Hartmut Haberland

Domains and domain loss

Introduction

Domains and domain loss. Explores the domain concept for language choice in multilingual societies, its origins, and the "domain loss" debate. Critiques its applicability to modern sociolinguistic situations.

Abstract

The domain concept, originally suggested by Schmidt-Rohr in the 1930s (as credited in Fishman?s writings in the 1970s), was an attempt to sort out different areas of language use in multilingual societies, which are relevant for language choice. In Fishman?s version, domains were considered as theoretical constructs that can explain language choice which were supposed to be a more powerful explanatory tool than more obvious (and observable) parameters like topic, place (setting) and interlocutor. In the meantime, at least in Scandinavia, the term ?domain? has been taken up in the debate among politicians and in the media, especially in the discussion whether some languages undergo ?domain loss? vis-?-vis powerful international languages like English. A first objection that has been raised is that domains, as originally conceived, are parameters of language choice and not properties of languages, hence languages do not ?have? domains, and therefore cannot lose them. A second objection is that the classical domain concept is not necessarily applicable to the present Danish sociolinguistic situation, since stable multilingualism for in-group communication is absent at least for the dominant group of Danish speakers. A further objection is concerned with the applicability of the domain concept to actual patterns of language choice in multilingual settings. Especially P?draig ? Riag?in has claimed that at least some multilingual situations are best not described in terms of domains, and recent research e.g. about the multilingual communities in the Danish-German border area seems to confirm this.

Review

This paper offers a timely and critical re-examination of the "domain" concept, a foundational construct in sociolinguistics, particularly as it relates to language choice in multilingual societies. Tracing its origins from Schmidt-Rohr to Fishman, the abstract establishes domains as theoretical tools designed to explain patterns of language use, offering a more robust explanatory power than simpler observable parameters. The core impetus for this critique stems from the recent popularization and, arguably, misapplication of the term in public discourse, especially in Scandinavia, where "domain loss" is discussed in relation to languages facing pressure from international counterparts like English. The paper thus positions itself as an important intervention to clarify conceptual ambiguities and address potential misinterpretations. The abstract outlines three primary objections to the contemporary usage of "domain" and "domain loss." Firstly, it robustly asserts that domains are *parameters of language choice*, not intrinsic properties of languages themselves. This fundamental distinction challenges the notion that languages can "possess" or "lose" domains, thereby deconstructing the very premise of "domain loss" as popularly understood. Secondly, the paper questions the applicability of the classical domain concept to specific modern sociolinguistic realities, citing the Danish context where stable in-group multilingualism, a key assumption for the classical framework, is largely absent among the dominant language group. Finally, the abstract refers to scholarship, notably Pádraig Ó Riagáin and recent research from the Danish-German border area, which suggests that the domain concept may not accurately capture or adequately describe actual language choice patterns in all multilingual settings, pointing to a need for more nuanced or alternative descriptive frameworks. These critiques collectively offer a strong theoretical challenge to prevailing public discourse. This paper promises a significant contribution to both theoretical sociolinguistics and the public understanding of language dynamics. By meticulously deconstructing the "domain" concept and its recent reappropriation, it provides crucial clarity for academics and policymakers alike. The arguments presented not only highlight a critical misapplication of sociolinguistic terminology but also underscore the necessity for precise conceptualization when discussing complex issues like language maintenance and shift. This work is valuable for guiding more accurate public and political debates on language policy, suggesting that discussions around language vitality might benefit from frameworks that move beyond a potentially misleading interpretation of "domain loss" towards a deeper understanding of the actual mechanisms driving language choice and change. It sets the stage for a more informed and empirically grounded approach to language ecology.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.