Copyright by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey 2010
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey 2010 The Dissertation Committee for Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Planning language practices and representations of identity within the Gallo community in Brittany: A case of language maintenance Committee: _________________________________ Jean-Pierre Montreuil, Supervisor _________________________________ Cinzia Russi _________________________________ Carl Blyth _________________________________ Hans Boas _________________________________ Anthony Woodbury Planning language practices and representations of identity within the Gallo community in Brittany: A case of language maintenance by Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2010 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my parents and my family for their patience and support, their belief in me, and their love. I would like to thank my supervisor Jean-Pierre Montreuil for his advice, his inspiration, and constant support. Thank you to my committee members Cinzia Russi, Carl Blyth, Hans Boas and Anthony Woodbury for their guidance in this project and their understanding. Special thanks to Christian Lefeuvre who let me stay with him during the summer 2009 in Langan and helped me realize this project. For their help and support, I would like to thank Rosalie Grot, Pierre Gardan, Christine Trochu, Shaun Nolan, Bruno Chemin, Chantal Hermann, the associations Bertaèyn Galeizz, Chubri, l’Association des Enseignants de Gallo, A-Demórr, and Gallo Tonic Liffré. For financial support, I would like to thank the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin for the David Bruton, Jr. Graduate School Fellowship I received in the summer 2009 to conduct fieldwork in Brittany. For technical support, I would like to thank Leif Ristroph for realizing all the graphs and advising me throughout this project. Thank you to Charles Mignot and Lilith Antinori for sharing their thoughts and experiences in moments of doubt. Finally, a very special thanks to all the people and participants from the Gallo community, who made me feel very welcome and accepted to share their stories. iv Planning language practices and representations of identity within the Gallo community in Brittany: A case of language maintenance Cécile Hélène Christiane Rey, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2010 Supervisor: Jean-Pierre Montreuil This study focuses on the representations of the Gallo language spoken in the Eastern part of Brittany among elder native speakers (group 1) and students of Gallo (group 2). Jones & Singh (2005) and Williams (2000) both stress the importance of an asserted community identity for language transmission and the active involvement of community members in the revitalization process. In light of these two studies and the revitalization models proposed by Grenoble & Whaley (2005), the present research establishes that, in order to obtain a more appropriate and possibly successful revitalization program, it is necessary to consult and probe the approval of native speakers of Gallo. Informants from both groups show little involvement in language planning activities; in contrast, revitalization efforts in the last decades have increased within associative and militant groups. Based on the findings of Jones & Singh (2005) and Williams (2000) on Jersey Norman French and Welsh respectively, this study provides evidence that Gallo is on the verge of achieving a different status. The framework used for the fieldwork was adapted from Boas TGPD project on Texas German (2001). Most of the interviews were conducted in a v private setting. Two groups of individuals were involved in this study: older, native speakers (41) and students (17), and half of the respondents participated in a follow-up interview (1-2 hours). The results of field research on language attitudes show a positive Gallo identity: 50% of the native speakers answered that Gallo was part of their identity as much as French and 78.6% of the students selected the same statement. Only 20% of group 1 and 21.4% of group 2 declared that Gallo was not an important part of their identity. In the same set of questions on identity and representations, 90% of group 1 and 85.7% of group 2 expressed positive linguistic attitudes when asked whether or not speaking and/or understanding Gallo was valuable. Overall, above 80% of the informants think that the knowledge of Gallo is an advantage. This research demonstrates that the speech community expresses a more positive Gallo identity than expected, one of the main factors necessary to secure language maintenance. vi Table of Contents Acknowledegments……………………………………………………………………...iv