This contribution is the result of reflections on the theoretical and practical implications of language policies and practices developed during conversations held over the years between the two authors. In language planning there is, inevitably, reference to specific concepts that are applicable to most contexts worldwide. For example, ‘standard’ language forms are generally equated with written varieties, which have developed a degree of stability and which are used as paragons for correctness and formality, among other things. Reference is also made to the L1, or mother tongue, its history and the cultural heritage that results from being a native speaker of this language. The same can be said of concepts such as ‘minority’ or ‘majority’ languages, which are defined not only in terms of the number of people who speak them, but are also ‘loaded’ in terms of the relative prestige of the languages in question and how widely spoken they are. we argue that although we are aware that Europe is still far from perfect in terms of the protection and promotion of minority and less widely-spoken languages throughout the continent, much progress has been made since the nineteenth century, when the systematic and often brutal processes of consolidation of national and cultural elites and the imposition and standardization of a single national language were the norm in many countries, while other languages were relegated to mere dialects without many rights and with their speakers treated as ignorant, unable to “speak properly”.

peer-reviewed