No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Cantonal Identity and the Question of English
as an Intra-National Language
Assistant Professor Agnieszka STĘPKOWSKA, PhD
Poznań College of Modern Languages, Poland
[email protected]
Abstract: The article offers an account of the Swiss language situation from the cantonal perspective. Many
Swiss regard the cantons where they live as their small fatherlands. In Swiss mentality canton comes first
before the state. Every Swiss is the citizen of a canton and, in the second rank, the citizen of the Federation.
This attitude has its roots and justification in the historical tradition from which follows that it was the cantons
that created the Federation and not the other way round. Therefore a cantonal community is much more than
a geographical locale. For the Swiss it is the prime source of personal identity. Since cantons decide on the
language to be officially used within their territories and, as a result they are largely monolingual, they may
be additionally viewed as speech communities where language is the salient identity symbol.
The relatively complex linguistic situation in Switzerland is additionally confounded by the steadily growing
encroachment of English. At present no explicit policy has been worked out by cantonal authorities
concerning this language which begins to play an increasingly important role on the intra-national level in the
multilingual Switzerland. Therefore, it will also be worth making an attempt to reflect on the presence of
English in the Swiss public space.
Keywords: Switzerland, canton, identity, multilingual communication, English
1. Switzerland and its languages
In the past cantons gave rise to the federal state of Switzerland. Still today those
relatively small administrative units are referred to as the fundamental constituents of
multilingual Switzerland. The federal structure of the state encourages regionalisation
processes which next lead to the development of close inter-cantonal cooperation. Thus
the cantonal identity strongly relies on the extent of regionalism. Swiss regionalism
seems to be well sustainable by the diversity of geographical location, the language
spoken and the religion practiced. The fact that Swiss cantons have retained the same
boundaries throughout history resulted in some regional idiosyncrasies, although with
time many responsibilities have been taken over by the Federation. The consequences of
126
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
regionalisation can be addressed from the angle firstly of relations between the regions
and the state and among the regions themselves, and secondly of relations between local
authority autonomy and the regions.
The classic idea of a nation consisting of one people bound with one language and
belonging to one fatherland was slow to emerge. The Swiss corroborated that regularity
by being exception to the rule. They managed to maintain their variety and, instead of
being cut up according to language amongst their powerful neighbours, they
demonstrated that people can work together successfully despite major differences (see
Gillett 1989). However, one could rightfully assume that a country like Switzerland has
no language of its own, as there is no Swiss language. Instead, it shares three languages
with its neighbours, i.e. Germany, France and Italy. This fact led Haugen (1972: 245) to
infer that
(...) a nation feels handicapped if it is required to make use of more than one language
for official purposes (...). Internal conflict is inevitable unless the country is loosely
federated and the language borders are stable, as is the case in Switzerland.
Undoubtedly the language situation in Switzerland is neither clear nor easily graspable,
and thus asking for continuous clarification. Even so, the principle adopted is simple i.e.,
briefly put, everyone is tolerant of others and no one wants to dictate terms to anyone
else. Actually, a certain exaggeration or perhaps an oversimplification would be to say
that the Swiss ignore the existence of language problems. Although Switzerland has no
language law comparable with that in Belgium, it has never experienced conflicts like
those in Norway. Apparently, the secret of general consensus with regard to language
issues in Switzerland rests on the fact that the majority grants the minority more rights
than the pure arithmetic would allow (see Baur 1992). Steinberg (1996: 130)
encapsulates the linguistic reality of the Swiss as follows:
Switzerland is not special simply because it has four national languages but because
language itself has a special place in Switzerland. Language defines and at the same
time denies Swiss identity; it reinforces the peculiarities of political practice and reflects
them. Above all, it contributes to the bewildering variety in a small area which makes it
hard to say anything general about Switzerland.
And further he (ibid. 160) adds that “[i]t may be that the combination of history, politics
and economic development provides a sufficient explanation and that Switzerland
survives as a state in spite of linguistic variety. The only common linguistic experience
of all Swiss would then be the absence of a common language.” An observant outsider
could perhaps easily conclude, yet not necessarily understand, that the Swiss feel Swiss
127
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
outside Switzerland. When at home they tend to disintegrate into cantonal or regional
micro-identities or ultimately into identities as the citizens of communes. That is why
Steinberg (1996: 249) writes that “[t]here is something unnatural about a country
without a proper national identity.”
