Language policy in the long nineteenth century : Catalonia and Schleswig

The period between the French Revolution and World War One has been identified by many scholars (notably Hobsbawm, 1990) as a time of great importance in the development of Western European nationalism. Hobsbawm (1990: 104) further specifies that language and ethnicity are the “decisive or even only criteria of potential nationhood” within this period. This chapter examines the role played by de jure governmental language policies and related de facto language ideologies, and focuses on the Western European regions of Catalonia and Schleswig. These two regions are characterized by varying degrees of societal multilingualism, and a complex relationship with larger European nations (Spain for Catalonia, Germany and Denmark for Schleswig). This chapter compares these two case studies, in order to allow for a deeper understanding of the role of language policies in the creation of historical and present-day European nationalisms.

Language and nationalism are inextricably linked.Hobsbawm, arguably the leading theorist of the development of the concept of nationalism, highlights the importance of language as a defining criterion in the creation of a national identity.The sardonic tone of the above citation references certain hegemonic language ideologies popular in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Europe, wherein 'national languages' such as French, German and Spanish, were praised for their inherent beauty and superiority over lesser, foreign tongues.Fichte in his Thirteenth address to the German nation (1808) declared that "those who speak the same language are joined together by a multitude of indivisible bonds by nature herself", and in a report issued by the post-Revolutionary French Comité de salut public (1794), it was claimed that "there should be one language in a single, undivided Republic" (cf.Hawkey and Kasstan, 2015).The nineteenth century was central for the development of the construct of nationhood and nationalism and it is for this reason that this article will focus on this period, which, as the long century (Hobsbawm, 1990) ranges from the French Revolution (1789) to the beginning of the First World War (1914).As such, scholars have conceptualized a 'Great Divide' with the start of the long nineteenth century as a watershed between two periods.After 1789, we see what has been termed the 'normative isomorphism of language, nation and state' (Burke, 2013: 22) where, in an ideal scenario, the speech community and the polity perfectly correspond to one another.Prior to 1789, this level of national and linguistic cohesion was not necessarily attested, or even required or desired.Absolutist, ancien régime style governments had little interest in the linguistic practices of a populace who, at any rate, had no bearing on government.As such, Burke (2013: 22) argues that, at this point, there were two coexisting 'nations' of peasantry and nobility, each with very different linguistic traditions.Wright (2004: 20-22) points out that this was particularly strong in Medieval Europe, characterized by a sedentary, rural, monolingual peasantry who received laws from a typically multilingual ruling class.This situation started to change in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as the Divine Right of Kings was progressively questioned and thinkers such as Voltaire advanced the idea that the people should serve to curb the monarch's will (Wright, 2004: 31); and for this to be possible, more two-way discussion needed to take place.When this developed yet further into popular mobilization movements as in France, or drives towards the unification of many smaller existing polities as in Germany or Italy, language became of yet more importance.In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, German thinkers Herder and Fichte offer some of the first examples that language is the most important distinctive characteristic of a nation (Barbour, 2000: 166).According to Hobsbawm, the nature of nationalisms continued to develop throughout the nineteenth century, and the later period from 1880-1914 is characterized by a form of nationalism wherein language and ethnicity are seen as "the decisive or even the only criteria of potential nationhood" (Hobsbawm, 1990: 102).Language is thus of great importance in the development of nationalisms, and this chapter will focus specifically on language policies in the long nineteenth century in the historic Principality of Catalonia and Duchy of Schleswig (Figure 5).
The terms language policy and language planning have been used with subtly different meanings by many scholars.When discussing language policy in this chapter, we adopt a holistic approach influenced by Spolsky (2004: 5), which includes language ideologies as well as cases of intervention supported by official policies.This allows for a more complete discussion of the issues surrounding specific institutionally supported policies, particularly in light of the limited nature of governmental legislature supporting the language varieties used in 'peripheral' communities such as Catalonia and Schleswig during the long nineteenth century.Moreover, Spolsky's broader view of language policy is more in keeping with modern perspectives which hold that, mechanistically, there is not a great deal of difference between various decisions governing language practices, be these at the macro level (for example, a whole speech community) or the micro level (a family or similar community of practice).As such, the upcoming discussion of Catalonia and Schleswig will examine hegemonic language ideologies alongside specific instances of language status, corpus and acquisition planning.51Language policy has played a crucial role in the development of nations, although it is not frequently addressed in historical sociolinguistics.Wright (2004) provides 51 The terms corpus and status planning were coined by Kloss almost fifty years ago and are still widely used today.Corpus planning refers to instances of language planning which 'modify the nature of the language itself' (Kloss, 1969: 81), while cases of status planning are those which address '[a language's] standing alongside other languages or vis-à-vis national government' (Kloss 1969: 81).Twenty years later, the dimension of acquisition planning was introduced to refer to efforts 'directed toward increasing the number of [language] users' (Cooper, 1989: 33). a comprehensive overview of the importance of language policy to the burgeoning concept of nationalism in the long nineteenth century, and differentiates between state-nations which start with the polity borders and then try to mould the citizens into a homogeneous mass, and nation-states which start with the idea of a single sovereign people and use that as the basis of the nation (Wright, 2004: 19).Statenations can thus be conceptualized as 'country first', and nation-states as 'people first'.According to Wright, these two types of nation tended to follow certain patterns of language policy implementation as the sense of nationalism developed.In statenations, status planning was not necessarily overt, and the official language was imposed through a slow, lengthy political erosion of non-dominant groups, while in nation-states, status planning was more explicit (Wright, 2004: 44-45).Corpus planning was largely similar across state-nations and nation-states, and is seen as an important component in early phases of nationalism, given the highly ideological nature of language standardization (Wright, 2004: 48, 53).It is also maintained that corpus planning was at its most effective when in accordance with the hegemonic nationalist ideology (Wright, 2004: 48).Links between acquisition planning and the growth of nationalism are also evident: the long nineteenth century saw the emergence of national education programs which spread ideas of national unity (Wright, 2004: 61) and promoted linguistic assimilation through medium-of-instruction choice.Both state-nations and nation-states encouraged linguistic homogenization on a national level, since the focus of self-determination was then theoretically placed on a single, coherent group of people (Wright, 2004: 67).The role of language policy in the nation building process is thus complex and dependent on a number of factors, and a close examination of two non-dominant Western European regions during this period will offer valuable insight into the relationship between language policy and nationalism.
In this article we wish to compare two regions which saw substantial metalinguistic debate and language-political activity in the nineteenth century.There are a number of obvious similarities between Catalonia and Schleswig, e.g., the opposition of dominant allochthonous written or official language vs. non-dominant autochthonous spoken or home language.For both areas during the long nineteenth century we find a high degree of monolingualism in a non-dominant language variety (cf.Clyne, 1992), with competence in the dominant variety (that is to say, High German / Standard Danish or Castilian Spanish) not widespread and often restricted to a reading and very basic written competence.It is thus misleading to refer to Catalan in Catalonia (for example) as somehow peripheral, given the generally low level of Castilian among the population at this time, and equally it is safe to say that virtually all inhabitants of Schleswig were competent speakers of at least one the non-dominant languages Frisian, South Jutish or Low German.As regards the metalinguistic discourse, the promotion of Catalan was in many ways much more successful than the promotion of Schleswig's non-dominant languages by, largely, vicars and teachers.Indeed, as we discuss in Section 3, each of these languages underwent very different pathways in language policy and the promotion or suppression of their respective statuses.
