Standard German

The recognition of standard German, a widely-taught foreign language in the rest of France, as the RL in Alsace, which has been supported in particular by language-in- education policy-makers since the 1980s, renders the situation in Alsace a unique

59 _{‘On dit aussi «alsacien» alors que celui-ci n’existe pas. On parle au moins quatre formes d’allemand} en Alsace (francique rhénan palatin, francique rhénan lorrain, bas-alémanique et haut alémanique). […] Il serait préférable, s’agissant de la langue parlée, de dire allemand dialectal alsacien,

case. Taking into consideration the example of Corsica, which Laroussi and Marcellesi (1993, 92) describe as being ‘analogous’ to that of the Alsatian in some respects, there is not a similar association with the former H language on Corsica, Tuscan Italian. There are a number of factors that explain why language policy in Alsace has developed differently to that on Corsica, including the prolonged periods of German political control over Alsace until the Second World War, the

geographical position of Alsace, and the prestige of the German language.

German is frequently described as a neighbour language (la langue du voisin) in Alsace, which bridges the gap between RL and foreign language. Considering the intertwined history of Alsace and Germany, and the close geographical proximity of the two, within walking distance of each other at certain points along the Rhine, perhaps it is understandable that inhabitants of Alsace would prefer the term ‘neighbour language’ over ‘foreign language’.

In conjunction with the debates on the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages, a survey of 702 adults undertaken by Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace revealed that 95% of respondents believed Alsatian to be the RL of Alsace, 1% that it was German, and 1% that it was both Alsatian and German (3% did not offer a response) (Keiflin 1999). This suggests that recent top-down language

policies are not completely compatible with de facto language beliefs. A 2003 survey reported in the same newspaper suggested that public opinion is divided on the promotion of the RL in Alsace, with 51% of respondents opting for German, and 49% for Alsatian (Sorg 2003). The contrast in the responses on the definition and the promotion of the RL suggests that utility, rather than the maintenance of regional heritage, is prioritised by some individuals.

3.10 Conclusion

Taking into consideration the three components of Spolsky’s language policy model over the period of time examined in this chapter, the position of the three main linguistic protagonists has evolved constantly. Alsatian has been the most consistent force and, in spite of language management efforts to displace it, it remained the language of the majority of Alsatians until the mid-twentieth century. Standard German, emerging in the fifteenth century, existed first as the H language in a diglossia with Alsatian and its use has been banned at times during times of French rule. In recent years there have been more favourable attitudes towards German, but it no longer holds the position that it once did in Alsatian society. The French

language, enforced at the time of the Revolution, and whose use was reasserted in the interwar period, has imposed itself completely since 1945. Employing a combination of language policy mechanisms, the revolutionary ideal of French monolingualism has progressively become a reality in Alsace.

The ambiguous status of the RL in Alsace acts as a hindrance to any revitalisation efforts. In his monograph Main basse sur ma langue (‘Hands off my language’) Grossmann (1999, 27) contests the decision to promote German as the RL of Alsace:

If, linguistically, the affirmation ‘German, written form of Alsatian’ is not false, it is not sociologically consistent with contemporary reality. It could have corresponded with reality between 1870 and 1918, to a semi-reality between 1918 and 1939, but today it is a falsehood, and moreover dangerous politically speaking.60

60 _{‘Si, linguistiquement, l’affirmation « allemand forme écrite de l’alsacien » n’est pas fausse, elle} n’est pas sociologiquement conforme à la réalité contemporaine. Cela aurait pu correspondre encore à la réalité entre 1870 et 1918, à une semi-vérité entre 1918 et 1939, mais aujourd’hui c’est une contre- vérité, au surplus dangereuse sur le plan politique’ (Grossmann 1999, 27).

In response to Grossman’s comments on German, Zipfel (1999, 8) calls his publication a ‘nationalistic crime’.61

Huck et al (2007, 78) conclude that Alsatian could not survive without the presence of standard German: ‘The Alsatian dialect needs German to recharge its batteries to acquire new words or to express new realities.’62

A clearer general consensus on how the RL should be defined and promoted in all domains would allow for greater chances to reverse the language shift, as activists would be able to work together to achieve the same goals.

