Abstract: The introduction of mass media had a negative impact on the chances of survival of small languages. Changes in the media landscape in the 20th and 21st century seem to change this situation. The expansion of the Internet makes it possible to publish texts in regional idioms or to discuss language issues. At the same time, globalization and new tendencies in language policy enlarge public awareness of the importance of language plurality. The group of actors comprises linguists as well as laymen. The following study will discuss the perspectives of changes in the media landscape for the evolution of endangered languages. The northern group of French regional varieties subsumed under the designation Picard will serve as an example. A comparison between traditional and new media, focusing on the types of media, texts, actors and target groups, is supposed to show perspectives of modern media for small languages and the importance of access to media for the identity of their speakers.
Keywords: folk linguistics, minority language, new media, Picard, traditional media
Thanks to the changes in the media landscape in the last decades, minority groups have growing access to (new) media. Consequently, a handbook treating Romance Languages in the Media should include contributions discussing the presence of minority languages in the media of the 21st century. As there are a lot of regional languages in France, only one of these will serve as an example of the evolutions that can be observed.
Whereas the introduction of mass media favored the extension and standardization of national languages, it was at the same time one important factor leading to the extinction of small languages (not only) in France: For economic, political and ideological reasons, these languages never had real access to media like printed press, radio or television.
The expansion of the Internet seems to have changed this situation, because it offers a large and democratic platform (cf. Gerhards/Schäfer 2007, 211)132 of publication for these small languages. But the consequences of these new possibilities have to be clarified. At the same time, the impulses of European language policy, as well as social changes due to globalization, have led to a new language awareness. This language awareness gives rise to a growing interest in language matters not only of linguists, but also of laymen.
A typology of media, texts, actors and target groups, contrasting traditional and new media, is supposed to permit an analysis of the perspectives of modern media for small languages. This typology also allows an insight into the symbolic value of media access for their speakers.
The northern group of French regional varieties subsumed under the designation Picard will serve as example for this analysis, because these regional varieties very soon showed a large presence in the media and are rather well-known thanks to a particular film. The overview of the presence of Picard on the Internet will be the most important part of the analysis. With regard to the Internet, television and radio, the results are more or less representative for all kinds of small languages, whereas the movie is remarkable and rather unusual.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Form (policy planning) | Function (cultivation) | |
Society | (1) Selection (Decision procedures) | (3) Implementation (Educational |
(Status planning) | (a) Identification of problem | spread) |
(b) Allocation of norms | (a) Correction procedures | |
(b) Feedback and evaluation | ||
Language (Corpus planning) | (2) Codificacion (Standardization procedures) | (4) Elaboration (Functional development) |
(a) Graphization | (a) Terminological modernization | |
(b) Grammatication | (b) Stylistic development | |
(c) Lexication |
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.
The digital turn has been identified as a crucial point for the presence of small languages in the media. An overview of the communication forms that are used to publish something in or about small languages always runs the risk to be out-of-date when it is finally published in a scientific article. The use of these communication forms on the Internet changes so quickly that every overview can only give an idea of the trends. Therefore, the following introduction into the presence of Picard in the (new) media – representative also for the majority of other small languages all over the world – obviously cannot be seen as conclusive.
On the one hand, already existing institutions use the Internet to draw attention to their activities. These can be dialect journals as the already mentioned Ch ’Lanchron (“the dandelion”), local theatres (e. g., Théâtre Louis Richard), dialect associations (e. g., “Union Tertous”, “Chés Diseux d’Achteure”, “Veillées Patoisantes de Tourcoing”) and language associations like the “Université picarde libre de Thiérache”, connected to Jean-Marie Braillon, creator of the Graphie FIPQ (cf. above) and founder of the Picard journal Urchon Pico (numbers online). Even though it might seem strange to make a distinction between dialect and language associations, this decision can be justified in view of the fact that dialect associations focus on the promotion of local texts, customs etc., whereas language associations explicitly want to save the Picard language. Obviously, there is again no clearly defined border between these two categories.
