér decijionel e voton! E voton ! E alour son
de valdoten ! … ТvrКde le jouц !
D: Pe me na!
JH: “Pe me na!” Ideologico! Valdotèn nel senso que son inque [beuche su la tabla],
e que voton! E que l’an lo pouvoцr decТjТonel co leur … MК sveglТКtТ, sveglТКtТ …
Fa aveitché la réalitoù come l’èt.
JH: Who are the Valdôtains? … The thirty thousand Calabrese who are here? ... Are they
all Valdôtains or not?
DL: For me they are not!
JH: And yet, they are here! And they have the decision-making power and they vote! And
they vote! So they are Valdôtain! ... Open your eyes!
DL: For me they are not!
JH: “For me they are not!” An ideologue! [They are] Valdôtains in the sense that they are
here [knocks on the table] and they vote! And that they too, they have the decision-making
power ... Wake up, wake up! ... One should see the reality as it is.
The mention of Calabrese here questions an ethnic choice: the Calabrese form the
most numerous migrant group in the VDA (hence the number indicated in JH’s discourse).
126
He opposes his “realistic” view to the “ideological” and (in other parts of the conversation)
“ТdeКlТstТc” view of his opponents. Those imply seeing the world as they wish it to be
instead of seeing it as it is, i.e. substituting the new reality of a multiethnic, and corrupted,
society with the image of a no longer existent mono-ethnic one, idealistically imagined as
fair. Multiethnic, in its turn, implies multilingual. In another part of the same conversation,
Henriet also suggests that an instrumental use of Francoprovençal in the elections
campaign (as was done in the VDA in the 1998 elections by the independentist party of the
VDA) would be a “scСТгopСrenТc” idea, one that could occur only to those who live in the
world of their “illusions,” mixing up their dreams with reality, the reality being that today’s
people in the VDA speak Italian58.
Another elaboration of the new meaning of being Arpitan can be found in a
discussion among the same participants, together with FC, an Arpitan writer and activist:
JH : Tè pou itre arpitan efficace ou mouèn efficace.
D : Predzo arpitan, va pas mal ! Na, l’e pas eun atout?
F: Va pa bien.
D: Gnenca predzé arpitan, conta pocca?
JH: Ma oué, diyo pa que va mal, ma…
F: Te pou pa pa lo itre.
JH: Te pou pa pa lo itre.
D [de NB]: E llye pourré itre arpitana?
JH: Certo!
F: Certo!
JH: Se se étàbliya inque, pe prende la residensa inque.
D: Na, euna residensa!
About the same campaign, JH: “Mais moi aussi je voudrais aller sur la Lune! Mais je comprends tout de
suТte que c’est stupide!” (“Me too, I would love to go to the Moon! But I realise at once that Тt’s stupid!”)
58
127
JH : Baste! Baste! Baste! Baste! Dedeun mon projé baste! [A NB] Tè tè pou adhérì,
être abadista. Abadista c’est un néologisme que nous avons élaboré, pour signifier
indépendentiste. Ça dérive d’une expression savoyarde. Itre a l’abada, être
déchaîné, libre. Abadiste. [A DL] Adonc tè, t’é pa euncor eun abadisto, t’é eun
arpitan! … arpitan perque restade inque, dedeun ceutta societù, e no nos adressèn a
tcheu vosatre ... pe adhérì a noutre projé endipendentiste. L’è d’euna finesse
ensuperabla!
JH: You can be an efficient or a less efficient Arpitan.
D: I speak Arpitan, it’s not bad! No, isn’t it a strength?
F: It doesn’t matter.
D: Even speaking Arpitan counts for little?
JH: Well yes, I’m not saying that it’s bad but…
F: You cannot not be one [an Arpitan].
JH: You cannot not be one [an Arpitan].
DL [about NB]: And her, could she be Arpitan?
JH: Of course!
FC: Of course!
JH: If she moves here, to take residence here.
DL: No, a residence!
JH: Enough! Enough! Enough! Enough! In my project it’s enough! [To NB] You can adhere, to be
abadista. Abadista is a neologism that we have elaborated, to define an independentist. It derives
from a Savoyard expression. Itre a l’abada, to be unbridled, free. [To DL] So you are not an
abadisto yet, you are Arpitan. ... Arpitan because you live here, in this society, and we are
addressing all of you ... to adhere to our independentist project. It is of an unequalled finesse!
Here the key-element about being an Arpitan is once again the residence, i.e. the
right to vote and the decision-making power. Remarkably, speaking the language only
128
counts a little, if at all. Simultaneously, К dТstТnctТon Тs mКde Лetаeen “Arpitan,” which is
an ascribed identity (“Вou cКnnot not Лe one” Тf вou lТve Тn “ArpТtКnТК”), Кnd “abadist,”
which refers to an individual’s political choice of being an independentist. The use of the
аord “abada” (and its derivatives “abadisto”/“abadista”) is a reminder, probably purposely,
of the ACA’s slogan “ArpТtКnТК КЛКdК” (also used as the name of the ACA’s Facebook
group), thus creating an apparent continuity between the ACA’s activities and those of the
new Movement Arpitania.
3.2.2. Global and local
The Charter is addressed to the Arpitans of Italy and France, thus excluding those
from Switzerland – the latter are mentioned as being already independent. Most probably,
this change to Henriet’s previous project of an Arpitan confederation is due to an
understanding that it is not realistic to imagine the Arpitans from Switzerland being willing
to ask for independence for themselves. The Arpitan’s “enemy” is embodied in the two
nation-states and more commonly in “the Great world and globalising Powers of Finance
and Economy” (“Grants Povers mondials et globalisent de la Finance et de l’Economia”).
The local needs and local security of the Alpine region are thus contrasted with the
insecurity caused by globalisation. This is a typical motive in today’s discourse of
endangerment (see e.g. Bichurina, Costa 2016, and Costa 2012 on modern Provençalist
discourse). Switzerland remains the ideal model with its “true direct Democracy” (“la
veretabla Democracia directa”) and “a local administration that is fair, sane and clear”
(“una administracion locala justa, sana et clyara”). Thus a shift from a predominantly
ethnic to a civic nationalism can be noticed.
The main objective of the Charter and of the Movement is clearly a political and
not a cultural or linguistic one. In his interview Henriet explained to me:
JH: adon su lo documan, su la charta n’è spleucoù perque l’è necessío arreuvé a
l’endépendanse. … L’endépendanse l’è l’actualisachón de l’otonomì. Se devan
ЛКstКve Тtre otonome … vouц lo dгor l’endépendentisme a tcheu le peuple d’Europa
l’è euna baga necessìa. L’endépendentisme européo.
129
So, in the document, in the Charter, I explained why it is necessary to come to independence …
Independence is the actualisation of autonomy. If before it was enougС to Лe Кutonomous … todКв
independence is a necessary thing for all the people of Europe. The European independentism.
NB: C’est quoi votre but principal?
JH: Nouvelle Europe! Restructuration de l’Europe – sur la base de – des
communautés, des peuples, ah ben c’est une vieille idée, mais de toute façon – des
peuples, des communautés, des sociétés, des groupements sociaux, qui aient une
certaine unité culturelle, linguistique, culturelle, voilà – sur l’exemple de la Suisse
où l’on puisse pratiquer la démocratie directe, celle que l’on pratique en Suisse.
Voilà, l’idée, c’est celle-là.
NB : What is your main objective?
JH: New Europe! Restructuring Europe – on the basis of – of communities, of peoples, oh this is an
old idea, but anyway – of peoples, of communities, of societies, of social groups, which have a
certain cultural unity, linguistic, cultural – following the example of Switzerland where one can
practise direct democracy, the one that is practised in Switzerland. This is the idea.
It is noteworthy that a social unity that is seeking independence is not clearly
determined (community/people/society/social group...)
3.2.3. The role of the Arpitan language
The role of the Arpitan language in the movement is somewhat ambiguous. On the
one hand, Arpitania is defined in the Charter through the language and the Charter is
written in Arpitan. On the other hand, paradoxically, the place of the Arpitan language in
the future Federation is uncertain:
JH : L’importan l’è de travaillé pe l’endependensa et pa pe la cultura! 59 Lo but
premiè l’è l’endependensa! Adon voilà la cultura, eh! Euna masturbachón
mentala!… Tote ceutte bague, queunta lenva, lenva officiella, queun tвpo de etр …
59
The same statement was reiterated twice in our private conversations in 2016, as the basis for any actions.
Thus working on the language without working on independence is seen as useless unless “perque la
consciensa fisse tranquilla” (“for keepТng one’s conscТousness cКlm”).
130
son-poué de bague que decidon-poué cice i pouvouér quand sen-poué independen,
quan veugnon-poué élu dou peuplo! Son-pouц lor que decТdon! … L’e pa a no aya
de fissé lo programma.
JH: The important thing is to work for independence and not for culture! The first goal is
independence! And so, culture, oh! Mental masturbation! … All these things, which language, the
official language, which type of state … аТll Лe the things that will be decided upon by those in
power, once we are independent, by those who will be elected by the people! It will be up to them to
decide! ... It is not up to us, now, to fix a programme.
The claims for the independence of “Arpitania” are thus legitimised by the
existence of the “Arpitan language,” yet the language might have no place in the future
independent state. It might also have one, but under the condition that the existing patois
be elaborated into a “modern language” (implying the elaboration in both form and status,
if one refers to it in Haugen’s terms [Haugen 1966]):
JH : Bien probablement de toute façon ce seront – les langues de la fédération ce
seront alors le français, bien sûr, parce que la Savoie est complètement francisée;
l’italien, le Val d’Aoste est complètement italianisé; et puis si ces gens-là, ces
messieurs-là qui défendent la – qui défendent les patois seront à même de faire une
langue moderne, pour le moment ce sera certainement une des langues nationales.
Avec l’allemand.
JH: Anyway, quite probably, the languages of the federation will be French, of course, because
Savoy is completely French-speaking; Italian, since the Valle d’Aosta is completely Italianspeaking; and then if these people here, these gentlemen who defend the – who defend the patois
will be able to create a modern language, then it will certainly become one of the national languages.
Together with German.
Ultimately, the necessity of making the claims appealing to as many people as
possible is understandable, as long as the goal is to collect voices for and at the eventual
referendum. Yet why the referendum could be legitimised in this new vision of Arpitania
remains unclear:
JH: La charte de l’indépendance est une chose très – très efficace, je crois, très
ouverte, on prend pas de position ethnique. D’ailleurs, l’ethnie arpitane,
francoprovençale, ici on parlait de l’ethnie valdôtaine, ça n’existe pas.
131
NB: Mais dans ce cas-là le mouvement est arpitan dans quel sens? Parce que c’est
pas la langue, c’est pas l’ethnieJH: Autour du Mont Blanc y a encore – et on le dit dans la charte – il y a des gens,
des habitants qui ont une certaine – unité culturelle. On fait la bataille des vaches,
on a le triangle de l’amitié, on se considère cousins, donc voilà y a encore – tout
étant de l’autre côté complètement francisés, et nous italianisés – il y a quand même
cette unité culturelle qui n’est pas due à la langue, mais à d’autres facteurs,
mémoire sociale, mémoire historique, je ne sais pas, voilà. Je crois que c’est une
vision de la réalité très vraie, c’est pas de l’idéologie.
JH: The charter of independence is very – very effective, I think, it’s very open, it doesn’t take an
ethnic position. Besides, the Arpitan ethnos, the Francoprovençal one, here they spoke about the
Valdôtain one, it does not exist.
NB: But in this case, in what sense is the movement Arpitan? Because it is not about language, it is
not about ethnicityJH: Around Mont Blanc there still are – and we say it in the Charter – there are people, who have
some – cultural unity. We organise cow battles, we have the triangle of friendship, we consider
ourselves cousins, so there are still – despite being completely Francicised on the other side and
Italianised as far as we are concerned – there is still this cultural unity which is not due to the
language, but to other factors, [such as] a social memory, a historical memory, I don’t know. I think
it is a very true vision of reality, it is not an ideology.
Hence, the Charter refers to the “International right of self-determination” (“lo
Drouet Enternacional d’OtodetermТnКcТon”), Лut К contrКdТctТon cКn Лe notТced. According
to modern dominant political ideologies, peoples, i.e. ethno-linguistic groups, have this
right; regions do not, and sharing cow battle experiences or an unspecified collective
memory could hardly be seen as legitimate grounds for claiming this right, as important as
they could be for the local culture (or cultures).
132
3.3 From language to nation: two Arpitan movements in the 2010s
The existence of (at least) two movements using the name of “Arpitan” and
“Arpitania,” the Arpitan Cultural Alliance and the reframed Movement Arpitania, may
provoke confusion. This becomes the growing concern for the ACA, which claims even
more arduously than ever the total absence of any political content in its agenda,
explaining that Henriet “represents only himself” (personal communication). The
explanations though are hardly convincing, since Henriet is not some badly informed
Internet user who would not have understood the “real” meaning of the term “Arpitan” that
the ACA promotes and started misusing it: he is actually the author of the term. To put it
plainly, what happened is that in the early 2000s young enthusiasts of language
revitalisation borrowed a word dating back to the 1970s, which seemed to them a good
promotion tool. They either preferred not to know, or to forget 60 what the name had
initially been used for, insisting on its inner form and on the meaning directly linked to it:
the root “Arp-,” its etymological link to the Alps and hence the definition of the language
as the language of the Alps – certainly more attractive and more “proud” than the
definition of it as Franco-Provençal, which sounds like a mixture of two other languages.
The 1970s were far away, the charismatic leader who had coined the term had retired to his
house in the middle of the mountains, shepherding his 60 goats in harmony with nature and
disconnected from the world of politics, and the term seemed therefore available for any
use. The founders of the ACA took the name, promoted it using the latest information
technologies, made it known and accepted, if not by dialectologists working on
Francoprovençal, at least by linguists working on other regional languages (Occitan,
Catalan etc.) and especially by the general public, thus contributing to the promotion of the
status of the language. They also elaborated a standard orthography, which any standard
language, or even any language worth of being considered as such, must have according to
Several members of the new generation of Arpitan advocates underline the use of the word “Harpitan” with
“H” Тn HenrТet’s eКrlв аrТtТngs, in contrast to their own use of the word “Arpitan” without an “H,” in order to
distance themselves from HenrТet’s political ideology. They claim that their use of the term without Кn “H”
proves that the word had been heard by them and not read in HenrТet’s аrТtТngs. Yet Henriet himself started
omitting the H as early as in the mid-70s. More importantly, as for an oral transmission of the term, initially
heard from some Valdôtains, “ordinary” people in the VDA refer to tСe locКl ТdТom Кs “patois”; tСe term
“Arpitan” is used in the VDA exclusively by separatists, and only by some of those (those oriented towards
trans-border cooperation, rather than towards the independence of the VDA only). Hence, speaking about the
local language with local separatists at a separatist meeting can hardly be seen as a neutral occasion (while
personal contacts in the VDA should have made clear to the new Arpitanists from the ACA the exclusive use
of tСe term “Arpitan” by some very particular groups). Therefore, even tСougС HenrТet’s Лooks Кnd СТs
political activity may have indeed been initially unknown to the young Arpitanists, it is about willingly
preferring not to know, and choosing the most convenient meaning of the word.
60
133
today’s dominant language ideologies. However, borrowing a term as if it were neutral is
an awkward act. As we know from Saussure, signs have their signifier and signified. The
latter cannot be restricted to the inner form of the word, and even less so if the term was
coined specifically for political purposes.
61
Yet Arpitanists from the ACA went even
further in their inventions. They partly adopted, partly elaborated the proto-national (or
proto-nationalistic) symbols that necessarily accompany nations in search of becoming
nation-states: a map with clearly defined borders of Arpitania, a flag and an anthem (the
elaboration of the symbol of Mont Blanc might be also added to the list). This activity,
motivated as it was by linguistic and more largely cultural concerns, thus prepared fertile
ground for a new political movement. Hence Henriet, who had thought that the
introduction of the term of “Arpitan” had failed, together with the struggle it had been used
for, realised that it had been given a second chance and that this was the moment to be
seized.
Indeed, in the interviews that Henriet gave me at the time of the creation of his new
movement, replying to my questions as to why, after all these years, he was returning with
a new political movement, he mentioned three main arguments. The first argument was the
recognition that the word “Arpitan” had gained thanks to the ACA’s activities:
Alors le mot Arpitania a survécu merci à [pointing at Florent Corradin, an Arpitan
writer, member of both movements]. Moi je croyais qu’il avait disparu et lui [FC]
par rapport à la langue lui il n’a fait que le combat linguistique, n’est-ce pas?
Culturel, linguistique, il a compris la nécessité d’arriver à cette unification, langue
unifiée, suprКdТКlectКle, et tout хК. … Et maintenant il est un terme académique,
reconnu. … Moi j’étais dans les bois jusqu’à il y a peu de temps. Le mérite c’est à
eux, c’est à lui [pointing at Florent Corradin].
So the word “Arpitania” has survived thanks to [pointing at Florent Corradin, an Arpitan writer,
member of both movements]. I thought it had disappeared, and him [FC], as far as language is
concerned, he did nothing but linguistic combat, isn’t that so? A cultural, a linguistic one; he
realised the necessity of reaching tСТs unТfТcКtТon, К unТfТed, suprКdТКlectКl lКnguКge, Кll tСТs. […]
61
Suppose someone created a movement in Russia aimed at the development of civil society, indeed rather
underdeveloped today, and advocated the creation of councils of representatives of civil society. This
hypothetical someone would then call the movement “soviet” ЛecКuse tСe аord soviet actually means
“council”; his opponents or just curious public would suggest that the movement is socialist or communist,
and he would get irritated and ask whether they do not know the meaning of the word. The same sort of
eбКmple could Лe gТven аТtС К СвpotСetТcКl “fascist” movement: this is not to say, of course, that the Arpitan
movement has anything to do with either of those, but to remind that naming is a powerful act and arguing
that the name has only the meaning inherent to its inner form can hardly be convincing.
134
And now it is a scholarly term, it is recognised. … I was in the forest until very recently. The merit
is theirs [the ACA’s], it’s his [FC].
His second argument was that, in order for such a cultural and linguistic project to
succeed, like that of the ACA, it needs to be carried out by those who have a political,
decision-making power:
Et moi j’insistais toujours en leur disant [to the ACA] toujours, à lui [FC], à ses
amis, que le projet langue arpitane s’accomplira uniquement si on aura le pouvoir –
un pouvoir décisionnel – donc d’imposer la langue. Sans ça, je crois que jamais ne
triomphera l’idée de la langue unifiée. Alors voilà petit à petit on est arrivé
maintenant à fonder un mouvement politique indépendantiste.
And I would always insist, telling them [the ACA], him [FC] and his friends that the project of the
Arpitan language will only succeed if we have the power – the decision-making power – that of
imposing the language. Without it, I think the idea of a unified language will never triumph. And
thus gradually we came up with the political independentist movement.
Finally, a favourable external factor was the weakness of the states:
Le projet est le même qu’il y a quarante ans – mais cette fois je crois qu’on part
pour de bon parce que les Etats dont on fait partie sont en train de désintégrer, ça ne
peut pas fonctionner comme – votre Fédération Russe.
The project is the same as 40 years ago – but this time I think it will succeed, because the states to
which we belong are disintegrating, it cannot function like – your Russian Federation.
Thus, for him, as European nation-states, with their economic problems, become
weaker, regional (or “national”) movements within these states can gain power.
With Henriet’s return to the world of politics, his books started circulating again,
thus creating the appearance of continuity between the movement of the 1970s and that of
the 2010s. At the same time, references to the ACA and more specifically the use of the
supra-dialectal orthography it has been promoting, allow him to inscribe the new
movement in continuity with the new Arpitanist discourse. Indeed, the Charter for
Independence uses the same names (Arpitan, the Arpitans, Arpitania) and (nearly) the
same orthography as the ACA does. And as in the case of the orthography (a slight
135
evolution of ORB), in the same manner the actual content of the movement’s programme
may seem but an evolution of the ACA’s ideas (at least, in order for those who are against
the ideas to be against the ACA’s activity too). Eventually it turns out to be precisely
something Arpitanists from the ACA would always be against – a clearly and essentially
political movement – yet on the surface it is inscribed in the continuity of the evolution of
Arpitanist ideas from the 1970s (Henriet) through the 2000s (ACA) up to the 2010s
(Henriet anew).
In this process, the name “Arpitan” becomes quasi-sacred. This can be illustrated
by the following excerpt from an interview:
JH [de DL] : Le mot «arpitan», alors il le place n’importe où !
DL: Mais je le diffuse !
JH: Non!
DL: L’empleyo pa en négativo.
JH: Non nominare il nome di Dio invano, c’est un – è un comandamento de la
chiesa.
DL: L’Arpitania l’è pa eun Dieu!
JH: Comunque … quindi sei già peccatore.
JH [about DL]: He puts the word “Arpitan” anywhere!
DL: But I promote it!
JH: No!
DL: I don’t use it in a negative sense.
JH: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, it’s a commandment of the Church.
DL: Arpitania is not a God!
JH: AnваКв … so you are already a sinner.
136
This part of the conversation is largely a joke (all the more so, as Henriet is known
not to be Christian), yet even as a joke it is eloquent.62
Independence is seen as a sort of magical solution to all the problems. At the same
time, why it would be such a remedy remains unclear. An argument would be to say that in
today’s Italy the VDA is by far the smallest region, representing only around 2% of the
national population (128,298 inhabitants 63, out of 60,808,000 residents in Italy on January
1, 201564), and therefore the impact the Valdôtains’ opinion can have on the decisionmaking process at the national level while the VDA remains part of Italy is very faint. Yet
most issues mentioned by the advocates of independence concern deeper problems that
cannot be legislated for. According to Henriet, for instance, the main benefit as a result of
independence Тs socТКl solТdКrТtв: “une solidarité sociale, seulement dans cette situation on
peut avoir des conditions nécessaires pour mieux vivre” (“social solidarity, only in this
situation can we have the necessary conditions for better living,” interview 7-02-2014). Yet
one would imagine that social solidarity is rather a condition necessary for independence to
take place, as long as the latter is seen as the result of a referendum, and not as a
consequence brought about by the latter. Other advocates of independence mention, for
instance, the problems of corruption. However, those inhabitants of the VDA who voted
before for those that they knew to be corrupt would most probably continue doing so after
eventual independence as well, because it corresponds to their representations of an
acceptable social norm. How independence could be instrumental in changing these
representations remains unclear. Thus, what is argued is the legitimacy of the right for
independence and mechanisms to achieve it, whereas the reason why independence would
be the best solution to current problems (and what exactly the current problems are)
remains in the realm of presupposition and is never argued explicitly. Perhaps,
independence seems such a magical solution because of the spread of independence
movements around the world, when movements that are actually crucially different in
motivations and goals are made to seem alike (by both their advocates and journalists
covering major cases).
62
Note, furthermore, that the use of religious vocabulary is accompanied by switching to Italian.
http://www.regione.vda.it/cartaidentita/default_i.aspx
64
http://www.istat.it/en/archive/149007 (Accessed on 01/05/2015)
63
137
Discussion
The main trends of each period, which we have seen in this chapter, can be
represented in the following table (see Table 3):
TКЛle 3. From К “lТnguТstТc tвpe” to К “lКnguКge” Кnd К “nКtТon”
When?
1873
1973
2004
2014
Italy
Italy
Switzerland,
Italy, France
France, Italy
(Switzerland)
ACA (Aliance
(J. Henriet)
Where?
after unification
G. I. Ascoli
J. Henriet
Who?
Culturèla
Arpitana)
Francoprovençal
The Arpitan language
linguistic type
(la lingua arpitana / la langue arpitane)
What?
(tipo idiomatico
francoprovenzale)
Why?
Establishing a
Independence
• Revitalisation
Independence of
distinction:
of Arpitania
of the Arpitan
Arpitania
dialects of
based on ethno-
language;
legitimised by
Italy vs. the
linguistic
• Promotion of
linguistic and
Italian
criteria (the
its status is seen
cultural
language;
“one lКnguКge
as a crucial
particularities
– one nКtТon”
condition
and serving
Idea of a
dialect
continuum
model)
mostly civic
goals
It was highlighted in Part I how Ascoli’s interest was mainly a scholarly one, of
ТdentТfвТng “lТnguТstТc tвpes” and creating К compleб studв of lКnguКge (“glottologв”),
trying to apply the methodological approaches of natural sciences to the studies of
language. While explicitly referring to the political interests of his opponents, be they
Italian (Manzoni and his disciples) or French (Meyer), he positioned himself as a
138
dialectologist dealing with linguistic studies, not with national interests. However, his
studies appear at a very particular historical (socio-political) moment, i.e. in Italy that of
the creation of a nation-state and in France that of a nation-state in a post-war crisis. While
Ascoli made a distinction between a “language” and “dialects,” and “linguistic types” were
for him phenomena all different from a “language,” his concept of a “Francoprovençal”
linguistic type was somehow transformed by his readers into that of a “Francoprovençal
language” that would exist with its clear-cut boundaries (contrary to Ascoli’s idea of a
dialect continuum) – which turned out to be unacceptable in both France and Italy: in
France for the central power, and in Italy, on the contrary, for the regional autonomist
elites.
As far as Francoprovençal speakers themselves are concerned, they learnt about
that notion only a century later, in the 1970s. The linguistic unity then brought about the
idea of a unity of a nation, colonialised and to be liberated. Later, in the 2000s-2010s these
theories were reinterpreted, giving birth to two distinct but homonymous (Arpitan)
movements: one essentially linguistic and cultural, another one essentially political and
civic. Both are based upon an assumption that shared linguistic features would create a
unique community; and that this unique community should therefore have a unique policy:
be it limited to a language policy (in the first case), or to any policy at all (in the second
case), implying possessing a sovereign power. The only problem for both is the name of
the language, since the scholarly name of “Francoprovençal” is seen as not convincing
enough for an idiom to be considered as a “true language” and a legitimate ground for
subsequent claims (Сence, ЛotС use tСe nКme “Arpitan”). The issue of naming appears
indeed to be crucial, as will be analysed in the next part of this paper.
139
Part II. Concurring models of linguistic, socio-political and cultural
devisions in the 21st century: Francoprovençal/Arpitan/Savoyard language and
identity
What does a “patois” or a “dialect” need to become a “language” today, at the
beginning of the 21st century? In the modern discourse of language activists several main
arguments are put forward to substantiate a claim of the idiom being a “language” in its
own right. At the same time, it is assumed that without these conditions being jointly
fulfilled, no language can exist. There are five conditions:
1)
the idiom should have a distinctly defined geographic area. Note that
properly linguistic criteria that would allow the limits of such an area to be defined
are only rarely mentioned explicitly; it mostly happens when the other following
arguments are not sufficiently convincing;
2)
the idiom should have a proper name;
3)
the idiom should have an orthographical system of its own;
Besides this,
4)
the idiom should have a literary tradition; and
5)
the idiom should have a particular history, preferably coinciding with that of
a political entity (especially a sovereign state).
The first three criteria prove to be highly debatable, while the last two ones, on the
contrary, do not raise any controversies. Therefore, in this section, debates concerning each
of the three main arguments (or groups of arguments) are examined each in turn.65
Chaper 1. Concurring geographic delimitations: wide vs. narrow
models of language and community
In both language activists’ and linguistists’ discourse, the first step to take in
defining a separate language is to define its geographical boundaries. There are two
reasons why such geographical delimitation turns out to be crucial. On the one hand,
65
On literary history see Tuaillon (2001); Bichurina, Dunoyer forthcoming (Chapter 1) with a focus on
Savoy. On the linguistic history of the VDA see Bauer (1999, 2008); on that of the Savoy see Bichurina,
Dunoyer forthcoming (Chapter 1).
140
geography itself becomes an argument in favour of distinguishing the idiom as a language
in its own right: whatever such a territory of the “language” may be, it is always being
contrasted with the traditional image of a patois represented as a local vernacular only used
in a specific village and unintelligible outside it. On the other hand, the process implies
tracing boundaries in the linguistic continuum and in the sociopolitical world.
Two competing models of language and linguistic community construction can be
distinguished nowadays. Let us conveniently label them the “narrow” and the “wide”
models (as proposed in Bichurina 2011, 2012, 2013), or micro- and macro-models:
-
The “narrow” (micro) model is that of a regional linguistic
community. The names of the idioms correspond here to the historical names of the
territories: hence, the “Savoyard language” in Savoy is the most prominent example
(compare with the concept of the “Provençal language” in Provence, or the “Niçard
language” seen as separate from Provençal, the “Gascon language,” the “Béarnaise
language,” the “Limousin language,” etc. within the linguistic group of Oc). In the
Aosta Valley the idiom is sometimes referred to as Valdôtain (le valdôtain, lo
valdoten), however it is most generally perceived as a group of patois, rather than the
“Valdôtain language” in its own right. On the other territories local names would
also traditionally be used (le bressan in Bresse, le vaudois in Vaud, le gruérien in
Gruyère, etc.), yet also without claiming a status of a “language.” Nevertheless, what
is common to all those ideologies is their apprehension of the “wide” model.
-
The “wide” (macro) model is that of an extended trans-border
community where regional linguistic varieties (sometimes distinguished as separate
languages in the “narrow” model) are represented as so many varieties of a major
language, hence “Francoprovençal” or “Arpitan” (compare with “Occitan”). 66
At a deeper level, the opposition is based on the conflict between two approaches to
the definition of language borders: “subjective” (for the “narrow model”) and “objective”
(for the “wide model”). Both approaches have been competing with each other within
European philosophy and, later on, the linguistic tradition ever since the 19th century (see
Sériot 1997: 188 on the archetypal opposition of Ernest Renan’s (subjective) approach to
David Friedrich Strauss’s (objective) one concerning the status of Alsace after the FrancoNote that these “languages” might cover a number of states, but normally, within France, not a number of
regions. Thus in the context of the “wide model” Occitan is the only “regional language” in France whose
territory extends to several administrative regions. On the contrary, outside France the Francoprovençal area
covers various cantons in Switzerland and various regions in Italy.
66
141
Prussian War of 1870). The “objective,” or positivist, model presumes it possible to
determine language borders based on “linguistic facts” or “forms”: in other words,
languages are held to be objects of reality that can be recognised according to a set of
scientific criteria. This approach does not take into account the opinions of language
speakers, as it is assumed that languages exist independently of the opinion their speakers
might have on them, while the speakers are not sufficiently competent in linguistics to be
able to determine language borders. In other words, the language only exists because
isogloss maps composed by dialectologists confirm its existence (the fact that choosing
which isogloss or isogloss cluster is pertinent enough to separate two languages is always
an arbitrary procedure is not taken into consideration). According to the rival “subjective
approach,” language borders are defined according to the representations of its speakers: in
this type of discourse, the “narrow model” that corresponds to the “authentic languages”
and the affective preferences of the population is contrasted with the “wide model” along
with the artificial, utopian political community, alien to the speakers, which it promotes. In
other words, the language exists because such is the opinion of those who live in a given
territory.
In the Francoprovençal context the opposition of the two models has never been
explicitly discussed until now by either scholars or language activists, even though its
pertinence may be clearly seen in my interviews. However, a conflict of the two models,
similar in many ways to this one, can be found in another context, the Occitan one, where
the argument has been much more explicit (for a comparison of the Occitan and
Francoprovençal discourse see also Bichurina 2013).
The “narrow,” Provençalist stance is based on the research by the sociolinguist
Philippe Blanchet. In his opinion (Blanchet 2004: 32), categorisation of linguistic varieties
and separation of individual languages should not be founded on properly linguistic criteria
(typological similarity, mutual intelligibility) but on sociopolitical and/or ethno-cultural
criteria. Thus, it is proposed that Arabic is “more of” a single language although it cannot
be considered as such from the point of view of mutual intelligibility: the Maghreb Arab
would not be understood in the Middle East. Vice versa, in some cases, typologically close
and mutually intelligible languages may however be so many distinct languages. Blanchet
cites some classical examples, e.g. those of Norwegian vs. Swedish or Luxembourgish vs.
German, along with the more controversial cases of Valencian vs. Catalan and Provençal
vs. OccТtКn. AccordТng to СТm, tСese ТdТoms “аork Кs sepКrКte lКnguКges,” meКnТng tСКt
142
they are “socially perceived and practically used, spontaneously and within the institutional
conteбt,” Кs sepКrКte ones (tСТs stКtement Тs presumed to Лe КбТomКtТc). In BlКncСet’s
opinion, the issue of distinguishing a separate language is an ethical one: it is a problem
that ought to be correctly solved “not in a purely intellectual dimension (creating a clone is
an intellectual achievement), but in that of human, i.e. social, political, cultural, etc., goals
(creating a clone is reprehensible)” (Ibid.) Therefore, the idea of an “Occitan language”
turns out to be reprehensible despite the evident typological affinity between the idioms of
the Oc group. Division into separate languages is considered to be ethically acceptable if it
complies with the speakers’ notions:
Il serait pour le moins absurde que les langues ne soient que des artefacts inventés
par les linguistes ... sur la base de données produites par eux-mêmes! ... Quand on
dit, par exemple, que le valencien est politiquement une langue distincte du catalan
mais scientifiquement une sous-variété du catalan, je m’inquiète sur l’éthique, et
même sur la méthode, d’une science incapable d’intégrer les paramètres sociaux et
des pratiques démocratiques pour analyser des phénomènes sociaux. (Blanchet
2004: 35)
It would be absurd, to say the least, if languages were but artefacts invented by linguists ... based on
the data produced by themselves! ... For instance, when Valencian is said to be politically a separate
language, but scientifically a sub-variety of Catalan, I feel uneasy about the ethics, indeed the
method of a science that is unable to introduce social parameters and democratic practices into its
analysis of social phenomena.
The motive of “double colonisation,” first by the French, then by the Occitanists, is
recurrent in the discourse of my informants supporting the “narrow model,” in the
Provençal context, expressed roughly as follows: “As if it weren”t enough to have been
colonised by the French, now we are being colonised by the Occitanists.”
Simultaneously, the sociolinguist J. Costa notes:
Pour le mouvement occitaniste, c’est la langue qui fonde le territoire. Pour le
mouvement provençalo-circonscrit, c’est le territoire, la région actuelle, qui fonde
lК lКngue… (Costa 2012)
For the Occitanist movement, it is the language that founds the territory. For the movement
circumscribed in Provence (provençalo-circonscrit), it is the territory, the present-day region that
founds the language...
143
Indeed, this observation can be extrapolated to the Francoprovençal territory.
Within the “narrow” or “subjective” model, the region is primordial with respect to the
language: the “Provençal language” exists because Provence exists, and because some
(albeit quite indefinite) Provençal people living there speak the local – therefore, Provençal
– language. In the same way, the “Savoyard language” exists because so does Savoy
(although divided into two départements). Contrary to this vision, the “wide” or
“objective” model uses a set of “linguistic facts” to define the language: “Occitania” exists
because the “Occitan language” exists; “Arpitania” exists because so does the “Arpitan
language.”
Advocates of the “аТde” (Francoprovençal/Arpitan) model emphasise the transborder dimension of the linguistic unity and accuse their opponents of “localism” that,
taken in its institutional aspect, can be an obstacle to the recognition of the language. In
their turn, the partisans of the “nКrroа” model contrast the “natural” languages of historical
provinces with the “artificial” languages of wider communities linked to political claims,
which threaten to kill the “natural” languages, should the “wide model” succeed.
The “wide” model uses the symbolic function of geographical features. In the
Arpitanist discourse, the image of Mont Blanc plays an important part (as it has done ever
since Henriet’s works, as we have seen in Part I): on the one hand, Mont Blanc is used to
refer to the peculiar Arpitan lifestyle as a highland one (that of the Arpians, the mountain
shepherds); on the other hand, as an image of a quasi-sacred mountain to symbolise the
Arpitan identity.67
If in the Occitan context this is an open conflict, with both parties publishing
manifestoes and signing petitions accusing each other, in the Francoprovençal context, on
the contrary, the same conflict is much hidden. Nevertheless this does not make it any less
acute.
67
The Occitanists also refer to mountains, although the mountains play a somewhat different part in their
discourse: following Frédéric Mistral, they describe the area of Oc as the space extending “from the Alps to
the Pyrenees,” and the reference to these mountain chains, fairly remote from each other, mostly aims to
vividly illustrate the extensive territory in which the language is used.
144
1.1. The ‘Francoprovençal language’: the myth of isoglosses
To prove that Francoprovençal or Arpitan (the “wide model”) is a separate
language, different from both the Oc and Oïl languages, a method is used that, following
Ascoli’s lead, is called the “particular combination” method (particolar combinazione).
Most of today’s linguistic papers aimed at the general public (such as Martin 2005; Bert et
al. 2009) only cite two distinguishing features of the Francoprovençal language. To
demonstrate the difference from the language(s) of Oc, they use the criterion suggested by
Ascoli, emphasising that the evolution of the Latin A (both stressed and unstressed) into i
or é after a palatalised consonant resulted in a coexistence of two forms of feminine nouns
and two ending patterns for first group verbs. For instance:
Feminine nouns:
femina > [‘fεna], but filia > [‘fili] (Tuaillon 2007: 65).
1st group verbs:
Fr porter – FP [pu’rta]; Fr manger – FP [mε’ðije] (Tuaillon 2007: 65).68
The border with French (varieties of Oïl) is determined based on a new criterion:
the preservation of the unstressed ending vowels ([a], [i], [e], [o], and [õ] – actual
realisation varies depending on the geographical region) and, therefore, of the lexical
stress, in Francoprovençal (similarly to Occitan). As for this second characteristic of the
idiom distinguished today, the scholarly literature notes that in French and other Oïl
varieties, unstressed final vowels disappeared in the 16th century, and even before that,
from the 9th century onwards, they were all limited to one single realisation ([ə]) (Tuaillon
2007a: 15-17):
La difference est donc grande entre oïl et francoprovençal; elle porte sur un trait
phonétique fondamental, la place de l’accent de mot. (op. cit: 17)
68
The same remark in Stich 1998: Fr parler – FP parlar; Fr laisser (Old French laissier) – FP lèssiér (Stich
1998: 30)
145
Therefore, the difference between the language of Oïl and Francoprovençal is great; it concerns a
fundamental phonetic feature, the location of the stress in a word.
[Ce trait] interdit de dire que le francoprovençal appartient à la langue d’oïl, sinon à
la langue de l’époque carolingienne. (op. cit: 17)
[This feature] does not allow it to be said that Francoprovençal is a language of Oïl unless it is to
one of the Carolingian age.
The fundamental significance of this feature is due to the fact that in
Francoprovençal, a change of stress can alter the meaning of the word (see op. cit.: 18). It
is this linguistic discourse that is reproduced by Francoprovençal and Arpitan activists (the
“wide” model). Note that the recurrent reference to the French and Occitan languages is
mostly imposed by the name of “Francoprovençal”: the proof of linguistic autonomy is
built on the negation of the idiom being either French or Provençal (Occitan) through
diachronic phonological and grammatical analysis.
In academic works, scholars use one more characteristic feature of Francoprovençal
seen as crucial to delimit it from the language(s) of Oc: the spontaneous diphthongisation
of the stressed vowel in open syllables. Tuaillon notes that it is also typical for the
languages of Oïl as well as for all Italo-Romance languages (including the Piedmontese
language neighbouring Francoprovençal) but is not to be found in the language(s) of Oc
(see Table 4).
Table 4. The spontaneous diphthongisation of the stressed vowel in open
syllables (according to Tuaillon 2007a: 18)69
Latin
Oc70
Italian
French
Francoprovençal
PĔDEM [‘pεde]
Pe (pè) [pɛ]
Piede [ˈpjɛde]
Pied [pje]
[pja], [pi]
CŎR [kɔr]
Cor (còr)
Cuore
Cœur [kœʁ]
[kᴓ], [kаer]
[kɔr]
[ˈkwɔre]
TĒ [te]
Te [te]
Te [ˈte]
Toi [twa]
[tej]
FLŌREM [flore]
Flor [flur]
Fiore [ˈfjore]
fleur [flœʁ]
[flur]
The lack of diphthongisation in the language of Oc is explained by the fact that the
Latinisation of Southern Gaul took place before the 1st century AD; later on, Southern Gaul
69
The pronunciation for Occitan, Italian and French is mine (added to the words provided by Tuaillon).
For OccТtКn, Кfter tСe form provТded Лв TuКТllon, Тn ЛrКckets I Кdd tСe spellТng Тn tСe “clКssТc” ortСogrКpСв
(if different).
70
146
was out of contact with the development of colloquial Latin. The rest of Gaul, starting
from Lugdunum (future Lyon) and farther north, was not Latinised until much later, hence
with a different form of Latin (op.cit.: 19). The history of Gaul’s Latinisation (provided in
Tuaillon 2007a: 21) can be summarised as follows (see Table 5):
Table 5. The linguistic history: language of Oc vs. language of Oïl &
Francoprovençal (according to Tuaillon 2007a)
125 BC: The conquest of the South.
Latinisation with Republican-period Latin.
58 to 50 BC: Caesar. Emergence of
veteran colonies.
58 to 50 BC: Urban Latinisation with
Imperial-period Latin.
313 AD: Rural Latinisation with
Christian Latin.
500 AD (Clovis) and 800 AD
(Charlemagne): weak German influence.
► Linguistic result: language(s) of
Oc
500 AD (Clovis) and 800 AD
(Charlemagne): strong German influence.
► Linguistic result: language(s) of Oïl
and Francoprovençal
Based on this historical analysis, Tuaillon concludes that Francoprovençal cannot
be ascribed to the Oc language group because it neither shares the linguistic history of the
rest of the Oc area, nor descends from the same form of Latin (op. cit..: 19-20). Tuaillon
gives therefore the following definition of Francoprovençal:
Le francoprovençal existe et son existence se fonde sur la réalité des faits qui, si on
les analyse correctement, permettent de mieux comprendre comment s’est constitué
l’ensemble gallo-romain. Le francoprovençal est un produit de la latinisation de la
Gaule non méridionale qui, en refusant les innovations linguistiques71 de l’époque
carolingienne, s’est détaché du domaine d’oïl. (Ibid.: 20, original italics)
Francoprovençal exists and its existence is based on the reality of facts that, if analysed correctly,
allow a better understanding of how the Gallo-romance group is formed. Francoprovençal is a
71
As for the reason why, Lodge (1993) demonstrates how the difference in the extent of linguistic change in
the north and in the east of what later became France (Oïl vs. Francoprovençal) was linked to the difference
in the social structure there: namely the persistence of the Roman structures and dense social networks in the
Francoprovençal area, together with its maintainting regular contacts with the conservative south, and a less
important Germanic migration to these parts than to the north, were the factors that prevented this area from
the linguistic change that happened in the north.
147
product of the Latinisation of non-Southern Gaul, detached from the domain of Oïl by rejecting the
linguistic innovations of the Carolingian period.
The definition is thus based upon the data of diachronic linguistics.
Scholarly literature also describes a number of other features that allow borders to
be drawn with the languages of Oc and of Oïl (the long vs. short stressed-syllable vowel
opposition in Francoprovençal unlike in modern French; the dropping of intervocalic
dentals and guttural consonants, unlike in Occitan72, etc.) Yet, in contrast to the two abovementioned “main” differences, other particularities are never found in activist discourse
(apparently because they complicate the system of “one difference from French, another
one from Occitan”). Activists in France regularly use the dialectological information on the
two morpho-phonological features represented as the main ones. For instance, one of the
Arpitanists, answering as to why Arpitan constitutes a language in its own right, refers to
precisely those linguistic differences:
On explique les différences phonétiques, avec les terminaisons féminines, la
palatalisation, certaines locutions qui sont propres.
We explain the phonetic differences, regarding feminine endings, palatalisation, certain expressions
that are peculiar to it.
Note the addition of the argument on a lexical level to the system, probably due to
its being the most understandable to the general public.
It is however to be specified that this representation of the language by activists
does not always mean a vision of languages as autonomous bounded entities objectively
existing in reality. Thus, the same informant noted in an informal conversation that the
border between the Arpitan area and Auvergne (in the Occitan area) is quite distinct: one
can see a “wall” on the isogloss map. On the other hand, there is no sharp border either to
the south where the feminine endings change, or to the north where the stress shift is
72
Latin
VITA
NUDA
AMICA
(Stich 1998: 29).
French
Vie
Nue
Amie
Francoprovençal
Via
Nua
Amia
Occitan
Vida
Nuda, nuza
Amiga
148
gradual. It is to be emphasised though, that here once again the activist refers to
dialectological data.
1.2. The ‘Savoyard language’: one region, one language, one nation
Savoyard activists (the “narrow” model) also refer to linguistic knowledge as they
approach the issue of distinguishing a separate language group for Francoprovençal.
Nevertheless, their everyday communication experience makes them doubt the linguistic
unity of the Francoprovençal language:
PB, 1960, Sav: L’unité elle a été démontrée par les linguistes – qui nous ont fait des
colloques depuis trente ans en nous expliquant le pourquoi du comment et c’est vrai
que dans nos rencontres – ben parfois c’est un peu difficile parce qu’entre les
accents employés dans certains villages et certains autres, euh on parle même de
certains faits linguistiques savoyards. Vous avez posé la question si la langue
savoyarde peut être vue d’une façon distincte. On se pose la question parfois, y a
des faits linguistiques indéniables, des mots de vocabulaire, des tournures
spécifiques qu’on n’emploie pas sur Lyon.
The unity was demonstrated by the linguists – who have been lecturing us for 30 years to explain to
us the why and the how – and frankly, in our meetings – well, it’s sometimes a bit difficult because
between the accents they use in some villages and some others – er one can even speak about
certain Savoyard linguistic facts. So you asked whether Savoyard can be considered a separate
language [in fact, I asked no such thing]. Sometimes we ask ourselves the same thing, there are
indisputable linguistic facts, words in the vocabulary, specific expressions that aren’t used in Lyon.
Thus, on the one hand, the validity of the linguistic view of a unity is being doubted
because of the experience of an active language use thoughout the area. On the other hand,
the arguments remain within the discourse of specificities of the linguistic system, only
with an emphasis on the lexical level. It is assumed that examining the lexical level would
allow us to distinguish the Savoyard language from other idioms of the Francoprovençal
group.
Nevertheless, the Savoyardist approach (the “narrow” model), similarly to the
Provençalist one, is also characterised by two more peculiar features that seemingly
contradict both the previous one and each other. On the one hand, it is a “subjective”
149
approach based on the linguistic perceptions of the speakers – as opposed to the
“objective” “linguistic facts” of the Francoprovençal proponents. On the other hand, it is a
naturalistic, or an essentialist one. Both peculiarities can be vividly illustrated by the
explanation given by one of the most prominent Savoyardists:
PB, 1960, Sav: C’est vrai qu’en Savoie dire que les Savoyards parlent le savoyard c’est quelque
chose beaucoup plus logique et simple.
It is true that in Savoy, it’s much more logical and much simpler to say that Savoyards speak
Savoyard.
What seems to be “logical and simple” is the correlation between the region, its
inhabitants, and their language, typical of the Western European “one nКtТon – one
lКnguКge” nation model
(cf. the slogan of the Collectif Prouvènço advocating the
Provençalist model: “Uno regioun, uno identita, uno lengo,” i.e. “One region, one identity,
one language.”)
The main argument against the existence of the Savoyard language is that there
exist as many real linguistic discrepancies between different Savoyard varieties as between
other Francoprovençal varieties:
LK, 1932, Fp: Y a des formes extrêmement différentes selon les vallées, moi je les
connais ces formes et alors il y a autant de différence entre deux vallées savoyardes
que entre cette vallée et puis le dialecte de Saint-Étienne. Donc c’est une fiction.
There are extremely different forms in different valleys, I know these forms, and there are as many
differences between two Savoy valleys as between this valley and, say, the Saint-Étienne dialect. So
this is a fiction.
This sort of objectivist (positivist) critique is based on the scientific knowledge of
linguistic facts or “forms.”
In fact, as transparent as the name of “the Savoyard language” may seem, its
correlation to a separate language or a definite geographic area is not obvious. To quote the
website of the Institute of the Savoyard Language:
La
langue
savoyarde
fait
partie
de
l’ensemble
linguistique
appelé
le Francoprovençal.
150
Elle est parlée et écrite dans les pays suivants :
o
la France (région Rhône-Alpes)
o
la Suisse (région de Genève et jusqu’à Neuchâtel)
o
l’Italie (Val d’Aoste, Piémont, Faeto dans les Pouilles)
La langue savoyarde est le francoprovençal parlé en Savoie.
(http://www.langue-savoyarde.com/la-langue-savoyarde/une-langue-internationale.
Accessed on 19.04.2015)
The Savoyard language makes part of the linguistic group (ensemble linguistique) called
the Francoprovençal.
It is used in spoken and written forms in the following countries:
o
France (the Rhône-Alpes region)
o
Switzerland (the Geneva region and up to Neuchâtel)
o
Italy (the Aosta Valley, Piedmont, and Faeto in Apulia)
[There follows a map of the “Francoprovençal area” in the three countries]
Savoyard is the Francoprovençal language spoken in Savoy.
Thus, on the one hand, the “Savoyard language” is represented as a part of the
“Francoprovençal linguistic group” (in the first and the last sentences of the quoted
151
excerpt), in the same way the Provençal language would be part of the Languages of Oc
for its advocates. On the other hand though, the territory of the “Savoyard language” such
as defined in the text is exactly the same as that of the “Francoprovençal language” as
defined by linguists. Thus it would seem that an alternative name is given for the same
“language” as “Francoprovençal.”
Ultimately, it is the credibility of the language name – rather than a reference to
certain boundaries of the language community – which is prioritised in the Savoyardist
approach. The issue of language naming, the next key issue of the language emergence
process, is discussed in detail in the next chapter.
Chapter 2. Naming as an act of social magic
2.1.
The baptism of an idiom and its birth as a language
Naming an idiom becomes especially important when one considers the division of
a linguistic continuum into languages. The issue of naming itself is, of course, far from
being new. It has traditionally been examined within the framework of language
philosophy. It turns out however that it can also be of crucial importance for a
sociolinguistic and anthropological analysis: “ЛecКuse to nКme Тs to clКssТfв, to clКssify is
to distinguish, and to distinguish is to bring into being” (“parce que nommer c’est classer,
classer c’est distinguer, distinguer c’est faire être,” Sériot 1997: 167). Patrick Sériot notes
that name as a discrete category is opposed to the continuum of reality. The signified
seems to be as discrete as the signifier, and “It stКrts ЛeТng complТcКted аСen tСe sТgnТfТed
is confounded with the referent” (op. cit.: 172).
A partir du moment où une langue a un nom, elle devient objet homogène, non plus
un ensemble dans un diasystème, mais objet de politique linguistique, d’éducation,
enjeu de la constitution d’un Etat-nation. Elle devient aussi, et surtout, objet de
discours, qu’il est si facile de confondre avec un objet du monde. (op. cit.: 167)
Once a language has a name, it becomes a homogenous object, no longer an aggregate in a
diasystem but an object of language policy and education, a goal of a nation-state’s construction.
Besides, and most of all, it becomes an object of discourse, all too easily confounded with an object
of the real world.
152
Andrée Tabouret-Keller notes that language polynymy (when a given language has
several different names) is a rule rather than an exception (Tabouret-Keller 1997: 9). Three
cКtegorТes of “users” of tСe nКme cКn Лe dТstinguished: speakers (with the polynymy that is
characteristic of them), linguists (to ascribe a language its place in the language class), and
institutes (to distinguish the language as an object of legislation). She notes that a language
name can allow the “pКvТng tСe аКв for Кll nКtТonКlТsms Кt К reduced prТce” (“C”est, à peu
de frais, fare le lit de tous les nationalisms,” op. cit.: 11).
un nom de langue est susceptible de mener une trajectoire indépendante de
I’histoire de cette langue, des parlers ainsi désignés dans leur diversité, et des
locuteurs qui les parlent et, dans certains cas, manient sa ou ses formes écrites. Le
nom d’une langue est ainsi toujours le nom d’une autre réalité, géographique,
ethnique, politique, linguistique, institutionnelle, sociolinguistique, et ainsi de suite.
(op. cit.: 15-16)
a name of a language may have a trajectory independent of the history of this language, of the
varieties thus defined in their diversity, and of people who speak them and, in some cases, use their
written form(s). Thus the name of a language is always a name of a different reality, geographical,
ethnical, political, linguistic, institutional, sociolinguistic, etc.
This is why the debates around the naming of idioms raise questions as to what is
hidden behind the preference of one name or another, what extra-linguistic phenomena the
name is related to, and what message it carries, from whom and to what purpose.
To refer to the challenges of naming a language and, accordingly, an ethnic group
and a territory, I propose to use Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of “an act of social magic.”
Taking the notion of the “Occitan language,” “Occitans” and “Occitania” as an example,
Bourdieu argued back in 1980:
Le fait d’appeler «occitan» la langue que parlent ceux que l’on appelle les
«Occitans» parce qu’ils parlent cette langue (que personne ne parle à proprement
parler puisqu’elle n’est que la somme d’un très grand nombre de parlers différents)
et de nommer «Occitanie», prétendant ainsi à la faire exister comme «région» ou
comme «nКtТon» … la région (au sens d’espace physique) où cette langue est
parlée, n’est pas une fiction sans effet. L’acte de magie sociale qui consiste à tenter
de produire à l’existence la chose nommée peut réussir si celui qui l’accomplit est
capable de faire reconnaître à sa parole le pouvoir qu’elle s’arroge par une
153
usurpation provisoire ou définitive, celui d’imposer une nouvelle vision et une
nouvelle division du monde social... (Bourdieu 1980: 66).
Giving the name of “Occitan” to the language spoken by those who are called “the Occitans”
because they speak this language (which actually nobody speaks as it is but a sum of a very large
number of different varieties), and giving the name of “Occitania” to the region (in the sense of a
physical space) where this language is spoken, thus trying to make it exist as a “region” or as a
“nation” … is not a fruitless fiction. The act of social magic that consists of trying to bring the thing
being named into existence can be successful if the one who accomplishes it is able to give their
word credit for the power which it appropriates by provisional or definite usurpation, the power to
Тmpose К neа vТsТon Кnd К neа dТvТsТon of tСe socТКl аorld… (BourdТeu 1980: 66)
It is interesting to quote the definition of “Occitan” Bourdieu provides in 1980 as a
footnote to this quotation:
L’adjectif «occitan» et, a fortiori, le substantif «Occitanie» sont des mots savants et
récents (forgés par la latinisation de la langue d’oc, lingua occitana), destinés à
désigner des réalités savantes qui, pour le moment au moins, n’existent que sur le
papier (Ibid., original italics).
The adjective Occitan and, a fortiori, the noun Occitania are scholarly and recent words (coined by
Latinising langue d’oc into lingua occitana) purported to denote scientific realities that, as of the
present moment at least, have only ever existed on paper.73
The debates on a proper name for Francoprovençal have ultimately the same goal:
they represent an attempt to implement in reality a given model of division of the linguistic
continuum and of the sociopolitical space. The particularity of the Francoprovençal context
though is that actors performing this “act of social magic” are no longer scholars but
language activists. In the 1970s their attempts at rebaptising the language failed (as we saw
in the example of Henriet’s Mouvement Arpitania, see Part I Chapter 2), because their
discourse had no legitimacy to challenge the scientific model, and linguists had the
hegemonic power of producing discourse on language; in the 2000s however the situation
changed. New technologies (especially internet technologies) and a revolutionary increase
of the amount of information being produced and made available, the general
democratisation of life and the growth of the power of civic society made these attempts
successful at least in some domains of use. Namely, on the internet the term “Arpitan” has
become an indisputable leader in comparison to any other denomination of the same
73
For more detail on the denominations of Occitan see Bichurina, Costa 2016.
154
language. E.g. statistic tools by Google Trends provide a following distribution for all the
worldwide searches related to the term “Francoprovençal Language” via a Google web
search (for 2004-2015, but a statistically significant number of queries on the subject only
appear starting from 2007):
Source: Google Trends, http://www.google.fr/trends/explore?hl=enUS#q=%2Fm%2F02cw59&cmpt=q&tz= (Accessed on 16/06/2015). Numbers represent search
interest relative to the highest point on the chart: in this topic, it is “Arpitan” (100%).74 E.g. if 10
people searched for “Arpitan” (100%), only four (40%) searched for “Francoprovençal.”
If we group together different spellings, it is 160 for “Arpitan” (“Arpitano,”
“Arpetan”) and 135 for “Francoprovençal.”75 Moreover, the term “Arpitan” starts being
used by scholars working on minority languages, if they are not working particularly on
Francoprovençal. It is also used in resources dedicated to endangered languages, such as
the Ethnologue (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/frp, accessed on 03/05/2015).
However, “Francoprovençal” remains the only term that is accepted institutionally and
74
“When you measure interest in a search topic (Tokyo – Capital of Japan) our algorithms count many
different search queries that may relate to the same topic (東京,
, Tokyyo, Tokkyo, Japan Capital,
etc.)” (Google Trends). The chart represents exact search entries related to the topic.
Note that the number of occurrences in the search results may be slightly higher for “Francoprovençal”
than for “Arpitan,” but this is due to the fact that when speaking about “Arpitan,” it is usually followed by a
text in brackets specifying that it can also be called Francoprovençal, which is “a scientific term” for it.
75
155
politically (see, for example, the website of the Délégation générale à la langue française
et aux langues de France, DGLFLF, under the Ministry of Culture and Communication). 76
In this chapter I will analyse the connotations and purposes of the use of various
names for Francoprovençal, and for the corresponding community and territory today.
2.2 The stock of names
As we have seen in Part I (Chapter I), the name of “Franco-Provençal” was coined
by Ascoli as a linguistic term, and for a century this term had been deemed acceptable by
linguists/dialectologists in their studies. The speakers themselves had no name to denote
the idiom throughout the trans-border territory of its use; nor did they have linguistic
representations according to which the same language would be spoken in all the
concerned regions. In most cases, in all three countries, the idiom was called “patois.”
Today too, this denomination remains the most popular among the so-called groupes
patoisants (“patois-speaking groups”) as the very name of such groups clearly suggests.
Nevertheless, due to their contacts with dТКlectologТsts, tСe term “Francoprovençal” has
also penetrated such groups in France since the 1970s. In Switzerland and in Piedmont77 it
happened much later, in the 2000s, whereas in tСe VКlle d’AostК the groupes patoisants are
non-existent.
It is no accident that in France speakers began to show interest in the notion of the
“Francoprovençal language” at the very moment when an active discussion of
decentralisation and regionalisation of France arose, following the events of May 1968.
Yet the name of the language proved to be unsuitable when the issue of political rights
arose. Hence, two alternative names of the idiom emerged in activist groups, which have
become widespread since the early 2000s:
-
“The Savoyard language”: the term initially used by the Savoy
Region Movement (Mouvement région Savoie, MRS) created in 1972 to advocate
uniting the départements of Savoie and Haute-Savoie to create a region of Savoie
76
http://www.dglf.culture.gouv.fr/
77
The most common reference to the language in the Francoprovençal-speaking parts of Piedmont would be
a nosta moda (to speКk “Тn our аКв”)
156
(within France). Note that, although the Movement introduced the notion of “the
Savoyard lКnguКge” Тnto Тts use, the idiom itself never was the focus of its political
agenda. Today, the Institute of the Savoyard Language (Institut de la langue
savoyarde), an association created in 2002, has become the main promoter of the
term, whereas the MRS is gradually turning to the term Arpitan.
-
“The Arpitan language”: the name was coined at the exactly same
time in the Aosta Valley in Italy (as discussed in Part I Chapter 2). Today, it is
actively promoted by the Arpitan Cultural Alliance (Aliance Culturèla Arpitana), a
cross-border association founded in 2004.
The early 2000s, the time when the “struggle for a name” for the idiom reached its
peak, coincided with a period of (actual or expected) radical changes in linguistic policies
for the concerned countries (see Introduction and Part I Chapter 3). Thus, the dating of the
different names alone suggests that the institutional and political context is the primary
focus of language activists.
2.3 From patois to a name for a language
In France, to refer to any idiom that is different from standard French, speakers
(who are not language advocates) use the word patois. In other words, specific names are
not used to denote specific idioms: a generalising term is employed as/instead of the
glottonym. Both the French-speaking cantons of Switzerland, as well as the Aosta Valley
and Piedmont in Italy, have borrowed this French denomination of “patois.” Nevertheless,
as was demonstrated in the section dedicated to language policy (see Introduction), a
“pКtoТs,” as perceived by both speakers and non-speakers, is placed with respect to national
languages in the opposition of “language” vs. “non-language.” To quote several definitions
of patois from major French dictionaries:
Langage rustique, grossier, comme est celui d’un paysan, ou du bas peuple.
(Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, quatrième édition, Paris: Ve de Bernard
Brunet, 1762. Electronic version: FRBNF39326699).
Rural, rude speech [langage], as that of peasants or low people.
157
Parler local, dialecte employé par une population généralement peu nombreuse,
souvent rurale, et dont la culture, le niveau de civilisation sont jugés comme
ТnfцrТeurs р ceuб du mТlТeu envТronnКnt… (Le Petit Robert; electronic version:
http://lerobert.demarque.com/fr/, accessed on 03.05.2015)
A local vernacular, a dialect, used as a rule by an inconsiderable number of people, often
rural, whose level of culture and civilisation is evaluated to be lower than those of their
envТronment…
Système linguistique essentiellement oral, utilisé sur une aire réduite et dans une
communauté déterminée (généralement rurale), et perçu par ses utilisateurs comme
inférieur
à
la
langue
officielle.
(Larousse,
electronic
version:
http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/patois/58677, accessed on 03.05.2015)
An essentially oral linguistic system used within a limited territory and a specific
(generally rural) community, and perceived by its users as inferior as compared with the
official language.
It thus denotes especially a rural and very locally used speech. If we compare the first
definition with the two latter ones, we see that the meaning of the term has not undergone
any substantial changes since the times of Abbé Grégoire in the late 18th century.
During my fieldwork, comparisons with the linguistic situation in Russia would
also clearly indicate that patois Лelongs, Тn tСe eвes of Тts speКkers, to tСe reКlm of “nonlКnguКges.” Thus Francoprovençal speakers would often Кsk me аСetСer Тn RussТК “tСere
are also patois.” I would always give them a similar reply: that there are over 100 various
languages, of different linguistic groups and families, which have nothing to do with
RussТКn, аСereКs RussТКn Тtself Тs Кlmost tСe sКme everваСere. Mв Тnterlocutors’
conclusion would always be the same in tСe tСree countrТes: “So, tСere Кre no patois in
Russia.” Thus an image of a patois as an alternative (deformed?) version of a standard
language rather than a language in its own right clearly dominates (anecdotally, the only
person with the opposite reaction was a railway employee from Naples working in Aosta,
аСo sКТd: “But Тn ItКlв tСe ItКlТКn Тs also the same everywhere!” For СТm, Francoprovençal,
like other dialects of Italy, was a separate language). Sometimes the question itself would
be formulated in Кn eloquent аКв, e.g.: “And Тn RussТК, do people Тn vТllКges speКk
Russian correctly, or are there also patois?” (К FrКncoprovenхКl Кctivist from the Forez
158
mountains in France). Comparisons with Occitan are also instructive: “OccТtКn Тs dТfferent,
it is almost К lКnguКge!” (К FrКncoprovenхКl speКker Тn К Lвon neТgСЛourСood).
As the data collected by M. Meune in Switzerland indicates, a third of respondents
to a written questionnaire in the cantons of Vaud and Fribourg answered that the “patois”
was “К mТбture of FrencС Кnd of КnotСer lКnguКge” («mélange de frКnхКТs et d’une Кutre
langue», cf. Meune 2012: 64).
The term patois is traditionally used by dialectologists to denote Francoprovençal.
However, since the term has such manifested pejorative connotations, language activists
find it unsuitable. Starting from the 1970s (in the socio-political context as discussed at the
beginning of Part I Chapter II), the idea that languages need to be given a proper name in
order to come into existence emerges. Idiom-naming preferences have ever since been
subject to heated debates among activists and scholars.
2.4 Francoprovençal : an insufficiently substantial argument?
Along with activisits, linguists also suggest that “Francoprovençal” is an awkward
term. Gaston Tuaillon, one of the most prominent researchers of that language, noted:
Il est vrai que ce mot … n’est pas un solide argument pour prouver que l’objet ainsi
désigné mérite d’être considéré comme autre chose que du français et du provençal
réunis et mélangés. (Tuaillon 2007a: 10)
Indeed, the word [Francoprovençal] … is not an argument substantial enough to prove that the object
denoted in this way deserves to be considered anything more than just French and Provençal brought
together and mixed up.
The name of the language is thus considered as an argument in favour (or not) of its
recognition.
Those activists who refer to the idiom as “Francoprovençal” also acknowledge the
unfortunate qualities of this name. Comparing it with “Occitan” is symptomatic:
KL, 1932, Fp: Les occitanistes c’est un autre esprit. Euh c’est quelque chose de
construit, fier, ils ont les troubadours, ils ont ceci, ils ont cela. … Nous on est
159
quelque chose qui – qui est un peu bâtard … c’est pas du tout vrai, c’est le mot qui
est trompeur.
Occitanists, it’s a different spirit. It’s something constructed, something proud, they have their
Troubadours, they have this, they have that. … Noа us, аe’re something – something of a bastard.
… It’s not at all true, it’s just that the word is misleading.
Note how the lack of a prestigious cultural (literary) tradition is seen to be linked to
the awkwardness of the name of the language. Nevertheless, in spite of the “misleading”
and “unsubstantial” character of the name, they adhere to the term because it is perceived
as a scientific one. Its use has been legitimised by the dialectological research that had
established both the name of the idiom and the geographic limits of its use, together with
its characteristic features that serve to trace the boundaries.
2.5 Savoyard : logical and simple?
The term of the “Savoyard language” is introduced as a “more natural” alternative
to “Francoprovençal.” Here is how PB, 1960, Sav, substantiates the choice of the name of
“the Savoyard language”:
PB, 1960, Sav: Parce que le mot francoprovençal est un mot un peu tordu – parce
que ça fait croire que c’est un peu de français et un peu de provençal, alors que
c’est une langue authentique et qui d’ailleurs pour nous n’est pas compris – pour
nous la Provence c’est Marseille! … Et comme le mot de savoyard est attesté
depuis très longtemps … ce mot quТ est clair pour tout le monde … très
naturellement on demandait ça.
Because Francoprovençal is sort of a distorted word – because it makes one think it’s a bit of French
and a bit of Provençal, whereas it’s an authentic language, and then again, we don’t get it – for us,
Provence Тs Тn MКrseТlle! … And, sТnce tСe аord “Savoyard” was first recorded very long ago …
and this is a word everybody understands … quite naturally, it was our demand [for the Savoyard
language to be recognised].
The main criterion in the selection of a new name different from that used by
dialectologists is its credibility. The name must be credible to two reference groups: the
authorities (note the reference to the demands of recognition) and the speakers (expressed
here as “us”). It is the reference to the speakers, characteristic of the “narrow model,”
160
which legitimises the name of “Savoyard” as one that “everybody understands” and that is
“quite natural,” or else “much more logical and much simpler,” like in the quotation in the
previous chapter. It is also legitimised by its having been “first recorded very long ago.”
The “Savoyard vernacular” (langage savoyard) had indeed a long history of being
mentioned: e.g. it is frequently cited in Geneva documents of the 17-19th centuries (Kristol
2005: 50); Тt аКs Сoаever not desТgnКted Кs “tСe SКvoвКrd language.”
It is the special attention to the name of the idiom in itself that results in a third,
Arpitan model, being added to the dichotomy between the “wide/objective” and
“narrow/subjective” models in the Francoprovençal context.
2.6 Arpitan vs. Francoprovençal : political slogan or publicity
stunt?
Traditionally, both linguists and activists belonging to other movements would
ascribe political connotations to the name of Arpitan. Tuaillon attributes the emergence of
the term “Arpitan” to the (undated) period of “unrest, more or less revolutionary and in any
case highly annoying” (“agissements quelque peu révolutionnaires et en tout cas fort
КgКхКnts”) in the Aosta Valley (Tuaillon 2007b: 8). In addition to the revolutionary
connotation, according to Tuaillon, two other specific features of the term can be
distТnguТsСed. On tСe one СКnd, Тt “СКs no meКnТng Кt Кll” (“n’a aucun sens,” op. cit.: 16)
and “adorns meaningless speeches” (“sert à enjoliver les discours vides de sens,” op. cit.:
8). Note that this is the attribute that French linguistic, polemic, and political tradition has
been ascribing to Communist discourse since the 1970s: a discourse where words were
believed to have no referential function (see Sériot 1985: 21-56). The fact that Henriet had
translated two of Mao’s texts and had built his theory on Marxist arguments might have
served for such a parallel. In any case, it is implicitly suggested that the name of
“Francoprovençal,” unlike that of “Arpitan,” does have a meaning or, in other words,
relates to a reality – apparently, the linguistic reality as described by dialectologists. On the
other hand, in Tuaillon’s opinion, the nКme “Arpitan” is connected to the notion of race:
Même si vous voulez grandir vos rêves sur vos lointains ancêtres, n’employez
jamais le mot «Arpitan» … Plus gravement ce mot fait appel à ce concept qui nous
a fait tant de mal au XXe siècle, celui de la race. Je voudrais vous dissuader de
161
succomber à ce rêve. Les langues régionales n’ont vraiment pas besoin de cet
horrible ornement. (Tuaillon 2007b: 16. Italics mine).
Even if you want to extend your dreams to your remote ancestors, never use the word “Arpitan” …
More importantly, the word refers to the concept that brought about so much evil in the 20th century,
that of race. I would like to warn you against giving in to that dream. In truth, regional languages
have no need of this horrible ornament.
The name “Arpitan” is thus perceived to be a threat (to humankind) due to its
implicit correlation, in Tuaillon’s opinion, with something that apparently is a fascist
ideology. Contrary to the racist connotation of the term “Arpitan,” the term
“Francoprovençal” appears to be related, for the dialectologist, to linguistic features only.
Ascribing political connotations to the name “Arpitan” became commonplace in
(socio-) linguistic literature. For instance, Elmiger contrasts Francoprovençal with Arpitan
Кs “lТnguТstТc vs. polТtТcКl ТdentТtв” (sprachliche vs. politische Identität, Elmiger 2012: 91 –
92). A similar opposition can also be found in the discourse of my informants, for instance,
in France:
KL, 1932, Fp : L’arpitan, c’est un des noms du francoprovençal, alors Arpitanie,
Arpitania libre etc. fait une espèce de – de slogan politique.
Arpitan is one of the names for Francoprovençal, as in Arpitania, free Arpitania, etc., it is a sort of –
political slogan.
Meanwhile, most informants outside of the Aosta Valley are ignorant of the actual
history of the term’s coining, they only know that it was politically motivated, e.g. for this
informant in Lausanne:
RO, 1975, S, pat: Il y a quand même le poids historique derrière … Il a quand
même été inventé pendant la période des revendications politiques.
NB: Des indépendantistes au Val d’Aoste ?
RO: Oui, ou en Savoie, je sais pas. C’était dans les années septante. Moi je n’ai pas
trop étudié l’histoire, mais je sais qu’il y a des liens avec ça.
RO, 1975, S, pat: There is still a historic weight behind [the name “Arpitan”] … Anyway it was
invented during the period of political claims.
162
NB: Of independentists in the Aosta Valley?
RO: Yes, or in Savoy, I don’t know. It was in the 1970s. I haven’t studied history much, but I know
there are links with this.
In the Aosta Valley, where the 1970s are still present in the memory of, at least, the
middle and the older generation, I could witness how, while speaking about my studies,
“studying patois” would be interepreted as studying linguistic structure, whereas “studying
ArpТtКn” аould Лe Тnterepreted Кs studying issues of separatism (and “studying
FrancoprovençКl” as almost nothing at all).
As for Arpitanists themselves, they deny the political content of the “neologism”
(as they refer to it) Arpitan. Favouring this name is attributed to its being an “unambiguous
communication tool” (outil de communication non ambigu, NV, 1973, Arp) or “the best
publicity for our language” (la mèlyosa (mèlyora) rèclama por noutra lengoua, JN, 1970,
Arp). In other words, the name assumes an instrumental function for the official
recognition of the language. The idiom’s name also serves to raise its prestige among its
own – potential – speakers. The reference groups are thus the same as for the Savoyardist
movement. From the point of view of Arpitanists, this is the only way to revitalise the
idiom:
NV, 1973, Arp: [un nom non-ambigu] est d’ailleurs autant nécessaire pour
convaincre le ministère … que pour la communication avec le grand public …
La récupération du terme pour des questions identitaires ou nationalistes est
d’ailleurs extrêmement marginale, la plupart des «pays» traditionnels de l’espace
linguistique arpitan préférant continuer à s’auto-catégoriser [selon les régions]. Un
des meilleurs exemples en étant la Savoie et “sa langue appelée le savoyard” (cf.
“Institut de la Langue Savoyarde”).
An unambiguous name is as necessary … to convince the Ministry … as to communicate with the
general public … Besides, applying the term to identity issues or to nationalist issues is extremely
marginal since most traditional “countries” of the Arpitan linguistic space prefer to go on categorising
themselves [region-wise]. One of the best examples is that of Savoy and its language called Savoyard
(as in the “Institute of the Savoyard Language”).
The “revolutionary connotation” of the term is acknowledged as a part of history.
Today, the name is legitimised by its similarity to that of Occitan: it is Occitanism that is
taken to be a reference model:
163
U comencement ceti mot l’avêve una connotacion rèvolucionèra que l’ât ren més u
jôrn de houè. […] L’ât un ôtro avantâjo: il resemble u nom “occitan.” D’ense ceti
nom d’arpitan pôt transmètre lo messâjo que nos, coment nos cousens du mijôrn,
nos
volens
étre
recognûs
et
dèfendre
noutra
lengoua
valyament.
(http://arpitan.ch/spip.php?article139 (12.07.2012), original underscoring)
Initially, the word [Arpitan] had a revolutionary connotation that it no longer has today […] It has
another advantage: it resembles the name of Occitan. In this way, the name of Arpitan can convey
the message that we want to be recognised and to bravely defend our language just like our southern
cousins.
So, the name’s goal is to “convey a message”: to announce both the demand of the
respective linguistic community (“us”) to be recognised and its will to defend its language.
The necessity of the term “Arpitan” is emphasised by the critique of the term
“Francoprovençal”:
NV, 1973, Arp: Je pense que c’est un élément clé pour la revitalisation que d’avoir
un nom non ambigu, qui donne une identité propre à la langue.
I believe that it is a key element of revitalisation to have an unambiguous name that would provide
the language with its proper identity.
The idea of interconnection between the name of the idiom and its being
acknowledged as a separate language (and therefore its ability to survive) is reiterated
throughout the interview with AB, 1983, Arp:
Je n’ai jamais aimé le nom «francoprovençal», je trouve que ça ne veut rien dire.
Non seulement c’est artificiel, mais en plus cela porte à confusion. Les nonconnaisseurs, même de la région, même arpitanophones, pensent que notre langue
est un mélange de français et de provençal. Et c’est d’autant plus catastrophique
parce qu’avec ce nom la prise de conscience d’une identité linguistique à part
entière est ralentie voire niée.
I’ve never liked the name “Francoprovençal,” I believe it means nothing. Not only is it artificial, it’s
also confusing. Laypeople, even those who live in the area, even Arpitan speakers, think our
language is a mixture of French and Provençal. It’s all the more catastrophic because with this
name, the acknowledgement of our separate linguistic identity slows down or even disappears.
164
En ArpТtКnТe … lК prТse de conscТence est quelque peu freТnцe pКr l’usage de
différents noms: francoprovençal (confusion), patois (ce n’est pas une langue),
savoyard (le patriotisme savoyard...), parler lyonnais, patois vaudois, valaisan,
gruérien, etc.
In Arpitania … Кcknoаledgement Тs someаСКt sloаed doаn Лв tСe use of dТfferent nКmes:
Francoprovençal (confusion), patois (which isn’t К lКnguКge), SКvoвКrd (SКvoвКrd pКtrТotТsm…),
the Lyon vernacular, the patois of Vaud, of Valais, of Gruyère etc.
With such a crucial importance ascribed to the name of the language, in the
Arpitanist discourse, all the opponents of the name “Arpitan” are deemed to be responsible
for the inevitable language death – if they persist in their opposition to the neologism. To
quote a post in an Arpitan Facebook group concerning one of the opponents of the name
“Arpitan,”
Il a le droit d’être contre, comme tous les conservateurs qui sont contre par
principe, comme ça nous continuerons à perdre du temps pour la reconnaissance
officielle … A la limite, plus il y a de gens "contre" …, plus vite la langue aura
disparu, et plus vite ils n’auront plus besoin d’être "contre". (The Arpitania abada!
Facebook
group,
post
of
11.09.2012,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21904584384/ Italics mine).
He has the right to be against it just like all the conservatives who are against as a matter of
principle; this way, we go on losing time for offТcТКl recognТtТon … Ultimately, the more people are
“against” … the sooner the language will disappear and the sooner they won’t have to be
“against” anymore.
Following the same logic, the Arpitanist discourse identifies the main “enemy” in
the person of the researcher. It concerns local dialectologists or sociolinguists, especially
those working in Lyon, Grenoble, or Neuchâtel, i.e. in the centres that study the idiom
within its region of use. Note that foreign researchers are, on the contrary, depicted as
playing a positive role as symbolic protectors of the idiom.78 It turns out that the local
researcher is by definition a Francoprovençalist or, more precisely, a “Tuaillonist” (a
proponent of Gaston Tuaillon’s ideas); researchers are blamed for using the “scholarly”
term Francoprovençal and rejecting the “neologism” Arpitan, which, in its turn, prevents
78
Foreign researchers are supposed to be free from prejudices impressed by the official ideology. At the same
time, they are seen mostly as a symbol of the worldwide interest in the idiom rather than as actual actors in
the ongoing political processes.
165
the idiom from being officially recognised by the authorities. To quote my first interview
with NV, 1973, Arp:
NB: Donc, tu parles francoprovençal?
NV: Oui. Arpitan. … Francoprovençal c’est un nom technique, scientifique, qui
désigne la langue par le nom de ses voisines. Comme si on appelait le catalan
«l’occitano-castillan»
NB: So, you speak Francoprovençal?
NV: Вes, ArpТtКn … Francoprovençal is a technical, scientific name which defines the language via
the names of its neighbours. As if Catalan would be called “Occitano-Castilian.”
The mention of the “scientific” character of the name Francoprovençal does not bear here a
positive connotation typical of the discourse of the patoisants (which would suggest that it
is the correct name since it is legitimised by scientific research), but a clearly negative one.
Since about mid-2012, the discontent has been growing into a conflict, as indicated by the
great number of discussions on linguists in Arpitanist blogs (remarks on linguists have also
appeared there before, but not on such a massive scale). Linguists studying
Francoprovençal are opposed to both speakers and other scholars:
en science on a parfois aussi des appellations multiples pour des choses récemment
découvertes, et les gens se contentent d’utiliser le terme qui leur plait, sans
déclencher des campagnes de calomnie contre ceuб quТ ne font pКs comme euб …
Là on a clairement un sérieux problème de politique avec le mot francoprovençal,
le but est évident: empêcher que les locuteurs sortent de la logique technocratique
dans laquelle on voudrait les enfermer pour qu’ils restent sagement sous le contrôle
des linguistes (The Arpitania abada! Facebook group, post from 11.09.2012,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21904584384/)
in science too, sometimes there are several names for recently discovered things, and people content
themselves with using whatever term they like, without launching a campaign of slander against
tСose аСo do otСerаТse … Here, there is clearly a serious political issue concerning the word of
Francoprovençal; the goal is obvious: to prevent the speakers from breaking out of the technocratic
logic that they would like to lock them in, so that they obediently remain controlled by the linguists.
In this way, Arpitanists invert the widespread idea of a political connotation of the term
“Arpitan”: it is the linguistic term of Francoprovençal that is represented as politicised. On
166
the one hand, it sets the interests of linguists against those of the speakers; on the other
hand, the attitude of linguists towards a recent scientific discovery, the Arpitan language, is
represented to be unscientific, contradicting what is accepted in the scientific community.
The legitimacy of linguists’ participation in the debate on the name is in doubt too:
Tuaillon se mêle de politique alors qu’il n’est que linguiste. … Les jКcoЛТns
malheureusement se trouvent aussi parmi les linguistes ou les dialectologues,
comme
à
Neuchâtel,
et
ce
sont
évidemment
nos
ennemis
(http://arpitania.forumactif.com/t863-le-mot-arpitan-d-apres-gaston-tuaillon,
01.07.2008).
Tuaillon meddles in politics while he’s but a linguist … UnfortunКtelв, JКcoЛТns Кre Кlso to Лe found
among linguists and dialectologists, as in Neuchâtel, and they are obviously our enemies.
Thus, the issue of the language name is represented as a political one and, therefore,
one that falls out of the competence area of linguists. Once again, as in any Arpitanist
discourse since the 1970s, we are dealing Сere аТtС аСКt аe mКв cКll “tСe linguistics of
resentment” (see PКrt I CСКpter II), аСТcС cКn onlв eбТst under tСe condТtТon of ЛeТng
against (the official, here linguistic, discourse).