2. Canton in the Swiss federal structure
In a federal state the supreme political power is divided between a central government
and local governments. Thanks to such a split of sovereignty the cantons can maintain
some degree of independence. The substance of the constitution from 1848 proved that
the cantons had opted for the utmost form of decentralisation, i.e. federation. The
unrivalled asset of a centralised system is the simplified administration, especially in
such matters as defence; however the decentralisation of power, or “the enhancement of
local self-government” (Gillett 1989: 15), offers an everlasting motivation to be involved
in political issues on the part of every individual citizen. Gillett (1989: 29) mentions two
principles with regard to the correlation between central and local government which
share the responsibilities for legislation and administration. Some fields are controlled
more by the federation and some less. The first principle applies to a concept otherwise
known as “bottom-heavy democracy” which consists in pushing down the functions of
government wherever possible, namely from the federal government and parliament to
the cantons and even further from the cantons to the communes. The second principle
aims to combine unity and diversity which, as Gillett (ibid.) puts it, “upsets a lesser
bureaucrat though he might agree that the same dish for each course would make a bad
meal.” That principle surely indicates the ambition to be under a single independent
government as well as the wish to enjoy appreciable local autonomy. Thus, the actuality
in Switzerland implies a permanent half-way stage between a single unitary state and a
number of mini-states.
The context of cantons might also invoke the application of “small is beautiful” in
political environment. “Small” may not necessarily be “beautiful” if it means a multitude
of small independent but argumentative states. Therefore a federal state with many small
administrative units usually, by way of precaution, needs to be sensitive to the problems
which those units might present to the federal bureaucracy. Apparently, the Swiss
cantons are “beautiful” and they will remain so, as long as the federal administration
copes with its bureaucratic burden. If the cantons are regarded as small, then the
communes of which they are composed are minute. In Switzerland there is a total of
three thousand communes, on average, numbering 130 per canton and with, again on
128
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
average, 2100 people in a commune (ibid.). The communes constitute the most
important structural prerequisites for the formation and maintenance of group ethnicity.
Thanks to the small size of the communes, many of them work as direct democracies
doing well without elective representatives.
Language differences do continue to be an issue both at the cantonal and the federal
level. The responsibilities of the cantons and the federation are supposed to complement
one another. Thus, the cantons administer schools, whereas the federation assists them
by granting subsidies for language minorities, thereby fostering their education.
3. Swiss cantons and speech communities
Community is often defined by sociologists according to various factors, including
geographical location, social interaction and common cultural ties. The present
discussion concerns a community that shares the language or languages used as a means
of communication in social interactions. Therefore, a clear understanding of the notion
of speech community is a prerequisite to gain an insight into the study of language in the
cantonal context. The study of a speech community, apart from the above, entails
making reference to such criteria as identification, characterisation and boundaries.
Here, a grasp of a speech community may emerge owing to a purposeful juxtaposition
of relevant interpretations delimited by language as the main definitional factor. Broad
as this concept may seem, it was also adopted by Bloomfield (1933: 42) for whom
people interacting by means of speech would constitute a “speech community.” For
Steinberg (1996: 129) language determines the outer limits of membership in a
community. This membership depends on the written or spoken status of the language,
its restricted or unrestricted usage, and the extent of popularity among social classes.
Other factors influencing language involve social, political or religious settings in which
it is used. These settings of social interactions further divide into internal and external
linguistic criteria, although, as Nelde (1992: 395) anticipates, “the difference (...) will be
abandoned, since the interdependence and inseparability of these factors has become
apparent in the most recent research results.”
A speech community is perceived here as a human assemblage distinct from nation,
minority or ethnic group, although they may sometimes be speech communities, just as a
single Swiss canton could be. Labov (1972: 27) claims that the attitudes towards
language, which the members of a community share, are vital for the continuation of a
community, i.e. “[t]he speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the
use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms.” This
129
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
statement is also consonant with that of Hymes (1972: 54) who defines the speech
community as the one “sharing rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech, and
rules for the interpretation of at least one linguistic variety.”