It is also possible to find webpages organized by single people who were active in traditional media, publishing books or writing articles for newspapers. The webpage Chtimipicard for example can be attributed to Alain Dawson, a linguist known for two introductions in Picard and Chtimi (2004; 2005). Chtimipicard offers articles in Picard, descriptions of books that have a connection with the Picard region, it collects Internet links about Picard, but also figures as a platform of a language course with references to phonetics, grammar, and orthography of the dialect group. This kind of language course, also mentioned by Johnen (2008), is rather typical of webpages related to small and local languages on the WWW.
Whereas Dawson can be considered as an expert in language issues, many texts on the WWW seem to be made by language enthusiasts and laymen. At the beginning, there were quite a lot of private homepages that informed about the existence of Picard, Rouchi and Chti(mi) (cf. Visser 2008, 154). Now, it seems that these private homepages tend to be replaced by blogs (e. g., “Club ed’patos ed’Lyche Lonno”), an evolution that might soon be changed by other more innovative communication forms. Some of these blogs gather collective knowledge such as proverbs or anecdotes: “Une phrase par jour, pour faire vivre notre langage dans la bonne humeur, vos commentaires, anecdotes en patois ou en français sont les bienvenus”134 (Chblog.com). As can be seen in this and other examples, the texts usually are not or not only written in Picard, maybe because this would considerably reduce the number of possible readers, maybe also because not all the authors are able to write whole texts in Picard.
Particularly the private initiatives tend to treat only one local variety of Picard. Whereas Dawson tries to integrate Picard and Chti(mi), many others focus on Picard or Chti(mi) or Rouchi.
The communication forms mentioned so far can be classified as one-way-communication, although most of the webpages offer interactive tools (cf. Lüsebrink et al. 2004, 245), e. g., the possibility to submit a comment or to become a “member” of the site (cf. Chtimi-picard n.d.).
As shown above, it is also one important characteristic for the WWW to offer possibilities for interaction: Since its beginnings, people interested in Picard talked about it in newsgroups and forums. In 2008, Johnen proposed a distinction between newsgroups and forums with regional reference and those without. In the Chti region, one of these forums with regional reference is Ch’ti.org (Ch’ti.org n.d.-a). In this important and long-living forum, the contributions are subdivided into the categories Forum général (tout sujet), Discussions de comptoir, Café littéraire, Le patois Ch’ti, Le Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Les mineurs et la mine, Légendes et contes, Recettes de cuisine, Histoires drôles, Demandes de traductions, Webmaster à votre écoute. These categories show that there is an important link between the regional language and traditional genres such as legends, recipes, songs or funny little stories. Many, but far from all, contributions are written in Chti.
As a discussion platform focused entirely on language questions, we should mention the forum langue d’oïl that forms part of the “Projet Babel”.
As already pointed out by Born (2007), the online encyclopedia Wikipedia nowadays exists in many small languages and also in Picard. In November 2013, Wikipédia – el libe inciclopédie (Wikipédia in langue picarte n.d.) comprised some 2,500 articles, in November 2016 some 3,200. This number of articles certainly has a symbolic value for the speakers, but is rather misleading. Many articles are only fragments (e. g., Djazz ‘Jazz’: “Ech djazz est un ginre éd musique né aux États-Unis ach début dech XX° sièke. Ch’est un mélinge éd blues, éd ragtime pi del musique uropéène”). There are other Wikipedia versions from minority languages which are much more active (e. g., Walloon, more than 14,000 articles in November 2016, Wikipedia e Walon n.d.). Wiki projects are also rather typical of linguistic activity of laymen in the 21st century.
The same can be said about glossaries. Wikipedia in Picard offers a link to some of these in Picard (or its dialects). Often, dialect glossaries in the WWW are a “reprint” of some written publication (e. g., Dauby 2008; Lexilogos n.d.), but sometimes they are created for the WWW (cf. Ch’ti.org n.d.-b) by a single person or by a group.
As mentioned by Éloy/Jagueneau (2013, 540), the database PICARTEXT is now accessible for analysis of Picard literature created by the Université de Picardie Jules Verne (cf. Université de Picardie Jules Verne n.d.).