2.7 Arpitan vs. Savoyard and the legitimacy of Rhône-Alpes
While Arpitanists deny the political connotations of the term “Arpitan” in their own
discourse, they note that such connotations may potentially be present in the discourse of
others. Thus, the tensions between the partisans of the “wide” Arpitanist and “narrow”
Savoyardist models are partly due to the active development of the linguistic policy for the
Rhône-Alpes region voted for in 2009 and started in 2010-2011. According to my
informants, the regional authorities are increasingly interested in the term “Arpitan.” NV,
1973, Arp, says:
Les mТlТtКnts rцgТonКlТstes en SКvoТe voТent … l’émergence du mot "arpitan"
comme une menace et s’y opposent, car ils pensent que ce terme pourrait donner
une légitimité à Rhône-Alpes … à l’encontre des possibilités d’émancipation d’une
région Savoie.
167
RegТonКl КctТvТsts Тn SКvoв feel … tСreКtened Лв tСe emergence of tСe аord “Arpitan” and are
opposed to it because they believe that the term might give legitimacy to [the region of] RhôneAlpes … Кt tСe eбpense of tСe possibilities of emancipation of the Savoy region. 79
Indeed, the existence of an Arpitan – i.e. “Alpine” – language within the region of
Rhône-Alpes potentially legitimises the existence of the region itself, created irrespectively
of any cultural or historical unity. This vision competes against the notion of Savoy as a
special cultural unity having the Savoyard language as its distinctive marker. It is
perceived as an obstacle to forming a separate French/European region of Savoy that
would combine two of today’s départements of the Rhône-Alpes region, Savoie and
Haute-Savoie. Some of the main activists of the Arpitan Cultural Alliance note the irony of
the situation lies in the fact that they are Savoyards themselves and, in their fight for the
Arpitan language to be recognised for the whole of Arpitania, they thought mostly about
Savoy, yet have become enemies “in their own country.”
Nevertheless, the Savoyard and Arpitan models, mutually exclusive as they appear,
in some cases actually turn to be complementary. The most prominent activists affirm that
ultimately, the most important goal is to ensure the “survТvКl of tСe lКnguКge”:
KL, 1932, Fp: Moi personnellement je dirais qu’on peut appeler cette langue
n’importe comment pourvu que cette langue existe [rire], pour qu’elle puisse
survivre.
Personally, I’d say you can call the language whatever you like, so far as the language exists
[laughs] so that it could survive.
AB, 1960, Sav: Nous le mot de francoprovençal, ou d’arpitan ou de savoyard, on
défend pas particulièrement une dénomination par rapport à l’autre. Mais aucun des
trois n’y est [reconnu], voilà, le problème est là.
Whatever the name, Francoprovençal, Arpitan, or Savoyard, we don’t specifically defend one name
against another. The problem is, neither of three actually is [recognised].
ArpТtКnТsts СКve Кn eбpressТon tСКt tСeв use Кs К motto: “(Herox de) ben fére et de
lèssiér dére!” – К rСвmТng pСrКse lТterКllв meКnТng “(HКppв to) do аell, Кnd let people
tКlk!” It Тs regulКrlв repeКted Тn conversКtТons, ТncludТng tСose pertКТnТng to tСe ТdТom’s
Cf. CostК & Bert’s КnКlвsТs of tСeТr FORA report’s ЛeТng used Лв tСe RСône-Alpes region: in particular, on
the use of linguistic criteria and the linguistic unity notion as an attempt to naturalise the idea of the RhôneAlpes region (Costa, Bert 2011).
79
168
name and orthography, to mean that all the debates do not matter much to them. This is
further confirmed by the fact that the same individuals may be members of several
competing associations: for instance, of the Arpitan Cultural Alliance and of the Institute
of the Savoyard Language, or else of the Institute of the Savoyard Language and of the
International Council for Francoprovençal. Nevertheless, on the one hand, such
collaboration does not exclude sometimes violent critique at the discursive level; on the
other hand, the alleged indifference towards the naming issue notwithstanding, all
spontaneous exchanges between activists, as well as all interviews, inevitably return to it.
2.8 Concluding remarks
The preference of the term “Arpitan” correlates with the activists” social profile and
the type of activist work that they carry out. Francoprovençal groups (that mostly use the
term patois internally) predominantly include retired people; their most represented
occupations are teaching and (to a much lesser extent) agriculture. Arpitanists, on the
contrary, mostly belong to younger generations and predominantly are white-collar
professionals. Unlike the Arpitanists, an overwhelming majority of whom have social
network profiles and are extremely active on the internet in general (e.g. think of the
Arpitan version of Wikipedia), the activists who prefer the names of Francoprovençal or
patois rarely use the internet, let alone social networks. For instance, electronic addresses
are only rarely provided in the attendance lists of their various associations’ meetings:
most participants indicate their street addresses as they do not often use the internet. As a
consequence, the term “Arpitan” is more widely represented on the internet than
“Francoprovençal,” even though in reality, Arpitanists undoubtedly constitute a minority
among the language advocates. The discrepancy is also due to the difference between the
goals of their respective movements: Francoprovençal/patois groups are mostly meeting
places for the aged; they are also places where their participants can pursue personal
fulfillment as they find themselves in the new role of the last keepers of traditions instead
of the professional social status they lose in their retirement. At the same time, the groups
do not pursue the goal of passing the idiom on and do not seek to increase its popularity.
Consequently, the need to use the mass media, including the Internet, does not arise. On
the contrary, Arpitanists see their immediate goals in the “publicity” for the idiom (the
term used by the activists themselves) and in passing it on to successive generations of
speakers. Thus one of the Swiss Arpitanists, IR, 1971, Arp, says: “Le dilemme est le
169
suivant: les membres de l’association locale de ma commune parlent «patois» et souhaitent
le «maintenir». Moi, j’ai appris l’arpitan, dans sa variante bagnarde, et souhaite le
«revitaliser»” (“TСe dТlemmК Тs tСe folloаТng: memЛers of tСe locКl КssocТКtТon Тn mв
municipality speak patois and seek to ‘maintain’ it. Now me, I have learned Arpitan in its
Bagnes version and want to ‘revitalise’ Тt”). Thus, to borrow a phonological metaphor, it
can be stated that the two names, Francoprovençal and Arpitan, find themselves in a
complementary distribution relationship. They are used in a different context (in pursuance
of different goals), and the activists who use them differ both in their age and in their
primary activities.
At the same time, because the Arpitanists are active on the Internet, they are usually
seen as an exclusively virtual group. This image is however misleading: they are actively
using the Internet because most of them are young urban intellectuals; yet for the very
same reason they are particularly mobile. Most (if not all) of them have the experience of
living in different regions, if not different countries and on different continents. Thus in the
case of the groupes patoisants some three kilometers separating two villages are often seen
as an obstacle for communication; in the case of the Arpitanists dozens and sometimes
hundreds of kilometers between the places where they live are no obstacle to organising
face-to-face meetings.
Finally, as of today, “Savoyard” appears to be the least widespread of the names.
Geographically, its use is limited to the départements of Savoie and Haute-Savoie. On the
other hand, while Savoyard associations prefer the term “Savoyard language” for their
internal use, they often use the term “Francoprovençal” when dealing with the authorities,
as it is recognised both by linguists and by the administration of the Rhône-Alpes region.
Chapter 3. The writing system
3.1
Development of literacy and turning a dialect into a language
The transformation of a dialect into a language is typically accompanied by the
development of literacy. In this process, the writing system proves to be something
significantly more important than a simple speech-recording tool. According to Patrick
Sériot:
170
Qu’une liquide dorso-palatale soit représentée graphiquement par L en latin, par
en cyrillique, par Λ en grec, ou mшme pКr • — •• en morse, celК vКut-il vraiment la
peine de descendre dans la rue et de s’affronter aux policiers, comme l’ont fait les
étudiants de CСТşТnӑu (KТšТnev /
) en 1989, réclamant que leur langue (le
moldave? le roumain?) soit transcrite en alphabet latin et non plus cyrillique? Mais
si tant de passion peut naître de la question des alphabets, c’est bien que la
représentation graphique de l’oralité n’est pas un simple changement de code, mais
quelque chose qui touche à l’ordre identitaire. (Sériot 2012: 10, italics mine)
Is the issue of whether the sonorant dorsal palatal consonant is to be graphically represented as a
Latin L, К CвrТllТc , К Greek Λ, or even К Morse code • – • • аortС tКkТng to tСe streets to fТgСt tСe
polТce Кs CСТşТnӑu (KТšТnev/
) students did in 1989, demanding for their language
(Moldovan? Romanian?) to be written in the Latin alphabet rather than in Cyrillic? But if the
question of alphabets is able to give rise to such passions, it is because the graphic representation of
the oral is not just a change of code but something pertaining to identity issues.
Le Page notes that many language systems only became discrete when
orthographies had been developed for them:
…it seems to me that literКcв represents К defТnТte step … after which focusing both
of linguistic behaviour and of linguistic theory is likely to be greatly accelerated,
initially for an élite and subsequently, in some societies, for the mass of the people.
(Le Page 1997: 32)
In this connection, a remark by Haugen may be recalled, which concerns the
specific case of France. Having mentioned that historically, a number of regional written
standards or dialects had existed in France but later on, the Parisian written dialect
overtook them all, he notes: “When the dialects ceased to be written, they became patois”
(Haugen 1972 [1966]: 99). As the French Language Dictionary has it:
Après le XIV siècle, il se forma une langue littéraire et écrite, et les dialectes
devinrent patois
After the 16th century, a literary and written language was formed, and dialects became patois (Littré
1956)
I will demonstrate that an opposite process takes place today: when patois get to be
written they become languages. Note as well that according to Benedict Anderson, the
171
creation of written (printed, supra-dialectal) languages played a key role in the emergence
of language nationalism (Anderson 2001 [1983]).
According to Haugen (1966: 933), Тn order to mКke К “dТКlect” Тnto К “lКnguКge”
(or, in other words, to go from vernacular to standard), four aspects should be developed
(see Table 6).
Table 6. Language standardisation according to Haugen’s model (1966: 933)
Form
Function
Society
Selection
Acceptance
Language
Codification
Elaboration
Chronologically the order would be expected to be the following:
(1) selection of norm, i.e. the selection of a model from which the norm can be
derived. This stage is almost always problematic, as selecting one variety has important
social implications: “To cСoose Кnв one vernКculКr Кs К norm meКns to favour the group of
people speaking that variety. It gives them prestige as norm-bearers and a headstart in the
rКce for poаer Кnd posТtТon.” (op. cit.: 932)
(2) codification of form
(3) elaboration of function: “Anв vernКculКr Тs presumКЛlв КdequКte Кt К gТven
moment for the needs of the group that uses it. But for the needs of the much larger society
of the nation it is not adequate, and it becomes necessary to supplement its resources to
make it into a language.” (op. cit.: 931)
As fКr Кs steps (2) Кnd (3) Кre concerned, tСe fКmous HКugen formulК suggests: “As
the ideal goals of a standard language, codification may be defined as minimal variation in
form, elaboration as maximal variation in function.” (op. cit.: 931)
172
(4) acceptance by the community, necessary for the language to have a body of
users.
It is assumed in the discourse of Francoprovençal language activists that in order
for Тt to Лecome seen Кs К “lКnguКge,” apart from a delimited territory and an unambiguous
name, it should indeed have its standard orthography. On the one hand, the existence of
spelling for the language is opposed to the lay representation of patois that it “is not
аrТtten” («le patois ne s’écrit pas», i.e. it cannot be written as a matter of principle).
Therefore, it is imagined that as soon as an idiom is written, it turns from a patois into a
language. On the other hand, the three elements – the territory, the name and the
orthography – are represented as closely connected: thus, e.g., the name Arpitan supposes a
trans-border linguistic community and also a unique supradialectal orthography. Criticising
one of these elements usually implies criticising the other two as well: criticism of the
notion of the Arpitan language often turns out to be that of the orthography promoted by
the Arpitan Cultural Alliance. Conversely, the choice of the orthography, like that of the
name, allows the implementation of a certain system of division of the linguistic
continuum, and therefore, of the social world.
This being said, it should also be emphasised that legal constraints may play an
important part in a role ascribed to the orthography for language revitalisation. Thus in the
case of France a writing system and a literary tradition are explicitly required by the
Ministry of Education for Francoprovençal to be admitted in public examinations at
secondary schools (the baccalauréat). 80 Thus the reply of the National Assembly of
07/10/2014 on the non-recognition of “the Savoyard language” Кs К “regТonКl lКnguКge” at
the baccalauréat stipulates:
Ce cadre de référence [du baccalauréat] réserve une place importante à l’écrit, tant
dans sa compréhension que dans son expression et, pour cette raison implique que
la passation de ces épreuves s’appuie sur un corpus de textes suffisamment
CompКre tСougС аТtС tСe MТnТstrв of EducКtТon’s replв regКrdТng dТКlectКl ArКЛic in the baccalauréat:
« L'épreuve facultative d'arabe dialectal maghrébin n'a, à aucun moment, été supprimée. Toutefois … cette
épreuve sera désormais passée à l'oral, ce qui correspond mieux à cet ensemble de langues qui sont des
langues de tradition orale. …» (“The optional test of the Maghrebi Arabic dialect has at no time been
anulled. However ... this examination will now be taken orally, which corresponds better to this type of
languages
tСКt
Кre
lКnguКges
of
orКl
trКdТtТon.”
http://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2000/qSEQ000122164.html Published on 16/03/2000; accessed on
29/03/2016, Italics are mine). Thus in other contexts the Ministry does recognise that there are languages that
are essentially oral, and which remКТn nevertСeless “lКnguКges.”
80
173
nombreux et diversifiés, aux qualités linguistiques et littéraires attestées.
(http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-21123QE.htm)
This framework [of the baccalaureate] assigns an important role to writing, both in its understanding
and expression, and therefore implies that the examination is based on a body of sufficiently
numerous and diverse texts, with attested linguistic and literary qualities.
Francoprovençal’s transmission being seen as mainly or exclusively a school
transmission, the development of a unique writing system for the language is therefore felt
as essential by the Francoprovençal language advocates in France.
3.2. Orthography and socio-political claims
The first attempt to create a unified Arpitan orthography was undertaken by Joseph
Henriet in 1976 (Harrieta 1976), at the same moment when he created the notions of the
Arpitan language, the Arpitans and Arpitania (see Part I Chapter II). In March 2013,
Henriet described linguists’ rejection of his attempts in the Savoyard electronic publication
La Voix des Allobroges81:
Le grand anathème de la Trinité linguistique
Quand la Trinité linguistique - Tuaillon, Schulé et Grassi – … a lu mon
livre, depuis Toulouse, elle m’a lancé le grand anathème: «Joseph Henriet n’est pas
un linguiste et vous ne devez pas le suivre. Il n’y a que nous qui pouvons parler au
nom de la Science et c’est nous que vous devez écouter: continuez à lutter pour la
sauvegarde de tous les patois et du français.» En se comportant ainsi, les trois
trahirent leur déontologie et, en passant dans le domaine de la politique,
ils révélèrent leur nature servile et certainement pas scientifique de linguistes au
service de la culture des dominateurs et ennemis du peuple arpitan. (Henriet 2013)
The Great Anathema of the Linguistic Trinity
When the Linguistic Trinity – Tuaillon, Schulé, and Grassi – … reКd mв Лook, tСeв
pronounced tСe GreКt AnКtСemК КgКТnst me: “Joseph Henriet is not a linguist; you should not follow
Henriet Joseph «Comment j’КТ créé la koinè», http://www.lavoixdesallobroges.org/la-voue/601-commentjai-cree-la-koine-ou-la-langue-commune-arpitane-de-joseph-henriet (03.01.2013).
81
174
him. We alone may speak on behalf of the Science, it is to us alone that you must listen: continue
your struggle to save all the patois and the French language.” In tСТs аКв, tСe tСree ЛetrКвed tСeТr
professional ethics and, having transgressed into the domain of politics, revealed their servile and
clearly unscientific nature of linguists in the service of the culture of oppressors and enemies of the
Arpitan people (Original italics).
The ironic use of the ecclesiastical vocabulary (Trinity, anathema), implying that
the linguists would take themselves for Gods and Science with a capital “S” for a religion,
is an attempt, once again, to contest the role of the scholars. The presumption revealed here
is that the linguists’ behaviour is conditioned by political rather than scientific motives. In
other words, to estimate the scientific value of an orthography system means dealing with
politics rather than linguistics (“transgressed into the domain of politics”). The text relates
events that took place in the 1970s, yet one may ask why this article and such a discourse
appear almost 40 years later, in 2013. I would argue that the article reflects an idea that is
currently in vogue: debates on the role of linguists in language planning have taken place
in Arpitan forums on numerous occasions, in particular since mid-2012 – 2013, as was
demonstrated when discussing the names of the language (see the previous chapter).
In fact, the failure to implement a standard orthography back in the 1970s was,
most probably, mainly due to its being brought up by an extreme left-wing revolutionary
movement. As mentioned in the Introduction and in Part I, the Valdôtain political and
academic élite were probably opposed to the Mouvement Arpitania not so much because it
proposed to make “a language of culture” out of “patois,” thus giving to Francoprovençal a
new place in the Valdôtain (and larger, “Arpitan”) society, but because of the social
implications of the struggle itself, which was essentially one of peasants and (to a lesser
extent) workers against the bourgeoisie (and perhaps altogether because of the physical
violence preached as a method of such a struggle). As a side effect of this failed struggle it
remained a complete impossibility to speak about the standardisation of Francoprovençal
up until the 2000s. Even at the end of the 1990s, writing it (outside of poetry, which was
generally linked to the life of the agro-pastoral society) quite unambiguously meant being a
“separatist” or even worse. As reported by an informant in the VDA:
[ils] me donnaient de fasciste parce que j’avais envie d’écrire en patois : «Il faut pas
écrire en patois, on écrit en français! Un bon valdôtain écrit en français, il n’écrira
jamais en patois!» Et ça c’цtКТt en nonКnte cТnq … Il me dit : «Mais non, fasciste,
t’es comme le fasciste toi! T’es un danger pour la population valdôtaine». J’avais
175
seulement envie d’apprendre à écrire patois! Mais on était là et je ne parle pas du
Moyen Age.
[tСeв] cКlled me fКscТst ЛecКuse I аКnted to аrТte Тn pКtoТs: “Вou sСould not аrТte Тn pКtoТs, аe
write in French! A good Valdôtain аrТtes Тn FrencС, Сe аТll never аrТte Тn pКtoТs!” And that was in
‘95 … He told me: “No, вou Кre К fКscТst! Вou Кre lТke К fКscТst! Вou Кre К dКnger for tСe Valdôtain
population.” I onlв аТsСed to leКrn to аrТte Тn pКtoТs! But tСКt’s what it was, and I’m not speaking
about the Middle Ages.
Anything linked to standardisation was thus connoted as revolutionary and
therefore condemned (as for the reference to the fascist ideology, see also Part I Chapter I
on the fascist allegiance ascribed to Ascoli). Even though the official policy started to
change in the 2000s, standardisation still remains a highly sensitive topic in the VDA.82
Since in the VDA speaking about standardisation was a taboo, the proposals for this
topic came from other parts of the Francoprovençal area, namely from France and
Switzerland. More generally, suggestions on any activities implying the whole
Francoprovençal area, and all the consolidating and standardising initiatives now originate
in these countries, e.g. the International Council for Francoprovençal (Conseil
international du francoprovençal, created in 2010), or the Romand and Interregional
Federation of Patois (La Fédération Romande et Interrégionale du Patois, FRIP), which
are presided over by respectively a French and a Swiss member and usually hold their
meetings either in Savoy, or in Lausanne, in Switzerland; it was also in Lausanne that the
trans-border Arpitan Cultural Alliance was created in 2004, whereas the vast majority of its
members live in France. Finally, Lyon – a city where Francoprovençal has not been spoken
for centuries as an everyday social practice – is today the centre for political initiatives
linked to Francoprovençal. On May 28, 2015 the signing of the Charter for Interregional
and Trans-border Cooperation for the Development of the Francoprovençal Language (La
Charte de Coopération interregionale et transfrontalière pour le développement de la
langue francoprovençale) took place. Since the Francoprovençal language is no longer
spoken there, unlike in the VDA, local policy-makers are starting to see it rather as a
source of investment that could bring profit, for instance, in enhancing tourism.
E.g. when I told some people in the VDA what the topic of the annual conference of the Centre d’études
francoprovençales would be in 2015 – “The Transmission, Revitalisation and Standardisation of
Francoprovençal” – they said, the VDA authorities would rather close the centre down than let such a
conference happen. Although this judgment proved to be (rather) false, it shows how standardisation is still
seen as a taboo.
82
176
Standardisation seems a logical attribute of this consolidation process, especially since it is
imagined to give more prestige to the language concerned.
3.3. Two approaches to the standardisation of Francoprovençal
The orthography proposed by Henriet was never adopted outside of his own 1970s
movements. Later other orthographic norms emerged. Today the narrow model of
language construction supposes the use of regional orthography standards: for the two
départements of Savoie and Haute-Savoie it is the so-called Conflans orthography (la
graphie de Conflans) developed by a research group in Conflans (Savoy) in 1983 to be
common for all Savoyard patois. For the Aosta Valley it is that of the Bureau régional
pour l’ethnologie et la linguistique (known as la graphie du BREL), developed in the early
2000s. These orthography systems are commonly called phonetic orthography (graphie
phonétique): they appear to be natural and easily understandable, alike the transcription
where everything “is pronounced as written.” In fact, they are largely based on French
orthography conventions, which, one may notice, definitely do not suppose that everything
is pronounced as it is written. If one thinks of new speakers of Francoprovençal e.g. in
Valle d’Aosta, these mostly come from other Italian regions and not all of them have
studied French; this so-cКlled “pСonetТc” ortСogrКpСв tСen needs to Лe studТed, like any
other. Nevertheless such phonetic orthographies, aimed to “use as many French graphic
conventions as possible so as not to confuse the reader” (Quand les savoyards écrivent
leurs patois, 1997: 215), are represented as orthographies “for the masses.” Besides, they
emphasise the peculiar phonetic features of an idiom of a specific territory.
Contrary to this approach, the wide Arpitan model insists on the use of a unified
standard throughout the territory of language use. This would be tСe “Reference
OrtСogrКpСв B” (Orthographe de référence B), ORB, developed in 2003 by the linguist
Dominique Stich (Stich 2003). His first attempt to create such a supradialectal orthography
(Stich 1998) was called ORA (Orthographe de reference A, the word also meaning “now”
in Francoprovençal, as it is spelled in this orthography), of which the ORB is a further
elaborated version. A standard orthography is positioned as a supradialectal norm which,
thanks to its spelling conventions, allows “vocalising” a text with any local pronunciation.
This norm is explicitly based upon the example of Occitan orthography, generally referred
177
to Кs tСe “clКssТcКl” one. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the Occitan example
first, before discussing the ORB.
3.4. The Occitan example
The standard Occitan orthography commonly called classical was developed in the
middle of the 1930s by Lois Alibèrt, and was refined and brought into general use by the
staff of the Institute of Occitan Studies immediately after it was formed in 1945. Most of
the literature printed in Occitan today is published using this orthography.
In the introduction to his Occitan Grammar according to Languedoc Vernaculars
(Alibèrt 1976 [1935]), Alibèrt admits:
SКЛчm que nòstres КdversКrТs oЛjectКrрn qu’КquelК lengК restКurКdК serр artificiala,
incomprehensibla e estrangièra dins tots los païses lengadocians. (op.cit.: XXXVII,
original emphasis)
We are aware that our opponents would accuse this reconstructed orthography of being artificial,
incomprehensible, and foreign to all countries (païses) of the Oc language.
To preempt these reproaches, Alibèrt substantiates the validity of such an
orthography by stating that any literary language is partially artificial and archaic: this is
for instance the case of French, Italian, and Spanish (thus, the examples he provides pertain
to the national language of the countries where Occitan is spoken), and any literary
language needs to be learned (implying that a graphic representation of the oral is never an
automatic process). One should note the usage of the definition of a literary language
(lenga literària): Alibèrt does not speak of a standard, standardised, or normalised
language, as the unifying variants of minority languages are often defined, but specifically
of the language of literature. In other words, it is assumed that the main function of the
orthography he developed, and of a written language as a whole, is to provide a tool for the
creation of works of literature. The need of a common norm is explained by the argument
that a language cannot be limited to a single territory and a single time:
Deu essèr la sintèsi dels parlars naturals de tota la nacion e la sintèsi de la lenga
dels escrivans ancians e modèrns. (op. cit.: XXXVIII)
178
It must be a synthesis of natural idioms of the entire nation and a synthesis of the language of
authors, both ancient and modern.
It is therefore presumed that the created norm encompasses both diatopic and
diachronic variations of the language. Once again, a special attention is paid to the
“language of authors.” Note the mention of an Occitan nation: the fact that the Occitan
constitute a separate nation is given in the presupposition of the statement, i.e. is presented
as a priori knowledge not to be substantiated or contested.
Alibèrt builds his system based on the Catalan orthography developed by Pompeu
Fabra, leaving out some specifically Catalan features. The proximity of the two
ortСogrКpСТes КТms to promote “a better understanding among the Occitan from both sides
of the Pyrenees” (“una intercomprehencion mai aisida entre los Occitans dels dos penjals
dels Pirenèus,” Ibid.: XXXIV). Thus, establishing trans-border contacts turns out to be
another function of the Occitan orthography. Apparently, it specifically concerns contacts
with the Catalans rather than those between the Occitans living in France and the Spanish
Occitans of the Aran Valley (Alibèrt includes Catalan into a unified Occitan language as a
dialect).
In practice, a unified norm is created by following a set of rules. In phonetics,
variants that had already been found in the language in the Middle Ages are allowed while
those having emerged during the period of decline are excluded. For instance, the forms
nuèch, nuòch, nuèit (for night) known since the medieval period are allowed, unlike the
later nièch, nèch, nioch, nèit; fach, fait (for done, or fact) are admitted while fat, fèit, fèi are
not, etc. When the variation is too wide, only one or two forms are selected for the sake of
easier teaching and reading: Alibèrt calls this method “relative uniformisation”
(uniformizacion relativa). Another fundamental principle is to present words in their “full
etymological form,” e.g. donar rather than dunà (for to give), véser rather than bese (for to
see), fuèlh rather than fèl (for leaf), etc.
Finally, one of the proclaimed goals is to cleanse the language of Gallicisms:
wherever the colloquial speech uses borrowings from French, the standard Occitan prefers
authentic Occitan words, ideally coming from the Languedocian variant or, if analogues
are not to be found in it, “from other Occitan dialects including Catalan and, in extremis,
from the ancient language (lenga anciana)” (implying the language of the medieval
manuscripts).
179
When the classical Occitan orthography is used today, the diatopic variation is
emphasised. For instance, Robert Lafont, a major Occitan sociolinguist and one of the
founders of the Institute of Occitan Studies, starts his memoires entitled Pecics de miègsègle (Bits from Half a Century) in Provençal and finishes it in Languedocian – while
using the classical orthography in both cases:
d’un provençal mitonat d’enfança e assaborat de granda literatura felibrenca a un
occitan dich central, sens gost ni gosta al culhièr tradicional, mas qu’a gost fin
finala d’Occitània possibla. (Lafont 1999: 11)
from a Provençal simmered from infancy and seasoned with the great literature of the Félibres, to
the so-called Central Occitan that has no taste from the traditional spoon, but which finally bears the
flavour of a possible Occitania.
One of the Occitanist activists, in his sixties, explained his adherence to the
classical orthography by comparing it to the so-called Mistral’s spelling, developed by the
Félibrige and based on the conventions of French orthography. It turned out that texts
spelled in Mistral’s orthography are like copybooks or primary school textbooks, “for
children,” аСТle the classical orthography is seen as a “more scientific” one, “Тntended for
grown-ups.” Furthermore, the informant explains that back in the 1970s, when the
orthography was spreading, younger people saw it to be more modern, in particular due to
Тts ЛeТng “closer to CКtКlonТК” (because of its being based on the Catalan example): this
orthography allowed the creation of an image of a modern unity, while the Provençal
spelling was associated with the traditional language, the peasant speech, the language of
the past.
The criticism of tСe “clКssТcКl” ortСogrКpСв Тs summed up Лв the Provençalist
sociolinguist Blanchet:
A partir des années 1950-1970 a aussi été proposée (voire ponctuellement imposée)
la graphie occitane, que ses promoteurs appellent “classique”, fondée sur des
principes … comparable à ceux du système français : graphie élitiste, grammaticale
et archaïsante, s’КppuвКnt sur des mКnuscrТts mцdТцvКuб, un stКndКrd centrКl (р
base languedocienne), et une visée unifiante – aux connotations nationalitaires – de
l’ensemЛle d’oc. (Blanchet 2002: 118, my italics)
180
Since the 1950-70s, an Occitan orthography has been proposed (i.e. imposed), called “classical” by
Тts promoters, ЛКsed on prТncТples … compКrКЛle аТtС tСose of tСe FrencС sвstem: Кn elitist
orthography, grammaticalised and archaicised, based on medieval manuscripts; a central standard
(based on Languedocian) pursuing to unify – with nationalist connotations – the Oc group.
Thus, the “clКssТcКl” orthography is correlated to the high culture comparable to the
French one, “elitist,” “archaicised,” centralised – in other words, absolutely alien to
popular culture (for more details on this see Costa 2010). Additionally, nationalist
connotations are ascribed to the choice of the classical orthography. It is thus about the
fear of the imposition of a non-existent, invented, artificial language that could exterminate
the real idiom still preserved by the older rural generation. The two orthographic solutions
are correlated, on the one hand, to the opposition between popular and elitist culture; and
on the other hand, to the reference either to the recent past, which appears to be quite real
(preserving the disappearing traditions of the forefathers), or to a remote, centuries-old one
(recreating long-since-lost, mythologised linguistic practices).
A similar type of conflict is emerging today in the case of the Arpitan orthography.
3.5. A referential orthography for Arpitan
3.5.1 The original argument
Dominique Stich begins the presentation of his Francoprovençal orthography
(ORB) with the following statement:
A la question: « pourquoi avoir créé une orthographe supradialectale du
francoprovençal ? », la réponse est simple : « pКrce qu’Тl n’en eбТste encore
aucune ». (Stich 2003: 411)
The answer to the question “WСв creКte a supra-dialectal Francoprovençal ortСogrКpСв?” Тs sТmple:
“BecКuse none СКs eбТsted Лefore.”
One notes that the answer is not particularly convincing: the very fact that nobody
has ever set this goal before cannot but strengthen one’s doubts about the appropriateness
of such an undertaking. Besides, according to Stich, “what best represents a language is its
orthography” (« ce qui représente le mТeuб une lКngue, c’est son ortСogrКpСe », Ibid.,
original italics). Thus, orthography, along with the name of the idiom, is aimed at allowing
181
the language to be identified (probably, as a language distinct of its neighbours). Farther
on, the need for a unified supra-dialectal orthography is substantiated by the fact that it
already exists “for Occitan, Breton, BКsque, CКtКlКn…” Note that what Stich cites are
precisely the four “regional languages” that are permitted to be taught in French schools
(according to the Deixonne Law); he only mentions that the orthography of these
languages “is recognised by the educational institutions of some countries” without
specifying any further (one recalls also that in Spain, Occitan, Basque, and Catalan are
given the status of co-official languages). In the case of these languages, a supra-dialectal
orthography “allows learning, in particular, history, geography, sciences, and especially
literature in the respective language” (Ibid.) We find here the characteristic set of identity
components of a (linguistic) community: the name of the idiom and orthography are
followed by history, geography, and literature – note that the latter is especially present –
just as happened in the Occitan discourse.
As for the specific case of Francoprovençal, another argument in favour of the need
for a unified ortСogrКpСв Тs seen Тn tСe presence of “numerous testТmonТКls” (unspecТfТed)
of the extreme difficulty of reading texts, even those that are written in the
Francoprovençal variant that is close to the reader: due to phonetic and lexical
discrepancies, due to the absence of grammatical markers, such as the –s ending for
plurals, or due to the strangeness (étrangeté) of the phonetic spelling, etc.
The lack of specificity is typical of the author’s rhetoric. Thus, whereas “a certain
member of the French Academy” expressed his contempt for regional languages in 2002,
“some Europeans” had been of a different opinion and awarded the 1904 Nobel Prize in
Literature to Frédéric Mistral. Mistral’s Nobel Prize as a sign of the highest recognition of
a literary oeuvre in a regional language reveals not only the prestige of the
Provençal/Occitan language, in which Mistral wrote, but that of Francoprovençal as well.
It is also to be noted that the word language (langue) is printed in boldface on numerous
occasions. Such a representation is implicitly opposed to the notion of the patois as a nonlanguage.
It is the orthography that will allow the elevation of Francoprovençal to the rank of
a language:
Pour le СТsser Кu nТveКu d’une langue, Тl fКut luТ donner lК reprцsentКtТon qu’Тl
mérite, une orthographe qui soit la même pour tout le monde, où chaque mot ne
182
s’цcrТve que d’une seule mКnТчre, quelle que soТt lК prononcТКtТon de ce mot. (Ibid.:
412, original emphasis)
To promote [Francoprovençal] to the level of a language, it has to be given the representation it
deserves, an orthography that would be the same for all, wherein each word has but a single way to
be spelled whatever its pronunciation.
Thus, Stich’s method is to present a single form of the word independently of its
dialectal variation. This task turns out to be all the more difficult because Francoprovençal
is highly fragmented. Stich mentions the “obvious kinship” (“une parenté évidente”) of
Francoprovençal words despite the great discrepancies in their realisation (Ibid.: 412). His
approach can be defined as Indo-European comparativism:
Il s’КgТt donc de retrouver, comme pour toutes les Кutres lКngues romКnes, lК forme
déjà différente du latin mais pas encore « émiettée » dans les multiples patois
d’Кujourd’СuТ. (Ibid.)
So, like for all Romance languages, it is necessary to find in today’s many patois a form already
different from Latin but not yet splintered.
Remember this notion of a “pure” state of sorts of a unified Francoprovençal
language, as it proves important for the opponents of Stich’s approach.
Farther on, phonetic processes common for all Romance languages (with the rare
exception of certain Sardinian varieties) are considered. Stich gives the example of
palatalisation of the Latin /k/, which was written as C in Latin. His argument is built on the
fact that despite the varying pronunciation in different Romance languages, all of them
kept the C in their spelling – except Romansh, which borrowed the German spelling,
“which immediately produces the feeling of foreignness with respect to other
orthographies” (Ibid.: 412). The same applies to the second palatalisation of the Latin /k/,
before /a/: despite their different phonetics, various Romance languages denote the result
in the same way, with ch:
Latin: CANTARE
French: chanter [ʃãte]
North Occitan: chanter [ʧanta] (Languedoc Occitan: cantar [kanta])
Romansh: chanter [tçanta]
183
ORB: chantar [tsãtɑ], [Þуtу], [ʃуto]
(Op.cit.: 413)
In this way, Stich builds the proof of legitimacy of his Francoprovençal
orthography on an explanation of the common principles of most Romance language
orthographies via a diachronic and diatopic analysis. Other examples concern, on the one
hand, other changes of the Latin /k/ in Romance languages – before /w/ and before /l/; and
on the other hand, language changes specific to Francoprovençal – in particular, the
evolution of the Latin /a/, the most “famous” characteristic of Francoprovençal (see Part II
Chapter1).
To solve the language fragmentation problem, Stich follows the recipes of “the
three regional languages” that are also characterised by a significant dialectal variation:
Occitan, Gascon, and Breton (Ibid.: 414). Note that according to Stich, Gascon is not part
of the Occitan language. Stich first “tried to adapt the (so-called classical) Occitan
orthography, but was soon to realise that vocalic systems in particular were too different”
(Ibid.) At the same time, the researcher notes that the improved version of the orthography
(the ORB after the ORA) was only made possible thanks to the advice of the Occitans and
the Gascons (i.e., it should be noted, non-speakers of Francoprovençal).
Stich gives the following definition of a supra-dialectal orthography:
Ce n’est pКs lК descrТptТon pСonцtТque eбКcte de tous les pКrlers, quТ ont cСКcun des
pКrtТculКrТsmes plus ou moТns rКres. C’est lК reprцsentКtТon rцfцrentТelle, р trКvers
les traits phonétiques domТnКnts du dТКsвstчme, mКТs КussТ р trКvers l’цtвmologТe et
lК grКmmКТre, d’une lКngue р trКvers l’ensemЛle de ses vКrТцtцs, КussТ ЛТen dКns le
temps que dКns l’espКce. (Ibid: 415)
It is not a precise phonetic description of all tongues, each of which has its own, more or less rare,
peculiar features. It is a referential representation (représentation référentielle) via the features that
are dominant in the diasystem, but also via the language’s etymology and grammar, via the diversity
of its variants both in time and in space.
Note the idea of diachronic and diatopic variation (“the diversity of its variants both
in time and in space”), common with the Occitan discourse and probably borrowed from
the latter. It is specified that “the role of this orthography is to provide a connecting link
between the patois without disrupting their diversity” (“le rôle d’une telle ortСogrКpСe est
184
de servТr de trКТt d’unТon entre les pКrlers, sКns toucСer р leur vКrТцtц,” Ibid). However,
unlike the Occitan idea of recreation of the norm of written texts (preserved up to our times
in Medieval texts and which might be significantly different from the idioms that were
spoken in various places of the Oc area), what is presented here is an attempt to recreate a
common oral norm, a proto-form of the modern language that, according to the author,
once existed. The assumption that such a norm has in fact existed at all is not substantiated
but is purported to be an obvious stage of language development.
ORB proposes two writing systems: a wide and a narrow spelling (graphie large vs.
graphie serrée). The former represent “supra-phonological” and a “supra-grammatical”
(sur-phonologique, sur-grammatical) systems, while the latter implies a graphic notation
of a maximum number of dialectal features (Stich 2008: 186). Similarly, two pronunciation
systems are in fact proposed for this spelling although it is not stated explicitly. The two
systems are presented as two different lists in two different parts of the book: in the
Orthoepy section (pp. 181-185), and in the section entitled ORB characteristics, letter by
letter (pp. 416-418). The second system is extremely complicated, where up to 10 possible
pronunciation variants (implementations of the same phoneme, according to Stich) are
presented for each letter. Consider just a single example – the same one that Stich
considers in his argument related to other Romance languages:
ch – {c}, realised as [ts], [Þ], [st], [s], [h], [f], [ʧ], [ʃ]; never as [k]: ècô (“echo”)
In КddТtТon to tСe КЛove, pronuncТКtТon for cС• Кnd c’h is provided separately (the
latter is used in the narrow spelling).
Finally, Stich concedes that:
Une ortСogrКpСe est fКТte pour шtre lue et цcrТte, ce n’est pКs un produТt 100%
scТentТfТque, puТsque les lКngues n’цvoluent pКs d’une mКnТчre pКrfКТtement
régulière… (op. cit.: 186)
Orthography is made to be read and written, it is not a 100% scientific product because languages
never develop in a perfectly regular way…
185
3.5.2 Researchers criticisms of the ORB: amateurs vs. scientists
The common criticism of the ORB by researchers is based on the following
arguments:
-
the orthography is too complicated to be learned. Besides, language
learners will tend to read the words as they are written, which will result in the
creation of an entirely new, artificial language;
-
Francoprovençal has never existed as a unified language that Stich
tries to recreate;
-
the notion of a single community, be it linguistic, cultural, or
political, has never existed in the Francoprovençal linguistic area. In this context, the
very idea of a common orthography appears artificial.
These main arguments have been encountered in my exchanges with the
researchers of Francoprovençal (see also Matthey, Meune 2012: 107-108).
The critique of ORB in the VDA directly links the idea of a supra-dialectal
ortСogrКpСв to tСКt of sepКrКtТsm, folloаТng tСe model: “one ortСogrКpСв = one countrв =
separatism = social peace at a risk.” Thus Bétemps (2015 [2004]) argues that if the
objective is to “save [Francoprovençal] in its countless vКrТetТes” (“conserver, dans ses
innombrables variétés”), tСКn no stКndКrd Тs needed, К “pСonetТc” аrТtТng аould Лe
sufficient. The only case where the standard would be needed, according to Bétemps, is the
following:
Mais si l’on pense que le Francoprovençal est une langue discriminée, injustement
arrachée, que sa récupération est un besoin fondamental des populations qui le
parlent encore ou qui l’ont parlé, même si à une époque très reculée, qu’il faut donc
lui donner une officialité dans l’usage et l’enseigner pour qu’il redevienne le code
linguistique commun de Saint-Etienne à Aoste et de Grenoble à Fribourg; si l’on
pense qu’il existe un pays francoprovençal et que ce pays mériterait d’être reconnu,
unifié, qu’il aurait le droit de s’autogouverner, et d’avoir sa langue, bien distincte,
bien que fort semblable, de celle des voisins, dans ce cas, la koinè n’est pas
seulement nécessaire mais indispensable et son établissement devient urgent.
If one thinks that Francoprovençal is a language discriminated against, unjustly ripped out, that its
recuperation is a fundamental need of the populations that still speak it or that have once spoken it,
186
even if in a very remote period, that it should be therefore given an officiality in use and taught, so
that it becomes anew a common linguistic code from St. Etienne to Aosta and from Grenoble to
Fribourg; if one thinks that there exists a Francoprovençal country and that this country deserves to
be recognised, unified, that it would have the right for self-government, and to have its language,
clearly distinct, even though very similar to that of the neighbours, in this case a koinè is not only
necessary but also indispensable and its establishment becomes urgent.
TСus tСe need of lКnguКge “recuperКtТon” Кnd Тts teКcСТng Кt scСool Тs seen Кs
solely possible in case of imagining one single country, which, in turn, brings about the
idea of this country’s self-government. The objective is thus seen as essentially political.
As to the feasibility of such a (hypothetical) programme,
Bien sûr, avec un peu de travail politique, l’idée peut trouver des adeptes, surtout
autour du Mont-Blanc où la conscience d’une identité commune est assez partagée
par la population. Mais comment faire avec Lyon, la capitale, Grenoble, SaintEtienne, Bourg-en Bresse, Genève, Neuchâtel? Les probabilités de réalisation d’un
plan politique de ce genre sont minimes et le coût en terme de paix sociale surtout,
seraient énormes.
Of course, with a bit of political work, the idea [of secession] can find its adepts, especially around
Mont Blanc where the consciousness of having a common identity is generally shared by the
population. But what to do with Lyon, the capital, Grenoble, Saint-Etienne, Bourg-en Bresse,
Geneva, Neuchâtel? The probabilities of the realisation of a political programme of this kind are
minimal, and the costs, especially in terms of social peace, would be enormous.
In Switzerland, where, unlike in the VDA, there is no long tradition of associating
the ideas of orthography for Francoprovençal with those of secessionism, the criticism
concerned mostly the lexicographical side of the book by Stich. Let us examine more in
detail the review of Stich’s dictionary written by Eric Fluckiger, a professor at the
University of Neuchâtel (Fluckiger 2004). It became an ORB critique par excellence: it is
this paper that is quoted both in scholarly works (e.g. Elmiger 2012: 92) and in the French
Wikipedia article on Francoprovençal – in which activist and scientific arguments feature
in approximately equal parts, as the article has been edited by both parties (“see Eric
Fluckiger’s revТeа (2004) … for К scТentТfТc crТtТcКl КnКlвsТs of StТcС’s orthography”83 –
note the adjective scientific) – and, consequently, in Arpitanist blogs.
83
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoproven%C3%A7al#cite_note-CritiqueStich-32 (03.03.13)
187
The review’s argument is built on an opposition between amateurs (“Кn КmКteur
аould Лe cКptТvКted…” – op. cit.: 312) and the scientific community. The author thus
indicates that:
-
“The nomenclature sustained numerous deviations from the
elementary principles of lexicography” (La nomenclature a pâti des nombreuses
entorses faites aux principes élémentaires de la lexicographie – op. cit.: 313, my
italics – N.B.): it concerns separate lexical entries for substantives and adjectives in
plural form or for feminine adjectives, etc.;
-
“StТcС’s mТcrostructurКl formulК Тs atypical and poorly compliant
аТtС tСe rules of modern leбТcogrКpСв” (La formule microstructurelle de Stich est
atypique et peu conforme aux règles de la lexicographie moderne – op. cit.: 315);
-
“Methodological faults are often combined” (op. cit.: 313), the lack
of e.g. a systematic indication of the grammatical category “goes against customary
conventions” (op. cit.: 315), etc.
Fluckiger reproaches Stich for his “artificially distinguishing” (distingue
artificiellement) certain words while “unjustifiably separating others” (en sépare indûment
les autres). It is therefore implicitly assumed that there exists – or there may exist – a
different classification, which, unlike the “artificial” one in question, would be “natural”
and “justifiable.” Presumably, Fluckiger sees such classifications in the GPRS (the
Glossary of Patois of Romandie Switzerland) and the FEW (the French Etymological
Dictionary),84 the two sources he regularly uses to compare Stich’s suggestions with. Note
that the review only provides the acronyms of these publications while all other sources are
referenced to by their full bibliographical data. In this way, a border is once again being
drawn between the members of the scientific community, those who understand, – and the
amateurs. A Latin phrase used by Fluckiger (op. cit.: 313) serves the same purpose.
Due to the dialectological orientation of the review’s author, he almost never
mentions the two aspects of Stich’s work that proved to be fundamental for his Arpitanist
followers: the Francoprovençal language planning in general and the development of a
supra-dialectal spelling system in particular. Thus, Fluckiger has doubts concerning the
appropriacy of neologism-coining: in his opinion, it would require “the agreement of
84
GPRS : Glossaire des Patois de la Suisse Romande, par L. Gauchat, J. Jeanjaquet, E. Tappolet, avec la
collaboration d'E. Muret, Attinger, Neuchâtel et Paris, 1924 ss.
FEW : W. von Wartburg, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Basel, 1922 ss.
188
representative instances of the respective linguistic domain” (le concours d’instances
représentatives du domaine linguistique concerné – Ibid.: 319). He cites the example of the
Lia Rumantscha organisation in the Swiss canton of Graubünden, which performs the same
function concerning the Romansh language. It remains nevertheless unclear what body
could claim, if hypothetically, to play a similar part in the Francoprovençal linguistic area.
The issue of a supra-dialectal orthography as such is explicitly left aside:
La problématique de la graphie supra-dialectale n’est évoquée ici que pour rappeler
qu’il
s’КgТt
…
d’un
artefact
qui
privilégie
l’intercompréhension
pan-
francoprovençale au détriment de la description des spécificités phonétiques
locales. (op. cit.: 314)
The problematic of supra-dialectal spelling is only mentioned here to remind that it concerns … an
artefact that favours pan-Francoprovençal intelligibility at the expense of the description of local
phonetic specificities.
As for Stich’s etymological approach, it is mostly not the etymological principle
itself that is criticised, but its implementation: “having failed to rightly identify certain
morphemes, the author produces a confusion” (Op. cit.: 315). Effacement of “the entire
diatopic fullness” (op. cit.: 317) is also mentioned. Any doubts in “the appropriateness of
such an undertaking” as a whole are only expressed in a footnote. Thus, what the review
mostly criticises is not the ORB, even less the idea of a supra-dialectal Francoprovençal
spelling as such, but Stich’s lexicographical method, for failing to comply with scientific
criteria:
Abstraction faite de la question pendante du bien-fondé d’une koïnè
francoprovençale,
il
nous
paraît
que
la
partie
lexicographique
de
l’ouvrage est dépourvue de toute valeur scientifique. (op. cit.: 319)
Leaving aside the pending issue of the justifiability of a Francoprovençal koïnè, we believe that the
lexicographical part of this work is deprived of any scientific value.
It is the last phrase that is quoted in Arpitanist debates: methodological issues
should be of the least interest to Arpitanists, but it does not prevent them from referring to
Fluckiger’s review as the quintessential incarnation of a “hostile” point of view.
189
3.5.3 The activist stance: orthography as a political issue
As was mentioned earlier in this chapter, non-Arpitanist activists prefer the socalled phonetic spelling. They either ignore Stich’s orthography or reject it as too
complicated. The ORB is being actively promoted by Arpitanists: they consider the
promotion of this supra-dialectal orthography to be one of the main goals of the ACA.
Meanwhile, the Arpitanist discourse reveals three main ideas that are also present in
Stich’s text. Firstly, orthography turns a patois into a language. Like IP, 1950, Arp from
Lausanne admits: “When I write in the ORB, I feel I am writing in a language.” Secondly,
the function of an orthography is to promote mutual understanding between Arpitans from
different parts of Arpitania (the notion of orthography as a common code). At the same
time, activists, similarly to the linguists who criticise Stich, do mention the paradox that a
common linguistic unity is only acknowledged when almost nobody naturally speaks the
language anymore. This remark is however free of any negative connotation when
expressed by activists. Finally, the idea of a supra-dialectal language is mentioned much
less frequently. Note that in this case, it is mostly supra-dialectal lexis that is meant rather
than supra-dialectal phonetics or grammar. Thus, AW, 1950, Arp, concedes that he tries to
speak using as few local words, and as many of those used throughout the whole Arpitan
territory, as possible – even though the latter may be the least frequent ones. According to
him, the language as it used to be, and as it is still marginally preserved today (in all the
diversity of variants of different valleys and villages), is doomed to die out soon. The
future of Arpitan is seen in a common, unified linguistic form.
Fluckiger’s review emerges in a discussion held in the Arpitania abada! Facebook
group (02.06.2013): 85 the last sentence of the review is quoted (as provided above),
followed by comments. To quote three of them:
E.A.: Voilà comment on utilise sa position de linguiste pour faire de la politique.
Here’s how a linguist’s position is used to make politics.
E.A.: Ils [les dialectologues] comprennent pas qu’ils ne sont pas propriétaires de la
langue, et que nous avons besoin d’un code orthographique, peu importe si il ne
85
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21904584384/
190
colle pas à 100% à tous les dialectes de manière parfaite. … si seulement ils se
contentaient de ne pas intervenir, mais non !!!!!
[The dialectologists] fail to understand that they don’t own the language, that we need an
orthographic code even if it doesn”t perfectly fit with all the dialects to 100% … if only they could
content themselves with abstaining from interfering, but no!!!!!
A.F.: Ils disent qu’ils veulent maintenir "pure" la langue et jouent sur les émotions
des gens.
They say they want to keep tСe lКnguКge “pure” Кnd plКв upon people’s feelings.
Despite the apparent dialogue with the text of the review, the parties mean in fact
different issues: the discussion transforms the criticisms of the lexicographic method into
those of a supra-dialectal standard as such. It turns out once again that the issue of the
orthography is a political rather than a linguistic one, and, therefore, does not belong to
linguists (just as was seen above with respect to the issue of naming the language).
Similarly, in the day-to-day communication among Arpitanists, linguists are reproached for
meddling in issues that lie beyond their expertise. In other words, it is suggested that the
business of linguists is to study language variations, whereas language planning belongs to
its speakers – or to activists acting as their representatives. To cite an anecdotal example,
an Arpitan separatist from the Aosta Valley, DT, 1963, Arp, borrows criminal vocabulary
to speak about dialectologists: as he refers to them, he uses the term cupola (coupole),
usually meant to denote the central controlling and coordinating body of the mafia.
Note that the Arpitanist stance is substantially different in this respect from that of
Savoyardists. The latter also blame researchers for the lack of positive changes in the
linguistic situation, but their reproaches are of the opposite nature: it is not that linguists
meddle in the issues that are of no concern to them, but that those in France do not work on
the issues they should be working on:
AB, 1960, Sav: Nous on est un peu délaissés parce qu’on voit dès lors qu’on sort
frontière, si on va tout de suite au domaine occitan au Sud de la France, ça y est, on a
à nouveau toute une armada d’universitaires, on passe en Italie, ils sont là, et même
en Suisse! Ils ont un glossaire universitaire à Neuchâtel. Et quand on arrive en France
et bien voilà que tout ça disparait. Donc les parents pauvres à l’intérieur de la France,
à l’intérieur du francoprovençal les parents pauvres aussi.
191
We are somewhat underprivileged because as soon as you cross the border, if you go straight to the
Occitan area in the South of France, everything is fine there, there’s once again a whole armada of
scholars, you go to Italy, they are there, and even in Switzerland! They have a university glossary in
Neuchâtel. Now as soon as you get to France, it all disappears. Poor cousins within France, poor
cousins within Francoprovençal too.
3.5.4 Concluding remarks
To conclude, two major observations can be made:
Firstly, the ORB explicitly departs from the assumption that different
Francoprovençal varieties are not mutually intelligible, therefore a common “code” Тs
needed (Кs Тt Тs referred to Лв lКnguКge КdvocКtes), to Лe “decoded” locКllв. This vision has
indeed been spread by public authorities and dialectologists in their discourse on the patois
of a village that would not be understood even three kilometers away. Its objective was to
degrade local vernaculars to the level of a “non-language,” Кs opposed to the national
language, which is everywhere the same and ensures wide communication. Paradoxically,
language activists who claim to be against nation-state ideologies base their proposed
language planning precisely on these. Sociolinguistically speaking, the assumption of a
lack of mutual intelligibility between different varieties is wrong. Indeed, in all periods
there have been exchanges in the Francoprovençal area that would go far beyond a single
village. Thus many informants in the villages in the three countries would tell stories about
themselves or else about their (grand-)parents going to the livestock fair on foot,
sometimes to other regions and countries. They would speak patois everywhere on their
way and at the fair itself. The patois would change as they proceeded, yet the differences
served to identify the interlocutor’s geographic background, without ever impeding
successful communication (see also Bichurina, Dunoyer forthcoming on this). Today the
patois of a village is even more of a myth: with a modern level of mobility, with people
having parents from different municipalities and living themselves in yet another one, the
occasions for communication between speakers of different varieties are ubiquitous, and
“un grand esprit d’adaptation” (“К strong spirit of КdКptКtТon”), Кs one of mв Valdôtain
informants once referred to it, is becoming more and more widespread. Hence, if people do
indeed say (namely in Savoie and Haute-Savoie) that they find it difficult to read a variety
from another place, even be it some kilometers away, it is not due to the varieties being not
mutually intelligible, but merely to tСe ortСogrКpСв not ЛeТng “decodКЛle” (Тn tСe vКst
192
majority of cases it is the Graphie de Conflans: in its effort to be as close to the phonetics
as possible it is often hard for the reader to graphically recognise the words).
Secondly, most of those insisting on ORB are those who do not actually use the
language as a means of daily communication. On the contrary, in the whole Valle d’Aosta,
the region where the language is spoken on a daily basis by the majority of the population,
out of 128,298 inhabitants86 only two use ORB. Hence, those writing the idiom and thus
making it into a “language” and those speaking it are two distinct categories. Once again,
we can see here that a language as an object of language planning and a language as a daily
practice are two different social phenomena.
Finally, it should be noticed that no properly linguistic study of the ORB has been
made yet: one that would analyse the concrete solutions proposed by ORB at various levels
of the linguistic system (not only the lexical choice, but also the phonological and morphosyntactic solutions), and compare it with the actual language system as used by speakers in
different parts of the Francoprovençal area. The lack of such studies, in its turn, can be
seen to emphasise once again that heated disputes that seemingly are about language are
almost always about extralinguistic challenges.
Discussion: geography, naming, orthography, and the role of
linguists
Thus, three elements of the discussion become the subject of a heated conflict
between different movements:
-
geography
-
idiom naming
-
orthography
It would seem that none of these elements is directly connected to the idiom: one
can obviously speak an idiom that has no name or known geographical limits (which is
exactly the situation of many oral languages). Nevertheless, the discourse of all
participants of the process under study assures that the language (Francoprovençal,
Arpitan, or Savoyard) will exist if the three corresponding conditions are observed: if its
86
On 1/1/2015 http://www.regione.vda.it/cartaidentita/default_i.aspx
193
geographic limits are defined, if it is named, and if it has an orthography system of its own.
The act of naming turns out to be especially significant as it is interpreted as performative:
a language will exist if it is named, and it is crucial to name it in the right way. The major
differences between the two models are summarised in Table 7.
Table 7. Narrow vs. wide models of language construction
“NКrroа” model
Main trend
“WТde” model
“suЛjectТve”: lТnguТstТc Лorders
“OЛjectТve”: lТnguТstТc Лorders
correspond to today’s speakers’
correspond to oЛjectТve “lТnguТstТc
representations87 and existing
fКcts”88
local identities
Geographic
borders
&
An idiom’s borders are based on
A (newly imagined) trans-border
the
territorial
borders
of
a
local
space
is
delimited
linguistic borders
administrative entity
according to the linguistic features
Names
An idiom’s name corresponds to
- The name is based on the
tСe nКme of tСe terrТtorв: “pКtoТs
linguistic properties of the idiom:
of tСe munТcТpКlТtв Б”; “tСe
“tСe FrКncoprovenхКl lКnguКge” or
Savoyard
language,”
“tСe
- A unique name to delimit a
Valdôtain dialect,” etc.
unique
“tСe
object:
lКnguКge”
(also
ArpТtКn
“Savoyard
lКnguКge” Тn some ТnterpretКtТons)
Orthography
“pСonetТc”
So-cКlled
So-called
‘supra-dТКlectКl”
orthographies, specifying all the
orthography, emphasising common
particularities
lexical roots (К “common code”)
of
local
pronunciation
Implications
- A local variety, often seen as a
- A language in its own right
“non-lКnguКge”
- Aim at language revitalisation
- Aim at preserving linguistic
and transmission
diversity (museification)
87
88
Such as they evolved historically and under the influence of nation-state ideologies
Chosen as relevant subjectively by scholars
194
This conflict can be considered under various aspects: as one between wide and
narrow models, or between objective and subjective ones. At the same time, it ultimately
turns out to be also a conflict between the scientific model and the activist (Arpitan) one.
The latter relies on scientific knowledge as well (books by Stich), but the research that
legitimises it is extremely marginalised, and most specialists usually consider it to be
“unscТentТfТc.” ReseКrcСers, Тn tСeТr turn, turn out to Лe “tСe enemТes” of the object of their
study in the eyes of activists: in the activists’ discourse, it is the linguist who plays the part
of the principal enemy, as well as that of the culprit for the present (dying) and future
(dead) states of the idiom under study. At the same time, linguists are denied the right to
participate in language planning: their area of expertise is taken to be limited to studying
the linguistic properties of the language, whereas the entire responsibility for practical
issues should rest on the speakers – or on the activists acting (as if) in their behalf.
The use of language and its representations among the speakers themselves will be
studied in Part III.
195
Part III. Francoprovençal as a social and cultural practice
In Parts I and II, the discourse on the language was considered; in Part III, I will
explore the actual linguistic practices of the Francoprovençal communities. At the
beginning of the 21st century, as it was noted, a series of legal acts have transformed what
used to be consТdered К group of “pКtoТs” Кt tСe ЛorderlКnd of Italy, France and
Switzerland Тnto К “mТnorТtв/regТonКl lКnguКge”: tСe Francoprovençal language (hereafter
Francoprovençal; see Law 482/1999 for Italy and Deliberation 2009 for France). With the
Charter for interregional and trans-border cooperation for the development of the
Francoprovençal language, signed in May 2015 (Charter 2015)89, a trans-border language
policy is being developed. So far it has concerned the autonomous region of Valle d’Aosta
in Italy and the Rhône-Alpes region in France, but cooperation with Francoprovençalspeaking Swiss cantons is also under discussion. As for civil society, trans-border
cooperation is established with the annual international festivals of Francoprovençal
organised by the Romand and interregional federation of “patoisants” (Fédération
romande et interrégionale des patoisants, FRIP). In 2010 the International Council for
Francoprovençal (Conseil International du Francoprovençal), including members from the
three states, was also created. All of these activities are based on the assumption that a
structural unity of Francoprovençal shown by the dialectologists would imply a similarity
of the social issues linked to the linguistic practices and of speakers’ needs.
At the same time, although extensive research has been carried out on linguistic
features of Francoprovençal (see Tuaillon 2007), none of the approaches developed so far
have regarded Francoprovençal as it is used in interaction, as far as its main trans-border
area is concerned. They have mostly regarded locally circumscribed varieties spoken by
individuals seen as monolingual, excluding from their scope the contact phenomena that
can be observed in the actual language use, as well as the social meaning and implications
of such linguistic behaviour. If this is true for Francoprovençal, it is also a common issue
for studies on minority languages. Unlike the issue of the language on its own, as a certain
abstraction, the issue of the actual use of minority languages rarely becomes the focus of
attention, of either researchers or activists:
See also the Rhône-Alpes Кnd VКlle d’AostК regТons’ press-releases :
http://www.rhonealpes.fr/uploads/Externe/9e/PRE_FICHIER_1473_1432825479.pdf and
http://appweb.regione.vda.it/dbweb/Comunicati.nsf/VediNewsi/5fe0bc9307a81511c1257e69002a0dfc!Open
Document&Click=
89
196
L’effacement actuel [des locuteurs] permet de se concentrer sur la langue, d’en
faire un objet d’étude et de débat, en laissant de côté la question embarrassante des
pratiques mixtes, diglossiques, complexes des locuteurs ordinaires. (Costa 2012)
The present-day effacement [of language speakers] allows a focus on the language, making it the
object of research and debate, to leave aside the embarrassing issue of mixed, diglossic, complex
practices of ordinary speakers.
The central question of this Part III can be therefore formulated roughly as follows:
what do people actually do with Francoprovençal and what does using this code instead of
any other one mean for them? Studying this will allow us to see the gap between language
ideologies and language practices, and help to identify real issues that are problematic for
the speakers. It might also clarify what is, more broadly, a minority language at the
beginning of the 21st centurв: not Кs Тt СКs Лeen descrТЛed “from КЛove” Лв dТКlectologТsts,
or defined by politicians, or claimed by certain activists, but as an actual linguistic practice,
and a reality existing in its speakers’ representations and conditioning its use.
As described in the introduction to this paper, the findings are based on extensive
fieldwork in which priority was given to the ethnographic method of participant
observation (five months in the Francoprovençal-speaking areas of France, 10 months in
both those in Switzerland and in Italy). The observation was combined with in-depth
interviews (60 interviews of 1-3 hours in length) held mostly in Francoprovençal.
I will argue that the Francoprovençal space comprises two types of linguistic
situations, to which I refer as diffuse and focused, borrowing the terms from Le Page and
Tabouret-Keller (1985). The first, the diffuse type, is where Francoprovençal is spoken in
daily communication. Its borders, be they linguistic or geographical, are uncertain for
speakers and interference between Francoprovençal, Italian and French, as well as between
varieties of Francoprovençal, occurs regularly, at all levels of the linguistic system. The
second, focused type is that in which Francoprovençal is no longer spoken in everyday
interactions. Its use is reserved for special occasions, such as communication between
language activists. At the same time, when speaking in Francoprovençal, no interference is
accepted, and the standardisation of Francoprovençal is seen as a priority.
Considering the socio-historical factors that brought about an uneven evolution of
the linguistic situations in the first place (Francoprovençal continued to be spoken in some
parts but ceased to in some others) is beyond the scope of this dissertation (for a historical
197
overview of the evolution of the linguistic situation in the VDA see Bauer 1999, 2008; for
that on Savoy see Bichurina, Dunoyer forthcoming). However it is worth reminding how
linguistic change correlates to socТКl structure Кnd netаorks: nКmelв, tСКt “lТnguТstТc
change is slow to the extent that the relevant populations are well established and bound by
strong tТes, аСereКs Тt Тs rКpТd to tСe eбtent tСКt аeКk tТes eбТst Тn populКtТons” (MТlroв Кnd
Milroy 1985: 375). My data seems to confirm that factors of density and multiplicity of
social networks are also among the most powerful for language shift (see also Bichurina
2015). Indeed, the diffuse type is characteristic of the high mountain regions (except for
the ski resorts) of the three states, where close ties between community members are
maintained, specifically in most parts of the Aosta Valley (hereafter the VDA) and some
municipalities in Piedmont in Italy; also, in some municipalities in Savoie and HauteSavoie in France as well as some municipalities in the Valais and to a lesser extent, in
Fribourg in Switzerland. Close ties exist there within the communities and throughout the
whole region “around Mont Blanc,” as it is commonly referred to by local inhabitants. The
focused type is characteristic of the industrialised lowlands of the three countries, with
their high level of social mobility and loose social ties (for the rest of the Francoprovençal
area, including cities in the above-mentioned regions, see Figure 16).
Figure 16. Geographical distribution of Francoprovençal: mountains (diffuse
198
settings) vs. lowlands (focused settings).
Speakers themselves also make a distinction between the mountains and the
lowlands. Anecdotally, once as I was approaching the Francoprovençal valleys in the
Piedmont in winter, a Valdôtain Arpitanist accompanying me showed me the snowy tops
of tСe mountКТns, Кs opposed to tСeТr snoаless loаer pКrts: “Вou see, tСere аСere tСere Тs
snow, they speak Arpitan. Where there is not, they speak Piedmontese and Italian.”
This delimitation of two types of social use of Francoprovençal helps us to look at
“Francoprovençal” from a different angle. Indeed, as we have seen in Part II, there are two
types of representations of Francoprovençal (the “nКrroа” vs. “lКrge” models); Сoаever, Тt
will be demonstrated that neither of those corresponds to the Francoprovençal language as
it is constructed in social interactions. I should argue therefore that there is a necessity to
go beyond a reified vision of the language as a set of linguistic facts, and to replace
language practices – and not language systems – within a broader range of social practices.
As language policy on Francoprovençal becomes more and more active today, it is
important that as long as such a policy is concerned, it is understood not as an initiative
purely for the sake of the language itself, but as one that views a language as a social
practice of a particular community: only people have needs; phonemes or lexemes do not.
The distinction of the two types of social use of Francoprovençal suggests that the
language policy proposals, intended so far as a recipe for the whole Francoprovençal zone
(whether coming from politicians or from civil society), can hardly be the same for both
settings, as the actual speakers’ needs are different.
I will start with the theoretical framework that my fieldwork data has encouraged
me to adopt. I will then consider the linguistic situation first in the diffuse and then in the
focused settings and study what happens when the two types of language use meet. The
last chapter of Part III will be dedicated to the study of the use of Francoprovençal in the
performing arts and at festivals.
199
Chapter 1. The conceptual framework
1.1 Diffuse and focused settings
A stereotype of a language as an autonomous bounded entity is often incompatible
аТtС аСКt аe fТnd Тn tСe КctuКl lТnguТstТc ЛeСКvТor Тn multТlТnguКl communТtТes: “It Тs not
Тn tСe nКture of СumКn lКnguКge for sucС oЛjects to eбТst” (Le PКge 1997 [1988]: 32).
When daily practice involves using several languages, their borders and the very notion of
language may be unclear. Muysken (2000) suggests that, in the actual linguistic behaviour
of bilinguals, apart from alternation (of two different systems), and insertion (of an
element of one system in another system), there are cases where we deal with the
realisation of various lexical choices within one system, in which new morpho-syntactic
models can emerge. The codes then are socially distributed and complimentary,
constituting a single system. In a similar way, Grosjean (2008) argues that bilinguals can
switch between monolingual mode (when necessary, e.g. when addressing a monolingual)
and bilingual mode. The crucial issue to be taken into consideration here is that
bilingualism is something completely different from two monolingualisms, as it has been
traditionally represented by both speakers and linguists (see Auer 2007 on the way that the
monolingual ideology is linked to nation-state ideology).
To approach the phenomena found in my Francoprovençal fieldwork data I use the
conceptual framework developed by R. Le Page and A. Tabouret-Keller (1985) who
introduced the notions of focused vs. diffused languages. A focused language is one whose
limits and normative uses are clearly imagined by its speakers; a diffuse language is, by
contrast, one in аСТcС tСese Кre Лlurrв. TСus “FrencС” Тs a highly-focused concept, as
everyone knows what “good French” Тs; “EnglТsС” Тs more dТffuse, аТtС tСe concept of tСe
New (Modern) Englishes presuming the existence of American, British, Australian, etc.
forms of the language. These representations are to be distinguished from what speakers
actually do with the respectТve codes. BesТdes, “tСe motТvКtТon tСКt gТves rТse to sucС
concepts as discrete, closed, finite rule-systems is to be distinguished from that which
drives the need for self-expression and identification and communication, although there is
clearly cross-over Тnfluence Лetаeen tСe tаo” (Le PКge 1997 [1988]: 32).
200
BКsed on tСese tСeoretТcКl КssumptТons, I propose to stКrt not from “lКnguКges” Кs
reТfТed dТscrete sвstems, lТke Тn our cКse “FrКncoprovenхКl,” “FrencС” Кnd “ItКlТКn” аould
be, but from the actual language use observed. Three issues need to be studied:
- How individuals use various codes present in their linguistic repertoire;
- How they identify this linguistic production;
- What social meaning is constructed by speaking a code identified as
“FrКncoprovenхКl” Кs opposed to “FrencС” or “ItКlТКn.”
Thus during one of my first weeks of stay in Saint-Nicolas 90 (in the VDA) a
neighbour of mine, a woman in her sixties, told me: “Se t’a fata, siamo qua” [If you need
[anything], we are here]. From the structural linguistic point of view, se t’a fata is
Francoprovençal, and siamo qua is Italian. It is improbable though that the speaker
deliberately chose to use both languages in that phrase; besides, it is all part of a
vocabulary that does not imply pragmatically the use of one code or another, as a use of a
certКТn term СвpotСetТcКllв mТgСt. In Сer mТnd sСe must СКve Лeen speКkТng “pКtoТs” (as
Francoprovençal is commonly called by its speakers), as it was practically the only
lКnguКge cСoТce Тn our ТnterКctТons. “PКtoТs” аКs Кn Тndeб of socТКl ТnclusТon, ТmplвТng
that I was di noutre “one of ours,” as other community members would say explicitly.
. On the life and death of languages
The discourse around Francoprovençal, whether scholarly, activist or political, is
informed by its representation as an endangered language. It is therefore worthwhile
discussing the issue of so-called endangered languages and language death, even though it
should be underlined that the endangered languages approach is not the one adopted in this
dissertation.
The theme of language death has become especially omnipresent in the early 21st
century. Academic research of the phenomenon appeared in the late 1970s – early 1990s,
including such subsequently classical works as Dorian’s Language Death: The Life Cycle
of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect (1981), tСe “EndКngered LКnguКges” Тssue of tСe Language
review (Hale et al. 1992), and, later on, the studies by Crystal (2000) and Nettle &
90
A municipality at 1,200m above sea level, 16 km away from Aosta.
201
Romaine (2000). Without going into details on this much studied topic, I would like to
consider here only some of the aspects of this issue that are important to this dissertation:
namely, the particularities of its spread outside scholarly circles and its ideological
foundations.
The issue of language death has become widespread outside the academic world
since the early 2000s, as it contrasts the discourse of necessary and soon-to-be-lost
language diversity with that of globalisation as a common homogenising force. Debora
Cameron notes that language endangerment is represented by the media as something
cКllТng for К morКl response: “if not panic, then certainly indignation … from tСe ТmКgТned
community of right-thinking people” (Cameron 2007: 270). Moreover, this representation
is axiomatic: it is presumed impossible to have diverging opinions on the subject or not to
think about it at all:
Not deploring the rapidity with which human languages are apparently being lost
once the matter has been brought to your attention would be as odd as not deploring
world hunger, the HIV-AIDS epidemic, the destruction of tropical rainforests or the
dying out of many animal and plant species (Cameron 2007: 270).
This unambiguous image of the process is additionally supported by the use of such
emotionally charged terms as death, endangerment, threat, etc. (Ibid.)
The now dominant discourse is based upon the assumptions that in today’s world x
languages exist, and y per cent of them will die in the nearest z years (Duchêne, Heller
2007: 3). According to the famous prognosis by Krauss (Krauss 1992), out of 6,000
languages that exist in the present-day world, only 600 will remain in 100 years, i.e. 90%
of the languages will die. Nevertheless, it is not at all obvious what to count as a language
(see the Introduction), nor is it clear what the statement maintaining that these languages
will die actually means. Concerning the last remark, as emphasised by N.B. Vakhtin, a
language may no longer function as a vehicle for communication in day-to-day
conversational practice in a given community, but it can still continue to exist as a symbol,
as an identity marker for the community members (Vakhtin 2001b). Whether such a
language should be considered as dead or still alive remains unclear. In a similar way, in
several communities in eastern Ukraine that I studied the use of the local language (be it
Urum or Albanian) might be limited to several words and yet it could be enough to
consider a person using them as a speaker. Let me give a brief example of an Albanian202
speaking village in eastern Ukraine (Georgievka) where I conducted sociolinguistic
fieldwork in 2005 and 2006 (see Bichurina 2006, 2013). The local inhabitants are the
descendents of a group of orthodox Albanians that left the Balkans in the 15th century.
Today they speak an archaic version of Albanian, with Slavic and Turkish interferences at
all levels of the linguistic system (see Morozova 2012). A language shift occurred with the
generation born in the 1950-60s, who decided to speak to their children in the dominant
Russian language. The young generation speaks almost exclusively in Russian. However,
the use of several local terms of kinship by some children is sufficient for a child to be
identified as Albanian-speaking. Namely, a distinction that is felt to be crucial in the local
Albanian community is that of male: the father’s motСer (“tСe onlв legТtТmКte
grandmother,” as one of my informants referred to it). In contrast, in Russian both
grandmothers, be they from the paternal or the maternal side, are called the same way
(“babushka”). Hence, a child using this specific word male would be identified as
‘speКkТng lТke us” (“zallahit si neve”) Кnd tСerefore ЛeТng “one of us” (“ga tantë”), a
member of the (ethnic) group.
Within the discourse on language death, linguistic variety is as a rule represented
either as identical to biological varieties, or as a part of cultural heritage. The biological (or
“biologised”) version of the discourse on endangered languages is based on organic
metaphors whose roots go back to the 19th century. Indeed, the term endangered languages
is borrowed from the discourse on endangered biological species (Cameron 1995, 2007).
Therefore, one is dealing with a conceptual metaphor representing a language as a
biological species, where linguistic diversity is equaled to biological diversity. In fact,
however, the extinction mechanisms are entirely different in those two cases (Cameron
2007). While the extinction of biological species can be related to climate changes and
disruptions of reproductive capabilities, in the case of languages it is connected with the
cultural processes of language shift and language assimilation. As James Milroy reminds
us: “Of course, it is not true that language is a living thing (any more than swimming, or
birdsong, is a living thing): it is a vehicle for communication between living things, namely
human beings” (Milroy 1992: 23). The biologised discourse results in the marginalisation
of language speakers, who melt into the background or completely disappear from the sight
of scholars or journalists. Instead of studying the speakers’ motivations, be they social,
economic, political, etc., language is discussed as an abstraction that is born, lives, and dies
as though on its own (Duchêne, Heller 2007). Or, to borrow Cameron’s expression,
203
“culture becomes a branch of nature, and local political interests are subsumed into a
global celebration of ‘diversity’” (Cameron 2007: 284).
The cultural version of the discourse on language death (which is not mutually
exclusive from the biological one) is built on a metonymy: language substitutes all of the
culture, history, knowledge accumulated by a given people, and the loss of language is
supposed to mean the death of all of these (
meron 2007: 273). This notion is based on
the reification of culture: it is represented as immutable and intrinsically homogenous (with
no possibility of inner conflict). Additionally, it is based on the idea of an organic
connection between being A and speaking A, where losing the ancestors’ language causes a
catastrophic loss of identity (op. cit.: 278).
Finally, as far as prognoses of “death” are concerned, the situation in which a
language has been promised a quick and inevitable death for many decennia if not
centuries, while it stubbornly remains alive, is typical:
,
,
,
,
«
»,
:
,
,
,
«
,
»,
. …
,
: 100
,
100
-
. (Vakhtin 2001a: 268)
For at least hundreds of years, those studying the languages and cultures of the north [of Russia]
keep repeating, as though in concert with each other, the same magic formulae or “spells,” giving
the same description of the linguistic and cultural situation: peoples degenerate, decay, and die off;
languages stand on the brink of extinction; cultures get destroyed, are lost and replaced with a
leveled-out “civilisation”; and all in all, linguistic and cultural variety is gradually transformed into a
ЛleКk, unТform Кlloв. … Strangely enough, cultures and languages prove to be much more resilient
than expected: for 100 years, their doom has been prophesised, and yet for 100 years, they somehow
manage to remain alive year after year.
This is also the case with Francoprovençal. A Swiss dialectologist named L. Favrat
wrote in 1866:
204
nos patois seront bientôt de l’histoire: ils se modifient et s’altèrent de plus en plus
sous l’influence du français qui envahit peu à peu les campagnes. Et cela est si vrai
que, dans mainte localité, les hommes qui savent encore parler le pur et franc patois
de leurs pères, sont en général des vieillards, tandis que la jeune génération, tout en
comprenant l’ancien idiome, ne parle plus guère que le français. (Favrat 1866 : VI)
Our patois will soon be history: they are being modified and altered more and more under the
influence of French, which is little by little invading our countryside. And this is so true that in many
localities those who still speak their fathers’ pure and sincere patois are generally old men, while the
young generation, though understanding the ancient idiom, speaks nothing but French.
Indeed, according to dialectological research, in Swiss protestant cities like
Lausanne, Geneva and Neuchâtel the local Francoprovençal idiom disappeared as early as
in the first half of the 19th century (Kristol [1999] 2013). As for the rural areas:
Dans le canton de Neuchâtel, c’est en 1904 que les enquêteurs des Tableaux
phonétiques ont pu interroger les derniers dialectophones septua- et octogénaires.
LК cКmpКgne genevoТse … К conservц ses dТКlectes Кu-delà de la première guerre
mondiale; les derniers dialectophones genevois ont disparu dans les années 1930
(ibid.)
In the canton of Neuchâtel it was in 1904 that the researchers of the Phonetic Tables could take
interviews with the last dialect speakers, aged 70 and 80. The Geneva country … could maintain its
dialects after the First World War; the last dialect speakers disappeared in 1930s.91
However today, at the beginning of the 21st century, there are still those claiming to
Лe tСe speКkers of tСТs “long-deКd” ТdТom. TСeТr posТtТon Тs someаСКt КmЛТguous: on tСe
one hand, the dominant discourse on language endangerment and death makes their
Francoprovençal-based activities possible, financially and ideologically; on the other hand,
their legitimacy as speakers is contested by the virtue of the same idea of language death,
as will be shown in the following chapters.
See Кlso TuКТllon (199: 52): “TСe SКvoyard patois is already dead, in the whole canton of Geneva, in the
PКвs de Geб Кnd Тn tСe SКvoв Тtself, Тn most cТtТes, some toаns Кnd even Тn numerous vТllКges.” (“Le pКtoТs
savoyard est déjà mort, dans tout le canton de Genève, dans le pays de Gex et, en Savoie même, dans la
plupКrt des vТlles, dКns quelques Лourgs et mшme dКns de nomЛreuб vТllКges.”)
91
205
Chapter 2. Francoprovençal in diffuse settings
2.1 Diffuse language practices
Language use in a diffuse setting can be illustrated by the data from the VDA,
commonly seen as a “pКrКdТse” of Francoprovençal in the rest of the linguistic area. This
autonomous region of Italy with its 128,298 inhabitants (on 1/1/2015) 92 is one of the
highest in the Alps, located at an average altitude of 2,106 m. In 2001 67.35% of the
regional population declared themselves as speakers of Francoprovençal; only 5.65%
declared themselves as speaking only Italian and 19.99% declared it was impossible to live
in VDA knowing only Italian, while 14.07% declared it was possible to live in the VDA
knowing only Francoprovençal (Fondation Chanoux 2003; Cavalli 2003). If we exclude
the regional capital Aosta and municipalities on the border with Piedmont, the vast
majority of population uses Francoprovençal, alone or with Italian, as everyday practice:
when talking to neighbours, going to shops, cafés, the municipal hall, etc.93
TСe lТnguТstТc repertoТre of most speКkers Тs mКde up of tСree “lКnguКges”: ItКlТКn
and French, co-official in the region, and Francoprovençal. It seems that Italian is the most
focused as people are able to speak Italian alone (at school, in the closest cities Milan or
Turin etc.), though interferences happen, e.g. Fermami la porta for “close the door for me”
(French fermer and Francoprovençal frémé/frémà “to close” vs. Italian fermare “to stop”
but chiudere “to close”). French is less focused: thus the same interference fermer/fermare
can happen in the opposite direction: Tu peux fermer ici? for “Could you stop here?” Most
transfer into French is from Francoprovençal: lexical, e.g. vite meaning “early” instead of
“quickly” in French (Francoprovençal vito “early”), guider la voiture/la machine instead of
conduire la voiture for “to drive the car” (Francoprovençal gueuddà/gueuddé la machina);
morphological, e.g. Où tu es neissù? instead of Où tu es né? ”Where were you born?” (past
participle from Francoprovençal); syntactic; and phonetic if we consider that the phonetics
of regional French is influenced by Francoprovençal. A recurring trauma for school pupils
(according to testimonies in informal conversations) is caused by the use of
92
http://www.regione.vda.it/cartaidentita/default_i.aspx
93
Thus,when two months after my arrival in St. Nicolas I was provided with an official paper for my
residence permit, written in Italian, the employee of the municipal hall asked me whether I actually spoke
Italian. The use of Francoprovençal was so common in St. Nicolas that my very capacity for speaking the
national language was unknown to people, who would however regularly communicate with me.
206
Francoprovençal words in a French language lesson: the teacher then corrects the pupil and
the rest of the class laughs at him/her. Indeed, a stereotype of French as an autonomous
closed system exists, but there is a linguistic insecurity as to its actual use.
