Has there ever been a truly bilingual country prior to the contemporary period?Are there confirmed cases...

How can I describe being temporarily stupid?

Was Switzerland really impossible to invade during WW2?

I think my coworker went through my notebook and took my project ideas

Can my Boyfriend, who lives in the UK and has a Polish passport, visit me in the USA?

What professions does medieval village with a population of 100 need?

Stuffing in the middle

What is the evidence on the danger of feeding whole blueberries and grapes to infants and toddlers?

Starships without computers?

Would it be illegal for Facebook to actively promote a political agenda?

How to get distinct values from an array of arrays in JavaScript using the filter() method?

My two team members in a remote location don't get along with each other; how can I improve working relations?

Convert HTML color to OLE

How much code would a codegolf golf if a codegolf could golf code?

How does the Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand work?

Do living authors still get paid royalties for their old work?

How to create a summation symbol with a vertical bar?

Does C++20 mandate source code being stored in files?

Is refusing to concede in the face of an unstoppable Nexus combo punishable?

Is there such a thing as too inconvenient?

Don't teach Dhamma to those who can't appreciate it or aren't interested

Count the frequency of integers in an array

Are there categories whose internal hom is somewhat 'exotic'?

Metal that glows when near pieces of itself

How do I intentionally fragment a SQL Server Index?



Has there ever been a truly bilingual country prior to the contemporary period?


Are there confirmed cases where a country changed its language without being conquered?How is it possible that the Basque language survived until today?How did Napoleon I succeed in France despite his shortcomings in French?Did any Native Americans adopt a script from Europe (before being assimilated)?How much of a effect did linguistic relativism play in ancient Europe?Where and how did scientists of the 18th and 19th century learn foreign languages?What languages were common in first century Jerusalem?Why isn't there a single trace of Germanic influence in Iberian Languages?Is there any historical evidence of a significant population of middle eastern people in iron age Northern Germany/Southern Scandinavia?Which languages would be most useful in Europe at the end of the 19th century?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







23















What I mean by this is: has there ever been a country where the bulk of the population spoke two different languages as a matter of course?



This question is somewhat inspired by this video in which Simone Giertz says that "everyone in Sweden learns English from when they are eight." To my American ears, she speaks nearly flawless, unaccented English to the point where I don't, as a native speaker, think I'd even realize she was not one as well. It also brought to mind a scene in the Norwegian film Trollhunter in which some Norwegians run into some Polish plumbers. The subitled conversation is confused at first, then both parties switch to English to understand each other. Again, the Norwegians speak English with only a mild accent.



This has also been my experience professionally, working for a company that has a high Swedish representation due to past mergers. Now obviously there's some bias as to who would be working in the US, but again, often I don't even realize someone is Swedish until they start using the language. This is in contrast to many other foreign-born people I work with where, even when their English is quite good, there's still a clear accent. I've been told by a couple of Swedish coworkers that "well, everyone in Sweden knows English." (I also have some Belgian colleagues and the situation there is similar.)



So it seems that in that area of the world, there's a situation where one "native" language is used internally while another language is used to talk to people outside the country. It got me to wondering if this is a sustainable thing. If we go one hundred years in the future, will Scandinavia have become an English speaking territory, or will languages like Swedish, Norwegian, etc. persist. In other words, is what we see today in Scandinavia a transient situation on the road to English dominance, or a move to something different, with native languages and a "common tongue". So I was curious about historical precedents.



Now I know that this has not been unusual for the elites. For instance, in Roman times, most literate Romans spoke Greek, and in many periods in Europe, the elites would speak French to each other rather than their native tongue. But I'm more interested in the bulk of the population.



Have there been periods before the modern era where the bulk of the population in some region would know two languages at near fluency. For this purpose, we can define "before modern era" as "before World War II".










share|improve this question






















  • 4





    Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

    – T.E.D.
    Aug 16 at 18:43






  • 14





    The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:44






  • 3





    In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:47






  • 6





    'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Aug 16 at 18:55








  • 4





    As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

    – Mark Johnson
    Aug 16 at 19:30


















23















What I mean by this is: has there ever been a country where the bulk of the population spoke two different languages as a matter of course?



This question is somewhat inspired by this video in which Simone Giertz says that "everyone in Sweden learns English from when they are eight." To my American ears, she speaks nearly flawless, unaccented English to the point where I don't, as a native speaker, think I'd even realize she was not one as well. It also brought to mind a scene in the Norwegian film Trollhunter in which some Norwegians run into some Polish plumbers. The subitled conversation is confused at first, then both parties switch to English to understand each other. Again, the Norwegians speak English with only a mild accent.



This has also been my experience professionally, working for a company that has a high Swedish representation due to past mergers. Now obviously there's some bias as to who would be working in the US, but again, often I don't even realize someone is Swedish until they start using the language. This is in contrast to many other foreign-born people I work with where, even when their English is quite good, there's still a clear accent. I've been told by a couple of Swedish coworkers that "well, everyone in Sweden knows English." (I also have some Belgian colleagues and the situation there is similar.)



So it seems that in that area of the world, there's a situation where one "native" language is used internally while another language is used to talk to people outside the country. It got me to wondering if this is a sustainable thing. If we go one hundred years in the future, will Scandinavia have become an English speaking territory, or will languages like Swedish, Norwegian, etc. persist. In other words, is what we see today in Scandinavia a transient situation on the road to English dominance, or a move to something different, with native languages and a "common tongue". So I was curious about historical precedents.



Now I know that this has not been unusual for the elites. For instance, in Roman times, most literate Romans spoke Greek, and in many periods in Europe, the elites would speak French to each other rather than their native tongue. But I'm more interested in the bulk of the population.



Have there been periods before the modern era where the bulk of the population in some region would know two languages at near fluency. For this purpose, we can define "before modern era" as "before World War II".










share|improve this question






















  • 4





    Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

    – T.E.D.
    Aug 16 at 18:43






  • 14





    The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:44






  • 3





    In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:47






  • 6





    'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Aug 16 at 18:55








  • 4





    As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

    – Mark Johnson
    Aug 16 at 19:30














23












23








23


5






What I mean by this is: has there ever been a country where the bulk of the population spoke two different languages as a matter of course?



This question is somewhat inspired by this video in which Simone Giertz says that "everyone in Sweden learns English from when they are eight." To my American ears, she speaks nearly flawless, unaccented English to the point where I don't, as a native speaker, think I'd even realize she was not one as well. It also brought to mind a scene in the Norwegian film Trollhunter in which some Norwegians run into some Polish plumbers. The subitled conversation is confused at first, then both parties switch to English to understand each other. Again, the Norwegians speak English with only a mild accent.