It is very difficult to compile corpora of text productions on the WWW. The Internet is a problematic resource for corpus research (cf. Mukherjee 2009, 60). Due to its characteristics, compilations of digital texts normally are not representative or exhaustive, nor can they be replicated exactly (ibid.). Search functions offered by commercial systems like Google do not fulfill linguistic demands. In the case of the analysis of dialects that lack standardization, it is nearly impossible to determine all keywords necessary for the research: As shown above, particularly the laymen tend to work with different local designations for their dialect (such as Rouchi, Chti). The glottonym Picard functions badly as identification in the WWW, among other things because it exists also as company name (<http://www.picard.fr> is the website of a French producer of frozen food, Picard). Working with keywords such as langue picarde already leads towards certain types of websites (from persons for whom Picard is a language and not a dialect). Enthusiasts of the Picard varieties tend to compensate for this fact using the dialect word for “maintenant”, which is achteure (cf. Dawson 2004, 168) and which seems to have a symbolic value for their identity as speaker of dialect. But, as we could see, there are different pronunciations and orthographic variants (e. g., àc’t’heure; Visser 2008, 153), consequently, the results of research with this key word are very unreliable, too.
Quantitative research is therefore complicated, perhaps even impossible, and if conceived as an overview over the activities of dialect speakers on the Internet, very soon out of date. This refers not only to the number of webpages, but also to the communication forms.
Picard not only “appeared” in the so-called “new media”: Thanks to the cinema, it has been discovered by an international public with the 2008 film “Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis”. Paradoxically, this fame is limited to the northern varieties subsumed under the glottonym Chti. The discussion about the film in social networks shows its symbolic value for the linguistic community (the following examples are taken from Projet Babel 2008; the orthography of the original has been maintained; bold type highlighting by the author):
“Le film de Dany Boon est tout de même une vitrine extraordinaire pour un dialecte d’oïl et même plus généralement pour une langue de France […].”135
“Le succès de ce film peut-il avoir un impact quant à l’étude du picard, peut-il créer un engouement d’ensemble pour une étude de nos langues de France (aucun film avec une telle présence d’un dialecte n’ayant connu un tel succès, imaginez que cela ait marché par exemple pour le provençal ou même le francitan (quand on voit la désolante absence du marseillais parlé dans le Marseille de ‘Plus Belle la Vie’)? Ce film mêle avec bonheur le français et le picard qui sous sa forme chti’ mine se résume plus à la seule berceuse du ‘Gros Quinquin’.”136
“Quant à l’impact du film, je pense qu’il sera positif pour les langues régionales. D’abord pour le picard que ce soit en France ou en Belgique, mais aussi pour les autres langues régionales. . . Le succès du film hors de la zone linguistique picarde ne s’explique pas seulement par la forte émigration ch’tie mais, je pense, plutôt grâce au rapport qu’il souligne entre le français officiel et les langues des terroirs.”137
But it is also rather interesting to see that there is a discussion about the linguistic authenticity of the film, because the regional variety really used in Bergues (setting of “Bienvenue chez les Chtis”) is Flemish:
“Desormais la ville de bergues sera vue dans la france entierecommela capitale du chtiland. L’an dernier nos elus avaient obtenu aprés bien des refus l ouverture à titre d’essai de l ‘ouverture de cours de flamand dans quelques villages autour de Bergues. C’est triste à dire mais ce film est peut être le coup de poignard final à notre langue régionale. Avoir les commentaires des internautes je vois que notre notoriété est completement inexistante Nous avons pourtant des associations qui s’efforcent de nous faire survivre ANVT.ORG ou l ’alliance flandre artois hainaut par exemple Je pense que tout le mal vient du nom de notre région NORD PAS CALAIS Cette région comme les autres lorraine ,bretagne ou auvergne porte un nom depuis plus de mille ans FLANDRE ARTOIS HAINAUT il faudrait d’ abord retrouver notre nom pour retrouver notre fierté!”138 (ibid.).
The example shows that the WWW serves not only as a platform of information but also for all kinds of discussions about small languages.