Abstract...............................................................................................................................v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...xvi List of Figures………………………………………………………………………...xviii List of Maps and Illustrations………………………………………………………...xix Chapter 1 - General background: obsolescence and revitalization in the dialects of Oïl…1 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………3 1.1 Language death and dialect death……………………………………………..4 1.1.1 Definitions…………………………………………………………………...4 1.1.2 Frameworks………………………………………………………………….4 1.1.2.1 Campbell & Muntzel (1989)………………………………………………4 1.1.2.2 Wurm (1990) & Fishman (1991)………………………………………….9 1.2 Gallo: a member of the Oïl varieties…………………………………………12 1.2.1 Dialect vs. Patois…………………………………………………………..14 1.2.2 Dialectal variations in Gallo……………………………………………….16 1.2.2.1 Northern varieties: Pays de Rennes, Dol, Saint-Malo, Saint-Brieuc, Trégor gallo, Cornouaille gallaise………………………………………………………17 1.2.2.2 Central varieties: Vannetais gallo, Pays de Guérande, Brière, Pays de la Mée………………………………………………………………………………18 1.2.2.3 Southern varieties: Pays de Retz, Vignoble……………………………...18 1.2.3 Standardization of French………………………………………………….20 vii 1.2.3.1 Origins……………………………………………………………………20 1.2.3.2 Lodge (1993)……………………………………………………………..23 1.2.3.2.1 Selection of norms……………………………………………………..23 1.2.3.2.2 Codification: prescriptive rules………………………………………...24 1.2.3.2.3 The acceptance of the norm and maintenance of the standard………...27 1.2.4 Regional French……………………………………………………………29 1.2.4.1 A tentative definition…………………………………………………….29 1.2.4.2 Pooley’s study on Chtimi (1996)………………………………………...31 1.2.4.3 Blanchet’s report (2002)…………………………………………………36 1.2.4.3.1 The method…………………………………………………………….37 1.2.4.3.2 Results………………………………………………………………….38 1.2.4.3.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………..39 1.3 Language Policy in France: recent measures………………………………..41 1.3.1 A selected language promotion……………………………………………41 1.3.2 Limits of France’s linguistic policy………………………………………..42 1.3.3 Debate about the Charte...............................................................................44 1.3.3.1 Presentation………………………………………………………………44 1.3.3.2 Poche (2000)……………………………………………………………..48 1.3.3.3 Bollmann (2001)…………………………………………………………49 1.3.4 Today’s policies: after the debate………………………………………….51 1.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...53 viii Chapter 2 - Gallo: Descriptive summary………………………………………...............55 2.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………….55 2.1 Geography of Bretagne……………………………………………………...56 2.2 Emergence of Gallo………………………………………………………….58 2.3 Language policy during the Ancien Régime…………………………………64 2.3.1 Linguistic policy under the Revolution……………………………………64 2.3.2 Grégoire’s influence on France’s centralisme……………………………..65 2.3.3 More background on France’s language policy: Ayres-Bennett & Jones (2007)…………………………………………………………………………….66 2.4 The language…………………………………………………………………68 2.4.1 Structures: general linguistic traits of Gallo……………………………….68 2.4.2 Other Oïl varieties………………………………………………………….81 2.4.3 Graphic systems……………………………………………………………84 2.4.3.1 Les Amis du Parler Gallo orthography: the first graphic attempt……….85 2.4.3.2 Vantyé……………………………………………………………………86 2.4.3.3 ELG (Ecrire le Gallo)…………………………………………………….88 2.4.3.4 Aneit / Anéi……………………………………………………………….91 2.4.3.5 Moga……………………………………………………………………..93 2.4.3.6 Other propositions and summary……………………………………….100 2.4.4 Informants’ reactions……………………………………………………..107 2.5 The educational system: Learning Gallo at school…………………………113 2.5.1 History and evolution……………………………………………………..113 2.5.2 Teachers and students…………………………………………………….117 ix 2.5.3 Courses and materials…………………………………………………….122 2.5.4 Limits and specific issues………………………………………………...126 2.5.5 Recent research in the field……………………………………………….129 2.6 Case studies…………………………………………………………………133 2.6.1 Diwan schools in Brittany………………………………………………...133 2.6.1.1 Origins and foundation………………………………………………....133 2.6.1.2 Finance and structure…………………………………………………...134 2.6.2 Teaching Norman in the Nord-Cotentin: linguistic practices and attitudes……………………………………………….135 2.6.2.1 Situation of the language……………………………………………….135 2.6.2.2 Linguistic market……………………………………………………….136 2.6.2.3 Teaching Norman in Nord-Cotentin in 2001…………………………...137 2.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….140 Chapter 3 - Sociolinguistics of the Gallo language…………………………………….141 3.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………141 3.1 Introduction of different models of language contact………………………143 3.1.1 Diglossia and/or bilingualism…………………………………………….143 3.1.2 Extensions to the diglossic model………………………………………..145