This has also been my experience professionally, working for a company that has a high Swedish representation due to past mergers. Now obviously there's some bias as to who would be working in the US, but again, often I don't even realize someone is Swedish until they start using the language. This is in contrast to many other foreign-born people I work with where, even when their English is quite good, there's still a clear accent. I've been told by a couple of Swedish coworkers that "well, everyone in Sweden knows English." (I also have some Belgian colleagues and the situation there is similar.)



So it seems that in that area of the world, there's a situation where one "native" language is used internally while another language is used to talk to people outside the country. It got me to wondering if this is a sustainable thing. If we go one hundred years in the future, will Scandinavia have become an English speaking territory, or will languages like Swedish, Norwegian, etc. persist. In other words, is what we see today in Scandinavia a transient situation on the road to English dominance, or a move to something different, with native languages and a "common tongue". So I was curious about historical precedents.



Now I know that this has not been unusual for the elites. For instance, in Roman times, most literate Romans spoke Greek, and in many periods in Europe, the elites would speak French to each other rather than their native tongue. But I'm more interested in the bulk of the population.



Have there been periods before the modern era where the bulk of the population in some region would know two languages at near fluency. For this purpose, we can define "before modern era" as "before World War II".










share|improve this question
















What I mean by this is: has there ever been a country where the bulk of the population spoke two different languages as a matter of course?



This question is somewhat inspired by this video in which Simone Giertz says that "everyone in Sweden learns English from when they are eight." To my American ears, she speaks nearly flawless, unaccented English to the point where I don't, as a native speaker, think I'd even realize she was not one as well. It also brought to mind a scene in the Norwegian film Trollhunter in which some Norwegians run into some Polish plumbers. The subitled conversation is confused at first, then both parties switch to English to understand each other. Again, the Norwegians speak English with only a mild accent.



This has also been my experience professionally, working for a company that has a high Swedish representation due to past mergers. Now obviously there's some bias as to who would be working in the US, but again, often I don't even realize someone is Swedish until they start using the language. This is in contrast to many other foreign-born people I work with where, even when their English is quite good, there's still a clear accent. I've been told by a couple of Swedish coworkers that "well, everyone in Sweden knows English." (I also have some Belgian colleagues and the situation there is similar.)



So it seems that in that area of the world, there's a situation where one "native" language is used internally while another language is used to talk to people outside the country. It got me to wondering if this is a sustainable thing. If we go one hundred years in the future, will Scandinavia have become an English speaking territory, or will languages like Swedish, Norwegian, etc. persist. In other words, is what we see today in Scandinavia a transient situation on the road to English dominance, or a move to something different, with native languages and a "common tongue". So I was curious about historical precedents.



Now I know that this has not been unusual for the elites. For instance, in Roman times, most literate Romans spoke Greek, and in many periods in Europe, the elites would speak French to each other rather than their native tongue. But I'm more interested in the bulk of the population.



Have there been periods before the modern era where the bulk of the population in some region would know two languages at near fluency. For this purpose, we can define "before modern era" as "before World War II".







language






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 15 hours ago









CGCampbell

2,7741 gold badge21 silver badges51 bronze badges




2,7741 gold badge21 silver badges51 bronze badges










asked Aug 16 at 18:29









Steven BurnapSteven Burnap

5,5511 gold badge26 silver badges32 bronze badges




5,5511 gold badge26 silver badges32 bronze badges











  • 4





    Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

    – T.E.D.
    Aug 16 at 18:43






  • 14





    The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:44






  • 3





    In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:47






  • 6





    'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Aug 16 at 18:55








  • 4





    As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

    – Mark Johnson
    Aug 16 at 19:30














  • 4





    Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

    – T.E.D.
    Aug 16 at 18:43






  • 14





    The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:44






  • 3





    In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

    – SJuan76
    Aug 16 at 18:47






  • 6





    'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

    – Denis de Bernardy
    Aug 16 at 18:55








  • 4





    As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

    – Mark Johnson
    Aug 16 at 19:30








4




4





Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

– T.E.D.
Aug 16 at 18:43





Is it important that its exactly two? India I believe currently has two official national languages, and some locally "official" languages in individual states and territories.

– T.E.D.
Aug 16 at 18:43




14




14





The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

– SJuan76
Aug 16 at 18:44





The technical term for this kind of bilinguism is diglossia*. but your examples do not qualify as it because it does not happen within the community; Swedes among them will speak Swedish and if you go to live to Sweden you will still need to learn Swedish to live as a citizen and not as a foreigner.

– SJuan76
Aug 16 at 18:44




3




3





In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

– SJuan76
Aug 16 at 18:47





In any case I think this is more a question of linguistics. And when you ask for stable examples well, nothing is stable if you wait long enough...

– SJuan76
Aug 16 at 18:47




6




6





'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

– Denis de Bernardy
Aug 16 at 18:55







'For this purpose, we can define "modern era" as "before World War II".' -- That should be 'before the French Revolution', after which official languages really started to get introduced (or reappear) on a backdrop of nationalism. Before that it was absolutely common to have multiple languages in each country, and multilingualism was routine.

– Denis de Bernardy
Aug 16 at 18:55






4




4





As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

– Mark Johnson
Aug 16 at 19:30





As a general rule one can claim that in countries where television used only subtitles (as in Scandinavia in the 1960's and 1970's) the peaple learned a more natural English. In other countries of the same time an unnatural (School) English was more common.

– Mark Johnson
Aug 16 at 19:30










7 Answers
7






active

oldest

votes


















34














Depending on the desired timeframe, that is: how long such a state should have been in existence, or region being in such a status, this might get to a very long list.



From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for example Egypt the people in population centres would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily.



Equally in Palestine, a mix of languages co-existed with people conversant in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and Latin as well. As an example that not only elites were fluent in more than one language, take a Roman citizen of Jewish heritage and simple tent-maker who read Hebrew but probably had Koiné Greek as his first language, as evidenced from his dual name: Saul and Paul.



However lacking hard evidence in the form of reliable statistics aren't available from that early, so take statements about that long ago and especially for the general population level with a fair amount of salt.



If you look at a European map of languages before the World War you'll find Gaelic speakers using English, Alsatians speaking French and German, Belgians speaking Flemish and French, Schleswigers speaking Danish and German and Sorbs speaking Sorbish and German. Further East you'll get Polish/German, Kashubian/German/Polish, Hungarian/German etc. And this is not only considering societal elites but ordinary village people as well.