Apart from representing a possible distortion of the linguistic landscape at Bergues, “Bienvenue chez les Chtis” can be situated in a tradition of texts that evoke laughter (cf., e. g., Schmitt 2000) thanks to the introduction of more or less stereotypical “characteristics” of local languages: When the protagonist, a post office official from the South, transferred for disciplinary reasons to the North, arrives in Bergues, he hits one member of his future staff with his car. In their first conversation, he misinterprets the local accent (represented in the glottonym by <ch->) as a fracture of the jaw that prevents the victim of the accident from speaking intelligibly.
Later on, during a dinner with colleagues, the whole group exchanges local expressions, mostly talking about swear words and vulgarisms, which is also rather typical of a first and superficial contact with small languages.
The film entailed publications in traditional media, such as “Le Chti pour les Nuls” (Gryson/Poulet 2009), but also a debate in translation sciences (e. g., Reutner 2011a, 2011b).
Despite this success, the presence of Picard (or Chti) in other media such as television or radio is still rather insignificant. Some chronicles from Alain Dawson are broadcast by Radio France Bleu (“Les mots de chez nous”, “Le kokinkache”, “Kmint qu’in dit? (la leçon de chti)”, “Si t’es d’ichi, parle comme ichi” (avec José Ambre), “L’agenda chti”, cf. Dawson n.d.). José Ambre offers “L’HOROCHTI”, l’horoscope en Chti, also on Radio France Bleu Nord (France Bleu n.d., available as podcast). As shown above, there are some dialect journals such as Ch’Lanchron and Urchon Pico (Fédération INSANNE n.d.), nowadays partly accessible in a digital version.
The presence on television seems to be reduced to a few isolated, rather popular and simplistic programs such as the following, announced by the dialect journal Ch’Lanchron:
“‘La Cinquième’ (chaîne de télévision française) a choisi de tourner un sujet sur les langues régionales présentes dans l’Internet. C’est le picard qui a été sélectionné, et tout particulièrement le site de Ch’Lanchron! Lionel Boisseau journaliste du magazine ‘Net plus ultra’ s’entretient donc avec Jean-Luc Vigneux et d’autres animateurs dans une émission qui sera diffusée le samedi 25 octobre 1997 à 9 h 55 et rediffusée le mardi 28 octobre (à 10 h 15). Durée du sujet: 4mn (sur 26mn d’émission). Ne le manquez donc pas!” (Ch’Lanchron n.d.-b).139
Besides, it is possible to find some private “broadcasting” outlets: On the website “Chespicards”, Jean-Pierre Semblat, who also wrote chronicles for the newspaper AISNE NOUVELLE, offers some videos, chansons and fables in Chti (Chespicards 2012; Chespicards n.d.).
Although the objective of the present manual is to focus on tertiary communication, it seems well worth it to cast an eye on a genre published in traditional written form, the comic, because nowadays, some of these projects have quite a lot of echo on the WWW. In France, the comic (bande dessinée) is so important that it is considered as the 9e art. This importance leads to the fact that there are translations of important comics – such as Asterix or Tintin – into local languages. These translations also exist in Picard (cf. Astérix, le site officiel n.d.). In view of the division of the Picard linguistic landscape in three parts, one of the most interesting projects is the volume “Ch’village copè in II (Le grand fossé)”, because its aim is to reconcile the linguistic division of the Picard landscape in a story that talks about a reconciliation of a village:
“Après le succès en 2004 du premier album d’Astérix en picard (plus de 100000 exemplaires vendus!), nous avons donc demandé à notre équipe de traducteurs, haute en couleurs, de se remettre au travail en mettant la barre encore plus haut: concilier la langue du nord avec celle du sud!” (Goscinny/Uderzo 2007, Preface).140
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).