Francoprovençal is the most diffuse, as in everyday life there are no social contexts
that would impose the use of Francoprovençal alone. Short stretches of speech in everyday
interactions are often impossible to ascribe with any certainty to one “language” or
another: like in the above-mentioned Se t’a fata, siamo qua, or else, e.g. Rechì appena?
“Just awaken?” addressed in a bar by one of the visitors to the bartender’s baby – rechì
“awaken” from the structural linguistic point of view would be Francoprovençal and
appena “just” Italian. However, similar to the case of French, such diffuse language use
comes Тnto conflТct аТtС tСe stereotвpe of аСКt К “lКnguКge” sСould Лe: К Лounded entТtв,
as taught at school about Italian and French. Thus some of the newcomers who have settled
in the VDA and learnt Francoprovençal Кre sКТd to speКk Тt “Лetter” tСКn locКl nКtТve
speakers because they do not insert Italian words into their Francoprovençal sentences
(with loans from French seen as more legitimate). The conflict sometimes produces
linguistic ТnsecurТtв, Кnd tСe ТnКЛТlТtв to speКk “К good pКtoТs” mКв leКd to К fКТlure of Тts
family transmission. However, by thinking their linguistic behaviour “аrong” tСese
ТndТvТduКls seem to forget tСКt tСe reference models, tСe “good ItКlТКn” Кnd tСe “good
FrencС” mostlв eбТst Кs stereotвpes Кnd Кre used Лut Тn К lТmТted numЛer of prКctТces, sucС
as news reports on TV etc. At the same time what is К “good patois” Кs К set of lТnguТstТc
forms remains unclear and Francoprovençal speakers are generally hostile to the idea of a
stКndКrd ЛecКuse tСeв ТmКgТne tСКt Тt аould “kТll” tСe eбТstТng vКrТetТes. TСe КppКrent
paradox can be explained by the same idea of a language as a bounded and homogenous
entity.94
Let us consider an interview with a Valdôtain farmer in his fifties:
Da pitchoù mè predzóo patoué, italien, la mema baga. Avoué mon nonno predzóo
patoué, avoué ma mamma predzóo italien, avoué mon papa predzóo italien … Però
lo veuzeun que l’è valdoten predzave patoué, adon todzor predzòo patoué … E
anche a l’écoula se prèdzóe italien, ma antre no se prèdzóe patoué. … NК, l’è vrei,
To complete the picture, there are also parts of the VDA аСere some speКkers’ repertoТre Тs composed of
sТб “lКnguКges”: tСree locКl lКnguКges used Тn tСese pКrts, Francoprovençal, Walser and Piedmontese, and
tСree “lКnguКges of culture,” ItКlТКn, FrencС Кnd GermКn.
94
207
un cou dijóon que fallié predzé italien a l’écoula, invece, na, ara penso que da
pitchoù pi de lenve t’appren miou l’èt.
When I was small, I spoke patois, Italian, the same thing. With my grandfather I would speak patois,
with my mother I would speak Italian, with my father I would speak Italian … But tСe neТgСЛour
who is Valdôtain spoke patois, so I would always speak patois … And Кlso Кt school Italian was
spoken, but among ourselves we would speak patois. … No, tСКt’s true, once they would say that at
school Italian had to be spoken, now, on the contrary, I think, the more languages you learn from
childhood, the better it is.
Here the logical structure of the narrative is mostly formed by the Italian
conjunctions (in bold) (però “but”, e anche “and also”, ma “but”, invece “on the contrary”)
and a Francoprovençal one (adon “so, hence”). This is a typical feature of dТscourse “in
patois.” Da pitchoù (literally “from small” for “when I was small”) is apparently a transfer
of structure from Italian da piccolo. Besides, in the speech of the same informant we find
different morphemes for the same grammatical meaning. Thus the 3rd person SG of the
imperfect indicative: predzave/prèdzóe (lo veuzeun predzave patoué “the neighbour would
speak patois”; a l’ecoula se prèdzóe italien “at school they would speak [impersonal 3 SG]
Italian”).
Another example is that of a spontaneous conversation at dinner: a former school
teacher, now in his seventies, is replying to a coffee trader and former teacher of
Francoprovençal for adults, in his early fifties:
A, te savè pas sen que l’è [Facebook ]! Aggiornate! [Кˊʤɔrnate] E l’aoura que te
entrisse dedeun lo ten moderne! E pa a vivre de illusions du passé! Mythifié!
Comunque, n’i mandoùlo [su Facebook].
Oh, you didn’t know what it [Facebook] is! Keep yourself updated! It is time you entered the
modern era! And not live under the illusions of the past! Mythified! Anyway, I’ve sent it [on
Facebook].
If we wished to define this speech excerpt in terms of “languages,” we would
probably have to attribute the parts in bold to Italian, those in italic to French and the rest
to Francoprovençal. The attribution to Italian would though cause some problems for
aggiornate! [Кˊʤɔrnate]: in Italian the 2nd SG imperative of the verb aggiornarsi
is aggiornati, hence -te in aggiornate is from Francoprovençal; it could have been
qualified as a lexical loan from Italian to Francoprovençal, but the phoneme [dʒ] is not
208
typical for it (cf. giorno – dzor [dzɔr]). E l’aoura would be Francoprovençal, but with a
grammar calqued from Italian (e l’ora vs. Francoprovençal l’è l’oura “Тt is time”). It is at
the word illusion that we would realise that it is French (vs. illujón in Francoprovençal);
however the whole sentence could then be attributed to French pronounced with local
Valdôtain phonetics and should be spelt as: Et pas à vivre des illusions du passé.
However this excerpt might also be seen as a single – diffuse – code. The number
of elements from Francoprovençal suggests that the speech as a whole is perceived to be
(mostly) in Francoprovençal, with all of the social and identity implications present.95 The
presence of French elements must be due to the fact that both interlocutors belong to the
social group of local intellectuals: other society groups would most often only use elements
from Francoprovençal and Italian, as we have seen in the previous example (although all of
them learn French at school from the age of three). Arguably, the use of elements from the
three languages creates a sense of complicity, of sharing the same linguistic repertoire with
the interlocutor, and in this way participates in the construction of meaning of being di
noutre.
Finally, examples can be taken from short interactions that are happening as I am
writing this dissertation, sitting outside in Saint Nicolas with my laptop. An old neighbour
in his sixties passes by and sКвs: “Te pren lo sole?” “Are you taking the sun?” He is
certКТnlв speКkТng “pКtoТs,” вet “sole,” not “soleil,” from the structural linguistic point of
view would be attributed to Italian. Then two local men aged around 40 run by, keeping fit.
A short conversation occurred between one of them and me while they kept running:
1 Ragazza!
1 Girl!
2 (NB) Ciao!
2 (NB) Hi!
3 Te pren lo soleil?
3 Taking the sun?
4 (NB) Ouè, travaillo chèca inque.
4 (NB) Yes, I’m working here for a while.
5 Brava, brava, dai!
5 Good, good!
In a documentary by Christiane Dunoyer (2010) one hears an informant say: Lo patoué l’è to sen que l’è pa
l’italien, to sen que l’è pa fransè [Patois is everything that is not Italian, everything that is not French]. From
a structural linguistic point of view this is not true; yet from an identity perspective this seems to be true for
most Valdostan speakers.
95
209
TСe conversКtТon аКs undouЛtedlв ТdentТfТed Кs ЛeТng Тn “pКtoТs” too: not only
would this person never speak to me in Italian, but also, when introducing me, he would
tell others that they should talk to me in patois, as I also speak it. Yet, from a structural
linguistic point of view only turns 3 and 4 (one turn from each side) would be attributed to
Francoprovençal; the rest could have been as well a conversation in Italian. In fact, people
often do sКв “ciao,” “brava,” “dai” etc. when speaking “patois.” As in the previous
examples, all these heterogeneous elements can be seen as constituting one single code
shared by the interlocutors.
One can hardly speak about code-switching in these examples.96 Indeed, analysing
it in terms of code-switching supposes that, for example, if speakers have two codes in
their repertoire, code A and code B (that we, as researchers, would identify according to a
set of objective criteria), every part of conversation could be identified as being said in
either A or B. Later other questions could then be addressed: as to why the code-switching
occurs, and what is its interactional meaning. Hence, the difficulty in applying the codeswitching paradigm on this material lies in that in many cases this procedure proves to be
impossible: in the above examples, Тn аСКt lКnguКge Тs “aggiornate” being said? It is not
Italian, as it has a morphological feature that does not belong to Italian. It is not
Francoprovençal, as it has phonetics that are not Francoprovençal (without saying that
lexically it does not belong to Francoprovençal either, structurally-linguistically speaking).
“Ciao” in the last example could be Italian, because this word exists in Italian. Yet it is
most certainly not identТfТed Кs “Italian” by the speakers. Some features of such
communication seem to be regular: e.g. the logical structure of relatively long monologues
being formed by Italian conjunctions (as in the first example). At the same time, however,
one can hardly maintain that this is a system where the grammatical elements would
regularly come from one language, and lexical elements from another.
Arguably, the social meaning is constructed not by the fact that one part of
conversКtТon Тs pronounced Тn one “lКnguКge” Кnd КnotСer one Тn “КnotСer lКnguКge”:
instead, it is sharing this unique code that constructs the social meaning of ЛeТng “one of
us.”
There exists a substantial corpus of scholarly literature on code-sаТtcСТng. For tСe fТrst (“clКssТcКl”)
elaborations of the theory see: Gumperz (1982), Gal (1978), Gardner-Chloros (1985). For more recent
developments see: Auer (1999), Gardner-Chloros, Edwards (2004), Myers-Scotton (2002).
96
210
2.2 Construction of social meaning
As mentioned above, the most basic and most important social meaning of speaking
a code identified as Francoprovençal (however mixed it may be in its actual linguistic
form) in a diffuse setting is the one of being di noutre, “one of ours,” an index of social
solidarity and inclusion. This is also the reason why newcomers in these settings often
Лecome “neа speКkers.” ContrКrв to tСe ТmКge of “uselessness” of “pКtoТs” sСКred Лв Тts
L1 speakers, they find themselves bound to learn Francoprovençal in order to become a
fully legitimate member of their new community (see also Dunoyer 2010). The additional
sociopolitical meanings are complex and need to be considered in a historical perspective.
2.2.1 Political connotations
As we have seen in detail in Part I, the concept of Francoprovençal was first
developed by the Italian linguist Ascoli (1878 [1874]) in the direct aftermath of the
unification of Italy. Ever since that moment, “Francoprovençal” (Кs К concept, not Кs К
practice) was seen as a danger for the the VDA’s autonomy by the regional élites.
Therefore those advocating the idea of Francoprovençal as a language different from
French would belong to the most powerless groups of society and be separatists, opposed
to both central power and regional political élites: indeed, as has been described, the first to
insist that Francoprovençal, renamed Arpitan, was a language in its own right was the
Mouvement Harpitanya, initially an extreme left-wing separatist movement. The failed
social struggle ended in the complete impossibility of using Francoprovençal in public in
the VDA up until the 2000s. As one informant suggests:
On est arrivé au moment où parler patois publiquement c’était provocateur, voire
presque irrédentiste. Presque indépendantiste. Par contre, le français c’est toujours
marqué [comme] l’identité valdôtaine mais dans le respect des règles, du
gouvernement, de la démocratie.
We reached a moment when speaking publicly in patois was provocative, that is, almost irredentist.
Almost independentist. On the contrary, speaking French is marked as a Valdôtain identity but with
respect to the rules, to the government, to democracy.
211
Attempts to write in Francoprovençal were condemned for the same reason
(regarding writing the language see Part II Chapter 3).
2.2.2 Social connotations
Socially, as mentioned above, Francoprovençal was traditionally the language of
local peasants, as opposed to French as the language of the bourgeoisie. Both were
opposed to Italian, the language of the state (often seen as an oppressor state, the antifascist struggle vivid in people’s memory) and that of immigrants (including Italians from
other regions). At the same time, a functional distribution exists in common
representations:
Le patois c’est lК lКngue du cœur et le frКnхКТs lК lКngue de lК rКТson en VКllцe
d’Aoste. … On peut pas dцlТer. Mшme sТ le cœur К des rКТsons que lК rКТson ne
comprend pas, comme disait Pascal. Et l’italien c’est plutôt la langue de travail, de
la nécessité.
Patois is the language of heart and French is the language of reason in Valle d’Aosta. … One cannot
separate them, even though the heart has reasons that reason does not understand, like Pascal said.
And the Italian is rather the language of work, of necessity.
What is pictured here is a seemingly non-conflictual diglossic model with clear
functional distribution between different codes of repertoire. However, in reality, the use of
French today is limited to that of school subject and to institutional purposes (texts written
by the regional administration). To give but one example, in December 2014 I interviewed
a Valdôtain journalist and writer. He was 91, and he died shortly afterwards. He would
always speak French to everyone. When I asked him what he would speak when he would
just go for a coffee in a bar, he said, with a lot of dignity in СТs ТntonКtТon: “I speak French,
my language.” I then asked him how people would react, and he replied with the same
ТntonКtТon: “Well, they think I am a tourist.” TСe sТtuКtТon Тs strТkТng ЛecКuse К “tourТst” Тs
to be found at the very extreme edge in a scale of social of inclusion/exclusion. He is not
even Кn “ТmmТgrКnt,” аСo Тs not completelв К communТtв memЛer (tСose аСo are fully
accepted as members are never referred to Кs “ТmmТgrКnts”; tСeв mКв Лe sКТd to Лe
“orТgТnКllв from…”), Лut not completelв outsТde eТtСer. A “tourТst,” in turn, is a complete
outsider. In that case however it referred to someone who had been born in the VDA and,
212
furthermore, back in the 1940s had actively participated in some of the events that became
historical for the Valley.
On the other hand, those who speak Francoprovençal can no longer be associated
with only one social class, or only one cultural or ethnic background. The drastic
modification of economy with the development of the tertiary sector and the reduction of
the primary one has created a new group of city inhabitants who are no longer occupied
with agro-pastoral activities, but with parents and other family members speaking
Francoprovençal, speak it too (often they did not speak Italian before school). Indeed,
today the agricultural workers represent only 4.1% of the regional population97 – compare
this with the 67.35% who claim to speak Francoprovençal. Besides, there are migrants who
learn Francoprovençal for the sake of social integration, thanks to the evening language
courses provided by the region. Therefore Francoprovençal is no longer the language of
local peasants, since its speakers are often neither peasants nor locals (see Figure 17: the
advertising of the 2015-2016 patois courses by the regional administration).
Figure 17. The advertising of 2015-2016 courses in patois by the regional
administration of the Valle d’Aosta. A new speaker’s new image: the young urban middle
class of both sexes from various ethnic backgrounds.
97
Data for 2007 (Decime, Vernetto 2007: 20).
213
With the disappearance of French from daily use and the legal recognition of
Francoprovençal at the national level (Law 482/1999) Francoprovençal could gain the role
of a local identity marker as opposed to Italian. Yet in line with a long diglossic tradition it
sСould Лe К “lКnguКge of culture,” Кnd Francoprovençal is not one, as it lacks what
“lКnguКges of culture” sСould СКve КccordТng to tСe domТnКnt Тdeologв, e.g. a normative
way of speaking it, a written standard, etc. Besides, restricted to only one social class and
to some particular situations of language use, Francoprovençal has never had the function
of an identity marker for the whole community. Hence, its social role is now unclear, but
Тts cСКnge pКsses unnotТced. “PКtoТs” Тs stТll seen mostlв Кs К (often low prestigious)
ancient/rural/oral form of local French closely linked to the daily life of an agro-pastoral
society.
2.3 New speakers in a diffuse setting
In this context, language learners can be seen as a litmus test allowing the vitality of
the language to be indicated and also a societal change that otherwise passes unnoticed. It
may be argued altogether that they became identified (to a certain extent) in the society as
a distinct category of speakers precisely because they started being so different socially
from the traditional perception of what a patoisant is imagined to be. Among today’s new
speakers many belong to the wealthy urban class, coming from big Italian cities like Turin,
and they may have prestigious occupations – for example a judge: one of the stereotypical
eбКmples tСКt mКnв аould gТve аСen tellТng me КЛout neа speКkers (“And tСere Тs even К
judge!”). TСe surprТse of the local population should not be misleading. In fact, it only
bears witness to their own unawareness of the actual linguistic situation today. For if the
newcomers become new speakers, it is mostly due to the fact that they feel it a necessity in
order for them to fully become new members of the host community (for a detailed
account on various new speakers’ motivations see Dunoyer 2010).
Let us take the example of a woman in her late thirties who came from Turin to
settle in the VDA and owns a fashion boutique in the city of Aosta. Her social profile is the
complete opposite of that of a stereotypical patoisant: she is a non-local young urban
upper-middle class woman (vs. NORM as non-mobile older rural males, see Chambers,
214
Trudgill 1998: 29). As soon as she arrived in the VDA, sСe reКlТгed tСКt speКkТng “pКtoТs”
аКs tСere Кn ТmportКnt lТnguТstТc Кnd socТКl prКctТce (“Fin dell’inizio subito ho sentito
parlare in patois in Val d’Aosta, ho sentito che era veramente un – un dialetto molto
diffuso” – “From the very beginning I immediately heard people speaking patois in the
Aosta Valley, I heard that it was really a – a very widespread dialect”). Then for three
years she took an evening course in Francoprovençal, provided by the regional
administration at the Ecole populaire du patois. According to her, the interpersonal
relКtТons аould deeplв cСКnge once one аould stКrt speКkТng аТtС tСe locКls “Тn tСeТr
dialect”: “Ti fa sentire molto più vicino al tuo interlocutore” (“You feel much closer to
your interlocutor”); “E accomuna, secondo me, unisce” (“And Тt unТtes, Тn mв opТnТon”).
TodКв Сer Тnterlocutors Тn pКtoТs Тnclude tСose from аork, ЛotС clТents (“C’è successo già
diverse volte [che] qualcuno entrasse qua e mi dicesse: ‘Predzede patoué?’,” “It СКs
already happened many times that someone would enter here [the shop] and say to me: ‘Do
you speak patois?’”) Кnd pКrtners, lТke tСose аСo supplв аool for clotСТng:
Per esempio abbiamo anche de rapporti con gli КllevКtorТ … e moltТ dТ questi
allevatori sono Valdostani, quindi anche loro chiaramente parlano patois. Certo che
hanno imparato tutti l’italiano. Però ogni tanto capita magari qualche cosa in patois.
E mi fa piacere veramente soprattutto poter capire, anche quando magari si parlano
fra di loro! [laughs]
For instance, we have relations with shepherds … Кnd mКnв of tСem Кre Valdôtain, so clearly they
also speak patois. Of course, they have learnt Italian. But every now and then something happens in
patois. And it really pleases me especially to be able to understand, even when they may be talking
among themselves! [laughs]
Other interlocutors include personal friends or an old neighbour, a more than 80year-old woman, who, from the first day, would only talk to my ТnformКnt Тn “pКtoТs”:
E io non capivo veramente niente. Poi arrivando al punto di riuscire a parlare con
lei in patois per me è stato carinissimo.
And I would really understand nothing. Then getting to the point when I was able to speak to her in
patois for me was the nicest moment.
The link between speaking patois and social inclusion can also be demonstrated by
an episode from my personal experience. It occurred in a restaurant in Aosta when a
Russian friend of mine came to visit me. She spoke Italian to the waitress; then the
215
waitress spoke Italian to me. Then all of a sudden she realised Сer “mТstКke” Кnd stКrted
excusing herself in Francoprovençal, saying how sorry she was for having spoken Italian to
me аСo “predze come no” (“speaks like us”). When she left, my friend asked me what had
just happened. I translated what the waitress had said, to which she objected that she had
understood that, but the question was different: “WСКt Тs tСe proЛlem? Вou do speКk
ItКlТКn!” Hence, the issue was not about the ability of understanding the primary meaning
of the message: it was about being or not (seen as) a member of a certain community.
Speaking Italian is having a polite talk to an outsider; speaking Francoprovençal, in its
turn, is an index of ЛeТng “one of us” Кnd consТderТng tСe Тnterlocutor to Лe “one of us”
too: Тn tСТs sense, “predzé come no” (“to speКk lТke us”) Кnd “itre di noutre” (“to be one of
us”) Кre sвnonвms.98
AltСougС К neаcomer speКkТng “pКtoТs” Тs generКllв seen Кs an exception, someone
who does not learn it is often judged. For example, once I observed in a bar a Romanian
migrant worker who wanted to join a general discussion at a table. The discussion was in
“patois,” and he asked his question in Italian. The only answer he got was: “se te vou
predzé avoué no, predze-no patoué!” (“If вou аКnt to tКlk to us, tКlk to us Тn patois!”) –
said in Francoprovençal. On the boundary of exclusion and inclusion, this reaction could
still be interpreted as a sign of a possibility of inclusion. In fact, today in a diffuse setting
like the VDA no one consТders tСКt onlв locКls cКn speКk “pКtoТs,” or pretend to use it
exclusively as an in-group code. On the contrary, they suggest that anyone can learn it and
with learning it become fully a member of the community.99
Linguistically, for the new speakers Francoprovençal is more focused than for its
L1 speakers: since they add it to their focused mother tongue (generally Italian) and often
98
Anecdotally, the VDA was the first place in the world where I would not be identified as Russian:
eventuКllв someone mТgСt mentТon tСКt I аКs “of RussТКn orТgТn”, Лut specТfвТng Кt once tСКt I аКs
nevertСeless “di noutre” or tСКt I spoke “come no” (tСe sКme аКв Кt events аСere people аould cКlculКte
how many people from different regions or countries were present they would count me among the
Valdostans). It did not depend on how long I had actually lived there, as they started considering me so from
the very first weeks of my stay. Indeed, when it is about speaking a standard language, foreigners are
expected to learn it, so when they do so, they still remain foreigners, even though compliments can be made
as to how well they speak the language – precisely because they are nevertheless considered as outsiders. It
does not seem to be country-specific, or, at least, based on personal experience once again, for me it was the
same situation in France and in Switzerland for French, in the UK and Australia for English, in Italy (in a
non-minority context, in the city of Bergamo) for Italian. On the contrary, in a minority language setting
speaking the minority language is strongly associated with group membership and solidarity.
99
The Romanian himself, in our subsequent conversation, had an opposite interpretation of the event,
qualifying the Valdôtains Кs ЛeТng “rКcТsts” ЛecКuse of tСeТr tКlkТng to СТm Тn pКtoТs.
216
learn it on a language course. At the same time though the high degree of variability of
Francoprovençal can be an aid for them to overcome the language barrier. The same
informant from Aosta tells me:
Ancora adesso ci sono delle difficoltà! Assolutamente! Un po’ di timidezza,
parlando con le altre persone, la paura di sbagliare, sicuramente. Però poi ho capito
che bisogna come per tutte le cose lasciarsi andare. Io penso che è anche talamente
vКsto, ce ne sono pТù dТ settКntК, DТego dТce “te predze lo dzen patoué de te,” e
quТndТ [lКugСs] КllК fТne dТco questo ч Тl mТo pКtoТs … Ne ho fatto uno in più!
[laughs]
Even now I still have difficulties [speaking patois]! Absolutely! A bit of shyness when speaking
with other people, a fear of making an error, for sure. But then I realised that like for any other thing
one just needs to let oneself go. I also think it is so vast, there are over 70 [varieties], Diego [the
teКcСer] sКвs “вou sСould speКk tСe ЛeКutТful patois of yours,” Кnd so [lКugСs] fТnКllв I sКв tСТs Тs
my patois … I’ve invented one more of them! [laughs]
Thus the reference to making errors presupposes the existence of a norm; yet this
norm is later relativised, given that it is seen not as the norm, but as one of a number of
possible norms.
Chapter 3. Language use in a focused setting
In studying focused settings we are obliged to start with the ideology, as ideology
precedes in these settings the use of language for speakers themselves. Indeed, in a diffuse
setting for native speakers the question of why to learn a language is irrelevant: it is simply
the first language acquired, often the only language a person spoke before going to school.
Later the choice of this particular code from a set of possible codes in the linguistic
repertoire is motivated by personal, socio-cultural and political reasons, as studied in
Chapter 2. On the contrary, the focused practice of Francoprovençal is typical of those who
do not speak it as L1. The situation is typical of France and protestant cantons of
Switzerland, but is also to be found in some parts of Piedmont in Italy.
The language policy of France and Switzerland prohibiting the speaking of patois,
together with the countries’ general social and economical situation, including urban
population growth at the expense of the number of farmers, has affected the use of local
217
idioms. Behind the official statistics figures of “speakers” of “regional languages” stand
speakers most of whom are substantially different from those who typically speak more
widespread languages. Locally two groups of those are distinguished: “late speakers”
(locuteurs tardifs) and “neа speКkers” (lТterКllв “neo-speakers,” néo-locuteurs). The
distinction was made for the Francoprovençal context in a report on the linguistic situation
of the Rhône-Alpes region of France (Bert et al. 2009), which allowed the initiation of a
minority language policy in the region (Deliberation 2009).The terms from the report were
then interiorised by activists from language-oriented associations, the “academic”
distinction allowing them to creКte К СТerКrcСв of legТtТmКte speКkers, аСere tСe “lКte
speakers” would be associated with more authenticity and enjoy therefore greater authority
in expressing themselves on language issues than tСe “neа speakers,” as will be
demonstrated in this chapter. This authenticity is apparently based on linguistic community
exposure, yet the latter should be nuanced. In this chapter I will study linguistic
biographies and language practices, first those of the so-cКlled “lКte speКkers” Кnd tСen of
tСe “neа speakers.”
3.1 Late speakers
3.1.1 Linguistic biography of the late speakers : school and the language of the
animals
The first group’s sociolinguistic biography is linked to the social equation between
speaking Francoprovençal and being a peasant. As an informant from Savoy explains: Eté
euna vargogne de parlà patué, méme étre agriculteur été euna vargogne (“It was a shame
to speak patois, even to Лe КgrТculturКl аorker аКs К sСКme”). To specТfв, Тt аКs not
“even” Лut precТselв “ЛecКuse” being a peasant was seen in a negative light by the society
that speКkТng “pКtoТs” аКs sСКmeful (see the linguistic inferiority principle, Wolfram
1998).100
Informants unanimously blame the state and, most of all, the school as an
implementation tool for its policy, for the lack of intergenerational transmission of the
language within the family in these contexts. Thus the theme of the banning and mockery
of the use of the language at school is reproduced in the discourse of my informants
“AccordТng to tСТs prТncТple, tСe speecС of К socТКllв suЛordТnКte group аТll КlаКвs Лe Тnterpreted Кs ТnКdequКte
by comparison with the socially dominant group” (WolfrКm 1998: 104).
100
218
throughout France, including far beyond the Francoprovençal area. In Northern Catalonia,
for instance, I was shown photos of school hall posters: Soyez propres, parlez français
(“Be proper, speКk FrencС”) and Il est défendu de parler catalan et de cracher à terre (“No
speКkТng CКtКlКn or spТttТng on tСe floor”). Similar posters have also been implicitly
referred to Тn BrТttКnв (e.g. Лв К mКrrТed couple from Brest, Кged 55. WТfe: “It аКs
forЛТdden to speКk Breton Кt scСool.” – HusЛКnd: “TСКt’s right, to speak Breton and to spit
on tСe floor”) (cf. also Vakhtin 2001a: 218-220 for a similar delegation of guilt at school in
the USSR). It is emphasised in the informants’ discourse that these school bans prevented a
generation of native speakers of the local language from passing it on to their children. The
informants talk inter alia about a token (signal) which could be given to a child who
“spoke pКtoТs” Кt scСool: Тt could Лe К СКndkercСТef, К pТece of аood, К pendКnt, etc. TСe
child could in their turn give the token to someone else as soon as they heard them
speaking “patois.” TСe pupil who was left with the token at the end of the day was
punished (see also Martel 2007 for a discussion of the Occitan language bans at school).
However, as important as these bans and punishments could psychologically be for
the pupils concerned, they do not explain the choice of speaking nothing but the dominant
language, including outside of school. In fact, the decrease in the number of
Francoprovençal speКkers, Кs аell Кs tСese of Кnв otСer “regТonКl” lКnguКge, Тs closelв
linked to the modification of economy: urbanisation, industrialisation, the growth of the
national market and as a consequence the increase of the urban and mobile population at
the expense of the rural population (see also Lodge 1993). Similarly, sociolinguist and
activist Robert Lafont wrote as he summarised the 50 years of Occitanist activities:
Ara i a pas pus de païsans, mas tres per cent d’entreprenèires agricòlas. Pas pus de
classa obrièra, mas de salariats e de caumaires o marginalisatz en ocean. Pensi
qu’aurai viscut ensems la fin de çò que se disiá tradicionalament lo pòble d’òc e la
fin dels trabalhadors. Es la lei de l’evolucion. (Lafont 1999: 96)
Today, there are no more peasants, just three per cent of agricultural entrepreneurs. No more
working class, just salaried employees or unemployed and marginals in the ocean. I believe we have
lived together through the end of what was once called the people of Oc and through the end of
workers. Such is the law of evolution. 101
101
He also suggests that already by the end of the 1980s:
219
The same trend is remarked by the Francoprovençal informants:
LK, 1932, Fp: Puis y a un aspect aussi civilisationnel c’est-à-dire que le patois est
lié à la petite entreprise rurale. Tout au moins dans nos régions. Donc dans la ferme
on entendait, si y avait encore des petites fermes, je sais pas si ça existe, ça doit plus
exister, où y a deux vaches, trois cochons etc., eh bien si ça existait encore on
entendrait le patois, mais seulement ça n’existe plus.
Then there also is a civilisational aspect meaning that patois is linked to small-scale rural enterprise.
In our region at least. So on the farm, one could hear [Francoprovençal]; if there were still small
farms – I don’t know if they exist now, they probably don’t exist anymore, where they have a couple
of cows, a couple of pigs, etc. Well, if they still existed one could hear the patois there, only they
don’t exist anymore.
As is typical in many other places in the world, for the sake of their social
promotion – and schooling as the first step towards it – the parents of these late speakers
chose to speak to them in the dominant language, and the dominant language alone. Rarely
would these children stay in the village after school and then later, as teenagers, they
would start to use Francoprovençal to a limited extent when participating in agricultural
work with adults. Namely, a recurrent situation of use of Francoprovençal is
communication with animals:
HT, 1935: Dans le temps on parlait aux vaches en patois! Quand on les appelait,
même les chiens–
F , 1935: Les vaches quand elles étaient dans les champs quand on les appelait
pour les traire.
HT, 1935: Back in the day, one spoke to cows in patois! When one would call them, or even dogs–
S’чrК tomЛКt К un 3% d’КgrТcultors, totes ТnserТts dТns un mКlСum de modernТгКcТon tecСnТcКl e
d’ocupКcТon del mercКt. Aquò vòl dТre que lК resчrve lТnguТstТcК sus lКquКlК d’чrК fКcС fons tot lo
temps del Felibritge, e al nom de laquala los Grands Retoricaires de 1968-81 parlavan
apassionadament, aviá desaparegut. (Op.cit.: 110)
The number of agricultural workers went down to 3%, all of whom were integrated into the network
of technological modernisation and market development. It means that the linguistic reserve which
the entire era of Félibrige was founded on, and in which name the “Big Rhetoricians” of 1968-81
passionately spoke, had disappeared.
220
F , 1935: When the cows were out in the field and one would call them in to milk them. 102
Communication with animals proves to be a typical setting for learning the
language in farming families: while parents decided not to pass the local idiom on to their
children, they continued to use it in their work including pasturage. Consequently, it was in
the local idiom that all the commands the animals understood were issued. Similarly, in the
Occitan context in the same region of France IS, 1930 answers the question about the way
Сe leКrned OccТtКn: “I would shepherd the herd! And the animals would only understand
Occitan” (Сe ЛecКme Тnterested Тn tСe language much later, in his thirties). Another
informant, MN, 1960, one generation younger, also states that he had to start speaking
Occitan to communicate with farm animals: he lives in a suburb of Lyon but as a child,
would always spend three months of the summer holidays in a village in Ardèche where
his mother had been born, minding the herd. Beside such limited use of the idiom in
addressing animals, this informant, similarly to all others, did not begin to actively use the
language until much later. Informants in both linguistic contexts mentioned a sort of a
“sТde effect” of tСТs lКnguКge sТtuКtТon: К аТdespreКd assumption that Francoprovençal or
OccТtКn Тs not К “proper lКnguКge” (Т.e. not К СumКn lКnguКge Кt Кll) sТnce “even КnТmals
understand it.”
More often, however, children would leave their home village to work in a city.
Namely a considerable part of the today’s “lКte speКkers” used to аork Кs scСool teКcСers.
Once retired, they would come back to their village where they could witness that
Francoprovençal аКs (Кlmost) no longer spoken. “RecollectТng Тt” from tСeТr cСТldСood
memories, as spoken around them (but never addressed to them), they would then find
themselves in the neа socТКl role of Тts lКst “keepers” (mainteneurs de patois: the role is
socially established and those were even given diplomas or pin badges by dialectologists or
associations). NegКtТve socТКl connotКtТons lТnked to “pКtoТs” аere no longer КpplТcКЛle to
them. As an informant from Savoy argues:
Au moment de l’exode rural parler patois c’était un peu dire d’où l’on venait, on
était de la campagne, on était des paysans, on n’était pas des gens bien. Puis,
maintenant on revendique un peu notre appartenance à ce milieu-là parce qu’on en
est sorti.
102
Today, the couple speak French to their dog but, significantly, they teach Francoprovençal in two
agricultural schools.
221
At the time of the rural exodus speaking patois was a bit like saying where we came from, that we
were from the countryside, that we were peasants, that we were not good. Then today we claim a
little our membership in this milieu because we have left it.
3.1.2 The treasure hunt : keeping an unknown language and culture
As former agents of the state in their role of teachers, they have interiorised what
we may call after Lodge the standard ideology: 103 “(1) the ideal state of language is one of
uniformity, (2) the most valid form of the language is to be found in writing, (3) the
standard variety is inherently better (i.e. more elegant, clearer, more logical, etc.) than
other varieties” (Lodge 2004: 206). A highly variable code which exists almost exclusively
in oral form, like Francoprovençal, Тs tСerefore К “non-lКnguКge” for tСem. Hence,
attempts to write Francoprovençal, and in doing so, to use a standard orthographic
principle (Graphie de Conflans for Savoie and Haute-Savoie, local orthographies for
cantons in Switzerland) is seen as a priority. Since they used to be teachers, their interest in
the language is often philological. A former teacher of German and Latin says:
LK, 1932, Fp: Moi j’ai commencé dans mon village en 93, et je croyais que la
langue était morte avec ma grand-mère avec laquelle je parlais toujours cette
langue-là, elle était morte depuis longtemps et puis j’ai découvert que les gens
sКvКТent lК pКrler … moi j’étais motivé linguistiquement … j’ai été saisi par la
parenté de cette langue avec le latin, je connaissais l’occitan théoriquement, et tout
à coup j’КТ découvert que le francoprovençal avait des choses plus conservatrices,
plus proches du latin. Et donc ça m’a fasciné, de ma grand-mère je tirais tout ce que
je pouvais jusqu’à sa mort.
I started [working on Francoprovençal] in my village in [19]93, and I thought the
[Francoprovençal] language had died along with my grandmother. I had always spoken it with her,
but she had died long ago, and then I found out people could speak it … I аКs motТvКted from the
linguistic point of view … I was impressed by the kinship between this language and Latin, I knew
Occitan theoretically, and then I suddenly discovered that Francoprovençal has even more
conservative elements, even closer to Latin. So I was fascinated, and I took all I could from my
grandmother, up to her death.
103
See also the notion of “tСe standard language Тdeologв” (MТlroв, MТlroв 1998).
222
Thus his interest in Francoprovençal is in its specifically linguistic features: the
idiom was seen as a fragment of Latin, miraculously preserved and surviving up to the
present day (albeit dying right before one’s eyes along with the seemingly last speaker).104
The late speakers imagine a language as a formula – “grКmmКr + vocКЛulКrв” – and
their interest in the language is often restricted to collecting lists of words (especially
linked to the agro-pastoral past) and grammar paradigms. As a result, their language
competence may be relatively high, but they lack communicative competence (Hymes
1972a, b). Thus, according to Hymes:
We have then to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of
sentences not only as grammatical, but also as appropriate. He or she acquires
competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to what to talk about with whom,
when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes able to accomplish a
repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to evaluate their
104
Another possible motivation might be linked to the very defence of speaking Francoprovençal and its
eventual use as a secret language by adults in the families. The idiom interests “lКte speКkers” as a forbidden
fruit of sorts. This use of Francoprovençal as a secret language is often found in interviews. Yet the fact that
this has given rise to the willingness to speak Francoprovençal is never explicitly acknowledged. At the
same time, I found it explicit in a socially very similar case of Occitan in the same region of France. Thus, for
instance, the informant MN, 1960, Oc, talks about his aunt, who was the youngest of five siblings and only
spoken to in French, while her brothers and sisters were spoken to in Occitan:
MN, 1960, Oc: Et elle dТsКТt moТ on me pКrle pКs pКtoТs, c’est le mot qu’on utТlТsКТt р l’цpoque on
pКrle pКs pКtoТs c’est pКrce que je suТs trop petТte. Quand je serai grande, quand je serai plus grande je
pourrai parler patois – et puis on lui a fait comprendre que non elle ne parlera pas.
SСe sКТd, tСeв don’t speКk Тn patois to me, this was the word they used at the time, tСeв don’t speКk Тn
patois to me ЛecКuse I’m too вoung. WСen I groа up, аСen I’m older I will be able to speak patois –
and then they made her understand sСe’d never speКk Тt.
This was the ban on the use of the idiom that left the mixed feeling of insult and curiosity. Years later, when
she was already an aged woman, she took Occitan lessons taught by her nephew, MN: “It was so deeply
rooted in her that she speaks it very well, she tells fairy tales in Occita,” he said. Another activist, the
Occitanist RM, 1970, Oc, says tСКt OccТtКn аКs tСe nКtТve lКnguКge of СТs grКndfКtСer Кnd СТs fКtСer, Лut “Тt
аКs К peКsКnt lКnguКge Кt tСe tТme,” Кnd tСeв аКnted tСeir cСТldren to get out of tСТs envТronment: “I аКsn’t
Кlloаed to Лe spoken to Тn OccТtКn, аСТcС Тs аСв I’ve КlаКвs Лeen Тnterested.” TСe ТnformКnt leКrned
Occitan on a language training course in 1998 and started teaching it at school; now he supervises Occitan
teКcСТng Тn tСe regТon’s scСools.
223
accomplishment by others. This competence, moreover, is integral with attitudes,
values, and motivations concerning language, its features and uses, and integral
with competence for, and attitudes toward, the interrelation of language with the
other code of communicative conduct. (Hymes 1972b)
As tСe “lКte speКkers” аere never Кddressed Тn Francoprovençal, they could not
acquire any communicative competence, which often leads to cultural miscommunication
and a gap between these groups and the remaining community of native Francoprovençal
speakers. It is thus a communicative norm in Francoprovençal to avoid verbal excess in
judgments: someone аСo Тs serТouslв Тll аould Лe referred to Кs ЛeТng “not so аell” (lèi va
pa tan) or someone neКrlв dвТng mТgСt Лe sКТd to Лe “not Тn К good sСКpe” (pa fran en
forma). In Savoy and Bresse similar communicative norms exist in regional French:
someone cКn Лe sКТd to Лe “un peu fatigué(e),” “К ЛТt tТred,” аСen Сe or sСe Тs Тll. In a
sТmТlКr аКв, to tСe questТon “Сoа Кre вou?” no one Кmong tСe Francoprovençal L1
speКkers аould replв “verв аell” or “fТne.” UsuКl replТes аould Тnclude “not tСКt ЛКd” (pa
pi mal que cèn) or even “stТll Сere” (sen sellia). However, being unaware of this particular
norm, due to the lack of transmission of language and culture, and being unprepared for the
very existence of a different norm due to having been brought up following the republican
Тdeologв of monolТnguКl Кnd monoculturКl socТetв, tСe “lКte speКkers” Кccuse tСe nКtТve
speakers of Francoprovençal (both Savoyards and Valdôtains) of a complete lack of
empathy. Even a light divergence in the ways of speaking and saying things is ascribed a
negative psychological meaning: like the ubiquitous example of the expression la pourta
de (de)foura or la pourta dè diyo, recurrent in late speakers’ discourse in Savoy. Literally it
meКns “tСe outsТde door,” Кs opposed to tСe FrencС la porte d’entrée, “the entrance door,”
and is used to prove that the Savoyards are unwelcoming and reserved (whereas in reality
it should be motivated by where the speaking subject places himself in relation to the
house; besides, Тn tСe mountКТns outsТde Тt Тs often cold, so tСe “outsТde door” Тs contrasted
to any other door in the house as the one to be cautious to close).
TСe “lКte speКkers” form the vast majority of members of the so-called groupes
patoisants – patois-speaking groups. The part relating to “speКkТng” Тn tСТs self-definition
has however a particular meaning. Informants аТtСТn tСe “groupes pКtoТsКnts” Тn FrКnce
and in Switzerland admit that occasions to speak Francoprovençal in everyday life are
marginal or even completely non-existent. Language use is virtually limited to
224
communication with other activists within their activist work. If they speak in
Francoprovençal it is always because they decide to do so, and it mostly concerns reading
texts, either their own or written by someone else. At the same time, a notable particularity
of these groups is the use of French even within the groups: the discourse is about
Francoprovençal but it is almost never in Francoprovençal. Let us illustrate this by
examples from the Swiss city of Lausanne. Lausanne has local patoisant groups, but it is
also the meeting place of various Francoprovençal federations operating for the whole of
the Francoprovençal trans-border area. Perhaps it is not by chance that the city chosen for
these purposes is the one in which, as it has been noted above, like in other protestant cities
of Switzerland, Francoprovençal disappeared from daily practice as early as the first half of
the 19th century (Kristol 2013 [1999]). At international Francoprovençal meetings it would
seem justified to use Francoprovençal, the language common for representatives of
different countries in the trans-border cooperation context, all the more so since the
participants have different first languages (although French, along with Italian, is one of
the official languages in the Aosta Valley, it is not the L1 for the majority of its population,
and it is even less so in Piedmont). Yet these are held in French. For instance, there exists
an International Federation of Francoprovençal, Savoyard, or Franc-Comtois Speakers
(Fédération internationale des locuteurs du francoprovençal, savoyard ou FrancComtois). Note the ambiguity of listing both Francoprovençal and Savoyard in the title: it
is not quite clear whether they are meant to be two different languages or two names for
tСe sКme one. BesТdes, tСe presence of “Franc-Comtois” Тn tСe sКme federКtТon Тs curТous:
indeed, Franc-Comtois, spoken in the Canton of Jura, belongs to a different language
group, that of languages of oïl. Its presence in the Federation can only be attributed to the
fact that, similarly to Francoprovençal, it is spoken as a minority language – referred to as
patois – in the French-speaking part of Switzerland: in other words, these languages are
brought together based on their being spoken in a territory characterised by a predominant
use of French – as opposed to the German- and Italian-speaking cantons. At this
federation’s meetings phrases could be heard such as: Le patois a été et restera la langue
qui unit notre Fédération (“The patois has been and will remain the language that unites
our FederКtТon”); [L’objectif de la Fédération est de] parler et faire parler la langue de
nos ancêtres dans nos régions respectives (“[The Federation’s objective is] to speak and
promote speКkТng tСe lКnguКge of our Кncestors Тn our respectТve regТons”); tСe tКsk
consists in la défense et promotion de la place de la langue (“tСe defense Кnd promotТon of
tСe plКce of tСe lКnguКge”) etc. A subversion of meaning then occurs: the language in
which things are said contradicts what is being said.
225
The particularity of local groups’ meetings can be illustrated by the very first such
meeting that I could observe in December 2009. The meeting, which is held once every
two weeks in the village of Montbrison near Saint-Étienne, in France, was attended by
some 150 to 200 people of retirement age (beside the villagers, many came down from the
Forez mountains). At the beginning of the meeting, a film screened in a Forez mountain
village in 1950 was shown. The film was silent, but during the projection, both the
moderator and the audience commented on it in “patois.” Then, photographs of village life
from the 1930-50s were shown. Each photograph was meticulously commented on:
discussion of a single photograph could take about 10 minutes, with participants’
comments ranging from one word in Francoprovençal, sucС Кs “cows” or “a girl,” up to
developed explanations of what was depicted in the photograph, and about the way certain
objects photographed had been used at the time – essentially, how the world functioned
during the period captured in the photographs. As I could witness later, these meetings are
an exception to the general rule, as most (although not all) participants spoke in
Francoprovençal, albeit saying a single word. However, just as at other meetings of local
Francoprovençal associations, for them the idiom was exclusively connected to the past
and the realities of the bygone agro-pastoral lifestyle. Archaic lexis, no longer used in
everyday life since its denotations have fallen out of use, is reverently preserved as so
many fragments of the bygone world.
Thus, two phenomena can be distinguished as far as groupes patoisants are
concerned. On the one hand, at the level of large-scale associations included in
international federations, Francoprovençal is being proclaimed to be important in the
modern аorld (confТrmed Лв tСe ТdeК of tСe necessТtв of Тts “promotТon”) – while it is not
actually used in the activities of the same associations and federations. On the other hand,
at the local level, the notion is revealed of a close connection between the idiom and the
past, a world that has already disappeared, and the very memory of which is doomed to be
erКsed аСen tСe lКst speКkers Кre gone. TСe “lКst speКkers” of Francoprovençal take it for
granted that this language is bound to vanish just as the world it used to describe has
vanished.
226
3.2 New speakers
3.2.1 Linguistic biography and motivations for learning Francoprovençal
TСe second group (locКllв cКlled “neа speКkers”) consТsts of вoung representКtТves
of the urban middle class. Born in the cities, they never knew the agro-pastoral lifestyle of
their ancestors, and even though they might have had someone in their family who spoke
Francoprovençal (e.g. a grandfather they would see during school breaks), they had to
learn Francoprovençal in adulthood. They interiorised the discourse on endangered
languages, connected with ideas about preserving cultural and biodiversity and a moral
obligation linked to this (cf. Duchêne and Heller 2007; Cameron 2007). For them
Francoprovençal is no longer a peasants’ language, but part of the world’s intangible
cultural heritage. Their references are other minority languages, especially those
standardised and (to a different extent) recognised politically like Catalan and Occitan.
Like in these other contexts, speaking the language for them is a necessary condition for
working on promoting its status and its subsequent transmission through education.
Their personal history and motivations for learning Francoprovençal may be
different. Curiously, unlike tСe “lКte speКkers” for аСom “patois” is deprived of any
sentimental role, often their interest for Francoprovençal is closely tied to the emotional
load linked with speaking this language. Thus a recurrent thread in interviews with the new
speakers concerns speaking Francoprovençal with their grandparents and thus finding a
stronger family bond. Therefore, even though for new speakers it is a language learnt in
adulthood it is nevertheless identified in a focused setting Кs tСe “lКnguКge of СeКrt”
(langue de cœur).
JF 1987: Quan mon gran-pare i ère a l’opТtКl, Т чre К lК fКn de sК vТК … Кvц comprчТ
que lo pКtuц ч lК lengК de cœur, de lК mòre, dou pКэ. E i ère lo moman que ou
parlave to lo ten en patué. Mè avoué fierta!
When my grandfather was in СospТtКl, Сe аКs Кt tСe end of СТs lТfe … Кnd Сe understood tСКt patois
was his language of heart, of his mother, of his country. And this was the moment when he would
speak nothing but patois all the time. But with pride!
227
Quan ire a l’opital, ou l’avé comprì que i èra la lenga de sa mòre, adon ou l’a
coumenchà a mè predzé en patué.
When he was in hospital, he understood that it was the language of his mother, so he started to talk
to me in patois.
Other motivations for learning Francoprovençal can be linked to episodes of
personal history not related to intimate family relations, but, on the contrary, concerning
tСe perceptТon Лв “otСers.” TСus leКrnТng tСe lКnguКge Тs Тn some cКses К reКctТon КgКТnst
one’s being perceived as a second-rate citizen of sorts by (other) French people. Gellner
(1983) notes that at later stages of the development of industrial society (after World War
II), nationalism emerges as a response to daily experience: when a person belonging to
culture A is dealing with co-nationals belonging to culture B while facing economic or
bureaucratic issues, and namely issues linked to labour migration towards cities,
sometimes they have to face mockery or humiliation from the representatives of culture B.
“TСТs verв concrete experience taught them to be aware of their culture, and to love it (or,
Тndeed, to аТsС to Лe rТd of Тt)” (Gellner 1983: 61). Often they hesitate between two
strategies: either nationalism (implying mКkТng tСeТr “loа” culture Тnto К neа “СТgС”
culture), or assimilation. It is such everyday experience that is cited by the activist NV,
1973, Arp, as an impetus that drove him to learn Arpitan:
NV, 1973, Arp: J’aurais pu ne jamais l’apprendre [l’arpitan] vraiment si je n’avais
été à Paris pour ma thèse de doctorat. À Paris on s’est tellement moqué de moi que
j’ai compris que j’étais savoyard avant d’être français. Disons que j’ai découvert à
Paris que j’étais savoyard … Du coup en rentrant j’ai décidé de me mettre
sérieusement au patois.
I might have never really learnt it [Arpitan] had I not gone to Paris for my PhD studies [in
electromagnetism]. In Paris, they made so much fun of me that I understood I was Savoyard before
being French. Let’s say, in Paris I discovered I was Savoyard … So when I came back I decided to
get into the patois in earnest.
When asked as to what was the difference with respect to Parisians, the informant replies:
Je sais pas si il y en avait une, mais en tout cas on me faisait sentir que je n’étais
pas «standard». Tu connais notre français régional de Rhône-Alpes ? … On a
beaucoup de formes locales. Elles viennent pour la plupart de l’arpitan. Par
exemple j’y sais, j’y fais. Que j’utilisais sans complexes à Paris. Indirectement ça
228
venait du patois. Je ne le savais pas encore à ce moment là. À partir de 2001, je me
suis intéressé à l’étymologie, l’histoire, les langues régionales.
I don’t know if there was a difference but anyway, they made me feel that I wasn’t “standard.” Do
you know our regional French in the Rhône-Alpes? … We СКve К lot of locКl forms. TСeв mostlв
come from Arpitan. For example, j’y sais, j’y fais [instead of standard French je le sais, je le fais for
“I know it,” “I do it”]. Which I used in Paris without any embarrassment. It came indirectly from
patois. I didn’t know that at the time. From 2001 [having completed the PhD studies] onwards, I
became interested in etymology, history, regional languages. 105
Curiously, according to the informant, his then 12-year-old daughter also had to appeal to
her Arpitan identity while living in Paris with her (Parisian) mother, although the situation
was entirely different for her. She was at a school with many immigrant children: nearly
every child had “a language of their own,” Arabic, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. In these
circumstances, the informant’s daughter and another girl from Savoy began to speak
Arpitan with each other: knowing several Arpitan words, seemingly having a language of
their own too, that they could use to discuss something so that their schoolmates could not
understand them, proved to be a decisive factor in maintaining their status in the peer
group.
. .
New speakers and language acquisition
In fКct, tСe mКjor dТfference Лetаeen “neа speКkers” Кnd “lКte speКkers” does not
lie in their linguistic community exposure in their childhood or the presence or absence of
family members that spoke the language (this may be the same for both categories), but in
what they do with the language and how they perceive it. The late speakers think that, on
105
Note that the same informant also speaks about a second possТЛle strКtegв (КccordТng to Gellner’s tСeorв),
suggesting that the Savoyards generally have a strong sense of identity, they know exactly who they are; yet
they were left with an acute feeling of having been abandoned by their own authorities during the annexation,
so now many of them do everything they can in order to become more French than the French, and to destroy
their heritage, both material and linguistic. I could argue though that, in fact, from what interviews have
shown, in most cases this attitude – in fact a common one – is due not so much to the ancient history of
annexation, but to the much more recent image of Savoyards as poor peasants from underdeveloped parts of
France. Hence, they trв to get rТd of ЛeТng КssocТКted аТtС “peКsКnts” mucС more tСКn of the image of being a
nation abandoned by its king.
229
the one hand, they already know the language, since they heard it in the past (albeit
addressed to someone else), so they only need to remember it; on the other hand, for them
it is a language to speak about the agro-pastoral life of the past, a language spoken by a
social category, that of peasants, that no longer exists. Therefore, even had they wished to
ameliorate their language skills, this would not be possible, since for them the speakers are
Кll deКd. FТnКllв, sometТmes tСeв do knoа some (“lКst”) speКkers, Лut onlв contКct tСem Тn
order to Кsk for some аords. Most often tСougС tСeв consТder tСemselves to Лe tСe “lКst
speakers.” Neа speКkers, Тn tСeТr turn, start from the idea that they do not know the
language, but that there still are those who can teach it. As no adult classes or learning
materials exist in these settings, and they could not rely on their childhood memories
(because of their fragmented cСКrКcter or tСe КЛsence of tСose) tСe аКв tСe “lКte speКkers”
did, they had to learn Francoprovençal with native speakers in their ancestors’ villages.
Later they integrated into the existing Francoprovençal communication networks (reduced
as these might be there). TСerefore Тn tСТs second cКse tСere Тs no gКp Лetаeen tСe “neа
speКkers” Кnd tСe communТtв of nКtТve speКkers.
Accordingly, those locally referred to as new speakers are substantially different
from what is usually understood by the term: “Тndividuals with little or no home or
community exposure to a minority language but who instead acquire it through immersion
or bilingual educational programmes, revitalisation projects or as adult language learners”
(O’Rourke et al. 2015: 1). Indeed, in the Francoprovençal area the only places where
regular language courses and language learning materials (reduced as they are) exist are
the VDA and Valais, where Francoprovençal is an everyday practice, so linguistic
community exposure is a prerequisite for the existence of language learners there. In other
words, in a diffuse setting, most people would go to these courses precisely because the
language is spoken in everyday life, because they are sometimes being spoken to in that
language and because they have a practical need to use it in their turn. Therefore, there is
no gКp Лetаeen clКsses Кnd “reКl lТfe”: tСeв Кre Тmmersed Тn tСe Francoprovençal-speaking
environment. In contrast, in regions where Francoprovençal is no longer used in everyday
life regular educational programmes or learning materials do not exist, language
acquisition has to pass through community exposure. 106 Therefore, the gap is non-existent
there as well. Thus I would Кrgue tСКt tСe term “neа speКker” when used for the
Francoprovençal context must be understood as referring to a social phenomenon of a very
Thus the “new speКkers” par excellence Тn tСe eвes of tСe “patoisants” are members of the Arpitan Cultural
Alliance. Hence, among all these Arpitanists, only one individual undertook language classes (provided by a “late
speaker” Тn Lвon).
106
230
particular nature, different from the cases of other regional languages. The phenomenon
from the Francoprovençal linguistic situation that seems to be the closest to what is
generКllв understood under tСe “neа speКker” lКЛel Кre Тn fКct tСe so-cКlled “lКte
speakers.”
TСe “neа speКkers” usuКllв СКve К СТgС level of communicative competence,
although their linguistic competence might be ТnferТor to tСКt of tСe “lКte speakers.” This
group does use Francoprovençal in their interactions, but often poetic and symbolic
functions are more important than a communicative one: a côté cabinet de curiosités –
“cabinet of curiosities aspect,” as one Swiss Francoprovençal speaker referred to it. This
curiosity can be indulged and linguistic insecurity compensated for by the use of
dictionaries and grammar books. No French interference is tolerated. BesТdes, tСe “neа
speКkers” often use Francoprovençal in written, Internet-mediated communication
(Facebook or blogs). Actually, the majority of situations of their communication in
Francoprovençal involves Internet communication: what may be categorised as selective
socialisation. Consider two excerpts from Arpitanist texts:
AR: Enqu’hoê [Hoê, Av’hoê] j’è parlâ avoêc lo grope indigèno de la Sèrra de lo
RoncКdor … J’è devesâ [discutâ] avoê yèlos sur lyor travaly de dèfènsi de la
léngua et de la cultura de lyor Sèrra. … LК dТscussТon ehtyèt [era] passionanta! Nos
avèns tant de choses comunes!
Today, I’ve spoken to К group of locКls from SerrК do RoncКdor … I discussed with them their work
of defendТng tСe lКnguКge Кnd tСe culture of tСeТr SerrК … TСe dТscussТon was exciting! We have so
much in common! (The italics mark the words for which the original gives multiple versions)
JM: Nos sens por lo mot "arpitan" por cen que l’est la mèlyosa (mèlyora) rèclama
por noutra lengoua. "Francoprovençal" l’est “oficièl” mas l’est pas clar una bréca
(una chousa, du tot). "Patoués" l’est adrét prôd "pèjoratif" et il fét pas la difèrençe
entre les “patoués” de la bise, du mi(é)-jorn, et du méten de la Françe.
We support the word “Arpitan” because it makes the best publicity of our language.
“Francoprovençal” is official but it isn’t clear at all. “PКtoТs” Тs quТte “pejorative,” and it does not
distinguish between the “patois” of the north, the south, and the middle of France.
What is interesting for us here is not what is said but how it is said. Using multiple
variants for the same word is typical of the written communication of Arpitanists. Those
may be:
231
- either different lexemes:
Enqu’hoê [Hoê, Av’hoê] – today
J’è devesâ [discutâ] – I discussed
(pas) una bréca [una chousa, du tot] – (not) at all
- or different grammatical forms:
ehtyèt [era] – was (2nd person SG of imperfect)
- sometimes, different phonetic realisations are also involved:
mèlyosa (mèlyora), mi(é)-jorn.
It would appear that this principle is the result of the high degree of variability of
Francoprovençal: in other words, it is caused by a striving to ensure a successful
communication in any region of the Francoprovençal (Arpitan) linguistic area. A lack of
assurance of such an understanding seems to correlate with the meager (and recent)
experience of communication with speakers from different regions. In comparison, native
speakers do not feel any need to provide synonyms when talking outside of their village –
this does not put successful communication at risk. At the same time, it is an attempt to
forge a common language out of a continuum of different varieties, by including lexical,
grammatical and phonetic forms of different geographical origins. Indeed, most speakers
of this type (though not all of them) are Arpitanists, and they adhere to a supradialectal
standard orthography, ORB (see Part II Chapter 3). Unlike late speakers, the Arpitanists
tend to be oriented towards the future rather than the past. However, according to their
notions, this future can only be made possible by the death of the past: only with the
disappearance of tСe “lКst speКkers” of ArpТtКn who see it as a highly fragmented language
(tСe speКkers аСo Кre “no longer of Кnв Сelp [to us],” аСo cКn Лe no more tСКn “К source
of inspiration,” to quote one of the informants) – only then will the existence of a unified
ArpТtКn lКnguКge Кs К lКnguКge of “hТgС culture” Лe mКde possТЛle.
They often actively participate in language policy-making on regional or local
levels. It is thus especially with this last group of speakers that Francoprovençal, no longer
transmitted nor part of daily social practice, appears as “language,” i.e. a reified
autonomous closed system and an object of discourse and policy.
232
3.3 The concurrency of legitimacy between different types of
speakers
TСe verв eбТstence of tСe concepts of “lКte speКkers” Кnd “neа speКkers,” Кs
widely-used and interiorised by the whole linguistic community, can only exist in a
situation where the language is imagined by the community of its speakers as endangered.
No such classification exists in diffuse settings. In the VDA there are speakers and nonspeakers of “patois,” or else “good patoisants” Кnd “ЛКd patoisants.” TСe lКtter does not
depend on any criteria such as social class, geographical background or time of language
acquisition. It only depends on the speaker’s actual language proficiency. According to
common representКtТons, tСere cКn Лe “good speКkers” аСo come from otСer regТons or
countrТes, Кnd “ЛКd speКkers” аСo аere Лorn locКllв, Кnd аСose аСole fКmТlв speКks tСe
language. Similarly, as the anthropologist Christiane Dunoyer notes in her book on the new
patoisants (“nouveaux patoisants”) in the Aosta Valley,
personne ne nous a dit qu’un patoisant serait quelqu’un qui a le patois comme
langue maternelle … D’après nos informateurs, tout le monde peut donc devenir
patoisant dès qu’il apprend les bases de la langue. (Dunoyer 2010: 52-53)
nobody told us that a patois speaker is someone for whom patois is their mother tongue …
According to our informants, anyone can become a patois speaker as soon as they learn the basics of
the language.
Furthermore, in the course of her research, she has never encountered a negative
attitude towards those who learn the language (Dunoyer 2010: 26-30). Indeed, the very
term of new speaker does not exist in the VDA, much as there is no such concept with
respect to e.g. French or English, languages that are actually spoken. I would argue
therefore that the categorisation of speakers in the focused setting is directly linked to the
ТmКge of tСe lКnguКge Кs ЛeТng “dвТng,” аСere tСe legТtТmКcв of ЛeТng a speaker implies
the legitimacy of representing the language as a whole (with the assumption that speakers
are few) and consequently, and more importantly, the community as whole.
233
3.3.1 Language true and false: the language of the people and the language of
young intellectuals
In focused settings the discourse of aged speakers of Francoprovençal, both
“nКtТve” Кnd “lКte,” contrasts the language of those who spoke Francoprovençal naturally
(themselves or their grandparents), to that of young intellectuals belonging to the urban
middle class. Language variation across the social scale (the difference of sociolects) and
through time (variation according to speaker’s age), is, of course, a normal feature of any
language. Nevertheless, in the context of endangered languages this difference is perceived
as that between a real language and an artificial one: as though the peasants of the turn of
the 20th century spoke a true language, while the modern intellectuals speak an invented
one.
The differences concern all levels of the linguistic system: phonetic and prosodic,
morphological, syntactic, and lexical. Thus the new speakers “speak with a wrong
intonation, in a wrong manner,” “there is a little something in the pronunciation that they
don’t get” (according to native and late speakers). Besides, they are sometimes accused of
replacing the authentic syntax with the French one. Thus, a native speaker from HauteSavoie Кccuses “the young Arpitans” of using French syntax in the patois, whereas she,
according to her own perception, would use the syntax of “patois” in her French. She
hastens however to Кdd: “I reproach them although it’s not their fault: they have never
heard how it should be spoken properlв!” Finally, as the young urban middle class activists
expand the situations of language use beyond the domains where it would be used by its
last speakers, i.e. the peasants, an obvious need to enlarge the vocabulary emerges.
Moreover, some of them tend to try to exclude all words resembling French from the
variety they speak (which is not necessarily limited to borrowings), to create a language as
different from French as possible. The latter is characteristic of language revitalisation
movements in general. Some informants among the Francoprovençal native speakers
criticised a teacher of the Savoyard “lКnguКge” for rooting out words in centuries-old texts:
“they suit him because they are not French, although nobody speaks like that in real life.”
However most criticism concerns the phonetics.
All the criticisms mentioned are especially relevant with respect to the Arpitanists.
At the same time, often they do not concern real people that the informant would have met,
234
but the image that the group produces (in contrast, in face-to-face communication with
individuals no such problems arise). This appears to be mostly caused by the ACA’s
promotion of the standard ORB orthography (see Part II Chapter 3): orthography is then
confused with transcription, as it is a rule in other writing systems for patois that
everвtСТng Тs reКd “Кs Тt Тs аrТtten.” Additionally, in the standard grammar book by Stich
there is indeed a section suggesting a “supra-dialectal pronunciation” (the section titled
“Orthoépie” in Stich 2003: 181-185). As a matter of fact, none of the Arpitanists insists on
the latter: all of them, apart from one single exception, have learnt one particular local
variety or another, so that the variety they speak can generally easily be localised to a
particular village. However, the misunderstanding results in latent conflicts.
On their side, some Arpitanists admit that the idiom in the form(s) in which it
existed before is bound to die along with its native speakers, since the older generation of
speakers who have learnt it in their families have not transmitted it to their children and do
not intend to do so now, as far as the younger generation curious to learn it is concerned.
They can be nothing but a source of inspiration.” At the same time, the Arpitanists criticise
the fact that this Тs tСe opТnТon of tСe “pКtoТs speКkers” (patoisants), which is taken into
account when language policy is being developed – in particular, that of the Rhône-Alpes
region:
NV 1973: C’est bien tout le paradoxe de vouloir interroger ces groupes [patoisants]
à propos d’une politique régionale de revitalisation, on peut se demander quelle
légitimité a leur parole sur le sujet quand eux-mêmes ayant toutes les clés en main
n’ont rien fait pour.
It’s paradoxical to ask those groups [of patois speakers] about the regional [language]
revitalisation policy. One wonders of what legitimacy their word on the subject can be
when they had all the keys in their hands and did nothing for it.
Thus, the older generation’s status of (rightful, true) language speakers is contested
as they are reproached for failing to pass the language on to the younger generations of
their families, as well as of neglecting the everyday use of the language. It can however be
seen from the above quotation that the issue is in fact about what legitimises the opinion of
an individual or a group as a basis for legislation and, consequently, of who has the right to
take part in policy-making on behalf of the group (see also Bichurina 2014).
235
The fact that such debates on the subject of “true” and “false” speakers arise around
the language there where it is no longer used appears to be the fundamental feature of the
conflict. Competition and enmity emerge when the language is transformed from a
communication practice into a symbol and, simultaneously, a potential resource of power.
When learning the language can no longer be explained by practical necessity (a desire to
be fully accepted as a community member, to be included in local networks for a more
successful career development, or in order to better understand an aged neighbour), it is
perceived as trespassing against identity and ethnicity. The late speakers who have
acquired the new social role of “tradition keepers” see it as an infringement on the special
place that they occupy in the community, which only has a value if it is exclusive.
3.3.2 The Arpitan conflict: new speakers and linguists
TСe mКТn conflТct tСougС, Кs fКr Кs “neа speКkers” Кre concerned, КrТses not Кmong
tСese Кnd tСe “nКtТve” (verв rКrelв) or “lКte” (more often) speКkers, Лut Кmong “neа
speКkers” Кnd lТnguТsts. Linguists explain in informal conversations why they are not
interested in the Arpitanists: from their point of view, studying “fantasies” belongs to
psychologists and psychiatrists, whereas the linguists’ business is to study natural
languages. A unified supra-dialectal standard for something that had never existed as a
linguistic unity in the first place, and has disappeared in most places by now, is seen as an
anachronism and fantasising. The invented, artificial language of the Arpitanist new
speakers is contrasted with the authentic language of the last speakers, often already dead
ones. Thus, for instance, the Glossaire des patois de la Suisse Romande (the Glossary of
the patois of Romand Switzerland) currently being published in Switzerland
(http://www.gpsr.ch/) is based on field data collected in the early 20th century. This point
of view is not explicitly represented in scholarly literature, but it is reflected in two ways:
on the one hand, in the existence of a special term for new speakers (néo-locuteurs), thus
distinguishing them as a special category among other speakers; on the other hand, in the
absence of research focused on these new speakers. Both points are duly noted by the
Arpitanists:
NV, 1973, Arp: Le terme néo-locuteur c’est un mot carrément diabolique!!! Pas
vraiment locuteurs, mais pas vraiment exclus de la catégorie non plus, la
différenciation permet tout simplement de les éliminer des études, comme on
236
élimine des points gênants dans une série de mesures parce qu’ils contredisent la
théorie et qu’on n’a pas envie d’en цlКЛorer une plus complчte. … Et en
l’occurrence ici, la théorie dit depuis 100 ans que le francoprovençal va disparaitre
rapidement ("la prophétie").
The term new speaker is an outright diabolical word!!! Not really speakers, but not really excluded
from that category either; the distinction simply allows for them to be eliminated from the study like
embarrassing points are eliminated from a series of measurements because they contradict the
theory, Кnd ЛecКuse one does not feel lТke developТng К more compreСensТve one … In tСТs cКse, tСe
theory has been affirming for 100 years now that Francoprovençal аТll soon dТsКppeКr (“tСe
prophecy”).
The same opinion is expressed in the series of jokes on linguists and dialectologists
in the Arpitanists’ Facebook group:
EA: Comment est-ce qu’un linguiste appelle un jeune qui se met à
apprendre et parler la langue de ses grandparents ?
– UN MÉCRÉANT!!! Enfin non, un militant!!! Enfin non, [prendre une
bouche pincée] un néo-locuteur... Enfin bref, un mec qui n’est pas censé exister et
qui n’est là que pour t’emmerder et essayer de niquer la réalisation DE LA
PROPHÉTIE!!!! (Arpitania abada! 01.24.2013)
What does a linguist call a young person who sets about learning and speaking the language
of their grandparents?
– A MISCREANT!!! Well no, an activist!!! Well no, [curling one’s lip] a new speaker…
Anyway, a guy who shouldn’t exist and who’s only there to piss you off and to try to fuck the
fulfillment OF THE PROPHECY!!!!
EA: Ils se pressent autour du gisant pour recueillir son dernier souffle et
pouvoir s’enorgueillir d’avoir été celui qui à "enregistré le dernier patoisant." Alors
nous avec nos "néo-locuteurs" on les fait chier. (Arpitania abada ! 01.24.2013)
They are crowding around the dying in order to take in his last breath and to be able to
clКТm tСe Сonor of “recordТng tСe lКst speКker of tСe patois.” So аТtС our new speakers, we get
under their skin.
The ironic use of the ecclesiastical lexis (prophecy, miscreant; the diabolical word
can also be read in this context as carrying an ecclesiastical connotation) contrasts a faith237
ЛКsed “pseudoscТence” with what the true science should be like. This approach allows the
authority of the research to be doubted (or completely rejected). It appears from this
discourse on seeing the new speakers as an inconvenient fact that contradicts theory that in
the opinion of the Arpitanists, the behaviour of linguists is conditioned by a sort of a
professional arrogance, careerism, or even plain laziness. Further study reveals however
that the motives ascribed to the linguists have a much more substantial basis:
NV, 1973: L’habile terme de «néo-locuteur» masque justement une manière
d’exclure des études ceux que l’ont estime politiquement impropre à rentrer dans la
catégorie de "ceux qui parlent la langue." Il y a les bons locuteurs, patoisants de
naissance, et les mauvais locuteurs, actifs politiquement: les néo-locuteurs. Quand
bien même le niveau de maitrise de la langue d’un néo-locuteur pourrait dépasser
celui d’un patoisant de naissance...
Voilà comment de leur côté les linguistes, par ailleurs citoyens comme les
autres, instrumentalisent leur position à des fins politiques dans le sujet des langues
régionales.
The handy term of new speaker masks a way to exclude from one’s studies people who are
believed to be politically improper to Лe Тncluded Тn tСe cКtegorв of “tСose who speak the
lКnguКge.” TСere Кre good speakers, native patois speakers, and bad speakers who are politically
active: the new speakers. Even though the language proficiency level of a new speaker can be higher
than that of a patois speaker.
This is how the linguists, who are furthermore citizens like everyone else, turn their
position into a politically charged tool in the domain of regional language.
This argument is connected to the preceding postulate: according to all forecasts,
the so-called regional languages should die off rather than develop, and the new speakers
disrupt this trend. The significant development of this idea is that in addition to the
linguists’ psychological or pragmatic need to comply with their own prognosis, the idea of
political drive emerges. Indeed, linguists in general and dialectologists in particular do use
– and have always used – the opposition of the good speakers vs. the bad ones. For the
linguist, good speakers are aged (especially male) individuals, for whom the idiom is their
L1, typically living in the countryside and, preferably, never having left their native place,
who have had a minimum of contact with the outside world (the so-called NORMs – nonmobile older rural males, see Chambers, Trudgill 1998: 29). These speakers are presumed
to have preserved the idiom intact. Speakers belonging to the mobile urban population and
238
speaking several languages are classified as bad speakers, or more precisely non-authentic
and therefore useless for research. In the Arpitanist discourse however, the dichotomy of
good/bad speakers is ascribed entirely different grounds: political ones. New speakers turn
out to be bad speakers ЛecКuse of tСeТr ЛeТng “politically active”; to consider them as
normal speakers would be politically improper and would contradict the political goals.
The political goal Тs meКnt to Лe tСe creКtТon of “one and indivisible nation” as it is vividly
expressed in another statement (in our private written discussion) of one of the Arpitanists:
“…coupables que nous sommes de parler ENCORE une langue anti-républicaine en
2013” (“guilty as we are of STILL speaking an anti-republican languКge Тn 2013”). This
transfer of the debate from the properly linguistic plane to the political one allows the
sensitive issue of the quality of the new speakers’ language to be avoided. The linguistic
issue of a language of a different nature (invented, artificial, new language of new
speakers, new speakers’ newspeak) is substituted by the political question of legitimacy of
speaking a regional language today, in the 21st century: a question that is much more easily
answered in the present-day context. The legitimacy of this language is proved by
reference to the presently widespread ideas of biological and cultural diversity (which,
incidentally, dialectologists have never rejected, as the essence of their work has been to
study this diversity – specifically in a linguistic sense). Symptomatically, what is
mentТoned Тs not tСe “lКnguКge” as such but the “language proficiency level,” which
presupposes that the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative (much as the
proficiency in a standard language can be discussed e.g. as measured by the European
scale, from A1 to C2). Moreover, such a quantitative difference turns out to be – in some
cases at least – in favour of the new speakers.
The accusations of Arpitan being an artificial language are not discussed explicitly,
but a response to them is also expressed in the discussions:
AF: Ils [les linguistes] disent qu’ils veulent maintenir «pure» la langue et jouent
sur les émotions des gens. En même temps, ils … l’attachent au folklore, et suivent
un chemin qui mène à rien que la mort de la langue. … De toute façon, vu la
position actuelle de notre langue (en forte baisse), je pense que notre génération ne
doit pas/plus écouter ces gens là sur un sujet pareil. (Arpitania abada! 02.26.2013)
They [the linguists] say they want to keep the language “pure” and play on people’s feelings. At the
sКme tТme, tСeв … attach [the patois] to folklore and follow a road that can only bring about the
239
death of the language … AnваКв, аТtС tСe Кctual (steeply declining) condition of our language, I
think our generation should not (any longer) listen to these people on such subjects.
Mentioning the purity of the language implicitly addresses the dialectologists’
accusations. The quotation marks help to understand however that the idea of a pure
language is in doubt. An КppКrent pКrКdoб Тs produced: tСe lТnguТsts “plКв on people’s
feelings,” trвТng to “preserve” tСe (true, pure, etc.) lКnguКge – while they are also its
murderers. The folklorisation killing the idiom refers to the events the linguists help to
organise, such as the international festivals of Francoprovençal, which will be discussed in
Section 5.2. Once again, the linguists are ultimately blamed for today’s depressing
linguistic situation, and for this reason they lose all their legitimacy.
Nevertheless, a paradox can be noted: on the one hand, the linguists are explicitly
denied a special role in language planning (they must not be listened to); on the other hand,
such an abundant discourse on the linguists endows them with a virtually limitless power.
It turns out that it is the linguist who shapes the speakers’ attitude towards the language,
who affects the linguistic situation (or even creates it), and on whom language life or death
depends.
3.3.3 Speakers and linguists: a concurrency of legitimacy
Ultimately the nature of the conflict can be summarised as follows: traditionally
dialectologists would have a monopoly over the authority of pronouncing themselves on
linguistic matters. In many places of the Francoprovençal area a distinction between
agricultural workers and intellectuals is still felt as socially important, and the latter would
have the exclusive right to speak on behalf of the former about their linguistic and other
needs. At the same time, the former would traditionally be Francoprovençal speakers, and
the latter non-speakers. Dialectologists would always insist on the variation between
Francoprovençal idioms: on the one hand, as this is the main goal of any dialectological
work, which by definition is focused on variation; on the other hand, as agents of local or
central power, they could not insist on Francoprovençal being anything more than a mere
“dialect” ЛecКuse Тts eбТstence Кs К “language” would either go against the ideal of the
“one Кnd ТndТvТsТЛle nКtТon” (in France), or against the ideal of French-Francoprovençal
diglossia and, ultimately, of regional autonomy (in the VDA). Today, now the linguistic
situation has become dramatic in most parts of the Francoprovençal area (in the sense that
240
the language is no longer spoken in everyday communication) and as the celebration of
diversity simultaneously gains more and more weight at the international level,
dialectologists realise that studying isoglosses will not help real speakers to
maintain/transmit/revitalise their language and measures of another type should be taken.
New orientations then start to be taken or considered. However, this is the very moment
when activists start challenging the role of dialectologists and linguists. The development
of new technologies, and namely of the Internet, the appearance of sources like Wikipedia
as an alternative to academic resources, and the general democratisation of knowledge and
public speaking gives them the possibility to speak directly for themselves, as well as for
an imagined community of language speakers. At the same time, speaking the language
ceases to be seen as a mark of belonging to a lower social class (as opposed to the
researchers’ privileged access to the dominant culture), and becomes a source of
legitimacy for speaking about tСe lКnguКge. “WСКt could tСeв possТЛlв tell us КЛout our
lКnguКge Тf tСeв do not even speКk Тt?” Тs К most common oЛjectТon used to denв lТnguists’
legitimacy.
It should be specified that this does not only concern the younger-generation
activists, the Arpitanists who generally set themselves in opposition to the researchers, but
also the older-generation Francoprovençal activists among the late speakers. While the
attitude of the former is more openly adverse, the latter tend to express it in a more
mockingly condescending tone. For instance, LK, 1932, Fp, notes:
Ici ce n’est pas secret pour personne, la totalité des chercheurs [du francoprovençal
en France] aucun ne parle le francoprovençal. Ils parlent du francoprovençal, ils
font des cours, ils sont chercheurs en francoprovençal mais ils parlent pas la langue.
It’s no secret for anyone here that of all the researchers [of Francoprovençal in France], not a single
one speaks Francoprovençal. They talk about Francoprovençal, they teach, they study
Francoprovençal, but they don’t speak the language.
He relates that an employee of one of the Francoprovençal research institutes in Lyon
admitted to being surprised by the fact that visitors from the Aosta Valley coming to the
institute would speak “patois” to each other. After that conversation, the informant brought
“К doгen vТllКgers” to tСe institute, ostensibly to show them in atlases how the patois of
different villages differ from each other. He only talked to them in Francoprovençal.
AccordТng to СТm, tСe reseКrcСers аСo аТtnessed Тt СКd quТte К sСock: “It аКs lТke
speaking a dead language. As Тf аe tКlked Тn LКtТn” (“C’est une langue morte alors. On va
241
dire qu’on parle latin”). Stories like this serve to renegotiate the distribution of power and
authority between the élites and the people directly concerned.
Researchers’ linguistic competence is different in the VDA where they do know the
language, just as the majority of today’s population does; yet there they are accused of not
actually using it. To conclude this section, lyrics from an ironic song by Yvette Buillet
released in January 2016 can illustrate this last point:
Bonsoir a tcheut dz’i fa eunna retsertse
Good evening everyone, I’ve done a study
Su la Val d’Outa é bla bla bla
On Valle d’Aosta and bla bla bla
…
…
Bonsoir a tcheut fa diye oué
Good evenТng everвone, вou sСould sКв “ouц”
E pa «okay» l’é pa eun patoué
And not “okКв,” tСТs Тs not pКtoТs
Pe alléi a la fèira
And when I go to the fair
Beutto dou dzen sabot
I put on nice boots
Deun la tradechón107 é bla bla bla
According to the tradition and bla bla bla
Ma poi t’incontro per la strada
And then I meet you on the street [Italian]
E de prèidjéi eun patoué
And speaking in patois
Na me la sento pa lèi la féyo pa.
No I don’t feel like it, I don’t do it.
Chapter 4. When interlocutors play different games: diffuse
and focused practices in contact
In this chapter the situations of contact between diffuse and focused practices will
be studied. What happens when interlocutors seem (to themselves) to share the same
language, but when, in reality, they do not share either representations about the language,
or, more particularly, the ways of using it? I propose to consider these issues based on two
concrete examples of communication among different types of speakers from my
participant observation experience in the Francoprovençal area.
“Deun la tradechón”, marked in different colour in the lyrics, might refer to the slogan of the
École populaire du patois: “Creitre deun la tradichon” “Growing up according to the tradition”
107
(see Figure 17 above).
242
4.1 Example 1: A game of Qui a deut?
The event takes place in the small town of Marignieu (Le Bugey), in the Alpine
foothills of the French département of Ain, at the border of Haute-Savoie and Savoie.
Twice a year, for three days in December and for five days in March, one of the three local
wine-maker families throws a wine fest in its cellars. DD, 1963, a trader from the Aosta
Valley, has been coming to the wine fest for over 10 years. He comes to sell his coffee, but
also pasta, sauces and liquors. He is assisted by two employees, also from the Aosta
Valley: a young woman, FF, 1983, and an elderly man, LL, 1952. All three talk to each
other exclusively in Francoprovençal. It is probably due to this that some participants from
France also speak Francoprovençal to them. In particular, PP, 1950, a Savoyard musician,
almost invariably talks to them in Francoprovençal. At the fest, he plays the accordion and
sings Savoyard songs: some of them are in French, some others in Francoprovençal. The
degree of mutual intelligibility of different Francoprovençal varieties is high, like in all the
encounters of this kind that I could observe, so generally there is no need to ask the
interlocutor to repeat or rephrase his sentences.
At a certain moment of the fest, DD 1963, FF 1983, LL 1952, PP 1950, and myself
were talking among ourselves in Francoprovençal. LL 1952 used the lexeme sempre in his
speech. There followed an immediate response from DD:
DD 1963: Qui a deut “sempre”? (Who said [FP] “КlаКвs” [It?]?)