The oldest German University is in Prague. While the town spoke nominally Czech, Pragerdeutsch was considered the purest dialect of all German variants.



Before the war Low-German: (linguistically arguably an altogether different language from Standard German) most people in that region there were raised almost exclusively speaking Low German but learned their first foreign language in compulsory school: Standard German.



As a general trend: Whenever a lingua franca was being established, or foreign-language settlers come along you can bet that most of them will learn enough of two languages to trade, argue with and insult their neighbours. Whenever there is a language border, all along the border region most people will learn at least some of the other languages.



Although some are too arrogant or stupid to do so. Some also take pride in not knowing or pretending to not know another language. Go to France and experience a bit of that now. Go to multilingual Switzerland's nominally German-speaking parts, and realise that most people can speak excellent German indeed, but most refuse to do so on an everyday basis, opting instead for Schwiizertüütsch, which is so different from Standard German that to follow a conversation becomes very difficult.



The most interesting thing comparing Swiss German with Low German is that the temporal development is exactly opposed. After 1950s this kind of bilingualism declined for Low German as speakers were socially discriminated against for a few decades, while in Switzerland the Standard German lost considerable prestige compared to the local variant. Not in the least because Low German is now linguistically often seen as a distinct language and raising awareness for local patriotism, the trend towards extinction is tried to be countered both officially and on private initiative. It further seems that this conservation of variants and minority languages is now part of European Union policy.



If you are curious about very dynamic bilingualism within one conversation, then it is perhaps something like Code-switching in Hong Kong?



I heard Pennsylvania Dutch speakers have a pretty good command of English too…



Of course: Vatican City. Official languages: Latin, Italian



Why were there so many people being able to speak more than one language?
Because not only trade but mere contact facilitates this. And for language acquisition there are two windows of opportunity when it comes really easy to really master a new language, even without having an accent. This only changed when one of the languages involved served no longer a practical purpose, lost any prestige it might have had or was actively suppressed.






share|improve this answer























  • 2





    I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

    – WGroleau
    yesterday






  • 2





    In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

    – WGroleau
    yesterday






  • 2





    From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

    – Semaphore
    yesterday











  • @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

    – LangLangC
    yesterday






  • 3





    I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

    – T.E.D.
    11 hours ago





















27














Gibraltar



English is the official language in this British Overseas Territory, but the populace is also highly fluent in Spanish due to physical proximity and social interactions with its larger neighbour. In fact, bilingualism is so deeply entrenched, the population of Gibraltar routinely engage in code-switching in everyday speech.



That is, they switch between English and Spanish while speaking. The result is Llanito, which Wikipedia describes as "speakers appear to switch languages in mid-sentence".




Yanito (or Llanito) is the name popularly given to the native of Gibraltar as well as the local vernacular he/she speaks . . . Dating from the early or mid-nineteenth century, it came to be used to refer to the people of Gibraltar who, at that time, were predominantly Genoese.



Levey, David. Language Change and Variation in Gibraltar. John Benjamins Publishing, 2008.




Given that Llanito emerged in the 19th century, we can surmise that Gibraltar must have already had a fully bilingual population by then. That is well before the deadline set by the question.



Luxembourg



Bilingualism has been enshrined in Luxembourg's basic laws since the Grand Duchy's first constitution, drafted in 1848. In fact, bilingual instruction were mandated shortly after the modern Luxembourg achieved de facto independence in 1839:




In accordance with the Education Act of 1843, basic literacy was taught via standard German, and standard French was taught as an additional language in primary school.



Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf Jr, and Nkonko Kamwangamalu, eds. Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge, 2016.




The net result of the commitment to bilingual (and later, trilingual) instruction is to create a trilingual populace:




Trausch . . . concludes that . . . 'from [the time of] the partition of 1839, the Luxembourgers became accustomed to using three languages in the course of their everyday life: their "native" Luxembourgish, German and French.'




Like Gibraltar, this everyday multilingualism become entrenched well before the Second World War.






share|improve this answer























  • 1





    One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

    – Janka
    2 days ago













  • The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

    – LangLangC
    2 days ago











  • My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

    – WGroleau
    yesterday



















25














I want to make the case that this question is anachronistic in such a way that is is impossible to answer with a discrete list of cases. The idea of a country unified by a single language used both for official purposes and day-to-day conversation is itself very much a modern one. To a great extent, it was imposed from above by nation-building states over the last few centuries and didn't exist at all for most of human history.



As a result, many modern nation-states have more than one official language. Here is a list of 57 sovereign countries with at least 2 official languages. Certainly, in many if not all of these countries (and most of the others which are not included on this list), it is common for at least some groups of people within the country to use more than one language on a daily basis, and has been so for quite some time.



In pre-modern societies, where literacy was more limited and formal education effectively non-existent, language was dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, individuals bands, villages and regions all had different degrees of linguistic variation between them according to frequency of contact. This is why, for example, Papua New Guinea has over 800 recognized languages. While perhaps an extreme case due to the county's rugged terrain, it is illustrative of the point that far greater linguistic diversity would have prevailed in most of human history then we see in modern nation-states.



In sum, multiligualism is in many ways more historically "normal" than monoligualism.






share|improve this answer























  • 5





    Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

    – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
    2 days ago






  • 1





    I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

    – Semaphore
    yesterday



















13














PARAGUAY - Guaraní and Spanish



Note: before looking at this answer, readers might want to check my 'Notes on the Question' at the end of this post.





Most Paraguayans are mestizo, and Paraguay has a long history of bilingualism due to the fact that




the initial period of contact between the aboriginals and the Spanish
was one of constant interaction. Collaboration between Indians and
Spanish in Paraguay dated from the very beginning of Spanish
colonization and continued through the initial years of Spanish
occupation.




This 'collaboration' in the colonial period (mid 16th century to 1811) included a high proportion of mixed marriages:




One of the interesting aspects of Paraguayan social history is the
frequency of mixed unions during the colonial period. Men greatly
outnumbered women among European settlers, especially in the remote
areas to the southeast of Bolivia, and an obvious solution to the
problem was interethnic marriage. For much of the colonial era, then,
the prototypical Paraguayan family consisted of a Spanish-speaking
father and a Guaraní-speaking mother, a fact that may partly explain
the widespread Spanish-Guaraní bilingualism that exists today in
Paraguay.




Almost without exception in European colonialism, the colonizers language became that of the local elite while the bulk of the population stuck to indigenous languages. In Paraguay, though, this didn't happen:




As a result of an extremely limited immigration and the high
percentage of mestizo households, a really insulated
upper-class—differentiated by language, education, and economic
status- did not develop in Paraguay. Unknown was the rigid association
which developed in Peru between those in the elite and use of only
Spanish.