The aim of this article is to offer a contrastive analysis of the metalinguistic history of two multilingual regions which feature prominently in language-policy debates today.We will demonstrate that as regards lines of the arguments to promote a particular regional language, there are noticeable similarities between Catalan and Low German but also that with regard to practical outcomes of such debates and with regard to other regional languages, there are significant differences in the historical sociolinguistics of Schleswig and Catalonia.

Catalonia
At the centre of all claims for Catalan nationhood is language.The Catalan language serves to distinguish Catalonia from all other would-be nations, including the Spanish one (McRoberts, 2001: 6).
In the early twenty-first century, the notions of language and nationalism in Catalonia are so inextricably bound that the above citation has become something of a truism.This does not, however, imply a linear progression of the concept of Catalan nationalism, perfectly synchronized with key moments in the development of the Catalan language.Nor is it the case that language decisions concerning communitywide Catalan language practices, be these on an underlying de facto level (linked to notions of language ideology) or an official de jure level (governmental language policy), have evolved in tandem with the many ways Catalan nationalism has been articulated over the last few centuries.Language policy and nation in the Catalan case have followed complex trajectories, and this section aims to clarify how these two notions have been connected throughout their development.

Precursors to the long nineteenth century
The period from the sixteenth to the early nineteenth century is termed la decadència (Decadence) in Catalan cultural and linguistic history, since the language was largely marginalized and unsupported between its medieval segle d'or (Golden Age) and midnineteenth century renaixença (Renaissance).This lack of support unsurprisingly translates to a relative scarcity of discourse in and about Catalan in the historical record; certainly in the period leading up to the long nineteenth century, little can be found in terms of official, governmental diktats concerning the use or form of the Catalan language.During the decadència, the majority of Catalan speakers were monolingual, and only those higher up the social scale had a command of Castilian (Amelang, 1986: 153-154).The area corresponding to the former Crown of Aragon (the present-day autonomous communities of Catalonia, Valencia, Aragon and the Balearic Islands) occupied a peripheral position in eighteenth-century Spain.
Throughout the seventeenth century, Catalonia (and other regions of Spain) had been governed in a largely autonomous fashion by their own parliamentary bodies (in Catalonia, the Generalitat), and protected by long-standing charters, known in Spanish as fueros (Catalan furs).However, during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), Catalonia openly declared in favor of Archduke Charles of Austria, who would ultimately lose to the Bourbon Philip V. Lack of Catalan support for the winning candidate resulted in the passing of the Decrets de Nova Planta in 1716, which would see all Catalan governmental institutions abolished, and bring Catalonia under the complete legal and administrative control of Castile.Catalan language and institutions thus had no official presence within their territory.The effect of this on contemporary practices and ideologies regarding the Catalan language should not, however, be overstated.Already in the seventeenth century, indications show a fairly advanced state of diglossia in favor of Castilian, despite the monolingual Catalan populace.Torrent (1989: 53) points out that Castilian made a great deal of progress in seventeenth-century Catalonia.The majority of political pamphlets around this time appeared in Castilian (except internal pro-Catalan communications).In 1669, the synod of the diocese of Barcelona made no mention of whether Catalan should be used in sermons, despite the fact that Castilianization had reached "very high levels" (Torrent, 1989: 51).Moreover, all of the sermons found from this period written in Castilian make no mention of why this language was deemed appropriate for use to a monolingual Catalan-speaking audience (Torrent, 1989: 55).The implication here is that Castilian holds a position as a language fit for public discourse to an audience who speak another (to a degree unintelligible) variety, and by extension, that the Catalan spoken by the people was seen as less suited to H functions such as public speaking.In addition to an incipient Catalan/Castilian diglossia, let us not forget that, around the time of the Decrets de Nova Planta, Spain was ruled by an ancien régime absolutist monarchy which, despite placing limits on individual freedoms, had no interest in people's private lives, since the non-ruling classes did not possess any power (Marfany, 2001: 467).There was thus arguably less need to overtly demean Catalan or discourage its usage, since Catalan speakers were not seen as a threat to systemic power, and thus their language was unimportant.As such, watershed moments like the oppressive Decrets de Nova Planta of the early eighteenth century are unlikely to have had much impact on decisions concerning community-wide Catalan language use at an ideological level.Indeed, at an official policy level, they were only of limited importance to Catalan speakers, since the monolingual populace did not have call to use the language of officialdom (i.e., Castilian).It is likely, therefore, that the diglossia we see in Catalonia throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries is internally-motivated, rather than resulting from any overtly oppressive measures coming from Castile.Marfany (2001: 466) supports this through a study of primary sources which reveals no differences in trends concerning the linguistic practices of the ruling classes in the twenty years before the implementation of the Decrets and the twenty years afterwards.Diglossic tendencies were thus, in his view and ours, well underway by 1716.
Given the increasing status of Castilian as H language in Catalonia in the period leading up to the long nineteenth century, the dominant language ideologies associated with Spanish are also relevant to the situation in Catalonia.The arrival of the Bourbon dynasty triggered the Spanish Enlightenment (ilustración) and this new modernizing approach went hand-in-hand with the first processes of language reform and standardization, with the establishment of the Real Academia Española (RAE) in 1713.Although the RAE was created against the highly complex political backdrop of the War of the Spanish Succession, and its members comprised a surprisingly inclusive mixture of old-guard supporters of the Inquisition and more modern thinkers, the new Spanish language academy stood very much as a symbol of the Enlightenment.The RAE was in keeping with new, modernizing political and social tendencies, largely due to ties with leading progressive political figures such as Melchor de Macanaz (Medina, 2013: 87-88), thus ensuring a link between the Castilian language and Enlightenment ideals.Castilian gained ground throughout this period and arguably became the primary language of identification for the whole Spanish state during the Napoleonic conflict of 1807-1814 (Marfany [2001: 467]).Moreover, at the end of the eighteenth century, Catalan philosopher Antoni de Capmany published several treatises extolling the virtues of Castilian (note, not of Catalan), setting it in direct opposition to French.At this point, in works such as Obras críticas sobre la excelencia de la lengua castellana (Critical works on the excellence of the Castilian language), Filosofía de la eloquencia (Philosophy of eloquence) and Centinela contra franceses (Sentinel against the French), Capmany commends the 'majesty' of Spanish and decries the 'grammatical slavery' masquerading as order and purity in the French language (cf.Kailuweit, 1995).Catalan, interestingly, was praised by Capmany (in Spanish) only for having maintained a long vernacular tradition (Kailuweit, 1995: 439).In light of such ideological developments throughout the eighteenth and into the early nineteenth centuries, the endogenous nature of Catalan/Castilian diglossia supported by Marfany (2001) is unsurprising.Through links with progressive Enlightenment ideas (evidenced by the creation of the RAE and the output of Capmany, inter alia) and sentiments of a triumphant Spain-wide nationalism (as seen at the time of the Napoleonic campaigns), the H status of Castilian in Catalonia need not have been imposed by harsh external forces, and could have feasibly arisen spontaneously among the bilingual Catalan ruling classes.
