The debate on language policy has once again been launched with a certain intensity. As a participant in the Basque Language Advisory Board, I wanted to highlight in this LARRUN the most interesting topics of discussion in the reports and contributions that have been published there. I will therefore refer to those questions which I consider essential for reflection. And if anyone is interested in my humble opinions, you can read them in the report on the site “Euskara 21”.

First of all, it should be noted that the very launching of the debate has given rise to divergent views. Some of us have considered it appropriate to socialise the debate; to give a new impetus to the process of linguistic standardisation and to the whole linguistic policy, and to consolidate social adherence and participation. But there are those who believe that the debate will only harm this process, because the media-political forces against the Basque language usually take advantage of these opportunities, acting as loudspeakers of opposing positions and favoring opposing dynamics. Because it is true that, given the current co-relations of forces, the debate can also lead to negative consequences.

We should therefore reflect in depth on the appropriateness of our arguments and on our potential to socialise them.

Our “confusion” and lack of clarity about basic sociolinguistic concepts have also been highlighted in the debate.
Due to globalisation and the spread of new technologies, the sociolinguistic situations in the world and in the Basque Country have changed, with concepts such as “monolingualism” and “bilingualism” falling short of describing the objectives of reality or towards the end of the century: multilingualism, citizens’ linguistic rights, linguistic standardisation, asymmetric bilingualism or diglossia have often been explained in the debate as complementary. But are they really? With the almost unanimous recognition that “balanced bilingualism” is socially irrevocable, what are the concepts that are so complex that they are useful to describe our reality and the process of normalization? What are the goals that, in this complex and changing reality, we can mark on the horizon of a generation, outside of dreams and abandonments?

The debate that Mikel Zalbide has opened about diglossia should have profound effects on those of us who are moving and reflecting in the field of sociolinguistics. It seems to me that after reading this article, we will not be able to talk about diglossia as we have done so far. And what are they and how can Basque recover the areas of use that are considered essential in this contribution?

Whether or not language policy should focus on language rights is a deep water debate. Could the Basque Country be multilingual but socially as Basque as possible, focusing this policy on language rights? Should policies aimed at guaranteeing rights or promoting practical uses be prioritized? Just to name the

extremes. The intention is to broaden or strengthen consensus and consensus. We all say “Basque is for everyone”, but is it possible to reach a consensus on language policy without a broader political consensus? Without consensus on goals and means? Between whom and whom should this consensus be articulated? Where should the 1982 law be extended? Very different views have been expressed about this. And in the middle of the debate the relations between the administration and the organized dialect. On several occasions, we have claimed that this collaboration is essential to speed up the standardisation process. But how to reconcile the leadership of the administration with the autonomy of the dialect?

The debate about the rhythms used and the marked (or unmarked) deadlines is also substantial. I would also have called for the report to be more critical of what has been done so far: “A lot has been done. More could have been done.” And in relation to this, we should refer to different or contradictory readings about the diagnosis of the situation.

If we were able to reflect, discuss and agree on all these and other aspects with sincerity and depth, where possible, another rooster would curl us up in the chicken house of the dialect.


* Sociolinguist and humorist