For my blog post this week, I decided to look into Lapgaliski, which I had learned about when I interviewed my friend Marija for the linguistic biography. Before we get down to business, let me just establish that I, apparently, have been spelling it wrong this whole time. It is, in truth, spelled Latgaliski. Oops. Also, it appears to also be referred to under the alias of Latgalian. This language thing is a whole new level of mess.
From what Marija told me, there is debate in Latvia over whether it is simply a dialect of the Latvian language, or whether it qualifies as its own distinct language. I was curious to see where this confusion lies, so I did some digging.
It is said to be used primarily in an eastern region of Latvia called Latgale, although there is a small fraction of speakers also in Russia, Germany, Canada, and the United States. There are 150,000 - 200,000 speakers of the language; compare that to 1.5 million Latvian speakers and 265 million Russian speakers. Most Latgalian speakers are trilingual in Latgalian, Latvian, and Russian, and although it is not acknowledged legally, it is optionally taught at some preschools and is used in some primary and secondary schools for studies in local history. It additionally has a written component, leading to the establishment of its own canon of literature and folklore. Its cultural contributions expand also to theatre, music, newspapers, and radio broadcasts. More simply, Latgalian exists as the primary mode of communication within the Latgale region and within families, such that there are some elders who have practical familiarity with Latgalian but not its parent language, Latvian.
So, based on these new bits of information, do you think Latgalian is classified better as a dialect or a minor language? What qualifications exist to decide what makes a form of communication its own language? Let me know what you think! :)
Latgale, the land of beautiful scenery and confusingly spelled words.
Source
I'll wait until this post gathers some commentary, Kate, but I do have some input for you on this (very confounding!) question...
ReplyDeleteSince it is taught in schools, has its own literary canon, and is a primary mode of communication, I would say that it would suffice as being a minor language. Though I am not a subject on the matter--judging from your post--that's what I would guess.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that older people knew Latgaliski but not Latvian. This almost makes it sound like they are two distinct modes of communication. I wouldn't say that someone can speak Pittsburghese, but not English. Shouldn't those two go hand-in-hand?
DeleteIt seems like it is its own language, because, as you pointed out again in your reply to Nate, you can know Latgaliski but not Latvian. And, because it has to be taught in schools, doesn't that mean people cannot understand it unless they are taught or grow up learning it? So, if you can't understand what people are saying, it's probably more than a dialect. I don't know if this is the only thing that distinguishes between a different language and a different dialect, but I think its a pretty big factor.
ReplyDeleteI was also wondering about the numbers of speakers. In the past, was Latgaliski more widely used? From the information you provide, it seems like there aren't that many speakers now, but there used to be. The cultural history and the fact that people want to teach it in schools make me think that it used to be the norm. Do you know anything about this?
I'm not sure on the former prevalence. I couldn't find much information on that. However, I do see your point. Its near exclusiveness among some elders and its usage as a mode of discourse for cultural studies courses makes it sound like it has some history and cultural currency. Some sources say that many users of the language do so as a matter of identity rather than practicality. They do know Latvian but choose to communicate and produce cultural materials (writing, music, etc.) in Latgalian out of efforts to preserve it. I read that publishing books in Latgalian was illegal from 1865 to 1904. Perhaps a kind of cultural suppression began, and recent surges in its use are in protest of this. It sounds like it is as much as cultural force as a form of communication. It feels much bigger than just a dialect.
DeleteI would say that it is it's own minor language. I'm basing this on the fact that it's taught in schools mainly, along with the different forms of art and media that it's used in. The main thing that I really agreed with you on though was the line "This language thing is a whole new level of mess". Languages (or maybe dialects?) like this illustrate how insanely varied the world of language and dialect really is, to the point that we (untrained linguistics) legitimately can't tell the difference between what is or isn't considered a language.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna revert back to my trusty Pittsburghese qualifier. I've never had it taught to me in school. We learned about it and how its quirks differ from Standard English or from other dialects, but we didn't receive instruction in how to speak it. I received instruction in English and then had to take a few years of a foreign language in high school. The point I'm trying to make here is that I learned about dialects, but I was explicitly taught languages. So, if the practice is similar in Latvian, then I agree with you and would say that some schools teaching Latgalian is kind of an indicator that it could be its own minor language. As you said, though, the interplay between dialect and language seems pretty touchy, and our lack of expertise makes that distinction even more elusive to us.
DeleteAlthough it is not acknowledged legally, it seems like it is some sort of minor language. Knowing that it can be taught at some preschools, primary, and secondary schools. Furthermore, I found it interesting that it also has a written component, consisting of literature, folklore, theatre, music, etc. Since it acts as a mode of communication I can see it being a minor language. Cool topic to think about.
ReplyDeleteThere does appear to be a major cultural following to it, distinct from Latvian culture. Latgalian and Latvian seem to be becoming increasingly separate from one another.
DeleteLike others have said, I would, too, classify it as a minor language. I think the fact that the language has spread so much and so vastly allows the language to make its way into this classification. If the language was confined to Latvia or even *closely* surrounding areas, then I would be hesitant to label it a language. However, when a form of spoken communication is able to make its way from Europe to America, I think it's safe to label it a language.
ReplyDeleteIt's weird because, in Latvia, it seems to be confined largely to the Latgale region, but then it does have some speakers in whole different countries. That seems odd to me. Maybe part of the explanation of this would be the suppression efforts against it that seemed to arise in the mid-19th century, where books couldn't even be published in the dialect/language.
Delete