A speech community needs to choose the language of communication with another
community, especially if the latter happens to be a majority. The idea of multilingualism
proves successful by the quality of contacts between different language groups and
particularly those minute ones. If, as it has been implied above, Switzerland is a hybrid
between a single unitary state and a number of mini-states, then each such a mini-state
with a wilfully assigned language can be taken as a community, where communication
is viewed as a grid of roles interrelated by different functions. For Gumperz (1970: 464)
“the totality of communication roles within a society” is a communication matrix,
whereas code matrix is defined as “the set of codes and sub-codes functionally related to
the communication matrix” (ibid.). Another term, relevant here, used by Gumperz
(1968: 125) is the verbal repertoire which refers to “the totality of dialects and
superimposed variants regularly employed within a community.” This means that
members of a speech community do share a certain linguistic and cultural knowledge as
well as display similar social behaviour, which gives them a sense of identity towards
the language. It is their language that acts as a token of belonging to the group.
Interestingly, in order to elucidate the difference between communicative communities
and speech communities, Zabrocki (1963: 27) takes an example of Switzerland. The
Swiss represent a closely interrelated communicative community which encompasses as
many as four national languages. Therefore, after Zabrocki (ibid.) it may be assumed
that the Swiss Federation without a doubt constitutes a communicative community, yet
not a speech one with a uniform communication means. Had the Swiss opted for one
common language, they could have been then also referred to as a language or speech
community. In his article on communicative communities, Zabrocki (1963) seems to
aim at a certain universal model of communities created by people. He emphasises that
the state is a strong communicative community, and that it can be internally either
closely interrelated or occasional in character. Communities of tight internal bonds are
distinguished by a relatively high “density of communication” (Bloomfield 1933: 46),
and for Zabrocki (ibid.) this is the main reason why they should arrive at a shared
communication means. However in the light of the foregoing perhaps it would be too
much of an oversimplification to classify Switzerland as the type of an occasionally or
loosely interrelated community at least in the respects other than one common language.
Despite the implications made by Zabrocki (1963, 1980), that every communicative
community by its very nature strives to develop a uniform medium of communication,
130
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
here Switzerland steps out of the line of illustrative examples. In fact the Swiss nation,
often described as Willensnation (nation of the will), consciously defines itself by its
linguistic diversity. Therefore, it would be quite unthinkable for the Swiss to abandon
their official quadrilingualism. On the other hand, Zabrocki’s observation (1972: 21,
1980: 152) about the priority of a communicative community over a language
community seems to justify the existence of a country like Switzerland. Every tolerance
in Switzerland rests on the territorial principle which delineates as well as, in effect,
separates all language groups from one another. Therefore each of them is both
relatively stable and easy to define. Lüdi (1992:46) elaborates on this description as
follows:
The validity of the territoriality principle in Switzerland changed its administrative map
into a patchwork of monolingual cantons with the exception of a few overlap areas in
the case of a couple of officially bilingual cantons. Depending on the viewpoint, the
territoriality principle either constrains or permits the use of one official language. As a
result, the other national languages in any given monolingual canton enjoy the status
comparable to that of Spanish or English.
Certainly these are not the most desirable circumstances for intranational
communication. The optimal combinations are anticipated in the form of
Partnersprachmodell which can only be fulfilled if the interlocutors are equipped with a
repertoire of three national languages. Dürmüller (1989: 5) presents in detail the ideal
language combinations in repertoires of the Swiss, i.e. L1, L2, L3 and L4 of the three
official language groups separately, and the potential threat to these solutions, i.e.
English occupying the position of L2 in each language group.
Thus, for this model to become a reality, the Swiss educational system aims to provide
every citizen with at least rudimentary knowledge of another official language.
However, graduates from secondary schools or universities reveal at best a passive
knowledge of the second official language. They may rank as passive bilinguals who
anyway can hardly be required to communicate either successfully or freely on every
subject. Dürmüller (1994) points out that in most cases the Swiss grow up as
monolinguals and learn their second language at school. The educational system in
Switzerland provides every person with the practical opportunity to study one foreign
language at least for two years. This means that the communicative competences
acquired after a two-year language course amount to its passive command which results
in rather limited language skills. Additionally, the data provided by Dürmüller (op. cit.)
clearly contradict the myth of multilingual Switzerland, perhaps not so much with regard
to the state, but rather from the individual perspective. Indeed, there are bilingual or
131
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
trilingual Swiss, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most trilingual Swiss
live in the southern parts of the country, especially in the Canton of Tessin as well as in
the Canton of Grisons. Thus, the southerners (Südschweizer) are truly polyglots if their
repertoires were to be compared with those of the members from the two largest
language groups in Switzerland, namely German and French. In fact, from every
indication, multilingualism in the Swiss is inversely proportional to the quantitative size
of a language group they belong to. Those who belong to the dominating language
groups tend to be satisfied with somewhat deficient command of the second national
language. The third language in their repertoires is a rarity, and even if that is the case, it
is English rather than another national language. In turn, a third of Swiss southerners
have a good command of the third national language, and more than half use it at a
satisfactory level (see Dürmüller 1994: 225).
