2.1Media change and the evolution of small languages

The invention of letterpress printing in the 15th century favored the use, standardization and extension of national languages such as French, while they tended to force back regional idioms (cf. Lebsanft 2006, 1297). Therefore, these regional languages, henceforth reduced to private communication and without access to written domains, usually didn’t pass the processes of language planning pointed out by Haugen (1987, selection, codification, implementation, elaboration). The introduction of the mass-media in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as factors like industrialization, school attendance, rural exodus, world wars or military service increased their decline (cf. Androutsopoulos 2010, 741; Lebsanft 2001, 293; 2002a, 67; Osthus 2006a, 1284). Particularly in France, they were for the most part excluded from the media. Their lack of functional value (cf. Eichinger 2006, 2483) leads to the danger of their extinction.

2.2The Internet as a platform for small languages

At the turn of the century (20th/21st), this situation seems to be changing. Globalization tendencies in all social areas are followed by a recollection of local values, traditions and symbols, something the sociologist Robertson called glocalization, using an economic term for a cultural phenomenon (cf. Robertson 1998, 197s.). At the same time, the introduction of the Internet and its social triumph change(d) the media landscape.

Communication on the World Wide Web (WWW) is very different from communication in traditional media (cf. Hickethier 22010; Hörisch 1998; Hunziker 21996; Lebsanft 2001; Ludes/Schütte 1998; Schmitz 2005). One of the most striking media properties of the WWW is its participative and democratic character (cf. Lüsebrink et al. 2004, 250). Communication in traditional (mass-)media is usually asymmetric. The public has few possibilities to react and interfere. The communicators are a reduced group of experts who usually form part of institutions, like publishing houses, radio or television stations. Depending on the country and decade, these institutions can be controlled by the government. These particularities are important factors in the process of norm implementation and of regional language decline: local languages normally didn’t have access to these media, because the target group was far too little and because governments, and particularly the French one, felt no real need to promote them.

On the other hand, the Internet can be considered as a publication platform open for everyone, and as such, it seems to be of great importance for speakers of regional languages and persons interested in them. As will be shown later, the WWW attracts quite a lot of so-called “newspeakers/néolocuteurs” (Frias-Conde 2006) who initially can’t speak the regional language at all and try to learn it. Therefore, since the end of the 20th century, an increasing number of digital publications have focused on local languages, that is to say, private webpages, discussion forums, blogs, Wiki projects, Facebook presentations etc. They inform about regional languages and/or are written in these. This evolution can be attributed to the participative character of the medium and the trend to glocalization outlined above. But, although the Internet as publication platform makes possible different types of mass communication, in many contexts the number of addressees is rather low.

2.3Characteristics of traditional and new media in contrast

The language use in traditional media can differ from the one on the Internet in various aspects: In the press, but also in the audiovisual media, authors, newsreaders etc. always use(d) formal language (language of distance/Distanzsprache following Koch/Oesterreicher 22011 [etc.]; Lebsanft 2001, 298). The texts and productions are normally submitted to correction procedures (cf. Haugen 1987, 632; Lebsanft 2002b, 297). Many digital texts do not share these characteristics: Prototypic texts of the WWW are dynamic; they can easily be changed and removed. The most illustrative examples of these particularities are Wiki projects, e. g., Wikipedia: Every person interested can collaborate. A contribution is never finished and can always be altered – with regard to the content or to the language, which of course has consequences for the normative impact of these kinds of texts (cf. Jucker 2004). The properties of the WWW lead to the use of informal language (language of immediacy/Nähesprache, Koch/Oesterreicher 22011 [etc.]). This can be favorable for the use of regional languages, because these were traditionally reduced to informal communication domains and can now rather easily be adapted to the demands of these media.

2.4Experts vs. Laymen as text producer

As shown above, contributions in traditional media are usually created by experts, while the Internet offers access to everybody. In the case of small languages, it figures as a publication platform not only for linguists, but particularly for different types of laymen and language enthusiasts.

In Germany, Antos introduced the term Laien-Linguistik in 1996 to refer to all kinds of contributions made for or by laymen. In the English WWW, it is possible to find some examples of layman’s/laymen’s linguistic(s), but folk linguistics (e. g., Niedzielski/Preston 2000; Wilton/Stegu 2011; Stegu 2012) is a more common term for the phenomenon. In French, the technical term is linguistique populaire (e. g., Preston 2008).

