Linguistic purism

Linguistic purism or linguistic protectionism is the prescriptive[1] practice of defining or recognizing one variety of a language as being purer or of intrinsically higher quality than other varieties. Linguistic purism was institutionalized through language academies (of which the 1572 Accademia della Crusca set a model example in Europe), and their decisions often have the force of law.[2]

For English linguistic purism, see Linguistic purism in English.
The Académie Française in France is charged with maintaining the linguistic purism of the French language. This is the first page of the 6th edition of their dictionary (1835)

The perceived or actual decline identified by the purists may take the form of change of vocabulary, syncretism of grammatical elements, or loanwords. The unwanted similarity is often with a neighboring language whose speakers are culturally or politically dominant. The ideal may invoke logic, clarity, or the grammar of classic languages. It is often presented as conservative measure, as a protection of a language from the encroachment of other languages or of conservation of the national Volksgeist, but is often innovative in defining a new standard. It is sometimes part of governmental language policy which is enforced in various ways.

The practice opposite of purism, when borrowed words displace native ones, also exist. For example, in English the native word 'bookstaff' was replaced by borrowed word 'letter'.

Cognate languages
Main article: Abstand and ausbau languages

In one common case, two closely related languages or language varieties are in direct competition, one weaker, the other stronger. Speakers of the stronger language may characterize the weaker language as a "dialect" of the strong language, with the implication that it has no independent existence. In response, defenders of the other language will go to great lengths to prove that their language is equally autonomous.

In this context, Yiddish and Dutch have in the past sometimes been considered dialects of German. In the case of Low German, spoken in eastern Netherlands and northern Germany, the debate is still current, as it could be considered a dialect of Dutch or German or a language of its own. An example of a related language that has only recently attained the status of an official national language is Luxembourgish. Since linguistic science offers no scholarly definition of a dialect, and linguists regard the distinction with scepticism – see A language is a dialect with an army and navy – the argument is really about subjective questions of identity politics, and at times it can invoke extreme emotions from the participants.

Writing systems

Closely related languages often tend to mix. One way of preventing this is to use different writing systems or different spelling systems.

Examples of this include:

  • Moldovan and Romanian are virtually identical in all respects except that Moldovan used the Cyrillic script – which is still in use in Transnistria – and Romanian uses the Latin script.
  • Hindi and Urdu, traditionally kept separated by using the Devanagari and Arabic script, respectively. This is a well-known example often cited in linguistic texts; however, in recent decades, it has been observed that the languages are tending to drift much further apart, due to the Sanskritization of Hindi and the Arabization and Persianization of Urdu.
  • The Serbian and Croatian literary standards differ mainly in using the Cyrillic and Latin scripts, respectively. Both of them exhibit a high degree of mutual intelligibility by dint of being based on essentially the same dialect (a stylized form of Neoštokavian).

Forms

Various scholars have devised classifications of purism. These classifications take different criteria as their starting point and are therefore partly independent of each other.

Based on the approach
  • Archaizing purism: This happens when a speech-community tries to revive the language of a perceived or actual golden age of literature. Examples: Arabic, Tanittamil Iyakkam in Tamil, Icelandic (see also: Linguistic purism in Icelandic), Ancient Greek (Atticism), Katharevousa in Modern Greek, Sanskrit, Latin (puristic obsession with classical forms among speakers of Romance languages and those influenced by them during the Renaissance). See also Language revival.
  • Ethnographic purism: This form is based on an idealization of the countryside, folk stories and dialects. Examples: Nynorsk (New Norwegian), some versions of Demotic Greek.
  • Elitist purism: Associated with a highly formal variety linked to an elite, for example the language spoken at the court.
  • Reformist purism: The main feature here is to break the bonds with the past. An example of this is the removal of Persian and Arabic words during Turkish language reform under Atatürk in order to break with the Ottoman Turkish language influenced by Arabic and Persian. Other examples are the purist efforts in languages like Hausa, Swahili and Hindi to break with the colonial past. In addition, language policies may seek to decrease similarities between mutually intelligible languages for ethno-political reasons, as has been the case with Dano-Norwegian, Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu) and Malaysian/Indonesian.
  • Patriotic purism: involves the elimination or exclusion of foreign elements. Examples include High Norwegian, Korean and Anglish. Many English writers of the 19th and 20th centuries extolled the virtues of "strong" Anglo-Saxon words such as foreword, which was coined to replace the "weak" Romance word preface. French, Germans, Greeks and Latvians are known for their preference for coining words over borrowing foreign words (but this does not always work well, since many French words or expressions coined to avoid the use of a loanword (especially an English one) have not been adopted in common language, or are used only marginally).

This classification of puristic orientations made by George Thomas represents ideal forms. In practice, though, these orientations are often combined.

Based on the goals
  • Democratic purism: Aims at safeguarding the intelligibility of (modern) concepts for a larger group of language users through enforcing their expression by the means of common, every-day words or expressions (for example, "back[ing] up" instead of "sustain[ment]")
  • Unificatory purism: Aims at better uniting the overall user group of a language by reducing certain regional or professional linguistic peculiarities which could separate varying aspects of life, or even obstruct interconnectivity, between individuals or sub-groups of different regional provenience or professional background.
  • Defensive purism: Aims at defending a language from external threats. Mostly, these are to be understood as influx of foreign ideas which a given language group (or its political system) disdains or has overthrown, or influx of foreign words or expressions which tend to substitute innate vocabulary, thus diminishing and/or endangering supra-regional or inter-generational intelligibility within a language area or between its present speakers and the literary remnants of their venerated ancestors, i. e., some kind of "classical" heritage (as e. g. Shakespeare's usage is already no more widely understood amongst many of today's English speakers ).
  • Prestige purism: Aims at varying prestige functions.
  • Delimiting purism: Aims at establishing some kind of separating functions.