4. Defining identity through language
In her book entitled Kultury narodowe u korzeni [National Cultures at the Grass-Roots
Levels], Kłoskowska (2005) addresses the controversy over the concept of a nation. As
the result, the reader is presented with several concepts of a political nation with the
particular emphasis placed on its political functions and character. Despite the fact that
the concepts of a nation are not uniform, Kłoskowska (2005: 15-41) proposes to start
with a general, and apparently prevailing, concept of a nation. Thus, a nation is seen as a
natural phenomenon developing from the natural character of the bond based on the
community of descent and the community of land. Further Kłoskowska (2005:24) also
points out the difficulty in differentiating between a state and a nation, where the former
is an institution comprising a number of authorities and public administration, whereas
the latter constitutes primarily a social aggregate participating in a cultural community.
Switzerland makes no exception here. For many Swiss their canton is their small
fatherland and it comes first before their country. This may be partly justified when
viewed from a historical perspective “because the cantons created the federation rather
than the other way round” (Gillett 1989: 19). Thus a cantonal community should not be
perceived solely as a geographical locale, but primarily as the source of personal identity
for people living together in groups. In the case of a speech community, language is the
prime symbol of such identity.
Indeed, language as a highly significant characteristic becomes an instant badge that
marks each group as different (Zabrocki 1963: 13, 34). Switzerland as a multiethnic
nation successfully managed to implement adequate constitutional, social and linguistic
132
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
measures which largely averted the possibility of the domination of one ethnic group.
Not only are ethnicity and social identity closely intertwined, but also they both are
manifested through language which reveals alternately the identity of an individual as
well as his position in the community (see Gumperz 1982). The results of the survey
carried out by Lüdi (1992) only substantiate the degree of interrelation between
language and identity. The respondents were internal migrants who, in rather a big
number, opted for putting a cross by several identities, which Lüdi names an “identity
pluralism;” apparently, it is much easier to annex another identity than to abandon one.
Haugen (1972: 262) observed that “minority populations even in long-established
countries are refusing to accept the language of majority, and rebel against notions of the
inferiority of local speech habits, notions which have reduced them in the past to secondclass status and excluded them from the best jobs.” With respect to that problem, Grin
and Sfreddo (1998) give a more detailed account of language-based earnings
exemplified by the status of Italian speakers in Switzerland.
It is particularly the non-standard variety of language that functions as a symbol of
identity and serves as a proof of loyalty in a community. It appears that non-standard,
vernacular or low varieties are the preferred forms over the standard norm to make
known one’s individuality. Also for Gumperz (1970: 467) it is evident that “the tribal
language is the symbol of communal identity, although it does not show the formal
characteristics of a standard language.” To make an adequate reference to the Swiss
situation, “tribal” should denote the Swiss variety of the German language, i.e.
Schwyzerdütsch. The strength of the symbolic value attached to Swiss German is
obvious in the German-speaking part of Switzerland (see Lüdi 1992). It is the nonstandard variety for all Alemannic Swiss wishing to stress their personal and group
identity. The use of Swiss German ranks among the strongest in-group signals. As a
result, the host community puts foreigners to a test in dialect knowledge to check if they
have enough ability and, perhaps, the will to integrate. Steinberg (1996) writes about the
German-speaking Swiss and their attitudes toward their dialect in the following way:
“Dialect for Swiss German speakers is identity, and the pleasure in Oberwalliser
archaism is a kind of self-satisfaction, a delight in one’s own Eigenart or special nature.
Dialect is (...) a distinct form of instant recognition (op. cit. 131). It is the private
language of some four million people, not a very large group in the wider world, and
they value it as the most personal mark of identity. For Swiss Germans Schwyzerdütsch
is the mother tongue, above all, the language of childhood, family, the heart. It is more
direct and more intimate (ibid. 132). Schwyzerdütsch binds Swiss Germans together,
especially in the face of Germans, and is particularly precious to them. (...) The dialect
includes but it also excludes. It excludes foreigners very effectively. (...) More than any
133
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
other single factor, dialect makes is hard to get inside Switzerland or to get to know
Swiss Germans (ibid. 136).”
