Search

While the idea of a named language as a separate and discrete identity is a political and social construct, in the cases of Sardinian and Asturian doubts over their respective 'languageness' have real material consequences, particularly in relation to language policy decisions at the state level. The Asturian example highlights how its lack of official status means that it is either ignored or subjected to repeated challenges to its status as a language variety deserving of recognition and support, reflecting how 'official language' in the Spanish context is often understood in practice as synonymous with the theoretically broader category of 'language'. In contrast, the recent state recognition of Sardinian speakers as a linguistic minority in Italy (Law 482/1999) illustrates how legal recognition served to overcome existing obstacles to the implementation of regional language policy measures. At the same time, the limited subsequent effects of this Law, particularly in the sphere of education, are a reminder of the shortcomings of top-down policies which fail to engage with the local language practices and attitudes of the communities of speakers recognized. The contrastive focus of this article thus acknowledges the continued material consequences of top-down language classification, while highlighting its inadequacies as a language policy mechanism which reinforces artificial distinctions between speech varieties and speakers deserving of recognition.

Political debate concerning the recognition of regional and minority languages has been the subject of much study in recent years. However, with the focus on separatist and/or nationalist forces, the centre-left has often been overlooked in such studies. In both Asturias in Spain and the Veneto in Italy, centre-left parties have taken a particularly ambivalent approach towards language revival policies, and the ideologies behind this approach merit further study. Drawing particularly on Bourdieu’s work, the author will consider how linguistic hierarchies and linguistic capital are reflected in centre-left discourse and actions concerning the respective local languages. This will shed light on the ambiguous role of the centre-left concerning language policy, and provide further insight into the compatibility of liberal and progressive politics with language revival policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]