Unlike almost all other native American languages, Guaraní did not just survive the spread of Spanish, it was adopted by Spanish settlers. From the time of independence in 1811, either Spanish or Guarani have been favoured at different times for different reasons, but never for long and never to the extent that one fell into a serious decline in usage.



Concrete evidence of bilingualism can be found in the Chaco War (1932–1935) when the military was instructed to use Guaraní and not Spanish on the battlefield. Such a change at literally the drop of a hat would not have been possible unless most of the soldiers at all levels were bilingual.



A 1960 survey of bilinguals in a rural area and an urban one threw up some interesting examples of how people switched from one language to the other depending on environment, mood and who they were talking to. Below are some situations and the language they were most likely to use in the city of Luque:




  • With your parents - Guarani

  • With your children - Spanish

  • With your spouse daily - both

  • With your spouse when angry - Guarani

  • With your sweetheart - Spanish

  • With the doctor - Spanish

  • With the curandero - Guarani


Since 1950, a greater emphasis has been placed on Guaraní but, even so, the large majority of the population remain bilingual; 90% of the population speak Guaraní while 87% speak Paraguayan Spanish.





NOTES ON THE QUESTION



In view of criticisms of the question and some of the content in a couple of the answers, it seems a few points need emphasizing:



- First and foremost, the OP clearly specified the "bulk of the
population
" (i.e not the literate elite from whom the bulk of our
evidence of past bilingualism stems).



- Second, the question also states "at near fluency". While it is
undoubtedly true that most international traders (for example) were
bilingual or even multilingual, it cannot be assumed from this that
they spoke / understood at a level 'near fluency' (not to mention
that they were a small percentage of the population). Nor can we
assume that the (undoubted) existence multilingual regions meant that
people had 'near fluency' and switched languages "as a matter of
course
".



- Third, a country having 2 or more 'official languages' is categorically not evidence by itself of bi- or multilingualism and thus barely seems worth mentioning. That said, Semaphore's examples of Gibraltar and Luxembourg look rock solid and the type of answers the OP is looking for.



- Fourth, LangLangC has rightly pointed to one weakness of the question; 'region' lets in, as LangLangC demonstrates, numerous examples of border regions. To be fair to the OP, this is a tough one when covering all historical periods (for why, see the final point).



- Finally, Brian Z has highlighted the other weakness; the inclusion of pre-modern societies (see his answer for details). Restricting the question to no earlier than c.1500 AD (or perhaps 1750 AD) would have helped.





Other source:



Donald F. Fogelquist, 'The Biligualism of Paraguay' in Hispania Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb. 1950)






share|improve this answer



































    3














    While this may not meet every specification of the question, in Cataluña, almost everyone is native in Catalá and Español. In Galicia, a majority in gallego and español. And in spite of years of suppression, there are still a sizable number of Basque speakers in “País Vasco.”



    (But I was always amused that the Basque graffiti demanding independence and making only Basque official depended on words borrowed from Spanish)






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor



    WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















    • I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

      – WGroleau
      6 hours ago



















    2














    South African have 11 official languages in our 'matriek' everyone is expected to do at least two official languages, while some do three or four. There is off course people living there who where not educated there who cannot speak something else than English, but if you were educated in SA you are expected to do a first language and a second language.



    White people often at the very least speak Afrikaans and English although French and German are not uncommon for person who have had a 'western' education, there still are German schools in most big cities.



    Among the black communities English and Afrikaans is often spoken as a lingua franca but it is not uncommon for them to speak a number of what is typically considered 'African' languages.



    There is off course one caveat and this is the Zulu's of Natal. Typically it has been considered practice that if you have anything to do with them you are expected to speak there language as they typically don't speak anything else, but even that is changing as the country keeps on becoming more western.



    It is even not that uncommon for Natal's most selective public schools to teach Zulu as if you are entering any sort of trade in that province, as an adult it behooves you to learn it.



    Native English speakers would tell you English is the language of the workplace, but if you live in big Afrikaner communities, which still exist in SA, you going to find Afrikaners seniors that are only begrudgingly going to speak English with you.






    share|improve this answer

































      1














      Swiss Confederation has 4 official languages.






      share|improve this answer















      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.












      • 7





        What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

        – Steve Bird
        2 days ago











      • @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

        – Trish
        2 days ago






      • 8





        Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

        – Leander Moesinger
        2 days ago













      • @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

        – d-b
        2 days ago











      • @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

        – Leander Moesinger
        yesterday
















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "324"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54160%2fhas-there-ever-been-a-truly-bilingual-country-prior-to-the-contemporary-period%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes








      7 Answers
      7






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      34














      Depending on the desired timeframe, that is: how long such a state should have been in existence, or region being in such a status, this might get to a very long list.



      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for example Egypt the people in population centres would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily.



      Equally in Palestine, a mix of languages co-existed with people conversant in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and Latin as well. As an example that not only elites were fluent in more than one language, take a Roman citizen of Jewish heritage and simple tent-maker who read Hebrew but probably had Koiné Greek as his first language, as evidenced from his dual name: Saul and Paul.



      However lacking hard evidence in the form of reliable statistics aren't available from that early, so take statements about that long ago and especially for the general population level with a fair amount of salt.



      If you look at a European map of languages before the World War you'll find Gaelic speakers using English, Alsatians speaking French and German, Belgians speaking Flemish and French, Schleswigers speaking Danish and German and Sorbs speaking Sorbish and German. Further East you'll get Polish/German, Kashubian/German/Polish, Hungarian/German etc. And this is not only considering societal elites but ordinary village people as well.



      The oldest German University is in Prague. While the town spoke nominally Czech, Pragerdeutsch was considered the purest dialect of all German variants.



      Before the war Low-German: (linguistically arguably an altogether different language from Standard German) most people in that region there were raised almost exclusively speaking Low German but learned their first foreign language in compulsory school: Standard German.



      As a general trend: Whenever a lingua franca was being established, or foreign-language settlers come along you can bet that most of them will learn enough of two languages to trade, argue with and insult their neighbours. Whenever there is a language border, all along the border region most people will learn at least some of the other languages.



      Although some are too arrogant or stupid to do so. Some also take pride in not knowing or pretending to not know another language. Go to France and experience a bit of that now. Go to multilingual Switzerland's nominally German-speaking parts, and realise that most people can speak excellent German indeed, but most refuse to do so on an everyday basis, opting instead for Schwiizertüütsch, which is so different from Standard German that to follow a conversation becomes very difficult.