De jure language policies in Catalonia, be they corpus or status planning measures, are relatively scarce for this period, which is unsurprising given the aforementioned disinterest in the vernacular language on the part of ancien régime-style governments, even ones influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment.As regards instances of status planning, secret follow-up instructions to officers implementing the oftcited Decrets de Nova Planta of 1716 sought to 'take the greatest care in introducing Castilian [to the region]' (pondrá el mayor cuidado en introducir la lengua castellana).
In 1768, the Real Cédula de Aranjuez, signed by Charles III, decreed that Castilian should be the primary language of education in Catalonia, although the speed with which Catalan ceased to be used as the vehicular language of education is debatable, and indeed, studies examining the education system and literacy in this period, often do not even discuss the medium of instruction (cf. Burgos Rincón, 1994).Corpus planning measures are non-existent for Catalan, since the language remained unstandardized in this period, and literary output during the Catalan decadència was minimal, so there was very little in terms of literary norms to follow.This period however witnesses a raft of corpus planning initiatives for Castilian, with the creation of the RAE and the subsequent first appearances of the Diccionario de autoridades between 1726 and 1739, the Orthografía española in 1741 and the Gramática de la lengua castellana in 1771, among other standardizing works.Thus, at the start of the long nineteenth century, we see a situation of (arguably self-imposed) diglossia in Catalonia, with Catalan as the language of the largely monolingual populace and fulfilling L functions, and the highly-standardized Castilian Spanish as the H code.
Conflicting language ideologies concerning Catalan abounded in the early-and mid-nineteenth century, as Spanish centralism clashed with a new-found sense of Catalan linguistic nationalism.At this period, the use of the glottonym español (or Catalan espanyol) was consolidated, thus hinting at a wider geographical provenance and area of attachment than castellano (or Catalan castellà), with its implied limitations of Castile only (Ferrando Francés and Nicolás Amorós, 2011: 319).Ideologies advocating the hegemony of Spanish were also promulgated by members of the Catalan speech community, with Mallorcan lawyer Jaume Pujol stating in the newspaper La Palma in 1840 that "whatever tender affection we may feel for our provincial tongue (Catalan), we must renounce [Catalan], since this is what is demanded of us to establish the closest possible ties with [the rest of Spain]" (Ferrando Francés and Nicolás Amorós, 2011: 326, our translation).Such Spanish centralist ideologies can be seen as counterpoint to the linguistic Catalanism promoted in Aribau's Oda a la Pàtria, which accords the Catalan language a central place in a description of the Catalan 'fatherland'.Interestingly, Aribau refers to the language as llemosí (Limousin) as part of a dominant popular tradition underscoring the similarities between Catalan and Occitan varieties, thus lending Catalan further legitimacy through a claim to the illustrious history of the troubadours.The Catalan renaixença continued to promote Catalan as a language of sophistication throughout subsequent decades, with the revival of the medieval literary festival of the Jocs Florals ('Floral Games').Ideologically, the early nineteenth-century is thus a complex time for Catalan; continued promotion of Castilian maintains the previous state of diglossia, although Catalan is starting to gain access to H functions as an increasingly legitimate vehicle of cultural and literary expression.
Key governmental language policies of the period continue to reflect the hegemony of Spanish in Catalonia and throughout the Spanish state.Of central importance was the Ley Moyano of 1857 which not only established a system of free primary education throughout the country, but also guaranteed that the RAE grammars and orthographies were to be the only norms to follow (Villa, 2013: 100-101), and thus education was to be delivered through the medium of Castilian.The Ley Moyano thus functions as a critical piece of status planning in promoting Castilian in schools throughout the Spanish state, but also offers unprecedented support to specific instances of Spanish corpus planning undertaken by the RAE.Status planning measures promoting Catalan from this period are understandably very difficult to find, in light of centralizing governmental tendencies in favor of Spanish.Corpus planning of Catalan at this point was in its infancy, although an increasing number of dictionaries appeared throughout the course of the nineteenth century, starting with Labèrnia's Catalan-Spanish-Latin dictionary of 1839.The early-to midnineteenth century was therefore a period of continued diglossia, but linguistic and nationalistic reawakening for Catalonia.From this point onwards, language is seen as the central component of Catalan nationalism (Ferrando Francés and Nicolás Amorós, 2011: 319), as represented in Aribau's Oda a la Pàtria.However, specific language policies promoting Catalan were still not forthcoming, with the potential exception of a number of dictionaries and grammar books appearing throughout the century, although the absence of unified corpus planning measures for this period meant that each followed its own model for the written Catalan language.

Catalan language ideologies and the development of nationalism
Catalan nationalism became politicized in the final decades of the nineteenthcentury, just at the point at which Hobsbawm signals his transformation in the nature of nationalisms.In 1882, Valentí Almirall founded the first Catalanist political organization, the Centre Català, and four years later published the first explicitly nationalist manifesto Lo Catalanisme.This work foregrounded the importance of language as an important component of Catalan identity, and Almirall's belief in the centrality of the Catalan language to the Catalan Volksgeist is made clear through his sustained efforts to promote Catalan, such as through the founding of the first Catalan newspaper, the Diari Català in 1879.These latter decades of the nineteenth century witnessed the advent of modernisme, the cultural and artistic movement born out of the renaixença characterized by a break from introspection and tradition, its most famous proponent being the architect Antoni Gaudí.This period of Catalan cultural productivity was not particularly amenable to Catalanist political channeling, drawing its primary inspiration as it did from foreign sources.Nevertheless, Catalan political movements steadily gathered pace in the last decades of the nineteenth century, and the first draft of a project for Catalan autonomy, the Bases de Manresa, was presented in 1892.Arguably the event with the greatest ideological import of the era was the disaster of 1898, when Spain lost its final colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.The leading thinkers of this period, the Generation of 1898, sought to regenerate and rebuild Spain after the disaster, which was manifested as a centralizing, unitary mindset, where cultural output was to be solely in Castilian Spanish.In response not only to these centralizing tendencies, but also to the disaster itself, Catalanism became yet more tied up with notions of language (Ferrando Francés and Nicolás Amorós, 2011: 326-327).Joan Maragall's famous Oda a Espanya ('Ode to Spain'), echoing Aribau's earlier Oda a la Pàtria, directly denounces the decadent Spain that was imposing itself so vociferously on Catalonia, and uses the linguistic struggle as a synecdoche of the more general oppression felt by Catalonia at the time: "Hear, O Spain, the voice of a son / Who speaks in a tongue that is not of Castile; / I speak in the tongue a stark land / Has given me: / This tongue only a few have used to thee; / The other, too many" (Maragall, 1958(Maragall, /1898)).Out of modernisme and the disaster of 1898 came the more abstemious noucentisme movement, far more susceptible to Catalanist political channeling.The first few decades of the twentieth century were to play host to a series of Catalanist political developments, such as the first Catalanist coalition Solidaritat Catalana (1906)(1907)(1908)(1909) and the first organ of Catalan autonomous self-government since the Middle Ages, the Mancomunitat de Catalunya (1914Catalunya ( -1925)), all of which were to maintain the dominant belief system that Catalan language was the central component of Catalan national identity.As we shall see, these political developments went hand-in-hand with an extensive raft of language corpus planning activities and a more limited range of language status planning measures.

