Notes 1 Introduction 1 This passage became a key impetus for Hodson (1939), the article which con- tains the first known occurrence of the word ‘socio-linguistics’ (see Hymes, 1979; Joseph, 2002a, p. 108). 2 Linguistic Identity and the Functions and Evolution of Language 1 For a fuller history of these developments see Nerlich & Clarke (1996). 2 Even Taylor’s argument is limited to communication; any consideration of representation in animal language he would reject as a form of anthropomor- phism. The basic obstacle is again the insistence on the unjustly important status of the agentive languaging subject. 3 Remarkably similar views were put forward by Thomas Reid (1710–96), founder of the Scottish ‘Common Sense’ school of philosophy, who referred to these ‘subtle clues’ as ‘natural signs’ (see Reid, 1764, 1785). 3 Approaching Identity in Traditional Linguistic Analysis 1 For fuller accounts of Saussure’s system see Joseph (1999) and (forthcoming b), and for its structuralist aftermath, Joseph (2001). A more complete account of language and politics in the twentieth century may be found in Joseph (2004). 2 It is noteworthy that the population of Copenhagen in 1925 was greater than it is today, mainly because of suburbanisation since the 1950s. Actually, though, Jespersen’s views on urbanisation and its linguistic effects were already developed in his writings of the 1890s. 3 Other writings by Sapir on the subject of language and personality include Sapir (1927) and (1994). 4 Historians of linguistics often put the phrase ‘Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis’ in ‘scare quotes’ because neither Sapir nor Whorf ever articulated it as a hypoth- esis, and for each of them it represented a rather more complex set of ideas than either the normally encountered ‘strong’ view or its ‘weak’ counterpart comprises (see further Joseph, 2002b, pp. 71–2). Having made this disclaimer I shall omit the scare quotes henceforth. 5 See Whorf (1956); Joseph et al. (2001, Ch. 4); and for a full investigation of Whorf’s thought and critiques that have been launched against both his analysis of Hopi and the conclusions he drew from it, Lee (1995). 228 Notes 229 6 Nevertheless, Firth’s complex systemic analyses of language share certain features with contemporary structuralisms (see Firth, 1950, 1951; Joseph, 2002b, p. 58). 7 Still, even now some Marxists, Holborow (1999) for example, insist that (post-) structuralism is the direct opposite of their own doctrine because it situates reality in language rather than uniquely in the class struggle. 4 Integrating Perspectives from Adjacent Disciplines 1 Bernstein’s earliest works make clear who he takes to be his predecessors: ‘It is very clear to any student of the sociology of language the debt that is owed to Edward Sapir and his followers who pointed the way to the scientific study of the social institution of language’ (Bernstein, 1959, p. 322). In his very first publication in this vein (Bernstein, 1958), Whorf is the key ‘fol- lower’ of Sapir from whom Bernstein takes inspiration. 2 For further critical reflections on Lambert’s early work see Edwards (1999). 3 On the complex relationship between French structuralism and Marxism, see Joseph (2001). 4 This is an aspect of Marx’s Romantic heritage – cf. the remarks on the Romantic view on ‘genius’ on p. 44 above. 5 Habitus is in fact an extremely venerable term, much used in medieval phi- losophy in a sense quite close to the one it has in Bourdieu’s revival of it. 5 Language in National Identities 1 While actual conditions on the ground may have approached it in certain places at certain times, it is hard to believe that any nation could have closed itself completely to all outsiders for very long. The spread of religions and other cultural constructs and artefacts suggests that if any community was ever immune from outside contact and influence, it could only have been for relatively brief periods of intense reaction against a mounting threat of invasion or infiltration; and in the end, if the threat was strong enough to provoke such an extreme reaction, it probably came to pass at least in part. 2 ‘[V]ulgarem locutionem appellamus eam quam infantes adsuefiunt ab adsistentibus, cum primitus distinguere voces incipiunt; vel quod brevius dici potest, vulgarem locutionem asserimus, quam sine omni regula, nutricem imitantes, accipimus.’ 3 ‘Est et inde alia locutio secundaria nobis, quam Romani gramaticam vocaverunt. Hanc quidem secundariam Greci habent et alii, sed non omnes. Ad habitum vero huius pauci perveniunt, quia non nisi per spatium temporis et studii assiduitatem regulamur et doctrinamur in illa.’ 4 ‘Harum quoque duarum nobilior est vulgaris: tum quia prima fuit humano generi usitata; tum quia totus orbis ipsa perfruitur, licet in diversas prola- tiones et vocabula sit divisa; tum qui naturalis est nobis, cum illa potius arti- ficialis existat.’ 