LL 1952: Je (I [Fr])
[General laughter]
Note that the laughter was mainly due to LL’s confessТon “Je,” which was not only
in French (rather than in Francoprovençal), but in broken French: he used the nominative
form of the 1st person singular pronoun, whereas according to the French grammar rules,
the strong form moi should have been used. Later on, the Je became a recurrent joke at the
fest. When the laughter subsided, PP, puzzled by what had just happened, admitted to have
no idea what the matter was. DD and FF explained that it was a game of sorts where it was
not permitted to pronounce words that did not (quite) belong to patois. PP was astounded
to hear this explanation, replying that they were simply insane.
243
Several different layers can be discerned in this game episode. Firstly, it
demonstrates the purism of DD and FF. What is the origin of sempre: is it a borrowing
from Italian or a Latin word that was preserved in parallel in Italian and in
Francoprovençal? DD admits that he does not know the answer to this question – but it
would be better to exclude the word as suspicious. It is “sКfer” to use the word todzor
instead. It may be observed though that, while the latter lexeme is indeed different from the
Italian sempre, it is at the same time very much like the French toujours. One can
hypothesise that activists from France, were they given the choice, would prefer sempre. In
actual fact, DD 1963 and FF 1983 are not just purveyors of coffee and pasta, although
many other participants of the fest only know them as such. DD has been one of the leaders
of the political movement for independence of the Aosta Valley in the 1990s; then he
taught Francoprovençal at the École populaire de patois (Popular Patois School) for some
15 years, until the autumn of 2012. His assistant FF also taught Francoprovençal in schools
of the VDA. The retired LL is the only one to speak Francoprovençal simply and only
because it is his first language: he explains that he speaks only in “patois,” as, according to
him, in the Aosta Valley Italian is only spoken to policemen, to customs officials and at the
post office, which has to do with the fact that the locals are not allowed to work in the
public sector in their own region.
Secondly, the purism certainly does not only apply to the choice of specific
lexemes, but also to the very issue of choice, to the notion that it is Francoprovençal and
Francoprovençal alone tСКt sСould Лe spoken. In fКct, Сoаever, tСe “gКme” Тs provoked not
only by the purism, but by the reaction to others’ purism as well. Qui a deut…? (“WСo sКТd
…?”) Тs КctuКllв К quotКtТon. In tСe fКll of 2012, tаo montСs prТor to mв oЛservКtТons at
the fest, compulsory Francoprovençal training for future teachers was introduced in the
VDA. The training programme was about six months long, seven nights a week. Some
veteran teachers were exempted from the training but DD was not of their number, and
therefore he could no longer teach. Hence, tСe pСrКse “Qui a deut…?” Лelongs to К teКcСer
of the training programme, who was selected from among DD’s former colleagues. This is
how she corrects her students, future (and often former) teachers themselves, if they start
speКkТng ItКlТКn durТng clКss. In tСТs conteбt, tСe “gКme” КcquТres К douЛle meКnТng. It
mocks a teacher whose authority is not recognised and mocks the official policy with
respect to Francoprovençal. It expresses irony with respect to the idea of an illusion of
Francoprovençal monolingualism. Yet at the same time, it reproduces that same idea, since
244
a joke that lasts for four days (during the preparation and the three days of the fest) is
however too long to be merely a joke.
Finally, the layer that is the most important to this study concerns the contact
between deliberate linguistic practices, the modelling of Francoprovençal monolingualism,
or of Francoprovençal/French or Francoprovençal/Italian/French bi- or trilingualism as
coexistent and clearly separated monolingualisms, and spontaneous mixed practices where
different idioms are not discerned by the speakers (cf. Le Page, Tabouret-Keller 1985). The
Savoyard’s response аСen encounterТng tСe element of tСe “gКme” reveКls tСe КЛsence of
reflection related to the use of patois. He does not try to speak the patois in a particular
way: he simply speaks it. Virtually the same can be said about LL: as mentioned above,
according to his own statements, he almost never speaks Italian. In reality, however, all
three idioms he knows (Francoprovençal, Italian, and French) turn out not to be clearly
delimited in his mind. What he considers his mother tongue includes elements of all three,
аСТcС Тs eбКctlв аСв, КltСougС Сe knoаs tСe rules of tСe “gКme,” Сe ТnvКrТКЛlв loses.
4.2 Example 2. Debating politics
The second situation happened in July 2015 at a meeting of the International
Council for Francoprovençal, the CIF, which took place in Haute-Savoie. The observation
there is of a more personal character. Members present at the meeting included those from
the VDA and Piedmont in Italy, from Vaud in Switzerland, and from Haute-Savoie in
France. During a pause we went to have a drink with the council members in a café
outside. The only working language of the council is Francoprovençal. Therefore during
the pause we continued speaking Francoprovençal. As we were outside, conversations
started turning around the heat of that particular summer, around choosing a place in the
shadow to drink a mint syrup and then eventually about the syrup itself. At this moment in
the middle of the small talk of this kind a member from Switzerland mentioned that she
had watched a documentary on Chechnya and started telling us about the situation in the
restive republic Тn RussТК’s NortС CКucКsus regТon. The conversation thus switched to a
discussion of federal power and the authorities of the autonomous republic, and she also
gave us her own interpretation of issues of terrorism, and also of the murder of a politician
who had recently been killed in Russia. At some point I wanted to question some of her
reflections, but as I started to explain my point of view, she interrupted me, objecting that I
245
was speaking too quickly. It did not mean that she had not understood what I had been
saying, but that it somehow had not left space for enjoying the language. Then she summed
up: “so, you say “pouvoer”?” (for tСe аord “poаer”). “And I sКв pouai.” And sСe Кsked
otСer memЛers Сoа tСeв аould sКв tСe аord “poаer” Тn tСeТr vКrТetТes.
Initially, at that very moment, this reaction was perceived by myself as a (quite
shocking) lack of tact: in order to simply enjoy speaking the language my interlocutor
could have kept speaking about the weather, not about people being killed. However, I had
to admit that, for instance, learning a language often does involve speaking about
conflictual or traumatising issues (as my experience of both learning or teaching foreign
languages shows). Indeed, a language course, and especially, a conversation course, would
typically be an occasion to speak about all sorts of issues: these might be rather intimate
moments of one’s personal biography, or preoccupying political and social events. To give
but some examples, I remember how in an English class at university we spoke about the
audience of the Nord-Ost musical who were being held as hostages in a theatre hall in
Moscow, or how in a French class at secondary school we spoke about demonstrations in
the streets in relation to the closing of a private TV channel in Russia. The crucial
difference, however, lies in the fact that on these occasions we knew the game we were
playing: we knew that we were, first of all, trying to improve our foreign language skills,
and if a teacher found it necessary to correct us, it would be normal. It would correspond to
the rules of the game. On the contrary, in that café in Haute-Savoie, different interlocutors
were playing different games. Some of us were playing the game of “ТmprovТng lКnguКge
skills,” or else “mКТntКТnТng tСe endКngered lКnguКge,” and some others, including myself,
the game of “deЛКtТng polТtТcs.” Hence, within the game I was playing was, my
Тnterlocutor’s contribution was completely inappropriate and therefore shocking.
This anecdotal observation might help to understand the low efficiency of the
council itself. Indeed, I would argue that its members in their sessions play different
gКmes. Or more precТselв, tСe gКme seems to Лe tСe sКme: “mКkТng lКnguКge polТtТcs.” Yet
for some members, coming from focused settings, gathering together with members from
different states and speaking exclusively in a minority language they are there to protect is
a political act in itself. For other members, coming from diffuse settings, speaking this
language is seen as normal, as this is the one they usually speak in most situations of
everyday interaction; in addition, this is the one that the members, who come from
different countries, have in common. In this interpretation – but only in this one – making
246
politics means defining and fulfilling tasks exterior to using the language as a means of
internal communication.
Chapter 5. Arts and festivities
5.1. Language and identity in performing arts
The performing arts, especially theatre and music, play a special part in today’s
language revitalisation movements, including the Francoprovençal one. According to JeanBaptiste Martin, dialectologist and the Linguistic Councillor of the Rhône-Alpes region of
France, the future of Francoprovençal Тs “on tСe culturКl sТde, tСe КffectТve sТde” (MКrtТn
2015: 35):
Puisque le francoprovençal ne peut pas redevenir la langue ordinaire du quotidien
qu’il a été, il faut, si on veut avoir une chance de le conserver, lui donner, je devrai
plutôt dire lui redonner, la place qu’aucune autre langue ne peut avoir, celle du
cœur en lТen Кvec le terroТr et les rКcТnes. Pour cela, dans un pays comme la France,
cette langue doit être valorisée sur le plan culturel. (Martin 2015: 36)
Since Francoprovençal cannot become again the ordinary language of everyday life that it once was,
if we want to have a chance to maintain it, we need to give it, or rather to give it once again, the
place that no other language can have, the one of the language of heart, linked to the soil and to the
roots. For this, in a country like France, this language should be valorised in the cultural sphere.
“CulturКl” here means, first of all, literature and theatre, as he specifies later (Ibid.).
These are also ascribed a special role in the legislative aspect: thus, for example, the
authorities of the Rhône-Alpes region especially mention the necessity to support and
develop performТng Кrts. TСe RegТonКl DelТЛerКtТon (2009: 16) prescrТЛes “К Лetter tКkТng
into account by the Regional directorates of cultural affairs of professional artistic creation
[in regional languages] and [its] diffusion (performing arts, editions, cinema,
КudТovТsuКl…)” («meilleure prise en compte par les DRAC de la création et de la diffusion
artistique professionnelle (Arts et spectacles vivants, éditions, cinémas, audiovisuels...).»).
In the sphere of performing arts the Occitan case once again plays the role of an
ideal example. Thus, as far as theatre is concerned, at a conference on the transmission,
standardisation and revitalisation of Francoprovençal (organised by the Centre d’études
247
francoprovençales in Saint-Nicolas, VDA, on November 7, 2015), J.-B. Martin gave the
example of the Occitan theatre company La Rampa a Tio as the one to follow in the
Francoprovençal revitalisation movement. Similarly, earlier, at the 33rd International Fest
of Francoprovençal in Bourg-en-Bresse (September 2012), at a conference organised on
that occasion around Writing, Playing, and Singing in Francoprovençal in the 21st
Century, representatives of the very same Occitan company La Rampa a Tio were invited
as experts to share their experience. As for other performing arts, and especially music, the
example par excellence is the Estivada, an Occitan festival held annually in Rodez
(France): it was admired as a somewhat ideal model in both above-mentioned discussions,
that of 2015 and that of 2012, but also, for instance, at a conference on Savoyard music
held during the International Fest of Francoprovençal in September 2015 (Reignier, HauteSavoie). The figures serve to underline the significance of the festival: it is said to bring
every year some 100,000 spectators to a town whose population is less than 30,000 (see
e.g. Martin 2015: 39). The creation of an analogical event for Francoprovençal is being
discussed with the Rhône-Alpes region. However, when seen more closely, these
seemingly perfect examples hide many problematic issues and tensions. Therefore, before
going back to the Francoprovençal case, we should examine this proposed “ideal” model in
detail, focusing namely on theatre.
5.1.1 The Occitan model
While Francoprovençal theatre is exclusively amateur in all the countries in the
Francoprovençal area, professional Occitan theatre has existed in France since the 1970s
(namely La Rampa a Tio is one of the professional companies). Before discussing it any
further, it should be made clear that being professional in performing arts in the context of
France means having the status of intermittent du spectacle: this means the participants are
paid by the state during the staging and rehearsal period, when there are no performance
honorary fees. Additionally, the professional status provides a possibility to receive grants
for productions on French territory from the Ministry of Culture and for foreign tours from
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (via a structure that used to be called Culturesfrance and is
now called Institut français). The two ministries only provide subsidies to professional
companies; amateur groups cannot benefit from their funding. The fact of being
professional then gives very concrete advantages in financial terms. The advantages in
cultural terms though are more doubtful. By cultural I do not mean here the purely
248
aesthetic value of theatrical productions. What is more important, if seen from a language
revitalisation perspective, is their content and namely the image of language that these
productions project.
One of the most prominent Occitan authors and playwriters, Max Rouquette
(Roqueta in the Occitanised version, 1908-2005) wrote that, in order to “restore the dignity
of a language in the eyes of its people” (restituer une langue dans sa dignité, au regard de
son peuple), it should be provided with the entire range of varied means of expression
(Rouquette 2001: 304). According to Rouquette,
…dКns le domКТne des Кrts, lК forme lК plus КdКptцe et lК plus procСe de cette
préoccupation devrait être le théâtre, et tous ses masques. Le moyen le plus sûr de
remettre en circulation des formes de langage, habituellement délaissées, au profit
des facilités de la farce ou de la comédie. (op. cit.: 305)
…Тn tСe domКТn of fТne Кrts, tСe form tСe Лest КdКpted for and the closest to this goal should be the
theatre, along with all its masks. The most reliable means of reintroducing into usage the language
forms habitually discarded in favour of the easiness of farce or comedy.
Thus the theatre could provide a model for a possible way for the existence of the
language, in the entire variety of situations, genres, and communication registers.
However, Rouquette also notes the “miserabilism in the attachment to the language”
(misérabilisme dans l’attachement à la langue – op. cit.: 283) among the Occitanists,
criticising their limited vision of their own culture, both in the middle of the 20th century
Кnd “up to tСe present dКв” (Т.e. 2001). TСТs lТmТtedness Тs mКnТfested Тn reducТng tСe
entire culture and the entire language to a single sphere – essentially that of everyday
communication within the undereducated rural society – under the pretext that the last
speakers of the language were peasants (op. cit.: 292). Moreover, all that is preserved from
the peasant culture is but an appearance, a set of the most stereotypical images of it. Thus
the Occitan theatre has traditionally been – and remains – limited to just two genres:
comedy and farce, and thus, according to Rouquette, it identifies the entire language with a
single negative, despised role. On a purely linguistic plane, this trend corresponds to an
extremely limited use of lexis, typical not only of the theatre but also of all sorts of
language use by local patoisants:
Tel mot, telle formule, qu’ils répètent en souriant, jouant d’eux entre leurs lèvres,
comme d’un délicieux bonbon, ou le plus parfumé des noyaux de cerise. Mais là
249
s’arrêtent leurs délices. Restant en deçà des vertus et des pouvoirs de leur langue,
ils n’en retenaient que des attendrissements sur un passé perdu. Comme on va
pleurer sur une tombe: jusqu’à, dans un an, le prochain jour des Morts. (Rouquette
2001: 282).
Such word, such expression that they repeat with a smile, playing with it between their lips as with a
delicious sweet or the most perfumed of cherry stones. But this where their delights stop. Remaining
short of the virtues and the powers of their language, all they retain of it is a fondness for a lost past.
Just as one comes to a tomb to shed a tear: until the next All Souls’ day a year after.
Between the 1940s and early 2000s, Rouquette himself developed the entire variety
of theatre genres in Occitan. However, as he recalls in his autobiography, when he
attempted to provide Occitan with different genres and, respectively, different domains of
language use, he was met with a “sТlence. Complete Кnd cСТllТng” (“silence. Absolu et
glacé.” Rouquette 2001: 310). Indeed, Кll Rouquette’s plays were originally written in
Occitan but the lot of their French translations was always incomparably happier than that
of the Occitan originals. In French translation they were awarded numerous high-profile
theatre prizes, produced by the most prominent theatre companies and at the best known
theatre festivals, and even included in the repertoire of the Comédie-Française; in Occitan
they were ignored. Let us consider three examples. The Doctor of Cucugnan (Lo Metge de
Cucunhan – Le Médecin de Cucugnan), a one-act play written during World War II, was
published in the high-profile Parisian theatre magazine L’Avant-scène, then re-printed in
the special issue of the same magazine dedicated to the one-act plays most demanded by
theatre companies. Rouquette’s name stands there along those of Faulkner and Cocteau.
The play is being performed by various companies all over the world – except the Occitan
ones. The Glossary (Lo Glossari – Le Glossaire ou l’étrange univers du savant Môssieur
Pluche) was staged in French translation at the Comédie-Française and has become part of
its permanent repertoire; it has never, to my knowledge, been performed in the original
Occitan version. Finally, probably the best known of Rouquette’s plays, Medea (Medelha –
Médée), was first staged in French in 2003. In 2008, Magnard, a major French publishing
house for educational literature, publishes Medea in its Classics & Contemporaries
collection (Rouquette 2008108). As of today, Medea is being performed in two Frenchlanguage productions but has never been produced in Occitan, in any case, by any of the
professional companies. Certain small and unknown amateur groups did perform
Rouquette’s plays. However the professional Occitan theatre, well known in the language
108
Rouquette Max, Médée, Classiques & Contemporains, n°94 2008
250
activist milieu both inside and outside of the Occitanist circles, would consistently discard
them, opting for the “good old days” village-life sketches. For example, the large virtual
exhibition Jòga! (“Play!”) of the Interregional Center of Occitan Language (CIRDOC)
created in the spring 2013 on the history and the modern state of Occitan theatre109 did not
mention Max Rouquette at all (except in one quotation from Lafont).
Robert Lafont (Robèrt Lafont in the occitanised version), another prominent
Occitan author and sociolinguist, also started writing for theatre as well in the mid-1940s.
Just like Rouquette, he was then oriented towards a serious theatre of an international level.
His first play was also staged in French translation (in 1960). Lafont speaks about the
“fundamental ambiguity” (ambiguïté fondamentale) of that period:
…j’écrivais en oc dans une impossibilité totale puisqu’il n’y avait pas d’acteurs,
pas de metteurs en scène, pas de public pour un théâtre en langue d’oc. Il n’y avait
que des auteurs. J’avais décidé de mettre fin à la traduction de mes œuvres
dramatiques en français, or les nécessités étaient françaises. … C’est au moment où
j’ai commencé à écrire que le théâtre a été ainsi, pour moi, impossible. (Lafont
2003)110
…I was writing in Oc in a total impossibility because there were no actors, no directors, no audience
for a theatre in the Oc language. There were but authors. I decided to put an end to the translation of
my theatre pieces into French, but the demand was French … It was at the moment when I started
writing that the theatre was impossible for me.
Unlike Rouquette, Lafont completely gave up writing theatre plays for a long period, as he
was unwilling to translate them from Occitan into French.
Both authors note that in the middle of the 20th century, when they started writing
in Occitan, all actors and directors were self-taught amateurs. Today, over half a century
later, nothing has changed. 111 TСere Тs, of course, К “professТonКl” OccТtКn theatre, but
today’s professionals are yesterday’s autodidacts without any drama school training. They
109
http://occitanica.eu/omeka/exhibits/show/expojoga/j--ga-un-teatre-politic
110
Robert Lafont, Un impossible théâtre? Auteurs en scène, Les Presses du Languedoc, 2003 (qtd. in
http://occitanica.eu/omeka/exhibits/show/expojoga/j--ga-un-teatre-politic)
111
Observations were made during two editions of the Occitan festival Estivada in Rodez, in 2012 and 2014,
my position of volunteer for the organising committee allowing me to see all sides of theatre productions, as
well as those of concerts, and at one edition of the Total Festum festival in Montpellier.
251
are professionals per their official status of intermittent du spectacle. Not to digress from
the issues directly related to the language, note only that as far as plots are concerned, this
theatre remains limited to comic sketches with villagers as protagonists – just as it was the
case in the theatre criticised by Rouquette.
What is of a primary interest though when considering today’s Occitan theatre is
the question of the tastes of Occitan theatre workers and audience, of what is and is not in
demand in modern Occitan (or Occitanist) society, and how these demands reflect and
shape modern language ideologies. If the theatre is supposed to present a sort of mirror in
which modern society – the Occitan one in this case – is reflected, then it would appear
that this society keeps seeing itself as uneducated and rural, using the language in a limited
range of situations. Thus, a radical discrepancy is revealed between activists’ claims of the
Occitan language as that of a “great culture,” a language that exists in the entire range of its
functions, and the actual denial of the legitimacy of its existence in any form except that
related to rural speech.
5.1.2 Alternative models: a real self vs. a rural self
The artistic use of bilingual and diaglossic practices can potentially be varied. For
example, A. JКffe relКtes Сoа tСe CorsТcКn tСeКtre “mКkes use of tСe dТglossТc relКtТonsСТp
between Corsican and French as a vehicle for the description of character’s stances,
personКlТtТes Кnd relКtТonsСТps” (JКffe 1999: 261). TСus Тn one plКв, К cСКrКcter speКks
ЛotС CorsТcКn Кnd FrencС: “HТs ‘real’ self is expressed in Corsican, which is the ‘language
of emotion’ Тn tСe plКв” (Ibid.)
A very similar use of diaglossic situation was made earlier in classical Russian
literature, written for and about French-Russian bilingual society. One might think, for
instance, of Anna Karenina by Tolstoy, where Russian is shown as the language of
intimacy and of sincerity, while French is formal, cold and, to a certain extent, unnatural.
Hence, the use of languages measures personal distance. For example, in a dialogue where
Anna addresses her lover Alexei Vronsky in Russian, and he replies in French, the use of
French in intimate relations is used by the author to portray a looming conflict in their
relationship: the use of a High-variety in a Low-domain is intended to be interpreted by –
perfectly bilingual – readers as a lack of sincerity. In a similar way, when Anna’s husband
252
speaks Russian to her after finding out that she has been cheating on him, she feels it as
inappropriately intimate and therefore irritating112.
In the VDA the distinction between Francoprovençal and French/Italian in common
linguistic representations is very close to the one just mentioned: it is langue de cœur
(language of heart) vs. langue de raison (language of reason) (see Part III Section 2.2.2). It
is the same distinction that is proposed as a future for Francoprovençal in France (see the
beginning of this chapter). Therefore this sort of use of Francoprovençal might have also
been expected. Yet as we will see in the next sections, it never occurs. As in the Occitan
case, the distinction between two codes, as used artistically, is not on the scale of
formality, but one of social belonging: speaking Francoprovençal, in both diffuse and
focused settТngs, Тs not eбpressТng К “real” self, but mostly a “rural” self.
5.1.3 Francoprovençal performing arts
As has already been noted, unlike in the Occitan context, there are no professional
theatre companies playing in Francoprovençal. However, the modern history of the theatre
in Francoprovençal has developed simultaneously with that in Occitan, influenced by the
same political events and ideology. Namely it is an important social phenomenon in the
VDA and in Savoy (especially Haute-Savoie).
In the VDA the theatre in Francoprovençal first appeared after the First World War,
in 1927 (Lo pion a la feira, “A Drunk at a Fair” by Jules-Ange Negri). Yet it became a
regular and well established practice after the Second World War and the fall of the fascist
regime. Le Comité des traditions valdôtaines (the Committee of Valdôtain Traditions) was
created shortly after the war, in 1947. The first theatre group, lo Charaban, was founded in
1958. A large expansion of this phenomenon of theatre in Francoprovençal occurred 10
years later, after 1968 when Centres culturels (Cultural Centres) opened everywhere in the
VDA, bringing about theatre groups made of young people. In 1979 la Fédérachón
Valdonténa di Téatro Populéro, FVTP (the Valdôtain Federation of Popular Theatre) was
created. Today it unites 22 amateur companies, which perform all together once a year at
“‘I am very grateful for your confidence in me.’ He repeated gently in Russian the phrase he had said in
Betsв’s presence Тn FrencС, Кnd sКt doаn ЛesТde Сer. WСen Сe spoke to Сer Тn RussТКn, usТng tСe RussТКn
‘thou’ of intimacy and affection, it was insufferably irritating to Anna.” (Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina,
Chapter 20. English version: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1399)
112
253
the cultural event called Printemps Théâtral, the Theatre Spring (on the history of theatre
in the VDA see Bétemps 2014).
In Haute-Savoie, theatre in patois first appeared in the aftermath of 1968, which
created a new wave of interest in regional languages. The first one appears in Reignier.
Like in the VDA, the creation of the MJC, Maisons des Jeunes et de la Culture (the local
Houses of Youth and Culture, analogues of the Valdôtain Cultural Centres) considerably
contributed to the development of theatrical expression in regional languages.
Additionally, in these years the MJC organised meetings (veillées) in Viuz-en-Sallaz where
the elder generation told the young people about their past experiences. Thanks to the
opening of the Mont Blanc tunnel in 1965 exchanges with the Aosta Valley also became
possible, namely with Lo Charaban. Today the Lou Rbiolon Federation of Savoyard
Theatres unites 22 amateur companies from both départements of Savoie and HauteSavoie.
After this brief historical overview, let us focus on today’s functioning of the
theatre. I will first start with the focused context of France and Switzerland and then
analyse the diffuse one of the VDA.
5.1.4 Theatre in Francoprovençal in focused settings
Francoprovençal language activists apparently share the Occitan authors’ vision of
the theatre as “The most reliable means to reintroduce into usage [various] language
forms” (“le moyen le plus sûr de remettre en circulation des formes de langage,”
Rouquette 2001: 305), and even insist on it more often than the Occitanists do. In the
focused setting, theatre is a rare and special place where Francoprovençal continues to be
actually spoken. For the Arpitanist EF, 1983, Arp, one of the founders of the ACA, his
interest in the Arpitan language is closely related to the theatre: as he told me in an
interview, his nurse, a native Arpitan speaker, would take him to watch Arpitan plays in
Thonon-les-Bains (a town in Savoy, on the shore of Lake Geneva). They were often
accompanied by his grandmother (who spoke a “strongly Arpitanised French,” knew
Arpitan songs and would tell Arpitan tales) and an aged neighbour who was also
considered a family member. The theatre thus becomes a place that unites the family (more
254
precisely, its older generation with the addition of the child) around an idiom that is no
longer used in everyday family practices. The Savoyardist AB, 1960, Sav, also mentions
the Thonon theatre as a unique plКce аСere tСe lКnguКge Тs stТll “КlТve.”
Indeed, every year before Christmas the Lou Rbiolon Federation of Savoyard
Theatres organizes “Savoyard evenings” (veillées) in Thonon-les-Bains. Various amateur
companies give performances in Savoyard after or during a lunch or a dinner. For instance,
in 2012 when I made my observations there, the show was about three and a half hours
long; performances were given for three nights in a row, and the house, seating about 200
was full to capacity each time.
The informants agree that producing theatre plays offers one of the main
opportunities of language transmission to the younger generation who act in them. LK,
1932, Fp from the Lyon area, told me about a performance he directed in a private school
for 12-13 year-old children. The first part mostly consisted of “songs representing the
traditional life they didn’t knoа” (des chansons qui représentent la vie traditionnelle qu’ils
n’ont pas connue); the second one, of modern-life sketches including mobile-phone
communication in Francoprovençal (the mobile phone is called there yo que tè, a
neologism literally translated as “where are you?”) Participation in the Thonon festival is
felt to Лe tСe summТt of success: “WСen Тt’s well done, well finished, in a year or two,
we’ll go to Savoy or to Italy with other kids, to make a little theatre festТvКl” (Quand ça
sera bien fait, bien fini dans un an ou deux nous irons en Savoie ou en Italie avec d’autres
jeunes pour faire un petit festival de théâtre). Italy implies here the Aosta Valley. The plot
of the above-mentioned play reveals that in the Francoprovençal context, just as in the
OccТtКn, К specТКl plКce Тs gТven to tСe recreКtТon of “tСe lost аКвs of life.” TСe common
feature of an overwhelming majority of plays is the combination of the traditional ways
and the modern times. The opposition between the city and the country is implemented at
the language level as an opposition between French and patois. While the audience’s
affection is supposed to be for the peasants, the comic nature of the situations assumes – to
a considerable degree – the public to be laughing at them. Directors and actors of
Francoprovençal plays confine their characters to the limits of the clichéd image of
uneducated villagers. This theatrical image fits perfectly with the stereotyped notion of the
patois as a language of peasants and a language of the past. If we remember that language
cСoТce Тn К multТlТnguКl settТng Тs “Кn Кct of ТdentТtв” (Le PКge, TКЛouret-Keller 1985),
here the choice of Francoprovençal is associated with the identity of a peasant,
255
undereducated and not at ease with modernity: definitely not the most attractive image for
the young urban generation to be identified with. This apart, on a purely linguistic plane,
the only register that is thus transmitted (albeit potentially) is that of an informal
conversation with a neighbour or a family member in a village setting.
As the Savoyard theatre keeps its amateur status, it also retains another specific
function: it is a place where communication can take place, not only before and after but –
mainly – during the show. It would seem that the ultimate essence of this theatrical activity
today is the one of (re-)creating (from a real or imagined past) an ambience of hospitality
and solidarity (convivialité): this idea is embodied in long meals taken at long tables – a
ritual of sorts that makes an indispensable part of any such event. The audience sit at long
common tables, eat and communicate during the performance, and sometimes move
around the theatre to meet other spectators. Most members of this audience are not
language activists but aged (active or passive) speakers and their children. The latter do not
speak Francoprovençal themselves but have heard their parents speak it and are mostly
able to grasp the general meaning of conversation. They are little (if at all) aware of the
discourse of a common “Francoprovençal language” (as well as of the Savoyard or Arpitan
language). Thus, for instance, two elderly ladies from Haute-Savoie were surprised to hear
that their tablemate came from across Lake Geneva, from Lausanne, whereas the variety
she spoke was quite similar to theirs. The language of communication at the table is almost
exclusively French. One of the Savoyard actors told me that sometimes, strangers would
address him in patois in the streets of Thonon as they had seen him on stage. Nevertheless,
such a distribution of language practices outside the theatre hall appears to be limited.
In Switzerland the success of the theatre seems more limited. However when
organised, the plays also bring in a full house several nights in a row. Let us take as
example performances organised in the Swiss canton of Valais, in the village of Erde near
Sion (November 13-15 and 20-21, 2015). The play was called Aosta por no (“Aosta for
Us”), tСus ТntroducТng tСe notТon of К certКТn lТnguТstТc Кnd culturКl unТtв for the two
regions, Valais and the VDA. As the playwright explained to me, he had originally
hesitated whether to focus on Savoy or the VDA, but, as one of the actors added halfjokТng, “аe don’t like French people.” As mucС of К joke Кs Тt аКs, Тt Тs stТll noteаortСв
that the inhabitants of Savoy are referred to as French people, even though Savoy was
taken into consideration in the first place precisely because of its linguistic and cultural
256
proximity to the Valais (the “triangle of friendship” Savoy – Valais – VDA, as it is often
referred to in conversations). The same ambiguity was seen in the final choice of the VDA.
To start with, in the name of the play, “AostК” Тs Тn fКct tСe ItКlТКn nКme of tСe cТtв.
In Francoprovençal it is called in most cases la Veulla (literally “the city”), on some
occasions specifying la Veulla d’Outa (d’Ouhta/d’Ousta and other realisations). In French,
co-official in the region, the name is Aoste (pronounced as [ost]). The choice of Aosta thus
stressed an Italian identity for the city. This Italian identity was amplified throughout the
whole event. In the entrance hall the spectators would find themselves surrounded by
Italian tricolours. Then, moving towards the stage, one would notice the stage design. The
scenographic choice was clearly dictated by a stereotypical image of Italy: a pizza shop
cКlled “33 pТггКs,” decorКted аТtС red peppers (Тn tСe reКlТtв tвpТcКl of southern Italian
regions, like Calabria) and a painted cook with black moustache (also southern-looking)
(see Figures 18 and 19).
Figures 18 and 19. Elements of stage design of the play Aosta por no (Erde,
Switzerland, A Cobva theatre group)
257
As the play starts, we meet the characters working in the pizzeria: Marcello and
Mario, with typical Italian (non-Valdôtain) names. They would reply “si” to sКв “вes”
(Italian vs. FrencС “oui,” Francoprovençal of lК VeullК “oué”) Кnd drТnk cКmpКrТ Кnd
chianti (Italian drinks from outside the VDA). Thus only several kilometers away from the
border the Francoprovençal speakers from Valais would have stereotypical image of
Valdôtains as Italians, informed by nation-state ideologies.
Though it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to discuss the aesthetic value of
theatre productions, it may be noted that it was staged, acted and sung at a high, nearly
professional level. The plot was entertaining, the jokes made all the audience laugh. Yet,
when it came to Francoprovençal and the place reserved for it, once again it was
represented as the language of a rural past. The scenes of the French-Italian speaking
present of people from Valais who, according to the plot of the play, have settled in Aosta,
would give way to other scenes in which the same characters would (according to the plot)
reСeКrse smКll tСeКtre pТeces on tСe rurКl lТfe of tСe “good old dКвs”: tСese pТeces аere in
Francoprovençal (with a French translation provided in subtitles). The humour was based
on the mispronunciation of modern-day leбТs (lТke “FКceЛook” etc.) Кnd mТsТnterpretКtТon
of modern-day phenomena (e.g. once again social networks) by peasants. The show also
featured songs in Francoprovençal with lyrics about mountains and cows.
Thus one the one hand, one of the affirmed functions of the theatre in
Francoprovençal is to transmit the language to younger generations; on the other hand
though, one may wonder if such an image of the language could be at all attractive for
them and inspire them to learn it. Indeed, as the play itself made explicitly clear, it was
КЛout “keepТng tСe souvenТr” (garder le souvenir) – tСКt of “tСe tТme of our pКrents Кnd
grКndpКrents” (du temps de nos parents et grands-parents): it did not suppose any place for
the language in the future.
However, language transmission can still occur. During the conversations at tables
in the entrance hall before and after the play everyone spoke French, including when
talking to my Valdôtain group and to myself, at first taken for a Valdôtain as well. The
only, but notable, exception was a young man in his twenties who started off talking to us
in Francoprovençal. It had been only two years since he had learnt the language, and he
had done so precisely while acting in the theatre. Yet apparently he is now “playing a
dТfferent gКme”: for СТm speКkТng tСe lКnguКge Тs not КЛout tСe celeЛrКtТon of СТs
ancestors’ rural past. Francoprovençal is for him a language that people can speak in their
258
daily life, today in the 21st century, and he grasps every opportunity to do so: hence talking
to Valdôtains. Perhaps in such cases the language competence acquired in theatre could be
later used in other types of communication.
5.1.5 Theatre in Francoprovençal in diffuse settings
5.1.5.1 La Veulla: theatre in the city
In a diffuse context, like the VDA, the role of theatre as a means of language
transmission to younger generations is less present in common discourse. In a focused
setting, actors learn Francoprovençal from plays: they take the written text as a somewhat
normative way of saying things and learn it by heart, to produce on stage but also
eventually to reproduce some parts of it in everyday life as ready-made phrases. In a
diffuse setting, in contrast, actors take the text proposed by the playwright and modify it,
bringing into it features of their own linguistic varieties, their personal ways of speaking,
eventually also adding some jokes.
Among the VDA theatre companies, Lo Charaban remains today by far the most
prominent. Every year at the end of November it gives one whole week of performances in
a theatre in the city of Aosta. A much anticipated event of the year for many Valdôtains,
the performances are always fully booked within hours of tickets going on sale, and many
start queuing hours earlier.
For the first years after the foundation of Lo Charaban, scripts for the company
were written by its creators René Willien and Pierre Vietti (known under the pseudonyme
of Batezar) in the variety of the city of Aosta (patoué de la Veulla) and learnt as they were
by the actors. However today actors accord to themselves the right to modify a proposed
script as they work on it, everyone speaking their own varieties. On the one hand, the high
degree of lТnguТstТc vКrТКtТon Тs, КccordТng to tСe Кctors, аСКt mКkes tСe vКlleв “ТncredТЛle”
(“a 4-5 km tsandzon dza le bague” – “Тn 4-5 km things already change,” one of the actors
told me in an interview). Besides, speaking their own varieties seems to be more authentic
to the actors than reproducing the drКmКtТst’s variety (including that of the city of Aosta, as
was previously the case). As one actor puts it:
259
se l’on predze lo seun patoué dou seun paí l’è euna baga, e se te predze lo patouése te dèi apprendre lo patoué, pe lo teatro, de Veulla que gnon- chica de dzen
comprendon…
if one speaks their own patois of their own country it’s one thing, but if you speak- if you need to
learn for the theatre the patois of Aosta that nobody- feа people understКnd…
The end of the statement refers to the decrease in the number of speakers of
Francoprovençal in the city.
The change of linguistic situation and the general societal change over the last halfcentury have also conditioned the role ascribed to the theatre. In an interview (14.11.2014)
the director of Lo Charaban explains to me:
Lo Charaban l’è neissí quase pe ríe. L’Кn [19]58. … Se l’an comenchà pe ríe, apré
l’è venía euna baga – pe sovegardé lo patoué, le tradichón.
Lo Charaban was born almost for a lКugС. In 1958. … But Тf tСeв stКrted Тt for a laugh, later it
became something – for maintaining the patois, the traditions.
113
The change seems to be conditioned not so much by the fact itself that
Francoprovençal is less spoken today than it used to be at the end of the 1950s, but by a
change of language attitudes that are underway in the society:
Les an 60 70 paéi qui predzave patoué l’ire quase chica creteun. Ou eun que
enseignave lo patoué i meinoù. L’Тre consТderù cСТcК come eun creteun. … Aprí
n’ayé torna eun retor, pe les an novanta, aya l’enseignon iz écoula.
Around the 1960s – 1970s those who spoke patois were almost cretins. Or someone who would
teach it to children. He would be considered К ЛТt lТke К cretТn. … TСen tСere аКs К return [to pКtoТs]
in the 1990s, and now it is taught in schools.
113
Bétemps (2014: 91) also cites Willien and Vietti (undated) on these kinds of goals:
…empшcСer que lК lКngue de nos ancêtres soit inexorablement submergée par
d’Кutres lКngues quТ ne se sont pКs formцes dКns notre RцgТon et quТ peuvent nuТre
à notre ethnie.
…prevent our Кncestors’ lКnguКge from being inexorably subsumed by other languages that have
not been formed in our Region and can harm our ethnic group.
260
Thus the recent official valorisation of Francoprovençal as a minority language has
brought about new sensitivities around the language (note that some actors call the
language “Francoprovençal” and not “patois” as it is commonly called in the VDA).
Additionally, some actors admit that public tastes might have changed too:
n’at lo peubleucco pi acculturù que magara l’apprecíe pa tan. En ri ma – prefíe de
bague pi – suttili, rafinei.
There are some audiences, more acculturated, that perhaps do not appreciate it [the comic side] all
that much. They laugh, but – prefer things that are more subtle, more refined.
Yet so far these latter considerations have had no impact on the selection of plays,
as I could witness at the rehearsals of the 2014 show, and also as stated by the actors
themselves:
-
Le piece son quase tot de la via de to le dzor. Aprè pousson predjí de travaille
-
De burocrací
-
De burocrací, ma sempre de bague de la via de to le dzor
-
Almost all of the plays are about everyday life. Then they can speak about work
-
About bureaucracy
-
About bureaucracy, but always about everyday life
Even while moving away from certain stereotypes of agro-pastoral life and
sаТtcСТng to more “urЛКn” suЛjects, they still remain restricted to the comical episodes of
everyday routine: “toujour tsersen de fée ríe perque l’è neissí pe fée ríe lo teatro” (“аe
always try to make [people] laugh because the theatre was born in order to make [one]
lКugС”).
5.1.5.2 Village theatres
Village theatres present some particularities as both social and linguistic
phenomenon: on the one hand, they were stronger socially-oriented from the beginning
(rather than being focused on the artistic expression itself); on the other hand, and directly
tied to the first consideration, they adopted from the beginning very local linguistic
261
varieties. An informant who back at the beginning of the 1970s was among the creators of
the first Cultural Centre, tells how this bottom-up initiative appeared:
Centre culturel pratiquement c’est quelque chose qui est né ici à Saint-Nicolas et
c’était le groupe d’цtudТКnts … quТ se sont dТt pourquoТ nous ne crцons pКs un
centre où nous retrouver, où étudier ensemble. Alors moi j’avais terminé mes
études, donc j’étais plus libre et je suis allé parler à la commune, la commune a
accepté cette idée, a fait une délibération officielle – dans laquelle elle créait ces
centres culturels. En nous donnant deux locaux où on avait une bibliothèque et une
sКlle pour se trouver. … lК rцgТon К Кcceptц cette cСose et nous donnКТt de l’argent
pour la bibliothèque, pour tout, alors au fur et à mesure je trouvais des amis et
disais mais pourquoi vous faites pas un centre comme ça ? Et depuis ce moment ils
ont créé des centres un peu partout. Et au même moment que les centres sont nés
aussi les théâtres. Une des activités des centres c’était le théâtre. Le Théâtre en
patois. Et ça a commencé et puis explosé un peu partout.
Practically, a cultural centre is something that was born here in Saint Nicolas, and it was a group of
students … аСo tСougСt аСв not creКte К centre аСere аe cКn gКther together and study together. I
had already finished my studies so I had more time, so I went to speak to the municipal hall, and
they accepted this idea, they made an official deliberation – where these cultural centres were
created. And they gave us two locations for a library and a meeting СКll. … tСe regТon Кccepted tСКt
Кnd stКrted fТnКncТng tСe lТЛrКrв, everвtСТng, so tСen I аould fТnd frТends Кnd sКв: “аСв don’t you
create К centre lТke tСКt?” And tСeв creКted centres К ЛТt everваСere. And Кt tСe sКme moment Кs tСe
centres were born, theatres were born. One of the centres’ activities was theatre. Theatre in patois. It
started and then exploded a little everywhere.
According to СТm, “les théâtres populaires des villages sont beaucoup plus
savoureux” (“popular theatres in the villages are much tКstТer”) tСКn tСe “nearly
professional” Charaban. This was also linked to the local variety of patois they started to
use from the very beginning. Recollecting one of the first plays staged:
Alors on a créé ensemble, chacun disait sa phrase … cСКcun de nous dТsКТt
comment il voyait la chose. Et c’цtКТt trчs ЛeКu. … Et tout en pКtoТs цvТdemment.
Qu’on К ЛсtТ Кu fur et р mesure que lК cСose КvКnхКТt. … On a fait des variantes.
Par exemple, fenitra on dit feniha. Alors évidement on écrit feniha.
So аe creКted togetСer, everвone аould sКв СТs pСrКse … everвone аould sКв Сoа Сe sКа tСТngs.
And that was amКгТng. … EverвtСТng Тn pКtoТs, oЛvТouslв. Which we built while the thing was
262
developТng. … We created varieties. For example, for fenitra [“window” in the Aosta variety] we
say feniha. So obviously we write feniha.
Local pronunciation is thus preferred to the one felt as “stКndКrd” (Тn tСe vКrТetв of
Aosta, patois de la Veulla). “CreКtТng” vКrТetТes КctuКllв refers to usТng tСe eбТstТng
varieties, as they are spoken locally, in public speech from the stage and in writing (the
texts of the plays).
An initiative worth being mentioned as an example dates back to the 1980s.
Miranda Glarey, who worked at the municipal hall in Champorcher, decided to establish
theatre as a social initiative in order to work with old people. They told her stories that they
had heard in their childhood, then she wrote a play relating these, in which the old people
themselves would later act (Miranda Glarey, Lou devèndrou di Temporre, undated
manuscript). When I asked an acquaintance of hers who first told me the story why she had
chosen to do this in Francoprovençal, he simply answered: «Teatro deun lo velladzo l’a lo
sens se l’è en patoué» (“Village theatre only makes sense Тf Тt Тs Тn pКtoТs”). Indeed, Тt аКs
simply the first language of the actors and that of (the majority of) their public.
5.2 The International Fest of Francoprovençal
In
the
Francoprovençal
context
La
Fête
internationale
francoprovençal), the International Fest of Patois (of Francoprovençal)
des
114
patois (du
, is a meeting
place par excellence for all those interested in the language. Organised annually, it takes
place in one of the Francoprovençal countries (by turns in Italy, France, and Switzerland)
and unites activists and language speakers from the different regions of its use.
Participant observation was held at the Fête which took place in Bourg-en-Bresse
(France) in September 2012, at the meetings of the Organising Committee for the Fête in
Bulle (in the canton of Fribourg, Switzerland) of August 2013, at the Fête in Courmayeur
(Aosta Valley, Italy) in September 2014 and at that in Reignier (Haute-Savoie, France) in
September 2015. As I will show in this section, a trend towards a considerable change in
language attitudes and use has been noticed over the last years.
Organisers prefer eТtСer tСe term “pКtoТs” or “Francoprovençal” dependТng on tСe plКce аСere tСe fest Тs
held.
114
263
The Fête traditionally spans two days, a Saturday and a Sunday. The programme of
the first day, Saturday, can change from one year to another, but generally includes a
conference, a common dinner and a concert. The second day, Sunday, is, on the contrary,
ritualised: it always begins with a Mass celebrated in Francoprovençal (completely or,
more often, in parts), followed by a parade of representatives of different Francoprovençal
regions dressed in (supposedly) traditional costumes, some of them carrying farming tools
and group flags with coats of arms. The parade is followed by a common meal
accompanied by performances of folk music and dance. Each year, the Fête is attended by
about 1,000 to 1,500 people. Most participants are of retirement age, although in 2015 in
Reignier there were also many families with small children.
The Fête is a unique event that brings together physically the imagined
community115 formed by Francoprovençal speakers: a community that never had an image
of being such until recently, as we have seen in the previous chapters, and that does not
share, within its linguistic limits, either common history or cultural features other than the
language. Paradoxically though the language, the raison d’être of the event and of this
particular trans-border community as such, played a purely symbolic part at the festival
until its last edition. Its use as a language of communication was extremely marginal. The
Mass, proclaimed to be in Francoprovençal, would actually be celebrated in two languages
(the sermon in particular would be read in French). The participants would mostly talk to
each other in French; the use of Arpitan was only typical of Arpitanists belonging to the
middle and younger generations (in Bourg-en-Bresse, the first Fête that I observed, there
were but 10 of them, aged between 25 and 45). Even this limited use of the language was
noticed then as a change: according to one of the participants from the Aosta Valley, 10 or
even five years before that, no patois at all could be heard at the festival dedicated to it.
Other participants agreed that even when someone did talk in Francoprovençal at the Fête,
it was “on the quiet to one’s neighbour,” and even so only very rarely. In this context, even
a minimal use of the language was perceived as an achievement for the activists.
The fact that the language is not used at the very event organised to celebrate it can
be indicative of two issues: either the activists are unable to use it as a language of
everyday communication (an insufficient level of linguistic and communicative
competence), or they are not ready to embrace this kind of linguistic behaviour for other
reasons. Namely, the language might still be perceived as a low-prestige variety. It seems
115
See Anderson 1983.
264
that both reasons were present in 2012: the former concerns those who had not heard the
idiom as a child, the latter those who, on the contrary, had heard it in their family (the
above description of speaking “on the quiet to one’s neighbour” in particular testifies to a
low prestige of the language in the eyes of some of its speakers). A third reason to add is
that interest in the language is of a kind that does not imply its actual use in interactions
(tСe “cКЛТnet of curТosТtТes Кspect” tСКt аКs mentТoned Тn tСe prevТous cСКpters, quotТng
one of the informants).
Indeed, the central event of the Fête in Switzerland – as was discussed at the
Organising Committee meeting for the 2013 Fête – was the official appointment of the
Maintainers of the Patois (Mainteneurs du patois). The Maintainers are members of local
associations (federations of associations from each region submit their lists of candidates to
the Organising Committee) who are recognised for tСeТr “contribution to the preservation
and, especially, the spreading of the language of our ancestors” (КccordТng to one of tСe
organisers). Thus, from the point of view of the festival organisers, the main value is the
preservation of the idiom. The Maintainers’ insignia was a pin badge in the shape of an
edelweiss flower: thus the idiom was once again represented via Alpine symbolism
(compare with the name of Arpitan and the use of Mont Blanc as the Arpitanist symbol).
Hence, apart from being a meeting place for those speaking or interested in
Francoprovençal, the Fête was also and especially a place of the museification and
folklorisation of the Francoprovençal culture and language. The latter would often be
criticised by the Arpitanists. Thus one of the younger Arpitanists, then in his late twenties,
explained (on the Arpitania Abada! Facebook page) that he had not come to the 2012
edition of the festival because he did not wish to assist at a yearly “funerКl of tСe lКnguКge”
(“l’entèrrament de la lengoua”). The metaphor of a funeral of the language (compare with
the quotation by Rouquette above in Section 5.1.1) was also borrowed by the Arpitanists
who did come. Emphasising the fact that the same participants would come every year,
dressed in the same costumes, they would frequently return to the idea of the
folklorisation’s being perilous to the language. Linguists also participate in the festival.
Accordingly, the motive of the language-related activities of linguists (along with that of
the folk groups), like the folklorisation that is bound to kill the idiom, would be recurrent
in the Arpitanist discourse. Consider for example two utterings taken from the discussions
in an Arpitan blog:
265
EA: Quelle est la différence entre un dialectologue et un taxidermiste? – Le
dialectologue il n’empaille que la langue. (Arpitania abada! 24. 01. 2013).
WСКt’s tСe dТfference Лetаeen К dТКlectologТst Кnd К tКбТdermТst? – The dialectologist only stuffs the
tongue.
JB: L’arpitan? massacré par les instituteurs, disséqué par les dialectologues et
empaillé par les groupes folkloriques (Arpitania abada! 24. 01. 2013).
Arpitan? Massacred by schoolteachers, dissected by dialectologists, and stuffed by folk music
groups.
However, the Fête of 2015 witnessed a visible beginning of considerable change in
language use. The event started with the assembly of the CIF, the International Council for
Francoprovençal (Conseil international du francoprovençal), held exclusively in
Francoprovençal. The audience was regularly invited to react, and, since the presidium
used Francoprovençal as the only language of communication, so did the audience. Later
during the two days of the Fête the Arpitanists would speak Francoprovençal between
them, and also with the public at their stand where they were selling books and souvenirs
such as T-shirts or cups. The event was thus reorganised as a space where speaking in
Francoprovençal is seen Кs “normКl” Кnd even “meetТng eбpectКtТons.” As a 22-year-old
Arpitanist, originally from South Africa, argued in our interview the day of the Fête:
L’è lo seul moment onte la lengoua pe dèfô l’è lo patoué. Lo patoué arpitan. A la
via l’ч lo frКnsцТ. … Itsы te pou Кlс К un omo e dцre “bonzhor” e l’è fran normal! I a
cen que è bravo. Perque la lengoua èt en via.
This [the fest] is the only time where the default language is patois. The Arpitan patois. In daily life
Тt Тs FrencС. … Here вou cКn go to someone Кnd sКв “ЛonгСor” [“hello” in Francoprovençal] and it
is quite normal! This is the nice thing. Because the language is alive.
This apart, it has become somewhat prestigious to speak in Francoprovençal during
the Fête, and participants are expected if not to speak, at least to understand it. This
evolution is mainly due to the fact that recently groups have emerged – like the CIF – or
gained more members, like the ACA. These do not share the same type of language
attitudes as groupes patoisants and use the language as their main or only means of
communication. These groups are particularly visible in the festТvКl’s public space. The
development of these, in its turn, followed the change in language policy in France in 2008
266
and in Rhône-Alpes in 2009. Since then it has taken some years for the groups to gain
legitimacy and visibility, and for their members to acquire a sufficient level of linguistic
competence to be able to speak exclusively in Francoprovençal, and we are now observing
the results of this process.
Following the same dynamics, language was also used in written form throughout
tСe toаn. SСops put on tСeТr doors Кnd аТndoаs ТnscrТptТons lТke “Pè lo cortì” (“For the
garden”), “Pè vi bè” (“To see аell” for Кn optТcТКn) or nКmes lТke “shodron” (“Carline”),
whereas the hotel where the festТvКl’s participants were housed met them with a welcome
in Francoprovençal (see Figures 20 and 21).
Figures 20 and 21. Welcome in Francoprovençal at a hotel for the International Fest
of Francoprovençal. “[Тn Francoprovençal] Hello everyone, here at the Tour d’Yvoire you
can feel at home and the host wishes you good night. [In French] here at the Tour you can
feel at home.”
267
Discussion: diffuse vs. focused settings of Francoprovençal
The principle differences between the diffuse and focused situations of
Francoprovençal discussed in Part III can be summarised as follows (see Table 8).
Table 8. Diffuse vs. focused Francoprovençal language use
Type of linguistic situation
DIFFUSE
FOCUSED
The language is a social
practice,
The language is a reified object,
with blurry linguistic
boundaries,
in a variable socio-geographical
space,
Typical speaker’s profile
Type of transmission
with precise linguistic
boundaries,
in a specified geographical
space (as delimited on
dialectological maps),
with interference at all the levels
of the linguistic system
Francoprovençal as L1
with no interference tolerated
Family and community
transmission
Family and community
transmission absent
Francoprovençal as L2
Need of school
transmission
Therefore need
for official recognition
of К “lКnguКge”
Therefore need
for a standard
Social meaning of language
use
Language is a means of
communication
Additional sense:
Social networks
and solidarity
Local identity
Eventual
political (separatist)
connotations, if used in
public or written
Mutual intelligibility of
varieties
Language is a symbol :
Family or local
heritage
Identity marker
Power resource
In use: sufficient, as it exists as a
social practice
In use: problematic due to lack
of practice
As imagined: complicated or
As imagined: possible as it is
268
Typical oral use
impossible because there are
different patois
the same language
Spontaneous conversations
(Prepared) short speeches,
reading of written texts for
“lКte speКkers”;
Spontaneous conversations for
“neа speКkers”
Long emails, poetry, novels
Typical written use
Text messages, chats, short
emails
Representations of linguistic
autonomy
A (local, oral, older) variety of
French (?)
A language in its own right
Source of legitimacy of
“good” use
Speaker himself or elder
generation of the same locality
Grammar books and
dictionaries
Reference space
Village + a space determined by
personal contacts
Village + trans-border imagined
community with borders as
determined by linguists
We have seen that, despite the persisting image of Francoprovençal as a patois
spoken by peasants, economic and demographic change throughout the Francoprovençal
area have brought about a new social reality. New social groups are starting to speak the
language, although their motivation, type of language acquisition and type and social
meaning of language use are different in different types of settings. The problematic issues
are crucially different too: in a diffuse setting they mostly concern the low prestige of the
language in the eyes of its speakers and outdated negative sociopolitical connotations of its
use; in a focused setting it concerns the lack of active use and transmission of the language.
The study in this part of the dissertation Кlso sСoаs tСКt “mТnorТtв lКnguКges”
appear when actual linguistic practices disappear. First, from a diffuse social practice that
everвone cКn pКrtТcТpКte Тn, Тt Лecomes К “lКnguКge” Кs К reТfТed oЛject belonging
exclusively to a particular social group (the groupes patoisants). Later its place is renegotТКted Лв tСe “neа speКkers”: Тt Тs stТll seen Кs К Лounded Кutonomous sвstem, Лut К
system to share. In diffuse settings where Francoprovençal is spoken in daily interactions it
is not referred to as a language and its borders, be they linguistic, geographical, or social,
are blurry. In contrast, in focused settings, since most of those who embodied the
legitimacy of its use there are now dead, it is becoming possible to proceed towards its
standardisation, with a unique name, an orthography and a clearly delimited geographical
269
space. Francoprovençal is emerging in that context, discursively and politically, as a
language in its own right.
It is also in the focused settings that Francoprovençal, as used, is emerging as an
autonomous closed system: the heterogeneous diffuse practices are ceding their place to a
bilingualism made of two clearly separated codes, and where one of the codes
(Francoprovençal) is rarely used. At the same time, a discursive category of speaker may
not refer to someone who actually uses the language: thus an author of a dictionary who
only collected words may still Лe seen Лв “lКte speКkers” Кs К speКker of the language.
Having disappeared from daily use, the language is put on stage: either literary, in theatre
productions where speaking patois indexes being rural, rude and in conflict with modernity;
or more metaphorically, at the meetings of the groups patoisants where speaking the
language mainly supposes reading pre-written texts. However, the most recent
developments of the last years, namely due to the activities of the “neа speКkers,” have
reintroduced it as a language of communication in focused settings too. The domains of its
use have changed, and instead of being a language of daily routine it is becoming a
language of policy-making. Hence, from an exclusively L-variety it is thus becoming an
exclusively H-variety.
270
General discussion and conclusions
Discussion
Que no hablan idiomas, sino dialectos.
Que no profesan religiones, sino
supersticiones.
Que no hacen arte, sino artesanía.
Que no practican cultura, sino
folklore.
… Los nadies, que cuestan menos que
la bala que los mata.
Eduardo Galeano, “Los Nadies”116
Those that speak not languages, but
dialects.
That profess not religions, but
superstitions.
That create not art, but crafts.
That practice not culture, but folklore.
… The nobodies that cost less than
the bullet that kills them.
One rainy day I was walking along the street in a mountain village in Haute-Savoie
with one of my Arpitanist informants. As we were passing a bar, the bartender addressed
mв Тnterlocutor аТtС Кn Кnnoвed: “WТll вou stop Тt КlreКdв!” And Лefore I could
understКnd аСКt Тt аКs Кll КЛout, Сe Кdded: “WСКt Тs tСТs rКТn?” LКter tСe ТnformКnt
explained to me tСКt Сe СКd generКtТons of “аТtcСes” on ЛotС sТdes of СТs fКmТlв, some of
them burnt as such in that village, so he was still taken for someone who could conjure the
rain. In reality, magic practices had not been transmitted to him by elder generations, yet
he was interested in them. Having learned them mostly from books, he did not practice
precisely what had been practised by his ancestors (i.e. conscious dreaming, as opposed to
the use of local medical plants). Something very similar happened in his case to the
language: not transmitted by grandparents, it was later learnt mostly from books.
116
Eduardo Galeano, Los Nadies, in El libro de los abrazos, Madrid: Siglo XXI, 1989, p. 59 (my translation).
271
The above epigraph, taken from the Uruguayan writer Galeano, is here as a
reminder that the central question of this thesis is by no means restricted to the alpine
region around Mont Blanc. It also reminds us that all these issues – language, culture, or
magical practices – are interconnected, that language is but a part of many cultural
practices, even though the role ascribed to it often is (and this is the case with
Francoprovençal) by far the most important. A renewed interest in language is
accompanied by a new interest in other parts of the local culture. As far as the magic is
concerned, we can see in Valle d’Aosta how renewed interest towards its various forms
(incantations, portions, healing with hands etc.) has brought about the creation of a
museum117 in the village of Jovençan (La Maison des Anciens Remèdes118) and a whole
series of books on traditional medicine, names of healing plants etc., which are being
printed in Valle d’Aosta.
Like the traditional medicine on the museum shelves, no longer used for healing,
but for demonstrating the world of yesterday, now almost entirely gone, other cultural
forms are being museified too, such as dance, music or theatre. Yesterday’s clothes have
become costumes, dances are put on stage and showed as an example of a lost world. They
would function as a link between the community members, everyone holding hands,
making rounds, constantly changing partners so as to embrace the whole community,
building a physical bond between the community members and embodying a sense of
horizontal brotherhood 119 . Today, from a social practice they have become a cultural
artefact, having shifted in a continuum between everyday movement and a purely theatrical
form from the former to the latter. When they were still practised as a social activity, they
were unlikely to have any aesthetic function at all, since the position of the viewer was
non-existent: who was there to judge whether they were beautiful or not and to take an
aesthetic pleasure in watching? Today these dances are nothing but a museified example of
the past and a yet another element for the celebration of identity, deprived of all their social
functions except for that of nostalgia. The same concerns language, in most parts of the
Francoprovençal zone. It is becoming reified, restricted to a list of words in a dictionary. It
is put on stage, either literally, in theatrical plays in patois, or else, at the meetings of
117
The names of plants and the testimonies by the healers in the museum are presented in Francoprovençal.
118
http://www.anciensremedesjovencan.it/ and http://www.lovevda.it/en/database/8/museums/jovencan/lamaison-des-anciens-remedes-centre-for-the-use-of-traditional-herbal-remedies/1478
119
In a similar way, in some Catholic traditions at some moment during Mass people embrace or shake hands
with all those who happen to be near.
272
language activist associations. What is said in “patois” (Francoprovençal) at those
meetings is generally prepared in advance, and, if it is a new text, it has been written and
checked with dictionaries and grammar books; most often it is a reading of someone else’s
text from the past: from a time when the language was still spoken in everyday life. Yet
other linguistic situations remain in the Francoprovençal area, in places where
Francoprovençal is the language of daily interactions, often the most common one.
Finally, and especially, the epigraph reminds us that, ultimately, conflicts
articulated around cultural issues are not about the language, or the dance, or the magic,
but about the community in its relations of power and domination with other communities.
Issues about language are ultimately and essentially issues about society, and the
legitimacy of a language is a legitimacy of its speakers (and never that of its linguistic
features).
Robert Lafont, an Occitan sociolinguist, author, and the central figure of the
Occitanist movement, relates in his autobiography how he used to go to villages to “spy
on” (espiar d’amagat) old people sitting on the banks in front of their homes and talking
about the weather in Occitan:
Partissi d’un Montpelhièr tot afrancimandit ont pr’aquò l’existéncia de l’occitan es
admesa d’opinion comuna, e arribi en cò de gents que parlan plan, mas an pas ausit
parlar de res. Passan al francés quand me veson venir, per costuma vièlha de
diglòssia.
I leave a Montpellier that is completely Francicised, where, for this reason, the existence of Occitan
is accepted in the public opinion, and come to people who do speak [the Occitan language] but have
never heard it to be spoken about in any way. They switch to French when they see me by virtue of
an old habit of diglossia. (Lafont 1999: 113-114)120
Thus, the idiom gets to be talked about when and where nobody speaks in it in a
natural setting anymore. This holds true with respect to both Occitan and Francoprovençal.
When those for whom the idiom was their first language disappear, a new category of
speakers emerges: urban middle-class intellectuals who have learned this language at a
120
When he speaks about it, he complains that the revitalisation of the Occitan language is the work of
intellectuals, and that there has been no connection whatsoever between Occitanist intellectuals and language
speakers.
273
mature age. They join the ranks of language activists playing a significant part in the
transformation of a set of patois into a language. They work on the revitalisation of this
language for various reasons. These include both the circumstances of individual
biographies (such as classical cases of feeling like a “second-rate citizen” in a capital city,
etc.) and sociopolitical and economic conditions: the emergence of structures that
potentially provide an alternative to the nation-state (even though in reality, they are so far
complementary to it) such as the supranational structures of the European Union and
regional cross-border structures like Euroregions, as well as the general democratisation of
knowledge and the development of civil society and the political activity of associations.
At the same time, with the discourse on the dying of languages and the urgent necessity to
save global linguistic and cultural diversity, a favourable climate is being created for the
emergence of languages.
Of course, this climate is never acknowledged to be favourable: on the contrary, it
is always said that France, for instance, has the worst possible conditions for the survival
of regional languages, and that if nothing is done today, at this very moment, the “train of
history” will leave, and the languages are bound to die. A pivotal moment, past which it
will be too late or simply impossible to take any helpful measures, is incessantly expected,
much like a doomsday, long since awaited but never arrived. Be it a bill on the
responsibility of regions or on school education, regional elections, parliamentary
elections, or presidential elections with the formation of a new government, anything can
be imagined to be the infamous point of no return. For instance, in the autumn of 2010, a
proposed reform concerning the sphere of responsibility of regional authorities was
discussed in France. One of the Arpitanists wrote to me then with respect to it:
La réforme doit bientôt être votée, c’est une course contre la montre que nous
risquons fort de perdre. … nous risquons de manquer le train de l’Histoire si la
région ne demande pas au ministère de reconnaitre la langue avant la réforme, et si
elle ne met pas en place les contrats avec les rectorats de Lyon et Grenoble...
The reform is to be voted soon, it’s К rКce КgКТnst tСe clock, Кnd аe Кre Кt К greКt rТsk of losТng Тt …
we risk missing the train of history if the region doesn’t request the Ministry to recognise the
[Arpitan/ Francoprovençal] language before the reform, and if it doesn’t sign contracts with the
КdmТnТstrКtТon of Lвon Кnd GrenoЛle unТversТtТes…
Since in most cases a language is only officially recognised at the same time as it
disappears from everyday use, it primarily functions as a symbol. The prevailing discourse
274
is of language as an abstract system, purportedly existing irrespectively of its speakers,
apart from them, language as an object of education and policy, language as a named
object. Behind this discourse, which is always visible, always accessible if not imposed,
the issue of language as a set of real practices belonging to real people fades into the
background or completely vanishes from the sight. The main arguments in any discussion
on a language, Лe Тt “Francoprovençal,” “ArpТtКn,” or “Savoyard,” have little to do with
the language as such. More precisely, they have no direct relation whatsoever to it. Heated
conflicts between competing movements are centred on three issues: the name of the
idiom, the geography of its use, and its orthography system. It is of course perfectly
possible to speak an idiom that has no name, is never written, and does not have borders
clearly defined in the mind of its speakers. As a matter of fact, this was precisely the case
of numerous idioms of France, Switzerland or Italy. All these issues emerge at the moment
when an attempt is made to turn a patois into a language – and it is by solving these issues
that the transformation is carried out. The linguistic characteristics of idioms in themselves
do not raise any controversies, let alone conflicts. The only question related to them is
what significance should be ascribed to them: whether the structural traits of an idiom are
important to distinguish it as a language in its own right (the objective model), or extralinguistic parameters, such as speakers’ identity, are more significant (the subjective
model). It transpires in all cases – in all existing revitalisation movements – that in order to
be considered a language in its own right an idiom should have a proper name, be written
in a single appropriate way, and have clearly defined borders. Preferably it should also be
able to present a prestigious literary tradition and a history dating back many centuries to
prove that it is even closer to the original source (Latin) than the dominant language
(French), or even older than Latin (a pre-Indo-European language). Finally, a language
should correlate with the particular identity of its speakers.
The uncompromising clashes centered on the name, the orthographic norm, and the
geographical limits of the language mask various conflicts. On the one hand, there is the
legitimacy conflict: who may define what a language is? Who may participate in the
elaboration of a language policy? Who has the right to determine what is the best for the
population of a specific territorial entity? This is a conflict between the scientific
(Francoprovençal) and the activist (Arpitan) models: who is to have the last word, the
scientific community or the civic society? The language as a symbol, as an object of
language policy, ultimately as a political resource, has little in common with the language
as a daily practice of people, Лe tСeв “ordТnКrв speКkers” or lКnguКge КdvocКtes. Namely, a
275
typical feature of Francoprovençal language activism is the coexistence of an abundant
discourse on the language with a minimal use of the language itself. When an idiom is
used, what is being said often turns out to be much less significant than the fact that it is
being said in the idiom. Ultimately, an idiom can even be legally established as a language
in its own right and protected or promoted as such where it has never been used at all, as
the Piedmontese case demonstrates.
On the other hand, according to the notion of a natural connection between the
language, the territory, and the nation, inherited from German Romanticism, it is assumed
that the limits of a linguistic community should coincide with the borders of a political
entity. Such a political entity is not necessarily a sovereign state: for instance, an Arpitan
language, a language of the Alps, could legitimise the existence of the Rhône-Alpes region
(which became the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region in 2016, its definitive name to be
chosen by July 1, 2016 and ratified by October 1, 2016121), whereas a Savoyard language
could lend legitimacy to the intentions of the départements of Savoie and Haute-Savoie
striving to secede from this region to create a separate region of Savoy (Savoie). Finally,
although rather marginal, separatist movements do exist today as well.
In his classic study on nations and nationalism, Benedict Anderson (1983) asks
what makes it possible “for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to
die for such limited imaginings” as nations, Кnd “what makes the shrunken imaginings of
recent history (scarcely more than two centuries) generate such colossal sacrifices”
(Anderson 1983: 32). Yet it is one thing dying for a nation that had been imagined one or
two centuries ago, whose existence one learnt at school and internalised as something
“natural” that has always existed. It is another thing when the “nation” was imagined by
one’s neighbour just some years ago: when one knows exactly who its author is and why,
under which circumstances, this author came up with such an extravagant idea – as was the
case of Joseph Henriet’s Arpitania. Indeed, Тn tСe AostК VКlleв “Arpitania” Кnd “Geppino”
(Henriet’s nickname) are indivisible in people’s mind (at least, as far as the middle and the
121
See http://www.auvergnerhonealpes.eu/78-votez-pour-le-nom.htm
276
older generations are concerned).122 Why would people be ready to die for this kind of
recent imagining?
Language advocates – at least, those of them who are Arpitanists – do not believe in
the reality of language borders. One of them, for instance, told me a story of someone who
lived in Piedmont at the alleged Лorder Лetаeen “Francoprovençal” and “Occitan.” He
would always speak patois to a friend of his from the neighbouring village, and then one
day he read in a dialectological book by Tuaillon (2007) that they allegedly spoke two
different languages. The story was told as a joke, thus questioning the scientific
knowledge. Similar stories are told about the Francoprovençal-Occitan border in France.
And yet these people who do not believe in borders, and therefore in languages as
autonomous bounded entities, give their time (and were sometimes in different periods in
the past ready to give up their lives or freedom) for one of tСese Кlleged “languages” to be
officially recognised as such. They do not believe in romantic nationalist myths like “one
language – one people – one country,” criticising either Jacobins or Fascists depending on
the country they live in for imposing these myths. And yet, they promote the triptych “the
Arpitan language – the Arpitans – Arpitania” and create for this language a flag and an
anthem, even though they admit that a language does not need an anthem in order to be
spoken: historically nations needed anthems on their way to becoming nation-states. They
also know that they were not born Arpitans – or, at least, they did not identify themselves
this way, and no one in their families had ever identified oneself this way either. Yet now
they believe that this is what they truly are and try to convince others of this “truth.”
They do not have too many elements at their disposal to build a national myth, and
all the elements used are somewhat approximate. They have the Alps and Mont Blanc as a
symbolic centre of the area, but inconveniently many parts of the Francoprovençalspeaking area are in the lowlands. They have the millenarian history of the House of
Savoy, one of the oldest dynasties in Europe, but some Francoprovençal-speaking
territories were never under its rule. Besides, the dynasty discredited itself in the eyes of
many first vis-à-vis Savoy, abandoning it to France, and then collaborating with the fascists
in its remaining territory in Italy. They have literature too, but Marguerite d’Oingt123 can
122
Thus if when introducing me someone would say that I work on patois, our Valdôtain interlocutors would
tСТnk tСКt I studв tСe lКnguКge, аСereКs Тf one аould sКв tСКt I аork on “ArpТtКn” tСeв аould Тnterpret it as
me working on nationalism and secessionism.
123
The author of the first known written text in Francoprovençal (end of 13th century). Cf. Marguerite
d'Oingt. Expériences mystiques et récits édifiants. Textes rédigés en francoprovençal et en latin par une
moniale du XIIIe siècle, Edition bilingue (francoprovençal/latin - français). Lyon : Edition EMCC,2012.
277
hardly be compared to literary phenomena like the troubadours, just like Cerlogne 124 does
not have the prestige of Mistral. To continue with the Occitan example, it is thus easier to
be proud of being a descendant of the noble Occitan people, who created an outstanding
culture, than to be an Arpitan. Besides, we know that the distinction between Oc and Oil
goes back to the Middle Ages, and one can think of Dante who also made that distinction,
whereas the identification of la lenga arpitana, and that of the Arpitans, goes back to a
quite eccentric local personality (lo personnadzo, like they would say, meaning a
personality but with a connotation of К “weirdo”). Or, at the earliest, to Ascoli, if one wants
to ascribe to him the identification of a new language in its own right, even though Ascoli
only spoke of a particular linguistic type.
Why make sacrifices in this situation? No one actually dies for a language. The
idea is not itself new but is worth being underlined, since today many people, including
journalists, regularly stipulate this125. Observations can provide some elements to answer
the question as to what are the real motivations, and whether a language is but a superficial
discursive element, or anything more than that.
Vignette on protecting one’s land and language
A Valdôtain, a former leader of an independentist movement of the late 1990s, was
sitting on the grass, feeling the warmth going up from the ground, smelling the larch in the
autumn sun and watching the small carlines in the grass (as he told me, they say in Valle
d’Aosta that carlines – “l’étsardón” – can predict the weather). He felt a material bond
with this land: not an idealised one, not a dissected one as the ecologists would see it, as he
once told me, but the very material land, his land. The land he had wanted to protect for
СТmself, for СТs (tСen) future cСТldren Кnd for СТs “people.” He аКnted to live securely here,
feeling at home, as had always been the case in the Valley. He told me once about a man
that he would see as a child when he would go down to the city with his father on the
mКrket dКв. “He once stole К sКusКge,” his father explained to him, “so now everyone
crosses the street when they see him. And we will do the same.” He would never lock the
doors of СТs cКr ЛecКuse tСere аКs no need, no cКr СКd ever Лeen stolen (“аe Кre not lТke
these people from Milan,” Сe told me onlв one or tаo вeКrs Кgo, “аСo come Сere Кnd tСe
124
The best known Valdôtain poet (1826 - 1910), author of the first poetry in Francoprovençal in Valle
d’AostК Кnd tСe fТrst dТctТonКrв Кnd grКmmКr of Francoprovençal of VКlle d’AostК.
125
One might think of the media discourse around Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014, to give but one
example.
278
fТrst tСТng tСeв do Тs to lock tСeТr cКrs!”) No one would lock the doors of their houses either
in the Valley. Recently, at the end of 2015, his neighbour was robbed by some of the
immigrants, for the second time in the last couple of months. During the robbery, the
neighbour took a gun and shot one of the robbers, injuring him. He was fined 90,000 euros
for that – “for protectТng СТs propertв,” mв ТnformКnt said. And then, he dreamt of a
society which would be fair, self-governing, with no corruption, where the government is
able to fully accomplish its functions without being criminally substituted, and where an
individual, a citizen, has his/her say and can influence the decision-making process in a
way that suits his/her interests. He wanted to live here, speaking his language, the one that
had always been spoken in his family or in any neighbouring families. Today school-age
cСТldren plКв аТtС eКcС otСer Тn ItКlТКn: “tСe lКnguКge of fКscТsts” Сe sКвs, poТntТng Кt
children, that of those who had burnt villages here.
I see “Maîtres chez nous” (“MКsters of our plКce”) written on a rock, as he drives
me home in the rain, and then on the next curve Кs аe clТmЛ up: “Val d’Outa libra” (“Free
Valle d’AostК”). A leftover from the mid-90s, this graffiti was written with a pigment that
was specially developed by a member of an independentist group for the occasion: the
pigment can only be clearly seen when it is wet and is almost impossible to erase. “Maîtres
chez nous” аКs К slogКn used in Valle d’Aosta during World War II when fighting the
fascists. Revived in the mid-90s, it has gained a new sense today in 2015-2016.126 As the
lyrics of a song released in January 2016 say:
126
E se v’èide oublià la rézistanse,
And if you forgot the resistance,
E se v’èide oublià le nouuse revanche
And if you forgot our revanche
Rappellade-vo-zé no n’oublièn jamé
Remember that we never forget
Que son lo fouà dézó le seudre de mon
That there is a fire under the ashes of my
péi
country
Back in the mid-90s independentists would climb the high vertical rocks in the night, leaving there
gigantic messages of this kind. As for the tradition of writing gigantic political messages on the rocks, those
by the Movement Harpitanya of the 1970s (see Part I Chapter 2) remain an example par excellence, if not a
reference model, even today.
279
E que n’on vécù la rézistanse
And that we’ve lived the resistance
E que n’on sondjà a l’eundependanse
And that we’ve dreamt of independence
Pouade lèi crèye no continuèn a reustéi
Believe me that we continue to stay
«Maîtres chez nous» ier comme vouéi.
“Maîtres chez nous” yesterday like today.
(Yvette Buillet, «Eundrumìa valdoténa», 2016)
He is now in his early fifties, but he feels that his time has already passed, his
valley changed. When he becomes old, will he also be seen in his homeland as a tourist
ЛecКuse Сe speКks К “foreТgn” lКnguКge, lТke tСe one of tСe prevТous generКtТon аКs аСТle
speaking his mother-tongue, French (see Part III Section 2.2.2)? Like some children in the
city already are today when they speak Francoprovençal, according to one of my
ТnformКnts аТtС cСТldren (not вet “tourТsts,” sТnce tСeв go to scСool regulКrlв, Лut
“ТmmТgrКnts”). 127
The desire to “protect tСe lКnd” tСus comes from К trКumКtТsing everyday
experience (cf. Gellner 1983). Yet, in order for it to be heard, to be seen as legitimate, it is
“dressed” Тn tСe dТscourse Тn lТne аТtС todКв’s ideologies. It seems that according to those,
in order for it to be legitimate it has to be based on ethnic or ethnicised principles. Indeed,
today only ethnic groups can have the right of self-determination, others cannot.
Why put the old-fashioned ethnic dress onto claims that have nothing essentially
ethnic about them? Probably because it is felt to be the only way to make them sound
legitimate, as suggested above, or else because this is the only tool language activists
possess in order to articulate their problems and insecurities. Nevertheless, this ethnicising
127
This creates a feeling of the uselessness of Francoprovençal:
Ils [les enfants] sont insérés dans une école [à Aoste] où il y a à peu près cent enfants et ils sont les
uniques qui le parlent [francoprovençal]. Le premТer quКnd Тl est rentrц р lК mКТson, Тl m’К dТt
maman, pourquoi tu me parles une langue que personne ne parle? Donc ils ont le sentiment de parler
une langue qui est morte, qui ne sert à rien.
They are at a school [in Aosta] where there are about a hundred children, and they are the only ones
who speak it [Francoprovençal]. TСe fТrst one, аСen Сe cКme ЛКck Сome Сe told me: “Mum, аСв do
вou tКlk to me Тn К lКnguКge tСКt noЛodв speКks?” So tСeв СКve К feelТng of speКkТng К lКnguКge
that is dead, that serves for nothing.
280
discourse masks the real problematic issues under the cover of doubtful slogans or
universal truths. It makes it complicated to address real issues; moreover, the same
discourse actually masks issues that are largely different depending on the country and
region concerned, and the way to address them might be different too if the real problems
were articulated.
The economic crisis of 2008, the wars and revolutions in African countries and in
Syria and the influx of immigrants as their consequence, together with the old problems of
corruption, is what is felt as worrying today in Valle d’Aosta. France is facing similar
problems, although with the difference that Francoprovençal-speaking parts of France have
never had any autonomy, so in this respect they have nothing to lose, just like those in
Piedmont in Italy. The situation is Switzerland seems more stable, so Swiss preoccupations
linked to Francoprovençal are almost exclusively cultural. The problem of corruption, for
instance, central for many in Valle d’Aosta, does not exist in Switzerland, and neither does
the lack of individual weight in the political decision-making process. Indeed, Switzerland
functions as an ideal model for the others in terms of its political organisation, with its
direct democracy and also with its cantons’ large autonomy. On the contrary, the problem
of re-appropriating the language of their grandparents that they feel essential for their
cultural identity in Switzerland does not exist in most places in the Aosta Valley, where the
language is still spoken in everyday life and family transmission has never stopped.
Examples of differences can be multiplied, and it should be stressed that these
differentiating issues are not an accessory but essential.
There are today several Arpitan movements that it would be a mistake to mix up
and confuse, as it is generally the case in both public and scholarly opinion. The fact that
people use the same name for what they believe/claim to be their language (in some cases
it really is the first language they learnt, in some others they discovered its very existence
when they were adults) does not mean they all represent the same social phenomenon.
There are those for whom being an Arpitan and an Arpitanist is about being an
independentist; there are others for whom it is about trying to transmit the language of their
grandparents to their (or someone else’s) children; there might be some others too. As for
the term itself, it has been appropriated by different groups to refer to so many different
tСТngs tСКt perСКps, Кt tСТs poТnt of СТstorв, аe sСould Кccept tСКt “ArpТtКn” СКs Лecome
just another name for the language, which no longer indexes any particular socio-political
vision at all.
281
Conclusions
The aim of this thesis was to study the current phenomena of the emergence of new
trans-border languages and communities. It was demonstrated how a set of idioms on the
borderland between France, Italy and Switzerland, which had been considered as patois,
ЛecКme recognТsed Кs К unТque “lКnguКge”: tСe FrКncoprovenхКl lКnguКge, todКв more
often called the Arpitan language. As has been shown (in Part I), the study of this language
has always been informed not only by the scientific paradigms of that particular time, but
also by the ongoing socio-political processes. This holds true whatever the instance that
produces the metalinguistic discourse: be it a scholar like Ascoli, in the 1870s, whose
studТes gКve ЛТrtС to К neа scТence of lКnguКge Тn ItКlв (“glottologТК”) Кnd tСe verв notТon
of “FrКncoprovenхКl,” or Кn КctТvТst lТke HenrТet, Тn tСe 1970s, аСose аrТtТngs creКted К
sort of К populКr scТence, аСТcС I referred to Кs tСe “lТnguТstТcs of resentment” (аСТcС
coТned tСe notТons of tСe “ArpТtКn lКnguКge”). TСe existence of this language brought
about the idea of the existence of a unique trans-border community, sometimes referred to
Кs К nКtТon (“tСe ArpТtКns” Кnd “ArpТtКnТК”). TodКв tСe ТnstТtutТonКlТsКtТon of “lТnguТstТc
mТnorТtТes” Тs seen Кs gТvТng tСese groups special collective rights: these are seen to go
beyond the mere right of language acquisition, or the right to enjoy public services in that
language to tСe group’s (of reКl or potentТКl lКnguКge speКkers) self-government, fiscal
autonomy, or even self-determination.