Catalan language status planning measures at the turn of the twentieth century
Given the still embryonic nature of Catalan nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century, instances of language status planning supporting Catalan are few and far between.During this period, nationalist activities focused on demanding increased official recognition of Catalan, though without the sufficient power to ensure that such measures were actually approved.In 1883, at the Second Catalanist Congress, a motion concerning the need for co-official status of Catalan in Catalonia was passed, while two years later, the Memorial de Greuges (Memorial of Grievances) was presented to Alfonso XII and decries the fact that Catalan cannot be used outside 'family conversations' in more formal situations (Camps i Arboix, 1968).This desire for co-officiality of Catalan was re-articulated in the 1888 letter from leading Catalans to the Queen Regent María Cristina, which specifically requested that education be delivered through the medium of Catalan (Missatje á S.M., 1990/1888: 127).Catalan intellectuals of the period also pleaded for institutional support for Catalan, as in Romaní y Puigdengolas' 1886 article in the newspaper La España Regional, which reminded of how mother tongue instruction (through Catalan) resulted in a higher level of literacy and fluency in both Catalan and Castilian.They considered it a Christian duty to allow the Catalans to be educated in their own language, so that it may continue to be a language of 'pious communication' as used by so many Catalan-speaking saints in previous centuries (Romaní y Puigdengolas, 1886: 116).Such requests were repeatedly denied by the Spanish government, and indeed were occasionally met with oppressive anti-Catalan status planning measures, such as the 1896 decree which prohibited the use of Catalan on the newly-invented telephone.Post-1898 centralist Spanish regenerationism did not prove much more favorable to the promotion of Catalan in official contexts.Indeed, during this period, the Ley Moyano of 1857 (under which education was to be delivered through the medium of Castilian) was still being vigorously enforced.This was demonstrated by the 1900 missive from the governor of the province of Lleida (in Western Catalonia) stating that instruction through Catalan was forbidden since "this is not only illegal, but also disadvantages our youth in ways that are difficult to remedy" (Yeste, 2015: 11, our translation).Even under the Mancomunitat de Catalunya, official usage was somewhat limited.In the education system, the Association for the Protection of Catalan Teaching was created and issued linguistic directives, although was severely constrained by the political framework of the time, and thus had more influence over private education.Nevertheless, this Association was responsible for the publication and diffusion of early Catalan language school textbooks.The issue of co-officiality was a central concern of the Mancomunitat, which was engaged in a war of words with the Real Academia Española.The RAE was pushing the Spanish state to ensure full compliance with the Ley Moyano, while the Mancomunitat demanded the freedom to use Catalan in its interior affairs.The Mancomunitat's proposition was unsurprisingly rejected by the Spanish state with 120 votes against, 13 in favor (Yeste, 2015: 23-30).52In addition, this was a time of increased Catalan press activity, with newspapers such as La Veu de Catalunya (The Voice of Catalonia) having a circulation of up to 25,000 copies, and satirical publications such as L'Esquella de la Torratxa (The Cowbell of the Turret) being of great popularity in the first decades of the twentieth century.It should be stated, however, that rather than constituting government-sanctioned official support for the Catalan language, such publications were often in direct conflict with Madrid.This was shown when, in 1905, Spanish military police razed the production offices of the Catalan satirical magazine ¡Cu-Cut! to the ground after the publication of a cartoon ridiculing the Spanish army.In short, in spite of the exponential growth and more coordinated political articulation of Catalan nationalism between the 1880s and the 1920s, very few language status planning measures favoring Catalan can be found dating from this time.Institutional support for Catalan was often requested, but demands repeatedly fell on deaf ears.

Catalan language corpus planning measures at the turn of the twentieth century
The late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries were a highly productive period in terms of Catalan language corpus planning measures.While standardization (and specifically codification) efforts had been undertaken for Spanish since the establishment of the RAE almost two centuries earlier, at the time of the development of Catalan nationalism in the 1880s, the Catalan language was yet to undergo comprehensive processes of standardization.In 1888, the short-lived Acadèmia de la Llengua Catalana was created, and in the early 1890s the leading Catalanist journal L'Avenç ('Progress') spearheaded a campaign in favor of a reform of the Catalan language.In 1907, the Institut d'Estudis Catalans (IEC) was established, and four years later, its Secció Filològica was founded, charged with the scientific study of the Catalan language.The Secció Filològica was to be ultimately responsible for the publication of most authoritative works of Catalan language normalization and standardization.
The vast majority of Catalan codification work was undertaken by one man: Pompeu Fabra i Poch .An engineer by training, Fabra was responsible for the creation and publication of the most widely used Catalan dictionaries and grammar books, and his norms are still followed today with remarkably few modifications.His first grammatical essay was published in 1891 (in Castilian), the Ensayo de gramática de catalán moderno, and he formed part of the committee of Catalan intellectuals who created the Normes ortogràfiques brought out by the IEC's Secció Filològica in 1913.Fabra's Diccionari ortogràfic appeared in 1917, and the IEC's Gramàtica catalana (written entirely by Fabra) followed the next year.In 1932, Fabra's Diccionari general de la llengua catalana was published by the IEC, and remained the central reference work for Catalan language norms until 1995, when the IEC released its Diccionari de la llengua catalana, which is largely based on Fabra's 1932 opus.In addition to his work with the IEC, Fabra wrote 915 short articles known as converses filològiques (philological conversations) which appeared in the Catalan press and addressed a number of issues surrounding the new linguistic norms.Fabra followed a number of principles for syntactic and lexical codification, one of the most important being that of diasystematicity, wherein as many diatopic variants are taken into account as are deemed useful (Costa Carreras, 2009: 44).An example of this can be seen in the choice of the rendering of unstressed front vowels, written variously as <a> or <e>, in accordance with how they are pronounced in the Western varieties of Catalan.Thus, the Fabrian (and present-day normative) orthography of les cases taronges ('the orange houses') is in keeping with a Western Catalan pronunciation of ['les 'kazes ta'rɔndʒes], as opposed to the Central Catalan pronunciation of ['ləs 'kazəs tə'rɔndʒəs].All unstressed vowels in this example are reduced to schwa in Central Catalan, but transliterating them all with the same letter (be that <a> or <e>) would lose the differences clearly apparent in the pronunciation of the vowels in Western Catalan.However, it should be made clear that Fabrian Catalan (and by extension the present-day standard) is based primarily on Central (often Barcelona) varieties, and Western varieties are often stigmatized as non-standard as a result.53As such, in the first decades of the twentieth century, as Catalan nationalism was rapidly gaining ground, so too were language standardization efforts, resulting in a fully codified and elaborated Catalan language to compete with Castilian Spanish, which had already benefited from normalization efforts for centuries.