Since the mid-1970s official language policy has shown greater tolerance towards the RLs of France. Although the Charter for European Regional or Minority Languages has not been ratified, the debates evoked since its adoption have raised awareness of the RLs. In spite of the prioritisation of the French language in the Constitution, the 2008 amendment of Article 75-1 which now states that ‘the regional languages belong to the heritage of France’, demonstrates a level of unprecedented official recognition (cf. section 2.3.14).

Huck (2008, 64) explains that, in spite of the opportunities for the promotion of the RL since the 1980s, particularly in education, there has not been a focused development of a language policy towards Alsatian, as there has been for German. He concludes that: ‘In the end, it is standard languages (vs. non-standard dialects) that are the subject, for completely different reasons, of language policies. The dialect remains, regardless of the period observed, at the periphery of the State.’63

61 _{‘“Main basse sur ma langue” tombe dans le panneau des “crimes nationalitaires”’ (Zipfel 1999, 8).} 62

‘Le dialecte alsacien a besoin de l’allemand pour se ressourcer, pour acquérir des mouts nouveaux ou pour dire les réalités nouvelles. Pour l’enseignement bilingue, la leçon doit être celle-ci: le dialecte pour l’oral ou pour une partie de l’oral, l’allemand standard pour l’oral et pour l’écrit’ (Huck et al 2007, 78).

63

‘Au total, ce sont langues standards (vs dialecte non standardisé) qui sont l’objet, pour des raisons tout à fait différentes, de politiques linguistiques. Le dialecte reste, quelle que soit la période observée, à la périphérie de l’Etat’ (Huck 2008, 64).

Alsatian maintains a definite presence in local theatre. However, if the intergenerational transmission of Alsatian continues to decline, one can speculate that the number of Alsatian-speaking actors and spectators will correspondingly diminish. Nevertheless, the Théâtre alsacien de Strasbourg claims that its audience is comprised of spectators of all generations.64 The monitoring of viewer and listener numbers of Alsatian television and radio programmes, as well as theatre audiences, would provide a useful indication for the vitality of Alsatian.

Intergenerational transmission of Alsatian has fallen dramatically in the post- Second World War era, as families choose to pass on only the French language to their children. Considering Fishman’s GIDS, this signifies that Alsatian could be in danger of no longer being able to secure stage 6, which, as argued by Fishman (1991, 398), constitutes ‘the heart of the entire intergenerational pursuit’ (cf. section 2.2). Following a closer examination of language-in-education policy in Alsace (chapter five), there will be a further analysis of the vitality of the Alsatian regional language employing Fishman’s GIDS in the thesis conclusion.

Alsace is no longer a ‘victory trophy in Franco-German conflicts’ (Fischer 2010, 2); since 1945 the region has enjoyed a period of stability, and relations between its current and former nations have increasingly strengthened. German is no longer regarded as the language of the enemy. Nevertheless, the subject of the RL retains a degree of controversy for some Alsatians. Although key actors in the regional education system have supported the definition of the RL of Alsace being a combination of the spoken Alsatian and written standard German, this is not accepted by all sections of the population. Following an introduction to the field of bilingual education and the development of bilingual education in France in chapter four, in

64

Théâtre alsacien de Strasbourg website: ‘Théâtre d’aujourd’hui, notre répertoire s’élargit afin que nos spectateurs, de toutes générations, trouvent dans notre programmation des spectacles de qualité.’ Available at: <http://www.theatre-alsacien-strasbourg.fr/index.php> (Accessed 25 July 2012)

chapter five there will be a closer examination of the language-in-education policies currently being employed in RL bilingual primary schools in Alsace. The

possibilities and the realities for the RL in both of its forms will be considered, which will reflect contemporary language policy in this region.

Chapter 4: Bilingual Education: Concepts and the Development of Bilingual