As has been shown, linguistically-based nationalism first emerged in the 1970s in
the Aosta Valley in Italy, where the language was spoken as the main means of daily
communication by the most powerless groups of society, and also in Savoie and HauteSavoie in France, which largely share similar tendencies. Language was then used as a
symbol of socio-ethnic difference in order to articulate claims of a completely different
nature, of independence in the first case and of autonomy in the second. It was shown how
todКв К sСТft from “etСnТc” Кnd lТnguТstТc nКtТonКlТsm to “cТvТc” Кnd economТc nКtТonКlТsm
can be observed in these settings (namely from the perspective of electoral policies or
referendums). Yet the most active groups of advocates for the language are to be found
today in France and Switzerland, where the language has disappeared from everyday use.
There the language becomes an end in itself, seen as an important part of cultural (and
282
personal) heritage to be preserved.128At the level of language policy, it is in France too, the
most monolingual of the three countries concerned, that one finds today the most active
language policy in favour of Francoprovençal. Another region where the language is
actively promoted is Piedmont in Italy. Both are essentially places where the language has
stopped being transmitted. Thus the celebration of diversity becomes possible because of
the actual linguistic uniformity: since there are no social issues involved, language can be
used as a symbol of authenticity.129
Competing linguistic theories produce today competing divisions of the transborder space, in both geographical and socio-political terms (as demonstrated in Part II).
Namely, two models of language and community construction have been distinguished (for
convenТence cКlled Тn tСТs dТssertКtТon tСe “nКrroа” Кnd tСe “аТde” models). TСe ongoТng
СeКted deЛКtes on tСe nКme of tСe lКnguКge (FrКncoprovenхКl, ArpТtКn, SКvoвКrd…) Кnd
Тts ortСogrКpСв (К “pСonetТc” one, К “suprКdТКlectКl” one…), ultimately, participate in the
same divisions of space. Additionally, these debates serve to negotiate what is the
legitimating instance to make pronouncements about language speakers and on their
behalf: the academic community or the language activists from the linguistic community
itself.
Today the structure of the Francoprovençal-speaking society has changed in a
crucial way economically, socially and ethnically; the socioeconomic disparities between
groups speaking Francoprovençal and other groups of society have disappeared. Hence,
even tСougС tСe ТmКge of “pКtoТs” Кs tСe locКl peКsКnts’ ТdТom stТll persТsts, sСКred Лв ЛotС
speakers and non-speКkers, Тn reКlТtв, todКв’s speКkers Кre often neТtСer locКl, nor peКsКnts.
Therefore speaking the language no longer indexes social and ethnic background, it
participates in the new dynamics in the society that the linguistic community is aware of
only to little extent. At the same time, it was demonstrated how speaking the language has
strong socio-political connotations, a legacy from the past, which has previously not been
reported.
128
At the same time, with the global celebration of diversity and the renewed interest to everything that is
“locКl,” “genuТne” Кnd “КutСentТc,” locКl (lТnguТstТc) cultures Лecome seen Лв otСer socТКl Кctors Кs КvКТlКЛle
to be sold, as an КttrКctТve (tourТst) ЛrКnd. One mТgСt tСТnk of К cСeese cКlled “ArpТtКn” tСКt СКs recentlв
appeared in Switzerland, or of a group called Arpitania Synchro Masters that was created in 2012 in Romand
Switzerland, uniting masters of synchronised swimming across tСe cКntons’ Лorders, to mentТon Лut К feа
examples.
129
In other words, it costs less to put up a bilingual road sign than e.g. to introduce school education in the
lКnguКge, tСus tКkТng Тnto Кccount reКl speКkers’ needs.
283
At the same time, as long as the language is understood as a social practice, the
fieldwork data led me to distinguish two types of Francoprovençal linguistic situations that
were shown to be crucially different (Part III). One is typical of small high-mountain
communities with close social ties in the centre of the Francoprovençal area, where
Francoprovençal is still the common language of daily interactions, functioning as a
symbol of social solidarity and inclusion. Another one is to be found on the lowland urban
“perТpСerТes” of tСe lТnguТstТc КreК, Кnd Тs tвpТcКl of moЛТle urЛКn mТddle-class
ТntellectuКls аСo leКrnt tСe lКnguКge Тn tСeТr КdultСood Кs К lКnguКge of tСeТr “roots” Кnd
as a family heritage that, although not transmitted to them, is seen as theirs. Indeed, family
language transmission stopped there several generations ago; the language is mostly used
for the purposes of language activism. Thus spontaneous diffuse multilingual practices,
аСere lКnguКge ЛoundКrТes Кre Лlurrв (Тn tСe fТrst, “dТffuse” settТng) Кre opposed to
focused practices of a language as a bounded closed reified system, used on purpose (in the
second, “focused” settТng). AccordТnglв, severКl tвpes of todКв’s speakers of
FrancoprovenхКl аere КnКlвsed (locКllв cКlled “nКtТve” speКkers, “lКte” speКkers Кnd “neа
speКkers”). The communities of these two types, diffuse and focused, share neither
linguistic practices, nor linguistic representations and the social meaning conveyed by
choosing Francoprovençal instead of any other code. The needs of these communities that
a language policy could (should) address are therefore crucially different.
This thesis could not cover all the particularities of actual linguistic practices: in
this respect it only aimed at distinguishing two main types of linguistic situations and the
main characteristics of each of them. As virtually nothing has been done in this field so far,
many issues need to be studied further and clarified. Namely future research could be done
in the following areas which have proven to be under-studied:
(1)
accommodation strategies and mechanisms, both at the level of
communities and at individual level, that ensure the mutual intelligibility of
linguistic varieties used in interaction and successful communication (which
is all the contrary to the widely diffused myth of patois of a municipality
being completely unintelligible outside of this municipality). Thus e.g. the
“pure” vКrТetв of FцnТs, dТКlectologТcКllв speКkТng, Тs proЛКЛlв Тndeed
unТntellТgТЛle to someone аСo speКks К “pure” vКrТetв of LК SКlle. Вet Тn
tСe КctuКl communТcКtТon Кs Тt Тs prКctТsed Лв todКв’s socТetв no one аould
284
speak the linguistic variety spoken inside the community of Fénis to
someone coming from outside, adapting instead his linguistic behaviour to
use a more neutral variety close to the one of Aosta (the so-called patoué de
la Veulla). Speaking a very local variety is sometimes referred to as
speКkТng “nКrroа” (serré), and as normally one uses special names for the
exceptions, it suggests that this behaviour is seen as exceptional, whereas
accommodation is seen in the community as a norm (as the first reflection
on this see Bichurina 2015);
(2)
intercultural communication and mediation. Communicative norms and
components of communicative competence in Francoprovençal; the
interaction of two cultures, a minority (Francoprovençal) one and a majority
(Italian or French one) where the second is unaware of the very existence of
the first as a different culture. Indeed as observations show, uneasiness and
mТscommunТcКtТon due to tСese dТfferences seem verв present Тn todКв’s
society, composed of members from various backgrounds.
(3)
using codes in interaction: my preliminary observations showed e.g. that
often one interlocutor would speak Italian and another one would reply in
Francoprovençal for many turns if the first one was a local (yet not active
speaker of Francoprovençal), which is rather different from communication
strategies found in diglossic situations elsewhere;
At the same time, today as a trans-border discussion on the necessity of elaborating
a common orthography standard for the whole Francoprovençal area has been initiated130,
a modern description of the Francoprovençal linguistic system, seen globally for the
language as a whole (and not merely that of one level of linguistic system of one
municipality) seems necessary.
Finally, as the socio-political and economic situation is constantly changing, the
future development of metalinguistic or eventual nationalistic discourse, of language
activism or other forms of civic activism, and of trans-border language and cultural
policies, will need to be studied.
The first meeting on this so-called “СТstorТc” ortСogrКpСв аКs Сeld on AprТl 13 2016 Тn HКute-Savoie in
France, reuniting both members of the academic community and presidents of language associations from the
three countries.
130
285
Bibliography
Allasino et al. 2007, Le lingue del Piemonte, Istituto di Ricerche Economico Sociali del
Piemonte, Torino.
Alibèrt, Loïs. Gramatica occitana segon los parlars lengadocians. Montpelhièr: Centre
d’estudТs occТtКns, 1976 [1935].
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
AnttТkoskТ, EsК. “ProЛlemК kКrel’skogo lТterКturnogo jКгвkК v 1930 Т 1990 godТ” [“TСe
proЛlem of tСe stКndКrd KКrelТКn lКnguКge Тn 1930s Кnd 1990s”]. Materials of the
International conference ‘Sociolinguistic problems in regions in the world’, Moscow
October 22-24 1996. WEB http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4280/rus_doklad.html.
15/10/2008.
Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia. “ProemТo.” Scritti sulla questione della lingua. Ascoli G.I. Torino:
Giulio Einaudi editore, 2008 [1873]. 3–44.
——— “SКggТ lКdТnТ.” Archivio glottologico italiano 1 (1873): 1–556.
——— “ScСТггТ frКnco-provenгКlТ.” Archivio glottologico italiano 3 (1878 [1874]): 61–
120.
——— “PКul Meвer e Тl frКnco-provenгКle.” Archivio glottologico italiano 2 (1876):
385–395.
——— “DКll’ItКlТК dТКlettКle.” Scritti sulla questione della lingua. Ascoli G.I. 2008
[1882-85]. 57 – 66 (originally published in Archivio glottologico italiano 8, 98-128).
Auer, Peter. “The monolingual bias in bilingualism research, or: why bilingual talk is (still)
К cСКllenge for lТnguТstТcs.” Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Ed. Monica Heller.
Palgrave: Macmillan, 2007. 319–339.
Auer, Peter (ed.) Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity.
London and New York: Routledge, 1999.
AustТn, PКul M. “SovТet KКrelТКn: TСe LКnguКge tСКt FКТled.” Slavic Review vol. 51 no. 1
(Spring 1992): 16–35.
Barbour, Stephen and Cathie Carmichael. Language and Nationalism in Europe. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000.
BКrtС, FrederТk. “IntroductТon.” Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization
of Culture Difference, Ed. F. Barth. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1969. 9–38.
BКssКnd, MТcСel. “Le sцpКrКtТsme jurКssТen : un conflit de classes et/ou un conflit
etСnТque?” Ethnies : revendications et conflits, Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie,
vol. 61 (Juillet-décembre 1976) : 221–246.
286
Bauer, Roland. “StorТК dellК coperturК lТnguТstТcК dellК VКlle d’AostК dКl 1860 Кl 2000 : un
approccio sociolinguistico.” Nouvelles du Centre d’Études Francoprovençales René
Willien, 39 (1999) : 76–96.
——— “Su alcune particolarità del diasistema lТnguТstТco dellК VКlle d’AostК. ” La Valle
d’Aosta e l’Europa. Ed. Sergio Noto. Firenze : Leo S. Olschki editore, 2008. 259–
274.
Benincà, Paola. Piccola storia ragionata della dialettologia italiana. Padova: Unipress,
1996.
Bétemps, Alexis. “A propos du dцЛКt lТnguТstТque en VКllцe d’Aoste. ” Union Valdotaine
17, no 1 (1981) : 26–30.
——— “Pour une graphie commune du francoprovençal. ” Nouvelles du Centre d’Études
Francoprovençales René Willien, 71 2004. 11 – 24. WEB http://www.centre-etudesfrancoprovencales.eu/cef/bollettini/nouvelles-centre-49-2004734.pdf?r=0.00373577502416
——— “Le tСцсtre frКncoprovenхКl en VКllцe d’Aoste : ses racines et son actualité – en
СommКge Кu prof. GКston TuКТllon.” Nouvelles du Centre d’Etudes
francoprovençales « René Willien » 70 (2014): 88–96.
Bert, Michel, Costa, James & Jean-Baptiste Martin. Etude FORA : Francoprovençal et
Occitan en Rhône-Alpes. Lyon: INRP, ICAR, DDL, 2009. WEB http://icar.univlyon2.fr/projets/ledra/documents/Etude_FORA_rapport_définitif.pdf.
Bert, Michel Кnd JКmes CostК. “WСКt Counts Кs К LТnguТstТc Border, for WСom, and with
what Implications? Exploring Occitan and Francoprovençal in Rhône-Alpes,
FrКnce.” Language, Borders and Identity. Eds. C. Llamas & D. Watt. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2014. 186–205.
Bichurina, Natalia. “OksТtКnТК Т ArpТtКnТК: modelТ soгdКnТК ‘novТб romКnskТб jКгТkov’ Т
trКnsgrКnТčnТб oЛšnostej” [“OccТtКnТК Кnd ArpТtКnТК: models of constructТon of ‘neа
RomКnce lКnguКges’ Кnd trКns-Лorder communТtТes”]. Jazyki sosedej : mosty ili
barjery ? Kommunikacia i samoidentifikacia [Languages of neighbours: bridges or
barriers? Communication and identities]. Ed. N. Vakhtin. Saint Petersburg: Institute
of linguistics of the Russian Academy of sciences, European University at Saint
Petersburg, 2011. 279–291.
——— “‘MКlвe romКnskТe jКгвkТ:’ metКlТngvТstТčeskТj dТskurs Т jКгвkovКjК polТtТkК
FrКncТТ (nК prТmere oksТtКnskogo/provКnsКlskogo Т КrpТtКnskogo/sКvojskogo).”
[“‘RomКnce mТnorТtв lКnguКges:’ metКlТnguТstТc dТscourse Кnd lКnguКge polТcв Тn
France (case study of Occitan / Provencal and Arpitan / SavoвКrd”]. Voprosi
jazykoznania [Questions of Linguistics], no 1 (2012): 123 – 133.
——— “Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou ennemi de son objet
d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl).” Gestion des minorités
linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle. Ed. C. Alén Garabato. Limoges :
Lambert-Lucas, 2013. 291–302.
287
——— “LК ‘mort’ des lКngues et les ‘nцo-locuteurs’ : le cКs de ‘l’КrpТtКn’ en SuТsse. Les
locuteurs et les langues : pouvoirs, non-pouvoirs, contre-pouvoirs. Ed. Romain
Colonna. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 2014 : 243 – 253.
——— “Le frКncoprovenхКl entre lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe : lКngue dТffuse, lКngue
focalisée et enjeux de normalisation.” Nouvelles du Centre d’Études
Francoprovençales René Willien, 71 (2015) : 7 – 24.
——— “BКptшmes d’une lКngue ou un peu de mКgТe socТКle (‘FrКncoprovenхКl’ –
‘ArpТtКn’ – ‘SКvoвКrd’).” Cahiers de l’ILSL, 2016 (forthcoming).
——— “Le frКncoprovenхКl comme prКtТque socТКle: Quels enjeuб d’Кménagement
linguistique en 2016 ?” Transmission, revitalisation et normalisation, actes de la
conférence annuelle sur l’activité scientifique du centre d’études francoprovençales,
Saint-Nicolas, le 7 novembre 2015. RцgТon Кutonome VКllцe d’Aoste, Assessorat de
l’цducКtТon et de lК culture, 2016 (forthcoming). 85 – 94.
——— “Le nom d’ТdТome et lК suЛstТtutТon lТnguТstТque : les AlЛКnКТs d’UkrКТne.” Cahiers
de l’ILSL, n° 35 (2013) : 139-155.
BТcСurТnК, NКtКlТК et JКmes CostК. “Nommer pour fКТre eбТster : l’цpТneuse questТon de
l’oc.” Le nom des langues IV. Nommer des langues romanes. Ed. J. M. Eloy.
Louvain : Peeters, 2016. 185-203.
Bichurina, Natalia et Christiane Dunoyer. Le francoprovençal en Savoie. Spec. issue of
Dossiers du Musée Savoisien (forthcoming).
Blanchet, Philippe. Le provençal, essai de description sociolinguistique et différentielle.
Louvain : Peeters, 1992.
——— Langues, cultures et identités régionales en Provence. La Métaphore de l’aïoli.
Paris : L'Harmattan, 2002.
——— “L’ТdentТfТcКtТon socТolТnguТstТque des lКngues et des vКrТцtцs lТnguТstТques : pour
une analyse complexe du processus de catégorisation fonctionnelle.” MIDL, Paris,
29-30 novembre 2004. 31–36. WEB http://halshs.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/02/99/49/PDF/BlanchetMIDL2004.pdf
Bloomfield, Leonard. Language. London : George Allen & Unwin, 1935.
BourdТeu, PТerre. “L’ТdentТtц et lК reprцsentКtТon. Elцments pour une rцfleбТon crТtТque sur
l’Тdцe de rцgТon.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, vol. 35, no 1. (1980) :
63 – 72.
Boyer, Henri. “L’ТmplТcКtТon du socТolТnguТste ‘pцrТpСцrТque.’” Langues de France,
langues en danger : aménagement et rôle des linguistes, Cahiers de l’Observatoire
des pratiques linguistiques, no 3 (2012) : 79-86.
BruЛКker, Rogers. “EtСnТcТtв аТtСout groups.” Facing ethnic conflict. Toward a new
realism. Eds. Wimmer, Andreas et al. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers inc.,
2004. 34-52.
288
Bubrikh, D. V. Karely I karel’skij jazyk [The Karelians and the Karelian language].
Moscoа: IгsКtel’stvo Mosoblispolkoma, 1932. 3–7.
Buillet, Yvette. Coéranse Valdoténa? La conta di solèi que loujè fée la plodze.
TdEproductionZ, 2016.
Cameron Deborah. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge, 1995.
——— “LКnguКge endКngerment Кnd verЛКl Свgene: HТstorв, morКlТtв Кnd polТtТcs.”
Discourses of Endangerment. Eds. A. Duchêne & M. Heller. London & New York:
Continuum. 2007. 268-285.
Cavalli, Marissa. Quelques opinions des Valdôtains sur les langues au Val d’Aoste et dans
l’école. Aosta, 2003. WEB (http://www.fondchanoux.org/sondagelinguistiqueq.aspx)
3 February 2016.
——— Education bilingue et plurilingue. Le cas du Val d’Aoste. Paris: Editions Didier,
2005.
Celi, Alessandro. La Vallée d'Aoste : biographie d'une région. Aoste : Le château, 2004.
Cerquiglini, Bernard. Les langues de France: Rapport au Ministre de l'Education
Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, et à la Ministre de la Culture et de
la Communication. Paris: Institut National de la Langue Française (CNRS), avril
1999. WEB (http://www.dglf.culture.gouv.fr/lang-reg/rapport_cerquiglini/languesfrance.html). 5 May 2016.
——— Les langues de France. Paris: PUF, 2003.
Chambers J. K. and P. Trudgill. Dialectology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
Costa, James. Revitalisations linguistiques : discours, mythes et idéologies. Thèse de
doctorat. Grenoble : Université Stendhal Grenoble III, 2010.
——— (2012): “De l’СвgТчne verЛКle dКns le sud de lК FrКnce ou OccТtКnТe.” Les
mouvements de revitalisation linguistique concurrents en pays d’Oc et ailleurs, Eds.
Costa, James and Médéric Gasquet-Cyrus. Spec. issue of Lengas No 72 (2012) : 83 –
112.
Còsta, Jaume. “Seissanta ans de sociolingüistica occitana a la periferia: quin avenir per la
disciplina?” Rencontres en sciences du langage et de la communication. Mélanges
offerts à Henri Boyer par ses collègues et amis. Eds. C. Alén Garabato,
K. Djordjevic Léonard, P. Gardies, A. Kis-Marck, G. Lochard. Paris : L’HКrmКttКn,
2016.
Costa, James and Michel Bert. “De l’un et du divers. La région Rhône-Alpes et la mise en
récit de ses langues.” Mots. Les langages du politique, no 97 (2011): 45 – 57.
Costa, James and Médéric Gasquet-Cyrus. “Introduction.” Les mouvements de
revitalisation linguistique concurrents en pays d’Oc et ailleurs. Eds. Costa, James
and Médéric Gasquet-Cyrus. Spec. issue of Lengas No 72 (2012) : 9 – 22.
289
Crystal, David. Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
DКl Negro, SТlvТК. “MТnorТtв lКnguКges Лetаeen nКtТonКlТsm Кnd neа locКlТsm: tСe cКse of
ItКlв.” Small languages and small language communities. Ed. Dorian Nancy C. Spec.
issue of IJSL 174 (2005): 113 – 124.
De Blasi, Nicola. Piccola storia della lingua italiana, Liguori, 2008.
Decime, Rita and Gabriella Vernetto. Profil de la politique linguistique éducative, Vallée
d’Aoste, Rapport régional, AssessorКt de l’Éducation et de la Culture. 2007. WEB
(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/aoste_rapport_regional_fr.pdf).
Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, quatrième édition, Paris: Ve de Bernard Brunet,
1762.
Diemoz, Federica and Andres Kristol. “L'Atlas linguistique andiovisuel du
francoprovençal valaisan ALAVAL : une analyse morphosyntaxique des systèmes
linguistiques dialectaux.” Atti del Convegno internazionale “Dove va la
dialettologia?”. Saint-Vincent-Aoste-Cogne, 2006.
Diemoz, F., Aquino-Weber, D., Grüner, L., & Reusser-Elzingre, A. (Eds.). “Toujours
langue varie…” Mélanges de linguistique historique du français et de dialectologie
galloromane offerts à M. le Professeur Andres Kristol par ses collègues et anciens
élèves. Genève: Librairie Droz S.A., 2014.
Dorian, Nancy. Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
DucСшne, AleбКndre Кnd MonТcК Heller. “DТscourses of endКngerment: socТolТnguТstТcs,
gloЛКlТгКtТon Кnd socТКl order.” Discourses of Endangerment. Eds. Duchêne,
Alexandre & Monica Heller. London and New York: Continuum, 2007. 1-13.
Dunoyer, Christiane. Les nouveaux patoisants en Vallée d'Aoste : de la naissance d’une
nouvelle catégorie de locuteurs francoprovençaux à l’intérieur d’une communauté
plurilingue en évolution. Etude anthropologique. [Aoste] : Région autonome Vallée
d'Aoste, Assessorat de l'éducation et de la culture, 2010.
——— Harpitanya, la ferveurd’une idée. RцgТon Кutonome VКllцe d’Aoste : Assessorat de
l’цducКtТon et de lК culture, 2012.
Durkheim, Emile. Le suicide. Étude de sociologie. Paris, 1897. WEB
(http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6128145d) 3 December 2014.
Eckert, Penelope. “CommunТtТes of PrКctТce.” Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics.
Elsevier Ltd., 2006. 683 – 685.
Edur-Kar. Harpeitanya. [S.l.]: Edur-Kar ed., 1973.
Elmiger, Daniel. “Sprachplanung im Frankoprovenzalischen: didaktische Ansätze im
Wallis.” Le francoprovençal en Suisse. Genèse, déclin, revitalisation. Eds. Matthey
M. and M. Meune. Spec. issue of Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, no 2,
Université de Montréal (2012): 89 – 106.
290
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak. “CrТtТcКl DТscourse AnКlвsТs Тn ActТon.” Applied
Linguistics Methods. A Reader: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Critical Discourse
Analysis and Ethnography. Eds. Coffin, Caroline, Theresa Lillis and Kieran
O’HКllorКn. London Кnd Neа Вork: Routledge, 2010 [1997]. 98–111.
Fergusson, Charles. “DТglossТК.” Word 15, 2 (1959): 325–340.
Fishman J., “Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without
bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues 23, 2 (1967): 29–38.
Flickinger, Éric. “Compte-rendu.” Vox Romanica 63 (2004): 312-319.
Fondation Chanoux. Une Vallée d'Aoste bilingue dans une Europe plurilingue. Aosta:
Tipografia valdostana. 2003. WEB
(http://www.fondchanoux.org/sondagelinguistiqueq.aspx). 3 February 2016.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., and Trew, T. Language and Control. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1979.
Friend Julius W. Stateless Nations. Western European Regional Nationalisms and the Old
Nations. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Gal Susan. “Variation and change in patterns of speaking: language shift in Austria.”
Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. Ed. D. Sankoff. New York: Academy
Press, 1978.
Gardner-CСloros, Penelope. “LКnguКge selectТon Кnd sаТtcСТng Кmong StrКsЛourg
sСoppers”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 54 (1985): 117-135.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope and Malcolm Edwards. “AssumptТons BeСТnd GrКmmКtТcКl
Approaches To Code-SаТtcСТng: WСen TСe BlueprТnt Is A Red HerrТng.”
Transactions of the Philological Society, volume 102, issue 1 (2004): 103-129.
Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press, 1983.
Goebl, Hans. “La concezione ascoliana del ladino e del franco-provenzale. Il pensiero di
GrКгТКdТo IsКТК AscolТ К cent’КnnТ dКllК scompКrsК.” Atti del Convegno
internazionale (Gorizia-Udine, 3-5 maggio 2007). Ed. Carla Marcato and Federico
VТcКrТo. UdТne: SocТetр FТlologТcК FrТulКnК “GrКгТКdТo IsКТК AscolТ”, 2010. 147–176.
Godat, Ivan. La Question Jurassienne, un conflit ethnique ? Réflexions sur l’utilisation de
la catégorie de l’ethnicité dans le discours des séparatistes jurassiens. WEB
(https://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/mapschaire/files/shared/documents/travaux_ecrits/godat_ivan_question_jurassienne_confl
it_ethnique.pdf)
Glossaire des Patois de la Suisse Romande. Neuchâtel et Paris, 1924 ss.
Grégoire, Abbé. “Rapport sur la Nécessité et les Moyens d'anéantir les Patois et
d'universaliser l'Usage de la Langue française.” 1794. WEB (http://www.assembleenationale.fr/histoire/Abbe-Gregoire1794.asp). 5 May 2016.
291
Grosjean, François. Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
GrКssТ, CorrКdo, “IntroduгТone.” Scritti sulla questione della lingua. Graziadio Isaia
Ascoli. Torino: Einaudi, 1975. XI–XLI.
Gumperz, John J. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
HКle, K. “EndКngered LКnguКges: On endangered languages and the safeguarding of
dТversТtв.” Language, 68 1 (1992): 1-3.
Hale, K., Krauss, M., Watahomigie, L. J., Yananoto, A. Y., Craig, C., Jeanne, L. M., et al.
“EndКngered LКnguКges.” Language, 68 1 (1992): 1-42.
Harriet, José. “L’etСnТe valdôtaine n'a jamais existé... elle n'est que partie de l'ethnie
harpitane.” 1974 WEB (ArpТtКnТК.eu). PuЛlТsСed on JКnuКrв 12 2007. 5 MКв 2016.
—— “Sur le ‘pКtoТs’ et son processus pour devenТr une lКngue de culture populКТre : la
langue valdôtaine.” Ehtudio su la kuestion harpitanha. Ed. Daudry P. Aoste
: Musumeci, 1975. 65 – 67.
Harrieta, Joze. La Lingua arpitana (francoprovenzale): con particolare riferimento all
lingua della Val di Aosta. Romano Canavese: Ferrero, 1976.
—— Il substrato garalditano. Contributo allo studio della toponimia arpitana della Val
d’Aosta. Verrès: Rigoli di Gerandin, 1977.
Henriet, Joseph. Noi Saraceni delle Alpi. Chatillon: Edizioni Cervino, 1996.
Haugen, Einar. “DТКlect, LКnguКge, NКtТon.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 68 (1966):
922–935. [Reprinted in Johan Bernard Pride and Janet Holmes (Eds.)
Sociolinguistics. Selected readings, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972: 97 –
111.]
Hobsbawm, Eric. “Introduction: Inventing Tradition.” The Invention of Tradition. Eds.
Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1983. 1-14.
Hymes, Dell H. “On communicative competence.” Sociolinguistics: selected readings.
Eds. Pride, J.B.; Holmes, J. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972(a). 269–293.
——— “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life.” Directions in
Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Ed. J. J. Gumperz and D.
Hymes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972(b).
———“In Vain I Tried to Tell You”: Essays in Native American Ethnopoetics. University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Jaffe, Alexandra. Ideologies in action: language politics on Corsica. Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1999.
Jyaryot, Luis de. “La Noëla Tradixon.” CвКmpoluek : kompanyà de la canson popüleira,
1978.
292
Jariot, Luis de. Li canson de nohtro peplo. [S.l.], [s.d.].
KrКuss, MТcСКel. “TСe аorld’s lКnguКges Тn crТsТs.” Language 68 1 (1992): 4–10.
Kristol, Andres. “Politiques et discours linguistiques explicites en Suisse occidentale (XVe
- XVIIIe siècles).” Sprachendiskurs in der Schweiz: vom Vorzeigefall zum
Problemfall? Le discours sur les langues en Suisse: d'un modèle d'exemple à un cas
problématique? Berne: Académie suisse des sciences humaines et sociales, 2005. 4964.
——— “Histoire linguistique de la Suisse romande: quelques
jalons.” Babylonia, 3 (1999) : 8-13. Extrait abrégé et actualisé, 2013. WEB
(http://www2.unine.ch/dialectologie/presentation) 3 February 2016.
Lafont, Robert. La révolution régionaliste. Paris : Gallimard, 1967.
——— Sur la France. Paris : Gallimard, 1968.
——— Décoloniser en France : les régions face à l’Europe. Paris : Gallimard, 1971.
——— “Un problème de culpabilité sociologique : la diglossie franco-occitane.” Langue
Française, 9 (1971) : 93–99.
—— “Pour retrousser la diglossie.” Lengas, 15 (1984) : 5–36.
—— Quarante ans de sociolinguistique à la périphérie. Paris : L’HКrmКttКn, 1997.
——— Pecics de mièg-sègle. Fédérop, 1999.
——— “Un impossible théâtre ?” Auteurs en scène. Les Presses du Languedoc, 2003.
WEB (http://occitanica.eu/omeka/exhibits/show/expojoga/j--ga-un-teatre-politic). 1
April 2013.
Lagarde, Christian. “Le ‘ColonТКlТsme ТntцrТeur:’ D’une mКnТчre de dТre lК domТnКtТon р
l'цmergence d'une ‘socТolТnguТstТque pцrТpСцrТque’ occТtКne.” Glottopol, 20 (2012) :
38–54.
Laitin, David D. “The Cultural Identities of a European State.” Politics and Society, 25 3
(1997): 277-302.
Larousse (Dictionnaire). WEB (http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/patois/58677)
4 April 2013.
Le PКge, RoЛert Brock. “WСКt Тs К lКnguКge?” Le nom des langues I. Les enjeux de la
nomination des langues, vol. 1. Ed. A. Tabouret-Keller. Louvain: Peeters, 1997
[1988]. 21 – 34.
——— “‘Вou cКn never tell аСere К аord comes from’: lКnguКge contКct Тn К dТffuse
setting.” The Sociolinguistics Reader. Vol.1: Multilingualism and Variation. Eds.
Trudgill P.and Cheshire J. London, etc. 1998. 66 – 90. [Originally published in: Jahr
E.H. (Ed.). Language Contact: Theoretical and Empirical Studies. Berlin / N.Y.,
1992].
293
Le Page Robert Brock and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. Acts of Identity: Creole-based
Approaches to Ethnicity and Language. Cambridge, 1985.
Littré, E. Dictionnaire de la Langue Française. Paris, 1956.
Lodge, R. Anthony. French: From Dialect to Standard. Routledge, 1993.
——— A sociolinguistic history of Parisian French. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
LuccСТnТ, GuТdo. “AscolТ: AppuntТ per unК ЛТogrКfТК.” Scritti sulla questione della lingua.
Ascoli G.I. Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore, 2008. VII - LXIV
Maître Raphael and Marinette Matthey. “WСo аКnts to sКve tСe pКtoТs d’Evolчne?”
Discourses of endangerment : interest and ideology in the defense of languages. Eds.
A. Duchêne & M. Heller. London: Continuum, 2007. 76-98.
Manzoni, Alessandro. “Dell’unТtр dellК lТnguК e deТ meггТ dТ dТffonderlК.” Nuova
Antologia, VII, 1868. 425-441.
MКЛrв, TrТstКn JКmes, McGКrrв JoСn, Moore MКrgКret & BrendКn O’LeКrв. Divided
Nations and European Integration. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.
Martel, Philippe. L'école française et l'occitan, le sourd et le bègue, Montpellier: Presses
universitaires de la Méditerranée, DL, 2007.
Martin, Jean-Baptiste. Le francoprovençal de poche, Chennevières-sur-Marne: Assimil,
2005.
——— “Le polymorphisme en phonétique et en morphologie verbale : quelques exemples
dans les parlers francoprovençaux et occitans.” Où en sont les études des langues
régionales en domaine roman ? Données – méthodes - modèles de description. Eds.
Blauth-Henke, C. & Heinz, M. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 2011. 77-82
——— Les poilus parlaient patois. Lyon: EMCC, 2014.
——— La langue francoprovençal et le chant.” Nouvelles du Centre d’Etudes
francoprovençales « René Willien » 72 (2015): 35 – 39.
Mas, Paolo Benedetto and Silvia Giordano. “Cantare in lingua minoritaria: musica e
identità a confront in area occitana e francoprovenzale.” Lingua, canzone, identità.
Verbis, 2 (2015): 29 – 40.
MКs, PКolo Benedetto Кnd AlТne Pons. “Come scrТvono glТ sportellТ lТnguТstТc Тn
PТemonte.” Atti del Convegno Perché scrivere? Motivazioni, scelte, risultati,
Olomonc 27-28 marzo 2015. Ed. Cesati Franco (forthcoming)
Matthey, Marinette and Manuel Meune (Eds.) Le francoprovençal en Suisse. Genèse,
déclin, revitalisation, Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, no 2 (2012). WEB
(http://littlm.umontreal.ca/fileadmin/Documents/FAS/litterature_langue_moderne/Do
cuments/2-Recherche/RTES_2.pdf). 5 May 2016.
294
Meyer, Paul. “Compte rendu de : Ascoli 1874.” Romania 4 (1875): 293-296.
Meune, Manuel. “Parler patois ou de patois? Locuteurs gruériens et néolocuteurs vaudois:
le discours sur le francoprovençal dans les associations de patoisants.” Le
francoprovençal en Suisse. Genèse, déclin, revitalisation. Eds. Matthey, Marinette
and Manuel Meune. Spec. issue of Revue transatlantique d’études suisses no 2
(2012): 57 – 77.
——— “Enjeu local et défi transnational, terroirs patoisants et eбterrТtorТКlТtц ‘КrpТtКne’ :
le frКncoprovenхКl р l’Сeure de WТkТpцdТК.” EX(TRA)TERRITORIAL. Reassessing
Territory in Literature, Culture and Languages / Les Territoires littéraires, culturels
et linguistiques en question. Eds. Didier Lassalle and Dirk Weissmann. Amsterdam –
New York: Rodopi, 2014. 261 – 284.
Milroy, James. Language Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. WEB
(http://mural.uv.es/apate/mlvc_txt.html). 5 May 2016.
Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. “Linguistic change, social network and speaker
innovation.” Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985): 339 – 384.
Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. Authority in Language. 3rd edition. London:
Routledge, 1998.
Myers-Scotton, Carol. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical
Outcomes, Oxford University Press, 2002.
Muysken, Pieter. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
Morozova, Maria. “Glagolnaja sistema govora albancev Ukrainy.” Sovremennaja albanistika : dostiženija i perpektivy. Eds. M. Domosi-letskaja, A. ŽugrК,
M. Morozova, A. Rusakov. Saint-Pétersbourg : Nestor-Istoria, 2012. 252-274.
Nettle, D. and S. Romaine. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's Languages.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
O'Reilly, Camille C. Language, Ethnicity and the State, Volume 1. Minority Languages In
The European Union. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
O’Rourke B., J. PujolКr & F. RКmКllo. “New speakers of minority languages: the
challenging opportunity – Foreword.” International Journal of Sociology of
Language 231 (2015): 1 – 20.
Orwell, George, “What is Fascism?” In: Tribune. UK, London, 1944. WEB
(http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc). 15 November 2014.
Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Salute nelle Regioni Italiane: Sanità e salute
http://www.istat.it/it/files/2015/12/C04.pdf
Paris, Gaston. “Compte rendu de : Adam, Lucien: Les patois lorrains, Paris, 1881.”
Romania 10 (1881) : 601-609.
295
——— “Les parlers de France.” Revue des patois gallo-romans 2 (1888): 161-175
(Reprinted in: Paris, Gaston: Mélanges linguistiques. Paris : Champion, 1909. 432448).
PertК, CКmelК. “CКn lКnguКge polТtТcs ensure lКnguКges survТvКl? EvТdence from ItКlв.”
Language and Linguistics Compass 2/6 (2008): 1216 – 1224.
Petit Robert (Dictionnaire). WEB (http://lerobert.demarque.com/fr/fr/dictionnaire-francaisen-ligne/grand-robert/demo/?produit=grandRobert). 1 March 2013.
Pivot, Bénédicte. Revitalisation de langues postvernaculaires : le francoprovençal en
Rhône-Alpes et le rama au Nicaragua, thèse de doctorat. Lyon, 2014.
Puolato, Daniela. “Les КppellКtТons de lК lКngue mТnorТtКТre р FКeto et р Celle dТ SКn VТto
(PouТlles): vКleurs ТdentТtКТres et ТdцologТques.” Gestion des minorités linguistiques
dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle. Ed. C. Alén Garabato. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas,
2013. 179-191.
Quand les savoyards écrivent leurs patois. Savoie – Valais – Val d’Aoste. Textes et
chansons choisis des 2e et 3e concours de patois (1992 – 1995). Conflans –
Albertville : Centre de la Culture Savoyarde, 1997.
Renan, Ernest. Qu’est-ce qu’une nation ? (Conférence prononcée le 11 mars 1882 à la
Sorbonne). Paris : Calvin Lévy éditeur, 1882.
Renzi, Lorenzo (con la collaborazione di Gianpaolo Salvi). Nuova introduzione alla
filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1992.
Rouquette, Max. Ils sont les bergers des étoiles. Monaco : Anatolia – Éditions du Rocher,
2001.
Sagredo de Ihartza, Heiko. La Vasconie et l’Europe Nouvelle, Baiona: Elkar, 1976.
Said, Edward W. “Intellectual Exile: Expatriates and Marginals.” Grand Street, No. 47
(Autumn 1993): 112-124. WEB
(https://postcolonialseminar.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/article-said.pdf). 5 May
2016.
Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality, Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1958.
Schüle, Ernest, Tuaillon, Gaston, Telmon, Tullio & Schüle Rose-Claire. L'atlas des patois
valdôtains : état des travaux 1978. [Aoste] : [Musumeci], 1978. 7 – 38.
Sériot, P., Bulgakova, E. & Eržen A. “La linguistique populaire et les pseudo-savants.”
Pratiques, 139-140 (2008) : 149-162.
Sériot, Patrick. Analyse du discours politique soviétique. Paris : Institut d'études slaves,
1985.
296
——— “Faut-il que les langues aient un nom? Le cas du macédonien.” Le nom des
langues. L'enjeu de la nomination des langues, vol. 1. Ed. Andrée Tabouret-Keller.
Louvain : Peeters, 1997. 167-190.
——— “L'alphabet analytique abkhaze de N.Marr : une pasigraphie génétique?”
L'édification linguistique en URSS : thèmes et mythes. Ed. E. Simonato. Spec. issue
of Cahiers de l'ILSL, n° 35 (2012) : 9-28.
Sibille, Jean. “Le francoprovençal.” Les langues de France. Ed. Bernard Cerquilini. Paris :
PUF, 2003. 117 – 123.
Stich, Dominique. Parlons francoprovençal: Une langue méconnue. PКrТs : L’HКrmКttКn,
1998.
——— Dictionnaire francoprovençal/français, français/francoprovençal. Dictionnaire
des mots de base du francoprovençal. Orthographe ORB supradialectale
standardisée. Thonon-les-Bains: Le Carré, 2003.
Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. “L'enjeu de la nomination des langues. Présentation.” Le nom des
langues. L'enjeu de la nomination des langues, vol. 1. Ed. Andrée Tabouret-Keller.
Louvain : Peeters, 1997. 5 – 21.
Toso, Fiorenzo. Lingue d'Europa. La pluralità linguistica dei Paesi europei fra passato e
presente. Dalai Editore, 2006.
Tuaillon, Gaston. Francoprovençal, progrès d’une définition. Aoste : Duc, 1983.
——— “Survivances du patois savoyard.” Bulletin du Centre d’Etudes francoprovençales
« René Willien » (1991) : 52-65.
——— La littérature en francoprovençal avant 1700. Grenoble ELLUG, 2001.
——— Le francoprovençal, tome premier. Définition et délimitation. Phénomènes
remarquables. [VКllцe d’Aoste]: MusulecТ цdТteur, 2007 (К).
——— “LК puЛlТcКtТon du lТvre ‘Le frКncoprovenхКl.’” Nouvelles du Centre d’Etudes
francoprovençales « René Willien », no 56 (2007): 6 – 16. ( b)
——— “Pourquoi un Atlas régional ?” L'atlas des patois valdôtains : état des travaux
1978. Eds. Schüle Ernest, Tuaillon Gaston, Telmon Tullio, Schüle Rose-Claire.
[Aosta]: [Musumeci], 1978. 7 – 38.
vКn DТjk, Teun A. “Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & Society, 4 2
(1993) : 249-283. WEB
(http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Principles%20of%20critical%20discourse%
20analysis.pdf) 1 March 2016
——— “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Eds. D. Tannen,
D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. 352-371. WEB
(http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf ) 1
March 2016.
297
Vakhtin, Nikolay. Jaziki narodov Severa v XX veke : ocerki jazikovogo sdviga. Saint
Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2001(a).
——— “JКгТkovКjК smert’” v funktsТonКl’nom aspekte: osobennosti functsionirovanija
markovskogo govora.” Trudi faculteta etnologii, vol. 1. Saint Petersburg: European
University, 2001. 272-291. (b).
von Wartburg, Walter. Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Basel, 1922 ss.
Weinreich, Uriel. “Is К structurКl dТКlectologв possТЛle?” Readings in the sociology of
language. Ed. Joshua A. Fishman. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1972. 305 – 319.
[Reprinted from World, 14 (1954): 388 – 400].
Wolfram, Walt. “Black children are verbally deprived. ” Language Myths. Eds. Laurie
Bauer & Peter Trudgill. London: Penguin, 1998. 103-112.
Legal documents
Charter 2015. La Charte de coopération interrégionale et transfrontalière de
développement de la langue francoprovençale, signée par les régions Rhône-Alpes et
la Vallée d’Aoste le 28 mai 2015. WEB (http://www.centre-etudesfrancoprovencales.eu/cef/allegati/charte-de-la-langue-francoprovencale_733.pdf). 3
February 2016.
Constitution de la République française. WEB
(http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/constitution/constitution.htm). 1 May 2016.
Deliberation 2009. Rapport n° 09.11.450 Reconnaître, valoriser, promouvoir l'occitan et le
franco-provençal, langues régionales de Rhône-Alpes. WEB
(http://www.rhonealpes.fr/include/viewFile.php?idtf=5066&path=48%2FWEB_CHE
MIN_5066_1255705034.pdf). 3 February 2016.
European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages. WEB
(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/textcharter/default_en.asp). 1 May
2016.
Law 482/1999. Legge 482-99 "Norme in materia di tutela delle minoranze linguistiche
storiche": WEB (http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/99482l.htm). 1 February 2014.
298
Appendices
Appendix 1. List of Figures
Figure 1. The Francoprovençal linguistic area
Figure 2. Map of fieldwork sites (Places where recorded interviews or substantial informal
conversations reported in the field journal were held are indicated.)
Figure 3. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Aosta Valley
Figure 4. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Savoie
Figure 5. Fragment: fieldwork sites in the Haute-Savoie and Switzerland
Figure 6. Francoprovençal in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 28)
Figure 7. Occitan in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 29)
Figure 8. Walser in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 27)
Figure 9. French in Piedmont (based on Allasino et al. 2007: 30)
Figure 10. “Welcome to tСe ‘Francoprovençal’ Valleys.” RoКd sТgn Тn PТedmont (ItКlв).
Figure 11. The flag of Harpitanya (Arpitania)
Figure 12. LuТs de JКrТot “VКl d’AoСtК 1970…” Тn Li canson de nohtro peplo (undated,
around mid-1970s)
Figure 13. The front cover of La lingua arpitana (1976)
Figure 14. The Arpitan flag (2000s)
Figure 15. Reinterpreting history: tСe SКvoв dвnКstв Кs ArpТtКn’s neа mвtСologТcКl
ancestors vs. the Savoy dynasty as the enemy in the past, as celebrated in the Republic and
Canton of Geneva
Figure 16. Geographical distribution of Francoprovençal: mountains (diffuse settings) vs.
lowlands (focused settings)
Figure 17. The advertising of 2015-2016 courses in patois by the regional administration of
the Valle d’Aosta. A neа speКker’s neа ТmКge: tСe вoung urЛКn mТddle clКss of ЛotС seбes
from various ethnic backgrounds
Figures 18 and 19. Elements of stage design of the play Aosta por no (Erde, Switzerland, A
Cobva theatre group)
299
Figures 20 and 21. Welcome in Francoprovençal at a hotel for the International Fest of
Francoprovençal. “[Тn Francoprovençal] Hello everyone, here at the Tour d’Yvoire you can
feel at home and the host wishes you good night. [In French] here at the Tour you can feel
at home.”
Appendix 2. List of Tables
TКЛle 1. “MТnorТtв lКnguКges” Тn PТedmont folloаТng tСe LКа 482/1999. BКsed on fТgures
in Allasino et al. (2007: 31)
Table 2. Language situation in France in the late 18th century
TКЛle 3. From К “lТnguТstТc tвpe” to К “lКnguКge” Кnd К “nКtТon”
Table 4. The spontaneous diphthongization of the stressed vowel in open syllables
(according to Tuaillon 2007a: 18)
Table 5. The linguistic history: language of Oc vs. language of Oïl & Francoprovençal
(according to Tuaillon 2007a)
TКЛle 6. LКnguКge stКndКrdТгКtТon КccordТng to HКugen’s model (Haugen 1966: 933)
Table 7. Narrow vs. wide models of language construction
Table 8. Diffuse vs. focused Francoprovençal language use
300
Appendix 3. Résumé en langue française
Au titre de la production en français, nous proposons dans cette annexe un bref
résumé en français de la thèse, ainsi qu'une série d'articles publiés ou à paraître en français.
Les articles sont disposés en fonction de la structure de la thèse :
PREMIÈRE PARTIE. Du « type linguistique francoprovençal » à « la nation
arpitane » dans le discours des linguistes et des militants
A paraître, « ‘Le frКncoprovenхКl’ et ‘lК lКngue КrpТtКne’ : aux origines des
dТvТsТons concurrentes de l’espКce lТnguТstТque et socТopolТtТque », in E. Simonato, S.
Moret (éds.) Cinquante nuances du temps et de l’espace dans les théories linguistiques,
Cahiers de l’ILSL, Lausanne, 2016.
DEUXIÈME PARTIE. Modèles concurrents des divisions linguistiques,
sociopolitiques et culturelles
A
« BКptшmes
paraître,
d’une
lКngue
ou
un
peu
de
mКgТe
socТКle
(‘FrКncoprovenхКl’ - ‘ArpТtКn’ - ‘SКvoвКrd’) », in E. Velmezova (éd.) Cahiers de l’ILSL,
Lausanne, 2016.
2013 : « Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou ennemi de son
oЛjet d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl) », in C. Alén Garabato (éd.)
Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle, Limoges : LambertLucas. Pp. 291 – 302.
TROISIÈME PARTIE. Le francoprovençal comme pratique sociale
2014 : LК “mort” des lКngues et les “nцo-locuteurs” : le cКs de “l’КrpТtКn” en Suisse.
In Romain Colonna (ed.), Les locuteurs et les langues : pouvoirs, non-pouvoirs, contrepouvoirs, 243 – 253. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas.
2015 : Le frКncoprovenхКl entre lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe : lКngue dТffuse,
langue
focalisée
et
enjeux
de
normalisation.
Nouvelles
du
Centre
d’Études
Francoprovençales René Willien, 71 2015. 7 – 24. http://www.centre-etudesfrancoprovencales.eu/cef/bollettini/nouvelles-centre-71-2015-1080.pdf?r=0.636428180352
301
A paraître, « Le francoprovençal comme pratique sociale : Quels enjeux
d’aménagement linguistique en 2016 ? », in Transmission, revitalisation et normalisation,
actes de la conférence annuelle sur l’activité scientifique du centre d’études
francoprovençales, Saint-Nicolas, le 7 novembre 2015. RцgТon Кutonome VКllцe d’Aoste,
AssessorКt de l’цducКtТon et de lК culture, 2016. 85 – 94.
Sans présenter la totalité des résultats de recherche de doctorat, cette sélection
permet nцКnmoТns d’КvoТr un Кperхu gцnцrКl des proЛlцmКtТques trКТtцes dКns lК tСчse.
Communautés transfrontalières et émergence de "nouvelles"
langues : des patois francoprovençaux à l arpitan et à l Arpitania
LК tСчse porte sur les processus d’цmergence de nouvelles langues et des
communautés transfrontalières proto-nКtТonКles fondцes sur ces lКngues dКns l’Europe
occТdentКle d’Кujourd’СuТ. L’КnКlвse se centre sur le frКncoprovenхКl (ou КrpТtКn), pКrlц
entre lК FrКnce, l’ItКlТe et lК SuТsse : dans « l’espКce Кutour du Mont Blanc », ainsi que
l’ТdentТfТent ses locuteurs euб-mшmes. EpТstцmologТquement, Тl s’КgТt de lК dernТчre-née
des langues gallo-romКnes, quТ vТent s’Кjouter р l’opposТtТon trКdТtТonnelle lКngue d’oc vs.
lКngue d’oэl, et quТ est en trКТn d’шtre reconnue comme lКngue р pКrt entТчre dКns les
législations régionales, nationales et européenne.
Conхue Кu croТsement de lК socТolТnguТstТque et l’КntСropologТe, lК tСчse prТvТlцgТe
les КpprocСes de l’КnКlвse crТtique du discours et celles des études sur le nationalisme. La
mцtСode etСnogrКpСТque de l’oЛservКtТon pКrtТcТpКnte (le vцcu dКns les troТs pКвs de lК
zone francoprovençale) a été complétée par 60 entretiens КpprofondТs d’une durцe de 1 р
3h et un corpus des textes écrits (manifestes, blogs etc.)
L’цtude met en цvТdence un fossé entre les pratiques communicatives quotidiennes,
Кvec les sens socТКuб quТ leur sont КttrТЛuцs, et l’ТdцologТe lТnguТstТque et polТtТque.
302
La première partie de la thèse aborde la proЛlцmКtТque de l’цmergence de lК notТon
du « francoprovençal », et ensuite de « la langue arpitane », dans une perspective
СТstorТque. Il s’КgТt d’КnКlвser troТs grКndes pцrТodes de ce processus:
-
Les
années
1870
et
la
première
identification
du
« type
linguistique francoprovençal » par le linguiste Ascoli dans le contexte de
l’UnТtц de l’ItКlТe, proclКmцe et en trКТn d’шtre ТnstКurцe, et Кu lendemКТn de
l’КnneбТon de lК SКvoТe pКr lК FrКnce. SТmultКnцment, pour AscolТ, Тl s’КgТt de
crцer une nouvelle scТence de lКngКge qu’Тl К nommц « la glottologie ».
-
Les années 1970 quand, pour la première fois, le « type linguistique » défini par
Ascoli est interprété comme étant une langue à part entière, « la langue
arpitane », par un indépendentiste valdôtain Henriet, au lendemain de mai 1968.
HenrТet est р l’orТgТne des цtudes sur lК lКngue КrpТtКne que l’on peut quКlТfТer
de contre-science, de « linguistique de ressentiment ». L’eбТstence d’une lКngue
transfrontalière est alors utТlТsцe КfТn d’Кppuвer les tСцorТes du colonТКlТsme
ТntцrТeur, l’Тdцe de l’eбТstence d’une nКtТon (КrpТtКne) dТvТsцe entre troТs EtКts,
et d’un EtКt souverКТn potentТel Кutour du Mont BlКnc.
-
Enfin, les années 2010, où la prise de conscience des enjeux de « la mort des
langues »
au
niveau
européen
a
rendu
les
activités
autour
du
francoprovençal possibles, sur le plan idéologique et financier, et où cet idiome
est en train de devenir légalement une langue à part entière (dans les législations
européenne, nationales et régionales).
Il est démontré comment tout discours sur la langue, ainsi que sa réception, quelle
que soТt l’ТnstКnce quТ le produТt et le reçoit (académique ou militante), est informé par des
idéologies sociopolitiques et motivé par des enjeux politiques du moment.
La deuxième partie de la thèse analyse les modèles concurrents de la construction
lТnguТstТque et ТdentТtКТre quТ pКrtКgent le monde frКncoprovenхКl Кujourd’СuТ, en ce dцЛut
de XXIème siècle. Notamment, deux modèles sont distingués, nommés, par convenance,
modèle « large » (une langue et une communauté transfrontalières) et modèle « étroit » (du
pКtoТs du vТllКge р lК lКngue d’une rцgТon). Les descrТptТons lТnguТstТques, les dцЛКts
virulents sur le nom de la lКngue et sur l’ortСogrКpСe pКrtТcТpent, in fine, aux divisions de
l’espКce, lТnguТstТque, sociКl et polТtТque. Il s’КgТt, pКr КТlleurs, de nцgocТer dКns ces dцЛКts
quТ К le pouvoТr de se prononcer sur les lКngues en dКnger et de s’occuper de lК polТtТque
303
linguistique : la communauté scientifique ou les militants issus de la communauté
linguistique même.
La troisième partie de la thèse consТdчre lК lКngue non plus comme l’oЛjet de
dТscours et de polТtТque, mКТs comme l’ensemЛle de prКtТques socТКles. Il est dцmontrц
comment l’espКce frКncoprovenхКl comprend deuб sТtuКtТons lТnguТstТques dТffцrentes que
nous appelons « diffuse » et « focalisée » :
- La première, diffuse, est typique des régions de montagne des trois pays, où le
francoprovençal est parlé au quotidien, et où la fonction communicative prime sur toute
autre. Les frontТчres lТnguТstТques n’в sont pКs nettes pour les locuteurs, les différents
codes (francoprovençal, français, italien) formant un seul répertoire linguistique partagé
par la communauté ;
- La seconde, focalisée, est typique des zones moins élevées, notamment des
grКndes vТlles, où l’usКge du francoprovençal est limité aux fonctions symboliques. Les
limites linguistiques sont nettes pour les locuteurs, Кucune Тnterfцrence n’цtКnt КdmТse dКns
la production linguistique.
Dans ces deux types de contextes, les locuteurs ne partagent ni les biographies
linguistiques (moment et tвpe d’КpprentТssКge de lК lКngue), nТ les prКtТques lТnguТstТques,
ni les représentations autour de la langue. Par conséquent, ils ne partagent pas, non plus,
les ЛesoТns lТцs р lК lКngue. AussТ ces rцsultКts de l’enquшte peuvent-ils avoir des
implications importantes pour la politique linguistique, si celle-ci est éventuellement
fondцe sur lК dТversТtц des ЛesoТns rцels des locuteurs, et non pКs sur l’unТtц structurelle de
la langue.
Comme noté ci-dessus, dans cette annexe nous proposons une sélection des articles
écrits en langue française au cours du travail sur cette thèse (trois articles déjà publiés et
trois à paraître).
304
PREMIÈRE PARTIE. Du type linguistique francoprovençal » à
« la nation arpitane » dans le discours des linguistes et des militants
« Le francoprovençal » et « la langue arpitane » : aux origines des
divisions concurrentes de l espace linguistique et sociopolitique131
DКns cette contrТЛutТon Тl s’КgТrК de comprendre comment, р trКvers le temps, les
idées linguistiques ont servТ р ТnstКurer de nouvelles dТvТsТons de l’espКce, gцogrКpСТque
ainsi que culturel et sociopolitique, pourquoi, pour qui et dans quels buts. Les langues,
vues comme des entТtцs dцlТmТtцes et clКТrement cТrconscrТtes, et dont l’eбТstence est lТцe
dКns l’ТmКgТnКТre collectТf depuТs le romКntТsme р l’eбТstence des nКtТons, sont des moвens
de diviser le continuum du réel. Cette étude de cas portera sur la langue
« francoprovençale » ou « arpitane ». En effet, depuis quelques années on peut trouver sur
des cartes des langues européennes « la langue arpitane », située à la frontière entre la
SuТsse, lК FrКnce et l’ItКlТe : comme, pКr eбemple, sur les cКrtes puЛlТцes pКr l’EtСnologue
(https://www.ethnologue.com/language/frp, 27.04.2016, voir Images 1 et 2).
Image 1. « L’КrpТtКn » sur lК cКrte de lК FrКnce pКr l’Ethnologue, 2016.
131
La premТчre versТon de l’КrtТcle р pКrКьtre dКns : E. Simonato, S. Moret (éds.) Cinquante nuances du
temps et de l’espace dans les théories linguistiques. CКСТers de l’ILSL, Lausanne, 2016.
305
Image 2. « L’КrpТtКn » sur lК cКrte de lК SuТsse pКr l’Ethnologue, 2016.
L’eбТstence de cette lКngue Кmчne р ТmКgТner, pКr conséquent, une « minorité
linguistique arpitane » et une « Arpitania ».
Nous analyserons le discours métalinguistique lors de deux grandes périodes : celle
de la première identification parmi les idiomes romans du « type linguistique
francoprovençal » par le linguiste Ascoli dans les années 1870 et celle où pour la première
fois une unité linguistique a été interprétée comme une langue à part entière et, comme
telle, formant une nation, par un indépendentiste Henriet dans les années 1970. Pour
chaque période nous eбplorerons l’ТnterconneбТon des цlцments suТvКnts : le contexte
historique ; le discours sur la langue, les paradigmes scientifiques quТ l’informent et ses
enjeux sociopolitiques ; et lК dТvТsТon de l’espКce gцogrКpСТque et socТoculturel que lК
distinction linguistique sert à produire. Ascoli crée une nouvelle science du langage,
s’ТnscrТvКnt dКns une trКdТtТon КcКdцmТque ; Henriet crée une sorte de contre-science, la
lТnguТstТque populКТre que l’on peut quКlТfТer de « linguistique de ressentiment » (en
empruntant le terme de P. Sériot, cf. Sériot et al. 2008). Ces deux modèles existent encore
Кujourd’СuТ, l’Кffrontement de leurs Кdeptes crцКnt des conflТts КussТ vТolent que
superfТcТels (superfТcТels pКrce qu’Тls ne portent Кu nТveКu dТscursТf que sur les apparences,
306
notamment sur le nom de la langue ou sa graphie132, Кlors qu’une lКngue, pour шtre pКrlцe,
n’К ЛesoТn nТ de l’un, nТ de l’Кutre ; et qu’Тls cКcСent des conflТts plus profonds de nКture
eбtrКlТnguТstТque).
Le
premТer
suppose
Кujourd’СuТ
l’eбТstence
d’une
unТtц
francoprovençale rassemblant les divers « patois de village », vus comme restreints aux
villages respectifs et incompréhensibles
au-delà de quelques kilomètres de distance.
PКrtКnt d’une trКdТtТon dТКlectologТque, cette КpprocСe met en avant les différences
lТnguТstТques. Le second suppose Кujourd’СuТ l’eбТstence d’une lКngue trКnsfrontКlТчre
КrpТtКne, engloЛКnt le domКТne frКncoprovenхКl de lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe. Issue
d’une trКdТtТon mТlТtКnte vТsКnt les peuples opprТmцs et dénonçant le colonialisme intérieur,
cette КpprocСe met en КvКnt les trКТts lТnguТstТques communs de l’ensemЛle. D’СКЛТtude, le
premier est vu comme « neutre » et le second comme « motivé politiquement ».
Cependant, comme nous le verrons, tout discours sur lК lКngue, quelle que soТt l’ТnstКnce
qui le produit, est motivée par des idéologies linguistiques et sociopolitiques.
L’СТstoТre de ces courКnts reste lКrgement mцconnue. Aucune цtude n’К consТdцrц
l’цmergence de lК notТon du frКncoprovenхКl dКns le contexte sociopolitique respectif
(l’ItКlТe le lendemКТn de son UnТtц) ; Кucune цtude n’К цtц fКТte sur le mouvement
HКrpТtКnвК d’HenrТet, Кvec lК seule eбceptТon du documentКТre de CС. Dunoвer (2012). SТ
les documents sur le premier sont existants et accessibles, il est bien plus problématique de
trouver ceux sur le second. Or, pour ce qui concerne la seconde période, cette étude est
basée sur les interviews et les rencontres informelles que nous avons menées entre 2014 et
2016 avec le fondateur et les membres du mouvement Harpitanya et les documents de
l’цpoque (des Кnnцes 1970) quТ ont цtц mТs р notre dТsposТtТon pКr HenrТet luТ-même133.
EnfТn, l’цtude de ces deuб pцrТodes nous permettrК de comprendre lК rКТson pour lКquelle
ces deuб КpprocСes n’ont jКmКТs trouvé un point de contact, à savoir pourquoi une science
engagée et visant les aspects sociaux liés aux usages linguistiques n’К jКmКТs vu le jour
dКns le domКТne frКncoprovenхКl, Кlors que celК К цtц le cКs pour d’Кutres lКngues
mТnorТtКТres dКns les mшmes pКвs. Il convТent de soulТgner qu’Тl ne s’КgТt pКs ТcТ de
préférer une approche ou une autre, mais de comprendre comment cela se fait que les
цtudes du frКncoprovenхКl ont КТnsТ mКnquц l’цvolutТon que les цtudes des Кutres lКngues
minoritaires ont connue depuis un demi-siècle.
132
133
Sur le nom voir Bichurina, à paraître ; sur l’ortСogrКpСe voТr MКtthey et Meune 2012, Bichurina 2013.
Nous remercions aussi Ch. Dunoyer pour la mise à disposition de certains documents rares.
307
1. Les années 1870 : le franco-provençal
Le francoprovençal apparaît comme la dernière-née des langues gallo-romanes :
non pas du point de vue « ontologique » (de l’цvolutТon de lК lКngue), mКТs en tКnt que
partie délimitée et nommée du continuum linguistique. En 1874, le linguiste italien G. I.
AscolТ (AscolТ 1878 [1874]) propose d’Кjouter р lК dТstТnction classique langue d’oïl
(français) vs. langue d’oc (provençal) 134 , connue depuis le Moyen Age 135 , un « type
linguistique » de trКnsТtТon qu’Тl К nommц « franco-provençal » :
J'appelle franco-provençal un type linguistique qui rassemble, avec ses traits
spécТfТques, d’Кutres trКТts, quТ en pКrtТe sont communs Кvec le frКnхКТs, et en pКrtТe
avec le provençal, et qui ne vient pas d'un mélange tardif d'éléments différents,
mКТs Кtteste sК propre ТndцpendКnce СТstorТque quТ n’est guчre dТffцrente de celle
pour laquelle les autres types néo-latins se distinguent entre eux. (Ascoli 1878
[1874]: 61)136
Les paradigmes scientifiques qui informent ce discours sont ceux des sciences
naturelles, et notamment de la biologie de Charles Linné et Georges Louis Leclerc de
Buffon, et de lК gцogrКpСТe d’AleбКnder von HumЛoldt et CКrl RТtter (GoeЛl 2010: 148 –
149). Ainsi la méthode de “particolar combinazione” (“comЛТnКТson pКrtТculТчre” des
trКТts lТnguТstТques sцlectТonnцs comme dТstТnctТfs) qu’AscolТ utТlТse pour lК dцlТmТtКtТon du
frКncoprovenхКl correspond р “synchorische Vereinigung” (“comЛТnКТson sвncСronТque”
des attributs géographiques sélectionnés) de Ritter. Comme pour celui-là, « dans la pensée
d’AscolТ lК constructТon ТnductТve du tвpe цtКТt toujours quКntТtКtТve et КvКТt une structure
finement graduée » (Goebl 2010: 151). 137 En effet, AscolТ est connu comme l’un des
premТers cСercСeurs р цnoncer l’Тdцe de contТnuum lТnguТstТque (RenгТ 1992 : 64). Dans ce
conteбte, le nom qu’Тl К donnц Кu nouvel ensemЛle lТnguТstТque pouvКТt servТr р soulТgner
l’Тdцe d’un contТnuum : le francoprovençal est une combinaison particulière des traits du
134
Le nom provençal цtКТt utТlТsц р l’цpoque pour l’ensemЛle du domКТne d’oc.
135
Dante en parle notamment dans De vulgari eloquentia, vers 1303-1304.
“CСТКmo frКnco-provenzale un tipo idiomatico, il quale insieme riunisce, con alcuni suoi caratteri
specifici, più altri caratteri, che parte son comuni al francese, parte lo sono al provenzale, e non proviene già
da una tarda confluenza di elementi diversi, ma bensì attesta la sua propria indipendenza istorica, non guari
dissimile da quella per cui tra di loro si distinguono gli altri principali tipi neo-lКtТnТ.”
136
“Nel pensТero dell’AscolТ Тl costrutto ТnduttТvo del tТpo erК sempre di stampo quantitativo e disponeva di
unК strutturК fТnemente grКduКtК.”
137
308
français et de ceux du provençal, sans pour autant être un mélange tardif de ces deux
langues, mais un type linguistique à part entière.
Les pКrКdТgmes socТopolТtТques
quТ Тnforment le dТscours d’AscolТ Кutour du
« francoprovençal » sont complexes et méritent une analyse détaillée. Une grande partie du
domКТne connu Кujourd’СuТ comme frКncoprovenхКl se trouvКТt, depuТs le Moвen Âge,
sous le règne des États de Savoie ; en 1860, une partie a été annexée par la France où elle
est devenue dцpКrtements de SКvoТe et HКute SКvoТe, et une Кutre (lК VКllцe d’Aoste et les
vКllцes frКncoprovenхКles du PТцmont) К Тntцgrц l’Кnnцe suТvКnte le RoвКume d’ItКlТe. Plus
important pour Ascoli même, en tant que linguiste italien, est qu’en 1861 l’UnТtц d’ItКlТe К
été déclarée, achevée symboliquement en 1871 lorsque Rome est devenu sa capitale (le
terrТtoТre Кctuel de l’ItКlТe dКtКnt de lК fТn de lК PremТчre guerre mondТКle). Le fameux
КpСorТsme de l’цpoque, КttrТЛuц р Massimo D'Azeglio ou à Cavour, disait: “Nous avons
fait l’Italie, maintenant nous devons faire les Italiens” (“Abbiamo fatto l'Italia, ora
dobbiamo fare gli italiani”). Or, selon le model romantique « une langue – une nation »,
pour faire les Italiens il fallait faire la langue italienne. C’est dКns ce conteбte polТtТque
qu’AscolТ puЛlТe, en 1873, son Archivio glottologico italiano (AGI, Archive
glottologique138 italien) où il identifiera le francoprovençal.
AscolТ commence le PrцfКce р l’AGI en ТnsТstКnt sur le fКТt que les débats
lТnguТstТques dКns le nouveКu RoвКume d’ItКlТe sont essentТellement polТtТques: Тls
concernent « toute Кutre cСose que l’СТstoТre ou lК pСТlosopСТe de lК lКngue. Il s’КgТt d’un
intérêt national, grand et pratique » (Ascoli 2008 [1873]: 10). 139 Au lieu du modèle
frКnхКТs, proposц dКns le dТscours offТcТel de l’цpoque, où une lКngue serКТt Тmposцe Кu
dцpens des Кutres (en l’occurrence, le pКrler moderne des mТlТeuб cultТvцs de Florence Кu
dépens des autres « dialectes » d’ItКlТe) 140, Ascoli propose le modчle de l’AllemКgne quТ,
« malgré la variété infinie de ses dialectes, possède la plus solide et la plus puissante unité
« Glottologie » est le nom qu’AscolТ К donnц р une nouvelle scТence qu’Тl crцКТt Кvec l’AGI et quТ devКТt
s’occuper des цtudes lТnguТstТques : une traduction du terme allemand (Allgemeine) Sprachwissenschaft, qui a
ensuite été traduit par F. de Saussure comme Linguistique générale (avec la racine latine, au lieu de celle
grecque préférée par Ascoli).
138
“Лen Кltro e tutt’Кltro cСe non sТК lК storТК o lК fТlosofТК dellК lТnguК. Si tratta di un interesse nazionale,
grКnde e prКtТco…”
139
Cf. le rКpport d’AlessКndro MКnгonТ, prцsТdent d’une commТssТon lТnguТstТque Кuprчs du MТnТstчre de
l’цducКtТon populКТre, “Dell’unità della lingua e dei mezzi di diffonderla” (« De l’unité de la langue et des
moyens de la diffuser »), in La Perseveranza du 5 mars 1868, et in Nuova Antologia, VII, pp. 425-441.
140
309
du langage qui ait jamais résonné sur la terre » (Op. cit.: 14)141. NotКmment, Тl s’КgТt pour
luТ d’ТnstКurer en ItКlТe ce que l’on КppellerКТt Кujourd’СuТ lК dТglossТe : la langue nationale
comme variété « haute » (qui serait celle de Dante, de la même manière que celle de
Luther a créé, selon lui, la nation allemande : pКr droТt de cСef d’œuvre, et КussТ grсce р
l’ТmportКnce relТgТeuse des deuб œuvres) et les dТКlectes comme vКrТцtцs « basses ». Cela
permettrКТt de crцer un nouvel espКce nКtТonКl quТ serКТt l’espКce de lК pensцe :
l’orgКne de l’цcСКnge n’est pКs toujours nцcessКТrement lК glotte ; il pourrait aussi
être le stylo si l’on sКТt цcrТre ; et quand des millions des cerveaux agitent ou ont
КgТtц le stвlo lКЛorТeuб, l’цcСКnge devТent sТ rКpТde, compleбe, noЛle et effТcКce …
que de l’КgglomцrКtТon ou l’КssocТКtТon des Сommes entre quТ l’цcСКnge se produТt
peut naître, pas à pas, une rцgТon de pensцe (quТ n’est pКs une rцgТon КrtТfТcТelle).
(Op. cit.: 16) 142
Ainsi une nouvelle langue nationale, italienne, servirait aux échanges intellectuels,
par écrit, tandis que les dialectes resteraient pour les usages familiers. Or, une région dans
lК гone frontКlТчre du RoвКume d’ItКlТe ne rentrКТt pКs dКns ce modчle : la langue de la
VКllцe d’Aoste цtКТt le frКnхКТs, une Кutre « langue de culture », rТvКle р l’ТtКlТen. DКns ce
conteбte trКvКТller sur les ТdТomes de lК VКllцe d’Aoste et Кnnoncer que ce n’est pКs du
français, mais du « francoprovençal » équivalait à rendre cette région compatible avec la
norme ТtКlТenne, où l’on pКrlerКТt « un dialecte » comme tout autre, et où la langue italienne
pourrait remplir les fonctions de la variété « haute ». Dans ce sens, paradoxalement au
premier égard, la définition du « francoprovençal » pouvait servir à créer un territoire
national italien : à savoir,
une « région de pensée » aux frontières géopolitiques du
RoвКume d’ItКlТe.
La notion du « francoprovençal » est tout de suТte crТtТquцe de l’Кutre côtц des
Alpes. En FrКnce, lК SКvoТe venКТt d’шtre Кnneбцe sous prцteбte justement de ses prКtТques
francophones ; pКr КТlleurs, lorsque l’КrtТcle d’AscolТ est sortТ, lК FrКnce venКТt de perdre
l’AlsКce et lК LorrКТne sous prцteбte de leurs prКtТques germКnopСones. DТre dКns ces
“possТede, mКlgrКdo l’ТnfТnТtК vКrТetр de’ suoТ dТКlettТ, lК pТù sКldК e potente unТtр dТ lТnguКggТo cСe КЛЛТК
mКТ rТsonКto sullК terrК”
141
“l’orgКno dello scКmЛТo non ч sempre necessКrТo cСe sТК lК glottТde; può КncСe essere lК
pennК, purcСц sТ sКppТК scrТvere …; e quКndo mТlТonТ dТ mentТ КgТtКno o СКnno КgТtКto lК pennК
operosК, lo scКmЛТo sТ fК cosы rКpТdo, complesso, noЛТle ed effТcКce … cСe l’КgglomerКгТone o
associazione di uomini, tra cui lo scambio avviene, può innalzarsi di fase in fase nella regione
del pensiero (cСe non ч poТ unК regТone КrtТfТcТКle).”
142
310
condТtТons que lК lКngue de SКvoТe n’цtКТt pКs frКnхКТse цtКТt ТnКcceptКЛle pour le pouvoТr
central. Les enjeux politiques français ont provoqué une critique des trКvКuб d’AscolТ pКr
l’цlТte Тntellectuelle pКrТsТenne, dont notКmment PКul Meвer (Meyer 1875), professeur à
l’лcole des CСКrtes et цdТteur de lК revue Romania, qui se montre contraire à la distinction
des dialectes au sein du continuum roman. Les débats ne concernent pas les traits
lТnguТstТques mшmes dТstТnguцs pКr AscolТ, mКТs ЛТen une nouvelle dТvТsТon de l’espКce que
l’ТmportКnce КttrТЛuцe р ces trКТts ТmplТquerКТt. De son côté, Ascoli remarque :
Pour ce qui est de la géographie, M. Meyer dit que dans mon cКs “le groupe n’offre
Кucune unТtц gцogrКpСТque”; КТnsТ Тl lКТsse croТre qu’Тl voudrКТt joТndre КussТ le
mКnque de l’unТtц polТtТque; ce quТ, pour le reste, comme cСКcun peut le voТr, serКТt
vrКТ, sКuf que c’est une vцrТtц quТ dКns notre cКs n’К vrКiment aucune importance.
(Ascoli 1876: 390-391)143
SТ une цventuelle unТtц polТtТque de ce nouvel espКce n’КvКТt « aucune importance »
pour Ascoli, elle en avait sûrement pour ses adversaires. Ascoli remarque, par ailleurs :
Il n'est, peut-être, pas superflu de remarquer comment la pauvre découverte du
« franco-provençal » К reхu cette ЛТгКrre vКrТцtц de jugements … LК FrКnce
méridionale m’К rцcompensц pКr une mцdКТlle d'or, tКndТs que de lК FrКnce du Nord
me vient une accusation, qui tourne un peu convulsivement autour de soi-même
pour se déterminer dans une curieuse phrase négative : « qu’Тl ne serКТt guчre utТle
que la thèse soit démontrée ». (Ascoli 1876: 394) 144
En effet, en 1875 AscolТ К reхu une mцdКТlle d’or de lК SocТцtц des LКngues
Romanes de Montpellier pour son article sur le francoprovençal. Pour les chercheurs de
MontpellТer trКvКТllКnt sur l’occТtКn, cette mцdКТlle К eu lК fonctТon sвmЛolТque de nцgocТer
en FrКnce l’eбТstence des lКngues Кutres que le frКnхКТs.
“…Тn quКnto К geogrКfТК, Тl sТgnor Meвer dТce proprТo cСe mКncСТ nel cКso mТo ognТ unità geografica (le
nouveКu groupe n’offre Кucune unТtц gцogrКpСТque); e quТndТ non lКscТК neppur luogo К credere cСe eglТ
volesse КllegКre lК mКncКnгК d’unТtр polТtТcК; Тl cСe, del resto, come ognun vede, se sКreЛЛe stКto cosК verК,
era però tal verità cСe nel cКso nostro non ТmportКvК nТente КffКtto.”
143
“Pure, non ч forse КffКtto superfluo Тl notКre, come lК poverК scovertК del « franco-provenzale » sia andata
Тncontro КncС’essК К quellК ЛТггКrrК vКrТetр dТ sentenгe … LК FrКncТК merТdТonКle me ne remerТtò con una
medКglТК d’oro; e dКllК FrКncТК del Nord me ne vТene un gТudТгТo, cСe sТ rТtorce un po’ convulsКmente Тn sè
medesimo, arrivando a determinarsi nella curiosa proposizione negativa : « che debba sin parere non gran
fatto utile che la tesi si dimostri » . ”
144
311
En Italie la notion du « francoprovençal » n’est pКs ЛТenvenue non plus, sКuf que lрbas les critiques viennent de la communauté linguistique même, ou, plus précisément, de
ses élites. Dчs l’UnТtц d’ItКlТe, les usКges du frКnхКТs ont servТ р l’цlТte polТtТque vКldôtКТne
pour légitimer lК revendТcКtТon d’un stКtut d’КutonomТe pour lК rцgТon, ou le ducСц, Кu
nТveКu polТtТque, цconomТque et fТscКl. Plus tКrd, le StКtut d’КutonomТe de lК VКllцe
d’Aoste de 1948 К eбplТcТtement цtц ЛКsц sur les prКtТques du frКnхКТs dКns lК rцgТon. DКns
ces conditions, dire que « le vrai » idiome de la Vallée est « le francoprovençal » et non
pas le français, était inacceptable : à la différence du français, le francoprovençal n’КvКТt
pКs d’лtКt derrТчre luТ quТ КurКТt pu revendТquer ce terrТtoТre (Кutrement dТt, pКs d’Кrmцe
non pas dans le fameux sens métaphorique, mais dans le sens directe), ni le prestige de la
lКngue frКnхКТse, nТ le stКtut de lКngue, donc lК rцgТon pouvКТt perdre ses prТvТlчges. C’est
la raison pour laquelle ceux qui ont éventuellement commencé à utiliser la notion du
francoprovençal, vu désormais comme langue à part entière (contrairement à ce que
proposait Ascoli) et rebaptisé harpitan (puis arpitan), était les couches les plus défavorisées
de la population valdôtaine, opposés au pouvoir régional comme au pouvoir central : les
séparatistes.
2.
Les années 1970 : la langue arpitane
Il К fКllu Кttendre un sТчcle Кprчs l’КrtТcle d’AscolТ pour que les dТscussТons Кutour
du francoprovençal se renouvellent. En France, le climat intellectuel de l’цpoque s’est
cКrКctцrТsц pКr un ensemЛle d’цvцnements : la fin de la guerre en Algérie en 1962 ; les
manifestations étudiantes en mai 1968 ; le « choc de pétrole » de 1973 qui a marqué la fin
de lК pцrТode de l’eбpКnsТon цconomТque constКnte connue comme les « trente
glorieuses » ; lК guerre froТde et l’espoТr d’une rцvolutТon communТste en FrКnce (dont
deuб des troТs pКrtТs mКjeurs de l’цpoque цtКТent ceuб de gКucСe, PS et PC). On voТt Кlors
émerger en France un nouveau débat sur le « colonialisme intérieur »
145
et la
rцgТonКlТsКtТon, Кvec l’ТntensТfТcКtТon des tensТons cСeг certКТns groupes rцgТonКuб, tels
que les Basques, les Occitans, les Corses et les Bretons. Les débats qui surgissent en
France se répandent aussi en Italie. Comme en France, le début des années 1970 marque en
Italie la fin du « miracolo economico » (miracle économique) des années 1960, ce qui met
145
Cf. R. Lafont : La révolution régionaliste (1967), Sur la France (1968), Décoloniser en France : les
régions face à l’Europe (1971), etc. ; voir aussi Lagarde 2012.
312
en crТse les ТnstТtutТons d’лtКt. Le dТscours portКnt sur le « colonialisme intérieur » s’в
répand et « ‘les mТnorТtцs etСnТques’ devТennent р la mode » (Bétemps 1981).
C’est le moment où, dКns les цtudes des lКngues mТnorТtКТres, on voТt цmerger
l’КpprocСe quТ vТse р цtudТer les prКtТques lТnguТstТques dКns leur gloЛКlТtц, comme
pratiques sociales et parties intégrales des processus sociétaux contemporains : et non pas
unТquement sur le plКn structurel de lК lКngue, dКns l’eбpressТon des « derniers locuteurs »
devКnt le dТКlectologue (soulТgnons que dКns le domКТne КcКdцmТque Тl ne s’КgТt pКs
d’opposТtТon des deuб КpprocСes, mКТs de leur complцmentarité). Notamment, la
sociolinguistique dite occitano-catalane, périphérique, ou dels cercaires natius (des
chercheurs natifs) se développe, qui vise à étudier les rapports de pouvoir et de domination
dans la société (voir Lafont 1971, 1984, 1997 ; sur l’цmergence de cette КpprocСe et ses
racines sociopolitiques et socioculturelles cf. Lagarde 2012, Còsta 2016). Ces études visent
“non pКs tКnt reconquцrТr l’occТtКnopСonТe pour elle-même que libérer une parole
condamnée socialement” (Lafont 1971: 99, en faisant référence au fameux slogan de 1968:
Òme d’oc, as dreit a la paraula, parla! “Homme d’Oc, tu Кs droТt р lК pКrole, pКrle !”) Par
ailleurs, le chercheur est explicitement impliqué (« Le sociolinguiste occitan se trouve dans
lК nцcessТtц … d’КffТrmer son implication dénonciatrice dans le processus » [Lafont 1984 :
8]). RТen de semЛlКЛle n’К jamais émergé dans les études du francoprovençal.146
SТ l’on essКвe de sКvoТr pourquoТ, lК rцponse est proЛКЛlement р trouver en VКllцe
d’Aoste. En effet, comme dКns plusТeurs petТtes communКutцs, en VКllцe d’Aoste les élites
étaient un petit groupe composé des mêmes individus ayant plusieurs rôles dans la société.
