ALBERT BASTARDAS-BOADA

(Department of General Linguistics,

University of Barcelona)

LANGUAGE ECOLOGY

SOCIOLINGUISTIC ENVIRONMENT, CONTACT AND

DYNAMICS

(Translated excerpts from the original Catalan edition:

Ecologia de les llengües. Medi, contacte i dinàmica sociolingüística. Barcelona: Proa, 1996)
Award from the Fundació Enciclopèdia Catalana

1
 La langue vit comme un grand arbre
dont les racines sont aux tréfonds de la vie sociale et des vies cerebrales,
et dont les frondaisons s’épanouissent dans la noosphère.

Edgar Morin
(La Méthode, 4. Les idées. Leur habitat, leur vie, leurs moeurs, leur organisation).

2
 INTRODUCTION

The nature of language cannot be properly explored

by a type of psychology which is centred on the individual.
Nor does it fit into the main stream of sociology which
so far neglects the paradigmatic information which the complex
'knowledge, language, memory and thought' requires.
Sooner or later it will become necessary to examine critically
the presently ruling division of labour among human or social sciences.

Norbert Elias

The main aim of this study is to broaden our understanding of the

processes of language contact1 as they have emerged inside Western
Europe, the result above all of political decisions and of migration
between the various linguistic areas. These are clearly the two main
causes of the complex sociolinguistic situation we find today in the
areas where Catalan has been spoken, and they are also
macrofactors present in many other similar cases. In the last 150
years in particular, either on their own or in combination (as in the
case of Catalan), official policy on language use on the one hand and
migration on the other have given rise to situations of language
contact. Some of these situations have been particularly conflictive,
and have had a decisive impact on the fate of the planet’s linguistic
diversity.

Studying this linguistic diversity and the contact between languages

and their sociocultural consequences is a complex endeavour. The
first difficulty is merely to clarify our terminology and to obtain
unambiguous, clearly defined terms that help us to understand the
intricate sociolinguistic reality. The polysemy of terms such as
1 Following Aracil (1982:24) I prefer the term 'language contact' to 'bilingualism'. The term
‘bilingualism’ has become a confusing label, and at the same time a static one. 'Language contact' is a
broad concept inside which there is room for dynamic phenomena as interrelated as language
standardisation and substitution, even though they are generally treated separately.

3
'language', 'dialect' or ‘vernacular', the confusion surrounding
'bilingualism' or 'diglossia', the debate on different options for
linguistic policy in education such as 'immersion', the variation in
meaning of concepts such as 'linguistic normalisation', the legal and
ideological confrontations over the name of certain varieties (e.g.
'Catalan' or 'Valencian'), create a situation that will bewilder even the
best informed member of the public. Sociolinguists, then, are obliged
to make a critical revision of the terminology we use and, if
necessary, to select or propose new concepts that may help us to
understand the situation more fully and more objectively.

So what kind of contact are we describing? To reduce the level of

confusion, and to avoid the connotations of the traditional
dichotomies between 'languages' and 'dialects', sociolinguists use the
label of linguistic variety. Since the popular definitions of the terms
used do not help to clarify the categorisation of the reality – what is a
'language'? In what ways does it differ from a 'dialect'? – the neutral
term 'variety' serves to describe a set of linguistic forms organised for
human communication. We can define varieties either as vernacular
and colloquial (or 'geographical' and 'social’), or as standard: planned,
official linguistic forms, either socially sanctioned or not, used as the
habitual vehicle of public communication in a particular society2.

I should warn readers who are relatively unfamiliar with these

subjects that prescribed standard varieties – varieties known
popularly as ‘French’, or ‘German’, for example – are often perceived
as if they were original codes from which the so-called 'dialects' are
derived. This view holds that dialects are poorly spoken, incorrect
forms of these 'languages'. In fact, it is the other way around.
'Dialects' do not derive from 'languages'; rather, the 'standard' takes
most of its forms from a vernacular variety. With the exception of
contemporary Hebrew – in which a written 'standard' that had existed
since ancient times was to an extent vernacularised – all linguistic
varieties today that have been standardised in a formal or informal,

2 For a full analysis of the conceptualisation of sets of linguistic forms, see Gregory & Carroll (1986).

4
conscious process of (socio)linguistic planning derive from dialectal
varieties which provide them with their basic forms. There is a
mistaken belief that people who use a genuine vernacular variety –
that is, one that is not influenced by external codes – speak 'language
x' 'badly' or 'incorrectly' in their informal everyday conversations. It is
not that they speak incorrectly; they simply speak a geo- or socio-
dialectal variety that does not comply with the decisions adopted
regarding the configuration of the variety declared standard.