Language minorities are visible in Switzerland, yet they struggle with problems which
do not come to the fore when placed on a larger scale of the whole country. This means
that language frictions will probably never become a reason that could ever seriously
threaten the unity of Switzerland as a state. Knüsel (1987: 39) claims that as long as no
economic crash is imminent on a larger scale, the menace of outbreak of a language war
is very unlikely. Undoubtedly, like any other country, Switzerland has its own complex
language identity. However it may be assumed that this awareness is not a decisive
element about the sense of “Swissness” of its people. Had the language issues become a
priority in the Swiss political life, people would gradually develop a language sensitivity
with regard to a concrete vernacular. In other words, if suddenly for some reason the
significance of individual languages in Switzerland were overemphasized and skilfully
transformed into a political problem, then language issues could grow to a nationwide
dilemma. The sense of belonging to a given minority is conditioned on one’s own
identifying with something or someone. Identity formation is a continuous process and
renders itself mouldable by both individual and communal elements. Together with the
establishment of a state, the plight of the communities making up that state, changes as
well. As a consequence, not only are their liberties limited, but some of their privileges
are revoked by necessity. Many a time they need to agree on imposed compromises. In
order to retain autonomy, some of the communities resort to isolating themselves from
the rest of the country.
5. English in the Swiss public space
According to Gnutzmann (1999:47), there are two tendencies that may roughly
characterize the language contact situation in Europe, i.e. “the general acceptance of
English and a tendency to strengthen regional language varieties and cultures.” The first
tendency goes in line with the findings taken from acculturation theory (see Schumann
1978). Acculturation constitutes a perfect basis for successful language learning. In this
context the motivation to learn English is strong as language of world-wide usefulness
and the lingua franca on the European continent. Gnutzmann (op. cit.) points out to the
results of a poll from 1997 conducted by the French Gallup Institute in which 86 per
cent of Europeans would be ready to accept English as the single European language, if
they were asked to choose a common European language. The second type of tendency
mentioned above is, in effect, the opposite of acculturation. It aims to increase the
distance between languages due to the (conscious) maintenance of native cultural
134
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
identities and, in any case, non-English ones. This tendency may be taken as a reaction
to marginalization. Such a development in speakers’ attitudes Gnutzman (1999: 48)
labels as a “new localism” and explains that it “focuses on the concrete and local areas
of living and experience that are structured in relatively stable social networks and is
interpreted as a reaction to the marginal status of local cultures and languages. (...) The
essential factor is the conscious maintenance of native and local cultural identities and
symbolic signs, the desire for a “communicative identity” which is locally experienced
for cultural participation and for exchange of cultural values, and the rejection of
assimilation, and of marginalization.”
As to the tendencies described above, Switzerland makes no exception. Indeed, the
multiplicity of languages, if we do not restrict ourselves only to official languages, is big
enough to start asking questions about solutions based on some common language, be it
English or even the artificial Esperanto. However, despite ongoing discussions heard
every now and then, the situation has not matured for introducing some form of a
planned strategy, let alone one common language. It seems that English is getting in
through the back door into Switzerland and the less inconspicuous this process is, the
better for the prospects of English. It must be remembered that the Swiss have not been
forced to learn English. It is neither protected nor guaranteed and Switzerland has no
overt language policy promoting English as a lingua franca. Nevertheless, today
people’s individual language preferences have a real influence on their language
repertoires. A closer look at those repertoires reveals a strong presence of English in
Switzerland. Dürmüller (1992:358) points out the split status of English, i.e.
“[o]fficially, Switzerland admits English only as L3 (L4 in the Italian-speaking part),
unofficially, however, English has won the L2 position already, at least among the
young.” The official status of English as a foreign language and its unofficial status as a
lingua franca were also given by Dürmüller (ibid.) other synonymous names, i.e. a de
iure status and a de facto status, respectively. Whatever its status, English always
performs an additional and optional function. It comes as the third option of intranational communication, after the first and at least one second national language. Yet
especially young people are much more prone to give English the second try (Dürmüller
1986, 1992). Due to the high interest enjoyed by English, it has justifiably earned
another status of “the preferred additional language” (Dürmüller 1986).