In summary, the complex relationship between language and nationalism in Catalonia followed an interesting course of development before, during and after the long nineteenth century.During the Enlightenment of eighteenth-century Spain, leading up to the Age of Nationalism, the Catalan speech community was characterized by an already heavily-entrenched (and likely to a degree self-imposed 53 Diasystematicity is just one of the many rigorous criteria Fabra applied to the corpus planning of Catalan in this period, and a comprehensive list can be found in Costa Carreras (2009: 43-55).
rather than externally-enforced) state of diglossia, in which Castilian Spanish fulfilled the functions of H code, and Catalan those of L code.This societal linguistic situation persisted into the long nineteenth century.Catalan started to gain access to some H functions as the vehicle of literature and high culture (although even then only by virtue of its vernacular, i.e.L language, status) with the renaixença of the midnineteenth century.Catalan nationalism did not become politically articulated until the 1880s, at precisely the time for which Hobsbawm signals a major transformation in the nature of nationalism.At this point, Catalan arguably acquired more H functions as a language of nationalist expression.However, by the 1880s there were no widely recognized Catalan language corpus planning measures, and nothing at all approaching status planning.From the 1880s and into the early twentieth century, Catalan nationalism found its voice and the first instances of Catalan language status planning were witnessed under the Mancomunitat de Catalunya.At this same time, significant advances were made in terms of Catalan corpus planning, with the entire language being standardized and codified, resulting in a norm that is still followed in Catalonia today.This period of growth for Catalan nationalism and language was cut short by a series of political upheavals, starting with the seven-year centralist dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera (1923)(1924)(1925)(1926)(1927)(1928)(1929)(1930) which was greatly detrimental to the Catalan cause, both political and linguistic.This was followed by the tumultuous Second Spanish Republic (1931-1936), the Civil War (1936-1939) and ultimately the fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco (1939Franco ( -1975)).Thus, the period from the midnineteenth century to the early-twentieth century in Catalonia witnessed numerous important developments on political, ideological and linguistic levels.In the following section, we will explore the metalinguistic debates of a region of similar size and which, like Catalonia, was part of a larger state.In contrast to the bilingual Catalonia, the Duchy was an area of quintolingualism, with three autochthonous home languages and two allocthonous written languages, used in formal discourse and other H-domains.We will provide accounts for each of the home languages Frisian, Low German and South Jutish with the aim to provide an understanding of the different agents and lines of argumentation involved with their metalinguistic promotion and suppression in the nineteenth century.

Schleswig
"The Duchy of Schleswig, which since the Middle Ages had been a region of language contact, turned into a region of language conflict in the nineteenth century, where language was increasingly used as a tool for political strife" (Dyhr, 1998: 101, our translation) The Duchy of Schleswig ranged from about 100km north and south of the current German-Danish border and is traditionally seen as inextricably linked with the Duchy of Holstein.After the referendum of 1920, Schleswig was divided into a largely Danish-speaking northern part (in modern-day Denmark) and a High German, Low German and Frisian-speaking southern part (in modern-day Germany).The 1920 division created linguistic and cultural minorities, with some 10,000 Germans living in Nordschleswig and some 30,000 Danes in Sydslesvig.54Whereas many of the sociolinguistic complexities of Catalonia revolve around the diglossia between Catalan and Castilian, the sociolinguistic situation in Schleswig is characterized by the co-existence of five languages: three L-varieties (Low German, South Jutish, North Frisian) and two H-varieties (Standard Danish, Standard German).In light of our approach to language policy as the combination of de jure top-down measures and de facto ideologies, this section will focus on three of the most important metalinguistic issues of nineteenth-century Schleswig: the disappearance and renaissance of Low German, the Danish-German national conflict, and the promotion of Frisian as a distinct language.

Low German: The disappearance of a language and renaissance as a dialect
Until the middle of the sixteenth century, Low German was the undisputed spoken and written language in Northern Germany.Yet from the sixteenth century onwards, Low German ceased to be used in writing: this process took several centuries and differed both with regard to region and text producer.In the Duchy of Schleswig, the chancery of the City of Flensburg started to use High German in external correspondence from 1567 but in their internal correspondence only from the 1630s (Gabrielsson, 1983: 144).The language of schooling changed from Low German to High German in two stages: firstly the use of High German as a language of school administration and secondly as the medium of instruction.The first schools to shift to High German were Latin schools (Lateinschulen), followed by the intermediate level schools (Schreibund Rechenschulen), with the elementary schools last (Winkelschulen, Volksschulen) (Stellmacher, 2000: 76).There is little direct evidence for the reasons for this language shift: the use of High German appears to have had increasing prestige and was thus used instead of Low German, and by the late seventeenth century, Low German was restricted to oral use only.Despite its near-complete disappearance from writing, the language continued to be the native variety of most northern Germans.From the eighteenth century, the educated classes were also fluent or native in High German as the language of higher culture and education.In the nineteenth century Low German started to recede in urban areas, with a regionalized form of High German (Missingsch) becoming the native language of urban lower class populations (cf.Wilcken, 2015), this change occurring later in rural areas (starting around the 1930s).In the face of such a decline of Low German, marginal measures to promote the language can be found through history, as early as the sixteenth century (most notably Nathan Chrystraeus in the preface to his dictionary Nomenclator latinosaxonicus (1582); cf.Arendt, 2010: 47ff).It is important to note that the evidence we have for a metalinguistic consideration of Low German takes the form of rather isolated and occasional pamphlets, poems and academic books (including Bernhard Raupach's 1704 academic dissertation on the unjust contempt for Low German De linguae inferioris neglectu atque contemtu injusto; cf.Schuppenhauer, 1984).A principal complaint in these writings is that the Northerners themselves do not value their language highly enough and thus play a key part in the low status and ridicule of Low German (cf.Arendt, 2010: 66ff).In this context it is worth noting that there were no explicit, state-sponsored or top-down activities to stigmatize or disallow Low German in official discourse.Its invisibility in writing will have been by simple consent (amongst those engaged in writing), just as for most countries today there is no explicit rule to prevent people from using dialects or regional languages in administration or schooling.During the nineteenth century, a number of sociolinguistic changes affected by the introduction of general schooling, the expansion of print media, the emerging standardization of (High German) orthography and the rise of Nationalism all contributed to an expansion of metalinguistic discussion both in terms of the topics covered and, quantitatively, in terms of the number of texts (Arendt, 2010: 76).Viewing the German context through the lens of contemporary ideas on the importance of vernacular languages in national identity creation, dialects were both cherished as the origins and true personifications of a greater past.During the nineteenth century the collecting of dialect forms and their publication in regional dictionaries was intensified and can be found across virtually all the German-speaking areas.55However, the principal interest in dialects was of an antiquarian nature, as a preservation of a linguistic stage that had, by the nineteenth century, been overcome.Local vernaculars were considered a hindrance in establishing a united German nation -for which only High German was acceptable as a national language.Indeed, Gustav Flörke (1764-1835), professor at Rostock, argued that the use of Low German would restrict one's intellectual range of expressions since the language itself, as the language of peasants, was incapable of expressing complexities of higher intellectual rank (Flörke, 1825, quoted in Arendt, 2010: 82).This made it all the more important, he argued, that parents, especially parents of für die Wissenschaften bestimmten Knaben ("boys destined for the sciences / academic learning", Flörke, 1825: 147, quoted in Arendt, 2010: 84), should not use Low German with their children.In response, proponents of Low German argued that their language be recognized, be that through the use of the language in schools, or simply by the production and publication of Low German poetry or fiction.The appearance of Klaus Groth's (1819-1899) collection of poetry, Quickborn, in 1852 marked the starting point for the Neuverschriftung of Low German, i.e. the re-appearance of Low German in writing and print.There was also some significant metalinguistic debate on the issue as to whether Low German should be used in other domains (cf.Langer and Langhanke, 2013).In schooling, it was argued that an acknowledgement of Low German would help the learning process of the pupils for whom it was a native language (cf.Langer, 2011), while studying Low German cultural expression could encourage pride in the region.Here the paradoxical nature of the support for Low German becomes most prevalent: on the one hand it was acknowledged by all that the language formed an important and treasurable part of Northern identity, worthy of attention and support.On the other hand it was virtually unanimously agreed that only High German was appropriate as a language of education, more complex thinking and formal language use.The Neuverschriftung renaissance in the nineteenth century saw the foundation of learned societies devoted to the linguistics and literature of Low German.Yet any attempts to integrate Low German into schooling were met with fierce resistance.Low German thus never regained its sociolinguistic status as a 'proper' language even though it was acknowledged to be the heritage language of Northern Germany.