Media were always very important for the evolution and standardization of languages. Whereas traditional media favored the implementation of national languages and contributed to the decline of small and regional ones, the Internet serves as a communication platform for all kinds of languages. It is often used by laypeople. The perspective of these laymen is very essential for language planning in the context of minority languages. With regard to the importance of the Internet for standardization and survival of endangered languages, early studies tend to transfer insights from the analysis of traditional media to these new forms of communication. This transfer ignores the different conditions of communication. Substantial ideas about the effects of the Internet on the evolution of small languages are supposed to come from studies of folk linguistics and the analysis of the Internet as a virtual space. In any case, all kinds of analyses require interdisciplinary approaches that take into account the importance of media for communication.
Androutsopoulos, Jannis (2010), The study of language and space in media discourse, in: Peter Auer/Jürgen Erich Schmidt (edd.), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 740–759.
Antos, Gerd (1996), Laien-Linguistik. Studien zu Sprach- und Kommunikationsproblemen im Alltag. Am Beispiel von Sprachratgebern und Kommunikationstraining, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
Astérix, le site officiel (n.d.), Astérix en Picard, <http://www.asterix.com/la-collection/les-traductions/asterix-en-picard.html> (09.11.2016).
Auer, Peter/Schmidt, Jürgen Erich (edd.) (2010), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter.
Auger, Julie (2003), Picard parlé, picard écrit: comment s’influencent-ils l’un l’autre?, in: Jacques Landrecies/Aimé Petit (edd.), Picard d’hier et aujourd’hui. Actes du colloque de Centre d’Études Médiévales et Dialectales de Lille 3, 4–6 octobre 2001, (Bien dire et bien aprandre – Revue de médiévistique, numéro spécial), Lille, Université Charles-de-Gaulle, 17–32.
Bastian, Sabine/Burr, Elisabeth (edd.) (2008), Mehrsprachigkeit in frankophonen Räumen, München, Meidenbauer.
Boon, Dany (2008), Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis (film).
Born, Joachim (2007), Wikipedia. Darstellung und Chancen minoritärer romanischer Varietäten in einer virtuellen Enzyklopädie, in: Martin Döring/Dietmar Osthus/Claudia Polzin-Haumann (edd.), Sprachliche Diversität: Praktiken – Repräsentationen – Identitäten, Bonn, Romanistischer Verlag, 173–189.
Braillon, Jean-Marie (1991), La graphie FIPQ du picard, Lemé, Sudoc.
Calvet, Louis-Jean (1999), Pour une écologie des langues du monde, Paris, Plon.
Carton, Fernand (1990), Französisch: Areallinguistik I. Nördliche Dialekte b) Pikardie, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. V,1: Französisch, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 605–615.
Carton, Fernand (2001), Règles de transcription Feller-Carton, Linguistique Picarde 41, Fascicule 160:2.
Cerquiglini, Bernard (1999), Les langues de la France. Rapport au Ministre de l’Éducation Nationale, de la Recherche et de la Technologie et à la Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, <http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/994000719.pdf> (09.11.2016).
Ch’Lanchron (n.d.-a), <http://lanchron.fr> (09.11.2016).
Ch’Lanchron (n.d.-b), Télévision, <http://lanchron.fr/TV.htm> (09.11.2016).
Ch’ti.org (n.d.-a), <http://www.chti.org> (09.11.2016).
Ch’ti.org (n.d.-b), Glossaire Ch’ti–Français, <http://www.chti.org/chti/glossaire/index.php> (09.11.2016).
<Chblog.com, le blog chti (n.d.), http://www.chblog.com> (09.11.2016).
Chés Diseux d’Achteure (n.d.), <http://ches.diseux.free.fr> (09.11.2016).
Chespicards (2012), Les mots picards du 6 janvier 2012, <http://chespicards.fr/articles-et-textes/les-mots-picards-du-6-janvier-2012> (09.11.2016).
Chespicards (n.d.), Chansons et Fables, <http://chespicards.fr/category/chansonsfablescomptines> (09.11.2016).
Chtimi-picard (n.d.), Se connecter comme membre du site, <http://chtimipicard.free.fr/spip.php?page=login-public&url=.%2F> (09.11.2016).
Club ed’patos ed’Lyche Lonno (n.d.), <http://patoislys.over-blog.com/> (09.11.2016).