135
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
6. Multilingual reality
The discussion about speech communities should be naturally imbued with the
awareness of the communicative and symbolic roles of language varieties. Global
speech communities usually employ standard varieties, whereas smaller or internal
speech communities may seek to express their identities by means of a non-standard
variety, as in the case of Schwyzerdütsch to be heard only in the German-speaking part
of Switzerland. Bi- or multilingual repertoires of individuals lead them to an increased
communication with other groups. This only proves an upward tendency in the need for
communication and the curiosity excited by the outside world. With such a state of the
facts some may anticipate that national languages would be superseded by a lingua
franca for international communication, and look forward to a linguistically
consolidated “international brotherhood of man” (Haugen 1972: 261). Others, taking a
more realistic view, do not expect to see the emergence of one international language,
but they are sure that, in the end, “it must produce a demand for one or more auxiliary
languages to complement those with only local currency” (Brumfit 1982: 2).
It was Uriel Weinreich who left a lasting imprint on linguistics. His research into
language contact carried out in Switzerland marked a major turning point in the study of
linguistics. Weinreich ([1953] 1968: 3-6) demonstrated that the linguistic outcomes of
language contact cannot be divorced from the social and cultural setting, such as the
extent and degree of bilingualism, duration of contact, geographical distribution, religion
or political factors. His detailed report of language contact in Switzerland, particularly
between French and German, and between German and Romansh, served as a basis for
his influential book entitled Languages in Contact. Weinreich proved that the linguistic
contact between two or more languages could be understood only in the full context of
their speakers’ lives. Today language contacts increase not only due to globalisation
process and the internal migrations in societies, but also due to the advance of new
electronic communication channels, thereby considerably decreasing the language
distance (Gnutzmann 1999, Lüdi 1992, Schüler 1987). Iso Camartin (1983) uses the
German word Rationalisierung to describe the overriding principle employed by the
Swiss in their direct inter-cantonal communication. When professionals from Lausanne
and Zurich, instead of French or German, exchange information in English, then what
we see in effect is Rationalisierung. This means that simple solutions are made use of
not only where profits can be maximised, but also for the sake of convenience. The
concept of Rationalisierung in interpersonal communication consists in better and less
sophisticated solutions in order to make oneself clear and to enjoy unequivocal
comprehension of others. The phenomenon of Rationalisierung understood in this way,
136
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
follows per se almost intuitively, which means that no one plans it and that it simply
happens. On average, Swiss citizens do not get involved in discussions about
communicational impediments, but they have learnt to accept them as an inherent part of
their everyday lives. Those more effective solutions rendering communication
successful may be manifested in the choice of language. The most willingly applied
solution seems to be English, especially when the passive knowledge of one of the Swiss
national languages fails. Even if the grasp of English is elementary, is it not more
comfortable to try and use it when in contact with another Swiss from a different
language area, rather than showing off one’s faltering command of German, French or
Italian? If the answer is affirmative, then it is not only the attractiveness of English that
drives the Swiss to use it increasingly often, but perhaps their heavily deficient
knowledge of their national languages. Dürmüller (1986, 1992) claims that English
already functions as an inter-language in Switzerland, and as such can serve the
purposes of self-identification and emotional expression.
The Swiss language policy fosters multilingualism. That policy aims to keep the official
languages on an equal footing and to protect language minorities. These objectives
should by no means hinder the international communication and, primarily in this sense,
the worldwide expansion of English should be treated as an opportunity also for the
Swiss. They can maintain their naive (local) language and cultural identity,
simultaneously becoming capable of using different languages without the fear they
might lose their own identity and language. Camartin (1983: 18-22) states that the
miracle of multilingualism does not occur when a person can voice the same meaning in
each language on hand, but quite the reverse, namely that the reality renders itself
expressible in a large multitude of linguistic forms. He (op. cit.) vividly brought out the
advantageous condition peculiar only to a multilingual state like Switzerland, claiming
that
[e]s is vielleicht das Vorrecht einer mehrsprachigen Nation, unter nicht-traumatischen
Bedingungen erfahren zu können, dass die eigene Muttersprache ein Gefängnis ohne
Gitterstäbe ist: ein Raum, den man verlassen kann, ohne ganz ins Fremde zu stürzen, in
den man aber auch zurückkehrt mit einer gewandelten Vorstellung, was eine herrlich
weit gespannte Welt ist;
[it is perhaps a privilege of a multilingual nation to learn, and in no traumatic
circumstances, that one’s mother tongue is like a prison without bars in windows: it is
an area one can leave yet without falling into the unknown completely, and where one
returns with a changed belief what the wonderful world is about. Translated into English
by A.S.].