Ainsi les mêmes personnes avaient le pouvoir législatif (le parti au pouvoir, le même
depuТs l’AutonomТe de lК RцgТon en 1946) ; le pouvoir exécutif chargé de la langue
(BREL, Bureau régional d’ethnologie et de linguistique), et цtКТent en tшte d’une
КssocТКtТon scТentТfТque trКvКТllКnt sur le frКncoprovenхКl et l’etСnologТe КlpТne (Centre
d’études francoprovençales René Willien), КТnsТ que, pКr eбemple, de l’Association
valdôtaine des archives sonores, de la Fédérachón Valdonténa di Téatro Populéro
(Fédération valdôtaine du théâtre populaire) etc. Or, les études des rapports de domination
dans la société ne pouvaient pas émerger là où les chercheurs incarnaient eux-mêmes le
pouvoir et la domination. Les études scientifiques sur le francoprovençales sont donc
restées limitées à la collecte des données sur les « patois » destinés à disparaître.
146
Pour une comparaison des paradigmes des études occitanes vs. francoprovençales cf. aussi Bichurina
2013.
313
SТmultКnцment, lК VКllцe d’Aoste цtКnt une des rцgТons les plus rТcСes de l’Europe 147, les
carrières académiques des chercheurs travaillant sur le francoprovençal en France étaient
liées aux élites valdôtaines148. Quant à la Suisse, plusieurs problèmes sociétaux existant
ailleurs dans le domaine francoprovençal y étaient simplement inexistants, les fermiers
suisses ayant toutes les possibilités de parler pour eux-mêmes.
Cependant, les idées « en l’КТr » sur le colonialisme intérieur et les rapports de
domination dans la société ont trouvé un sol fertile dans le domaine francoprovençal. Ne
pouvant pas être abordées par la communauté scientifique, elles ont été intériorisées par les
groupes dominés mêmes. Dès ce moment, à côté de la science officielle apparaît « la
linguistique de ressentiment » :
Les promoteurs de ce qu'on peut appeler une linguistique du ressentiment se sentent
rejetés par la « science officielle », ce qui renforce en eux la théorie du complot du
silence et le sentiment que, si leurs idées sont repoussées, c'est la preuve qu'elles
sont vraies. (Sériot et al. 2008 : 151)
En effet, en ce moment-là des groupes militants s’Тntцressent Кu francoprovençal.
En France le Mouvement Région Savoie créé en 1972 parle de « la langue savoyarde »
dКns le cКdre des revendТcКtТons de lК crцКtТon d’une rцgТon SКvoТe, regroupКnt les
départements de lК SКvoТe et de l’HКute-SКvoТe, que l’eбТstence de cette lКngue pourrКТt
légitimer davantage (lК lКngue n’К pourtКnt jКmКТs цtц Кu centre de ses revendТcКtТons). 149
PourtКnt, l’ТnnovКtТon mКjeure КppКrКьt de l’Кutre côtц des Alpes Кvec la notion de « la
langue arpitane », un Кutre nom pour se rцfцrer р l’ensemЛle du domКТne frКncoprovenхКl.
DКns ces mouvements des Кnnцes 1970, pour lК premТчre foТs, l’Тdцe d’une unТtц
linguistique francoprovençale a été utilisée afin de revendiquer pour ces parlers le statut
d’une lКngue р pКrt entТчre. Ces revendТcКtТons lТnguТstТques s’КccompКgnКТent de
revendТcКtТons de droТts polТtТques d’Кuto-détermination pour les membres de la
communКutц lТnguТstТque que l’eбТstence de cette lКngue devКТt lцgТtТmer. Les enjeuб de
PКr eбemple, dКns lК pцrТode plus rцcente, en 2007 le revenu moвen vКldôtКТn s’цlevКТt р 137%, sТ l’on
prend la moyenne européenne pour 100% (Decimo, Vernetto 2007: 22).
147
148
Ainsi la majorité des publications de G. Tuaillon, le chercheur français le plus éminent qui a travaillé sur
le frКncoprovenхКl, ont цtц ТmprТmцs en VDA, Кvec l’КТde fТnКncТчre, logТstТque et Тntellectuelle (mТse р
disposition du personnel) de la Région.
149
Soulignons que les expressions « le savoyard » ou « le langage savoyard » (mais pas « la langue
savoyarde ») avaient été utilisées bien auparavant, y compris en dehors des départements actuels de la Savoie
et Haute Savoie.
314
nouveaux baptêmes de la langue ont alors été la mise en lien des particularités linguistiques
avec les notions de nation, en reproduisant le modèle naturaliste romantique de la
construction des Etats-Nations européens : la langue savoyarde – les Savoyards – la
Savoie; la langue arpitane – les Arpitans – l’ArpТtКnТe. Seulement, le terme « langue
savoyarde », qui légitimerait la Savoie unie, visait le territoire limité géographiquement par
les deux départements savoyards, tandis que « la langue arpitane » vТsКТt l’ensemЛle du
domaine francoprovençal, en insistant surtout sur les régions alpines autour du Mont
Blanc : lК VКllцe d’Aoste, lК SКvoТe et le VКlКТs.150
Le nouveau discours sur le francoprovençal qui цmerge en VКllцe d’Aoste en 1973
est produit par Joseph Henriet (signé aussi Jozé Harriet, Harrieta ou Edur-Kar). Inspiré
d’КЛord pКr le mouvement sцpКrКtТste dКns le JurК suТsse où HenrТet КvКТt trКvКТllц comme
ТnstТtuteur Кu dцЛut des Кnnцes 1970, Тl se dцfТnТt grсce р l’КmТtТц d’HenrТet Кvec Federico
Sagredo (connu aussi sous les noms de Krutwig, De Sagredo, Fernando Sarrailh de
l’IСКrtгК, SerКТlС ou Arno de MКndТgurТ), leКder de l’ETA quТ К pКssц une Кnnцe р se
cКcСer des КutorТtцs ТnternКtТonКles en VКllцe d’Aoste. Comme l’Кvoue HenrТet : « Il m’К,
sТ tu veuб, ТllumТnц, Тl m’К prшtц des Кrguments pour ЛсtТr ce mouvement polТtТque quТ
devКТt s’occuper КussТ de lК lКngue ». Ces contactes ont donné naissance au Movement
Harpitanya et р une nouvelle tСцorТe de lК lКngue, eбposцe dКns une sцrТe d’Кrticles parus
entre 1973 et 1975 et, dans sa version complète, dans le livre La lingua arpitana (Harrieta
1976).
Sur lК cКrte ТmprТmцe sur lК couverture d’un lТvre de SКgredo, portant sur le
colonialisme intérieur à combattre et une nouvelle Europe à construire, on voit émerger
pour la première fois un nouvel espace géopolitique : « Harpitanya ».
En effet, les cКrtes dТКlectologТques de l’ensemЛle du domКТne frКncoprovenхКl цtКТent р l’цpoque
inexistantes ; sТmultКnцment les цcСКnges rцgulТers eбТstКТent entre lК VКllцe d’Aoste, lК SКvoТe et le VКlКТs,
mettant en évidence la similitude des pratiques linguistiques et culturelles des trois régions (ces échanges se
faisaient en « patois »).
150
315
Harpitanya (« Harp. ») dans la nouvelle Europe selon Sagredo. Fragment de
couverture de : Sagredo de Ihartza, Heiko, La Vasconie et l’Europe nouvelle, 1976.
Le Mouvement Harpitanya était structuré, selon le modèle basque, comme une
orgКnТsКtТon secrчte comprenКnt les noвКuб quТ s’Тgnorent entre euб, Кvec des СТцrКrcСТes
parallèles, et un petit centre fédéralisateur. Il comptait 300 membres (selon le chargé de
fédéralisation, communication personnelle) parmi les jeunes des couches les plus
défavorisées de population (paysans et ouvriers), avec un vaste réseau des contactes « de
Bastia à Belfast » (idem.) et en passant par les incontournables Pays basque et Jura suisse,
orgКnТsКnt des rencontres et des stКges communs р trКvers l’Europe. HКrpТtКnвК цtКТt
essentiellement contre :
Contre lК clКsse dТrТgeКnte de l’цpoque, contre le stКto-nationalisme, contre la
bourgeoisie valdôtaine considérée comme francophile et conservatrice, contre les
pКrtТs КutonomТstes Кu pouvoТr ТdentТfТцs comme l’eбpressТon de cette ЛourgeoТsТe,
contre le clergц Кccusц d’КvoТr trКСТ le people en КЛКndonnКnt lК lutte, contre les
pКrtТs nКtТonКuб, qu’Тls soТent de gКucСe ou de droТte, contre l’цlТtisme culturel et
social, contre le conservatisme de la classe au pouvoir, contre la colonisation
culturelle, lТnguТstТque, цconomТque, contre l’oppressТon du peuple entendu comme
classe dominée, prolétariat urbain et prolétariat des campagnes confondu, contre sa
dépersonnalisation. (Dunoyer 2012 : s.p.)
En цtКnt contre, les СКrpТtКnТstes “s’Тmposent Кvec lК sКuvКgerТe et l’ТmplКcКЛle
dцtermТnКtТon des opprТmцs, de ceuб quТ n’ont rТen р perdre” (ibid.). Des écritures
gigantesques anonymes apparaissent dans les nuits sur les rochers de la Vallée:
HARPITANВA, VAL D’AOHTA LIBRA (‘VКl d’Aoste lТЛre’), LIBERAБON
316
(‘lТЛцrКtТon’)… Le ЛКrde Сarpitaniste Luis de Jyaryot 151 devТent l’Тdole de lК jeunesse
valdôtaine (probablement bien au-delà des 300 membres du mouvement). Il est le
“trouЛКdour” d’une future rцvolutТon СКrpТtКne, comme Тl le cСКnte dКns une des cСКnsons,
sur les vers d’un Кuteur vКldôtКТn Кnonвme de 1942: “CСКque rцvolutТon // A eu son
trouЛКdour // Je suТs un trouЛКdour // J’Кttends mК rцvolutТon” (“Je rêve: 1942”, in Li
canson de nohtro peplo, “Les cСКnsons de notre peuple”). Son premТer КlЛum “La Noëla
Tradixon” (“LК nouvelle trКdТtТon”, 1978), Кvec un tТtre provocКteur mКrquКnt lК rupture
avec la façon de vivre traditionnelle, propose le panorama critique de tous les domaines de
vie de la société valdôtaine contemporaine : de la vie des agriculteurs à la politique, en
passant par les problèmes sociétaux, résultats des « trente Кns d’КutonomТe » (tТtre d’une
des chansons) ; de la corruption des partis politiques, des instruits qui font révérence aux
politiciens, et des terroristes, aux filles qui quittent leurs familles et sortent avec les
carabiniers – les thèmes abordés notamment dans la Canson droola, « La chanson
étrange », écrite pour Jyaryot par Henriet. Tout en faisant un portrait, verbalement violent,
de lК socТцtц de l’цpoque, Тl s’КgТt КussТ d’цtendre l’espКce socТКl de lК lКngue : vue
auparavant comme un patois lié à la vie agro-pastorale, elle est utilisée dans les domaines
liés à la vie essentiellement urbaine et moderne. Une autre chanson, écrite par Jyaryot,
parue dans son recueil Li canson de nohtro peplo, prédit :
151
Pseudonyme de Luigi Fosson
317
LuТs de JКrТot “VКl d’AoСtК 1970…” Тn Li canson de nohtro peplo (s.d., vers mi1970).
VКl d’Aoste 1970…
Les nouveaux Valdôtains sont nés
Et ils portent la nouvelle Parole
Ils ne font plus question de race
Ils ne disent plus : nous parlons patois.
Les nouveaux Valdôtains ont compris
Qu’Тls n’ont jКmКТs fКТt une etСnТe,
Qu’Тls n’ont jКmКТs цtц frКncopСones
Comme tant de gens ont voulu
Les faire croire pendant si longtemps.
MКТs Тls ont comprТs qu’Тls font pКrtТe
D’un tout quТ est plus grКnd qu’euб.
Quelqu’un l’Кppelle dцjр lК PКtrТe,
Pour nous Harpitanya est déjà là.
Les jours changent,
Les temps changent,
318
Et l’HКrpТtКnвК doТt redevenТr
Pour tous un seul pays,
Le premier pays européen.
Mais un jour les jeunes porteront
Sur leurs épaules une nouvelle croix
Et les couleurs du sang rouge
Et de la douleur la plus noire
Et ils auront trois étoiles
Plus blanches que la neige blanche
Symbole des trois régions
Qui tournent autour du Mont Blanc
Et ne peuvent pas se donner la main
Parce que pour des raisons internes
Deux Etats ont pensé ainsi
Pour qu’Тl soТt plus commode pour euб
D’в pouvoТr mettre leurs dents.
Ce jour-là nous serons finalement
Un peuple réuni
Avec sa langue
Avec ses lois,
Le premier peuple européen. 152
Stylistiquement entre la prophétie (la partie centrale à partir de « MКТs un jour… »)
et un récit mythologique (« les jours cСКngent, les temps cСКngent… »), mélangeant le
vocabulaire religieux (« portent la Parole », « porteront la croix », les étoiles rappelant
l’ApocКlвpse153 etc.) avec celui des contes populaires (rouge comme le sang, noire comme
la douleur, plus blanches que la neige), la chanson est une provocation, ne dénotant que
cela :
Le drКpeКu de l’Harpitanya (Arpitania)
152
Notre traduction, N.B.
153
« Sa tête et ses cheveux étaient blancs comme de la laine blanche, comme de la neige; ses yeux étaient
comme une flamme de feu; ses pieds étaient semblables à de l'airain ardent, comme s'il eût été embrasé dans
une fournaise; et sa voix était comme le bruit de grandes eaux. Il avait dans sa main droite sept étoiles. De sa
bouche sortait une épée aiguë, à deux tranchants; et son visage était comme le soleil lorsqu'il brille dans sa
force. » (Apocalypse 1:14 – 1:16)
319
Il s’КgТt du drКpeКu СКrpТtКnТste154 : drapeau d’un mouvement rцvolutТonnКТre quТ
est censц rompre Кvec toute trКdТtТon, qu’elle soТt ecclцsТКstТque, populКТre etc.
NotКmment, sur l’ТmКge sur lК pКge opposцe du recueТl des cСКnsons on voТt un VКldôtКТn
portant un costume traditionnel, avec un élément du blason de la région autonome de la
VКllцe d’Aoste, quТ est dцcrТt comme « mort de peur ». Plusieurs thématiques cruciales
pour le mouvement sont ici présentes, dont celle du français comme langue imposée et
l’СКrpТtКn comme lК « vraie langue » du peuple harpitan, et par ailleurs, une langue à part
entière et pas un « patois ». La structure parallèle « avec sa langue // avec ses lois » mets
en lТen le fКТt d’КvoТr sК lКngue Кvec le droТt d’КvoТr ses loТs. Le fКТt pour lК VКllцe d’Aoste
de ne pas constituer une etСnТe fКТt КllusТon р l’КrtТcle d’HenrТet pКru en 1974
intitulé “L’etСnТe vКldôtКТne n’К jКmКТs eбТstц… elle n'est que pКrtТe de l'etСnТe СКrpТtКne”
(Harriet 1974), qui annonce une rupture avec toute la pensée régionaliste valdôtaine.
L’espКce est donc redivisé : Кu lТeu de lК vТsТon d’une VКllцe d’Aoste (celle des цlТtes
autonomistes), celle-là est affirmée de faire partie « d’un tout plus grКnd ». La chanson
propose КТnsТ une nouvelle dТvТsТon de l’espКce gцogrКpСТque et polТtТque. Comme dКns le
cas de la plupart, sinon toutes les traditions inventées (dans le sens de Hobsbawm 1983,
voТre КussТ l’ТntТtulц du dТsc de JвКrвot « La nouvelle tradition »), cette nouvelle division
est prцsentцe comme prцeбТstКnte. AТnsТ Тl s’КgТt de « redevenir » un seul pКвs, d’un peuple
qui sera « réuni » : autrement dit, celui qui essentiellement, ontologiquement a toujours
existé comme un seul peuple et qui, pour cette raison, devait constituer une seule entité
polТtТque. Le fКТt de sцpКrer ce peuple est КttrТЛuц р l’Autre, р l’EnnemТ, en l’occurrence р
deuб puТssКnces nКtТonКles, l’ItКlТe et lК FrКnce. LК cСКnson fКТt sûrement КllusТon р
l’КnneбТon de lК SКvoТe pКr lК FrКnce en 1860 et l’entrцe de lК VКllцe d’Aoste dКns le
nouveКu RoвКume d’ItКlТe en 1861 ; cependant, en le fКТsКnt, Тl s’КgТt d’ouЛlТer qu’р
Кucune цpoque СТstorТque le terrТtoТre des EtКts de SКvoТe n’К coэncТdц Кvec le terrТtoТre
ЛКptТsц l’HКrpТtКnвК, et КussТ, КccessoТrement, que lК lКngue offТcТelle de cet Etat était le
français.
Sur la couverture du lТvre d’HenrТet La lingua arpitana (1976) nous voyons la
photo des pétroglyphes, qui suggère deux particularités de cette « lingua arpitana »: son
lien avec les montagnes, et avec les peuples préhistoriques.
HoЛsЛКаm soulТgne l’ТmportКnce des drКpeКuб ou des Свmnes: “TСe crucТКl element seems to СКve Лeen
the invention of emotionally and symbolically charged signs of club membership rather than the statutes and
objects of tСe cluЛ” (HoЛsЛКаm 1983: 11).
154
320
Couverture de : Harrieta, Joze, “La lingua arpitana” (1976)
EffectТvement, l’« Harpitanie » est définie comme « une vaste région autour du
Mont Blanc » (Harriet 1974 : 7). Le mot « harpitan » / « arpitan » 155 dérive, selon son
auteur Joseph Henriet, du prцТndoeuropцen HARPE ‘sous les rocСers’ + TAN ‘СКЛТtКnt’.
Simultanément, en francoprovençal la racine arp / alp désigne un pâturage dans les
montagnes. En empruntant le discours sur la langue basque, Henriet indique que ce nom
serКТt Тssu d’une « ancienne langue locale, langue pré-indoeuropéenne » (op. cit. : 8),
appelé le « garalditan » (Harrieta 1977 ; terme emprunté à Sagredo), qui serait un ancêtre
commun de l’СКrpТtКn et du ЛКsque. Ce constat est basé sur une comparaison des listes des
mots en harpitan et en basque : une similitude des signifiés et des signifiants est vue
comme suffisante pour en tirer des conclusions quant à la parenté des deux langues.
HenrТet prône l’unТfТcКtТon et lК modernТsКtТon de la langue. Sur le plan instrumental, la
langue СКrpТtКne цtКТt vue comme moвen d’Тmposer une ТdцologТe pКrtТculТчre:
Les révolutionnaires qui travaillent pour un monde de nouvelle démocratie, doivent
obligatoirement imaginer des systèmes linguistiques qui seront les piliers de
155
La « H » présente dans les premiers textes du mouvement dans les mots « harpitan » et « Harpitanya » et
omise depuis le livre de 1976, pour créer les formes « arpitan » et « Arpitania ». Ces dernières permettent une
identification plus facile avec la racine arp-/alp-, commune avec le mot « Alpes ».
321
l’organisation politique future … lК lКngue СКrpeТtКne devrК шtre une lКngue de
Nouvelle Démocratie. (Edur-Kar 1973: 28. EmpСКse dКns l’orТgТnКl)
De ces parlers [francoprovençaux] sortira la langue harpeitane qui sera le moyen
de libération du peuple harpeitan, et sa future langue, base de culture. La langue
harpeitane accompagnera la renationalisation et la repersonnalisation des harpeitans
et elle serК lК lКngue porteuse de l’ТdцologТe de lК lТЛцrКtТon de l’HКrpeТtКnТe. (Ibid.)
Autrement dТt, une unТtц lТnguТstТque ТmplТquerКТt une unТtц ТdцologТque (d’une
« région de pensée » pour reprendre l’eбpressТon d’AscolТ). BКsцe КТnsТ sur l’СвpotСчse de
la relativité linguistique 156 , que celle-cТ КТt цtц connue d’HenrТet dКns sК versТon
КcКdцmТque ou dКns un rцsumц, cette fonctТon de l’СКrpeТtКn fКТt КussТ penser р Newspeak
de George Orwell, une langue créée par un parti politique afin de contrôler les pensées des
cТtoвens et les rendre conformes р l’ТdцologТe du pКrtТ, en rendent tous les Кutres mКnТчres
de penser impensables.157
Henriet crée une koïnè ЛКsцe sur les pКrlers de lК BКsse VКllцe d’Aoste qu’Тl
propose d’Тmposer sur le reste du domКТne СКrpТtКn : la VКllцe d’Aoste est cСoТsТe en tКnt
que la région où la vitalité de la langue est la plus grande, tandis que les parlers de la Basse
Vallée en particulier sont choisis comme les plus archaïques des parlers valdôtains (leur
légitimité étant ainsi basée sur le fКТt d’шtre plus procСes р lК lКngue – garalditane ? –
d’orТgТne). QuКnt р lК modernТsКtТon, Тl utТlТse une mцtКpСore ЛТologТque du « métabolisme
linguistique » pour favoriser les emprunts aux autres langes. Dans ce contexte les
dТКlectologues quТ s’opposent à ces idées sont vus comme « des assassins déguisés en
docteurs » et « les pires ennemis de notre langue et aussi du peuple », puisque leur
comportement mènerait à la mort de la langue :
Les tСцorТcТens du mКТntТen du “pКrtТculКrТsme” de cСКque pКtois et qui se
présentent comme les défenseurs de notre langue, sont dans les faits des assassins
156
Cf. Sapir 1958: 69.
157
"The Principles of Newspeak", annexe au roman 1984:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and
mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc [English Socialism], but to make all other modes of
thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and
Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc –
should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. (George Orwell
1948: an appendix to 1984)
322
déguisés en docteurs : Тls s’opposent Кu mцtКЛolТsme essentТel pour lК vТe des
langues et ils sont, par conséquent, les pires ennemis de notre langue et aussi du
peuple quТ doТt s’en servТr. (HКrrТet 1975: 66-67)
Il s’КgТt ТcТ encore une foТs de lК dТvТsТon de l’espКce lТnguТstТque et polТtТque : les
pКtoТs de vТllКge, donc sКns pertТnence sur le plКn polТtТque (leurs eбТstence n’К pКs
d’ТmplТcКtТon pour les dТvТsions géopolitiques) vs. une langue transfrontalière, comme
consцquence l’eбТstence d’une nКtТon dТvТsцe et donc, lК redТvТsТon gцopolТtТque prцsentцe
comme légitime et indispensable pour rendre la justice sociale.
Selon un Valdôtain, l’ire la folìa, tcheu le dzovenno l’iran Arpitan (c’était la folie,
tous les jeunes étaient Arpitans). Très évidemment, un mouvement identifiant les élites
comme les ennemis et prônant la violence physique contre ces ennemis, ne pouvait pas être
accepté par les élites. Le traumatisme a créé une longue tradition scientifique où il est du
mauvais ton, sinon un tabou, de prononcer le mot « arpitan », mais aussi de parler du
frКncoprovenхКl comme d’une lКngue р pКrt entТчre, ou de tout effort de stКndКrdТsКtТon
que ce soТt pour un usКge de lК lКngue р l’orКl en puЛlТque, ou р l’цcrТt. Selon un
informateur valdôtain :
On est КrrТvц Кu moment où pКrler pКtoТs puЛlТquement c’цtКТt provocКteur, voТre
presque ТrrцdentТste. Presque ТndцpendКntТste. PКr contre, le frКnхКТs c’est toujours
mКrquц [comme] l’ТdentТtц vКldôtКТne, mКТs dКns le respect des rчgles, du
gouvernement, de la démocratie.
S’occuper des proЛlчmes socТцtКuб lТцs р l’usКge de lК lКngue est КussТ du mauvais
ton. C’est lК rКТson pour lКquelle toutes les tСцorТes d’une lТnguТstТque de ressentТment quТ
sont les seuls р en pКrler n’ont Кucuns concurrents savants.
Conclusion
Au début des années 2000, la large diffusion en Europe (et dans le monde) du
discours sur la diversité linguistique et la prise de conscience du danger de la perte des
langues (comme patrimoine immatériel, comme mémoire vivante de lК rцgТon, etc…),
vient légitimer les activités Кutours des lКngues mТnorТtКТres. Mшme s’Тl n’в К pКs de
continuité directe entre le mouvement arpitan actuel, culturel et linguistique, et celui des
323
Кnnцes 1970, les КrpТtКnТstes d’Кujourd’СuТ ont un dТscours métalinguistique largement
identique : lК nцcessТtц d’Кppeler lК lКngue « arpitan », de l’utТlТser dКns tous les domКТnes
de lК vТe moderne, d’КvoТr un stКndКrd ortСogrКpСТque… Et surtout, ce dТscours suppose lК
mшme dТvТsТon de l’espКce, en в fКТsКnt Кpparaître une communauté transfrontalière (le
domКТne КrpТtКn d’Кujourd’СuТ engloЛКnt tout l’espКce frКncoprovenхКl). D’КТlleurs, cette
dernière a désormais un hymne (créé en 2012) et un nouveau drapeau. La communauté
académique, quant à elle, y est hostile par vieille tradition, préférant de parler des « patois
(francoprovençaux) » de commune X ou Y. Comme à chaque époque, les propos sur la
lКngue mКsquent d’Кutres tвpes de conflТts (socТцtКuб et polТtТque). En effet, comme nous
avons vu, toute division du continuum du réel a toujours été motivée par des enjeux
socТopolТtТques pressКnts. SТmultКnцment, sТ l’on entendКТt lК lКngue comme prКtТque
sociale, on verrait que les deux idéologies représentent deux extrêmes, tandis que les
contКcts socТКuб (et donc lТnguТstТques) se font р d’Кutres nТveКuб : à des échelles bien plus
lКrges qu’un vТllКge, mКТs ЛТen plus цtroТts que le domКТne lТnguТstТque frКncoprovenхКl.
Références
ASCOLI Graziadio Isaia, 2008 [1873] : “Proemio”, in Ascoli G.I. Scritti sulla questione
della lingua, Torino: Giulio Einaudi editore, p. 3 – 44.
ASCOLI Graziadio Isaia, 1878 [1874] : Schizzi franco-provenzali, in Archivio glottologico
italiano 3 (1878), p. 61-120.
ASCOLI Graziadio Isaia, 1876 : Paul Meyer e il franco-provenzale, in Archivio
glottologico italiano 2, p. 385-395.
BÉTEMPS Alexis, 1981 : « A propos du dцЛКt lТnguТstТque en VКllцe d’Aoste », in Union
Valdotaine 17, no 1 1981, p. 26 – 30.
BICHURINA Natalia, à paraître : « BКptшmes d’une lКngue ou un peu de mКgТe
sociale (« Francoprovençal » - « Arpitan » - « Savoyard ») », in Cahiers de l’ILSL,
Lausanne.
BICHURINA Natalia, 2013 : « Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou
ennemi de son objet d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl) », in C.
324
Alén Garabato (éd.) Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle,
Limoges : Lambert-Lucas, p. 291 – 302.
CÒSTA Jaume, 2016 : « Seissanta ans de sociolingüistica occitana a la periferia: quin
avenir per la disciplina? » In Carmen ALÉN GARABATO, Ksenija DJORDJEVIC
LÉONARD, Patricia GARDIES, Alexia KIS-MARCK et Guy LOCHARD (Éds.)
Rencontres en sciences du langage et de la communication. Mélanges offerts à Henri
Boyer par ses collègues et amis. Paris : L’HКrmКttКn.
DECIME Rita et Gabriella VERNETTO (Éds.), 2007 : Profil de la politique linguistique
éducative, Vallée d’Aoste, Rapport régional, Assessorat de l'Éducation et de la
Culture. (tцlцcСКrgeКЛle sur le sТte du ConseТl de l’Europe :
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/aoste_rapport_regional_fr.pdf).
DUNOYER Christiane, 2012 : Harpitanya,la ferveurd’une idée (documentaire et livret).
RцgТon Кutonome VКllцe d’Aoste, AssessorКt de l’цducКtТon et de lК culture.
EDUR-KAR, 1973 : Edur Kar, Harpeitanya, [S.l.] : Edur-Kar ed.
GOEBL HКns, 2010: “La concezione ascoliana del ladino e del franco-provenzale, in Il
pensТero dТ GrКгТКdТo IsКТК AscolТ К cent’КnnТ dКllК scompКrsК”, in Atti del Convegno
internazionale (Gorizia-Udine, 3-5 maggio 2007), a cura di Carla Marcato e Federico
VТcКrТo, UdТne: SocТetр FТlologТcК FrТulКnК “GrКгТКdТo IsКТК AscolТ”, p. 147 – 176.
HARRIET José, 1974: « L'ethnie valdôtaine n'a jamais existé... elle n'est que partie de
l'ethnie harpitane », disponible sur Arpitania.eu [publié le 12 janvier 2007].
HARRIET J., 1975 : « Sur le “pКtoТs” et son processus pour devenТr une lКngue de culture
populaire : la langue valdôtaine », in Daudry (éd.) Ehtudio su la kuestion harpitanha,
Aoste : Musumeci, 1975, p. 65 – 67.
HARRIETA Joze, 1976: La lingua arpitana, Romano Canavese : Ferrero.
HARRIETA Joze, 1977: Il substrato garalditano. Contributo allo studio della toponimia
arpitana della Val d’Aosta, Verrès : Rigoli di Gerandin.
325
HOBSBAWM Eric, 1983 : “IntroductТon: InventТng TrКdТtТon”, in Hobsbawm, Eric and
Terence Ranger (eds.) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1-14.
JYARYOT Luis de, 1978 : “La Noëla Tradixon”, CвКmpoluek : kompanyà de la canson
popüleira.
JARIOT Luis de [s.d.]: Li canson de nohtro peplo, [S.l.] (vers mi-1970).
LAFONT Robert, 1971 : « Un problème de culpabilité sociologique : la diglossie francooccitane », Langue Française, 9, p. 93–99.
LAFONT Robert, 1984 : « Pour retrousser la diglossie », Lengas, 15, p. 5–36.
LAFONT Robert, 1997 : Quarante ans de sociolinguistique à la périphérie, Paris :
L’HКrmКttКn.
LAGARDE Christian, 2012 : « Le “ColonТКlТsme ТntцrТeur” : D’une mКnТчre de dТre lК
domТnКtТon р l'цmergence d'une “socТolТnguТstТque pцrТpСцrТque” occТtКne »,
Glottopol, 20, p. 38–54.
MANГONI AlessКndro, 1868: “Dell’unità della lingua e dei mezzi di diffonderla”, in
Nuova Antologia, VII, pp. 425-441.
MATTHEY Marinette et Manuel MEUNE (eds.), 2012 : Le francoprovençal en Suisse.
Genèse, déclin, revitalisation, Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, no 2, Université
de Montréal.
MEYER Paul, 1875: compte rendu de : Ascoli 1874. In: Romania 4, p. 293-296.
RENZI Lorenzo (con la collaborazione di Gianpaolo Salvi), 1992: Nuova introduzione alla
filologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.
SAGREDO DE IHARTГA HeТko, 1976: LК VКsconТe et l’Europe Nouvelle. BКТonК: ElkКr.
SAPIR Edward, 1958: Culture, Language and Personality, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
326
SÉRIOT, P., BULGAKOVAa, E. & ERŽEN A., 2008 : « La linguistique populaire et les
pseudo-savants », Pratiques, 139-140, p. 149-162.
DEUXIÈME PARTIE. Modèles concurrents des divisions
linguistiques, sociopolitiques et culturelles
I.
Baptêmes d une langue ou un peu de magie sociale
(« Francoprovençal » - « Arpitan » - « Savoyard »)158
Aujourd’СuТ on oЛserve en Europe un cСКngement du stКtut des ТdТomes rцgТonКuб,
où ce qui avait été considéré comme « patois » se voit officiellement reconnu par des
autorités nationales ou régionales comme « langue » à part entière. Ainsi en France on peut
penser р l’entrцe des « langues régionales » dans la Constitution en 2008 et à la politique
actuelle de certaines régions visant à promouvoir « leur(s) » « langue(s) régionale(s) », ou
bien aux débats actuels sur une loi sur les « langues régionales » et sur la ratification de la
Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires.
En effet, le monde roman représente un continuum dialectal où les frontières
tracées pour séparer des « langues » sont, comme partout ailleurs, arbitraires. Comme le
relève E. Haugen dans son article, devenu classique, par rapport à la taxonomie de la
descrТptТon lТnguТstТque et de l’ТdentТfТcКtТon des « langues » et des « dialectes » :
The simple truth is that there is no answer to these questions, or at least none that
will stand up to closer scrutiny. [...] The use of these terms has imposed a division in
what is often a continuum, giving what appears to be a neat opposition when in fact
the edges are extremely ragged and uncertain (Haugen 1966: 922).
DКns ce conteбte lК nomТnКtТon d’un ТdТome sert р trКcer des frontТчres Кu seТn du
continuum, le nom étant « une catégorie discrète, qui s'oppose au continu du réel » (Sériot
1997 : 172) :
158
Article à paraître dans E. Velmezova (éd.) Cahiers de l’ILSL, Lausanne, 2016.
327
A partir du moment où une langue a un nom, elle devient objet homogène, non plus
un ensemble dans un diasystème, mais objet de politique linguistique, d'éducation,
enjeu de la constitution d'un Etat-nation. Elle devient aussi, et surtout, objet de
discours, qu'il est si facile de confondre avec un objet du monde (op. cit. : 167).
Ainsi la nomination des idiomes régionaux suppose / impose une certaine division
du continuum linguistique et éventuellement politique. On est aujourd’СuТ tцmoТns d’un
« acte de magie sociale », qui, selon Pierre Bourdieu (1980 : 66), « consiste à tenter de
produire à l'existence la chose nommée ».
Nous proposons ТcТ d’КnКlвser le dТscours sur lК nomТnКtТon d’une « nouvelle »
« langue » romane – « francoprovençale », « arpitane » ou « savoyarde » - produit par deux
tвpes d’Кcteurs socТКuб : des linguistes et des militants linguistiques159. Il s’КgТt d’цtudТer le
sвstчme d’КrgumentКtТon КfТn de dцgКger les ТdцologТes lТnguТstТques et les enjeuб socТКuб
et politiques qui se cachent derrière les nominations concurrentes. Simultanément cette
КnКlвse nous permettrК de voТr sur quels crТtчres se ЛКsent les constКts qu’un ТdТome serКТt
une langue à part entière, comment les frontières entre les « langues » sont tracées.
Le « francoprovençal » / « arpitan » / « savoyard » est un idiome transfrontalier.
Les trois Etats voisins au sein desquels il est parlé – la FrКnce, l’ItКlТe et lК SuТsse – sont
construits selon des modèles extrêmement différents, avec, comme deux pôles opposés, la
centralisation très marquée de la République française et le fédéralisme très décentralisé de
lК ConfцdцrКtТon suТsse. AussТ l’цtude du mшme ТdТome dКns des EtКts dТffцrents nous
permettra-t-elle d’eбplorer dКns quelle mesure lК dТffцrence d’orgКnТsКtТon polТtТcoétatique détermine la représentation des langues minoritaires dans le discours, en
l’occurrence celuТ sur leur nomТnКtТon.
L’enquшte К цtц menцe selon les mцtСodes d’entretТen, d’КnКlвse des teбtes цcrТts
(des КrtТcles, des Лlogs des mТlТtКnts, etc.) et d’oЛservКtТon, в compris observation
participante. L’цtude de terrКТn К цtц effectuцe dКns les dцpКrtements de SКvoТe, HКute
Savoie, Ain, Loire et Rhône en France, ainsi que dans les cantons de Vaud et de Valais en
SuТsse et dКns lК VКllцe d’Aoste en ItКlТe.
Par « militant » nous dцsТgnons toute personne quТ œuvre pour l’ТdТome, dКns un cКdre КssocТКtТf ou
informel.
159
328
1. L émergence d une « nouvelle » « langue » romane
L’Тdцe que les pКrlers КlpТns р lК frontТчre entre l’ItКlТe, lК FrКnce et lК SuТsse (cf.
image 1) formeraient « un type linguistique » (« tipo idiomatico ») particulier est
relativement récente, énoncée pour la première fois en 1873 par le linguiste italien G. I.
Ascoli (Ascoli 1878 [1873]). C’est р AscolТ цgКlement que nous devons le nom de cette
« nouvelle » langue : « franco-provenzale » (« franco-provençal », initialement écrit avec
un tiret, supprimé plus tard par des dialectologues). Pendant le siècle suivant, ce terme est
resté dans l'usage exclusif des dialectologues (tels que Tuaillon 2007a, Martin 1979, 2005).
Le domaine francoprovençal, tel qu'il est défini par ceux-ci, comprendrait :
-
en France : extrémité sud du Doubs, sud du Jura, extrémité sud-est
de la Saône-et-Loire, Loire, Rhône, Ain, Haute-SКvoТe, SКvoТe, Isчre (р l’eбceptТon
de l’eбtrцmТtц sud), ArdчcСe (eбtrцmТtц nord), Drôme (eбtrцmТtц nord) ;
-
en Suisse : tous les cКntons de lК SuТsse romКnde р l’eбceptТon du
canton du Jura ;
-
en Italie : lК VКllцe d’Aoste, quelques vКllцes du PТцmont, deuб
communes dans les Pouilles (Faeto et Celle di San Vito, immigration du XIIIe
siècle).
CСeг les locuteurs, Тl n’eбТstКТt jusqu’Кuб Кnnцes 1970 Кucun terme pour dцsТgner
l’ensemЛle du domКТne lТnguТstТque en questТon, nТ d’КТlleurs lК vТsТon d’un ensemЛle. CКs
typique pour la France ou pour les régions lКrgement Тnfluencцes pКr l’ТdцologТe frКnхКТse
(comme lК SuТsse RomКnde ou lК VКllцe d’Aoste), le plus souvent ceux-ci se référaient à
l’ТdТome en le nommant « patois », utilisant ce terme générique au lieu (en fonction) du
glottonyme160. Si ce terme est toujours largement utilisé au sein des « groupes patoisants »,
c’est suТte Кu contКct Кvec les dТКlectologues que l’on voТt le nom « francoprovençal »
pénétrer également dans ces groupes dans les années 1970.
160
En Suisse à part le terme « patois », le nom « romand » (« roman », « reman », « rommant ») était utilisé,
dont la première attestation remonte à 1424 (Kristol 2005 : 50). Cf., pКr eб., dКns l’« Essai statistique du
canton de Vaud » (attribué à Philippe-Sirice Bridel), Zuric : Orell Fussli, 1815, p. 224 : « … dКns leur vТe
domestТque et entr’euб, les pКвsКns emploвent le patois qu’Тls Кppellent Roman ou Reman ; cet idiome
antérieur chez nous au Français peut être regardé comme une langue ; car il a ses règles générales dont il
serait aisé de faire une Grammaire. » (EmpСКse dКns l’orТgТnКl). Disponible sur:
http://books.google.com/books?vid=BCUL1092283960
329
Simultanément apparaissent au sein des groupes militants deux autres nominations
concurrentes, quТ verront l’essor de leur utТlТsКtТon dКns les Кnnцes 2000 :
-
« la langue savoyarde », terme utilisé par le Mouvement Région
SКvoТe crцц en 1972 dКns le cКdre des revendТcКtТons de lК crцКtТon d’une rцgТon
Savoie (départements de la Savoie et de la Haute-Savoie) Кu seТn de l’EtКt frКnхКТs
(quoТque lК lКngue n’КТt jКmКТs цtц Кu centre de ces revendications)161; ce nom est
Кujourd’СuТ promu prТncТpКlement pКr l’InstТtut de lК lКngue sКvoвКrde, КssocТКtТon
créée en 2002 ;
« la langue arpitane », nom Тnventц en 1973 en VКllцe d’Aoste
-
(voТre l’СТstoТre plus ЛКs) et promu Кujourd’СuТ pКr l’AllТКnce culturelle КrpТtКne,
créée en 2004.
2. Le nom comme argument pour la reconnaissance de la langue : modèle
« scientifique » et modèle « militant »
2.1. « Le francoprovençal » : un « argument léger » ?
Il se trouve que le terme « franco(-)provençal », inventé dans des buts scientifiques,
ne conviendrait pas pour revendiquer un statut politique pour une langue ainsi nommée. G.
TuКТllon pКrle du nom de l’ТdТome comme d’un « argument » qui pourrait éventuellement
« prouver »
le
statut
linguistique
de
cet
idiome :
en
l’occurrence,
le
nom
« francoprovençal » ne serait pas un « argument » assez solide pour « prouver » que l’oЛjet
КТnsТ dцsТgnц mцrТterКТt d’шtre consТdцrц comme une lКngue р pКrt - et non pas comme « du
français et du provençal réunis et mélangés » (Tuaillon, 2007a: 10).
D’une mКnТчre ТdentТque, les mТlТtКnts frКncoprovenхКlТstes Кdmettent que le terme
est dцsКvКntКgeuб. LК compКrКТson Кvec l’occТtКn en tцmoТgne :
LK, 1932, F, fp 162: Les occТtКnТstes c’est un Кutre esprТt. EuС c’est quelque cСose de construit, fier
[…] Nous on est quelque cСose quТ est un peu ЛсtКrd […] c’est pКs du tout vrКТ, c’est le mot qui est
trompeur.
161
Notons cependant que l'expression « langage savoyard » est fréquente, par exemple, dans les documents
genevois entre le XVIIe et le XIXe siècle (Kristol 2005 : 50).
DКns les eбtrКТts d’entretТens cТtцs nous ТndТquons les ТnТtТКles fТctТves des ТnformКteurs, l’Кnnцe (eбКcte
ou approximative) de naissance, le pays (F – France, I – Italie, S – SuТsse) et lК prцfцrence d’une nomТnКtТon :
fp – « francoprovençal », arp – « arpitan », sav – « savoyard », pat – « patois ». Les italiques dans les textes
d’entretТens sont de notre fКТt.
162
330
LК dцfТnТtТon de l’ТdТome pКr ces deuб lКngues voТsТnes pКrКît avoir encore moins
de sens dans les yeux des « patoisants » en Suisse où le voТsТn pertТnent dКns l’ТmКgТnКТre
collectТf n’est pКs l’occТtКn, mКТs l’КllemКnd ou/et l’ТtКlТen. On le remarque dans le
discours des « patoisants » :
RO, 1975, S, pat : Eh bon on peut dТre КussТ que c’est pКs de l’КllemКnd, c’est pКs
de l’ТtКlТen…
ainsi que, par exemple, dans un manuel de patois vaudois (Bossard, Reymond
2010 : 19 - 30), où, en expliquant la phonétique du patois, à part le français, les auteurs ont
régulièrement recours р l’КllemКnd, pКrfoТs р l’ТtКlТen, mКТs jКmКТs р l’occТtКn - à part une
seule référence au « Midi de la France », mКТs où Тl s’КgТrКТt plutôt du frКnхКТs rцgТonКl
(op. cit. : 22).
2.2. « Arpitan » : signifiant nouveau pour l’ancien référent ?
Le terme « harpitan » est inventé au Val d'Aoste en 1973 par Joseph Henriet (signé
également José Harriet, Harrieta ou Edur Kar). Inspiré des idées de Federico Krutwig
Sagredo - mТlТtКnt ЛКsque (р l’цpoque memЛre de l’ETA) et цcrТvКТn prônКnt l’unТfТcКtТon
de la langue basque, - Henriet crée un mouvement politique sцpКrКtТste d’extrême gauche
qu’Тl Кppelle Movement Harpitanya.
DКns le teбte fondКteur de l’КrpТtКnТsme, dКns le sens où Тl ТntroduТt les termes
« (h)arpitan » et « (H)arpitania » 163 , l’« harpitan » est défini à travers le « francoprovençal » : « LК lКngue etСnТque de l’HКrpТtКnТe est le frКnco-provençal que nous
nommerons aussi désormais « harpitan ». » (Harriet, 1974 : 7)164. Ainsi « harpitan » serait
un signifiant nouveau pour le même référent : la réalité linguistique (« francoprovençale »). L’enjeu prТncТpКl de l’ТnventТon du nouveКu nom serКТt lК mТse en relКtТon
de cet espace linguistique avec la notion d’ethnie, ainsi que de nation. Le terme apparaît
donc dКns lК perspectТve de crцer lК vТsТon d’une « langue ethnique (et donc nationale) »
163
Initialement les deux termes sont inventés avec un H initial ; ils apparaissent sans H à partir de 1976 :
Harrieta Jozé, La lingua arpitana, Romano Canavese, Ferrero, 1976.
Selon les ТnformКtТons fournТes pКr J. HenrТet dКns son Лlog, l’Тdцe d’une « ethnie arpitane » est énoncée
pour lК premТчre foТs en 1973 dКns son lТvre puЛlТц en SuТsse que l’on ne trouve plus : « Nel lontano 1973,
proclamai, sotto lo pseudonimo di EDUR KAR (cСe nellК lТnguК deТ SКlКssТ sТgnТfТcК ‘lК neve sullК
montКgnК’), l’esТstenгК dell’ETNIA ARPITANA, К cuТ Т vКldostКnТ КppКrtengono. Il libricino, stampato in
SvТггerК, ТntТtolКto HARPEITANВA, cСe proponevК le rТcette per dТfendere l’ТdentТtр vКldostКnК, non si
trova più. » http://henriet_joseph.blog.tiscali.it/2007/03/20/mao_tse_toung_1200640-shtml/?doing_wp_cron
(publié le 20.03.2007).
164
331
(op. cit. : 8), (h)arpitane, qui unirait, par conséquent, une ethnie ou une nation, (h)arpitane
elle aussi, qui correspondrait à un pays baptisé (H)arpitanie. Autrement dit, cette approche
reproduit le modèle naturaliste classique de la construction nationale européenne, issu du
romantisme allemand.
L’« Harpitanie » est définie comme « une vaste région autour du Mont Blanc »
(expression reprise plusieurs fois dans le texte)165. En empruntant le discours sur la langue
ЛКsque, HenrТet ТndТque que ce nom serКТt Тssu d’une « ancienne langue locale, langue préindoeuropéenne » - appelée dans ses autres textes le « garalditan » 166 , - qui serait un
ancêtre commun de l’(С)КrpТtКn et du ЛКsque. Le mot « (h)arpitan » vient de la racine
« arp- » quТ sТgnТfТe dКns l’ТdТome « le pâturage de montagne » (cf. page Wikipedia rédigée
mКjorТtКТrement pКr l’AllТКnce culturelle КrpТtКne : « pâturages de montagne où les
troupeКuб sont conduТts et pКssent l’цtц » 167 ). Simultanément, en basque harri-pe
signifierait «sous les rochers» : une coïncidence heureuse - ou preuve de parenté, selon
Henriet - pКrce qu’on в trouve КussТ lК sцmКntТque de lК montКgne, quТ correspond Кu
symbole du Mont Blanc réunissant la communauté linguistique.
Ainsi la fonction métonymique - et mythogène - du nouveau nom est de servir de
rцsumц de l’ontologТe du groupe etСnТque/ de lК nКtТon, fКТsКnt rцfцrence р un espКce
unique (les montagnes autour du Mont Blanc), au mode de vie (« arpian » sТgnТfТe ‘Лerger’
dКns l’ТdТome), Кuб Кncшtres mвtСologТques (les GКrКldТtКns), КТnsТ qu’Кu cКrКctчre unТque
de la langue même que ce nom désigne (langue pré-indoeuropéenne).
Les buts du Movement Harpitanya comprenaient « l’unТfТcКtТon de [nomЛreuб]
parlers » qui constituent « l’СКrpТtКn », ainsi que la « réanimation » de celui-ci (ce qui
signifiait « faire de cette langue pauvre et humiliée, liée à un monde agricole et paysan en
disparition, une langue de culture » (op. cit. : 8, empСКse dКns l’orТgТnКl). Leur rцКlТsКtТon
était présentée comme possible uniquement « comme résultat de [la] pratique
165
La première fois avec la précision entre parenthèses : « Savoie, Valais, Vallées nord-occidentales du
PТцmont, VКl d’Aoste… » - КТnsТ HenrТet n’в Тnclut pКs tout le domКТne lТnguТstТque du frКncoprovenхКl, tel
qu’Тl КvКТt цtц dцfТnТ pКr les dТКlectologues, mКis seulement le domaine alpin, notamment les vallées de la
haute-montagne.
166
Terme emprunté directement à Sagredo, cf. Federico C. Krutwig-Sagredo, Garaldea : sobre el origen de
los vascos, Donostia-San Sebastián: Txertoa : 1978.
167
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoproven%C3%A7al#cite_ref-9 avec une référence à : Bessat Hubert &
Claudette Germi, Lieux en mémoire de l’alpe, Grenoble, Éd. Ellug, 1993.
332
révolutionnaire » du « mouvement populaire harpitan », avec comme but final la création
d’une fédération (h)arpitane autour du Mont Blanc.
Aujourd’СuТ ce nom est promu par l’Aliance Culturèla Arpitana (ACA), association
regroupant des membres des trois Etats - lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe, - fondée en 2004 à
LКusКnne, mКТs dont le centre d’КctТvТtц est (plutôt) en France.
L’ACA reprend les termes « arpitan » et « Arpitania », КТnsТ qu’une pКrtТe de
l’КrgumentКtТon. NotКmment elle emprunte lК dцfТnТtТon de lК lКngue et du peuple р trКvers
le symbole du Mont Blanc - pКr eбemple, dКns le refrКТn de l’Свmne КrpТtКn, créé en 2012 :
Himno Arpitan (Aliance Curturèla Arpitana, www.arpitania.eu)
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Nos sens tuès des Arpitans, des
Arpitans
Arpitania, Arpitania,
Tot u tôrn du Mont Blanc
Arpitanie, Arpitanie,
Nous sommes tous des Arpitans, des
Arpitans
Arpitanie, Arpitanie,
Tout autour du Mont Blanc
Les Лuts des КctТvТtцs de l’ACA lТцes р l’КrpТtКn sont, elles КussТ, en gцnцrКl,
identiques : lК revТtКlТsКtТon lТnguТstТque et lК promotТon d’une ortСogrКpСe unТfТцe
supradialectale - orthographe de référence B (ORB) - de Dominique Stich (Stich 2003).
En effet, on constКte que le nom de l’ТdТome est souvent reprцsentц comme
ТndТssocТКЛlement lТц р un sвstчme d’ortСogrКpСe : au modèle « francoprovençal »
correspondent typiquement plusieurs graphies dites « phonétiques », empruntant en réalité
les conventions orthographiques de la langue française, et mettant en avant les
particularités de tel ou tel parler local; au modèle « savoyard » - la «Graphie de Conflans»
(цlКЛorцe pКr le Groupe de ConflКns en 1983), ЛКsцe цgКlement sur l’ortСogrКpСe du
français ; enfin, au modèle « arpitan » - une orthographe supradialectale. Plusieurs
crТtТques de l’КrpТtКnТsme sont en rцКlТtц des crТtТques de l’ORB, reprцsentцe comme un
standard artificiel imposé (concernant le « débat – parfois virulent » sur l’ORB cf.
Matthey, Meune 2012 : 107 – 108 ; Bichurina 2013).
333
2.3. « Arpitan » vs. « francoprovençal » : nom « vide de sens », « slogan politique » ou
« outil de communication » ?
Il est typique que les dialectologues ainsi que les courants concurrents attribuent au
terme « arpitan » des connotations politiques. Ainsi dans le discours de présentation de son
livre « Le francoprovençal » un des chercheurs les plus importants ayant travaillé sur le
domКТne frКncoprovenхКl, GКston TuКТllon, lТКТt l’КppКrТtТon du mot «КrpТtan » à
l’цpoque des « agissements quelque peu révolutionnaires et en tout cas fort agaçants » par
lesquelles lК VКllцe d’Aoste цtКТt « troublée » (Tuaillon 2007b : 8) ; Кujourd’СuТ le mot
« arpitan » serait utilisé, selon lui, par « quelques esprits échauffés, heureusement peu
nombreux mais remuants » aux « croyances bizarres » (op. cit. : 16).
A part cette connotation (plus ou moins) révolutionnaire, le nom « arpitan » aurait
deuб pКrtТculКrТtцs quТ l’on pourrКТt quКlТfТer de contrКdТctoТres. D’un côtц, Тl « n’К Кucun
sens » (op. cit. : 16) et sert à « enjoliver les discours vides de sens » (op. cit. : 8). On peut
remКrquer qu’Тl s’КgТt ТcТ d’une cКrКctцrТstТque tвpТquement КssocТцe, dКns lК trКdТtТon
linguistique, polémique et politique française, à partir des années 1970, au discours
communiste – celui où les mots seraient privés de fonction référentielle (cf. à ce sujet
Sériot 1985 : 21 – 56). Par opposition, le mot « francoprovençal » se référerait donc à une
réalité, voire la réalité linguistique telle qu’elle К цtц dцcrТte pКr les dТКlectologues.
De l’Кutre côtц, le mot « arpitan » serait associé, selon Tuaillon, au concept de
« race » :
Même si vous voulez grandir vos rêves sur vos lointains ancêtres, n'employez
jКmКТs le mot "ArpТtКn" […] Plus grКvement ce mot fait appel à ce concept qui
nous a fait tant de mal au XXe siècle, celui de la race. Je voudrais vous dissuader de
succomber à ce rêve. Les langues régionales n'ont vraiment pas besoin de cet
horrible ornement (op. cit. : 16, c’est nous quТ soulТgnons, N.B.)
AТnsТ l’emploТ du nom « arpitan » pour la langue serait un « horrible ornement »,
une menКce, ce quТ est dû р l’КssocТКtТon ТmplТcТte, non Кrgumentцe, du contenu de ce
terme р l’ТdцologТe nКгТe. Pour ce quТ est du « francoprovençal », Тl semЛle qu’Тl s’КgТsse
КТnsТ, pКr contrКste, de nТer toute Кutre spцcТfТcТtц de l’espКce quТ в correspond que lК
spécificité purement linguistique.
334
DцsormКТs Тl est devenu lТeu commun dКns les trКvКuб lТnguТstТques d’КssocТer le
nom « arpitan » р un contenu polТtТque, gцnцrКlement sКns l’Кrgumenter (pКr eб., D.
Elmiger oppose « le francoprovençal » / « patois » à « l’КrpТtКn » comme Sprachliche vs.
politische Identität (identité linguistique vs. politique, 2012 : 91 - 92). Il en va de même
pour les membres des associations patoisantes / francoprovençales. Par exemple, en France
:
KL, 1932, F, fp : l’КrpТtКn, c’est un des noms du frКncoprovenхКl, Кlors ArpТtКnТe,
Arpitania libre etc. fait une espèce de - d’un slogan politique
En Suisse le terme « arpitan » paraît peut-être encore plus doté de connotations
polТtТques, qu’en FrКnce :
RO, 1975, S, pat : Il в К quКnd mшme le poТds СТstorТque derrТчre […] Тl К quКnd
même été inventé pendant la période des revendications politiques
SimultКnцment, tout dТscours sur les connotКtТons polТtТques de l’« arpitan » se
lТmТte р un constКt gцnцrКl, l’СТstoТre du terme n’цtКnt connue que trчs vКguement.168
Les memЛres de l’ACA, р leur tour, nТent tout contenu polТtТque du terme : selon
eux, « lК rцcupцrКtТon du terme pour des questТons ТdentТtКТres ou nКtТonКlТstes est …
extrêmement marginale » ; ce nom ne serКТt qu’un « outil de communication non ambigu »
(NV, 1975, F, arp) ou «la mèlyosa (mèlyora) rèclama por noutra lengoua » (« la meilleure
réclame pour notre langue », LM, 1970, S, arp), - autrement dit, un instrument de sa
reconnaissance.
La « connotation révolutionnaire » est reconnue, mКТs comme pКrtТe de l’СТstoТre.
Par ailleurs, le terme serait légitimé par sa ressemblance au terme « occitan », le modèle
occТtКn servКnt Кujourd’СuТ de modчle de rцfцrence :
U comencement cetТ mot l’Кvшve unК connotКcТon rчvolucТonчrК que l’сt ren més u
jôrn de houè. […] L’сt un ôtro КvКntсjo ; Тl resemЛle u nom ‘occТtКn’. D’ense cetТ
168
Ainsi à la question de précision sТ ces connotКtТons цtКТent lТцes Кuб revendТcКtТons en VКllцe d’Aoste:
RO, 1975, S, pat : OuТ, ou en SКvoТe, je sКТs pКs. C’цtКТt dКns les Кnnцes septКnte. MoТ je n’КТ pКs trop цtudТц
l’СТstoТre, mКТs je sКТs qu’Тl в К des liens avec ça.
335
nom d’КrpТtКn pôt trКnsmчtre lo messсjo que nos, coment nos cousens du mijôrn,
nos volens étre recognûs et dèfendre noutra lengoua valyament.169
http://arpitan.ch/spip.php?article139 (7/12/12), souligné dans l’original
Le nom a ainsi pour vocation de fonctionner comme un « message » : celuТ d’une
demande de reconnaissance (pour le groupe qui y correspond : « nous ») et du désir de ce
groupe de défendre la langue.
Le besoin du terme « arpitan » est souligné par la critique du terme
« francoprovençal » :
NV, 1975, F, arp : je pense que c'est un élément clé pour la revitalisation que d'avoir
un nom non ambigu, qui donne une identité propre à la langue
EF, 1983, F, arp:
je n'КТ jКmКТs КТmц le nom "frКncoprovenхКl" […] Les non-connaisseurs, même de la
région, même arpitanophones, pense que notre langue est un mélange de français et
de provençal. Et c'est d'autant plus catastrophique parce qu'avec ce nom la prise de
conscience d'une identité linguistique à part entière est ralentie voire niée.
en ArpТtКnТe … lК prТse de conscТence est quelque peu freТnцe pКr l'usage de
différents noms: francoprovençal (confusion), patois (ce n'est pas une langue),
savoyard (le patriotisme savoyard...), parler lyonnais, patois vaudois, valaisan,
gruérien, etc.
Ainsi un bon nom serait « un élément clé pour la revitalisation ». La logique est de
dТre que sКns nom de l’ТdТome lК populКtТon concernцe n’К pКs conscТence de constТtuer
une communauté linguistique, sans cette conscience il ne peut pas y avoir de
reconnaissance officielle, et sans reconnaissance la communauté même ne peut pas exister,
voТre lК lКngue ne peut pКs eбТster. Ou, en rцsumц, sКns un Лon nom lК lКngue n’eбТste pКs :
ainsi le nom a une fonction performative. Menцe logТquement jusqu’Кu Лout, ce sвstчme
d’КrgumentКtТon suppose que tous ceuб quТ sont contre le nom « arpitan » soient coupables
de lК mort ТmmТnente de l’ТdТome. AТnsТ, pКr eбemple, en pКrlКnt de quelqu’un quТ serКТt
contre le mot « arpitan » :
Au début ce mot avait une connotation révolutionnaire qu’il n’a plus aujourd’hui. […] Il К un Кutre
avantage : Тl ressemЛle Кu nom ‘occТtКn’. AТnsТ ce nom d’КrpТtКn peut trКnsmettre le messКge que nous,
comme nos cousins du Midi, nous voulons être reconnus et défendre vaillamment notre langue (notre
traduction, N.B.).
169
336
Il a le droit d'être contre, comme tous les conservateurs qui sont contre par principe,
comme ça nous continuerons a perdre du temps pour la reconnaissance
officielle […] A lК lТmТte, plus Тl в К de gens "contre" […], plus vТte lК lКngue КurК
disparu, et plus vite ils n'auront plus besoin d'être "contre".
Groupe
Facebook
« Arpitania
abada ! »,
message
du
9.11.2012,
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21904584384/
3. Le nom comme division de l’espace socio-politique : modèle « large » et modèle
« étroit »
Le dТscours ТnstТtutТonnel où le nom de l’ТdТome se trouve dТrectement lié à son
éventuelle reconnaissance officielle est surtout typique pour la France. On peut distinguer
deux modèles concurrents de la construction linguistique:
-
un modчle que l’on peut nommer « large » où plusieurs variantes
régionales se trouvent regroupées dans une vaste communauté linguistique
transfrontalière : « langue francoprovençale » ou « langue arpitane » ;
-
et un modчle que l’on peut nommer « étroit » d’une communКutц
linguistique régionale : « langue savoyarde ».
(Cf. les vТsТons concurrentes, d’un côtц, de lК « langue occitane » et, de l’Кutre côtц,
de la « langue provençale », la « langue gasconne », etc., dans le même cadre français).
L’opposТtТon est ЛКsцe lКrgement sur l’opposТtТon entre l’КpprocСe « objective » (ou
positiviste) de la distinction des langues (qui correspond au « modèle large ») et l’КpprocСe
« subjective » – celle du « modèle étroit ». Notons que ces deux approches concurrentes se
disputent dans la tradition philosophique, puis linguistique européenne depuis le XIX
siècle170.
La vision « objective », ou positiviste, de la langue « francoprovençale » ou
« arpitane » est basée sur le présupposé que les « langues » eбТstent en tКnt qu’oЛjets de
170
On peut penser à la polémique archétypique entre Ernest Renan et David Friedrich Strauß à l'issue de la
guerre franco-prussienne de 1870 (cf. Sériot 2007 : 188).
337
réalités et peuvent être définies à partir des « faits linguistiques » répertoriés. La légitimité
de cette vision est assurée par l’eбpertТse lТnguТstТque (dТКlectologТque). Il s’КgТt
notКmment d’une КrgumentКtТon dТКcСronТque contrКstТve, soulТgnКnt la différence de
l’ТdТome, d’un côtц, du frКnхКТs, et de l’Кutre, de l’occТtКn – deux voisins auxquels le nom
même « francoprovençal » fait référence : ainsi les linguistes et les militants qui reprennent
leur dТscours цvoquent, d’un côtц, lК conservation en francoprovençal des voyelles finales
atones (l’КccentuКtТon pКroбвtonТque), pour trКcer lК frontТчre Кvec le frКnхКТs, et de l’Кutre
côté, la double évolution du a latin (la transformation du a en é
171
ou i derrière une
consonne de type palatal, ce qui résulte notamment à une double conjugaison des verbes du
premier groupe issus des verbes latins en -Кre) pour trКcer lК frontТчre Кvec l’occТtКn
(Martin 2005 : 4 – 5, Stich 1998 : 29 – 30, en mшme temps que d’autres caractéristiques
phonologiques).
Les cКrtes de l’ArpТtКnТК reproduТsent, pour ce quТ concerne les lТmТtes
gцogrКpСТques de l’espКce КrpТtКn, les cКrtes fКТtes pКr des dТКlectologues (cf. ТmКges 1 et
2).
La vision concurrente est celle de « la langue savoyarde ». Il convient de préciser
que lК mКnТчre dont cette nomТnКtТon se rцfцrerКТt р une lКngue р pКrt entТчre n’est pКs trчs
claire. Sur le sТte de l’InstТtut de lК lКngue sКvoвКrde nous lТsons:
LК lКngue sКvoвКrde fКТt pКrtТe de l’ensemЛle lТnguТstique appelé le
Francoprovençal.
Elle est parlée et écrite dans les pays suivants :
o
la France (région Rhône-Alpes)
o
lК SuТsse (rцgТon de Genчve et jusqu’р NeucСсtel)
o
l’ItКlТe (VКl d’Aoste, PТцmont, FКeto dКns les PouТlles)
[SuТt lК cКrte de l’« aire franco(-)provençal » dans les trois pays]
La langue savoyarde est le francoprovençal parlé en Savoie.
171
dans les textes qui portent sur le francoprovençal (un idiome pourtant
majoritairement oral) les chercheurs utilisent ce graphème propre au français pour désigner
le phonème antérieur mi-fermé non arrondi /e/.
Curieusement
338
http://www.langue-savoyarde.com/la-langue-savoyarde/une-langue-internationale
AТnsТ Тl s’КgТrКТt d’« une langue savoyarde » fКТsКnt pКrtТe d’un ensemЛle
linguistique plus large, francoprovençal (de la même manière que, par exemple, selon le
point de vue des « provençalistes » « la langue provençale » ferКТt pКrtТe de l’ensemЛle
« des lКngues d’oc »). Cependant la description du domaine linguistique, contrairement aux
ТnformКtТons fournТes dТrectement КvКnt ou dТrectement Кprчs, couvre l’ensemЛle du
domaine francoprovençal, en laissant identifier « la langue savoyarde » avec tout
l’ensemЛle (plutôt comme le « valencien » sert pКrfoТs р dцsТgner l’ensemЛle du domКТne
catalan).
Nous qualifions cette approche de « subjective » puisque dans ce système
d’КrgumentКtТon le « savoyard » serait une langue à part entière, car telle est la vision des
locuteurs (même si les savoyardistes parlent également parfois des « faits linguistiques
indéniables, des mots de vocabulaire, des tournures spécifiques » - AB, 1960, F, sav).
Simultanément, cette vision est naturaliste (tout comme le modèle arpitan initial),
s’КppuвКnt sur le prцsupposц d’un lТen nКturel entre lК lКngue – le peuple – et le territoire.
AB, 1960, F, sav: parce que le mot francoprovençal est un mot un peu tordu / parce
que хК fКТt croТre que c’est un peu de français et un peu de provençal Кlors que c’est
une langue authentique et quТ d’КТlleurs pour nous n’est pas compris / pour nous la
Provence c’est MКrseille ! (…) Et comme le mot du sКvoвКrd est attesté depuis très
longtemps (…) ce mot quТ est clair pour tout le monde (…) très naturellement on
demandait ça
c’est vrКТ qu’en SКvoТe dТre que les SКvoвКrds pКrlent le sКvoвКrd c’est quelque
chose beaucoup plus logique et simple
Nommer la langue « savoyarde » serait « très naturel », « logique » et « simple »,
prцcТsцment pour lК rКТson d’ТdentТfТcКtТon clКТre entre le terrТtoТre, le peuple et lК lКngue.
D’КТlleurs, le nom « savoyard » est légitimé par le fait d’шtre « attesté depuis très
longtemps » - à la différence implicite à toute autre nomination qui serait artificielle, que
ce soit « le francoprovençal » ou « l’КrpТtКn ».
Cette vТsТon est crТtТquцe pКr les Кutres courКnts, quТ, mшme s’Тls Кvouent qu’elle
paraît « naturelle », s’opposent Кuб frontТчres qu’elle suggчre :
LK, 1932, F, fp: Y a des formes extrêmement dТffцrentes selon les vКllцes […] Тl в К
autant de différence entre deux vallées savoyardes que entre cette vallée et puis le
dialecte de Saint-EtТenne // Donc c’est une fТ tТon
339
Ainsi la polémique glottonymique cache, entre autre, celle de la division du
contТnuum lТnguТstТque, КТnsТ que de l’espКce socТo-politique.
Dans cette perspective, la rivalité entre le modèle « savoyard » et « arpitan » est liée
à la politique actuelle de la région Rhône-Alpes :
NV, 1975, F, arp : Les militants régionalistes en SavoТe voТent … l'цmergence du
mot "arpitan" comme une menace et s'y opposent, car ils pensent que ce terme
pourrait donner une légitimité à Rhône-Alpes … р l'encontre des possТЛТlТtцs
d'émancipation d'une région Savoie172.
CependКnt, mКlgrц l’КppКrence de concurrence entre ces deux modèles, « large » et
« étroit », Тl n’в К pКs de vrКТ conflТt. AТnsТ on remКrque, dКns l’eбemple cТtц de AB, 1960,
F, sav, que les savoyardistes ne contestent pas tant les frontières de la langue que son nom
même : le critère essentТel c’est que le nom soТt convКТncКnt : d’un côtц, pour les
interlocuteurs officiels (il évoque les demandes de reconnaissance auprès du Ministère de
l’EducКtТon nКtТonКle) ; de l’Кutre côtц, pour les locuteurs (dКns cet eбtrКТt reprцsentцs pКr
le « nous ») – donc, pour deux groupes de référence.
PКr КТlleurs, d’un côtц, une personne peut шtre р lК foТs memЛre de l’AllТКnce
culturelle КrpТtКne et de l’InstТtut de lК lКngue sКvoвКrde, et une Кutre - membre de ce
dernier et du Conseil international du francoprovenхКl. De l’Кutre côtц, mшme sТ l’on prend
des cКs eбtrшmes des sцpКrКtТstes, les ТndцpendКntТstes КrpТtКns (du VКl d’Aoste) КffТrment
lors des conversКtТons Тnformelles que l’EtКt de SКvoТe lТЛre, projet ЛutoТr des SКvoвКrds,
pourrait par la suite faire pКrtТe, Кu mшme tТtre que lК VКllцe d’Aoste, d’une nouvelle
fédération Arpitania, construite selon le modèle de la Confédération suisse.
4.
L’organisation étatique et les enjeux politiques de la nomination
AТnsТ, des troТs EtКts où l’ТdТome est pКrlц, c’est en FrКnce que lК polцmТque
glottonymique est la plus ardente. Nous lions cette particularité au changement de statut
des ТdТomes rцgТonКuб (Кu nТveКu nКtТonКl et, en l’occurrence, Кu nТveКu de lК rцgТon
Cf. Costa, Bert 2011 sur les usages des critères linguistiques (voire de lК reprцsentКtТon d’une unТtц
linguistique) dans le discours institutionnel produit par la région Rhône-Alpes comme tentative de
nКturКlТsКtТon de l’Тdцe de cette rцgТon.
172
340
Rhône-Alpes). DКns ce conteбte, on voТt КppКrКьtre des essКТs d’ТnstrumentКlТsКtТon du
nom de l’ТdТome.
En Suisse et en Italie, au contraire, les enjeux sociopolitiques de nomination
pКrКТssent peu pertТnents. Or on se rцfчre р l’ТdТome presque eбclusТvement comme
« patois » (ou encore « dialetto » - « dialecte » en Italie), soit sans le nommer, soit en
précisant : en Suisse « patois vaudois », « patois valaisan » etc., avec des précisions
cantonales ou bien locales173; en Italie « patois valdôtain » ou « dialecte valdôtain » etc.
(ou encore en utТlТsКnt l’eбpressТon « nosta moda » – la même qui est utilisée par rapport
Кuб pКrlers occТtКns d’ItКlТe)174. Il convТent de prцcТser qu’Тl ne s’КgТt pКs de lК mшme cСose
que le « modèle étroit », puТsqu’Тl ne s’КgТt jКmКТs d’une « langue vaudoise », « langue
valaisanne » ou « langue valdôtaine ».
Si la critique des noms « francoprovençal » et « arpitan » produite dans ces deux
pКвs n’est pКs orТgТnКle pКr rКpport р lК FrКnce, ce quТ est pКrtТculТer c’est qu’Кucun Кutre
nom n’est proposц : les mТlТtКnts se contentent d’utТlТser le terme gцnцrТque, pКtoТs. On
peut proposer certaines explications de ce phénomène.
1. Cette dТffцrence doТt шtre corrцlцe Кvec l’КЛsence en SuТsse et en ItКlТe du
dТscours ТnstТtutТonnel quТ prцvКut en FrКnce, où l’КvenТr de l’ТdТome dцpendrКТt de sК
reconnaissance officielle, à laquelle sa nomination devrait contribuer. En Suisse le système
fédéral suppose déjà une autonomie très importante de chaque canton (avec son propre
ConseТl d’EtКt, ses structures de pouvoТr), le ЛesoТn ne se fКТt pКs sentТr d’en demКnder
dКvКntКge. De mшme, en ItКlТe lК VКllцe d’Aoste jouТt du stКtut de rцgТon Кutonome. Aussi
les mТlТtКnts n’ont-Тls (gцnцrКlement) pКs ЛesoТn d’ТnstrumentКlТser le nom de l’ТdТome.
Il convТent nцКnmoТns de prцcТser qu’Тl eбТste ЛТen des mouvements polТtТques
ТndцpendКntТstes du VКl d’Aoste quТ, euб, contТnuent р utТlТser les termes « arpitan » et
173
Ainsi dans les questionnaires recueillis par M. Meune en Gruyère et sur le canton de Vaud on retrouve les
nominations suivantes : « gruyèrien », « gruyérien », « gruèrien », « Grévire » ; « broyard », « couatzo » ; «
patois vaudois »; « patois du Jorat »; « vaudois », « dzoratâi »; « vaudois du Gros de Vaud »; « clli dâo
Dzorât »; « du Jorat»; « patois vaudois du Jorat »; « fribourgeois »; « patois de la Gruyère »; « patois valaisan
» (Meune 2012 : 66).
174
Dans les Pouilles, un îlot francoprovençal au-delà de la zone transfrontalière, la situation est un peu
spécifique : on utilise les appellations « faetano » et « cellese », ainsi que le terme scientifique du
« francoprovençal » qu’on в voТt КppКrКьtre depuТs lК loТ sur les mТnorТtцs lТnguТstТques de 1999. PКr КТlleurs,
on y trouve la nomination « provençal » quТ doТt remonter р l’цpoque où l’orТgТne rцelle du groupe цtКТt
méconnue (Puolato 2013).
341
« Arpitania » dans leurs discours. De même, une Pétition pour la reconnaissance de
l’arpitan comme langue régionale suisse a été mise en ligne pour signatures électroniques
(http://www.avaaz.org/fr/petition/La_reconnaissance_par_les_autorites_suisses_de_larpita
n_en_tant_que_langue_regionale publiée le 3 mars 2013).
2. Par ailleurs, en Suisse et en Italie le terme « patois » paraît avoir moins de
connotКtТons nцgКtТves qu’en FrКnce - Тl s’ТnscrТrКТt plutôt dКns lК trКdТtТon de lК mТse en
valeur du local :
RO, 1975, S, pat : et nous on est […] dТvТsцs en cКntons, en communes, et ceterК
c’est fцdцrКl comme EtКt, donc utТlТser un terme quТ К une connotation de local ça
dérange pas. PКrce que c’est pas un défaut.
Cependant en France le « défaut » du terme « patois » ne serait pas la « connotation
du local », mКТs celle de ne pКs шtre une lКngue. En effet, lК reprцsentКtТon de l’ТdТome
comme langue à part entière paraît plus fréquente en France. Plusieurs faits en témoignent :
d’КЛord, en FrКnce le dТscours des mТlТtКnts sur lК définition des frontières linguistiques
reproduit régulièrement celui des linguistes ; en Suisse on ne retrouve pas de discours
tвpТque, СКЛТtuel, mцcКnТque, cСКcun l’eбplТque р sК mКnТчre (pКr eбemple, pКr l’eбТstence
des « caractères dérivés partagés », terme et critère emprunté de la biologie, etc.) Ensuite,
sТ en FrКnce l’КnКlвse du dТscours quotТdТen rцvчle lК coeбТstence, dКns les reprцsentКtТons
des mшmes ТndТvТdus, d’un des modчles « militants » / «scientifique »
avec le
modèle dominant français, où le « patois » serait du français déformé :
VC, 1940, F, fp : En Russie il y a aussi des patois? // Le russe à Voronezh est
différent du russe de Saint-Pétersbourg ? // C’est ce qu’on Кppelle pКtoТs.
IR, 1935, F, fp : L’occТtКn c’est dТffцrent, l’occТtКn c’est presqu’une langue!
en Suisse et en Italie cette tendance paraît encore plus marquée (cf. Meune 2012 : 64 – en
Suisse selon un tiers des répondants au questionnaire écrit parmi les membres de
l’AssocТКtТon vКudoТse des КmТs du pКtoТs et de lК SocТцtц des patoisants de la Gruyère le
« patois » serКТt un « mцlКnge de frКnхКТs et d’une Кutre lКngue »).
3. Finalement, en France on constate les représentations du lien essentiel entre la
« langue régionale » et « l’ТdentТtц rцgТonКle », parfois en passant pКr l’« accent régional ».
342
En
SuТsse,
sТ
les
reprцsentКtТons
ТdentТques
peuvent
eбТster,
l’espКce
francoprovençal correspond à celui de la Suisse romande (sauf le canton du Jura), ainsi sa
distinction par rapport à la Suisse alémanique est déjà marquée par l’usКge du frКnхКТs et
l’ТmportКnce du « patois » comme mКrque sвmЛolТque d’КppКrtenКnce est dТmТnuцe, voТre
inexistante (par ailleurs, les associations patoisantes du domaine francoprovençal
travaillent avec les associations jurassiennes – par exemple, dans la Fédération
interrégionale des patois).
Il en vК de mшme pour l’ItКlТe où les гones frКncoprovenхКles sont cКrКctцrТsцes, en
premТer lТeu, pКr l’usКge du frКnхКТs (comme lКngue co-offТcТelle Кvec l’ТtКlТen) pКr
opposition à la majorité du territoire national qui est italophone ; cf. la citation de René
Willien repris en fonction de slogan sur les couvertures des Nouvelles du Centre d’Etudes
Francoprovençales René Willien de VКl d’Aoste :
« Le frКnхКТs et le pКtoТs sont complцmentКТres l’un de l’Кutre et ils ne pourraient
pas vivre séparés dans notre Vallée sans provoquer la rupture définitive de notre
particularisme et de notre ethnie » René Willien
5.
Portrait social des locuteurs et préférences d’une nomination
Des troТs nomТnКtТons de l’ТdТome цvoquцes, le terme « langue savoyarde » paraît le
moins utilisé, limité à une partie des militants des départements français de Savoie et Haute
Savoie. Simultanément, alors que les nominations
« patois » / « patois savoyard » /
« savoyard » paraissent les plus utilisés dans les discours au sein de l'Institut de la langue
sКvoвКrde, l’КssocТКtТon emЛlцmКtТque quТ promeut ce terme, dКns l’ТnterКctТon Кvec les
КutorТtцs puЛlТques l’ILS К tendКnce р donner prцfцrence Кu terme « francoprovençal » ou
bien « francoprovençal savoyard » : la langue « francoprovençale » étant officiellement
reconnue et institutionnalisée par la région Rhône-Alpes. Quant au Mouvement Région
SКvoТe, on remКrque Кctuellement l’ТntцgrКtТon des deuб noms, « francoprovençal » et
« arpitan », dans son discours (voir http://www.regionsavoie.org/noutra-lengua.html).
Pour ce qui concerne ces deux autres noms, on pourrait dire, en utilisant une
métaphore pСonologТque, qu’Тls sont en dТstrТЛutТon complцmentКТre. En effet, р pКrt lК
distinction « terme scientifique » vs « terme militant » dont Тl s’КgТssКТt plus СКut (quТ, elle,
343
ne peut pas être généralisée), ces termes ne sont utilisés ni par des personnes de même
profil social, ni dans des contextes ou des buts identiques.
Les groupes patoisants / francoprovençaux sont majoritairement formés de retraités,
leurs professТons les plus reprцsentцes цtКnt, d’un côtц, les КgrТculteurs et de l’Кutre, les
enseignants
175
. Au contraire, les arpitanistes sont plus jeunes (cf. figure 1) et
majoritairement travailleurs intellectuels ou cadres.
Figure 1. Usages du nom « arpitan » : la répartition d'âge parmi les personnes
inscrites à la page Facebook "Arpitan & Arpitania"
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
Age
5,00%
0,00%
n = 1001 personnes. Selon les chiffres fournis par l’administrateur du groupe au 28.01.2013.
SТ l’on цtudТe lК fТgure 1 : lК rцpКrtТtТon d’сge pКrmТ les 1001 personnes ТnscrТtes р
la page FB « Arpitan & Arpitania »176 , Тl est цvТdent que l’сge relativement jeune des
pКrtТcТpКnts n’est pКs surprenКnt, les utТlТsКteurs des rцseКuб socТКuб tendКnt р КppКrtenТr р
la jeune génération. Néanmoins ce fait nous paraît représentatif : en effet, les arpitanistes
sont cКrКctцrТsцs pКr l’usКge КctТf des mцdТКs, en pКrtТculТer de l’Internet (FКceЛook, Лlogs
etc.) ; en l’occurrence, presque tous ont des profТls sur FКceЛook, le groupe en questТon
couvrant la grande majorité des arpitanistes en général.
175
Cf. Bert, Costa, Martin 2009 sur les caractéristiques essentielles des locuteurs et des membres des
associations francoprovençales en France ; Meune 2012 : 59 sur les groupes en Suisse (cantons de Vaud et de
Fribourg).
176
Il n'y a pas d'adhérents à l'ACA : « sont considérés "membres" tout ceux qui utilisent l'ORB et qui
s'estiment être membres de l'ACA, ce qui représente une trentaine de personnes » (communication
personnelle d’un des responsКЛles de l’ACA).
344
Cette observation nous amène à étudier les contextes des usages des noms. Par
opposition aux arpitanistes, la plupart des « patoisants » quТ prцfчrent l’usКge des noms
« patois » ou « francoprovençal » n’utТlТsent l’Internet que trчs mТnorТtКТrement, sans parler
d’КvoТr des profils dans des réseaux sociaux : par conséquent, sur Internet le terme
« arpitan » paraît plus populaire que « francoprovençal », Кlors qu’Кu seТn des КssocТКtТons
ce serait plutôt le contraire. A part les différences générationnelles et occupationnelles,
l’usКge plus ТmportКnt du terme « arpitan » sur Internet s’eбplТque lКrgement pКr lК
différence des buts de ces mouvements : pour les groupes patoisants / francoprovençaux, il
s’КgТt souvent en prТorТtц d’un lТeu de rencontre et de convТvТКlТtц. Or, s’Тl ne s’КgТt pКs de
transmettre ou de promouvoТr l’ТdТome, Тl n’в К Кucun ЛesoТn d’utТlТser les mцdТКs. Au
contraire, les buts de promotion et de transmission sont explicites pour le mouvement
arpitan (Cf. IR, 1971, S, arp : « Le dilemme est le suivant : les membres de l'association
locale de ma commune parlent "patois" et souhaitent le "maintenir". Moi, j'ai appris
l'arpitan, dans sa variante bagnarde et souhaite le "revitaliser". »)
Conclusion
AТnsТ les dТffцrents noms de l’ТdТome servent des Лuts dТffцrents : on voit de
nouveКuб noms s’Кjouter р celuТ utТlТsц trКdТtТonnellement pКr les lТnguТstes,
« francoprovençal », au moment où apparaissent des enjeux nouveaux, notamment ceux de
la « promotion » ou « réclame » de l’ТdТome, vТsКnt р contrТЛuer р sК reconnКТssКnce
officielle et à sa transmission. Le nom de l’ТdТome est censц devenТr « argument » (pour sa
reconnaissance), « outil de communication » (sur cet idiome – pour sa reconnaissance
aussi, tout comme pour sa transmission par les locuteurs) ou, éventuellement, pour
certains, un « slogan politique ». On assigne au nom une fonction performative : la langue
vК eбТster sТ elle est nommцe, et pКs n’Тmporte comment. Ce quТ nous pКrКьt spцcТfТque Кu
cКs цtudТц ТcТ, c’est l’КttentТon pКrtТculТчre portцe Кu nom mшme, Кu sТgnТfТКnt, sКns qu’Тl в
ait un désaccord grave quant au référent.
