Les nations sont-elles de la compétence des linguistes ?
The relationship between languages and nations can only be understood through the reconstruction of terminological history. There are two opposing conceptions. One is the centralist, contractualist definition, whereby the state precedes the nation. The state is the condition of possibility for the n...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fra |
| Published: |
Université de Bretagne Occidentale – UBO
2016-03-01
|
| Series: | La Bretagne Linguistique |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/lbl/438 |
| Summary: | The relationship between languages and nations can only be understood through the reconstruction of terminological history. There are two opposing conceptions. One is the centralist, contractualist definition, whereby the state precedes the nation. The state is the condition of possibility for the nation, and the language becomes established as a national language in the sense of an official, state language (‘subjective’ definition). The other is the Romantic, essentialist definition, whereby language precedes the nation, which in turn precedes the state. Here, the nation is an eternal essence that can exist outside of a state (‘objective’ definition). In the first case, Switzerland is a nation; in the second, it is not. In a comparison of Western and Eastern Europe, this paper examines the discourse on language. Is a border established by the name of a language or by what it implies? If Macedonian is a language, then Macedonia is a nation. If Macedonian is only a dialect of Bulgarian, then Macedonia is not a nation. Conclusion: what is said in a language is more important than the language in which it is said. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1270-2412 2727-9383 |