      The most interesting thing comparing Swiss German with Low German is that the temporal development is exactly opposed. After 1950s this kind of bilingualism declined for Low German as speakers were socially discriminated against for a few decades, while in Switzerland the Standard German lost considerable prestige compared to the local variant. Not in the least because Low German is now linguistically often seen as a distinct language and raising awareness for local patriotism, the trend towards extinction is tried to be countered both officially and on private initiative. It further seems that this conservation of variants and minority languages is now part of European Union policy.



      If you are curious about very dynamic bilingualism within one conversation, then it is perhaps something like Code-switching in Hong Kong?



      I heard Pennsylvania Dutch speakers have a pretty good command of English too…



      Of course: Vatican City. Official languages: Latin, Italian



      Why were there so many people being able to speak more than one language?
      Because not only trade but mere contact facilitates this. And for language acquisition there are two windows of opportunity when it comes really easy to really master a new language, even without having an accent. This only changed when one of the languages involved served no longer a practical purpose, lost any prestige it might have had or was actively suppressed.






      share|improve this answer























      • 2





        I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday











      • @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

        – LangLangC
        yesterday






      • 3





        I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

        – T.E.D.
        11 hours ago


















      34














      Depending on the desired timeframe, that is: how long such a state should have been in existence, or region being in such a status, this might get to a very long list.



      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for example Egypt the people in population centres would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily.



      Equally in Palestine, a mix of languages co-existed with people conversant in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and Latin as well. As an example that not only elites were fluent in more than one language, take a Roman citizen of Jewish heritage and simple tent-maker who read Hebrew but probably had Koiné Greek as his first language, as evidenced from his dual name: Saul and Paul.



      However lacking hard evidence in the form of reliable statistics aren't available from that early, so take statements about that long ago and especially for the general population level with a fair amount of salt.



      If you look at a European map of languages before the World War you'll find Gaelic speakers using English, Alsatians speaking French and German, Belgians speaking Flemish and French, Schleswigers speaking Danish and German and Sorbs speaking Sorbish and German. Further East you'll get Polish/German, Kashubian/German/Polish, Hungarian/German etc. And this is not only considering societal elites but ordinary village people as well.



      The oldest German University is in Prague. While the town spoke nominally Czech, Pragerdeutsch was considered the purest dialect of all German variants.



      Before the war Low-German: (linguistically arguably an altogether different language from Standard German) most people in that region there were raised almost exclusively speaking Low German but learned their first foreign language in compulsory school: Standard German.



      As a general trend: Whenever a lingua franca was being established, or foreign-language settlers come along you can bet that most of them will learn enough of two languages to trade, argue with and insult their neighbours. Whenever there is a language border, all along the border region most people will learn at least some of the other languages.



      Although some are too arrogant or stupid to do so. Some also take pride in not knowing or pretending to not know another language. Go to France and experience a bit of that now. Go to multilingual Switzerland's nominally German-speaking parts, and realise that most people can speak excellent German indeed, but most refuse to do so on an everyday basis, opting instead for Schwiizertüütsch, which is so different from Standard German that to follow a conversation becomes very difficult.



      The most interesting thing comparing Swiss German with Low German is that the temporal development is exactly opposed. After 1950s this kind of bilingualism declined for Low German as speakers were socially discriminated against for a few decades, while in Switzerland the Standard German lost considerable prestige compared to the local variant. Not in the least because Low German is now linguistically often seen as a distinct language and raising awareness for local patriotism, the trend towards extinction is tried to be countered both officially and on private initiative. It further seems that this conservation of variants and minority languages is now part of European Union policy.



      If you are curious about very dynamic bilingualism within one conversation, then it is perhaps something like Code-switching in Hong Kong?



      I heard Pennsylvania Dutch speakers have a pretty good command of English too…



      Of course: Vatican City. Official languages: Latin, Italian



      Why were there so many people being able to speak more than one language?
      Because not only trade but mere contact facilitates this. And for language acquisition there are two windows of opportunity when it comes really easy to really master a new language, even without having an accent. This only changed when one of the languages involved served no longer a practical purpose, lost any prestige it might have had or was actively suppressed.






      share|improve this answer























      • 2





        I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday











      • @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

        – LangLangC
        yesterday






      • 3





        I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

        – T.E.D.
        11 hours ago
















      34












      34








      34







      Depending on the desired timeframe, that is: how long such a state should have been in existence, or region being in such a status, this might get to a very long list.



      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for example Egypt the people in population centres would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily.



      Equally in Palestine, a mix of languages co-existed with people conversant in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and Latin as well. As an example that not only elites were fluent in more than one language, take a Roman citizen of Jewish heritage and simple tent-maker who read Hebrew but probably had Koiné Greek as his first language, as evidenced from his dual name: Saul and Paul.



      However lacking hard evidence in the form of reliable statistics aren't available from that early, so take statements about that long ago and especially for the general population level with a fair amount of salt.



      If you look at a European map of languages before the World War you'll find Gaelic speakers using English, Alsatians speaking French and German, Belgians speaking Flemish and French, Schleswigers speaking Danish and German and Sorbs speaking Sorbish and German. Further East you'll get Polish/German, Kashubian/German/Polish, Hungarian/German etc. And this is not only considering societal elites but ordinary village people as well.



      The oldest German University is in Prague. While the town spoke nominally Czech, Pragerdeutsch was considered the purest dialect of all German variants.



      Before the war Low-German: (linguistically arguably an altogether different language from Standard German) most people in that region there were raised almost exclusively speaking Low German but learned their first foreign language in compulsory school: Standard German.



      As a general trend: Whenever a lingua franca was being established, or foreign-language settlers come along you can bet that most of them will learn enough of two languages to trade, argue with and insult their neighbours. Whenever there is a language border, all along the border region most people will learn at least some of the other languages.



      Although some are too arrogant or stupid to do so. Some also take pride in not knowing or pretending to not know another language. Go to France and experience a bit of that now. Go to multilingual Switzerland's nominally German-speaking parts, and realise that most people can speak excellent German indeed, but most refuse to do so on an everyday basis, opting instead for Schwiizertüütsch, which is so different from Standard German that to follow a conversation becomes very difficult.



      The most interesting thing comparing Swiss German with Low German is that the temporal development is exactly opposed. After 1950s this kind of bilingualism declined for Low German as speakers were socially discriminated against for a few decades, while in Switzerland the Standard German lost considerable prestige compared to the local variant. Not in the least because Low German is now linguistically often seen as a distinct language and raising awareness for local patriotism, the trend towards extinction is tried to be countered both officially and on private initiative. It further seems that this conservation of variants and minority languages is now part of European Union policy.