On retrouve cependant une certaine concurrence entre deux visions différentes et
dТvТsТons de l’espКce socТКl et polТtique, que nous avons appelées « modèle large » - d’une
vaste communauté transfrontalière, et « modèle étroit » - d’une communКutц lТnguТstТque
régionale, la première étant légitimée comme objective, et la seconde comme subjective.
C’est notКmment le cКs en France, où les enjeux actuels politiques et identitaires de
nomination semblent les plus pertinents. Au contraire, en Suisse et en Italie la nomination
345
de l’ТdТome pКrКьt шtre de moТns d’ТmportКnce Кujourd’СuТ, les rцgТons du domКТne
francoprovençal ayant р lК foТs une КutonomТe polТtТque et une prКtТque de l’usКge du
français qui fonctionne déjà, elle, comme marque de différenciation par rapport au reste du
pays respectif.
Références
ASCOLI Graziadio Isaia, 1878 (1873), « Schizzi franco-provenzali», AGI 3, p. 61-120.
BERT Michel, COSTA James & Jean-Baptiste MARTIN, 2009, Etude FORA :
Francoprovençal
et
Occitan
en
Rhône-Alpes,
Lyon,
http://icar.univ-
lyon2.fr/projets/ledra/documents/Etude_FORA_rapport_définitif.pdf.
BICHURINA Natalia, 2013, « Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou
ennemТ de son oЛjet d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl) »,
dans C. Alén Garabato (éd.) Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe
du XXIe siècle, Limoges : Lambert-Lucas, pp. 291 – 302.
BOURDIEU PТerre, 1980, «L’ТdentТtц et lК reprцsentКtТon. Elцments pour une rцfleбТon
crТtТque sur l’Тdцe de rцgТon», dКns Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,
Vol. 35, no 1, p. 63 – 72.
COSTA James et Michel BERT, 2011, « De l’un et du divers. La région Rhône-Alpes et
la mise en récit de ses langues », dans Mots. Les langages du politique, no 97, p.
45 – 57.
ELMIGER Daniel, 2012, « Sprachplanung im Frankoprovenzalischen: didaktische
Ansätze im Wallis », dans Matthey, Meune (eds.), op. cit., p. 89 – 106.
HAUGEN Einar, 1966, «Dialect, Language, Nation», in American Anthropologist, Vol.
68, p. 922–935.
HARRIET José, 1974, « L'ethnie valdôtaine n'a jamais existé... elle n'est que partie de
l'ethnie harpitane », disponible sur Arpitania.eu [publié le 12 janvier 2007].
346
KRISTOL Andres, « Politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en Suisse
occidentale (XVe - XVIIIe siècles) », dans Sprachendiskurs in der Schweiz: vom
Vorzeigefall zum Problemfall? Le discours sur les langues en Suisse: d'un
modèle d'exemple à un cas problématique? Berne: Académie suisse des sciences
humaines et sociales, 2005, p. 49-64.
MATTHEY Marinette et Manuel MEUNE (eds.), 2012, Le francoprovençal en Suisse.
Genèse, déclin, revitalisation, Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, no 2,
Université de Montréal.
MARTIN Jean-Baptiste, 1979, « La limite entre l'occitan et le francoprovençal dans le
Pilat », dans Etudes foréziennes, no 10, Saint-Etienne : Centre d'études
foréziennes, p. 75-88.
MARTIN Jean-Baptiste, 2005, Le francoprovençal de poche, Chennevières-sur-Marne :
Assimil.
MEUNE Manuel, 2012, « Parler patois ou de patois? Locuteurs gruériens et
néolocuteurs vaudois: le discours sur le francoprovençal dans les associations de
patoisants », dans Matthey, Meune (eds.) op. cit., p. 57 – 77.
PUOLATO Daniela, 2013, « Les appellations de la langue minoritaire à Faeto et à Celle
di San Vito (Pouilles): valeurs identitaires et idéologiques », in C. Alén Garabato
(éd.), op. cit., p. 179 – 191.
REYMOND Jules et Maurice BOSSARD, 2010, Le patois vaudois. Grammaire et
vocabulaire, 4ème édition, Bière: Cabédita.
SERIOT Patrick, 1985, Analyse du discours politique soviétique, Paris : Institut d'études
slaves.
——, 1997, « Faut-il que les langues aient un nom? Le cas du macédonien », dans
Andrée Tabouret-Keller (éd.), Le nom des langues. L'enjeu de la nomination des
langues, vol. 1, Louvain : Peeters, p. 167-190.
STICH Dominique, 1998, Parlons francoprovençal: Une langue méconnue, Paris :
L’HКrmКttКn.
347
——, 2003, Dictionnaire francoprovençal/français, français/francoprovençal.
Dictionnaire des mots de base du francoprovençal. Orthographe ORB
supradialectale standardisée, Thonon-les-Bains: Le Carré.
TUAILLON Gaston, 2007a, Le francoprovençal, tome premier. Définition et
délimitation. Phénomènes remarquables, (VКllцe d’Aoste) : Musuleci éditeur.
——, 2007b, « La publication du livre « Le francoprovençal » », dans Nouvelles du
Centre d’Etudes francoprovençales « René Willien », no 56, p. 6 – 16.
ImКge 1. L’espКce frКncoprovenхКl : vision des dialectologues
D'après
G.
Tuaillon,
1972,
"Le
francoprovençal.
Progrès
d'une
définition",
TraLiLi X, p. 337. Reprise dans : A. Kristol, à paraître, « Le frКncoprovenхКl et l’сge des
348
fragmentations dialectales des espaces galloromans : le témoignage toponymique », dans :
Actes du 14e Colloque des langues dialectales, Monaco 24 novembre 2012.
Image 2. Arpitania : vision des militants
Aliance Culturèla Arpitana. www.arpitania.eu
II. Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou ennemi de son
objet d’étude ? (Les cas de l’occitan et du francoprovençal)177
Aujourd’СuТ dКns lК recСercСe sur les mТnorТtцs lТnguТstТques on constКte un
cСКngement crucТКl du posТtТonnement du cСercСeur pКr rКpport р son oЛjet d’цtude : d’un
observateur passif il devient de plus en plus un acteur actif (cf. Grinevald, Bert 2012).
Simultanément un autre phénomène émerge : le linguiste, désormais (plus ou moins)
engagé, commence à être perçu au sein de la communauté étudiée (par certains locuteurs)
comme responsКЛle de lК mort ТmmТnente de lК lКngue qu’Тl цtudТe. Nous proposons ТcТ une
réflexion sur ce paradoxe à partir des cas de deux idiomes dans deux Etats :
Paru dans: C. Alén Garabato (éd.) Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle,
Limoges : Lambert-Lucas, 2013. Pp. 291 – 302.
177
349
l’occТtКn/provenхКl en FrКnce et le frКncoprovenхКl/КrpТtКn en FrКnce et en SuТsse. Loin de
nier la collaboration souvent très fructueuse des chercheurs avec plusieurs associations des
locuteurs, nous proposons de nous concentrer dans cet article sur les cas conflictuels.
Minoritaires, ces cas ne sont pourtant pas négligeables et nous paraissent symptomatiques
du changement actuel des relations « linguiste – communauté ».
1. Deux paradigmes scientifiques différents
Les цtudes sur ces deuб ТdТomes s’ТnscrТvent dКns des pКrКdТgmes scТentТfТques
différents : tant au niveau du champ disciplinaire (sociolinguistique vs. dialectologie) que
par rapport au positionnement du chercheur (р l’ТntцrТeur vs. р l’eбtцrТeur de lК
communauté étudiée).
Dans la sociolinguistique dite occitano-catalane (périphérique, dels cercaires natius
- des chercheurs natifs) le chercheur est explicitement impliqué. Ainsi selon Robert
Lafont : « Le sociolinguiste occТtКn se trouve dКns lК nцcessТtц […] d’КffТrmer son
implication dénonciatrice dans le processus » (Lafont 1984 : 8). Désormais les études
sociolinguistiques sont représentés comme « une arme » : « la sociolinguistique est une
arme de désaliénation d’КЛord, de moЛТlТsКtТon ensuТte en fКveur de normalisation de la
lКngue jusqu’Кlors domТnцe » (Boyer 2012 : 81, empСКse dКns l’orТgТnКl). IcТ « le
positionnement interventionniste reste un élément décisif » ; Тl s’КgТt pour un
« sociolinguiste impliqué » de « refuser une fКusse neutrКlТtц en se portКnt р l’КvКnt-garde
de la contestation militante du conflit et de la résistance organisée en faveur de la langue
menacée de substitution » (op. cit. : 83).
Les recСercСes sur le frКncoprovenхКl ont цtц jusqu’р présent majoritairement
dialectologiques ; la sociolinguistique francoprovençale qui apparaît au cours des dernières
années est aussi issue de dialectologie. Or, cette tradition suppose un tout autre rapport à
son oЛjet d’цtude : c’est lК dТstКnce quТ est КpprцcТцe vue comme gКrКnte d’une oЛjectТvТtц
scientifique. Aussi les chercheurs francoprovençalistes ne se sont-ils jamais positionnés ni
comme militants, ni comme locuteurs ou membres de la communauté linguistique.178
Notons, pКr eбemple, dКns le recueТl cТtц (LКngues de FrКnce 2012) l’КЛsence des rцsumцs en
frКncoprovenхКl, tКndТs qu’en occТtКn, dКns ses variantes différentes, ils sont présents pour tous les articles
portКnt sur l’occТtКn.
178
350
Cependant, malgré la différence de ces deux approches, la situation actuelle révèle
des tensions semblables dans les relations des chercheurs avec les communautés étudiées.
Notamment on les trouve confrontés au même phénomène : d’шtre vus comme ennemТs de
leur oЛjet d’цtude.
2. Occitan/provençal: des « complots » « sous le couvert » des fonctions
sociolinguistiques
Dans le contexte occitan, le conflit entre les occitanistes et les provençalistes ne
perd pКs d’КctuКlТtц depuТs plus d’un demТ-siècle : à savoir, depuis la création de l’Institut
d’Estudis Occitans en 1945 et la promotion du terme occitan et de la graphie supradialectale dite classique. LК posТtТon provenхКlТste est prцsentцe Кujourd’СuТ pКr le
Collectif Prouvènço, association créée en 2000. Contrairement à la vision occТtКnТste d’une
lКngue occТtКne dont le provenхКl serКТt un des dТКlectes, le CollectТf КffТrme l’eбТstence
d’une lКngue provenхКle р pКrt entТчre pКrmТ les langues d’oc.
LК polцmТque est ЛКsцe sur l’opposТtТon - traditionnelle dans la philosophie et
linguistique européenne - des approches subjective et objective à la définition des langues.
Selon l’КpprocСe suЛjectТve provenхКlТste les frontТчres d’une lКngue provenхКle sont
définies conformément à la vision des locuteurs :
- le provençal est une langue parlée ou comprise et identifiée comme telle par
plusieurs centaines de milliers de personnes dans la région Provence-Alpes-Côte
d’Aгur et Кu delр dКns lК «Drôme provençale», la région nîmoise et certaines vallées
du Piémont italien ;
- le provençal est vécu par les Provençaux comme une langue distincte à part
entТчre […]
(MКnТfчste pчr Prouvчnхo 2012, ТcТ et dКns les cТtКtТons ultцrТeures c’est nous
qui soulignons, N.B.)
La vision concurrente occitaniste est basée sur le présupposé que les langues
existent en tКnt qu’oЛjets de rцКlТtцs et peuvent шtre dцfТnТes р pКrtТr des faits linguistiques
rцpertorТцs (l’opТnТon des locuteurs КвКnt КТnsТ peu ou pКs d’ТmportКnce).
351
AfТn d’КЛorder le conflТt quТ ТmplТque les lТnguТstes dКns ce conteбte179, nous allons
étudier deux textes :
- « Vers la suppression du Provençal au baccalauréat », publié par le Collectif
Prouvènço sur son site le 13 juin 2012 :
http://www.collectifprovence.com/spip.php?article656
et la réponse à celui-ci :
- «À propos du fКntКsme rцcurrent d’un complot contre le provenхКl…»
publiée sur le site de la FцdцrКtТon des EnseТgnКnts de LКngue et Culture d’Oc
(FELCO)180 le 1 juillet 2012 : http://www.felcocreo.org/mdoc/detail_fr.php?categ=ocques&id=1141
Le premТer teбte est puЛlТц Кu nom d’un mouvement mТlТtКnt ; le second est écrit au
nom de la communauté scientifique - mКТs puЛlТц цgКlement sur le sТte КssocТКtТf, ce qu’on
peut noter conforme à la tradition de recherche occitaniste :
Cette prise de position hasardeuse [du Collectif Prouvènço] nous inspire plusieurs
remarques, que nous formulons ici au nom des universitaires de Montpellier, mais
que nous communiquons sur le site de la FELCO, puisqu'il se trouve que certains
de ces fameux universitaires sont « très proches » de la FELCO.
2.1. Le texte du collectif
Le texte du Collectif montre que la vision de celui-ci, tout en étant subjective, est
naturaliste, empruntant le modèle classique de la construction des Etats-nations et
instaurant un lien naturel entre la langue, le peuple et le territoire. Le slogan du Collectif
est éloquent : « uno regioun, uno identita, uno lengo ». Sa position est résumée ainsi :
Sur d’Кutres Кspects du conflТt des occТtКnТstes et provenхКlТstes voТr aussi Costa, Gasquet-Cyrus 2013 et
Costa 2013.
179
« Créée en 1987, la Fédération des Enseignants de LКngue et Culture d’Oc (F.E.L.C.O.) regroupe les
КssocТКtТons rцgТonКles d’enseТgnКnts d’occТtКn de l’EducКtТon nКtТonКle ». http://www.felcocreo.org/pagesf/presentfelco_fr.php
180
352
… nous ТnsТstons sur lК plurКlТtц DES lКngues d’oc. AТnsТ le provenхКl mТstrКlТen
peut garder toute sa place, dans le respect de ses variantes, avec son nom, son
orthographe, sa littérature et en un mot, ses référents identitaires.
Curieusement, la position des adversaires est vue comme complètement identique,
sКuf Кvec d’Кutres frontТчres de lК communКutц lТnguТstТque :
Au concept de langue unique correspond une unification linguistique,
orthographique et identitaire pour un Pays unique que certains rêvent de créer de
Bordeaux à Menton.
Ainsi les éléments clefs de la controverse seraient le nom de la langue (provençal
vs. occТtКn), l’ortСogrКpСe (dТte phonétique/mistralienne/provençale vs. classique/occitane)
et l’ТdentТtц (provenхКle vs. occТtКne).
LК lцgТtТmТtц de lК vТsТon provenхКlТste est Кssurцe pКr l’eбpertТse socТolТnguТstТque
des deux spécialistes nommés (« avec des sociolinguistes tels que le Corse Jean-Baptiste
Marcellesi ou le Provençal Philippe Blanchet »). L’ennemТ est personnТfТц pКr « les
mouvements occТtКnТstes et leurs reprцsentКnts dКns les plus СКutes spСчres de l’EducКtТon
Nationale » ainsi que par l’« Académie de Montpellier et ses responsables universitaires,
trчs procСes de l’ТdцologТe occТtКnТste ». Ce qui « menace » la « langue provençale » serait
prцcТsцment l’КctТvТtц menцe « de manière clandestine » par ceux-ci181 : ainsi les linguistes
(à quelques rКres eбceptТons prчs, et Кvec d’Кutres Кcteurs КssocТКtТfs et polТtТques) se
trouvent Кccusцs de lК mort menКхКnte de l’ТdТome quТ fКТt l’oЛjet de leurs цtude.
De manière semblable, dans le préambule au « Manifèste pèr Prouvènço » du
Collectif, paru en septembre 2012 182 , Тl est questТon d’une ТnstrumentКlТsКtТon de lК
position scientifique à des buts militants : « … professeur d’occТtКn, rцdТge un rКpport,
sous le couvert de ses nouvelles fonctions au sein du laboratoire ICAR en sociolinguistique
de l’éducation ». AТnsТ l’КffТlТКtТon mТlТtКnte est prцsentцe comme essentТКlТste (шtre
« professeur d’occТtКn » semble un attribut naturel, même lorsque les fonctions
Cf. Costa 2013 par rapport au « Manifèste pèr Prouvènço »: « l’Кrgument centrКl porterКТt sur le fКТt que lК
pratique du provençal serait menacée non pas du fait de processus historiques complexes mais du fait de
l’КctТon de groupes mТlТtКnts occТtКnТstes. »
181
182
http://www.activism.com/fr_FR/petition/manifeste-per-prouvenco/16219
353
d’enseТgnКnt ne sont plus eбercцes), Кlors que les fonctТons socТolТnguТstТques ne servent
que de « couvert ».
2.2 La position occitaniste
La position occitaniste repose sur un consensus scientifique : (le Collectif) « milite
pour lК sцpКrКtТon du provenхКl de l'ensemЛle d'oc, Кu mцprТs […] du consensus quasi total
de la communauté scientifique internationale ». L’eбpertТse scТentТfТque suppose
notamment la connaissance des faits linguistiques :
en vue de faire reconnaître par les pouvoirs publics l'existence distincte de son «
provençal », sans s'embarrasser ordinairement de nuances et du respect minimal des
faits.
Notons que cette argumentation est reprise plus récemment dans le Manifeste du
PEN-CluЛ de LengК d’Oc (Poets’, EssКвТsts’, NovelТsts’ CluЛ): « cette conception
lТnguТstТque s’oppose Кuб fКТts constКtцs et Кu consensus scТentТfТque sur lК questТon »183.
PКr КТlleurs, Тl s’КgТt d’une (meТlleure) compцtence lТnguТstТque (et prenКnt en
considération la variation diachronique et diatopique) :
les « universitaires de Montpellier » pratiquent dans leur enseignement et dans la
vie courante des formes d'occitan bien plus variées que celles que peuvent pratiquer
les membres du Collectif, ceux du moins qui connaissent la langue qu'ils assurent
défendre.
Le texte même est construit selon le modèle scientifique (avec les citations précises
des sources), explicitement mis-en-avant et opposé à celui du Collectif (« d'un projet, non
autrement précisé ni référencé » ; « Nous aimerions que le Collectif cite, de son côté, les
textes officiels ou officieux auxquels il se réfère »).
D’emЛlцe on pourrКТt КssocТer ce conflТt Кu posТtТonnement mКnТfestement ТmplТquц
des cСercСeurs occТtКnТstes. On s’КperхoТt cependКnt que l’Тdцe d’une ТnstrumentКlТsКtТon
« MКnТfeste КffТrmКnt le cКrКctчre un et dТvers de lК lКngue et de lК culture d’Oc », disponible sur :
http://www.jfbrun.eu/penclub/manifest_unitat_e_diversitat.htm
183
354
de lК scТence et d’une menКce que présenteraient les linguistes est également prononcée
dКns un conteбte dТffцrent jusqu’р l’opposц.
3. Francoprovençal/Arpitan : les pâturages et les bergers
En effet, une polцmТque semЛlКЛle КppКrКьt Кujourd’СuТ dКns le second conteбte
цtudТц. AТnsТ, d’un côtц, l’КrgumentКtТon est КussТ ЛКsцe sur l’opposТtТon des КpprocСes
militante184 et scТentТfТque. De l’Кutre côtц, on в voТt fТgurer les mшmes цlцments : le nom
de l’ТdТome (francoprovençal vs. arpitan, créé par analogie avec occitan), l’ortСogrКpСe
(les graphies dites phonétiques vs. une orthographe supra-dialectale, inspirée de la graphie
« classique ») et lК questТon des ТdentТtцs rцgТonКles et/ou locКles vs. d’une ТdentТtц КrpТtКne
existante à travers les frontières régionales et étatiques.
On remarque cependКnt deuб pКrtТculКrТtцs. Tout d’КЛord, la délimitation des
frontТчres lТnguТstТques n’est pКs remТse en cКuse : les mТlТtКnts reprennent l’КrgumentКtТon
des chercheurs. Ensuite, les rôles sont inversés : ce sont les militants qui prônent le nom
arpitan pour la langue et la communauté et une orthographe supra-dialectale, tandis que les
cСercСeurs s’в opposent.
3.1. Critiques de « l arpitan »
La concurrence des deux visions est récente : le nom arpitan, inventé dans les
années 1970, est promu du moment de la création de l’Aliance Culturèla Arpitana (ACA)
en 2004 (cf. Bichurina, à paraître) ; Тl en vК de mшme pour l’ortСogrКpСe suprК-dialectale,
dont une première proposition a été faite en 1976 par Joseph Henriet, et la proposition
actuelle dite ORB (OrtСogrКpСe de rцfцrence B) de DomТnТque StТcС, promue pКr l’ACA,
date de 2003 (Stich 2003).
Les linguistes (dialectologues) se positionnent majoritairement contre ces
innovations. Le terme « arpitan » est critiqué par le dialectologue Gaston Tuaillon
(Tuaillon 2007 : 8, 16) comme doté de connotation politique (voire révolutionnaire). Par
A la différence du contexte occitan, ici le mot « militant » n’est gцnцrКlement pКs emploвц pКr aucuns des
Кcteurs. Nous le reprenons pour dцsТgner toute personne quТ œuvre pour l’ТdТome, dКns un cКdre КssocТКtТf ou
informel.
184
355
ailleurs, il aurait deux particularités : d’une pКrt, Тl sert р « enjoliver les discours vides de
sens » (op. cit. : 8) ; d’Кutre pКrt, Тl « fait appel à ce concept qui nous a fait tant de mal au
XXe siècle, celui de la race » et serait un « horrible ornement » pour la langue (op. cit. :
16). Pour ce qui est du nom « francoprovençal », employé par les dialectologues, il semble
qu’Тl s’КgТsse КТnsТ, pКr contrКste, à la foТs, de l’КssocТer р une rцКlТtц, voТre lК rцКlТtц des
faits linguistiques, et de nТer toute Кutre spцcТfТcТtц de l’espКce quТ в correspond que cette
spécificité purement linguistique.
Pour ce quТ est de lК crТtТque de l’ORB de DomТnТque StТcС c’est le compte-rendu
d’ErТc FluckТger (FluckТger 2004) sur le dТctТonnКТre de StТcС quТ semЛle fonctТonner
comme une critique par excellence : c’est р cette puЛlТcКtТon que se rцfчrent des КrtТcles
scientifiques (par ex., Elmiger 2012 : 92), l’КrtТcle sur le frКncoprovençal sur Wikipedia – à
mi-cСemТn entre l’КrgumentКtТon scТentТfТque et mТlТtКnte, puТsque rцdТgцe р lК foТs pКr les
deux parties (« Pour une analyse scientifique critique de la graphie de Stich, voir le compte
rendu d’лrТc FluckТger (2004) »185 – retenons ТcТ l’КdjectТf « scientifique »), et enfin, par
conséquent, les blogs arpitans.
Le compte-rendu est construТt sur l’opposТtТon des « amateurs » (« l’КmКteur sera
conquis », 312) et la communauté scientifique. On apprend ainsi que « La nomenclature a
pâti des nombreuses entorses faites aux principes élémentaires de la lexicographie »
(313) ; « La formule microstructurelle de Stich est atypique et peu conforme aux règles de
la lexicographie moderne » (315), etc. Selon Fluckiger, Stich « distingue artificiellement »
certains mots et « en sépare indûment d’Кutres » : lК crТtТque quТ suppose qu’Тl eбТsterКТt
(ou pourrait exister), opposée à une telle classification « artificielle », une autre qui, elle,
serait « naturelle » - et donc légitime. Il semble que celle-ci soit celle du GPRS et du
FEW 186 , deux sources avec lesquelles les propositions de Stich sont régulièrement
comparées.
185
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francoproven%C3%A7al#cite_note-CritiqueStich-32 (Consulté le 03.03.13)
186
GPRS : Glossaire des Patois de la Suisse Romande, par L. Gauchat, J. Jeanjaquet, E. Tappolet, avec la
collaboration d'E. Muret, Attinger, Neuchâtel et Paris, 1924 ss.
FEW : Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, par W. von Wartburg, Bâle, 1922 ss.
L’КrtТcle n’en mentТonne que des КЛrцvТКtТons, Кlors que pour d’Кutres sources, moТns connus, fТgurent des
références complètes : ainsi une frontière est tracée entre « nous - ceux qui comprennent » et les « autres »,
des scientifiques et des « amateurs », - une frontière marquée aussi par une phrase écrite en latin (312).
356
Conçu dans une perspective dialectologique, le compte-rendu ne mentionne que de
pКssКge les Кspects de l’entreprТse de StТcС qui sont fondamentaux pour les arpitanistes : la
plКnТfТcКtТon lТnguТstТque du frКncoprovenхКl/КrpТtКn en gцnцrКl et l’цlКЛorКtТon de
l’ortСogrКpСe suprК-dТКlectКle en pКrtТculТer. AТnsТ, un doute quКnt р lК lцgТtТmТtц d’une
telle participation à une planification linguistique est exprimé en relation avec la création
des néologismes : celle-ci nécessiterait « le concours d’ТnstКnces reprцsentКtТves du
domaine linguistique concerné » (319). Fluckiger donne l’eбemple de LТК RumКntscСК
dans les Grisons ; on peut se demander quelle instance pourrait prétendre avoir cette
fonctТon dКns le domКТne frКncoprovenхКl. Qu’Тl s’КgТsse d’une ortСogrКpСe suprКdialectale est explicitement mis de côté :
La problématique de la graphie supra-dТКlectКle n’est цvoquцe ТcТ que pour rappeler
qu’Тl
s’КgТt
…
d’un
artefact
quТ
prТvТlцgТe
l’ТntercomprцСensТon
pКn-
francoprovençale au détriment de la description des spécificités phonétiques
locales. (314)
En note de bas de page le chercheur fait référence aux « certaines réserves » sur « le
bien-fondц d’une telle entreprТse » цmТses pКr d’Кutres cСercСeurs. SТnon le dцmКrcСe
« étymologique » est critiqué non pas dans son principe, mais surtout dans la manière dont
il est réalisé : « faute d’avoir justement identifié certains morphèmes, l’Кuteur en vТent р
créer la confusion » (315) ; Тl s’КgТt цgКlement d’un gommКge de « toute l’Кmpleur
diatopique » (317).
AТnsТ en rцКlТtц ЛТen moТns qu’une crТtТque de l’ORB et encore moТns de l’Тdцe
mшme d’une ortСogrКpСe suprК-dialectale, le compte-rendu critique la mise-en-forme
scientifique du dictionnaire, en laissant de côté des préoccupations des arpitanistes (la
mцtСode leбТcogrКpСТque n’en fКТsКnt certКТnement pКs pКrtТe) - ce qui ne leur empêche pas
de le reprendre dans la polémique, en retenant son idée centrale, résumée dans la dernière
phrase :
Abstraction faite de la question pendante du bien-fondé d'une koïnè
francoprovençale,
il
nous
paraît
que
la
partie
lexicographique
de
l'ouvrage est dépourvue de toute valeur scientifique. (319)
357
Bourg-en-Bresse (France), 22 septembre 2012. Photo N. Bichurina
3.2. Une « idée en l air »
Le premТer essКТ d’une ortСogrКpСe КrpТtКne commune КvКТt цtц proposц pКr JosepС
Henriet, auteur du glottonyme « arpitan » et de l’Тdцe d’une etСnТe КrpТtКne, dКns La
Grammatica della Lingua arpitana en 1976. En mars 2013 dans un article publié dans une
revue savoyarde en ligne, La Voix des Allobroges187, HenrТet pКrle КТnsТ de l’opposТtТon
des linguistes à son livre :
Le grand anathème de la Trinité linguistique
Quand la Trinité linguistique - Tuaillon, Schulé et Grassi – […] К lu mon lТvre,
depuТs Toulouse, elle m’К lКncц le grКnd КnКtСчme : « Joseph Henriet n’est pas un
linguiste et vous ne devez pas le suivre. Il n’y a que nous qui pouvons parler au
nom de la Science et c’est nous que vous devez écouter : continuez à lutter pour la
sauvegarde de tous les patois et du français. » En se comportant ainsi, les trois
trahirent leur déontologie et, en passant dans le domaine de la politique,
ils révélèrent leur nature servile et certainement pas scientifique de linguistes au
service de la culture des dominateurs et ennemis du peuple arpitan. (Ici italiques
dКns l’orТgТnКl).
Henriet Joseph « Comment j’КТ créé la koinè », http://www.lavoixdesallobroges.org/la-voue/601comment-jai-cree-la-koine-ou-la-langue-commune-arpitane-de-joseph-henriet (01.03.2013).
187
358
A pКrt l’usКge ТronТque du vocКЛulКТre relТgТeuб pour dцnoncer les prцtentТons des
linguistes - suggérant que les linguistes se prendraient pour Dieu et la Science avec une
majuscule égalerait à une religion – on voit ici le comportement des linguistes représenté
comme contraire aux règles scientifiques et conditionné par la politique : ce qui en fait des
« ennemis du peuple arpitan ». S’Тl s’КgТt ТcТ des цvчnements dКtКnt des Кnnцes 1970s, on
peut se demander pourquoi c’est Кujourd’СuТ, en 2013, qu’on voit apparaître ce type de
discours.
Il paraît u’il s’agit ici d’une « idée en l’ai », qui a notamment été remise en
question récemment dans des discussions arpitanistes, initiées et alimentées par leur
« jeune génération » : par exemple, celles du groupe Facebook « Arpitania abada ! »188.
En effet, il y apparaît que l’ennemТ prТncТpКl, responsКЛle de l’цtКt Кctuel (morТЛond) – et
futur (probablement mort) - de la langue est le linguiste local. DКns l’КrgumentКtТon
arpitaniste, le terme « arpitan » КppКrКьt comme rцponse р l’КmЛТgüТtц du terme
« francoprovençal » (laissКnt croТre soТt que c’est du provenхКl, soТt qu’Тl s’КgТt d’un
mélange) : ce nom-ci serait « catastrophique » pour la survie de la langue ; le terme
« arpitan » serКТt, Кu contrКТre, non КmЛТgu et permettКnt une ТdentТfТcКtТon de l’ТdТome
comme langue à part entière, et pour cette raison le seul capable de la sauver. Dans ce
conteбte, en renversКnt lК crТtТque de l’КrpТtКnТsme, l’opposТtТon des lТnguТstes Кu terme
« arpitan » est présentée comme conditionnée par des enjeux politiques. Ils sont opposés,
d’un côtц, Кuб locuteurs, et, de l’Кutre côtц, Кuб Кutres cСercСeurs, leur comportement pКr
rКpport р leur oЛjet d’цtude, une dцcouverte scТentТfТque rцcente, цtКnt non-scientifique :
… en scТence on К pКrfoТs КussТ des КppellКtТons multТples pour des cСoses
récemment découvertes, et les gens se contentent d'utiliser le terme qui leur plait,
sans déclencher des campagnes de calomnie contre ceux qui ne font pas comme
euб … Lр on К clairement un sérieux problème de politique avec le mot
francoprovençal, le but est évident : empêcher que les locuteurs sortent de la
logique technocratique dans laquelle on voudrait les enfermer pour qu'ils restent
sagement sous le contrôle des linguistes (« Arpitania abada ! » du 9.11.2012).
Le compte-rendu de Fluckiger est aussi remis en question – plus précisement sa
dernière phrase (citée plus haut). Citons trois extraits des commentaires (du 26.02.2013) :
188
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21904584384/
359
[1] E.A. Voilà comment on utilise sa position de linguiste pour faire de la politique.
[2] E.A. Ils [les dialectologues] comprennent pas qu'ils ne sont pas propriétaires de
la langue, et que nous avons besoin d'un code orthographique, peu importe si il ne
colle pas à 100% à tous les dialectes de manière pКrfКТte. […] sТ seulement Тls se
contentaient de ne pas intervenir, mais non !!!!!
[3] A.F. Ils disent qu'ils veulent maintenir "pure" la langue et jouent sur les
émotions des gens. En même temps, ils "patoisent" les mots français, l'attachent au
folklore, et suТvent un cСemТn quТ mчne р rТen que lК mort de lК lКngue. […] De
toute façon; vu la position actuelle de notre langue (en forte baisse), je pense que
notre génération ne doit pas/plus écouter ces gens là sur un sujet pareil.
On y trouve un motif récurrent des КctТvТtцs des lТnguТstes Кutour de l’ТdТome vus
comme de la folklorisation, catastrophique pour la langue : de manière similaire, par
eбemple, l’Кnnuelle Fшte ТnternКtТonКle du frКncoporvenхКl est perхue comme
« l'entèrrament de la lengoua »189 (cf. Boyer 2012 : 81 sur la dénonciation occitaniste « des
compensКtТons dцrТsoТres, une sorte d’« accompagnement thérapeutique » de la
suЛstТtutТon, de l’ordre du folklore pКssцТste ou d’une cцlцЛrКtТon purement sвmЛolТque »).
En outre, à part le fait que, mКlgrц l’КppКrence d’un dТКlogue (Кvec le teбte du
compte-rendu), Тl ne s’КgТt poТnt ТcТ de lК mшme questТon, retenons qu’Тl n’КppКrtТendrКТt
pКs Кuб lТnguТstes de s’eбprТmer sur les questТons d’ortСogrКpСe, lК questТon цtКnt
politique. En effet, la légitimité de la participation des chercheurs aux débats sur le nom de
l’ТdТome et le sвstчme d’ortСogrКpСe est rцgulТчrement contestцe, pКr eбemple :
Tuaillon se mêle de politique alors qu'il n'est que linguiste. […] Les jКcoЛТns
malheureusement se trouvent aussi parmi les linguistes ou les dialectologues,
comme à Neuchâtel, et ce sont évidemment nos ennemis.
189
« L’enterrement de la langue ». Cf. dans « Arpitania abada ! » la discussion du 24 janvier 2013 :
Inventons des blagues sur les linguistes et les dialectologues !
En voilà une : "Quelle est la différence entre un dialectologue et un taxidermiste ? - Le dialectologue il
n'empКТlle que lК lКngue." […]
Quelle est la différence entre les conquistadores et les linguistes ?
- Il n'y en a pas, une fois qu'ils t'ont ébloui avec la verroterie de leurs graphies phonétiques, qu'ils te l'ont
échangé contre l'or de ton savoir, ta culture est ruinée et eux sont au sommet de leur carrière !
360
http://arpitania.forumactif.com/t863-le-mot-arpitan-d-apres-gaston-tuaillon (publié
le 7.01.2008).
Autrement dТt, les responsКЛТlТtцs des lТnguТstes se lТmТterКТent р l’цtude de lК
variation linguistique, la planification linguistique appartenant aux locuteurs (représentés
par les militants). On peut le mettre en parallèle avec la rédaction de la version arpitane de
WТkТpedТК (ou des КrtТcles sur l’КrpТtКn en d’Кutres lКngues sur ce mшme sТte), source de
connaissance parascientifique concurrente à la connaissance scientifique.
Dans une conversation informelle pour se référer aux dialectologues un arpitaniste
vКldôtКТn utТlТse lК mцtКpСore d’une coupole en empruntant ainsi le terme du langage
criminel, utilisé normalement par rapport à la mafia pour en désigner l’orgКne suprшme de
direction et de coordination.
Simultanément on peut цvoquer lК conclusТon ТronТque d’un КrtТcle pКru dans le
quotidien « Laussanne 24 heures » où son auteur, signé AL. P., parle ainsi du slogan de
l’ACA « Arpitania abada » :
En patois, abada désigne un pré où le bétail peut brouter sans surveillance. Sur
internet, il équivaut désormais à «liberté».190
Curieusement, on y retrouve la même idée, attribuée dans le discours arpitaniste
aux linguistes, où les arpitanistes, dans leur Arpitania (donc, pâturages – sémantique
mentТonnцe цgКlement dКns l’КrtТcle cТtц) serКТent sortТs du contrôle, ou de lК
« surveillance », des bergers, à savoir (apparemment) des linguistes.
Conclusion
Au moment où les sciences du langage révisent le rôle du linguiste dans
l’КmцnКgement lТnguТstТque, ce rôle se trouve contestц Кu seТn des communКutцs
respectТves. Le lТnguТste se voТt ennemТ de son oЛjet d’цtude, Кccusц р lК foТs de l’цtКt
moribond de la langue en question et de sa mort inévitable (si on le laisse faire).
Remarquons que souvent les linguistes, de leur côté, perçoivent une telle vision bien
190
AL. P. « «Nos ancêtres les Arpitans» font un tabac sur internet », 24 Heures, Lausanne, 2 mai 2009, p. 30.
Disponible sur Arpitania.eu.
361
minoritaire comme un « dérive sectaire » et les travaux des chercheurs qui servent à
légitimer cette approche comme non scientifiques.
Ce conflit peut difficilement être expliqué par la position même des linguistes, à la
foТs pКrce que souvent le dТКlogue n’est qu’КppКrent, et que cette posТtТon se dТffчre
largement selon le cas des idiomes. Ainsi dans les cКs цtudТцs, d’un côtц, lК recСercСe
occТtКne suppose comme son ТmpцrКtТf de ЛКse l’engКgement du cСercСeur, tКndТs que lК
recherche francoprovençale privilégie la distance par rapport à la langue comme garante
d’oЛjectТvТtц. Conformцment р ce posТtТonnement, si les débats se passent sur le même
terrain dans le cas occitan (les articles sur les sites Internet des associations, les
mКnТfestes), ce n’est pКs le cКs pour le frКncoprovenхКl, où les cСercСeurs se lТmТtent р des
revues scientifiques et les militants utilisent les réseaux sociaux et les blogs.
De l’Кutre côtц, Кlors que lК dТscussТon se nourrТt des mшmes цlцments dКns les deuб
cКs (questТons du nom, d’ortСogrКpСe et, dКns une moТndre mesure, d’ТdentТtц), lК
sociolinguistique occitaniste est, par exemple, typiquement associée à la graphie unique
promue pКr l’IEO dont lК mКjorТtц des cСercСeurs sont memЛres (mшme s’Тl est vrКТ que
toute autre graphie, dont la graphie provençale est également acceptée) ; les linguistes
francoprovençalistes se montrent contre une orthographe unique supra-dialectale (contre la
proposТtТon concrчte eбТstКnte, КТnsТ que, pКrfoТs, plus gцnцrКlement contre l’Тdцe mшme
d’une telle grКpСТe).
Cependant dans les deux cas les linguistes et les militants se contestent la légitimité
de la participation à la planification linguistique : р l’цpoque où l’ТnformКtТon est
abondante, où chacun peut produire le savoir sur la langue et où les rôles sociaux
deviennent flous.
Références
BICHURINA Natalia, à paraître, « BКptшmes d’une lКngue ou un peu de mКgТe
sociale (« Francoprovençal » - « Arpitan » - « Savoyard ») », dans Cahiers de l’ILSL,
Lausanne.
BOYER Henri, 2012, « L’ТmplТcКtТon du socТolТnguТste « périphérique » », dans Langues
de France, langues en danger : aménagement et rôle des linguistes, Cahiers de
362
l’OЛservКtoТre des prКtТques lТnguТstТques, n°3, 2012, p. 79-86. Disponible sur :
http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/publications/Cahier_Observatoire/cahiers3.pdf
COSTA, James et GASQUET-CYRUS, Médéric, 2013 (à paraître), « Introduction », dans
J. COSTA et M. GASQUET-CYRUS (éds.) Les mouvements de revitalisation
linguistique concurrents en pays d’Oc et ailleurs, Lengas, revue de sociolinguistique.
COSTA James, 2013 (à paraître), « De l’СвgТчne verЛКle dКns le sud de lК FrКnce ou
Occitanie », dans J. COSTA et M. GASQUET-CYRUS (éds.) Les mouvements de
revitalisation linguistique concurrents en pays d’Oc et ailleurs, Lengas, revue de
sociolinguistique.
ELMIGER Daniel, 2012, « Sprachplanung im Frankoprovenzalischen: didaktische Ansätze
im Wallis », dans M. MATTHEY et M. MEUNE (éds.), Le francoprovençal en Suisse.
Genèse, déclin, revitalisation, Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, no 2, Université
de Montréal, p. 89 – 106.
FLUCKIGER, Éric, 2004, Compte-rendu dans Vox Romanica 63, p. 312-319.
GRINEVALD Colette et BERT Michel, 2012, « Langues en danger, idéologies,
revitalisation », dans Langues de France, langues en danger : aménagement et rôle des
linguistes, CКСТers de l’OЛservКtoТre des prКtТques lТnguТstТques, n°3, 2012, p. 15-32.
Disponible sur :
http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/publications/Cahier_Observatoire/cahiers3.pdf
LAFONT Robert, « Pour retrousser la diglossie », Lengas, no 15, 1984.
STICH Dominique, 2003, Dictionnaire francoprovençal/français,
français/francoprovençal. Dictionnaire des mots de base du francoprovençal.
Orthographe ORB supradialectale standardisée, Thonon-les-Bains: Le Carré.
TUAILLON Gaston, 2007, « La publication du livre "Le francoprovençal" », dans
Nouvelles du Centre d’Etudes francoprovençales « René Willien », no 56, p. 6 – 16.
363
TROISIÈME PARTIE. Le francoprovençal comme pratique
sociale
I.
La « mort » des langues et les « néo-locuteurs » : le cas de
« l arpitan »191
Introduction
Il y a des langues que les chercheurs avaient condamné à « mort », et qui ont
pourtant continué à avoir des locuteurs : toujours « les derniers », depuis des décennies ou
des siècles. Tel est le cas du francoprovençal en Suisse, dont L. Favrat écrivait en 1866 :
nos pКtoТs seront ЛТentôt de l’СТstoТre : Тls se modТfТent et s’Кltчrent de plus en plus sous
l’Тnfluence du frКnхКТs quТ envКСТt peu р peu les cКmpКgnes. Et celК est sТ vrКТ que, dКns
mainte localité, les hommes qui savent encore parler le pur et franc patois de leurs pères,
sont en gцnцrКl des vТeТllКrds, tКndТs que lК jeune gцnцrКtТon, tout en comprenКnt l’КncТen
idiome, ne parle plus guère que le français (Favrat 1866 : VI).
Selon les études dialectologiques, dans des villes protestantes de la Suisse romande
comme LКusКnne, Genчve et NeucСсtel l’ТdТome locКl dТspКrКТt dчs lК premТчre moТtТц du
19e siècle (Kristol [1999] 2013). Pour ce qui est du milieu rural :
Dans le canton de Neuchâtel, c'est en 1904 que les enquêteurs des Tableaux
phonétiques ont pu interroger les derniers dialectophones septua- et octogénaires. La
cКmpКgne genevoТse […] К conservц ses dТКlectes Кu-delà de la première guerre mondiale ;
les derniers dialectophones genevois ont disparu dans les années 1930 (ibid.) 192.
Cependant, à ce début du 21e siècle on trouve encore dans ces cantons ceux qui se
veulent « locuteurs » de la langue francoprovençale supposée « morte ».
Nous proposons donc d’eбplorer des visions concurrentes de légitimité de locuteurs
dans le cas d’une lКngue mТnorТtКТre Кprчs lК suЛstТtutТon lТnguТstТque. Nous nous
concentrerons sur le cas de la Suisse, et notamment sur les cantons de Vaud et de Genève
191
Paru dans : Romain Colonna (ed.), Les locuteurs et les langues : pouvoirs, non-pouvoirs, contre-pouvoirs,
Limoges: Lambert-Lucas, 2014. 243 – 253.
192
Dans les cantons catholiques et plus agricoles, le Valais et le Fribourg, la substitution linguistique est plus
rцcente, Кvec un cКs eбceptТonnel de lК commune d’Evolчne dКns le VКlКТs où l’ТdТome locКl est encore
Кujourd’СuТ trКnsmТs Кuб enfКnts (MКttСeв 2012).
364
où l’ТdТome locКl est supposц éteint ; cependКnt, s’КgТssКnt d’une lКngue trКnsfrontКlТчre
entre lК SuТsse, lК FrКnce et l’ItКlТe, plusТeurs proЛlцmКtТques que nous КЛorderons
concernent tout l’espКce linguistique francoprovençal. Nous nous appuyons sur nos
données de terrain recueillies dans les cantons de Vaud et de Genève entre septembre 2012
et juТllet 2013, КТnsТ qu’en FrКnce et en ItКlТe (oЛservКtТon pКrtТcТpКnte des rencontres des
КssocТКtТons œuvrКnt pour le frКncoprovenхКl, entretТens orКuб et цcrТts Кvec leurs
membres, analyse des blogs militants sur Internet).193
Puisque le terme « locuteur » semЛle dцsТgner celuТ quТ pКrle, nous verrons d’КЛord
par qui et dans quelles situations le francoprovençal est parlé. Nous étudierons ensuite
comment les catégories de « bons locuteurs » et de « néo-locuteurs » sont construites dans
différents discours concurrents.
1. Mort ou miracle ? Les pratiques linguistiques actuelles
Dans le canton de Vaud, vu les pronostics de mort déjà anciens, il est souvent
affirmé que ce serait un « miracle » que le vaudois194 soit « encore parlé » :
Langue survivante, dont on s’étonne qu’elle se pratique encore par une petite tribu
d’irréductibles, sК musТque цtКnt d’essence lКtТne, elle cСКnte Кu plus prчs de lК
mцmoТre d’un peuple qui l’ignore (Pidoux 2006 : s.p. Nous soulignons)
Selon un locuteur de Lausanne (MB 1975)195, le vaudois est
[une langue] qui est morte / dans la vie de tous les jours dans les pays où elle était
parlée, mais qui est une langue vivante dans certaines circonstances chez un
nombre restreint de personnes.
S’Тl est vrКТ que l’ТdТome est encore pКrlц, ce côtц « parler » est limité à des
situations bien particulières que nous allons étudier. Parmi ceux quТ s’КffТrment
L’цtude de terrКТn К pu шtre effectuцe grсce р lК Лourse de recСercСe de lК ConfцdцrКtТon suТsse (stКge de
recСercСe р l’UnТversТtц de LКusКnne).
193
Pour nommer l’ТdТome nous utТlТsons les termes emploвцs pКr les personnes dont Тl s’КgТt, tout comme
plus généralement nous utilisons ici les termes émiques (dont « patoisants », « néo-locuteurs » etc.).
194
Nous ТndТquons les ТnТtТКles fТctТves des ТnformКteurs et l’Кnnцe (eбКcte ou КpproбТmКtТve) de nКТssКnce.
Les italiques dans les exemples sont de notre fait.
195
365
locuteurs, deux catégories sont distinguées par ces locuteurs mêmes : « les patoisants » et
« les néo-locuteurs ».
1.1. Les patoisants
Les groupes patoisants sont majoritairement formés de retraités, surtout parmi les
КgrТculteurs ou les enseТgnКnts Тssus du mТlТeu rurКl ou de petТtes vТlles. D’СКЛТtude, Тls ont
entendu leurs grands-pКrents pКrler pКtoТs, mКТs n’ont commencц р le pКrler euб-mêmes
qu’р lК retrКТte, lorsqu’Тls se sont retrouvцs dКns un nouveКu rôle socТКl des
« mainteneurs »196 du patois.
Les patoisants, dans leur majorité, ne parlent pas patois en dehors de leurs
rencontres entre eux. Simultanément, le trКТt cКrКctцrТstТque de ces rencontres est l’usКge
du français comme langue de communication : le discours sur le patois y est central, mais
Тl n’est pКs en patois. La forme des énoncés subvertit alors leur sens, le signifiant niant le
sТgnТfТц. AТnsТ, pКr eбemple, lors de l’Assemblée de la Fédération Internationale des
Locuteurs du Francoprovençal, Savoyard ou Franc-Comtois (Lausanne, le 24.11.2012) il
est Кnnoncц que l’oЛjectТf de lК FцdцrКtТon est de « parler et faire parler la langue de nos
ancêtres dans nos régions respectives » ; « Le patois a été et restera la langue qui unit notre
Fédération » – mКТs les КffТrmКtТons que l’on pКrlerait le patois sont mises en doute par le
fКТt d’шtre prononcцes en frКnхКТs.
Lors de ce type de rencontres les alternances des tours de parole sont perçues
comme celles qui pourraient donner lieu à une alternance codique ; pourtant celle-ci
n’КrrТve jКmКТs. Les débuts des tours de parole :
J’КТmerКТs ЛТen pКrler en pКtoТs, mКТs ce serКТt trop dТffТcТle !
On est trop pressé pour que je parle en patois.
(AssemЛlцe de l’AssocТКtТon vКudoТse des КmТs de pКtoТs, le 10/11/2012)
montrent qu’Тl n’est pКs vrКТment considéré comme « normal » de parler français, mais tout
le monde le fait. L’usКge du pКtoТs se limite presque à la lecture des histoires préparées
d’КvКnce.
Le « mainteneur » est d’КТlleurs un tТtre offТcТel : ainsi la nomination des mainteneurs qui recevaient une
insigne sous forme de l’edelаeТss К цtц « l’Кcte prТncТpКl de lК Fшte [internationale des patois]» en Suisse en
été 2013 (selon son comitц d’orgКnТsКtТon).
196
366
1.2. Les néo-locuteurs
À part ces groupes dits patoisants on trouve un autre groupe de locuteurs, dits néolocuteurs. Parmi ceux-ci le groupe le plus en vue est celui des arpitans
197
. L’AllТКnce
culturelle arpitane (ACA), créée à Lausanne en 2004, rassemble des membres issus de tous
les trois pays de la zone linguistique francoprovençale. Par opposition aux patoisants, ce
sont majoritairement des travailleurs intellectuels urbains, âgés d’entre 25 et 45 ans. Ils
appellent la langue arpitan 198 , promeuvent une orthographe supra-dialectale, dite ORB
(orthographe de référence B), et, au niveau des pratiques, ont tendКnce р utТlТser l’КrpТtКn р
côté du français dans leurs interactions.
Au moment où l’Тdцe de lК « langue arpitane » К цtц цnoncцe dКns lК VКllцe d’Aoste
dans les années 1970 (terme inventé par le militant indépendantiste José Henriet ; sur les
enjeux de cette invention voir aussi Bichurina, à paraître), Тl s’КgТssКТt lр-bas de la langue
véhiculaire et première pour une partie considérable de population. Cette langue était alors
utilisée comme instrument ou symbole (marqueur de différence « ethnique ») dans une
lutte politique : la fusion des idéologies nationalistes, basée sur la langue arpitane, et
marxiste servait à argumenter la légitimité de l’ТndцpendКnce de la région transfrontalière
dцnommцe ArpТtКnТe, dont lК VКllцe d’Aoste ferКТt pКrtТe. Par contraste, au début des
années 2000 le centre d’КctТvТtцs Кutour de l’arpitan se déplace géographiquement vers la
SuТsse et lК FrКnce où l’ТdТome n’est plus pКrlц que pКr un groupe eбtrшmement restreТnt de
population et de la mКnТчre que l’on vТent de voir. Il nous paraît que dès lors la langue
devient un enjeu en soi : ce sont les moyens politiques 199 qui sont instrumentalisés pour
une rцcupцrКtТon culturelle, Кutour d’une lКngue non СцrТtцe, en trКТn de dТspКrКьtre 200.
En gцnцrКl, l’usКge de l’КrpТtКn dans la communication interne (transfrontalière)
des Arpitans est encouragé par la présence des Valdôtains qui le parlent comme langue
D’СКЛТtude on se rцfчre Кuб promoteurs de l’КrpТtКn comme Кuб КrpТtКns, mшme sТ dКns l’ТdцologТe
arpitaniste « Arpitan » peut dцsТgner tout СКЛТtКnt de l’espКce trКnsfrontКlТer dцnommц ArpТtКnТК.
197
Le nom vient de la racine alp-/arp- (comme dans « Alpes ») dцsТgnКnt dКns l’ТdТome « le pâturage de
montagne ».
198
Cf., pКr eбemple, lК PцtТtТon pour lК reconnКТssКnce de l’КrpТtКn en SuТsse :
http://www.avaaz.org/fr/petition/La_reconnaissance_par_les_autorites_suisses_de_larpitan_en_tant_que_lan
gue_regionale [consulté le 05/05/14].
199
En SuТsse, en l’occurrence, le côtц polТtТque est d’КutКnt plus ТmpertТnent en soТ que lК гone
francoprovençale correspond au territoire de la Suisse romande (à part Jura), où les cantons qui le constituent
possèdent déjà une autonomie très importante.
200
367
maternelle. En dehors de cette communication transfrontalière, et en dehors de la
communication exclusivement arpitaniste, on trouve également des initiatives plus
localisées. Nous allons en étudier deux en Suisse : un groupe de conversation en vaudois à
Lausanne et les prévisions météorologiques arpitanes à Genève.
Il existe à Lausanne un petit groupe animé par une Arpitane et rКssemЛlКnt d’Кutres
néo-locuteurs, quТ К pour oЛjectТf de pКrler vКudoТs. Cette foТs Тl s’КgТt effectТvement de
parler : les conversations se passent presque exclusivement en vaudois. La communication
a pourtant une particularité : l’usКge régulier des dictionnaires pour vérifier les mots. Cette
prКtТque peut relever d’une ТnsцcurТtц lТnguТstТque ou/et d’un perfectТonnТsme, mais, plus
ТmportКnt encore, elle suggчre une vТsТon pКrtТculТчre de l’usКge de lК lКngue en
communication : Тl s’КgТt d’une curТosТtц plus que d’une prКtТque, d’un dцsТr de sКvourer
les mots plus que de parler. Un membre du groupe (MB 1975) parle du « côté cabinet de
curiosité » par rapport aux usages de la langue. Les références à une pratique linguistique
ou à une langue artificielle sont aussi présentes dans le discours du groupe : Тl s’КgТt d’une
langue « littéraire », « un peu académique », on trouve des comparaisons avec l’esperanto,
le sanscrit, l’indoeuropéen reconstitué ou encore le latin.
Une autre initiative est celle d’un prцvТsТonnТste trКvКТllКnt р lК tцlцvТsТon suТsse р
Genève (des origines valaisanne et savoyarde), qui, en mars 2013, décide de faire les
prévisions météo en arpitan / francoprovençal (les deux noms sont alors employés) 201 .
Outre qu’Тl s’КgТt de son domaine professionnel, la météo est vue comme importante
puТsqu’elle « crée le lien social » : une explication qui nous a été donnée par le
météorologue et qui révèle la vision de la langue comme pratique sociale. Quoique cette
vision puisse paraître évidente, elle n’est pourtКnt pКs rцpКndue pКrmТ d’Кutres tвpes de
locuteurs.
Par ailleurs, le météorologue explique :
201
Blog en partenariat avec la Tribune de Genève : http://meteo-en-patois.blog.tdg.ch/ [consulté le 05/05/14].
Une ТnТtТКtТve ТndТvТduelle, elle est ТnТtТКlement en deСors de toute КffТlТКtТon, qu’elle soТt Кrpitane, patoisante
ou Кutre. AТnsТ l’usКge de nom de lК lКngue ТndeбТcКlТse d’СКЛТtude l’КppКrtenКnce р un des mouvements. Or
lorsqu’en mКrs 2013 le prцvТsТonnТste eбplТque son ТnТtТКtТve, Тl utТlТse les noms « franco-provençal »,
« patois », « arpitan » et parle des « langues régionales savoyarde, valaisanne, vaudoise, neuchâteloise,
fribourgeoise, genevoise, mais aussi celles des régions d'Aoste, du Dauphiné, de Lyon, du Forez, de FrancheComté et du Beaujolais ». Cependant cette initiative devient très vite appropriée par les arpitans (à travers
notamment leurs transcriptions des textes de météo en ORB et leur promotion) et le prévisionniste figure
dцsormКТs pКrmТ les reprцsentКnts de l’ACA.
368
Il m'a semblé nécessaire de pouvoir lire des textes en francoprovençal qui nous
parlent de ce qui se passe aujourd'hui, mais qui "animent" des mots ou des
expressions de nos anciens. Le temps, la météo, voilà un thème que nous avons en
commun avec la génération francoprovençale qui nous a précédés, et qui restera un
thème commun avec les générations suivantes.
EnfТn, on dТrКТt qu’ТcТ, contrКirement aux pratiques des autres locuteurs, ce qui se
dit dans la langue est au moins aussi important que le fait que ce soit dit dans cette langue
– pourtant le prévisionniste affirme également :
Le but du bulletin n'est pas de donner une information météorologique fiable, bien
que la prévision donnera le temps le plus probable que l'on peut avoir dans ces
régions. Le but du bulletin est d'enseigner le francoprovençal, d'avoir un texte à
partager…
2. Les néo-locuteurs et les patoisants : une coopération impossible
La coopération entre les deux groupes des locuteurs est vue comme (presque)
ТmpossТЛle des deuб côtцs. DКns des groupes pКtoТsКnts l’usКge de lК lКngue locКle est
explicitement annoncé comme souhaitable – et pourtКnt, ne l’est pКs toujours en prКtique,
en tout cas, pas de toute variante. Donnons un exemple de nos observations : un participant
КrpТtКn d’une КssemЛlцe de l’AssocТКtТon vКudoТse des КmТs de pКtoТs К цtц le premТer р ne
pКs pКrler le frКnхКТs (mКТs l’КrpТtКn) ; or sa présentation de cinq minutes a été suivie par la
réponse suivante du président :
J’КТ ЛeКucoup КpprцcТц lК prцsentКtТon en vКlКТsКn, j’en КТ comprТs р peu prчs lК
moitié et pour les raisons de clarté je demanderais de refaire la même chose en
français.
Une des explications serait de dire que les patoisants se renferment sur le patois de
leur propre localité et prennent celui des voisins pour un parler incompréhensible.
Cependant cette rцКctТon peut s’eбplТquer pКr une Кutre КttТtude : selon les patoisants, les
néo-locuteurs (Arpitans, en particulier) seraient de faux locuteurs qui parleraient une
langue « artificielle » : ils mentionnent des différences à tous les niveaux du système
linguistique (phonétique et prosodique, morphosyntaxique et lexique). Cette vision
369
implique que la langue va mourir avec les patoisants : puisque les nouveaux locuteurs ne
sont pas des locuteurs, la transmission intergénérationnelle serait impossible.
Simultanément souvent le contact avec la langue des arpitans se fait à travers la
lecture de leurs teбtes, цcrТts dКns l’ortСogrКpСe suprК-dialectale ORB. Or, la critique de la
langue arpitane provТent d’une lecture de l’ORB lettre par lettre, р l’instar des graphies
patoisantes et contrКТrement Кuб rчgles (pКs trчs ЛТen dцfТnТes) de l’ORB : le résultat d’une
telle lecture ne correspond effectivement à aucune prononciation existante. Ainsi, par
exemple, le lien à une page en ORB sur le site des patoisants vaudois provoque les
accusations comme quoi l’usКge du « jargon arpitan » aurait « trahi les patoisants ». Le
mot « jargon » tцmoТgne du fКТt que l’usКge d’une Кutre grКpСТe est Тnterprцtц comme
l’usКge d’une Кutre vКrТКnte lТnguТstТque (Кvec des connotКtТons péjoratives).
De même, on voit une certaine hostilité р l’цgКrd du blog météo de la part des
pКtoТsКnts de Genчve. Le mцtцorologue mшme l’eбplТque pКr un lТen ТdentТtКТre fort Кvec lК
lКngue quТ empшcСe les pКtoТsКnts d’Кccepter quelqu’un sur « leur » territoire. De son côté,
il remarque une ambigüité de leur position : Тls КvКТent quТttц le vТllКge pour s’ТnstКller en
ville, sont passés Кu frКnхКТs, et ce n’est qu’р lК retrКТte qu’Тls se sont Тntцressцs Кu pКtoТs,
tout en restant à Genève.
Certains Arpitans crТtТquent cette КmЛТguэtц d’une mКnТчre plus rКdТcКle : la
légitimité de la prise en compte des patoisants dans la politique des langues régionales (en
l’occurrence, en FrКnce) est mise en doute, à cause justement du manque de transmission,
voire de pratique linguistique :
NV 1973 : C'est bien tout le paradoxe de vouloir interroger ces groupes [patoisants]
à propos d'une politique régionale de revitalisation, on peut se demander quelle
légitimité a leur parole sur le sujet quand eux-mêmes ayant toutes les clés en main
n'ont rien fait pour.
La question ici est donc celle de l'autorité linguistique et des bases sur lesquelles
elle est fondée : la continuité vs la pratique linguistique. Le fait que l’ТdТome dont les
locuteurs se disputent la légitimité, n’est presque plus pКrlц, ne nous pКrКТt pКs un
paradoxe, mais bien la condition fondamentale pour ce type de conflit. Ainsi la différence
des КttТtudes р l’цgКrd des nцo-locuteurs d’un côtц en SuТsse et en FrКnce, et de l’Кutre côtц
en Italie (où, d’ailleurs, le terme est absent) est frКppКnte : l’КntСropologue CСrТstТКne
370
Dunoвer constКte qu’en VКllцe d’Aoste, où le frКncoprovenхКl est encore lКrgement pКrlц,
on ne trouve aucune hostilité vis-à-vis des nouveaux locuteurs (Dunoyer 2010 : 26-30). De
même :
personne ne nous К dТt qu’un pКtoТsКnt serКТt quelqu’un quТ К le pКtoТs comme
lКngue mКternelle […]. D’Кprчs nos ТnformКteurs, tout le monde peut donc devenТr
pКtoТsКnt dчs qu’Тl Кpprend les ЛКses de lК lКngue (op. cit. : 52-53).
On peut faire une hypotСчse que c’est lorsque d’une prКtТque communТcКtТve lК
lКngue devТent essentТellement un sвmЛole que l’СostТlТtц КppКrКТt. En VКllцe d’Aoste
l’КpprentТssКge peut шtre lцgТtТmц, dКns une certКТne mesure, pКr un ЛesoТn prКtТque : même
si tout le monde sait pКrler ТtКlТen, certКТns ТmmТgrцs nous ont dТt qu’Тls sentКТent le ЛesoТn
d’Кpprendre le pКtoТs pour devenТr memЛres de lК communКutц et Кccцder Кuб rцseКuб
locaux – par exemple, celui du commerce dКns le cКs d’un commerхКnt mТlКnКТs. PКr
contre, dans des milieux complètement francophones comme celui de Vaud ou de Genève
l’КpprentТssКge du pКrler locКl est toujours lТц р une prцtentТon ТdentТtКТre, une recСercСe
des rКcТnes. S’КffТrmer en tКnt que locuteur est prцtendre шtre memЛre lцgТtТme d’un
groupe ; or la légitimité a été refusée aux néo-locuteurs en Suisse, tout comme en France,
deux fois : lorsqu’Тls цtКТent petТts et que leurs grКnds-pКrents n’ont pКs voulu leur
trКnsmettre l’ТdТome locКl, et Кujourd’СuТ, lorsqu’Тls l’ont КpprТs Кutrement. Ce refus doТt
s’eбplТquer pКr les reprцsentКtТons du lТen de lК lКngue Кvec lК société agro-pastorale et le
passé dont les néo-locuteurs n’ont pas fait partie. En tКnt qu’enfКnts ils étaient exclus de ce
groupe au profit de leur promotion sociale ; Кujourd’СuТ pour les patoisants la langue
fonctТonne comme ЛКse d’un nouveau rôle social (de « mainteneur du patois ») retrouvé à
lК retrКТte, quТ n’К de vКleur qu’р condТtТon d’eбclusТvТtц.
Le rattachement de la langue au passé est une des raisons principales pour
lesquelles la coopération avec les patoisants est également vue comme problématique par
les arpitans :
JL 1971 : Le dilemme est le suivant : les membres de l'association locale de ma
commune parlent "patois" et souhaitent le "maintenir". Moi, j'ai appris l'arpitan,
dans sa variante bagnarde, et souhaite le "revitaliser".
371
3. Les néo-locuteurs et les linguistes: conflit métadiscursif
La problématique des « néo-locuteurs » n’est pКs spцcТfТque Кu conteбte
francoprovençal (on pensera, par exemple, aux néo-bretonnants ou aux euskaldunberri,
« nouveaux locuteurs basques »), comme ne l’est цvТdemment pКs celle de la « mort » de
langue. Cependant dans ce contexte c’est Кujourd’СuТ qu’on lК voТt цmerger, d’une mКnТчre
conflictuelle.
Les deux concepts sont empruntés au discours des linguistes et se trouvent
contestés par les arpitans :
NV 1973 : le terme néo-locuteur c'est un mot carrément diabolique !!! Pas vraiment
locuteurs, mais pas vraiment exclus de la catégorie non plus, la différenciation
permet tout simplement de les éliminer des études, comme on élimine des points
gênants dans une série de mesures parce qu'ils contredisent la théorie et qu'on n'a
pКs envТe d'en цlКЛorer une plus complчte. […] Et en l'occurrence ici, la théorie dit
depuis 100 ans que le francoprovençal va disparaitre rapidement ("la prophétie").
EA : Comment est-ce qu'un linguiste appelle un jeune qui se met à apprendre et
parler la langue de ses grand-parents ?
- UN MÉCRÉANT !!! Enfin non, un militant !!! Enfin non, [prendre une bouche
pincée] un néo-locuteur... Enfin bref, un mec qui n'est pas censé exister et qui n'est
là que pour t'emmerder et essayer de niquer la réalisation DE LA PROPHÉTIE !!!!
(« Arpitania abada ! », groupe Facebook, 24/01/2013)
L’usКge ТronТque du leбТque relТgТeuб (prophétie, mécréant, peut-être diabolique,
renvoyant à la malédiction) juxtapose une sorte de pseudoscience francoprovençale et la
scТence telle qu’elle devrКТt шtre, ce quТ permet de remettre en doute l’КutorТtц des
chercheurs. Ce type de discours révèle le conflit majeur des arpitans avec des linguistes. Il
s’КgТt de négocier le rôle des différents acteurs sociaux (linguistes, patoisants, néolocuteurs) dans la politique linguistique relative au francoprovençal : au moment où celleci devient possible grâce au discours désormais dominant au niveau supranational
(européen), favorisant la diversité linguistique. Encore une fois il est ici question de
l’КutorТtц : l’КutorТtц de se prononcer sur les dТКlectes К toujours КppКrtenu Кuб
dialectologues, la seule source du savoir légitime quant à leurs limites ou vitalité.
Aujourd’СuТ les Кcteurs КssocТКtТfs contestent cette autorité, réduisant le domaine de
372
compцtence des cСercСeurs р lК scТence et lКТssКnt celuТ de l’КctТon polТtТque р euб-mêmes.
L’КppКrТtТon des tecСnologТes de communТcКtТons modernes ont rendu cette contestКtТon
possible : le savoir sur la langue produit par les arpitans est produit surtout sur Internet, la
source qui rentre en concurrence avec les livres linguistiques (cf. aussi Bichurina 2013).
On remarque un paradoxe : comme nous Кllons le voТr, d’un côtц, Кu nТveКu
discursif le rôle des linguistes est contesté ; de l’Кutre côtц, l’КЛondКnce du dТscours sur les
linguistes leur confère un pouvoir immense. Ainsi c’est le lТnguТste quТ formerКТt les
КttТtudes des locuteurs, quТ ТnfluencerКТt lК sТtuКtТon lТnguТstТque, c’est de luТ que
dépendrait finalement la vie ou la mort des langues.
Le refus des linguistes de reconnaître les néo-locuteurs acquiert une dimension
politique :
NV 1973 : l'habile terme de « néo-locuteur » masque justement une manière
d'exclure des études ceux que l'ont estime politiquement impropre à rentrer dans la
catégorie de "ceux qui parlent la langue". Il y a les bons locuteurs, patoisants de
naissance, et les mauvais locuteurs, actifs politiquement : les néo-locuteurs. Quand
bien même le niveau de maitrise de la langue d'un néo-locuteur pourrait dépasser
celui d'un patoisant de naissance...
VoТlр comment de leur côtц les lТnguТstes […] ТnstrumentКlТsent leur position à des
fins politiques dans le sujet des langues régionales.
Le lТnguТste est perхu comme Кgent de l’лtКt – français initialement, le modèle
français étant ensuite importé en Suisse romande. En tant que tel, il se trouve en
nécessité de faire disparaître les « dialectes » Кu profТt d’une lКngue nКtТonКle (lК
« prophétie »), tout en recueillant suffisamment de données pour travailler sur les
« dialectes » une foТs qu’Тls КurКТent dТspКru.
DКns l’eбemple cТtц Тl est question de la dichotomie « bons locuteurs » vs
« mauvais locuteurs ». En effet, cette dichotomie a toujours existé dans les recherches
dialectologiques : les « bons locuteurs » étaient surtout des personnes âgées, vivant dans
les lieux ruraux de préférence isolés, y ayant vécu toute leur vie avec le minimum de
contacts avec le monde extérieur, qui ont ainsi conservé leur idiome intact (cf. NORM : «
non mobile, older, rural males », Chambers & Trudgill 1998 : 29). Les locuteurs urbains et
mobiles – et d’КutКnt plus ceuб qui n’ont КpprТs l’ТdТome que tКrdТvement et souvent en
373
autodidactes, comme les arpitans – seraient des locuteurs non authentiques, et donc
« mauvais » pour recueillir des données sur la langue. En l’occurrence, les dialectologues
suisses travaillant sur le francoprovençal dans les conversations informelles se réfèrent à
l’КrpТtКn comme р une lКngue « artificielle », « langue des fantaisies », et à un standard
supra-dialectal pour les parlers qui n’КvКТent jamais reprцsentц d’unТtц lТnguТstТque (КvКnt
de disparaître) comme à un « anachronisme ». Par contraste, il appartiendrait aux linguistes
d’цtudТer des lКngues « réelles », celles des « derniers locuteurs » dont la majorité sont déjà
morts : ainsi, par exemple, le travail actuel sur le Glossaire des patois de la Suisse romande
est effectué à la base des données recueillies entre 1900 et 1910, et complétées entre 1911
et 1924.
Pourtant, dans le discours arpitan la différence entre les « bons » et les « mauvais »
locuteurs aurait une autre nature : politique (politiquement impropre, actifs politiquement,
fins politiques). Ce transfert du débat du côté linguistique (langue « artificielle » à cause du
manque de continuité) au côté politique (lКngue de l’КctТon polТtТque) permet de rendre les
pratiques linguistiques politiquement légitimes, lorsque leur légitimité linguistique et
contestée. Les Arpitans empruntent le discours sur les « langues en danger », en faisant
appel aux idées actuellement largement répandues de la diversité culturelle et de la
ЛТodТversТtц, Кvec les prцsupposцs d’une oЛlТgКtТon morКle quТ в sont lТцs (cf. Duchêne &
Heller 2007 ; Cameron 2007).
PКr КТlleurs, Тl s’КgТt pour eux de contester la mort de langue à laquelle les activités
des linguistes mèneraient :
AF : Ils [les linguistes] disent qu'ils veulent maintenir "pure" la langue et jouent
sur les émotions des gens. En mшme temps, Тls […] l'attachent au folklore, et
suivent un chemin qui mène à rien que la mort de la langue. […] De toute fКхon, vu
la position actuelle de notre langue (en forte baisse), je pense que notre génération
ne doit pas/plus écouter ces gens là sur un sujet pareil (« Arpitania abada ! »,
groupe Facebook, 26.02.2013).
Ici le souhait de « maintenir "pure" la langue » se réfère implicitement aux
reprocСes de l’« artificialité » de l’КrpТtКn. On voТt donc l’КppКrence d’un pКrКdoбe : les
linguistes « jouent sur les émotions des gens » par rapport à la perte de la langue, alors
qu’en rцКlТtц ce serКТent euб les responsКЛles de sК mort envisagée. Au contraire, pour les
Arpitans Тl s’КgТt d’une lКngue d’КvenТr : lorsque les parlers locaux auront disparu, la
374
langue arpitane subsistera sous une forme unifiée, avec son nom, son standard
orthographique, son contenu identitaire – tout ce qu’un idiome doit avoir pour devenir
« langue », dТgne d’шtre reconnue pКr les pouvoТrs puЛlТcs.
Conclusion
En 1914 le dialectologue suisse L. Gauchat écrivait :
la Suisse romande a eu une fois une lКngue р elle, telle qu’elle n’eбТste nulle pКrt
ailleurs. Cette langue, qui était vraiment de chez nous, la Suisse est en train de la
perdre (Gauchat 1914 : 4).
Pour les dТКlectologues c’est le dцЛut d’une grКnde цtude sur le frКncoprovenхКl,
langue vue comme déjà disparue dans la plupart des territoires en Suisse : le travail qui
contТnue jusqu’р ce jour р pКrtТr des donnцes recueТllТes auprès des « derniers locuteurs »
au début du 20ème siècle. Et pourtant, Кujourd’СuТ, un siècle plus tard, différents groupes se
disputent le droТt d’en шtre consТdцrцs comme locuteurs.
L’ТncoСцrence est due Кuб ТnterprцtКtТons dТffцrentes, d’un côtц, de ce qu’est une
langue morte et jusqu’р quel degrц des dТffцrences structurelles et/ou de contТnuТtц
СТstorТque Тl s’КgТt toujours de lК mшme lКngue ; de l’Кutre côtц, de ce qu’est un locuteur, et
sТ l’on peut l’шtre sКns utТlТser l’ТdТome comme moвen de communТcКtТon. C’est sur lК ЛКse
de ces questТons que l’on voТt Кctuellement цmerger un conflТt des nцo-locuteurs, d’un
côté, avec les patoisants, et de l’Кutre, Кvec les lТnguТstes.
Le discours sur cette langue est structuré par les dichotomies classiques : langue
morte – vivante ; naturelle – artificielle ; réelle – rêvée ; locuteur natif – néo-locuteur ; bon
locuteur – mauvais locuteur ; etc. Ainsi, toute langue vivante change, mais ici le
changement est vu comme la mort de la langue toute entière, et pas seulement des usages
qu’en font les personnes Кujourd’СuТ сgцes. LК posТtТon concurrente veut que, puТsque cet
ТdТome vК mourТr, c’est celuТ des nцo-locuteurs quТ devТendrК dКns l’КvenТr lК seule et donc
la vraie langue.
De même, la catégorie discursive du « locuteur » est dissociée de la langue comme
pratique sociale. Les locuteurs sont vus comme possesseurs de la langue comme système
КЛstrКТt, en deСors de ce qu’Тls en font. AТnsТ, Кu nТveКu des prКtТques lТnguТstТques, les
375
« bons locuteurs » ne sont pas vrКТment locuteurs, dКns le sens où Тls n’utТlТsent pКs
l’ТdТome pour communТquer, tКndТs que les « mauvais locuteurs » sont locuteurs.
SТmultКnцment, mшme pour ces dernТers Тl s’КgТt pКrfoТs de pКrler pour pКrler, voТre utТlТser
la langue pour utiliser la langue. Dans ce sens les pratiques linguistiques sont
КccompКgnцes d’un sentТment d’КrtТfТcТКlТtц.
Enfin, une telle catégorisation sert à négocier qui – des patoisants, des néolocuteurs ou des linguistes – aura le droit de se prononcer sur la langue et de participer à la
politique linguistique : au moment où la diffusion du discours sur la diversité linguistique
et les langues en danger rend une action politique possible.
Références
BICHURINA Natalia, 2013, « Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou
ennemТ de son oЛjet d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl) », dans C.
Alén Garabato (éd.), Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe siècle,
Limoges, Lambert-Lucas, p. 291-302.
BICHURINA Natalia, à paraître, « BКptшmes d’une lКngue ou un peu de mКgТe
sociale (« Francoprovençal » - « Arpitan » - « Savoyard ») », dans Cahiers de l’ILSL,
Lausanne.
CAMERON Deborah, 2007, « Language endangerment and verbal hygene : History,
morality and politics », dans A. Duchêne & M. Heller (éds.), Discourses of
Endangerment, London & New York, Continuum, p. 268-285.
CHAMBERS J. K. et TRUDGILL Peter, 1998, Dialectology (2ème éd.), Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
DUCHÊNE Alexandre et HELLER Monica, 2007, « Discourses of endangerment :
Sociolinguistics, globalization and social order », dans A. Duchêne & M. Heller (éds.),
Discourses of Endangerment, London & New York, Continuum, p. 1-13.
DUNOYER Christiane, 2010, Les nouveaux patoisants en Vallée d'Aoste : de la naissance
d’une nouvelle catégorie de locuteurs francoprovençaux à l’intérieur d’une
376
communauté plurilingue en évolution. Etude anthropologique, [Aoste], Région
autonome Vallée d'Aoste, Assessorat de l'éducation et de la culture.
FAVRAT Louis, 1866, « Introduction », dans Philippe Bridel et Louis Favrat, Glossaire du
patois de la Suisse romande, Lausanne, Georges Bridel éditeur, p. V–XIII.
GAUCHAT Louis, 1914, « Notice historique », dans Bulletin du Glossaire des patois de la
Suisse romande, Berne/Zurich, Bureau du Glossaire, p. 3-30.
KRISTOL Andres, 1999 [2013], « Histoire linguistique de la Suisse romande : quelques
jalons », dans Babylonia, n° 3/99, p. 8-13. Extrait abrégé et actualisé sur
http://www2.unine.ch/dialectologie/presentation [consulté le 11/12/13].
MATTHEY Marinette, 2012, « "Quand ça a besoin de place, ça pousse." Discours familial
intergénérationnel sur la (non-)trКnsmТssТon du pКtoТs d’Evolчne », dКns M. MКttСeв et
M. Meune (éds.), Revue transatlantique d’études suisses, 2, p. 77-88.
PIDOUX Gil, 2006, « Préface », dans F. Duboux, Patois Vaudois. Dictionnaire, édition
revue et complétée, (Oron-la-Ville), s.p.
II.
Le francoprovençal entre la France, la Suisse et l’Italie : langue
diffuse, langue focalisée et enjeux de normalisation202
Introduction. Du « type idiomatique » à la « langue »
Existe-t-il une unité francoprovençale (linguistique, culturelle, identitaire) au-delà
de l’unТtц structurelle de lК lКngue ? Les activités autour du francoprovençal (FP) en ce
début du 21ème siècle semblent partir du présupposé que la réponse à cette question serait
positive. En effet, au cours de la seconde moitié du 20ème siècle, à partir des années 1970,
le « type idiomatique FP », ТdentТfТц un sТчcle КupКrКvКnt pКr AscolТ, s’est trКnsformц, dКns
les reprцsentКtТons des lТnguТstes et des locuteurs, en ce qu’on Кppelle une « langue ». Il est
devenu ainsi une des dernières-nées des langues romanes : non pas du point de vue
202
Paru dans : Nouvelles du Centre d’Études Francoprovençales René Willien, 71 2015. 7 – 24.
377
« ontologique », mais en tant que partie nommée du continuum linguistique, comme objet
d’цtudes, de dТscours et de polТtТque. Au début des années 2000 le discours sur la nécessité
de préserver la « diversité linguistique » et le danger de « la mort des langues », désormais
dominant dans le monde occidental, vient légitimer cette « langue FP ». Cela se traduit en
politiques régionales, nationales et supranationales (européennes) qui vont fournir un cadre
législatif et institutionnel aux activités réalisées autour du FP. L’eбТstence d’une unТtц
structurelle démontrée par les dialectologues suppose Кlors l’eбТstence d’une communКutц
linguistique (voire culturelle, voire potentiellement politique) ; cela suppose en pratique
des échanges transfrontaliers pour cette communauté partagée entre trois Etats, avec les
Fêtes des patois, le Conseil international du FP et autres types de coopération visant
l’ensemЛle du domКТne. CependКnt, en 2015, y a-t-il effectivement une communauté
lТnguТstТque dКns l’espКce FP ?