It is very difficult to distinguish clearly between experts and laymen. Every delineation should be considered as a discursive construction (“construction discursive”, Stegu 2012, 33). Stegu pleads for assuming a “continuum” (ibid.). Nevertheless, it is possible to list some characteristics useful to distinguish between layman and expert positions.

The prototypical experts participating in the debate about regional languages have a special knowledge, a methodological base for their statements, argue coherently, are objective and discuss on a theoretical level. Often, they are not native speakers of the regional language. They want to preserve it from extinction and have a linguistic and professional interest in it. Usually, they favor standardization, because it seems to be the only possibility for language survival. As a result, they often do not agree with the needs of the native or potential/prospective speakers.

Laypeople, however, tend to represent these needs, because they are speakers of the regional language, usually persons with this regional background, perhaps with parents or grandparents speaking dialect, who want to learn the regional idiom, or – and this is very typical of the debate on the WWW – speakers of another regional language. As shown above, regional languages are of little “economic use”; usually, the main reason for their preservation is their value as an identity marker (cf. Haarmann 1996, 219 and 225). Obviously, native speakers only identify with their specific regional subvariety, therefore, there is a conflict between their needs and the idea of standardization favored by linguists. Laymen often show a high emotional involvement, their arguments are not free from ideologic and religious elements (cf. Osthus 2006b, 1536) and they tend to use scientific commonplaces (cf. Demel 2006, 1523).

This distinction between expert and layman suggests a dichotomy that does not correspond to reality. Some linguists actually are native speakers, and many laymen indeed passed some sort of philological training, so the outlined characteristics are only points of reference to place the players on the continuum expert – layman.

Meanwhile, if somebody tries to publish an oral variety in a written medium/form, he is directly confronted with the problem of graphization. Access to media thus immediately brings along reflections on norms (cf. Osthus 2006b, 1536) – which of course are not limited to problems of graphization, but orthography and lexicon are very typical areas of laymen language planning and discussion (cf. Kailuweit/Jaeckel 2006, 1547).

Already at the turn of the present century, the appearance of small languages on the WWW could be observed. The presence of some diatopic varieties of northern France, subsumed under the glottonym Picard, was rather striking in comparison with other northern dialects, as can be seen in Johnen (2008) and Visser (2008). Nowadays, this kind of “pioneer role” is no longer really visible.

3.1Picard as a “small language”

Before talking about the presence of Picard in the media, a discussion about terminology is necessary. As mentioned above, linguists usually use the glottonym Picard to refer to the whole group of dialects. The editors of the present manual chose small language to classify this group, a categorization that already points out important difficulties related to the research topic: In the French région Hauts-de-France (Nord– Pas-de-Calais–Picardie) as well as in the Belgian province Hainaut, part of the population (can) speak regional varieties that typologically form part of a language group called Picard, a glottonym one can already find in the Middle Ages (cf. Dawson 2005, 2). Still, the categorization as language can be discussed. The diatopic varieties in question lack some important characteristics that are typical of such a classification, e. g., standardization. If we take as a basis the already mentioned four parts of language planning outlined by Haugen (1987, 627), here in an adaption from Omdal (2006, 2386), it should be emphasized that even the selection procedures have only recently been undertaken in Picard.

Table 1: Four parts of language planning (Omdal 2006, 2386; adaption of Haugen 1987, 627)

The Picard varieties often are subdivided into at least three groups, a categorization that is linguistically questionable (cf. Carton 1990, 607) but shared by many speakers, particularly those without linguistic background: The northern dialects of the Hainaut are frequently called Rouchi (ibid.). In the département Nord-Pas de Calais, the speakers tend to use the glottonyms Chti or Chtimi (cf. Dawson 2005, 2) and close their dialects off from those of the former région Picardie (départements Aisne, Oise, Somme) which actually are called Picard. This, partly quite subjective, classification has consequences for the presence of the regional varieties in the media, as will be explained further on, and it obviously complicates the selection procedures.

There are some attempts of codification, particularly of step (a) graphization (e. g., the système Feller-Carton, cf. Carton 2001, or the Graphie FIPQ, cf. Braillon 1991), but, due to the coexistence of several writing traditions (classifiable as phonetical, analogical, archaical, supradialectal; cf. Dawson 2002), Dawson, one of the most important researchers in this domain, characterizes the language as polygraphique (ibid.).