The Danish-German national conflict
In contrast to the example of Low German in the previous section, the politicization of the German-Danish opposition was highly active throughout the nineteenth century and formed the core of a national conflict.Until about the 1840s, nationality and language use were largely disconnected in Schleswig-Holstein and it was not unusual for German speakers to consider themselves Danish.Flensburg had always been a German-speaking city and yet remained very loyal to the Danish national cause for much of the century.The nationalization of languages was embedded in the context of nineteenth-century nationalism and was triggered by particular language decrees which aimed at changing the church and school language to match the language of the people.In 1840, the Danish king, Christian VIII (1840-1848), responded to demands from the recently formed Estate Assembly in Schleswig, a form of regional parliament, and decreed that where the everyday language of a village was Danish, the church and school language, too, should be Danish; in linguistically mixed areas, both languages, (Standard) Danish and (Standard) German would be used in legal and administrative documents.This decree was met with significant resistance from a number of pro-German minded individuals, who argued that (a) the use of High German had never been an actual hindrance to understanding, that (b) the use of Standard Danish would not actually help comprehension as the local Danish, South Jutish, was so far removed linguistically, that the two were not mutually comprehensible, and that (c) a knowledge of High German, as taught in schools, was an invaluable tool for trade and further learning (cf.Rohweder, 1976).Particularly interesting to us is the reduction of the sociolinguistic diversity of the region to a simple opposition of Danish vs. German, i.e. a clear alignment of the national opposition with linguistic opposition.By promoting the Danish language (i.e., standard Danish) in areas where Danish was spoken (i.e., South Jutish), the general Danishness of the area was to be strengthened.The tensions between German-minded and Danish-minded people in Schleswig-Holstein increased, fuelled by the general revolutionary atmosphere of the late 1840s and culminated in the First Schleswig war (1848-1850), a civil war within the Danish Empire which was fought along nationally-defined sides between the German-minded and the Danish-minded people over the constitutional status of Schleswig and Holstein in the Kingdom of Denmark.With the war won, the nationalist government in Copenhagen sought to confirm that the Duchy of Schleswig was culturally Danish and their ideological programme of Danmark til Ejderen ("Denmark as far south as the River Eider") included the removal of politically undesirable vicars, teachers, and civil servants and the prosecution of people for singing separatists songs or flying Schleswig-Holstein colours.In addition, the language decree of 1810/40 was implemented after the war in 1851, with the effect that the Duchy of Schleswig, entirely under Danish control, was divided into three parts: in the north, Danish was church and school language, in the south and in the Frisian-speaking areas, (High) German was church and school language, while in the central part, the language of church was alternating but the language of schooling became (standard) Danishwith up to four hours of teaching in German permitted.In response, petitions and letters complained that the introduction of Danish in schools was neither fair nor would it ease the educational progress of the children since the new standard Danish school language was foreign to both the (Low) German and the South Jutish speaking children.There is evidence (most notably from school inspection reports throughout the century) that teachers in German-, Danish-, and Frisian-speaking regions faced the problem that the children's native language was not the language of schooling (cf.Langer, 2011).The Danification of the German-speaking parts of Schleswig lasted for some fourteen years, until the Second Schleswig War (1864) between Denmark and the German Federation led by Austria and Prussia.After the defeat of Denmark, the language decrees were revoked and, slowly, after the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein as a Prussian province in 1867, a number of language policy measures were introduced to expand the use of (standard High) German as the language of administration, schooling and church service.In practice, the application of the regulations in Schleswig often permitted long transitional periods.For example, a notice from 1892 (some 25 years after the incorporation of Schleswig into Prussia) stated that in rural areas where civil servants didn't always speak German, they would be permitted to write their reports in Danish for another 4 years.
The Danish-German conflict in the Duchy of Schleswig shows how the use of a particular language became politicized to represent affiliation with a particular nation.Speaking German or Danish in the first part of the century said little about the nationality of the speaker.From the 1840s onwards, however, the desire to confirm the Danish roots and nature of the Duchy of Schleswig found its realization in a number of language policies.Because the sociolinguistic conditions of the area no longer matched the conditions as imagined or "remembered" in Copenhagen, these policies created conflict, not improvement of the disjunct between colloquial and official language.Later, under Prussian control, language policies issued from Berlin often showed little understanding of the sociolinguistic diversity of the region.Rather than being seen as an act of empowerment, by enabling the local population to participate in the affairs of the country at large, such policies were received more as an aggressive act to Germanize the Danish population.
The Danish-German linguistic conflict differs from the case of Low German (discussed in Section 3.1) in a number of ways.Both Danish and (High) German were (and are) recognized as national languages, their promotion was supported by government authorities, and they were never excluded from the written domain, even though the central issue in nineteenth-century Schleswig-Holstein was that of the suppression of the one language and the promotion of the other.However, as with Low German, the metalinguistic debates were clouded in romantic notions of the value of a language for the cultural value of a nation, and those actively engaged in debates were members of the educated classes.When others expressed concern (such as elementary school teachers regarding medium-of-instruction choice), their voices were largely ignored.