      If you are curious about very dynamic bilingualism within one conversation, then it is perhaps something like Code-switching in Hong Kong?



      I heard Pennsylvania Dutch speakers have a pretty good command of English too…



      Of course: Vatican City. Official languages: Latin, Italian



      Why were there so many people being able to speak more than one language?
      Because not only trade but mere contact facilitates this. And for language acquisition there are two windows of opportunity when it comes really easy to really master a new language, even without having an accent. This only changed when one of the languages involved served no longer a practical purpose, lost any prestige it might have had or was actively suppressed.






      share|improve this answer















      Depending on the desired timeframe, that is: how long such a state should have been in existence, or region being in such a status, this might get to a very long list.



      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for example Egypt the people in population centres would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily.



      Equally in Palestine, a mix of languages co-existed with people conversant in Hebrew and Aramaic, then Greek and Latin as well. As an example that not only elites were fluent in more than one language, take a Roman citizen of Jewish heritage and simple tent-maker who read Hebrew but probably had Koiné Greek as his first language, as evidenced from his dual name: Saul and Paul.



      However lacking hard evidence in the form of reliable statistics aren't available from that early, so take statements about that long ago and especially for the general population level with a fair amount of salt.



      If you look at a European map of languages before the World War you'll find Gaelic speakers using English, Alsatians speaking French and German, Belgians speaking Flemish and French, Schleswigers speaking Danish and German and Sorbs speaking Sorbish and German. Further East you'll get Polish/German, Kashubian/German/Polish, Hungarian/German etc. And this is not only considering societal elites but ordinary village people as well.



      The oldest German University is in Prague. While the town spoke nominally Czech, Pragerdeutsch was considered the purest dialect of all German variants.



      Before the war Low-German: (linguistically arguably an altogether different language from Standard German) most people in that region there were raised almost exclusively speaking Low German but learned their first foreign language in compulsory school: Standard German.



      As a general trend: Whenever a lingua franca was being established, or foreign-language settlers come along you can bet that most of them will learn enough of two languages to trade, argue with and insult their neighbours. Whenever there is a language border, all along the border region most people will learn at least some of the other languages.



      Although some are too arrogant or stupid to do so. Some also take pride in not knowing or pretending to not know another language. Go to France and experience a bit of that now. Go to multilingual Switzerland's nominally German-speaking parts, and realise that most people can speak excellent German indeed, but most refuse to do so on an everyday basis, opting instead for Schwiizertüütsch, which is so different from Standard German that to follow a conversation becomes very difficult.



      The most interesting thing comparing Swiss German with Low German is that the temporal development is exactly opposed. After 1950s this kind of bilingualism declined for Low German as speakers were socially discriminated against for a few decades, while in Switzerland the Standard German lost considerable prestige compared to the local variant. Not in the least because Low German is now linguistically often seen as a distinct language and raising awareness for local patriotism, the trend towards extinction is tried to be countered both officially and on private initiative. It further seems that this conservation of variants and minority languages is now part of European Union policy.



      If you are curious about very dynamic bilingualism within one conversation, then it is perhaps something like Code-switching in Hong Kong?



      I heard Pennsylvania Dutch speakers have a pretty good command of English too…



      Of course: Vatican City. Official languages: Latin, Italian



      Why were there so many people being able to speak more than one language?
      Because not only trade but mere contact facilitates this. And for language acquisition there are two windows of opportunity when it comes really easy to really master a new language, even without having an accent. This only changed when one of the languages involved served no longer a practical purpose, lost any prestige it might have had or was actively suppressed.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 12 hours ago

























      answered Aug 16 at 20:03









      LangLangCLangLangC

      35.3k5 gold badges112 silver badges170 bronze badges




      35.3k5 gold badges112 silver badges170 bronze badges











      • 2





        I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday











      • @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

        – LangLangC
        yesterday






      • 3





        I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

        – T.E.D.
        11 hours ago
















      • 2





        I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

        – WGroleau
        yesterday






      • 2





        From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday











      • @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

        – LangLangC
        yesterday






      • 3





        I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

        – T.E.D.
        11 hours ago










      2




      2





      I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday





      I had “assumed” that there were three languages on the Rosetta Stone because there were enough monolingual people to make all three necessary.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday




      2




      2





      In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

      – WGroleau
      yesterday





      In the Vatican, even the ATMs speak Latin. :-)

      – WGroleau
      yesterday




      2




      2





      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

      – Semaphore
      yesterday





      From Hellenistic times onward, we can assume that in for Egypt the people would have understood Coptic and Greek, and later added Latin to the mix. The Rosetta stone series of mulitlingual stela come to mind easily. I don't think this is at all a safe assumption. The very existence of the Rosetta stone implies most of the population only understood their own native tongue; otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to record the same edict in triplicates. Especially considering literacy rates in the Ancient World in general would've been around 10%, so those who could read were already the elites.

      – Semaphore
      yesterday













      @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

      – LangLangC
      yesterday





      @Semaphore Well, reading and speaking or indeed two different things. It could also be read as a symbolic act of policy for unity, ackknowleding that there are different people there. I'd agree on 'safe' for a large part. Caesar's mother (wet-nurse) tongue was Greek, but we have from that time rarely so 'hard evidence' for safe. I'd meant "assume" as 'with reason quite possible for many regions of intermixing"', not 'for sure, everyone in all of them'. If you think of a proper 'downgrade' to what you quoted, I'm all ears.

      – LangLangC
      yesterday




      3




      3





      I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

      – T.E.D.
      11 hours ago







      I think some people have a natural tendency to think things that are fairly easy for them to do are similarly easy for everyone else, and thus people that can't/won't do those things must be stupid or lazy. The assumption here of course is that every human brain is the same. What a lot of people really don't want to admit is that everyone on earth has very different brain functioning, and "cognitively normative" is a social construct, that probably nobody meets perfectly without work in some area or other.

      – T.E.D.
      11 hours ago















      27














      Gibraltar



      English is the official language in this British Overseas Territory, but the populace is also highly fluent in Spanish due to physical proximity and social interactions with its larger neighbour. In fact, bilingualism is so deeply entrenched, the population of Gibraltar routinely engage in code-switching in everyday speech.



      That is, they switch between English and Spanish while speaking. The result is Llanito, which Wikipedia describes as "speakers appear to switch languages in mid-sentence".