Speakers of regional idioms often prefer to call them languages, because alternative terms such as patois, parler or dialect usually have a very negative connotation in the context of the French language policy (cf. Éloy 2004, 6). In order to have a base for the debate about the signature of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the government ordered a report, known as Rapport Cerquiglini (Cerquiglini 1999). In this report, Picard indeed was classified as a langue d’oïl, thus in a certain way officially accepted, but this recognition had no substantial advantages for its process of language planning. In spite of the problems outlined above, we will follow this official report and the categorization in the present manual, using language(s) to refer to Picard varieties, completing the designation with the adjectives small, regional or local to emphasize their restricted area of communication – although, thanks to the Internet, this restricted area of communication is no longer restricted in a virtual way.

It is very difficult to calculate the number of speakers of Picard: Public bodies in France are known for their general “lack of real interest […] for the regional languages” (Gadet 2006, 1788), thus there are few statistics regarding their speakers. Besides, the regional varieties show a very wide range of diatopic markedness. As elsewhere in France, the Picard speaking region has to be considered as a dialect continuum between primary dialect(s) (cf. Coseriu 1988, 51), different kinds of regional French (français régionaux) and regional accents. The degree of interference between Standard French and Picard is particularly high, because the northern dialects are typologically very similar to Standard French, reason for Éloy to call them collateral languages (langues collatérales; 2004, 10). The number of speakers of the primary dialects is rather low, whereas there are many people who use some regional elements in their speech. Obviously, this diatopic continuum is another reason for problems in the language planning process and also a reason to avoid talking about one Picard language. Finally, the passive knowledge of the dialects is much greater than the active one, so statistics depend substantially on the type of questions. In the recently published Histoire sociale des langues de France (Kremnitz 2013), Éloy/Jagueneau talk about 500,000 to 1,000,000 speakers based on an investigation by the INED (Institut National d’Études Démographiques) (2013, 538).

The use of Picard varieties is typical of private communication (cf. Koch/Oesterreicher 1332011). In the north, the regional language is not only present in rural areas, but also in big cities like Lille (cf. Dawson 2004, 5; cf. Pooley 1996; 2004a; 2004b).

Although Picard can look back on a scriptae tradition (cf. Éloy/Jagueneau 2013, 538), the use of the regional varieties in written form got more or less lost when the dialect of the Île-de-France started to be used for supraregional communication. After 1945, radio and television controlled by French state institutions (cf. Lüsebrink et al. 2004, 159) denied access to regional languages, even if this situation has been changing gradually since the end of the 20th century (cf. Helfrich 2006, 2263ss.):

“Depuis 2004, le bénéfice du système d’aide à la presse hebdomadaire régionale, jusque-là réservé aux publications en langue française, a été étendu aux ‘langues régionales en usage en France’. Quant à la loi du 5 mars 2009 relative à la communication audiovisuelle et au nouveau service public de la télévision, elle précise (article 3) que la société nationale de programme France Télévision conçoit et diffuse en région des programmes qui contribuent à la connaissance et au rayonnement des territoires et, le cas échéant, à l’expression des langues régionales. Même si cette obligation est inégalement mise en oeuvre, et si la présence à l’antenne des langues régionales peut aller de quelques minutes à plusieurs heures par jour, selon les langues, selon les chaînes ou stations, ou selon qu’il s’agit de la radio ou de la télévision, chaque jour, en particulier outre-mer, plusieurs centaines de programmes sont diffusés sur le territoire français dans une dizaine de langues régionales […]” (North 2011, 32s.).2

Access to the book market was very difficult for economic reasons. Even to publish in dialect journals, authors had to overcome some obstacles. The magazine “Ch’Lanchron”, for example (Ch’Lanchron n.d.-a), publishing in Picard since 1980, always applied very rigid internal linguistic norms (cf. Auger 2003, 18) and accepted no contribution without intensive previous correction procedures. This might not be surprising for persons used to publishing in (scientific) journals, but considering the plurality of Picard varieties and the lack of standardization, this stops many people without the same regional background – the magazine is situated in the Vimeu (Picard) – from publishing in this type of journal, particularly if they have no formal language training.

