In the last decades, especially in Europe, a process of the rebirth of national and regional identities of small ethnic groups has been taking place, leading in many cases to a change of language situation and to attempts to stop and even to revert processes of linguistic assimilation. The article presents individual cases of ethnic/regional movements having “language issue” in their programmes, and makes an attempt of a typology of regions and countries according to their language situation and policy. The language question also appears at the European Union level. The EU institutions try to combine the ideological principle of multilingualism (equality of all official languages of the EU members) with pragmatism implying minimizing the number of working languages. At the “civil” level the EU supports the model of multilingualism of the inhabitants as a means to facilitate functioning of the common labour, commodity, service and capital market while maintaining cultural identities of its member states. In individual countries the language policy is competence of national authorities; there are no common binding rules on the territory of the whole EU. As a result, there are differences among countries in their attitudes towards languages of ethnic minorities.
The paper proposes a model in which centre-periphery relations defined at a high level of generality (from the global level down to regional structures) can be analysed from a perspective of a number of disciplines, including political science (e.g. Rokkan’s theory of peripheries and centre-periphery cleavages), sociology (e.g. Bourdieu’s theory of the forms of capital) and linguistics (discourse analysis including code switching and politeness theories). It focuses on the nature of the discourse of peripheral elites which, as it is argued, live in a two or more dimensional social space and communicate in at least two separate codes (particularly languages): peripheral and central. Using the above mentioned theoretical concepts, the paper offers an attempt at theorisation of the mechanism of mutual perception of the centre and the periphery.
The purpose of this article is to analyse both the allocation of the financial support from the 2nd instalment of the CGFLI in the Opolskie Voivodeship and the debate in this region over accusations of the clientelistic allocation of this fund. According to the first hypothesis, the local governments affiliated with the German minority are not treated as politically neutral; therefore, they might be vulnerable to discrimination in allocation of the fund. The second hypothesis claims that the peculiarity of the local political patterns in the voivodeship, which is characterised by the low level of partisanship, gives the ruling party’s regional politicians the opportunity to undermine the thesis on clientelistic distribution of the CGFLI. The research has shown that the local governments affiliated with the German minority have a lower chance of getting financial support when compared to the non-partisan ones. Additionally, the study has distinguished five modes of counter-arguing against the thesis on clientelism, employed by the ruling party politicians of the region.
The subject of this article is historical urban development, localization-specific and cultural urban heritage of the Georgian capital city of Tbilisi. All the urban development periods, from the very beginning until today, are described in a chronological order. Also, the author discusses general legal principles of urban space development applicable in this country. In all the cases, the author seeks to clarify the legislation problems and to discuss some examples of urban management of the twenty-hundred-years-old urban space. The text is based on the: (1) urban rehabilitation and revitalization documentation of Tbilisi, prepared in 2000 within an international project financed by the European Council and The Georgian Cultural Heritage Foundation, published in Strasburg in Georgian, French and English languages (Tumaniszwili 2001), (2) empirical documentation prepared in 2003–2006 within the international Project AIA and (3) historical documentation gathered in Georgian and foreign libraries in 1998–2008.
The paper proposes a model in which centre-periphery relations defined in an abstract way (from the global level of world system to regional structures) could be analyzed in a perspective of a number of disciplines including: political science (e.g. the Rokkan theory of peripheries and centre-periphery cleavages), sociology (e.g. the Bourdieu’s theory of types of capital) and linguistics (discourse analysis including the code switching and politeness theories). It focuses on the nature of the discourse of the peripheral elites which, as it is argued, live in a two or more dimensional social space and communicate in at least two separate codes (in particular languages): peripheral and central. Using the above mentioned theoretical concepts, an attempt of theorization of the mechanism of mutual perception of centres and the peripheries is made.
The language question are phenomena resulting from contacts of two or more languages on the same territory or in the same community. It consists in co-existence and/or conflicts of languages and in language policies carried out by national and regional governments, and by ethnic movements aiming at maintaining or changing the language situation on a given territory. The main issues linked to the language question in the contemporary world are the following: 1) domination of the English language as an international language, supported by the globalisation and facilitating the globalisation. The domination of English puts on unequal footing people of the world and causes dissatisfaction of some parts of non-English native speakers; 2) extinction of languages as a result of assimilation of small ethno-linguistic groups. This phenomenon generates alarm of some groups of scientists and public opinion; 3) language barrier hampering development of education, economy and democracy in many parts of the world, especially in the post-colonial countries; 4) international migrations. These put migrants themselves and societies and governments of recipient countries in front of the question of the attitude towards maintaining of the cultural and linguistic identity of the migrants, this question being solved in different ways in different countries and historical periods.
Europe has no language which would be its symbol of identity, which would emotionally integrate its citizens. According to the official stance of the European Union the linguistic symbol of its identity is its multilingualism, which is confirmed by the fact that it has 23 official languages. The official multilingualism causes some problems connected with translation and interpretation. (For simultaneous translation from all 23 to all other 23 official languages theoretically as many as 506 interpreters are needed). There are techniques reducing this number, but at the expense of time and quality of interpretation). For pragmatic reasons EU institutions increasingly use English alone in their internal activity and in their contacts with member states and other institutions, thus de facto promoting English as the contact language of the EU. English, however, is not a specifically European lingua franca. The role of English as lingua franca in Europe is growing, but as English is the global lingua franca and the spread of English is a sign of globalisation, English cannot at the same time unite Europe and separate it from the rest of the world. Even more so that there is political opposition to the growing role of English in Europe. Therefore the link between language and identity in Europe consists not in possessing a single language (or languages) as its symbol of identity and centre of loyalty and as an instrument of internal communication and external separation. It consists in the fact that the use of English and other contact languages and the mechanism of interpretation and translation in the EU enable circulation of information and ideas which eventually may contribute to the creation (strengthening?) of the sense of European identity.