      Yanito (or Llanito) is the name popularly given to the native of Gibraltar as well as the local vernacular he/she speaks . . . Dating from the early or mid-nineteenth century, it came to be used to refer to the people of Gibraltar who, at that time, were predominantly Genoese.



      Levey, David. Language Change and Variation in Gibraltar. John Benjamins Publishing, 2008.




      Given that Llanito emerged in the 19th century, we can surmise that Gibraltar must have already had a fully bilingual population by then. That is well before the deadline set by the question.



      Luxembourg



      Bilingualism has been enshrined in Luxembourg's basic laws since the Grand Duchy's first constitution, drafted in 1848. In fact, bilingual instruction were mandated shortly after the modern Luxembourg achieved de facto independence in 1839:




      In accordance with the Education Act of 1843, basic literacy was taught via standard German, and standard French was taught as an additional language in primary school.



      Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf Jr, and Nkonko Kamwangamalu, eds. Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge, 2016.




      The net result of the commitment to bilingual (and later, trilingual) instruction is to create a trilingual populace:




      Trausch . . . concludes that . . . 'from [the time of] the partition of 1839, the Luxembourgers became accustomed to using three languages in the course of their everyday life: their "native" Luxembourgish, German and French.'




      Like Gibraltar, this everyday multilingualism become entrenched well before the Second World War.






      share|improve this answer























      • 1





        One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

        – Janka
        2 days ago













      • The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

        – LangLangC
        2 days ago











      • My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday
















      27














      Gibraltar



      English is the official language in this British Overseas Territory, but the populace is also highly fluent in Spanish due to physical proximity and social interactions with its larger neighbour. In fact, bilingualism is so deeply entrenched, the population of Gibraltar routinely engage in code-switching in everyday speech.



      That is, they switch between English and Spanish while speaking. The result is Llanito, which Wikipedia describes as "speakers appear to switch languages in mid-sentence".




      Yanito (or Llanito) is the name popularly given to the native of Gibraltar as well as the local vernacular he/she speaks . . . Dating from the early or mid-nineteenth century, it came to be used to refer to the people of Gibraltar who, at that time, were predominantly Genoese.



      Levey, David. Language Change and Variation in Gibraltar. John Benjamins Publishing, 2008.




      Given that Llanito emerged in the 19th century, we can surmise that Gibraltar must have already had a fully bilingual population by then. That is well before the deadline set by the question.



      Luxembourg



      Bilingualism has been enshrined in Luxembourg's basic laws since the Grand Duchy's first constitution, drafted in 1848. In fact, bilingual instruction were mandated shortly after the modern Luxembourg achieved de facto independence in 1839:




      In accordance with the Education Act of 1843, basic literacy was taught via standard German, and standard French was taught as an additional language in primary school.



      Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf Jr, and Nkonko Kamwangamalu, eds. Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge, 2016.




      The net result of the commitment to bilingual (and later, trilingual) instruction is to create a trilingual populace:




      Trausch . . . concludes that . . . 'from [the time of] the partition of 1839, the Luxembourgers became accustomed to using three languages in the course of their everyday life: their "native" Luxembourgish, German and French.'




      Like Gibraltar, this everyday multilingualism become entrenched well before the Second World War.






      share|improve this answer























      • 1





        One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

        – Janka
        2 days ago













      • The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

        – LangLangC
        2 days ago











      • My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday














      27












      27








      27







      Gibraltar



      English is the official language in this British Overseas Territory, but the populace is also highly fluent in Spanish due to physical proximity and social interactions with its larger neighbour. In fact, bilingualism is so deeply entrenched, the population of Gibraltar routinely engage in code-switching in everyday speech.



      That is, they switch between English and Spanish while speaking. The result is Llanito, which Wikipedia describes as "speakers appear to switch languages in mid-sentence".




      Yanito (or Llanito) is the name popularly given to the native of Gibraltar as well as the local vernacular he/she speaks . . . Dating from the early or mid-nineteenth century, it came to be used to refer to the people of Gibraltar who, at that time, were predominantly Genoese.



      Levey, David. Language Change and Variation in Gibraltar. John Benjamins Publishing, 2008.




      Given that Llanito emerged in the 19th century, we can surmise that Gibraltar must have already had a fully bilingual population by then. That is well before the deadline set by the question.



      Luxembourg



      Bilingualism has been enshrined in Luxembourg's basic laws since the Grand Duchy's first constitution, drafted in 1848. In fact, bilingual instruction were mandated shortly after the modern Luxembourg achieved de facto independence in 1839:




      In accordance with the Education Act of 1843, basic literacy was taught via standard German, and standard French was taught as an additional language in primary school.



      Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf Jr, and Nkonko Kamwangamalu, eds. Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge, 2016.




      The net result of the commitment to bilingual (and later, trilingual) instruction is to create a trilingual populace:




      Trausch . . . concludes that . . . 'from [the time of] the partition of 1839, the Luxembourgers became accustomed to using three languages in the course of their everyday life: their "native" Luxembourgish, German and French.'




      Like Gibraltar, this everyday multilingualism become entrenched well before the Second World War.






      share|improve this answer















      Gibraltar



      English is the official language in this British Overseas Territory, but the populace is also highly fluent in Spanish due to physical proximity and social interactions with its larger neighbour. In fact, bilingualism is so deeply entrenched, the population of Gibraltar routinely engage in code-switching in everyday speech.



      That is, they switch between English and Spanish while speaking. The result is Llanito, which Wikipedia describes as "speakers appear to switch languages in mid-sentence".




      Yanito (or Llanito) is the name popularly given to the native of Gibraltar as well as the local vernacular he/she speaks . . . Dating from the early or mid-nineteenth century, it came to be used to refer to the people of Gibraltar who, at that time, were predominantly Genoese.



      Levey, David. Language Change and Variation in Gibraltar. John Benjamins Publishing, 2008.




      Given that Llanito emerged in the 19th century, we can surmise that Gibraltar must have already had a fully bilingual population by then. That is well before the deadline set by the question.



      Luxembourg



      Bilingualism has been enshrined in Luxembourg's basic laws since the Grand Duchy's first constitution, drafted in 1848. In fact, bilingual instruction were mandated shortly after the modern Luxembourg achieved de facto independence in 1839:




      In accordance with the Education Act of 1843, basic literacy was taught via standard German, and standard French was taught as an additional language in primary school.



      Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf Jr, and Nkonko Kamwangamalu, eds. Language Planning in Europe: Cyprus, Iceland and Luxembourg. Routledge, 2016.