Coseriu, Eugenio (1988), “Historische Sprache” und “Dialekt”, in: Jörn Albrecht/Jens Lüdtke/Harald Thun (edd.), Energeia und Ergon. Sprachliche Variation, Sprachgeschichte, Sprachtypologie, vol. 1, Tübingen, Narr, 45–61.
Dauby, Jean (2008), Lexique du bâtiment et de la maison en “rouchi”, <http://www.pierreseche.com/lexique_rouchi_du_batiment.htm> (09.11.2016).
Dawson, Alain (2002), Le picard: langue polynomique, langue polygraphique?, in: Dominique Caubet/Salem Chaker/Jean Sibille (edd.), Codification des langues de France. Actes du Colloque “Les langues de France et leur codification”. Écrits divers – Écrits ouverts (Paris, INALCO, 29–31 mai 2000), Paris, L’Harmattan, 85–97.
Dawson, Alain (2004), Le “Chtimi” de poche. Parler picard du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais, Chennevièressur-Marne Cedex, Assimil.
Dawson, Alain (2005), Le Picard de poche, Chennevières-sur-Marne Cedex, Assimil.
Dawson, Alain (n.d.), Ouvrages grand public, émissions radio, <https://web.archive.org/web/20141105145435/http://a.dawson.free.fr/spip.php?article5> (09.11.2016).
Demel, Daniela (2006), Laienlinguistik und Sprachchroniken: Italienisch, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1523–1533.
Döring, Martin/Fill, Alwin/Trampe, Wilhelm (unpublished), Multilingualism (re-)framed: Ecological perspectives on language use, representation and identity, Symposium AILA 2008, Essen, 21.08.2008.
Eichinger, Ludwig M. (2006), Soziolinguistik und Sprachminderheiten / Sociolinguistics and Linguistic Minorities, in: Ulrich Ammon et al. (edd.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 3, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 2473–2484.
Éloy, Jean-Michel (2004), Des langues collatérales: problèmes et propositions, in: Jean-Michel Éloy (ed.), Des langues collatérales. Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 5–25.
Éloy, Jean-Michel/Jagueneau, Liliane (2013), Les langues d’oïl, in: Georg Kremnitz (ed.), Histoire sociale des langues de France, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 533–543.
Fédération INSANNE (n.d.), Urchon Pico, <http://www.insanne.fr/spip.php?breve15> (09.11.2016).
Fill, Alwin (1993), Ökolinguistik. Eine Einführung, Tübingen, Narr.
France Bleu (n.d.), L’horoscope en ch’ti, <https://www.francebleu.fr/emissions/l-horoscope-en-ch-ti/nord> (09.11.2016).
Frias-Conde, Xavier (2006), A normalización lingüística na Romania: A normalización da lingua e normalización dos falantes (o caso dos neofalantes), Ianua – Revista Philologica Romanica 6, 49–68.
Gadet, Françoise (2006), France / Frankreich, in: Ulrich Ammon et al. (edd.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 3, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1787–1792.
Gerhards, Jürgen/Schäfer, Mike S. (2007), Demokratische Internet-Öffentlichkeit? Ein Vergleich der öffentlichen Kommunikation im Internet und in den Printmedien am Beispiel der Humangenomforschung, Publizistik 52:2, 210–228.
Gerhards, Jürgen/Schäfer, Mike S. (2009), Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany, new media & society 20:10, 1–18.
Gerstenberg, Annette/Polzin-Haumann, Claudia/Osthus, Dietmar (edd.) (2012), Sprache und Öffentlichkeit in realen und virtuellen Räumen, Bonn, Romanistischer Verlag.
Goscinny, René/Uderzo, Albert (2007), Ch’village copè in II, traduction: Alain Dawson, Jacques Dulphy, Jean-Luc Vigneux, Paris, Les Éditions Albert René.
Gryson, Pierre-Marie/Poulet, Denise (2009), Le chti pour les nuls, Paris, Éditions First.
Haarmann, Harald (1996), Identität / Identity, in: Hans Goebl et al. (edd.), Kontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / Contact Linguistics. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 218–233.