The promotion of Frisian as a distinct language
A West Germanic language (like Low German), North Frisian was spoken by some 30,000 people on the mainland and the islands of the North Sea coast of the Duchy of Schleswig (figures for 1855, cited in Steensen, 2009: 56).Today these regions are part of Germany and it is estimated that some 10,000 people still speak North Frisian.Its linguistic distinctiveness has meant that its status as a separate language was never substantively challenged in the nineteenth century, or indeed today.In the area where North Frisian was (and is) spoken, from at least the seventeenth-century onwards the language of trade and town life was Low German, and the language of education and writing was High German or standard Danish; North Frisian never really witnessed a period where it was used beyond the local or private domain, i.e. the family, village, or island.Unlike West and East Frisian, there are hardly any historical texts in North Frisian.Jap P. Hansen's (1767-1855)'s comedy Di Gidthals, of di Söl'ring Pid'ersdai ("The Scrooge, or St. Peter's Day on the Island of Sylt"), published in 1809 marked the first significant contribution to writing in North Frisian, but this did not encourage extensive further literary output in the language.In the spirit of nineteenth-century Romanticism and Nationalism, an interest in Frisian history, culture and language emerged in this period, with a number of activities, largely driven by the educated middle-classes such as teachers, pastors, and civil servants, promoting North Frisian distinctiveness.Such activities often took the form of the founding of societies or expressions of desire that societies ought to be founded.In 1818, the Frisian Historical Society was formed, with plans to publish a grammar and dictionary, but with little actual metalinguistic output.In 1825 the Danish linguist Rasmus Rask published his Frisisk Sproglaere ("Frisian Grammar" with a German translation in 1834), and there were other smaller efforts by lay people and academics to record the Frisian language (Steensen, 2009: 59), fighting the common perception of Frisian as a "a strange illformed plant which needs to be weeded out or extinguished" (Steensen, 2009: 59, our translation).In many ways, the two major components of the sociolinguistics of nineteenth-century North Frisian, i.e., the fading native-speaker base and the increasing metalinguistic concern about valorizing the language as a cultural treasure, resemble the situation for many other regional or minority languages.Similarly, the arguments presented, the concerns noted, and the type of people involved in the metalinguistic discussion of the time, can be found in the discussions for many other regional and minority languages since the nineteenth century.For the Duchy of Schleswig, as a part of the Danish Composite state until 1864 and a part of the Kingdom of Prussia from 1867, a key question for the Frisian population was their understanding of their national status.Christian Feddersen, a vicar on the mainland, presented his Fünf Worte an die Nordfriesen (Five words to the North Frisian) in 1842, in which he argued that Frisians were, indeed, a separate people but that their overarching fatherland was Denmark.He appealed to his readers that they should be speaking Frisian to each other, as the language was the common bond between them.But there was no suggestion of any political distinctiveness.Similarly, vicars and teachers such as Lorenz Friedrich Mechlenburg (1799-1875) and Christian P. Hansen (1803-1879) suggested collecting Frisian words, publishing a Frisian magazine and recording Frisian history and customs, with a particular emphasis of the ancient Frisian freedom/liberties.In emphasizing their linguistic and cultural uniqueness, some commentators, such as Knut Jungbohn Clement (1803-1873), went so far as to claim that, as an ancient people, the Frisians were the least polluted and most pure of the Germanic tribes and hence commanded a particularly proud position in cultural and linguistic history (Steensen, 2009: 62).Such romanticizing views of a glorious past of both the Frisian language and the Frisian people were expressed repeatedly throughout the century but failed to have significant impact on the dominant nationalist conflict of the time: the discussion as to whether the river Eider formed the southernmost border of Danish culture and state (which would thus envelop North Frisia) or whether Schleswig-Holstein was a single cultural, German-minded entity -in which case North Frisians would be German.In these discussions, any Frisian separatism (Partikularismus) was unwelcome and considered distracting -a view held by many Frisians themselves who, until 1945, were on the whole more inclined to form part of the German nation.In the second half of the nineteenth century, promotion of Frisian distinctiveness continued and was often initiated either by outsiders or by Frisians who had been away for a long period.Their efforts in supporting the Frisian language often lacked sufficient coordination to make an impact, were scholarly rather than applied in nature, and found no real backing from the authorities.Moritz Momme Nissen (1822-1902)'s "gesamtnordfriesisches Wörterbuch" ('dictionary for all North Frisian') (Steensen [1986: 54]) remained unpublished, and Bende Bendsen (1787-1875)'s grammar (Sprachlehre) of Moring, a mainland Frisian dialect, was only published decades after its completion, in 1860 and in the Netherlands (Steensen, 1986: 56ff).Wherever there were other private initiatives to provide Frisian materials for church, they usually faltered, which also meant that future generations of language promoters had no materials to use as a foundation.This lack of success was partly conditioned by the feeling that efforts needed to focus on Heimatliebe ('love of one's regional culture and home'), not the preservation of the language, as Frisian was already seen to be destined for extinction (Steensen, 1986: 64): its decline was lamentable but could not be halted.
As regards education, after the school reform of 1814, the vast majority of children were enabled and obliged to attend elementary school until the age of 14. Actual attendance varied significantly depending on family circumstances, with many children in rural areas prevented from going to school because they were needed on the farms (cf.Langer, 2011).The official school language in the Frisian-speaking areas had been exclusively High German since at least the eighteenth century but there is evidence that in actual lessons, Frisian was used.A report from 1764 to the central administration in Copenhagen complains that the general level of ignorance amongst people was much furthered by the use of Frisian in teaching, and in 1804, the teaching in Frisian was explicitly prohibited in the District of Tondern as the language of schooling was to coincide with the language of church services (which were held in High German).A large majority of school teachers saw Frisian as an obstacle to education (Steensen, 2009: 58) and consequently it was to be kept from the classroom.The political struggles of the nineteenth century between the Germanminded Schleswig-Holsteiners and the Danish nationalists showed little interest in promoting a distinct Frisian nationality or identity and consequently there were no discussions on how to protect or support their language.There appeared to have been little interest in pushing Frisian in schools or churches, even though -or perhaps because -the leading members of such societies were teachers and vicars (Steensen, 2002).The language was not even mentioned in the first draft of the constitution of the Nordfriesische Verein für Heimatkunde und Heimatliebe ('North Frisian Society Promoting the Knowledge and Love for Own's Region/Home'), founded in 1902 (Steensen, 1986: 59ff): the society was much more concerned with North Frisian history and cultural heritage.56The first real move to integrating Frisian into schools came in 1900, at the inaugural meeting of Foriining fuar Söl'ring Spraak en Wiis ('the Society for Sylt Language and Customs'), which included the demand that teachers teach Frisian history and cultural knowledge of the region (Heimatkunde), as well as reading and writing in Frisian for two hours per week after school (Steensen 2002: 80).This suggestion was implemented from 1909, when regular lessons in Frisian were taught on the island of Sylt, using Boy Peter Möller's Lesebuch (1909).However, this move immediately encountered an obstacle when the Prussian Secretary of Education, who had spent his summer vacation on the island, stopped the teaching of Frisian in the town of Westerland, since, he argued, the aim of the (nation) state had to be an Einheitssprache, a language of (national) unity (Steensen, 2002: 82).This intervention by the state in matters Frisian was unique up to this point.Whilst the German-Danish conflict saw significant and high-level discussion and action from the state authorities (of both the Danish and the German governments at national, regional and local levels), the issues of Frisian language and culture were largely ignored (Steensen, 1986: 57).

Discussion
This examination of historical language policy in Catalonia and Schleswig has revealed a number of intertwining strands, key to the understanding of the development of nationalisms in the nineteenth century.We will now discuss our case studies in light of Wright's (2004) observations about status, corpus and acquisition planning in state-nations and nation-states, in order to provide a more detailed insight into the many facets of language policy in the long nineteenth century.