In fact, dialectal or colloquial and standard varieties may coexist.

Their coexistence may be stable or unstable; they may have different
functions; and they are not exempt from mutual influences.
Vernaculars, modified or not by the standard, may continue to be
used in the informal interindividual communicative functions; by the
same token, standards – often with certain phonetic adaptations –
perform formal public functions and, obviously enough, written and
supralocal functions as well. So the human linguistic phenomenon is
at one and the same time an individual, social and political fact. As
such, its study should bear in mind these complex interrelations,
produced inside the framework of the sociocultural and historical
ecosystem of each human community.

Understanding this phenomenon is often no easy task, due to the

range of elements involved and the interrelations we have mentioned.
The absence of valid, clearly developed paradigms adds to the
problem and means that the theoretical conclusions that emerge may
be unclear on certain points. Certainly, in the last thirty years
sociolinguistic studies have advanced considerably, and today we
have access to an impressive set of data and a wide variety of
theoretical reflections. But as a discipline sociolinguistics does not yet
have unified, powerful theoretical models able to account rigorously
and clearly for the phenomena it studies3. Sociolinguistic studies are
3 In this aspect it resembles the situation of ecology as Ramon Margalef describes it: there are few
general principles, the science appears to be divided into different areas, and each one formulates
unconnected principles. A great deal of information is accumulated, but perhaps less progress is made in
terms of tying together the set. (...). We should insist on the search for general principles.
(Comunicacions (U.B., Barcelona) Dec 15, 1992, p. 13).

5
today a diverse set of contributions in which certain and theoretical
schools and lines of research are beginning to emerge; but as is to be
expected in a relatively new field, there is not enough communication
between the various schools and they cannot yet be said to be
integrated in terms of their conceptual and theoretical postulates.

Against this background, the present study aims to contribute to the

overall, integrated understanding of the processes of language
contact mentioned above. Via an interdisciplinary, eclectic approach,
it also aims to aid the theoretical grounding and integration of a
unified, common sociolinguistic paradigm. Our strategy will not be
merely to combine the contributions from ongoing research lines, but
to address the question from a more global viewpoint which, together
with the more innovative contemporary scientific disciplines, permits
a harmonious integration of the various sociolinguistic perspectives in
a broad, deep and unitary approach to reality. The materials used to
construct this unified, integrated approach are taken from many
sources: theoretical physics, ecology, the philosophy of science and
mind, anthropology, phenomenological and process sociology,
cognitive sciences, political science, pragmatics, history, systems
theory, approaches to complexity and, obviously, sociolinguistics.

Unlike the traditional perspective that separates linguistic varieties

from their bio-psycho-socio-politico-cultural contexts and makes of
them specialised objects existing in a vacuum, the eco-sociolinguistic
perspective is based on the fact that linguistic structures do not live
in isolation from their social functions – the existence of matter is
indissoluble from its activity, says Einstein. Equally, linguistic
structures must be situated ecologically in relation with the sub- and
supra-systems that determine their existence if we are to understand
their fortunes. The unit of survival is the organism-in-its-environment,
says Bateson. So our proposal aims to provide the basis of an
integrative focus, from the perspective of complexity – distinguer
sans disjoindre (Morin) – which draws on the contributions of
traditional approaches to the study of language systems, but goes

6
beyond them to establish a vision that is more interrelated with the
other coexisting sociocultural factors, thus permitting a better
understanding of the linguistic phenomenon as a whole.

One of the main questions underlying the study is the interrelation

between the linguistic forms used in colloquial oral communication –
individualised forms, to use J.C. Corbeil’s term – and those used in
formal, written contexts – which we term institutionalised forms. No
convincing explanation has been found for the fact that while in some
contexts forms used historically in individualised communications are
gradually being replaced by institutionalised forms, in others,
individualised and institutionalised forms coexist with a clear
distribution of functions. So I will try to identify, to the best of my
ability, the (inter)influences of the various intervening elements and
the different types of evolutions and processes at work.

The existence of linguistic varieties is conceived from the point of

view of the eco-system4. The assumption of the eco-system is that the
fate of a particular linguistic variety – that is, its survival, its
alteration, or its substitution – depends on the evolution of the socio-
cultural factors that are involved in its production. Its structure, then,
is governed by the social functions that it is required to perform. As
Lieberson notes, each societal change may be viewed as directing a
new influence on the state of the languages in contact that would
lead to a new linguistic equilibrium if no further changes occurred
(1970:11). Speaking is thus seen as a subset of human action,
susceptible to adaptation to the changing needs of the ecosystem in
which the individuals live. But these individuals may also intervene in
the evolution of their environment by modifying it to their advantage.