Hardy, Stéphane/Herling, Sandra/Patzelt, Carolin (edd.) (2015), Laienlinguistik im frankophonen Internet, Berlin, Frank & Timme.
Haugen, Einar (1987), Language Planning, in: Ulrich Ammon/Norbert Dittmar/Klaus J. Mattheier (edd.), Sociolinguistics – Soziolinguistik, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 626–637.
Helfrich, Uta (2006), Geschichte der Sprache von Hörfunk, Kino und Fernsehen in der Romania, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 2263–2278.
Hickethier, Knut (22010), Einführung in die Medienwissenschaft, Stuttgart/Weimar, Metzler.
Hörisch, Jochen (1998), Einleitung, in: Peter Ludes (ed.), Einführung in die Medienwissenschaft. Entwicklung und Theorien, Berlin, Schmidt, 11–32.
Hunziker, Peter (21996), Grundbegriffe der Mediensoziologie, in: Peter Hunziker, Medien, Kommunikation und Gesellschaft: Einführung in die Soziologie der Massenkommunikation, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1–26.
Johnen, Thomas (2008), Texte und Diskursformen auf Pikardisch im Internet, in: Sabine Bastian/Elisabeth Burr (edd.), Mehrsprachigkeit in frankophonen Räumen, München, Meidenbauer, 123–146.
Jucker, Andreas (2004), Gutenberg und das Internet. Der Einfluss von Informationsmedien auf Sprache und Sprachwissenschaft, net.worx 40, <http://www.mediensprache.net/networx/networx-40.pdf> (09.11.2016).
Kabatek, Johannes (1996), Die Sprecher als Linguisten. Interferenz- und Sprachwandelphänomene dargestellt am Galizischen der Gegenwart, Tübingen, Niemeyer.
Kailuweit, Rolf/Jaeckel, Volker (2006), Laienlinguistik und Sprachchroniken: Iberische Halbinsel und Lateinamerika, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1546–1557.
Koch, Peter/Oesterreicher, Wulf (22011), Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter.
Kremnitz, Georg (ed.) (2013), Histoire sociale des langues de France, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
Lebsanft, Franz (2001), Sprache und Medien: b) Sprache und Massenkommunikation, in: Günter Holtus/Michael Metzeltin/Christian Schmitt (edd.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, vol. I,2: Methodologie, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 292–304.
Lebsanft, Franz (2002a), Französisch, in: Nina Janich/Albrecht Greule (edd.), Sprachkulturen in Europa. Ein internationales Handbuch, Tübingen, Narr, 64–73.
Lebsanft, Franz (2002b), Spanisch, in: Nina Janich/Albrecht Greule (edd.), Sprachkulturen in Europa. Ein internationales Handbuch, Tübingen, Narr, 295–301.
Lebsanft, Franz (2006), Massenkommunikation und Sprachgeschichte: Iberische Halbinsel, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1293–1303.
Lexilogos (n.d.), Dictionnaire picard, <http://www.lexilogos.com/picard_langue_dictionnaires.htm> (09.11.2016).
Ludes, Peter/Schütte, Georg (1998), Für eine integrierte Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, in: Peter Ludes (ed.), Einführung in die Medienwissenschaft. Entwicklung und Theorien, Berlin, Schmidt, 33–53.
Lüsebrink, Hans-Jürgen, et al. (2004), Französische Kultur- und Medienwissenschaft. Eine Einführung, Tübingen, Narr.
Mukherjee, Joybrato (2009), Anglistische Korpuslinguistik, Berlin, Schmidt.
Niedzielski, Nancy A./Preston, Dennis R. (2000), Folk Linguistics, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter.
North, Xavier (2011), Langues et cultures régionales dix ans après, in: Christos Clairis et al. (edd.), Langues et cultures régionales de France. Dix ans après, Paris, L’Harmattan, 25–34.
Omdal, Helge (2006), Language Planning: Standardization / Sprachplanung und Standardisierung, in: Ulrich Ammon et al. (edd.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 3, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 2384–2394.