Based on the intensity
  • Marginal purism: Purism never becomes at any stage a value-feature of the speech community. On the contrary, there is a certain openness to all sources of enrichment, at the same time characterized by a lack among the language elite of intellectual digestion of foreign influxes, or by a lack of such an elite as a whole. Examples: English, Russian, Polish, Japanese, Ancient Greek.
  • Moderate, discontinuous purism: A moderate attitude is discernible over a long period of time. Examples: Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian.
  • Trimming purism: A reactive correction to a potentially dangerous trend in the development of a standard language. Examples: Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Slovak.
  • Evolutionary purism: Purism is seen early in the development of a written language. There are no radical changes or orientation. During the standardising process, purism gains momentum after which it slows down. Examples: Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Hebrew, Latvian, Croatian and Slovene.
  • Oscillatory purism: Involves repeated swings between intense purism and a more inclusive attitude. Examples: German, Czech and Yiddish.
  • Stable, consistent purism: No interruption or fluctuation in intensity is seen. Purism is a constant value-feature of the speech community. Examples: Arabic, Tamil and Icelandic.
  • Revolutionary purism: An abrupt change from the previously mentioned patterns to another. Examples: Turkish.

Based on linguistic level
  • Lexical purism: directed at the lexicon, first of all against direct lexical loans, often combined with the development of loan translations (such as in Norwegian: hand out > støtteark and snowboard > snøbrett or Arabic tilifūn > hātif and kumbyūtir > ḥāsūb.
  • Orthographic purism: directed against foreign orthographic elements (such as in Norwegian: genre > sjanger, in Spanish: football > fútbol). Note that there is also reverse orthographic purism. Some Spanish speakers prefer the English spelling "blue jean"[3] and object to the spelling bluyín.[4]
  • Morphological purism: directed against foreign inflection and declension (such as the resistance to plural -s in noun endings in Scandinavian languages).
  • Syntactic purism: directed at syntactic features from other languages (such as the stylistic resistance in Nynorsk against some passive constructions and some constructions with the genitive).
  • Phonetic purism: directed at foreign phonemes and phonematical combinations (such as gánster[5] or champú[6] in Spanish). There is a reverse phonetic purism, which insists in the original pronunciation, such as pronouncing gángster and shampú in Spanish.

Other forms
  • Regressive purism: The eradication of very old loan-words. It is one of the main features of ultrapurism.
  • Ultrapurism: The extreme upper limit of purism. In this pattern, everything expressed by human speech can become a target for puristic intervention, even geographical names, proper names, etc. (The attitude – in itself "puristic" and associated with increased education and foreign language competency – opposed to the translation or adaptation of toponyms, or even personal names, is historically quite recent, as names are not considered fixed or unchanging in most cultures; and there are many exceptions even in English, especially the names of historical personages, Native Americans, and even contemporary royalty. Historically, names were part of the lexicon of a language just as every other word, and it was common to have different names associated with different language communities. See exonym and endonym. The longer established the tradition of a name or term, the more likely are strong differences.) The only two recorded examples of this are High Icelandic (Háfrónska), and the usage of the German renaissance humanist Johann Georg Turmair who even translated the name of the ancient Roman general Fabius Cunctator into Zauderer Bohnenmaier (i. e. literally "Laggard Bean-Mayor"). While not ultra-purism per se, phono-semantic matching is commonly used in a number of languages, notably for translating proper names into Chinese.

By language
gollark: No, the items are converted into entries which store that data.
gollark: So really you just need to `flat_map` over it a bit.
gollark: After each feed is iterated over to get a list of items, that is.
gollark: Er, it's used in templating.
gollark: It doesn't make it clearer because you (can) miss the important special bits and might just skim over errors in essentially-copy-pasted error handling/synchronization/etc.

See also

References
Notes
  1. Veisbergs, Andrejs (2010). "Development of the Latvian Language, Purism and Prescriptivism". Linguistic Studies in Latvia (PDF). 18. University of Latvia. p. 15.
  2. Thomas (1991), p. 108
  3. "CĂ"MO CREE QUE SE ESCRIBE: BLUE JEAN O BLUYĂ?N – Archivo Digital de Noticias de Colombia y el Mundo desde 1.990". eltiempo.com. Retrieved 2015-08-11.
  4. "bluyín". Archived from the original on November 29, 2009. Retrieved April 29, 2010.
  6. "champú". Archived from the original on 22 May 2010. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
  7. Beka Melayu Lumpuk Ujar Dalam Pemerintahan, The Patriots
Bibliography
  • Brunstad, Endre. "Standard language and linguistic purism". Sociolinguistica (17/2003): 52–70.
  • Dorian, Nancy. "Purism vs. Compromise in Language Revitalization and Language Revival". Language in Society (23): 479-494.
  • Thomas, George (1991). Linguistic Purism. Studies in Language and Linguistics. Longman. ISBN 9780582037427.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.