Volume 2015, Issue 235 - Special Issue: Language Conflict, Issue Editors: Jeroen Darquennes and Diarmait Mac Giolla Chríost

After a broad overview of the history and the areas of focus of research on language conflict, this article pays particular attention to a number of selected features of societal language conflict. A discussion of the causes, the visibility, the manifestations, the discursive focal points, the management and the outcomes of the management of societal language conflict precedes a sketch of methodological approaches in language conflict research. The snapshot of language conflict research ends with a list of research desiderata.

The city of Biel/Bienne is often cited as a model of a non-conflicting cohabitation between two language groups with a similar status: German (i.e. in a diglossic situation: Standard German and Swiss German dialects) and French both benefit from explicit political promotion and legal protection. In a qualitative study conducted in the city of Biel/Bienne, most of the 40 interviewees talking about their lives in this bilingual city confirm this consensual view of linguistic cohabitation. However, the apparent balance between both communities is challenged on different levels, including the relationship between language communities according to their respective minority and majority status, the status and the visibility of both languages in the public sphere, the conflicting loyalties of bilingual citizens, the use or avoidance of a language in certain contexts or the choice of a common language in (potentially) bilingual interactions. The results of the analysis reveal divergent – and potentially conflicting – perceptions regarding urban bilingualism: although most of the interviewees appreciate the linguistic cohabitation in Biel/Bienne, many of them refer to various zones of language conflict which they suffer from or which they allot to the other speech community.

Brussels has a long history of language conflict. The traditional Dutch-French language disputes that characterized large parts of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century resulted in a specific pacification model based on the institutionalization of the language cleavage between the Flemish and the Francophones. However, due to processes of immigration and the current multilingual nature of the population this model is put under pressure. The traditional political discourse based on the identification of the population with one of the two traditional communities no longer corresponds to the reality of everyday life. Rather than being used as the prime concept of identification with one of the traditional language groups, languages are used in a much more instrumental way in today’s Brussels. This article discusses the effect of this evolution on the traditional Dutch-French language conflict associated with Belgium’s capital city.

As France’s second largest town and the European Capital of Culture in 2013, Marseille is well-known for what is considered the most famous accent in the country, the so-called “Marseille (working-class) accent”, prototype of the “Southern” or “Provençal” accent and often opposed to a more affected or stiff “Parisian” accent (Kuiper, 2005). But beyond the traditional centre-periphery rivalry, internal conflicts in Marseille are revealing of more complex sociolinguistic issues. Previous studies have outlined the existence of at least three “accents” associated with specific areas of the town (Binisti and Gasquet-Cyrus 2003) and with different symbolic values already in conflict (Gasquet-Cyrus 2009). But very recently, urban policies aiming at the regeneration of the inner-city have attracted new inhabitants, whose socio-cultural and socio-economic profiles unbalance the traditional sociolinguistic patterns. The emergence of a new category of city-dwellers, the “neo-Marseillais”, associated with a “new way” of speaking challenging local customs, has shed light on new processes of perception, linguistic change and urban conflict. Combining urban sociolinguistics (Calvet 1994; Gasquet-Cyrus 2004), critical sociolinguistics (Blommaert, 2005, 2010; Boutet and Heller, 2007) and ethnographic approaches these different urban language conflicts will be reviewed. Particular attention will be paid to the process of gentrification of space and its linguistic correlates, i.e. “gentrification of speech” (Trimaille and Gasquet-Cyrus 2013), and to the agonistic dimension of these contacts. Finally, the article will argue for a theoretical framework combining urban sociolinguistics and critical sociolinguistics in order to deal with issues of identity and power through the study of linguistic change and conflicts in urban setting.

This paper looks at language conflict through a multilingual and super-diverse lens. The objective is to re-think some of the theoretical assumptions of conflict research and to suggest new lines of thought. In a first step, conflict research is described against the background of some common assumptions. It is then argued that the common understanding behind the notion of language and community is being increasingly challenged. In doing so, the focus is on questioning the separatedness and boundedness of these notions.Furthermore, it is claimed that the concept of “hybridity” does not present a simple solution to the dilemma. The new lines of thought address issues of research as well as language policy and seek to combine postmodern notions such as translingual practice with conflict research.

This study investigates the patterns of self-assertiveness by using Arabic and other native languages among the ethnic groups characterised by ethnolinguistic vitality in Nyala, the capital of South Darfur State, and the satellite internally displaced persons’ camps. The study also looks into how these communities perceived the role their native languages could play in the construction of their ethnic identities. In addition, factors influencing the construction of ethnic identities were investigated. Data pertaining to language perceptions on identity, and the role of conflict in the process of identity construction were collected. To this end, four tools were employed to collect the data: a thirteen-item questionnaire administered to 711 respondents; 12 focus group discussions held with 112 participants; in-depth interviews with 20 persons; and participant observations. The study came to a number of conclusions, the most important of which were: (a) the communities investigated were found to have revitalised their native languages by taking pride in them in different domains; (b) there was a perceived aversion towards Arabic across the groups studied; (c) there was a conscious revitalisation of ethnolinguistic identities; and (d) the current conflict has played an important role in the emergence of revitalised ethnolinguistic identities.