The Language Divide

‘“No language, no nation,”’ says the Dutch proverb. “The care of the national language is a sacred trust,” says Schlegel. ¹ “A people without a language of its own,” says Davis, ² “is only half a nation”’ (O’Hickey; 1918: 8) The linguist Reverend O’Hickey explores the relationship between language and geographical space in the imagining of the nation state in his book Language and Nationality (1918). His thesis affirms the romantic ideal that language is a characteristic element of nationalist rhetoric, which provides grounds for the setting up of independent states. The linguist O’Reilly (2001: 8) recognizes this general trend, stating that ‘language came to be seen as a significant marker of the boundaries between societies and between states, which, according to the emerging nationalist ideal, should be co-terminus’. By equating language and geographical divisions, language became a means of claiming political independence. The practical application of this ideal has proven more difficult as it depends on the existence of easily identifiable areas of common language use. It does not facilitate complex modern societies, such as states that share a language with other states but define themselves as being ethnically different, or, multicultural communities within nation states that have formed their own unique hybrid languages.