It is questionable whether, as Wright would indicate, Spain (a state-nation) demonstrates a lesser degree of overtness regarding language within centrally issued status (and indeed acquisition) planning measures than nation-states like Germany.It is true that the 1857 Ley Moyano makes no overt reference to language usage, outside of its protection and promotion of the RAE and the obligatory inclusion of Castilian grammar classes.That is to say, no explicit mention of Castilian as a medium of instruction is made in the text itself.However, subsequent debates between Catalonia and the central Spanish state are very clear in their discussion of the roles of Catalan and Spanish as appropriate media of instruction.This can be seen most starkly in 56 Steensen (1986: 71) reports a telling anecdote from the annual conference in 1911.When the chair, Otto Bremer, gave a talk on Frisian language protection (Sprachpflege), he started to speak in Frisian but then shifted to Low German because not enough people in the audience understood Frisian.But he then had to shift again, this time to High German, as it was generally felt that for serious matters, only High German was appropriate.Unauthenticated Download Date | 6/28/19 2:44 AM the aforementioned dispute between the RAE and the Mancomunitat de Catalunya, in which the former claim that in Catalonia "in a great number of schools, the national language (i.e., Castilian) is banished, or taught as if it were a foreign language" (Yeste, 2015: 22, our translation).Moreover, in other instances of status planning, such as the Mancomunitat's pursuit of co-officiality of Catalan and Spanish in Catalonia, the appropriate domains for Catalan and Castilian language usage were explicitly discussed at national governmental level.An extensive debate was triggered in the Spanish Senate after legal documents came to light written in Catalan, leading to outrage on the part of certain Spanish senators at the official practices of the Catalan judiciary.Valladolid Senator Antonio Royo Villanova expressed his horror when he: […] attended sessions at the Barcelona diputación (provincial government) and heard members speaking in Catalan.I never thought this language would be used in formal circumstances.However, the facts have shown that this practice [of speaking Catalan] has reached an extraordinarily serious level […] The problem is not the case of what the language of Catalonia should be, but rather one of the spiritual unity of Spain […] We are not trying to prohibit Catalan, as people would have you believe […] However, you Catalanists hate Castilian Spanish, and you want to de-Hispanicize and de-Castilianize Catalonia (Senado, 1915, in Yeste, 2015: 20, our translation).
The detailed opinions on the part of certain Spanish political figures about appropriate domains of usage for Castilian and Catalan indicate a level of overtness as regards language within centrally motivated issues of status planning, which runs slightly contrary to Wright's classification of the features of state-nations like Spain.However, it should be said that the slow lengthy erosion of the non-dominant Catalans is consistent with Wright's description of nation-state language status measures.Turning to status planning in nation-states such as Germany, the language policies issued in the wake of the Prussian incorporation of Schleswig-Holstein in 1867 were very explicitly concerned with the domains that were to be occupied by Standard German, e.g. the Geschäftssprachengesetz ('law on business languages') of 1875 which "only" states that the only language to be used with the state authorities was (Standard) German.This degree of overtness is in keeping with Wright's summary of nation-state language status planning.
Wright views corpus planning as being of similar importance to both state-nations and nation-states, given the ideological significance of standardized languages, and claims it is most effective when falling in line with a hegemonic nationalist program.In response to the latter claim, degrees of success are arguably difficult to quantify.However, hindsight reveals the consequences of the policies under examination in this chapter, enabling us to draw sufficiently informed conclusions regarding the relative successes of the various corpus planning measures implemented in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.Corpus planning in support of Castilian on the one hand and Catalan on the other provides a good case for comparative analysis, since Castilian corpus planning is in accordance with the hegemonic nationalist ideal of the time in Spain, and Catalan corpus planning runs against it.The RAE, having been established in 1713, remained the chief standardizing body for Castilian, and its influence grew throughout the nineteenth century, thanks to support from key status planning measures (notably the Ley Moyano).The dominance of the RAE over the field of Castilian language standardization has continued unabated to the present day, thanks in part to continued governmental support through a number of political systems that have upheld (to a greater or lesser degree) the primacy of the unity of the Spanish state.The creation of a standardizing body for Catalan (the secció filològica of the IEC) occurred much later, in 1911; this was after other ultimately unsuccessful attempts at codification and standardization undertaken earlier in the Catalan nationalist program, such as Labèrnia's 1839 Catalan-Spanish-Latin dictionary and the short-lived Acadèmia de la Llengua Catalana of the 1880s.However, once Catalan nationalism was sufficiently developed (i.e. by the first decades of the twentieth century), standardizing projects were highly successful, with the work of the IEC and Pompeu Fabra widely accepted and adopted up to the present day.It is clear that a link with the hegemonic nationalist ideal is highly beneficial for instances of corpus planning, since such a link implies institutional support.Indeed, Catalan language standardization stalls during the subsequent Francoist regime wherein centralist Spanish values ran contrary to any protection of the form of functions of Catalan.However, conformity with the hegemonic nationalist program is not a prerequisite for the success of a given corpus planning measure.In the first decades of the twentieth centuries, when Catalan language standardization arguably reached its apogee, there was little to no support from the centralist Spanish government.As we have seen, even when the Mancomunitat of 1914-1925 (the Catalan governmental institution with the greatest degree of power to date) sought any degree of institutional support for Catalan, it encountered a great deal of resistance from the Spanish state.In light of the success of both the RAE and IEC, it is inaccurate to claim that the RAE was more successful than the IEC, simply because it was more in keeping with the hegemonic nationalist ideals of nineteenth-and twentieth-century Spain.Wright's argument concerning the relative degrees of success of corpus planning measures implemented under different political conditions is thus slightly problematized by the Catalan and Castilian case.
As predicted by Wright, in both cases (Catalonia and Schleswig) the nationalist agenda was served by acquisition programs that sought to homogenize the populace through medium-of-instruction choice.In Catalonia, we have seen some of the fierce debate triggered by non-adherence to the Ley Moyano through use of Catalan in the classroom.Not choosing Spanish as medium-of-instruction was seen as obstinate, detrimental to the development of the children in question, and a threat to national unity on the part of Catalans who 'hated Spain' (Yeste, 2015: 20).Similarly, in Schleswig, each subsequent government prioritized the role of the national language in education, be that Standard Danish or High German.National governments and regional parliaments both received reports about the poor educational attainment of pupils who were hindered by the fact that their home language was different from the language of instruction at school -and yet at no stage did the Danish or German authorities consider allowing the use of the children's native language to be recognized or included in schools.It is interesting that teachers in Frisian-speaking areas shared the same homogenizing 'one nation, one language' tendencies as the respective national governments, and felt no desire to argue for the inclusion of Frisian in school lessons throughout the nineteenth century.We can therefore speculate as to a potential link between the relatively underdeveloped nature of Frisian nationalism (i.e.there was little desire for a separate Frisian identity during the power struggles of the nineteenth century) and the relative compliance of the Frisians (at least on a linguistic level) to hegemonic nationalist ideologies.From early on, the Frisians saw their language as an obstacle to social advancement, since it was not the prescribed national standard, and thus chose to eliminate it from the classroom.This in turn may have led to a weaker sense of identity among the Frisians than among other linguistic communities in Schleswig.
In summary, language policy in nineteenth-and early twentieth-century Catalonia and Schleswig provides an interesting insight into the formation of Western European nationalisms.In many ways, they follow the established patterns of what one can expect from historical language planning of the period: such as an emphasis on homogenizing medium-of-instruction policies, the establishment of successful language standardization bodies, and a high degree of domain specification for national and non-national languages in burgeoning nation-states where linguistic and cultural unity was paramount.However, some of our observations provide interesting counterexamples to the thorough classificatory findings already undertaken in the field of historical language policy: such as the success of standardization programs that do not conform to hegemonic nationalist ideologies and the required degree of explicit reference to domain specification for languages in established 'state-nation' scenarios.The existing framework of policy in nineteenth-century state-nations and nation-states (Wright 2004) is extremely helpful and rigorous in providing a schema with which to conduct detailed analyses of early language policy and planning scenarios.We believe that our findings consolidate extant work and allow for further development in the theory of such an under-examined area as historical language policy.Moreover, this chapter has also offered a thorough account of an often-ignored aspect of a highly formative period in the history of two fascinating parts of Western Europe.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Map of Catalonia and Schleswig (late nineteenth century)