Osthus, Dietmar (2006a), Massenmedien und Sprachgeschichte: Galloromania, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1280–1292.
Osthus, Dietmar (2006b), Laienlinguistik und Sprachchroniken: Französisch und Okzitanisch, in: Gerhard Ernst et al. (edd.), Romanische Sprachgeschichte/Histoire linguistique de la Romania, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1533–1546.
Pooley, Timothy (1996), Chtimi: the urban vernaculars of northern France, Clevedon et al., Multilingual Matters.
Pooley, Timothy (2004a), Language Dialect and Identity in Lille, vol. 2, Lewiston, Edwin Mellen.
Pooley, Timothy (2004b), Le picard vu par les jeunes lillois, in: Jean-Michel Éloy (ed.), Des langues collatérales. Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique, Paris, L’Harmattan, 199–211.
Preston, Dennis R. (2008), Qu’est-ce que la linguistique populaire? Une question d’importance, Pratiques 139–140, 1–24.
Projet Babel (2008), Bergues (Bienvenue chez les Cht’is), <http://projetbabel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12198> (09.11.2016).
Projet Babel (n.d.), <http://projetbabel.org/forum/index.php> (09.11.2016).
Reutner, Ursula (ed.) (2011a), Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis: Scénario et dialogues de Dany Boon, Franck Magnier et Alexandre Charlot, d’après une idée originale de Dany Boon, Stuttgart, Reclam.
Reutner, Ursula (2011b), Kulturspezifika in der Synchronisation. Zur Kunstsprache in Willkommen bei den Sch’tis, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 121:1, 13–38.
Rindler Schjerve, Rosita (2004), Minderheit / Minority, in: Ulrich Ammon et al. (edd.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 1, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 480–486.
Robertson, Roland (1998), Glokalisierung: Homogenität und Heterogenität in Raum und Zeit, in: Ulrich Beck (ed.), Perspektiven der Weltgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 192–220.
Schmitt, Christian (2000), Sprachliche Varietät als ludisches Element. Beobachtungen zum “Pédant joué” von Cyrano de Bergerac, in: Cornelia Klettke/António C. Franco/Gunther Hammermüller (edd.), Ästhetik der Texte – Varietät von Sprache. Beiträge zu Paul Valéry und zur romanischen Philologie, Tübingen, Narr, 277–288.
Schmitz, Ulrich (2005), Sprache und Massenkommunikation / Language and Mass Communication, in: Ulrich Ammon et al. (edd.), Sociolinguistics. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 2, Berlin/New York, de Gruyter, 1615–1628.
Stegu, Martin (2012), Les politiques linguistiques entre linguistique appliquée et linguistique populaire, in: Peter Cichon/Sabine Erhardt/Martin Stegu (edd.), Les politiques linguistiques implicites et explicites en domaine francophone, Berlin, Avinus, 31–36.
Théâtre Louis Richard (n.d.), <http://www.theatre-louis-richard.com> (09.11.2016).
Union Tertous (n.d.), <http://tertous.chez.com> (09.11.2016).
Université de Picardie Jules Verne (n.d.), PICARTEXT <http://www.u-picardie.fr/LESCLaP/PICARTEXT/Public> (09.11.2016).
Université picarde libre de Thiérache (n.d.), <http://fipq.chez.com/accueil.htm> (09.11.2016).
Veillées Patoisantes de Tourcoing (n.d.), <http://vpt.free.fr> (09.11.2016).
Visser, Judith (2008), Dialekte im Digitalen Raum. Das Pikardische als “langue régionale parlée sur le WEB”, in: Sabine Bastian/Elisabeth Burr (edd.), Mehrsprachigkeit in frankophonen Räumen, München, Meidenbauer, 147–169.
Wikipedia e Walon (n.d.), <https://wa.wikipedia.org> (09.11.2016).
Wikipédia in langue picarte (n.d.), <https://pcd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueul> (09.11.2016).
Wilton, Antje/Stegu, Martin (edd.) (2011), Applied Folk Linguistics (AILA Review 24), Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins.
18.191.103.117