DКns cet КrtТcle nous essКвerons de montrer que l’espКce FP comprend deuб tвpes
de situations linguistiques très différentes, que nos données de terrain nous ont amenée à
distinguer. En empruntant les termes de Le Page et Tabouret-Keller (1985), nous appelons
l’une des sТtuКtТons « diffuse » et l’Кutre « focalisée ». La première, « diffuse », est typique
des régions de montagne des trois pays, au « centre » du domaine, où le FP est parlé au
quotidien, et où les limites entre les « langues » nommцes sont floues, tout comme l’Тdцe
d’un « bon patois ». La seconde, « focalisée », est typique des zones « périphériques »,
moТns цlevцes, des grКndes vТlles, des grКndes ТndustrТes, d’un grКnd nomЛre d’ТmmТgrцs,
où, puТsque le FP n’в est plus pКrlц Кu quotТdТen, que lК plupКrt de ceuб quТ в ТncКrnКТent lК
légitimité de ses usages sont morts, que le nombre des textes qui nous sont accessibles est
restreТnt (et qu’Тl s’КgТt souvent d’une lКngue цcrТte), Тl est possТЛle d’КvoТr lК vТsТon d’un
sвstчme clos (comme ce serКТt le cКs du lКtТn de CТcцron). Il est possТЛle d’в prescrТre des
normes, et ensuТte de les suТvre, vцrТfТКnt ce qu’on vК dТre ou цcrТre dКns des dТctТonnКТres
et livres de grammaire. Ainsi « la langue » (telle qu’elle est vue selon les ТdцologТes
politiques et scientifiques des Etats-nations modernes) nait lorsque – et parce que – les
pratiques linguistiques meurent.
D’un poТnt de vue цpТstцmologТque, cette цtude permet de questТonner lК notТon de
« langue » et ses implications ; d’un poТnt de vue plus КpplТquц, elle ТnvТte р rцflцcСТr р lК
question de savoir si une polТtТque lТnguТstТque commune pour l’espКce FP est possible et
souhaitable.
378
Notre enquête a été menée en France à partir de 2009 lors de plusieurs séjours de
terrКТn (dКns les dцpКrtements de lК SКvoТe, de lК HКute SКvoТe, de l’AТn, de lК LoТre et du
Rhône) ; en Suisse pendant un séjour de dix mois (septembre 2012 – juillet 2013 dans les
cantons de Vaud, du Valais et de Genève), puis lors de courts séjours en 2013 – 2014 ; et
enfТn dКns lК VКllцe d’Aoste lors d’un court sцjour en fцvrТer 2014 et un sцjour de quКtre
mois entre septembre et décembre 2014, et de courts passages dans le Piémont (février et
novemЛre 2014). Nous Кvons prТvТlцgТц les mцtСodes d’oЛservКtТon pКrtТcТpКnte et
d’entretТen.
Au cours de l’КrtТcle, en notes de ЛКs de pКge, nous essКвerons de fКТre des
pКrКllчles Кvec d’Кutres sТtuКtТons lТnguistiques que nous avons pu étudier.
1. Langue diffuse et langue focalisée
Nous proposons d’цtudТer lК sТtuКtТon, ou mТeuб les situations, du FP à travers le
prТsme d’une tСцorТe Тssue ТnТtТКlement des цtudes des lКngues crцoles : non pas parce que
le FP serait proche des langues créoles – les mécanismes de leur apparition sont bien
différents – mКТs pКrce que cette КpprocСe К l’КvКntКge de dцcrТre lК sТtuКtТon lТnguТstТque р
partir des phénomènes observables sur le terrain et des représentations des locuteurs. Ainsi
l’КpprocСe que nous Кdoptons ТcТ peut шtre quКlТfТцe de « subjective », contrairement à
l’КpprocСe « objective » de la délimitation des « langues » dans le continuum linguistique à
partir des isoglosses.
Le créoliste Robert Le Page a été confronté dans ses enquêtes à une situation où
l’on ne peut pКs КttrТЛuer le pКssКge entТer d’un dТscours d’un ТntervТeац р une seule
« langue » nommцe (en l’occurrence, « créole », « anglais » ou « espagnol »). S’opposКnt à
l’ТmКge du « locuteur-auditeur idéal » dКns une communКutц Сomogчne et d’un sвstчme de
règles clos et délimité permettant de produire un nombre infini de phrases cohérentes, qui
est à la base de la théorie linguistique moderne, il affirme : « Ce n’est pas dans la nature de
la langue humaine que des objets de ce genre puissent exister » (Le Page 1997 [1988] : 32.
Notre traduction203).204 Pour Le PКge, l’ТmКge des lКngues dТscrчtes КppКrtТent Кu monde
203
“It Тs not Тn tСe nКture of СumКn lКnguКge for sucС oЛjects to eбТst.”
LК tСцorТe crТtТquцe est tout d’КЛord celle de CСomskв et de ses dТscТples gцnцrКtТvТstes, mКТs КussТ
presque toute théorie linguistique moderne, comme, par exemple, celle qui discute des alternances codiques
(code-switching), pКrtКnt КТnsТ du prцsupposц qu’Тl s’КgТt de deuб sвstчmes dТstТncts.
204
379
des stéréotypes occidentaux, motivés politiquement et idéologiquement (ibid. : 21). 205
Dans ce sens, « le français semble être une des langues les plus clairement réifiées,
totémisées et institutionnalisées » (ibid.). Mais ces « langues », loТn d’шtre ТsomorpСes Кvec
des pratiques linguistiques réelles, sont surtout des « artefacts écrits ».
Robert Le Page et Andrée Tabouret-Keller (dans Acts of Identity, 1985 ; Le Page
1998 [1992]) élaborent les notions de focalisation et de diffusion de la langue (faisant ainsi
usКge d’une mцtКpСore cТnцmКtogrКpСТque). LК lКngue française est une langue très
focКlТsцe puТsque tout le monde sКТt ce que c’est qu’un « bon français » ; l’КnglКТs serКТt
plus diffus, avec des concepts tels que « l’КnglКТs ЛrТtКnnТque », « l’КnglКТs КmцrТcКТn »,
« l’КnglКТs КustrКlТen » etc., ainsi que des « dialectes » au sein de ces « anglais », et des
dцЛКts Кutour de ce que c’est qu’un « bon anglais », de quel КnglКТs Кpprendre р l’цcole, de
quelle orthographe adopter, etc. De même, les groupes (sociaux ou ethniques) peuvent être
plus focalisés ou plus diffus. La langue est alors considérée comme un répertoire de codes
socialement marqués : le choix du code est un acte symbolique, un « Кcte d’ТdentТtц » par
lequel l’ТndТvТdu КdСчre р un groupe qu’Тl КurКТt ТdentТfТц pКr l’usКge de ce code et prend sК
distance par rapport à un autre groupe. Ainsi, les groupes et les langues sont des
constructions faites par chaque individu dans son interaction sociale ; « la catégorie de
lКngue rцsulte d’une цlКЛorКtТon, d’une constructТon quТ ne dцnote pКs un oЛjet nКturel »
(Tabouret-Keller 1997 : 8).
2. Typologie des situations linguistiques francoprovençales
Au début de notre enquête, le cas du FP nous a intéressée puisque les trois Etats
voisins au sein desquels il est parlé – lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe – sont construits selon
des modèles extrêmement différents. La France très centralisée et officiellement
L’ТdцologТe quТ opчre derrТчre ces stцrцotвpes est lКrgement similaire pour toutes les langues. Elle
205
suppose :
qu'il est essentiel d'imposer l'unité nationale par la seule reconnaissance d'une langue nationale
homogène ;
que la forme précise de cette langue - le système de règles, sa grammaire, son vocabulaire et son
orthographe – peut être ordonnée par la loi ;
que ses usages homogènes peuvent être mis en place par le système d'éducation (op. cit. : 24).
380
monolingue, un Etat-Nation par excellence, et la Confédération suisse très décentralisée et
officiellement plurilingue 206 , représentent deux pôles opposés. Entre ces deux pôles se
trouve l’ItКlТe quТ, d’un côtц, К Кdoptц le modчle de constructТon nКtТonКle frКnхКТs, mКТs
où, de l’Кutre côtц, lК mКjeure pКrtТe du terrТtoТre FP – le VКl d’Aoste – forme une région
Кutonome plurТlТngue. AussТ l’цtude du mшme ТdТome dКns des Etats différents permettraitt-elle d’eбplorer dКns quelle mesure les ТdцologТes des EtКts Тnforment le dТscours sur lК
langue et les représentations linguistiques, et, in fine, la situation linguistique. Les
observations sur le terrain ont cependant révélé que malgré la différence des cadres
politiques et idéologiques, on ne peut pas parler de trois situations linguistiques distinctes,
que ce soit au niveau des pratiques ou des représentations. Le clivage se fait au niveau des
contacts sociaux quotidiens, et la base en est essentiellement économique.
DКns l’espКce FP des troТs pКвs, on peut dТstТnguer deuб tвpes de sТtuКtТons
linguistiques : le premier (type diffus) est essentiellement celui où le FP est pratiqué
comme l’une des lКngues vernКculКТres, Кu moins par une partie de population dans
certКТnes sТtuКtТons d’ТnterКctТons ; le second (tвpe focКlТsц) est celuТ où Тl К cessц de l’шtre.
Le type diffus est observable dans les régions de montagne (les grandes stations de
ski alpin étant exclues), au « centre » du domaine : lК VКllцe d’Aoste (VDA) et quelques
vallées piémontaises en Italie, quelques communes dans le Valais en Suisse, quelques
communes en SКvoТe et en HКute SКvoТe en FrКnce, c’est р dТre lК rцgТon КlpТne Кutour du
Mont Blanc, définition qui correspond, notons-le, aux représentations répandues chez les
locuteurs. Le type focalisé est celui du reste du domaine FP : « la périphérie », sТ l’on veut,
les régions de plaine, des grandes villes, des populations de diverses origines.
La particularité géographique a déterminé le type des activités économiques. En
effet, le manque de grandes villes et de grandes industries dans le type diffus se traduit par
lК prцsence d’un petТt nomЛre d’ТmmТgrцs. SТ l’on regКrde lК VDA, le fКmeuб « paradis »
du FP Кuб вeuб du reste du domКТne, l’eбemple de lК vТlle d’Aoste est цloquent : au fond
de la vallée, avec ses industries, et donc des immigrés, elle est très considérablement
italianisée, contrairement à la plupart des autres communes valdôtaines. Par ailleurs,
jusqu’р prцsent lК communТcКtТon de ces rцgТons КlpТnes Кvec d’Кutres est souvent restцe
complТquцe, Кu moТns pendКnt les moТs d’СТver, ce quТ К contrТЛuц р mКТntenТr les prКtТques
Il est pourtant à noter qu’en SuТsse romКnde, mКlgrц le plurТlТnguТsme offТcТel, les conceptТons frКnхКises
de l’СomogцnцТtц lТnguТstТque ont lКrgement цtц reprТses.
206
381
de la langue locale. Par contraste, par exemple, toujours en VDA, les communes
limitrophes avec le Piémont, à la sortie de la vallée, où le passage est aisé, ont connu une
substitution linguistique où le FP a cédé sa place au piémontais, langue de plus grand
prestige en tant que langue de commerce. Il ne s'agit pas ici d'étudier en détail les raisons
pour lesquelles la substitution linguistique a eu lieu dans certains lieux, et non certains
autres. Il suffit de dire que les raisons fondamentales en sont largement identiques dans le
monde (que l’on pense р l’espКce FP ou р l’espace post-soviétique, par exemple) : lorsque
l’on КspТre – souvent pour ses enfants plutôt que pour soi-même – à une ascension sociale
quТ se fКТt р trКvers l’цducКtТon et l’ТnsertТon dКns le monde de trКvКТl, les deuб
fonctionnant en langue dominante, on choisit de ne pas transmettre la langue locale aux
enfants en la regardant, à tort, comme un obstacle ; lorsque, Кu contrКТre, Тl s’КgТt plutôt de
rester au sein de la communauté en héritant le travail de ses parents et grands-pКrents, c’est
la langue locale, celle de la communauté et de la complicité avec les autres qui a toute sa
valeur. Autrement dit, on focalise son comportement linguistique en fonction de celui du
groupe de rцfцrence cСoТsТ. En l’occurrence, dКns lК rцgТon quТ nous Тntцresse, ce dernТer
type de situation est typique des régions de montagne.
On peut penser à ce propos aux explications de la non-transmission du FP qui nous
ont été données par un informateur (né en 1932) dans le Lyonnais en France :
On К tellement mТs dКns l’esprТt du puЛlТc, р l’цcole et pКrtout, le fКТt que le pКtoТs,
c’цtКТt une lКngue de mТsцrКЛles, de pКвsКns… PuТs в К un Кspect КussТ
cТvТlТsКtТonnel, c’est-à-dire que le patois est lié à la petite entreprise rurale, tout au
moins dans nos régions. Donc dans la ferme on entendait, si y avait encore des
petites fermes, je sais pas si ça existe, ça doit plus exister, où y a deux vaches, trois
cochons etc., eh bien si ça existait encore on entendrait le patois, mais seulement ça
n’eбТste plus.
On y trouve le motif récurrent du rôle de l’цcole et des ТnstТtutТons de l’EtКt, et КussТ
celui, moins récurrent, de la disparition du monde agro-pastoral comme raisons principales
de la disparition des pratiques FP.
Pour complцter ce tКЛleКu, Тl fКut dТre qu’Тl eбТste КussТ Кujourd’Сui un troisième
cКs dКns l’espКce FP, un groupe non-circonscrit : les ArpТtКnТstes, memЛres de l’Aliance
culturèla arpitana. Ce sont surtout des intellectuels urbains, ayant vécu en dehors de leur
rцgТon d’orТgТne et, pour ЛeКucoup (sТnon lК plupКrt), р l’цtranger, avec une réflexivité sur
382
leur propre culture que crцent lК dТstКnce et le contКct Кvec l’Кutre. DКns le sens des
pratiques linguistiques, ils formeraient un sous-type focalisé ou un type à part, où les
pratiques sont plus présentes que dans le type focalisé, mais se font majoritairement par
цcrТt. Leur rцgТon n’est plus lК plКТne, nТ lК montКgne, mКТs les espКces vТrtuels de
l’Internet, où les rКpports pКr цcrТt remplКcent lК communТcКtТon orКle fКce-à-face et créent
l’ТmКge d’une communКutц (voТr aussi Meune 2014 sur l’eбterrТtorТКlТtц et en mшme temps
la reterritorialisation imaginaire du FP sur Internet). Une ouverture sur le monde et un
« déracinement » permettent d’ТmКgТner une communКutц ТdцКlТsцe, engloЛКnt tout
l’espКce FP.
3. Etude de cas
3.1 Diffusion
3.1.1 Les pratiques linguistiques
Pour parler du type diffus dans lequel le FP reste dans la pratique linguistique
quotidienne, nous nous concentrerons sur les données recueillies en VDA, vue de
l’eбtцrТeur comme un modчle ТdцКl du monde FP.
Les observations du comportement langagier des locuteurs valdôtains montrent que
pour eux, au niveau des pratiques effectives, les limites entre « patois », « italien » et
« français » sont (relativement) floues. Regardons trois exemples (nous avons choisi exprès
des eбemples Кsseг neutres dКns le contenu pour que l’on puТsse se concentrer sur lК forme
des énoncés) :
1. Da pitchoù mè predzóo patoué, italien, la mema baga. Avoué mon nonno
predzóo patoué, avoué ma mamma predzóo italien, avoué mon papa predzóo
itКlТen… Però lo veuгeun que l’ч vКldoten predгКve pКtouц, Кdon todгor predгòo
pКtouц… E anche К l’цcoulК se prчdгяe ТtКlТen, ma Кntre no se prчdгяe pКtouц…
NК, l’ч vreТ, un cou dТjяon que fКllТц predгц ТtКlТen К l’цcoulК, invece, na, ara penso
que da pТtcСoù pТ de lenve t’Кppren mТou l’чt.
Lorsque j’цtКТs petТt, je pКrlКТs pКtoТs ou ТtКlТen, lК mшme cСose. Avec mon grКnd-père je parlais
pКtoТs, Кvec mК mКmКn je pКrlКТs ТtКlТen, Кvec mon pКpК je pКrlКТs ТtКlТen… MКТs le voТsТn quТ est
valdôtain parlait pКtoТs, donc je pКrlКТs toujours pКtoТs… Et КussТ р l’цcole on se pКrlКТt ТtКlТen, mКТs
383
entre nous on se pКrlКТt pКtoТs… Non, c’est vrКТ, КutrefoТs on dТsКТt qu’Тl fКllКТt pКrler ТtКlТen р
l’цcole, pКr contre, mКТntenКnt non, je pense que plus de lКngues tu pКrles dчs l’enfКnce, mТeuб
c’est.
On voit que la structure logique du récit est assurée par des conjonctions italiennes
(en grКs) ou ЛТen, sТ l’on veut, empruntцes р l’ТtКlТen (però, e anche, ma, invece), et, dans la
moindre mesure, FP (adon) – trait typique du discours en « patois ». « Da pitchoù » est
vrКТsemЛlКЛlement une Тnterfцrence de l’ТtКlТen (« da piccolo »), tout comme « nonno ».
D’un Кutre côtц, on trouve cСeг le mшme locuteur des formes dТverses КвКnt le mшme sens
grammatical : ici les formes de l’ТmpКrfКТt de l’ТndТcКtТf pour lК 3ème personne du singulier :
predzave / prèdzóe ‘(il) parlait’ (lo veuzeun predzave patoué ; a l’ecoula se prèdzóe
italien). Cependant, la perméabilité des limites linguistiques va au-delà de ce qui pourrait
être catégorisé comme des « emprunts » р l’ТtКlТen, les plus remКrquцs pКr les locuteurs
mêmes : les conjonctions comunque, quindi, anche, anzi, però, invece, etc., les adverbes
comme ecco ou come mai, ou les structures lexico-grКmmКtТcКles cКlquцes sur l’ТtКlТen (te
serve… ; come l’è ? etc.), ou encore, la coexistence de formes de « patois » différents.
2. - Sц pКs sen que l’ч FКceЛook !
- A, te sКvч pКs sen que l’ч ! Aggiornate ! E l’КourК que te entrТsse dedeun lo ten
moderne ! E pa a vivre de illusions du passé ! Mythifié ! Comunque, n’Т mКndoulo
a N. [su Facebook].
- Je ne sКТs pКs ce que c’est le FКceЛook !
- AС, tu sКvКТs pКs ce que c’est ! Mets-toi au courant ! Il est temps que tu entres dans les temps
modernes ! Et pas à vivre des illusions du passé ! Mythifié ! QuКnd mшme, je l’КТ envoвц р N. [sur
Facebook].
SТ l’on voulКТt dцfТnТr ce pКssКge en terme de « langues », les parties en italique
devraient être attribuées au « français » ; les parties en gras, probablement, à « l’ТtКlТen » ;
le reste au « FP ». L’КttrТЛutТon des pКrtТes р l’ТtКlТen est pourtКnt proЛlцmКtТque, en ce quТ
concerne « aggiornate ! » (accent tonique sur le o) : КТnsТ en ТtКlТen lК forme de l’ТmpцrКtТf
de la 2ème personne du singulier du verbe « aggiornarsi » est « aggiornati », ce qui signifie
que le -te dans « aggiornate ! » provient du FP ; celК pourrКТt КussТ шtre quКlТfТц d’emprunt
leбТcКl de l’ТtКlТen dКns le FP, et lК pСrКse КttrТЛuцe Кu FP, mКТs le pСonчme [dʒ] n’est pКs
particulièrement typique du système phonologique du FP (voir giorno – dzor, les composés
buongiorno – bondzor etc.). « E l’КourК » serait du « FP », mais avec la grammaire calquée
384
sur le modèle italien (« e l’orК » vs « l’ч l’ourК » / « il est temps de… ») : autrement dit,
une Тnterfцrence grКmmКtТcКle ТtКlТenne dКns le FP. EnfТn, c’est Кu mot « illusion » qu’on
comprend que c’est du frКnхКТs (vs «illujón » en FP); pourtant toute la phrase pourrait alors
être attribuée au français régional avec la phonétique qui lui est propre – et s’цcrТrКТt donc
comme : « Et pas à vivre des illusions du passé ».
3. T’as tout enregistré, to a poste?
T’Кs tout enregТstrц, tout vК ЛТen ?
Cette phrase a été prononcée à la fin de mon interview, entièrement en « patois »,
Кvec les КmТs de ce locuteur qu’Тl m’КvКТt prцsentцs et Кvec lesquels luТ-même parle patois.
Le frКnхКТs Кu dцЛut de lК pСrКse s’eбplТque pКr le fКТt que l’цpouse de ce locuteur est
frКnхКТse et non pКtoТsКnte (ЛТen qu’une pКrtТe de sК fКmТlle soТt de Chamonix, dans le
domКТne dТt FP), et pour cette rКТson Кvec elle, et dКns leur fКmТlle, nous КvТons l’СКЛТtude
de parler français. La fin de la phrase est plus intéressante. Vu que toute la conversation
prцcцdente (р lКquelle ce locuteur n’К presque pКs participé, mais à laquelle il a assisté en
pКrtТe) s’est dцroulцe en « patois », et qu’en rчgle gцnцrКle Тl ne me pКrlКТt pКs ТtКlТen, Тl
fКudrКТt en conclure qu’Тl s’КgТt d’un pКssКge (retour) Кu « patois », sauf avec une
interférence italienne (« a poste », de l’ТtКlТen « a posto », par ailleurs fréquemment utilisé
par les patoisants). Or, dans cette réplique dans la conversation « en patois », le seul
fragment que typologiquement on devrait attribuer au FP est « to ».
Ainsi au niveau des pratiques, on peut difficilement parler de « langues » distinctes
dans le répertoire linguistique des locuteurs. Il faut préciser que la coexistence même
d’цlцments de codes, ou « langues », différents ne signifie pas toujours que ces « langues »
ne soient pas focalisées 207 . Cependant dans le cas valdôtain, il apparaît que parmi les
« langues » constituantes le répertoire linguistique des francoprovençalophones, alors que
207
Ainsi on peut mettre en parallèle ces pratiques linguistiques avec celles du contexte, au premier
regard très différent, des services diplomatiques français en Russie, que nous avons pu observer pendant nos
cinq années de travail (en tant que chargée de projets culturels) р l’InstТtut frКnхКТs de SКТnt-Pétersbourg.
DКns ce cКs les deuб lКngues, le frКnхКТs et le russe, sont trчs focКlТsцes, d’КutКnt plus que les collКЛorКteurs
des services diplomatiques parlent les variantes les plus focalisées que sont le français standard et le russe
standard, dans leurs interactions respectivement avec les Français et les Russes, ou bien dans la
communication formelle au sein des services ; cependant dans la communication interne informelle de tous
les jours, le personnel constitué de Russes francophones et de Français russophones se parle dans un code qui
pourrКТt шtre quКlТfТц d’un mцlКnge des deuб lКngues que nТ un FrКnхКТs non-russophone, ni un Russe nonfrancophone ne comprendrait. Du point de vue de la linguistique « classique », on dТrКТt qu’Тl в К des
КlternКnces codТques rцcurrentes et que lorsqu’on pКrle une lКngue, Тl в К ЛeКucoup d’Тnterfцrences de l’Кutre,
influencées par un nombre de raisons hétérogènes. Ces pratiques linguistiques ont de fait beaucoup en
commun avec les pratiques des milieux plurilingues comme celui de la VDA.
385
« l’ТtКlТen » est ЛТen focКlТsц (les gens sont cКpКЛles de ne pКrler qu’en ТtКlТen sТ
l’Тnterlocuteur n’est pКs pКtoТsКnt), « le français » l’est moТns (mКlgrц le fКТt qu’Тl soТt
appris en contexte scolaire, et probablement à cause de sa ressemblance avec le patois),
tandis que « le patois » est diffus pour la plupart des locuteurs. Dans le documentaire de
Christiane Dunoyer « Les Nouveaux patoisants en VКllцe d’Aoste » (2010), on entend un
interviewé dire : « Lo patoué l’è to sen que l’è pa l’italien, to sen que l’è pa français »
[«Le pКtoТs c’est tout ce quТ n’est pКs de l’ТtКlТen ou du frКnхКТs »]. Du point de vue
lТnguТstТque, de lК structure de lК lКngue FP, c’est цvТdemment fКuб. D’un poТnt de vue
identitaire pourtant, cela semble vrai pour de nombreux locuteurs : tout ce quТ n’est pКs de
l’ТtКlТen nТ du frКnхКТs est ТdentТfТц comme du « patois », avec toutes les répercussions
identitaires qui y sont liées.
Enfin, le FP est considérablement plus focalisé chez certains locuteurs que chez
certКТns Кutres. Avec cecТ, Тl ne semЛle pКs qu’Тl в КТt de relКtТon dТrecte entre lК
focalisation / diffusion de la langue et les catégories socioprofessionnelles (on pourrait
s’Кttendre р ce que les reprцsentКnts des professТons Тntellectuelles КТent plus de rцfleбТon
sur leur production langagière). Ainsi, dans les exemples ci-dessus, le premier locuteur est
un éleveur, le deuxième un instituteur retraité et le troisième un menuisier (simultanément
en VDA Кujourd’СuТ souvent l’КppКrtenКnce р une cКtцgorТe socТoprofessТonnelle n’est pКs
exclusive).
3.1.2. Les représentations linguistiques : « le bon patois » ?
Cette réalТtц des usКges se trouve confrontцe Кu stцrцotвpe de ce qu’une « langue »
doit être, calqué sur celui du « bon italien » et du « bon français ». La confrontation génère
parfois une insécurité linguistique et la peur de ne pas être à même de transmettre « le bon
patois », la langue « pure » et « complète », ce qui mène à sa non-transmission. On peut
penser, pКr eбemple, р l’КttТtude de certКТns pКrents quТ dТsent que les enfКnts pКrlent sТ mКl
pКtoТs, en le mцlКngeКnt tout le temps Кvec l’ТtКlТen, qu’Тl vКut mТeuб qu’Тls pКrlent ТtКlТen.
De mшme, certКТns ТnformКteurs ont remКrquц (et nous l’Кvons vu КussТ certКТnes foТs) que
souvent ce sont ceux qui eux-mшmes n’ont pКs trКnsmТs le pКtoТs р leurs enfКnts quТ
critiquent les autres en disant que ceux-là parlent mal patois. Ce paradoxe apparent peut
КussТ s’eбplТquer pКr une ТnsцcurТtц lТnguТstТque : c’est proЛКЛlement pКrce que lК personne
en question se sentait incapable de transmettre le « bon » ou le « pur » pКtoТs, qu’elle К
choisi de ne pas le transmettre, et c’est pour cette mшme rКТson qu’elle crТtТque les Кutres.
386
Autrement dТt, c’est pКrce que le stцrцotвpe sur ce que c’est qu’une « langue », basé sur les
idéologies promues par les Etats-Nations modernes, italien et français, ne correspond pas à
la réalitц oЛservКЛle qu’Тl devТent un dКnger pour lК trКnsmТssТon du FP. 208 On oublie
pourtant que ces « bon italien » et « bon français » qui servent de modèles de référence
existent surtout en tant que langues écrites, ou bien comme langues des présentateurs des
КctuКlТtцs р lК tцlцvТsТon nКtТonКle (et Кutres sТtuКtТons de ce genre), et qu’Тls sont dТstТncts
des pratiques réelles des locuteurs, avec toute la variation géographique et sociale, et toute
la variété des genres et des registres qui leur sont propres.
SТ l’on est prшt р stТgmКtТser certКТns usКges lТnguТstТques comme n’цtКnt pas du
« bon patois », ce qui est du « bon patois » n’est pourtКnt pКs ТmКgТnц de mКnТчre clКТre. LК
notion de normes parait (presque) inexistante. Dans une logique apparemment inverse de
ce quТ К цtц dцcrТt plus СКut, on ТmКgТne tвpТquement qu’une norme tuerКТt les usКges
vivants et imposerait un standard « artificiel ». Pourtant, si on y regarde de plus près, on
verrК que cette КpprцСensТon est due р lК mшme ТmКge d’une lКngue stКndard homogène,
qui appartient de fait au monde des stéréotypes et non pas à la réalité de quelque langue au
monde que ce soТt (c’est-à-dТre qu’on ТmКgТne que le stКndКrd s’ТmposerКТt Кuб dцpens des
Кutres vКrТКntes et non pКs comme une vКrТКnte pКrmТ d’Кutres, réservée aux contextes
particuliers).
QuoТqu’Тl en soТt, le « patois » est typiquement circonscrit très localement, au
nТveКu d’une commune. AТnsТ les reprцsentКtТons trКdТtТonnelles persТstent, Кlors que lК
réalité a changé. En effet, outre le fait qu’en rцКlТtц Тl peut в КvoТr plus de proбТmТtц entre,
par exemple, les parlers de deux localités voisines au fond de la vallée, appartenant à deux
communes dТffцrentes, qu’entre une de celles-là et une localité de haute montagne
appartenant à la même commune, cette vision se base sur des présupposés appartenant
désormais au monde « en voie de disparition » (sans que cela ait un sens négatif). Cela
Nous Кvons remКrquц des КttТtudes ТdentТques р l’цgКrd de l’occТtКn en FrКnce, où les
reprцsentКtТons de ce qu’une lКngue (en l’occurrence l’occТtКn) doТt шtre sont cКlquцes sur le modèle du
frКnхКТs. Au contrКТre, Тl est remКrquКЛle que nous n’Квons jКmКТs notц ces КttТtudes cСeг les locuteurs des
lКngues mТnorТtКТres d’UkrКТne orТentКle durКnt les цtudes socТolТnguТstТques de terrКТn que nous в Кvons
menées entre 2003 et 2006 : proЛКЛlement pКrce que les lКngues domТnКntes, telles qu’elles sont utТlТsцes
dans la vie quotidienne dans la région, ne sont pas elles-mшmes focКlТsцes (Тl n’est pКs clКТr dКns l’ТmКgТnКТre
collectif par où passe la frontière entre « le russe », « l’ukrКТnТen » et le « suržyk», ce dernier comprenant des
éléments des deux premiers. Souvent on appelle « russe » ce quТ n’est pКs de l’ukrКТnТen stКndКrd, et
« ukrainien » ce quТ n’est pКs du russe stКndКrd, tКndТs que tвpologТquement dКns les deuб cКs, Тl s’КgТt
souvent du suržyk.
208
387
suppose toujours un pКrler d’une commune « pur », Кlors qu’Кvec lК moЛТlТtц propre р lК
vie moderne, rares sont ceux qui sont restés isolés dans leur commune, sans contacts avec
l’eбtцrТeur, sКns pКrler des mКrТКges « mixtes » quТ semЛlent шtre Кujourd’СuТ plus lК rчgle
que l’eбceptТon.
PКr КТlleurs, l’ТmКge du pКtoТs quТ vКrТe d’une commune р l’Кutre vК souvent de pair
Кvec l’Тdцe que l’ТntercomprцСensТon est ТmpossТЛle. Or, cette dernТчre dцpend lКrgement
de la motivation à comprendre, bien plus que des différences structurelles entre « patois ».
En VDA lorsque les interlocuteurs parlent deux parlers différents, on peut distinguer deux
stratégies de communication : soit on adapte son comportement verbal pour être mieux
compris, en passant au langage plus « neutre » sans traits locaux manifestes, soit on parle
son patois sans le modifier (dans les représentations des locuteurs on parle dans ce cas un
patois « serré » - р noter que dКns le cКs contrКТre Тl n’в К pКs de nom pКrtКgц pКr toute lК
communКutц, et puТsqu’en rчgle gцnцrКle on nomme les eбceptТons, Тl en ressort que c’est
ce second comportement qui est perçu comme atypique). Les facteurs de préférence pour
l’une ou l’Кutre de ces strКtцgТes peuvent шtre dТvers : le rapport de pouvoir entre les
communes (celuТ quТ pКrle le pКtoТs d’une commune КвКnt plus de prestТge que l’Кutre vК
probablement moins adapter sa façon de parler), la perception des différences de son patois
(ainsi les patois des communes comme Fénis ou Cogne sont communément perçus comme
trчs dТffцrents et donc peu comprцСensТЛles, et leurs locuteurs Кuront donc plus l’СКЛТtude
d’КccommodКtТon), etc. Cependant deux facteurs majeurs, à notre avis, sont la plus ou
moТns grКnde moЛТlТtц de lК personne et donc sК cКpКcТtц, КcquТse pКr l’eбpцrТence (ou Кu
contrКТre son ТncКpКcТtц pКr mКnque d’eбpцrТence) de gцrer ses СКЛТtudes lКngКgТчres, et lК
motivation, comme cela a déjà été noté. Ainsi un commerçant qui se déplace régulièrement
dКns lК VКllцe et quТ К Тntцrшt р шtre comprТs КurК plus de souplesse que quelqu’un quТ reste
tout le temps dКns sК commune, et dont le cercle de contКcts СКЛТtuels et d’Тntцrêts
prТncТpКuб est lТmТtц gцogrКpСТquement р sК commune d’orТgТne, ou ЛТen quТ, lorsqu’Тl sort
du locКl, se retrouve dКns un mТlТeu Кlloglotte (d’СКЛТtude, ТtКlopСone).
Ce que parlent ceux qui ont « un grКnd esprТt d’КdКptКtТon » (pour citer un des
informateurs) est autre chose que le patois de la commune X ou Y, et cette autre chose
n’est pКs dцcrТte scТentТfТquement (pКrce que « impure » du point de vue dialectologique).
Or là où une idéologie ne marche pas, ici celle des linguistes, le vide entre la théorie et la
prКtТque К tendКnce р шtre remplТ pКr d’Кutres ТdцologТes. En l’occurrence, l’ТdцologТe de
l’AllТКnce culturelle КrpТtКne, souvent СostТle р celle des цtudes dТКlectologТques, permet
388
aux Arpitanistes de remplir ce vide. Un Arpitaniste de Savoie (né en 1987) parle ainsi de
son interaction avec un autre Arpitaniste de la VDA et plus généralement entre
Arpitanistes :
Quand deux personnes arpitanes se parlent, les deux font des efforts pour se
comprendre. Pour se faire comprendre, on ne peut alors pas constamment parler
dans son patois du village, on doit faire des concessions: parler plus lentement,
mТeuб КrtТculer les mots, se rКpprocСer l’un de l’Кutre pour trouver un juste mТlТeu.
Ce juste mТlТeu n’est Кlors pКs un pКtoТs propre р un vТllКge, nТ une koinè. Parler
dКns ce lКngКge neutre est ce que j’Кppelle: pКrler en «КrpТtКn ».
Ce que cet Arpitaniste appelle « parler en arpitan » est ce que font de nombreux
locuteurs vКldôtКТns sКns l’Кppeler comme celК (et dКns certКТns cКs sКns trop rцflцcСТr sur
le processus). Il n’en reste pКs moТns que le vocКЛulКТre scТentТfТque FP d’Кujourd’СuТ
mКnque de nom pour pКrler de ce pСцnomчne quТ, quКnt р luТ, ne mКnque pКs d’шtre
manifeste, et que les noms font bien plus que juste dénoter des objets de la réalité (sur les
enjeux des nominations du FP, voir Bichurina, à paraître).
Pour en revenir aux deux types de stratégies (et donc aux deux représentations de la
lКngue), Тl fКut dТre que ceuб quТ ne s’КdКptent pКs Кu pКrler de l’Тnterlocuteur sont КussТ
ceux qui ont le plus tendance à voir le patois comme « leur patois », appartenant à leur
commune, et qui ont le plus de mal à accepter des nouveaux locuteurs. Ce « mal » doit être
relКtТvТsц, cКr de notre eбpцrТence personnelle Тl ressort qu’Тl suffТsКТt d’une rцplique ou
deuб pour шtre Кcceptцe comme locutrТce lцgТtТme et memЛre du groupe. MКТs s’Тl в К un
contexte dans lequel les gens ont eu au premier instant une certaine appréhension (en
général très peu fréquente en VDA, voir aussi Dunoyer 2010) vis-à-vТs d’une Russe qui
pКrle pКtoТs, c’цtКТt cСeг ce dernТer tвpe de locuteurs. Les strКtцgТes ont Кlors цtц
différentes : quelqu’un К posц une questТon, р lК foТs tвpТque sТ elle est Кdressцe р un jeune
du lieu, mais à laquelle, pour une « étrangère », la réponse était impossible ou plus
prцcТsцment n’КvКТt pКs de sens (« De quТ t’ч ? », ЛКsцe sur le fКТt qu’on connКТt les pКrents
de tous les jeunes alentour) ; ou ЛТen quelqu’un К dТt une pСrКse toute fКТte, destТnцe р ne
pas être comprise hors contexte et à mettre prцcТsцment en цvТdence qu’elle n’est pКs
comprise (« Tч ou l’ou ? » (‘Tu veuб un œuf ?’) dКns le conteбte ТnКpproprТц d’une
conversation dans un bar). Il semblerait pourtant que dans ce type de réaction par une
blague (qualifions-le КТnsТ) Тl s’КgТssКТt surtout d’une mцfТКnce pКr rКpport Кu fКТt que
quelqu’un puТsse pКrler « leur » pКtoТs, et qu’une seule rцponse Кsseг longue suffТsКТt pour
389
être acceptée comme étant « di noutre » (« des nôtres ») et celle qui « prèdze come no »
(« parle comme nous »).
3.1.3. « Une langue » ?
EnfТn, Тl n’в К pКs d’unКnТmТtц sur le fКТt de sКvoТr, s’КgТssКnt du « patois », sТ c’est
une lКngue р pКrt entТчre, comme le frКnхКТs et l’ТtКlТen, ou ЛТen une vКrТКnte (locКle, orКle,
plus КncТenne…) du frКnхКТs. Pour certКТns le cСoТб de l’une ou l’Кutre perceptТon de son
statut se trouve lié, entre autres, aux préférences idéologiques : КТnsТ l’Тdцe que le FP soТt
une langue à part entière et, en tant que telle, la seule « vraie » langue autochtone de la
VDA, a historiquement été avancée par les mouvements séparatistes ; par contre, les
défenseurs du maintien du statu quo insistent sur le français comme « la langue de
culture » qui seule peut faire face à une autre « langue de culture », l’ТtКlТen (et le pКtoТs
serait donc une variante « moins noble » du français). Dans cette deuxième perspective,
l’КutonomТe de lК rцgТon цtКnt ЛКsцe sur le frКnхКТs, l’ТnsТstКnce sur le pКtoТs est vue
comme pouvКnt dцlцgТtТmer l’КutonomТe. En effet, СТstorТquement l’КutonomТe К цtц due р
la peur, de la pКrt d’ItКlТe, de l’КnneбТon de lК rцgТon pКr lК FrКnce sur lК ЛКse de prКtТques
francophones ; dans ce sens le FP en tant que « vraie langue locale » n’est pКs dКngereuб
pour l’EtКt ТtКlТen, puТsqu’Тl n’К pКs d’Кrmцe derrТчre - non pas métaphorique, selon la
fameuse formule : « la langue est un dialecte avec une armée et une marine de
guerre », mais bien réelle209. Il faut pourtant convenir que les représentations de la « langue
FP » comme un danger persistent encore, tandis que ce type de prétentions territoriales
semblerait relever du passé en Europe occidentale du 21ème siècle210.
De même, le rôle identitaire, dans le sens ethnique ou social, du « patois » n’est pКs
le même pour tous. Cette question est très vaste et trop importante pour être traitée ici au
pКssКge. Pour l’ТnstКnt soulТgnons juste que ce rôle К peu р voТr Кvec les proprТцtцs de lК
Pour fКТre un pКrКllчle СТstorТque, de mКnТчre sТmТlКТre, l’КdmТnТstrКtТon de StКlТne К dцclКrц dКns
les Кnnцes 1930, juste КvКnt lК guerre entre l’URSS et lК FТnlКnde, que les pКrlers fТnno-ougriens à la
frontière avec la Finlande formaient une langue à part entière, « le carélien », et non pas des dialectes du
finnois.
209
Mшme sТ dКns d’Кutres pКrtТes d’Europe on К КssТstц, en 2014, р un cКs sТmТlКТre, dКns lequel les
pratiques russophones en Crimée ont servi de légitimation pour un référendum et, par la suite, pour
l’КnneбТon de lК pцnТnsule pКr lК RussТe, ou ЛТen sК rцunТon Кvec lК RussТe (dцpendКnt de l’ТdцologТe de celuТ
qui en parle).
210
390
langue et ses usages effectifs.211 Ce hiatus entre le rôle identitaire attribué à la langue et ses
usages réels est notamment caractéristique du type focalisé.
3.2 Focalisation
Dчs qu’Тl в К plus d’un seul code dКns le rцpertoТre lТnguТstТque d’un locuteur, le
choix du code ajoute un sens supplémentaire au message : sur l’ТdentТtц que le locuteur
veut projeter, que ce soit en termes ethniques ou sociaux (appartenance à une communauté
imaginée212 plutôt qu’р une Кutre, et constructТon mшme de cette communКutц pКr le ЛТКТs
du comportement langagier), ou bien, par exemple, en termes de relations hiérarchiques
entre interlocuteurs, registre, etc. Cependant, dans la situation linguistique de type diffus,
cette « valeur ajoutée » des usages du FP ne prime pas sur le sens premier de ce qui est dit.
LК lКngue в est un moвen de communТcКtТon et n’К pКs ЛesoТn d’Кutres rКТsons d’шtre.
Par contraste, dans le type focalisé, le fait que quelque chose soit dit dans une
lКngue plutôt qu’une Кutre est plus ТmportКnt que ce quТ est dТt. Il existe plusieurs façons de
se rцfцrer р une telle sТtuКtТon. On peut l’КЛorder р pКrtТr de lК théorie des actes
lТnguТstТques d’AustТn (1962), comme le font les Кuteurs du Profil de la politique
linguistique éducative de la VDA, mais, dans le cas de la VDA, par rapport aux usages du
français 213 . On peut penser aussi à l'aphorisme de M. McLuhan «The medium is the
211
Ainsi, par exemple, nous avons pu voir, lors de nos recherches en Ukraine dans les communautés
dites « albanaise » et « grecque » (« urume »), des sТtuКtТons où l’usКge des termes de pКrentц et des formules
de sКlutКtТon en lКngue locКle pКr un enfКnt suffТsКТt pour qu’Тl soТt cКtцgorТsц comme « locuteur » et, en tant
que tel, comme membre du groupe ethnique.
212
Benedict Anderson définie la nation comme une « communauté imaginée » :
[La nation] est une communauté politique imaginée et imaginée comme intrinsèquement limitée et
souveraine. Elle est imaginée parce que même les membres de la plus petite des nations ne connaîtront
jКmКТs lК plupКrt de leurs concТtoвens : jКmКТs Тls ne croТseront nТ n’entendront pКrler d’euб, et pourtКnt
dКns l’esprТt de cСКcun vТt l’ТmКge de leur communТon. (Anderson 1991 [1983] : 6). [[The nation] is an
imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It
is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellowmembers, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.
– Notre traduction].
213
Ainsi Decime et Vernetto affirment :
En effet, les sТtuКtТons d’utТlТsКtТon du frКnхКТs [en VDA] […] (le conteбte scolКТre et celuТ des ЛureКuб
de l’КdmТnТstrКtТon rцgТonКle) reprцsentent sКns Кucun doute les contextes électifs, par rapport aux
Кttentes […], et peuvent шtre consТdцrцes comme celles où se vцrТfТent Кu plus СКut degrц des condТtТons
communicatives dans lesquelles, à côté du significat primaire de type illocutoire (le but immédiat pour
lequel nous produТsons un messКge, pКr eбemple “demКnder une ТnformКtТon”) est КussТ le «cСoТб»
391
message» (repris par P. Sériot en relation avec les usages linguistiques en Ukraine, avec
leur opposition très pertinente aux idéologies du français)214. Ou encore, on peut décrire
cette situation linguistique comme post-vernaculaire, en empruntant le terme proposé par
Shandler (2006) à propos du yiddish 215 . Quel que soТt le terme qu’on cСoТsТt pour lК
décrire, cette situation est typique des communautés qui ont vécu une substitution
linguistique : ici, le remplacement du FP dans les interactions quotidiennes par le français
ou, dКns certКТns lТeuб en ItКlТe, pКr le pТцmontКТs et l’ТtКlТen.
Dans ce type de situation, la plupart, sinon tous les locuteurs natifs étant morts, le
FP est vu comme « appartenant » en quelque sorte aux groupes dits patoisants. Ces groupes
sont majoritairement formés de retraités, surtout parmi les agriculteurs ou les enseignants
issus du milieu rural ou de petites villes. Habituellement, ils ont entendu leurs grandspКrents pКrler FP, mКТs n’ont commencц р le pКrler euб-mшmes qu’р lК retrКТte, lorsqu’Тls
se sont retrouvés dans un nouveau rôle social de « mainteneurs du patois ». Ces patoisants,
dans leur majorité, ne parlent pas patois en dehors de leurs rencontres entre eux ;
simultanément, le trКТt cКrКctцrТstТque de ces rencontres est l’usКge de lК lКngue domТnКnte
comme langue de communication : le discours sur le pКtoТs в est centrКl, mКТs Тl n’est pКs
en patois. La forme des énoncés subvertit alors leur sens, le signifiant niant le signifié.
Le FP est alors mis en scène, soit dans le sens direct, le théâtre en patois étant vu
comme le lieu privilégié de la pratique de la langue, soit dans le sens plus métaphorique :
lors des rencontres de patoisants, les usages du FP sont souvent réservés à la lecture de
teбtes prцpКrцs d’КvКnce.
conscient du code à contribuer de façon substantielle à la définition du message dans sa composante
perlocutoire (l’effet gloЛКl produТt cСeг le destТnКtКТre). À ce sujet, il est important de noter que les
pourcentКges les plus ЛКs de l’utТlТsКtТon du frКnхКТs ont цtц enregТstrцs dКns les conversКtТons Кvec le
mцdecТn : une sТtuКtТon dКns lКquelle, Кu contrКТre, lК force ТllocutoТre du messКge produТt (“dцcrТre un
sвmptôme”, “demКnder des цclКТrcТssements concernКnt lК posologТe”, etc.…) et lК clКrtц locutoire
doivent précisément dominer sur tout aspect perlocutoire. (Decime, Vernetto 2007 : 30).
214
Sériot (2005 : 49-50) :
En Ukraine, l'aphorisme de M. McLuhan «The medium is the message» prend un sens tout à fait concret :
ce qu'on dit a souvent moins d'importance que la langue dans laquelle on le dit, qui est le signe distinctif
de celui qui parle et de son appartenance à une communКutц ТmКgТnцe. […] CelК ТmplТque, lр encore, ЛТen
des différences avec le discours français sur la langue. L'ukrainien n'est ni «logique» ni «clair» ni même
«riche», il est avant tout la langue des Ukrainiens, langue pure du pur ethnos ukrainien. On trouvera peu
de propos sur les qualités intrinsèques de l'ukrainien, mais une chose est sûre : il doit être distinct du
russe, et pur, c'est-à-dire sans emprunts extérieurs. Il doit шtre lК mКrque dТstТnctТve […]
215
B. Pivot, dans sa thèse récente (Pivot 2014), reprend cette notion pour décrire la situation du FP, qui
serait, à son avis, post-vernaculaire sur tout son territoire – y compris dans les régions que nous traitons, par
contraste, comme appartenant au type diffus.
392
Simultanément, les limites de la langue FP sont bien définies dans les
reprцsentКtТons des locuteurs. Lorsqu’Тls décident de parler FP, ils veillent à ce que ce soit
lК seule lКngue de communТcКtТon, sКns Тnterfцrences de lК lКngue domТnКnte. L’ТnsцcurТtц
linguistique est également présente ici, due cette fois-ci au fait que la langue est apprise
tardivement et non pas héritée ; cette insécurité est pourtant compensée par la consultation
de dictionnaires et de livres de grammaire, y compris pendant les rencontres, au moment
même de la conversation (voir aussi Bichurina 2014 sur ce type des usages du FP en
Suisse).
Le statut du FP en tant que « langue » à part entière est souligné : notamment dans
le cadre des débats visant à une forme de soutien officiel à la langue, comme, par exemple,
son admission au baccalauréat en France, ou son insertion dans la Charte européenne des
langues régionales ou minoritaires en Suisse (ratifiée par la Confédération, mais sans
mention du FP). Simultanément, les arguments principaux de la discussion sur la
« langue » ne concernent vraiment ni « la langue » comme système, ni – encore moins –
l’ensemЛle des prКtТques lКngКgТчres (quКsТ-inexistantes), mais son histoire, sa géographie,
sa tradition littéraire. De même, il existe une concurrence des différentes visions de la
langue, mais en surface les discussions et les tensions s’КrtТculent Кutour de deux
questТons, dont Кucune n’est lТцe Кu sвstчme, nТ Кuб prКtТques lТnguТstТques : le nom de la
langue (pКtoТs, FP, КrpТtКn, sКvoвКrd,…) et le système orthographique (système dit
phonétique pour chaque endroit, système dit supra-dialectal...) Au fond, Тl s’КgТt de lК
concurrence de légitimité pour se prononcer sur la langue et sur son avenir (culturel et
polТtТque) en l’КЛsence de locuteurs nКtТfs.
PКr КТlleurs, Кu lТeu de l’ТmКge de pКtoТs propres р une seule commune, ou d’une
rцgТon Кvec un nomЛre de pКrlers ТntercomprцСensТЛles, c’est lК vТsТon de l’ensemЛle
lТnguТstТque FP quТ semЛle s’Тmposer de plus en plus dКns ce tвpe de sТtuКtТons, vцСТculцe
par les cartes du domaine basées sur les données dialectologiques (le savoir scientifique
lцgТtТmКnt КТnsТ l’ТmКge d’un ensemЛle) ou encore pКr l’orgКnТsКtТon de mКnТfestКtТons
culturelles comme les Fêtes internationales des patois. Simultanément la connaissance du
fait que le domaine FP est relativement lКrge et dТvers coeбТste jusqu’р prцsent Кvec lК
méconnaissance assez générale de ses frontières.
Enfin, en ce qui concerne les locuteurs en dehors des groupes patoisants dans ce
tвpe de sТtuКtТon lТnguТstТque, c’est l’КttТtude vТs-à-vis du patois comme « mon patois »,
nettement minoritaire dans le type diffus, qui domine ici, de manière plus généralisée et
393
plus profonde. Lorsque le pКtoТs n’est plus vécu comme une pratique quotidienne, comme
le lКngКge courКnt utТlТsц Кvec les gens venus des dТffцrents coТns que l’on rencontre tous
les jours dКns lК vТe moderne, mКТs vu comme un souvenТr d’un pКssц fТgц, ТncСКngeКЛle
(parce que précisément passé), comme un symbole plus que comme une pratique, les
ТndТvТdus ont tendКnce р s’КccrocСer р leur pКtoТs trчs locКl, vu comme le seul vrКТ, et р
pКsser р lК lКngue domТnКnte dчs que le pКrler de l’Тnterlocuteur est lцgчrement dТffцrent,
c’est-à-dire dans la plupКrt des sТtuКtТons de leur vТe d’Кujourd’СuТ.
Conclusion
L’espКce FP prцsente КТnsТ un paradoxe : là où le gens parlent le FP dans leur vie
de tous les jours, ils ne parlent pas autant de la langue, n’en pКrlent pКs toujours en tКnt que
d’une « langue », et les frontières de cette langue (ou non-langue), tant linguistiques que
géographiques, sont floues ; au contraire, là où les pratiques quotidiennes du FP sont
désormais inexistantes, le discours sur la langue est abondant, et les frontières de toutes
sortes sont clКТres. On voТt Кlors цmerger le modчle d’un ЛТlТnguТsme ТmКgТnц comme deuб
(ou plus) monolinguismes co-existants, avec deux (ou plus) « langues » bien délimitées,
séparées dans leurs fonctions, sКns qu’Кucune Тnterfцrence soТt КdmТssТЛle : un bilinguisme
ТmКgТnКТre, puТsqu’une des lКngues n’est presque jКmКТs pКrlцe, et quТ est tout le contrКТre
du langage spontané de tous les jours où les différentes sources du répertoire linguistique
ne sont pas toujours repérées par les locuteurs. Autrement dit, les pratiques linguistiques
hétérogènes et diffuses cèdent leur place aux langues homogènes et focalisées lorsque la
spontanéité de ces pratiques disparaît.216
216
La situation est, selon nous, typique de toutes les langues dites « en danger ». Ainsi, par exemple, Robert
Lafont, sociolinguiste et une des figures majeures du militantisme occitan, écrivait dans son autobiographie :
M’КrrТЛК d’КnКr espТКr d’КmКgКt […] los vТчlСs que […] perseguТsson en lengК d’òc lК conversК sus lКs
sКsons. PКrtТssТ d’un MontpelСТчr tot КfrКncТmКndТt ont pr’Кquò l’eбТstцncТК de l’occТtКn es КdmesК
d’opТnТon comunК, e КrrТЛТ en cò de gents que pКrlКn plКn, mКs Кn pКs КusТt pКrlКr de res. Passan al francés
quand me veson venir, per costuma vièlha de diglòssia. (Lafont 1999 : 113 – 114). [Il m’КrrТve d’Кller цpТer
en cКcСette […] les vТeuб quТ […] contТnuent leurs conversКtТons sur les sКТsons en lКngue d’oc. Je pКrs
d’un MontpellТer complчtement frКncТsц, où, pour cette rКТson, l’eбТstence de l’occТtКn est КdmТse dКns
l’opТnТon puЛlТque, et j’КrrТve cСeг les gens quТ le pКrlent ЛТen, mКТs quТ n’on entendu pКrler de rТen. Ils
pКssent Кu frКnхКТs lorsqu’Тls me voТent venТr, pКr vТelle СКЛТtude de diglossie. – Notre traduction.]
394
Ce constКt цtКnt fКТt, Тl n’en ressort point que la standardisation mènerait à la
« mort » ou « l’КrtТfТcТКlТsКtТon » de lК lКngue sТ l’on se rКppelle, comme le dцmontre
l’СТstoТre lТnguТstТque des EtКts-Nations conçus comme monolingues comme la France et
l’ItКlТe, que l’eбТstence d’un stКndКrd ne remplace jamais la variation, même si la politique
d’un EtКt suffТsКmment puТssКnt vТsКТt le contrКТre, et que, pour toute lКngue, lК lКngue
standard, utile pour ses fins, est tout autre chose que la langue quotidienne des locuteurs,
avec sa variation socТКle, stвlТstТque et tКnt d’Кutres.
Références
ANDERSON Benedict, 1991 [1983], Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and
spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
AUSTIN, J.L., 1962, How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BICHURINA Natalia, à paraître, « BКptшmes d’une lКngue ou un peu de mКgТe
sociale (« Francoprovençal » - « Arpitan » - « Savoyard ») », in Cahiers de l’ILSL,
Lausanne.
BICHURINA Natalia, 2014, « La « mort » des langues et les « néo-locuteurs » : le cas de
« l’КrpТtКn » », in R. Colonna (éd.) Les locuteurs et les langues : pouvoirs, nonpouvoirs, contre-pouvoirs. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas, p. 243 – 253.
BICHURINA Natalia, 2013, « Le linguiste face aux minorités linguistiques : sauveur ou
ennemТ de son oЛjet d’цtude ? (Les cКs de l’occТtКn et du frКncoprovenхКl) », in C.
Alén Garabato (éd.) Gestion des minorités linguistiques dans l’Europe du XXIe
siècle, Limoges : Lambert-Lucas, p. 291 – 302.
DECIME Rita et Gabriella VERNETTO (Éds.), Profil de la politique linguistique
éducative, Vallée d’Aoste. Rapport régional, Assessorat de l'Éducation et de la
Culture. Département Surintendance aux études, 2007 (téléchargeable sur le site du
ConseТl
de
l’Europe
:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/aoste_rapport_regional_fr.pdf).
DUNOYER Christiane, 2010, Les nouveaux patoisants en Vallée d’Aoste, Musumeci (ouvrage et
documentaire).
395
LAFONT Robert, 1999, Pecics de mièg-sègle, Fédérop.
LE PAGE Robert Brock, 1997 [1988], «What is a language?» In A. Tabouret-Keller (éd.)
Le nom des langues I. Les enjeux de la nomination des langues, vol. 1, Louvain :
Peeters, p. 21 – 34.
LE PAGE RoЛert Brock, 1998 [1992], «‘Вou cКn never tell аСere К аord comes from’:
language contact in a diffuse setting». In Trudgill P. and Cheshire J. (eds.) The
Sociolinguistics Reader. Vol.1: Multilingualism and Variation. London, etc., p. 66
– 90. [Originally published in: Jahr E.H. (ed.). Language Contact: Theoretical and
Empirical Studies. Berlin / N.Y., 1992].
LE PAGE Robert Brock and TABOURET-KELLER Andrée, 1985, Acts of Identity:
Creole-based Approaches to Ethnicity and Language. Cambridge : Cambridge
University Press.
MEUNE Manuel, 2014, « Enjeu local et défi transnational, terroirs patoisants et
eбterrТtorТКlТtц « КrpТtКne » : le frКncoprovenхКl р l’Сeure de WТkТpцdТК », in D.
Lassalle and D. Weissmann (eds.) EX(TRA)TERRITORIAL. Reassessing Territory
in Literature, Culture and Languages / Les Territoires littéraires, culturels et
linguistiques en question. Amsterdam - New York : Rodopi, p. 261-284.
PIVOT Bénédicte, 2014, Revitalisation de langues postvernaculaires : le francoprovençal
en Rhône-Alpes et le rama au Nicaragua, Thèse de doctorat (manuscrit), Université
Lumière-Lyon 2
SÉRIOT Patrick, 2005, «Diglossie, bilinguisme ou mélange de langues : le cas
du suržyk en Ukraine», La linguistique, Paris : P.U.F., vol. 41, fasc. 2, p. 37-52.
Disponible sur : http://crecleco.seriot.ch/recherche/biblio/05SURZHYK/txt.html
SHANDLER, J., 2006, Adventures in Yiddishland: Postvernacular Language & Culture.
Berkeley & Los Angeles : University of California Press.
TABOURET-KELLER Andrée, 1997, «L'enjeu de la nomination des langues.
Présentation», dans Andrée Tabouret-Keller (éd.), Le nom des langues. L'enjeu de
la nomination des langues, vol. 1, Louvain : Peeters, p. 5 – 21.
396
Figure 1.
Carte du domaine francoprovençal à la base des cartes dialectologiques et de la vue
satellite de Google maps. © Natalia Bichurina 2015 217
217
Nous remercions Olga Bichurina de son aide dans la réalisation de la carte.
397
III.
Le francoprovençal comme pratique sociale : Quels enjeux
d’aménagement linguistique en 2016 ?218
Le Mont Blanc : frontière ou centre ?
LК vue sur l’ТmКge au-dessus est celle du Mont Blanc : le centre symbolique du
domaine francoprovençal. Sommes-nous ici à la frontière entre troТs pКвs, l’ItКlТe, lК
France et la Suisse, le Mont Blanc est-il une barrière entre trois (ou plus) communautés
francoprovençalophones ? Ou bien, est-il le centre qui unie une seule communauté
montagnarde qui vie autour ? Les réponses peuvent varier selon les vécus personnels et les
ТdцologТes, mКТs en tout cКs, lorsqu’Тl s’КgТt de lК trКnsmТssТon, lК normКlТsКtТon et lК
revitalisation de la langue – les thèmes de ce colloque – il est important, à mon sens, de
plКcer l’Кccent justement sur lК communauté linguistique, et non pas sur la langue en ellemême et pour elle-même, en tant que structure linguistique. Autrement dit, la langue
devrait être comprise comme pratique sociale. C’est l’КpprocСe que j’essКвerКТ de
démontrer dans cette contribution.
218
A paraître dans : Transmission, revitalisation et normalisation, actes de la conférence annuelle sur
l’activité scientifique du centre d’études francoprovençales, Saint-Nicolas, le 7 novembre 2015. Région
Кutonome VКllцe d’Aoste, AssessorКt de l’цducКtТon et de lК culture, 2016. 85 – 94.
398
Je commencerКТ pКr un survol des КpprocСes eбТstКntes р l’КmцnКgement du
frКncoprovenхКl quТ, КussТ concurrentes qu’elles soТent, pКrtent toutes de lК vТsТon
linguistique (structurelle) de la langue. Je proposerai ensuite une approche alternative
(« subjective ») qui conçoit la langue comme pratique sociale. Enfin, je discuterai les
consцquences d’une telle vТsТon du frКncoprovenхКl pour son цventuelle normКlТsКtТon.
1. Approches existantes à l’aménagement du francoprovençal
Historiquement, il y a eu – et il existe toujours – deux visions de la réalité
linguistique francoprovençale :
Les dialectologues ont insisté sur « le patois du village » comme une
unТtц (d’цtude) р une coСцrence lТnguТstТque Тnterne (TuКТllon К pКrlц notКmment de
l’« unité parfaite » du pКtoТs d’une commune – voir, par exemple, son introduction
au livre des Derniers patoisants giettois 2009) ;
Les mТlТtКnts ont ТnsТstц sur une lКngue d’un vКste domКТne
géographique, qui coïncidait
o soТt Кvec une rцgТon polТtТque (lК VКllцe d’Aoste, lК SКvoie, etc.),
o soit avec la zone autour du Mont-BlКnc (VКllцe d’Aoste + SКvoТe +
Valais),
o soit avec tout le domaine francoprovençal.
Les différentes dénominations de la langue démontrent – voire servent à créer – les
différentes divisions du monde linguistique et sociopolitique. Ainsi on parle de :
-
« patois de la commune » X ou Y ;
-
« la langue savoyarde » ou « le patois vaudois », par exemple. Les
revendications culturelles ou sociopolitiques sont complètement différentes
dans ces cas, mais la tentative de faire coïncider la langue avec une entité
politique est identique ;
-
et enfin, « la langue francoprovençale » ou « la langue arpitane ».
De même, ces différentes visions se traduisent en différentes approches à la
normКlТsКtТon, notКmment р l’цcrТt, où les deux pôles sont la graphie phonétique pour
399
chaque « patois de commune » vs lК grКpСТe suprКdТКlectКle, dТte l’ORB (OrtСogrКpСe de
rцfцrence B, cf. StТcС 2003) pour l’ensemЛle de « la langue arpitane ».
Cependant ces approches, aussi concurrentes et contraires les unes aux autres
qu’elles pКrКТssent, pКrtent toutes d’une reprцsentКtТon de lК lКngue en tКnt que sвstчme
lТnguТstТque (selon lК formule ‘pСonцtТque + morpСo-sвntКбe + leбТque’, Кvec une
importance inégale attribuée à ces différents components), qui existerait en dehors de ce
que les locuteurs en font. Ainsi l’КpprocСe micro-, quТ vТse l’КmцnКgement Кu nТveКu
local, a pour prémisse la forte variation linguistique interne du francoprovençal ;
l’КpprocСe concurrente, macro-, vТsКnt l’ensemЛle du domКТne, pКrt des trКТts lТnguТstТques
communs et donc de l’Тdцe d’une seule lКngue trКnsfrontКlТчre. PourtКnt, dцjр dКns le sens
purement linguistique la cohérence interne du « patois du village » ou de la « langue
francoprovençale / arpitane » est très relative : les formes cСКngent d’un locuteur р l’Кutre,
souvent Кu seТn d’une mшme fКmТlle. PКr КТlleurs, et surtout, dans le sens social ni le patois
du vТllКge, nТ lК lКngue frКncoprovenхКle n’eбТstent pКs et n’ont jКmКТs eбТstц : les
ТndТvТdus sont Кmenцs р ТnterКgТr en deСors d’une seule commune, mКТs pКs dКns tout
l’espКce frКncoprovenхКl, tel que dцfТnТ sur les cКrtes dТКlectologТques. AТnsТ, d’un côtц, la
mobilité sociale est typique du moment actuel, mais elle existait aussi avant, dans le monde
agro-pastoral : on peut penser, par exemple, aux foires au bétail pour lesquelles les
éleveurs partaient très loin de leur village, et le francoprovençal était la langue de
communТcКtТon КussТ ЛТen sur le cСemТn qu’Кuб foТres (les rцcТts en sont nombreux chez
nos ТnformКteurs, et Тl в en КvКТt, pКr eбemple, ceuб quТ pКrtКТent de lК VКllцe d’Aoste pour
Кller en SКvoТe). De l’Кutre côtц, le seul цvцnement où l’ТnterКctТon se fКТt р l’цcСelle du
domaine francoprovençal tout entier est la Fête internationale du patois / du
francoprovençal. Pourtant, celle-cТ ne regroupe qu’un seul tвpe des locuteurs (ceuб des
milieux associatifs) et qui restent le plus souvent dans leurs propres groupes avec lesquels
ils étaient venus. Au contraire, dans la vie quotТdТenne, l’ТnterКctТon se fКТt р d’Кutres
échelles, au niveau méso-, sТ l’on veut, et dКns celle-ci émergent les stratégies de
communТcКtТon, d’КccommodКtТon et d’ТntercomprцСensТon quТ jusqu’р prцsent ont
échappé aux études.
Autrement dit, il semblerКТt qu’Кu lТeu du scСцmК qui pourrait être attendu :
Situation linguistique => Problème => Solution (Aménagement linguistique)
400
lК normКlТsКtТon est une solutТon р un proЛlчme quТ ne provТent pКs de l’КnКlвse des
pratiques linguistiques, mais des idéologies linguistiques. Par exemple : ‘c’est une lКngue
parce que [il existe deux paradigmes des verbes du premier groupe etc.], donc il doit y
КvoТr une norme commune’. CecТ en lТen Кvec lК formule romКntТque : ‘une lКngue = une
ТdentТtц = un pКвs’.
Pourtant lК lКngue n’eбТste pКs en deСors des locuteurs, mКТs dКns leurs
interactions.219 C’est une КctТvТtц СumКТne, comme toute Кutre, comme le rire, par exemple.
Or, les gens ont besoin du rire : pКrce qu’Тl crцe un contКct socТКl, un sens de complТcТtц,
ou pКrce qu’Тl est Лon pour le ЛТen-être mental ; mКТs le rТre en soТ n’К sûrement ЛesoТn de
rien, pКrce qu’Тl n’eбТste pКs en-deСors des gens quТ rТent. De mшme lК lКngue n’К pКs de
besoins, seuls les locuteurs peuvent en avoir. Avant de proposer des solutions, il faudrait
donc comprendre les problèmes, et pour cela il faudrait étudier la réalité de la langue en
tant que pratique sociale.
2. Langues focalisées et langues diffuses
Je vais aborder cette question à travers la distinction de deux types de situations et
de représentations linguistiques : focalisée et diffuse. Ces notions ont été proposées par
Robert Le Page et Andrée Tabouret-Keller dans leurs études des langues créoles (Le Page,
Tabouret-Keller 1985). Je tenterКТ d’КpplТquer cette tСцorТe sur le cКs frКncoprovenхКl et de
l’цlКЛorer dКvКntКge р pКrtТr de mes données de terrain.
Pour dire simplement, la langue focalisée est celle dont on imagine clairement les
lТmТtes et les usКges normКtТfs. Le frКnхКТs est un Лon eбemple d’une lКngue focКlТsцe :
d’СКЛТtude, on sКТt ce quТ est du frКnхКТs et ce quТ n’est pКs du frКnхКТs, on sКТt ce quТ est du
bon français et on sait aussТ comment le frКnхКТs doТt s’цcrТre. Il fКut soulТgner que ce
frКnхКТs focКlТsц n’eбТste que dКns l’ТmКgТnКТre, sous forme цcrТte pour certКТns genres de
teбtes (les mКТls, les sms etc. eбclus), ou encore р l’orКl pour un nomЛre de sТtuКtТons
restreint (les actualités à la télévision, par exemple, ou un colloque comme celui-ci). Au
contrКТre, l’КnglКТs est plus diffus : il y a plusieurs anglais (World Englishes), britannique,
américain, australien etc., et plusieurs variétés au sein de ces anglais. Lequel est le bon
219
Tout comme les identités ethniques sont des catégories dont on se sert dans les interactions afin de se
catégoriser et de catégoriser les autres (Barth 1969).
401
anglais ? CelК dцpend de lК sТtuКtТon d’usКge. Ce quТ est clКТr c’est que personne n’КurКТt
l’Тdцe d’Кpprendre р pКrler et р цcrТre l’КnglКТs ЛrТtКnnТque en СКЛТtКnt Кuб EtКts-Unis ou
vice-versК. TКndТs qu’on цcrТrК ЛТen le frКnхКТs de PКrТs sur l’ьle de lК RцunТon. SoulТgnons
qu’Тl s’КgТt de deuб reprцsentКtТons dТffцrentes de ce qu’une lКngue est ou devrКТt шtre, sКns
que celК empшcСe l’ТntercomprцСensТon dКns lК communТcКtТon rцelle dКns Кucun des deuб
cas.
Dans la situation de plurilinguisme, les locuteurs ont un répertoire linguistique de
différents codes socialement marqués220. Cependant les codes pertinents pour les locuteurs
ne sont pas toujours identiques à ce que les linguistes auraient identifié comme « langues ».
Ainsi ici, à Saint-NicolКs, lТnguТstТquement, le rцpertoТre verЛКl de lК plupКrt d’СКЛТtКnts
est constitué des trois « langues » : le frКncoprovenхКl, l’ТtКlТen et le frКnхКТs. PourtКnt, Кu
nТveКu de reprцsentКtТons lК dцlТmТtКtТon des troТs n’est pКs sТ nette. PКr eбemple, une
voisine à Saint-NТcolКs, trчs КccueТllКnte, m’К dТt rцcemment : « Se t’a fata, siamo qua »
(« si tu as besoin [de quelque chose], on est là »). Linguistiquement, « se t’К fКtК » est sans
doute du francoprovençal, et « siamo qua » est sКns doute de l’ТtКlТen. Néanmoins on peut
КvoТr ЛeКucoup de doutes quКnt р l’eбТstence de ces lКngues clКТrement dцlТmТtцs dКns
l’esprТt de cette locutrТce (comme sТ elle s’цtКТt dТte : « ce serait trop bien si je commence
ma phrase en patois et termine en italien »). Dans son esprit, le plus probablement, elle
pКrlКТt pКtoТs, pКrce que c’est son cСoТб lТnguТstТque tвpТque Кvec moТ. Le frКncoprovenхКl
est donc pour elle une langue diffuse.
3. Le francoprovençal comme pratique sociale
Cette étude comparative est basée sur des données sociolinguistiques et
etСnogrКpСТques de terrКТn, recueТllТes dКns les troТs pКвs de l’espКce francoprovençal au
cours de six dernières années (observation participante et 60 interviews). SТ l’on entend lК
langue comme pratique sociale, on s’КperхoТt que l’espКce francoprovençal comprend ces
deux types de situations linguistiques différentes (cf. aussi Bichurina 2015) :
Le choix du code est un acte symbolique, un « Кcte d’ТdentТtц », pour reprendre le terme de Le Page et
Tabouret-Keller (op. cТt.), pКr lequel l’ТndТvТdu КdСчre р un groupe et prend sК dТstКnce pКr rКpport р un Кutre
groupe.
220
402
- La première, « diffuse », est typique des régions de montagne des trois pays, où le
francoprovençal est parlé au quotidien, et où la fonction communicative prime sur toute
autre ;
- La seconde, « focalisée », est typique des zones moins élevées, des grandes villes,
où l’usКge du francoprovençal est limité aux fonctions symboliques.
Les différences principales entre ces deux types sont présentées dans le tableau cidessous.
Deux types de situations francoprovençales : les différences principales
Type
DIFFUS
FOCALISÉ
(petites localités de montagne)
(les grandes villes de plaine)
Surtout en Vallée d’Aoste, en
Savoie et dans le Valais
Profil de locuteur typique
LOCUTEURS NATIFS
LOCUTEURS TARDIFS ET
NOUVEAUX LOCUTEURS
Représentations linguistiques
générales
La langue est vécue comme
pratique changeable,
La langue est un objet réifié,
à des frontières linguistiques
floues,
dans un espace variable et
imprécis
à des frontières linguistiques
nettes,
dans un espace précis (délimité
par les cartes dialectologiques)
Interférences à tous les niveaux
du système linguistique
Aucune interférence acceptée
Autonomie
linguistique
(représentations)
« Patois » (‘non-langue’ ?)
Langue à part entière
Descriptions dialectologiques
légitimatrices
Types et motivations
usages linguistiques
Langue comme moyen de
communication
Autonomie
(usages)
linguistique
des
La question ne se pose pas
Réseaux sociaux
Motivation
identitaire
Légitimité des bons usages
Chez le locuteur même ou des
anciens du même village
Langue comme symbole
Patrimoine
familial et/ou local
Quête
identitaire
*Ressource de
pouvoir
Dans les livres de grammaire et
les dictionnaires
403
Village + pays indéterminé
Pays de référence
Pour les locuteurs tardifs – leur
village natal.
Pour les nouveaux locuteurs –
l’espКce trКnsfrontКlТer (troТs
pays), coexistant avec les EtatsNations.
La pertinence des frontières
La montagne qui unit
Les frontТчres
séparent
d’EtКts
quТ
Usages par écrit
Sms, cСКt, courts mКТls…
Longs mails, КrtТcles, romКns…
Intercompréhension
MEILLEURE
PIRE
pКrКdoбКlement, pКrce qu’Кu
niveau idéologique des fois elle
n’eбТste pКs (Тl s’КgТt du pКtoТs
local)
pКrКdoбКlement, pКrce qu’Кu
niveau idéologique elle existe
(qu’Тl s'КgТt d'une lКngue
commune)
AMENAGEMENT LINGUISTIQUE
Type de transmission
besoins qui en découlent
et
Transmission familiale ou
dans la communauté
Il ne s’КgТt pКs vrКТment de
revitaliser, mais de ne pas perdre
ce qui existe.
Rôle d’un standard éventuel
Besoin
d’encourКger lК
transmission (contre
l’Тdцe de
monolinguisme).
Réservé pour certaines
fonctions (registre officiel,
communication à large échelle).
Coexistence avec les normes
linguistiques et
communicatives locales.
Transmission absente
Besoin
de
transmettre à travers
l’цcole ;
BesoТn d’une
reconnaissance
officielle
pour
l’enseТgnement ;
BesoТn
d’un
standard écrit pour la
reconnaissance 221.
Pour toutes les fonctions.
La seule variété à laquelle les
nouveaux locuteurs auront
accès.
AТnsТ en FrКnce l’ТdцologТe lТnguТstТque nКtТonКle КttrТЛue un rôle pКrtТculТer р l’цcrТt, ce quТ Тnforme le
cКdre lцgТslКtТf lТц Кuб lКngues dТtes rцgТonКles. AТnsТ dКns lК rцponse rцcente du MТnТstчre de l’EducКtТon
Nationale (publiée le 07/10/2014), relative à la non-réconnaissance offТcТelle de l’enseТgnement du sКvoвКrd,
nous lisons :
221
Ce cadre de référence réserve une place importante à l'écrit, tant dans sa compréhension que dans
son expression et, pour cette raison implique que la passation de ces épreuves [du baccalauréat]
s'appuie sur un corpus de textes suffisamment nombreux et diversifiés, aux qualités linguistiques et
littéraires attestées. http://questions.assemblee-nationale.fr/q14/14-21123QE.htm
404
Quelques commentaires à ce tableau :
Tout d’КЛord, notons qu’Тl s’КgТt ТcТ d’un Кperхu des tendКnces gцnцrКles les plus
typiques. Les situations et les représentations dépendent du vécu de chaque personne et
donc varient selon les cas. Par ailleurs, dans le cas focalisé les différences entre les
locuteurs tКrdТfs et les nouveКuб locuteurs peuvent шtre sТgnТfТcКtТves pour l’КmцnКgement
lТnguТstТque, notКmment pour ce quТ concerne lК projectТon dКns l’КvenТr, de l’ТmportКnce
cruciale pour les nouveaux locuteurs, mais absente dans les cas des locuteurs tardifs,
orientés exclusivement vers le passé.
Dans le type diffus, on pКrle lК lКngue frКncoprovenхКle pКrce que c’est lК lКngue
premТчre, et pКrce qu’Тl в К les rцseКuб socТКuб dont c’est lК lКngue et Кvec lesquels on veut
s’ТdentТfТer. SТmultКnцment, les Тnterfцrences в sont nomЛreuses comme dКns l’eбemple
cité ci-dessus. L’ТntercomprцСensТon entre dТffцrentes vКrТКntes est Лonne, et ce qu’un des
informateurs a appelé « un Лon esprТt d’КdКptКtТon » (Кutrement dТt, l’КccommodКtТon) в
contribue davantage.
PuТsque lК lКngue est encore pКrlцe Кu quotТdТen, et qu’Кvec l’КppКrТtТon de
nouvelles tecСnologТes l’цcrТt suppose lК mшme simultanéité, spontanéité et simplicité que
l’orКl, lК lКngue est de plus en plus utТlТsцe р l’цcrТt. D’СКЛТtude, on écrit à ceux avec qui on
К dцjр l’СКЛТtude de se pКrler et de se comprendre р l’orКl, КussТ l’ТntercomprцСensТon estelle Лonne цgКlement р l’цcrТt.
Dans le type focalisé, le frКncoprovenхКl n’est pКs lК lКngue СцrТtцe. Ses usКges se
limitent typiquement aux fonctions symboliques. ContrКТrement, р ce qu’Тl pКrКТt, Кuб
idéologies linguistiques explicites, l’ТntercomprцСensТon est rendue difficile par manque
d’eбpцrТence, mКТs КussТ pКr trop de curТosТtц pour lК forme quТ met le contenu du messКge
de l’Тnterlocuteur sur l’КrrТчre-plan de communication. Les mêmes tendances –
intercompréhension supposée problématique et curiosité – se retrouvent р l’цcrТt : ce dont
tцmoТgne, notКmment l’usКge КЛondКnt des sвnonвmes dКns les teбtes, comme dКns ce
blog météorologique (remarquons que la météo en soi est pourtant un sujet toujours en lien
dТrect Кvec l’КctuКlТtц) 222 :
222
http://meteo-en-patois.blog.tdg.ch/archive/2015/11/07/du-sole-quasu-tant-qu-u-meten-mektein-du-me-kde-novembro-271563.html
405
De même, par exemple, dans un échange des mails entre un groupe de (nouveaux)
locuteurs vaudois afin de fixer un premier rendez-vous avec moi un des participants a écrit
un long messКge en frКncoprovenхКl vКudoТs, en genre lТttцrКТre, suТvТ d’un rцsumц en
français (pour moi, pКrce qu’Тl n’цtКТt pКs sûr sТ j’КllКТs comprendre le vКudoТs). Le rцsumц
contenКТt deuб pСrКses courtes (lК proposТtТon de dКte et d’Сeure du rendeг-vous), suivi
par : « Le reste n'est que du décor et des circonvolutions de langage juste pour le plaisir de
faire sonner le patois. »
Vu ces différences, si un standard est élaboré, il y aura une différence cruciale dans
son application selon le type de situation linguistique. Dans le type diffus, la langue sera
proЛКЛlement pКrlцe comme elle l’est Кujourd’СuТ, l’usКge du stКndКrd цtКnt lТmТtц Кuб
sТtuКtТons quТ l’eбТgent (comme pour toute autre langue parlée au quotidien) : au registre
officiel ou dans la communication entre les locuteurs des variétés trop différentes. Au
contraire, dans le type focКlТsц où lК trКnsmТssТon fКmТlТКle n’eбТste plus, le stКndКrd serК
probablement la variété de fait parlée et écrite dans toutes les situations par les nouveaux
locuteurs, pКrce qu’elle serК lК seule р lКquelle Тls Кuront Кccчs (notКmment р trКvers les
programmes éducatifs).
406
Conclusion
Ce n’est pКs pКrce qu’Тl в К une vКrТКtТon lТnguТstТque entre les vТllКges que les
besoins des locuteurs ne seront pas semblables ; ce n’est pКs non plus pКrce que certКТns
traits linguistiques sont partagés sur tout le domaine francoprovençal que les besoins sont
partout identiques. Au niveau épistémologique il y a un vide entre la vision très localiste et
la vision très internationale (micro- et macro-) ; pourtant dans la réalité des pratiques
socТКles c’est ce vТde quТ est rempli.
Etant donné la différence des situations linguistiques réelles, une norme
pluricentrique, prenant en compte les communautés de pratique existantes, serait-elle plus
appropriée ? Cela serait, peut-шtre, en effet, une pТste possТЛle pour l’КmцnКgement
linguistique francoprovençal. Avec ceci, il est important de ne pas oublier que
pluricentrique ne veut point dire non-ТntercomprцСensТЛle. L’ТntercomprцСensТon eбТste de
fКТt р l’orКl, donc rТen ne devrКТt l’empшcСer р l’цcrТt non plus, sТ l’цcrТt est ЛТen
déchiffrable.
Références citées
BARTH Frederik, 1969, «Introduction», in F. Barth (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries.
The Social Organization of Culture Difference, Bergen, Universitetsforlaget, pp. 9-38.
BICHURINA Natalia, 2015, « Le francoprovençal entre lК FrКnce, lК SuТsse et l’ItКlТe :
langue diffuse, langue focalisée et enjeux de normalisation », in Nouvelles du Centre
d’Études Francoprovençales RENÉ WILLIEN, no 71 2015, pp. 7 – 24.
LE PAGE Robert Brock et TABOURET-KELLER Andrée, 1985, Acts of Identity: CreoleBased Approaches to Ethnicity and Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Les derniers patoisants Giettois, La Giettaz, Le patois du haut Val d'Arly, Cleopas, 2009.
L'tin shi no - Météo en patois francoprovençal (Arpitan) et bien d'autres sujets en Arpitan
http://meteo-en-patois.blog.tdg.ch
STICH
Dominique,
2003,
Dictionnaire
francoprovençal/français,
français/francoprovençal. Dictionnaire des mots de base du francoprovençal.
Orthographe ORB supradialectale standardisée, Thonon-les-Bains: Le Carré.
407
408