137
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
References
Ammon, Urlich – Marlis Hellinger (eds.) (1992) Status Change of Languages. Berlin – New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Baur, Arthur (1992) Szwajcarski fenomen. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Brumfit, Christopher (1982) “English as an International Language I: What do we mean by International
Language”. [In:] Christopher Brumfit (ed.) English for International Communication. Oxford – New York:
Pergamon Press; 1-7.
Brumfit, Christopher (ed.) (1982) English for International Communication. Oxford – New York: Pergamon
Press.
Camartin, Iso (1983) “Mehrsprachigkeit mit Vorteilen”. [In:] Der Staatsbürger 5: 18-22.
Dürmüller, Urs (1986) “The Status of English in Multilingual Switzerland”. [In:] Bulletin CILA 44: 7-38.
Dürmüller, Urs (1989) “Attitudes towards English as a possible Lingua Franca in Switzerland”. [In:] York
Papers in Linguistics 14: 3-17.
Dürmüller, Urs (1992) “The changing Status of English in Switzerland”. [In:] Urlich Ammon – Marlis
Hellinger (eds.) Status Change of Languages. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter; 355-370.
Dürmüller, Urs (1994) “Multilingualismus der Gesellschaft”. [In:] Robert Schläpfer (ed.) Mehrsprachigkeit –
eine Herausforderung. Aarau: Sauerländer; 209-245.
Fishman, Joshua (ed.) (1970) Readings in the Sociology of Language. Paris: Mouton.
Gillett, Nicholas (1989) The Swiss Constitution – Can it be exported? Bristol: Yes Publications.
Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.) (1999) Teaching and learning English as a Global Language – native and nonnative perspectives. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Grin, François – Claudio Sfreddo (1998) “Language-based Earnings Differentials on the Swiss Labour
Market: is Italian a Liability?” [In:] International Journal of Manpower 19 (7): 520-532.
Gumperz, John (1968) Language in Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gumperz, John (1970) “Types of Linguistic Communities”. [In:] Joshua Fishman (ed.) Readings in the
Sociology of Language. Paris: Mouton; 460-471.
Gumperz, John and Dell Hymes (eds.) (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: ethnography of communication.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gumperz, John (ed.) (1982) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, Einar (1972) The Ecology of Language: Essays. Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Hymes, Dell (1972) “Models of the interaction of language and social life”. [In:] John Gumperz, Dell Hymes
(eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston;
35-71.
138
No. 2/2010
STYLES OF COMMUNICATION
Kłoskowska, Antonina (2005) Kultury narodowe u korzeni. Warszawa: PWN.
Knüsel, René (1987) “Mehrsprachigkeit in der Schweiz – Ursache von Spannungen?” [In:] Thema 4: 37-39.
Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lüdi, Georges (1992) “Internal Migrants in a Multilingual Country” [In:] Multilingua 11 (1): 45-73.
Nelde, Peter (1992) “Multilingualism and Contact Linguistics”. [In:] Martin Pütz (ed.) Thirty Years of
Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins; 379-397.
Pütz, Martin (ed.) (1992) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Schläpfer, Robert (ed.) (1994) Mehrsprachigkeit – eine Herausforderung. Aarau: Sauerländer.
Schüler, Martin (1987) “Sprachwandel in der Schweiz”[In:] Thema 4: 34-37.
Schumann, John H. (1978) The Pidginization Process: a Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley:
Newbury House.
Steinberg, Jonathan (1996) Why Switzerland? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinreich, Uriel ([1953] 1968) Languages in contact: findings and problems. The Hague – Paris: Mouton.
Zabrocki, Ludwik (1963) Wspólnoty komunikatywne w genezie i rozwoju języka niemieckiego. Cz.1.
Prehistoria języka niemieckiego. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Zabrocki Ludwik (1972) „Z teorii socjolingwistyki” [In:] Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego
30: 17-25.
Zabrocki, Ludwik (1980) U podstaw struktury i rozwoju języka. Warszawa – Poznań: PWN.
139