This approach sees contact between linguistic groups as a three-way

phenomenon rather than a two-way one. In conceiving the relation
between, for example, two species, the ecological perspective bears
in mind at all times the milieu in which the relation develops. This
4 Margalef (1991) calls an ecosystem ‘a level of reference formed by individuals together with the
materials that are produced by their activity (...) and the matrix or physical surroundings in which they
are included and in which they act’.

7
perspective is vitally important for understanding the impact of
migration on language contact, as it underlines the need to take into
account the structure of the environment as well as the two groups in
question. The structure of the environment is a decisive factor.

Convinced of the relevance of the new ecological and holistic

paradigms to the development of new images and metaphors that
can make us more aware of the reality, I must confess that, like many
others, I have been brought up inside a paradigmatology which does
not encourage modification of habits of thought. I cannot be sure,
then, that when I introduce ideas from this new set of images the
reader will find that I have applied them correctly to the areas I will
later discuss. (It would not be the first time that, for example, a
student or congressee pointed out to me an inconsistency between
the ideas presented as basic and a situation constructed to
understand a particular area of reality)5. However watchful one tries
to remain, it is never easy to control the basic models implanted in
the brain.

So readers have before them a study that assumes from the

beginning that the observer is inseparable from what is observed. The
first chapter briefly discusses a set of ideas and principles concerning
the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, and the ecosystemic
and contextual approach. Underlying this approach is the idea that to
understand the workings of a particular phenomenon we must see the
connexions with its surroundings. So there are two basic contexts of
the human systems of linguistic communication, or linguistic
varieties: the brain/mind on the one hand, and the socio-cultural order
on the other. The aim of the study then is to explore some of the
relations of linguistic varieties with these two contexts, seeking at all
times to contribute to the understanding of the macrodynamic
phenomena of language contact.
5 I am by no means the first to suggest an ecological, global and multidimensional approach to contacts
between languages. Authors such as Lluís V. Aracil, Stanley Lieberson, Einar Haugen, William F.
Mackey and Rafael L. Ninyoles and others have done so, either implicitly or explicitly. Carme Junyent
has also proposed an ecolinguistics, though perhaps of a slightly different kind to the one outlined here.
Indeed, the ecological perspective can produce a great variety of studies of the field of language.

8
Another principle on which this study is based is the consideration
that the different orders and phenomena of the reality make up an
interrelated whole, in which there are not only circular, mutual
influences between two variables but a set of dynamic interactions
that make up the reality. Thus mental, interactional, collective,
political, and linguistic phenomena coexist in such a way that one
constitutes the other and vice versa. To express the image I have
used the metaphor of music which enables us to visualise different
planes of the same unitary phenomenon and which exists
sequentially, that is, in time.

After this minimal but multi-layered portrayal of the mental and socio-
cultural contexts, our attention now turns to the great dynamic
processes in which the most habitual phenomena of language contact
take place: the political standardisation of linguistic communication,
and migratory movements. In the first case, we will describe its
various stages and also consider the important historical effects of
this process, such as dialect levelling, diglossia, and language shift.
As far as migration is concerned, we examine movements of
populations between linguistic areas globally, and identify the
features that distinguish them from cases of linguistic minorisation
due to political subordination, frequent in processes of political
standardisation. We examine separately the situations in which the
migrant population is politically dominant due to the fact that they
belong to the ethnic-linguistic group that controls the main
institutions of the State; this situation has an evolution of its own.

The processes of linguistic ‘normalisation’ are then analysed from a

global perspective, including cases in which the population of the
socio-political community that undertakes the process is
homogeneous even though levels of internal linguistic shift may be
high – such as those in which sudden migrations have broken the
previously existing cultural homogeneity.

9
The last chapter focuses on the case of Catalan, distinguishing the
different processes of language contact that have emerged in an
interrelated manner: the standardisation and extension of the use of
the autochthonous language, the process of bilingualisation – both
formal and informal – of the population of Catalan L1 and Spanish L1,
in the other language, and the evolution of intergroup relations, which
may lead to cases of intergenerational language shift in either group.
As I mentioned above, in the Catalan situation, there have historically
been two causes of language contact, which, in recent times, have
coincided: the spread of standards in minority language areas, and
large-scale migration from the politically dominant, majority language
area. If anything, the current process of linguistic normalisation
increases the complexity of the situation.

Finally, the case of Catalan is situated contextually in the levels of

Spain, Europe, and the world, since it is exposed to, and to a large
extent governed by, events at these levels.

10