3.2Picard in the Media: 20th/21st Century

3.3Consequences for the evolution of Picard

Despite the success of comics translated in Picard, it is obvious that the most important text production takes place on the Internet. Now, what could be the consequences for the evolution of Picard? At the beginning, linguists and laymen saw a possible stimulus for the evolution and implementation of norms in this (or other) local languages:

“For this group [scil. speakers of Picard living in the world] the Internet is a medium to counteract language death. Besides, as can be seen particularly in Internet forums with regional background, speakers of different regional varieties communicate with each other or comment suggested translations in discussion threads about translation. For a language with dialectal fragmentation, to a great extend forced back to privacy, this contact is very important for the development of a koiné” (Johnen 2008, 140).141

Johnen, for example, thinks – or thought in 2008 – that the Internet could contribute to a formation of a koiné. This assumption can be put down to everything we know about the importance of (traditional) media for the standardization of languages. But, as we have seen, new media are very different from traditional ones. Due to their characteristics, the conditions for status and corpus planning are not the same.

The fact that text production on the WWW is not followed conclusively by standardization tendencies can be easily exemplified by means of the use of terminology in the Picard Wikipedia. As Picard equivalent for “external links”, for exemple, in December 2013 it was possible to find: Chés adréches à savoér, Loéyins iperteskes (por chés glincheus [‘for web surfer’, J.V.]), Loïens intarnètes, Loyens éstérnes, loyens intarnètes, Loyens iperteskes, Loyens ipérteskes, Loÿins hiperteskes, Loÿins intarnètes, Loÿins internètes (cf. Wikipedia in Picard). So there is a great orthographic and terminological irregularity which could already be observed in 2011. There seems to be no real evolution towards standardization.

Picard language enthusiasts who dedicate themselves to corpus planning tend to follow the French Anglicism policy. The Picard Wikipedia article informatike (<https://pcd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatike>) includes suggestions to replace the English words hardware and software. For hardware, the alternatives proposed are Ard’wère, but also manicrake and acrinkillache informatike. For software, it suggests sof’wère, but also businkillaches, which seems to be a creation based on the verb busier (réfléchir; Dawson 2004, 172). Further in the text, there appears also an adaptation of the French logiciel, microlodjichièl, and also without d- in logichiel. Here again, there is no real coherence in the suggestions, which can be considered as a sort of corpus planning before there had been a real status planning. The suggestions that are supposed to replace the Anglicism are very difficult to understand and, as could be seen in the example businkillaches – microlodjichièl, it is very difficult to use the creations for the formation of compound words or derivations. This can be explained in view of the importance of a linguistic identity – the use of Anglicism could dilute this identity – but from a terminological point of view, the creations are far too isolated (linguistically) to be successful in real communication.

Now, do new media offer perspectives for the evolution or protection of local languages? And what are the linguistic and methodological approaches that could be interesting for the research?

It is very obvious that new media allow a transnational communication in and about local languages. This could be important for language communities suffering from migration and globalization phenomena. The Internet serves as a space for solidarity and exchange between speakers of different local languages. The analysis of these spatial implications of new media is an approach for investigation projects with the focus on Language and Space (Auer/Schmidt 2010; with an explicit focus on France, e. g., Bastian/Burr 2008; Gerstenberg/Polzin-Haumann/Osthus 2012).

In some studies, the Internet is considered as a kind of ecological niche for endangered languages. This ecolinguistic (cf. Fill 1993; Calvet 1999) perspective could be found in the symposium “Multilingualism (re-)framed: Ecological perspectives on language use, representation and identity”, at the 15th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, organized by Döring/Fill/Trampe (not yet published) in 2008.

As discussed above, the Internet is used by many laymen to talk about and to communicate in local languages. The laymen’s perspective is very important in every language planning process, because no measure can be successful without the collaboration of the speakers:

“Si la linguistique appliquée veut contribuer à résoudre des problèmes de langue(s) et de communication, elle devrait savoir ce que les non-linguistes pensent de ces domaines parce qu’on ne peut influencer le comportement de personnes que si l’on trouve un accès plus ou moins direct à leur manière de penser”142 (Stegu 2012, 33).

Of course, it is also possible to investigate this perspective with traditional methods such as questionnaires, but the dynamics are much more obvious on the Internet (cf., e. g., Hardy/Herling/Patzelt 2015).

As in the case of national languages, the analysis of minority languages on the WWW can also focus on problems of the transfer from orality to literacy (e. g., Visser 2008).