European Chair

The world’s languages—numbering some six thousand—collectively constitute a fourth global system that derives its coherence from multilingual individuals, who connect the groups that speak those languages. This system has a very simple yet robust structure: a strictly hierarchical framework in which, at any given level, certain peripheral languages are linked to a central language, which is spoken by all their multilingual speakers. At the next level, several central languages are in turn connected to a “supercentral” language. Finally, these “world languages” are linked to a “hypercentral” language, the linchpin of the entire system on a global scale.

The “communication potential” of a given language within this system can be assessed using a global metric: the proportion of speakers who speak the language, multiplied by the proportion of multilingual speakers who speak it. This value serves as an indicator of the likelihood that others will acquire it as their language of connection. Furthermore, people’s choices are determined in part by their expectations of others’ choices. This interaction of expectations can lead to a rush toward one language or the cumulative abandonment of another.

From the perspective of a political economy of languages—which remains to be developed—languages can be characterized as “hyper-collective” goods, characterized both by “network effects” and by the properties of collective goods, such as non-excludability.

From this perspective, the preservation and defense of a language thus present themselves as a problem of collective action, constantly threatened by the temptation of individual defection toward a language with greater potential. Following the same line of thought, the totality of texts in a given language—whether memorized or written—represents the collective cultural capital accumulated in that language and accessible only through it; this capital is also hypercollective and gives rise to the same phenomena.

When people in the West say “language,” they are already thinking of “state”: in the process of state formation, nation-building, and the unification of “national” languages, each language acquires the same appearance of permanence, internal coherence, and clear distinction from its neighbors, as if it were bound to its guardian par excellence—the state—which, for its part, has been entrusted with collective tasks such as the preservation and protection of the language. As a result of this link to the state—and in contrast to the “fluid” nature of most non-Western languages—European languages tend to be rather “robust.” In the context of a Europe undergoing integration, international communication—which is intensifying every day—will therefore not give rise to mixed or creole languages, nor to a transnational language that will supplant national languages, just as the latter, not long ago, supplant regional dialects. On the other hand, each national society will increasingly experience a situation of “diglossia,” with the indigenous language continuing to fulfill its functions of internal communication—both official and informal—while the domains of transnational communication will gradually shift to a super-central lingua franca. This coexistence of two languages will unfold within a dynamic and precarious balance between, on the one hand, the erosion of the indigenous language by the exogenous language, and, on the other, the defense of the indigenous language by a guardian state and a more or less vigilant public.

Many non-Western societies, on the other hand—heirs to a language of connection of colonial origin and divided by various indigenous languages—face a double dilemma: should they choose the former colonial language or rather an indigenous language as their national language? And if an indigenous language is preferred, which one should they choose among several whose speakers are vying for selection?

In any specific situation, the often-arduous alternation between the local language and the cosmopolitan language signifies a transition from one mental orientation to another, from one form of social belonging to another. On a microcosmic scale, it is this alternation itself that helps shape transnational society and is, in turn, shaped by it: language use already reflects transcultural competence and a transnational habitus. It is precisely this fine line that this course explores.