5 ‘Postquam venati saltus et pascua sumus Ytalie nec panteram quam sequimur adinvenimus, ut ipsam reperire possimus, rationabilius investigemus de illa, 230 Notes ut solerti studio redolentem ubique et necubi apparentem nostris penitus irretiamus tenticulis.’ 6 ‘[U]numquodque mensurabile fit secundum quod in genere est, illo quod simplicissimum est in ipso genere. Quapropter in actionibus nostris, quan- tumcunque dividantur in species, hoc signum inveniri oportet quo et ipse mensurentur.’ 7 ‘Que quidem nobilissima sunt earum que Latinorum sunt actiones, hec nullius civitatis Ytalie propria sunt et in omnibus comunia sunt: inter que nunc potest illud discerni vulgare quod superius venabamur, quod in qualibet redolet civitate nec cubat in ulla [ . ].’ 8 ‘[S]iempre la lengua fue compañera del imperio, i de tal manera lo siguio que junta mente començaron, crecieron i florecieron, i despues junta fue la caida de entrambos.’ 9 ‘I, por que mi pensamiento i gana siempre fue engrandecer las cosas de nuestra nacion i dar alos ombres de mi lengua obras en que mejor puedan emplear su ocio, que agora lo gastan leiendo novelas o istorias embueltas en mil mentiras i errores, acorde ante todas las otras cosas reduir en artificio este nuestro lenguaje castellano, para que lo que agora i de aqui adelante en el se escriviere pueda quedar en un tenor, i estenderse en toda la duracion delos tiempos que estan por venir, como vemos que se a hecho enla lengua griega i latina, las cuales, por aver estado debaxo de arte, aunque sobre ellas an passado muchos siglos, toda via quedan en una uniformidad.’ 10 ‘[D]espues que Vuestra Alteza metiesse debaxo de su iugo muchos pueblos barbaros i naciones de peregrinas lenguas, i conel vencimiento aquellos ternian necessidad de recebir las leies quel vencedor pone al vencido i con ellas nuestra lengua, entonces por esta mi Arte podrian venir enel conocimiento della, como agora nos otros deprendemos el arte dela gramatica latina para deprender el latin.’ 11 ‘Marcio [P]ues tenemos ya que el fundamento de la lengua castellana es la latina, resta que nos digáis de dónde vino y tuvo principio que en España se hablassen las otras quatro maneras de lenguas que oy se hablan, como son la catalana, la valenciana, la portuguesa y la vizcaína. ‘Valdés [D]os cosas suelen principalmente causar en una provincia diversidales de lenguas. La una es no estar debaxo de un príncipe, rey o señor, de donde proçede que tantas diferencias ay de lenguas quanta diversidad de señores; la otra es que, como siempre se pegan algo una[s] provinçias comarcanas a otras, aconteçe que cada parte de una provinçia, tomando algo de sus comarcanas, su poco a poco se va diferençiando de las otras, y esto no solamente en el hablar, pero aun también en el conversar y en las costumbres. España, como sabéis, ha estado debaxo de muchos señores [...]. La qual diversidad de señoríos, pienso yo que en alguna manera aya causado la diferencia de las lenguas, bien que cualquiera dellas se conforma más con la lengua castellana que con ninguna otra, porque, aunque cada una dellas ha tomado de sus comarcanos, como Cataluña ha tomado de Francia y de Italia, y Valencia que ha tomado de Cataluña, todavía veréis que principalmente tiran al latín que es, como tengo dicho, el fundamento de la lengua castellana [...].’ 12 Castilian and Portuguese were in fact much more alike in Valdés’ time than today, especially in their written forms. Nevertheless, Valdés greatly exagger- ates their similarity. Notes 231 13 ‘Le temps viendra peut-être, et je l’espère moyennant la bonne destinée française, que ce noble et puissant Royaume obtiendra à son tour les rênes de la monarchie et que notre langue (si avec François n’est du tout ensevelie la langue française) qui commence encore à jeter ses racines, sortira de terre et s’élèvra en telle hauteur et grosseur qu’elle se pourra égaler aux mêmes Grecs et Romains [ . ].’ 14 ‘[N]otre langue française n’est si pauvre qu’elle ne puisse rendre fidèlement ce qu’elle emprunte des autres, si infertile qu’elle ne puisse produire de soi quelque fruit de bonne invention au moyen de l’industrie et diligence des cultivateurs d’icelle si quelques-uns se trouvent tant amis de leur pays et d’eux-mêmes qu’ils s’y veuillent employer.’ 15 ‘[N]e les [traducteurs] doit retarder s’ils rencontrent quelquefois des mots qui ne peuvent être reçus en la famille française, vu que les Latins ne se sont point efforcés de traduire tous les vocables grecs, comme rhétorique, musique, arithmétique, géométrie, philosophie [ . ] et généralement la plus grande part des termes usités aux sciences naturelles et mathématiques. Ces mots-là donc seront en notre langue comme étrangers en une cité [...]. Donc la philoso- phie semée par Aristote et Platon au fertile champ attique était replantée en notre plaine française, ce ne serait la jeter entre les ronces et épines où elle devînt stérile, mais ce serait la faire de lointaine prochaine, et d’étrangère citadine de notre république.’ 16 Du Bellay obviously uses ‘republic’ in its general sense of ‘polity’ rather than the more specific sense that contrasts it with a monarchy or oligarchy.