      The net result of the commitment to bilingual (and later, trilingual) instruction is to create a trilingual populace:




      Trausch . . . concludes that . . . 'from [the time of] the partition of 1839, the Luxembourgers became accustomed to using three languages in the course of their everyday life: their "native" Luxembourgish, German and French.'




      Like Gibraltar, this everyday multilingualism become entrenched well before the Second World War.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago









      Glorfindel

      3131 gold badge2 silver badges11 bronze badges




      3131 gold badge2 silver badges11 bronze badges










      answered Aug 16 at 19:37









      SemaphoreSemaphore

      80.5k14 gold badges309 silver badges346 bronze badges




      80.5k14 gold badges309 silver badges346 bronze badges











      • 1





        One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

        – Janka
        2 days ago













      • The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

        – LangLangC
        2 days ago











      • My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday














      • 1





        One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

        – Janka
        2 days ago













      • The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

        – LangLangC
        2 days ago











      • My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

        – WGroleau
        yesterday








      1




      1





      One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

      – Janka
      2 days ago







      One should add Letzeburgisch is a dialect of German heavily influenced by French vocabulary. It's halfway understandable to German speakers (fairly good to those of the adjacent German regions), but not at all to French speakers.

      – Janka
      2 days ago















      The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

      – LangLangC
      2 days ago





      The most interesting part about Luxemburgish is that the 'native tongue' was only codified into a standard in 1946 and as an official language in 1984 ! Granted that it's closer to Standard German than many Alemannic variants, politically it is remarkable that a territory that defines itself as 'different' refrained from elevating the native language to official status for so long…

      – LangLangC
      2 days ago













      My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday





      My Dutch friends tell me that they are required to learn another language in school; that most schools offer English, French, and German; that most take two, many three. In working with at least a dozen Dutch, only one or two didn’t speak all three.

      – WGroleau
      yesterday











      25














      I want to make the case that this question is anachronistic in such a way that is is impossible to answer with a discrete list of cases. The idea of a country unified by a single language used both for official purposes and day-to-day conversation is itself very much a modern one. To a great extent, it was imposed from above by nation-building states over the last few centuries and didn't exist at all for most of human history.



      As a result, many modern nation-states have more than one official language. Here is a list of 57 sovereign countries with at least 2 official languages. Certainly, in many if not all of these countries (and most of the others which are not included on this list), it is common for at least some groups of people within the country to use more than one language on a daily basis, and has been so for quite some time.



      In pre-modern societies, where literacy was more limited and formal education effectively non-existent, language was dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, individuals bands, villages and regions all had different degrees of linguistic variation between them according to frequency of contact. This is why, for example, Papua New Guinea has over 800 recognized languages. While perhaps an extreme case due to the county's rugged terrain, it is illustrative of the point that far greater linguistic diversity would have prevailed in most of human history then we see in modern nation-states.



      In sum, multiligualism is in many ways more historically "normal" than monoligualism.






      share|improve this answer























      • 5





        Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

        – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
        2 days ago






      • 1





        I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday
















      25














      I want to make the case that this question is anachronistic in such a way that is is impossible to answer with a discrete list of cases. The idea of a country unified by a single language used both for official purposes and day-to-day conversation is itself very much a modern one. To a great extent, it was imposed from above by nation-building states over the last few centuries and didn't exist at all for most of human history.



      As a result, many modern nation-states have more than one official language. Here is a list of 57 sovereign countries with at least 2 official languages. Certainly, in many if not all of these countries (and most of the others which are not included on this list), it is common for at least some groups of people within the country to use more than one language on a daily basis, and has been so for quite some time.



      In pre-modern societies, where literacy was more limited and formal education effectively non-existent, language was dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, individuals bands, villages and regions all had different degrees of linguistic variation between them according to frequency of contact. This is why, for example, Papua New Guinea has over 800 recognized languages. While perhaps an extreme case due to the county's rugged terrain, it is illustrative of the point that far greater linguistic diversity would have prevailed in most of human history then we see in modern nation-states.



      In sum, multiligualism is in many ways more historically "normal" than monoligualism.






      share|improve this answer























      • 5





        Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

        – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
        2 days ago






      • 1





        I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday














      25












      25








      25







      I want to make the case that this question is anachronistic in such a way that is is impossible to answer with a discrete list of cases. The idea of a country unified by a single language used both for official purposes and day-to-day conversation is itself very much a modern one. To a great extent, it was imposed from above by nation-building states over the last few centuries and didn't exist at all for most of human history.



      As a result, many modern nation-states have more than one official language. Here is a list of 57 sovereign countries with at least 2 official languages. Certainly, in many if not all of these countries (and most of the others which are not included on this list), it is common for at least some groups of people within the country to use more than one language on a daily basis, and has been so for quite some time.



      In pre-modern societies, where literacy was more limited and formal education effectively non-existent, language was dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, individuals bands, villages and regions all had different degrees of linguistic variation between them according to frequency of contact. This is why, for example, Papua New Guinea has over 800 recognized languages. While perhaps an extreme case due to the county's rugged terrain, it is illustrative of the point that far greater linguistic diversity would have prevailed in most of human history then we see in modern nation-states.



      In sum, multiligualism is in many ways more historically "normal" than monoligualism.






      share|improve this answer















      I want to make the case that this question is anachronistic in such a way that is is impossible to answer with a discrete list of cases. The idea of a country unified by a single language used both for official purposes and day-to-day conversation is itself very much a modern one. To a great extent, it was imposed from above by nation-building states over the last few centuries and didn't exist at all for most of human history.



      As a result, many modern nation-states have more than one official language. Here is a list of 57 sovereign countries with at least 2 official languages. Certainly, in many if not all of these countries (and most of the others which are not included on this list), it is common for at least some groups of people within the country to use more than one language on a daily basis, and has been so for quite some time.



      In pre-modern societies, where literacy was more limited and formal education effectively non-existent, language was dynamic and constantly changing. As a result, individuals bands, villages and regions all had different degrees of linguistic variation between them according to frequency of contact. This is why, for example, Papua New Guinea has over 800 recognized languages. While perhaps an extreme case due to the county's rugged terrain, it is illustrative of the point that far greater linguistic diversity would have prevailed in most of human history then we see in modern nation-states.



      In sum, multiligualism is in many ways more historically "normal" than monoligualism.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 2 days ago

























      answered 2 days ago









      Brian ZBrian Z

      6,06413 silver badges28 bronze badges




      6,06413 silver badges28 bronze badges











      • 5





        Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

        – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
        2 days ago






      • 1





        I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday














      • 5





        Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

        – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
        2 days ago






      • 1





        I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

        – Semaphore
        yesterday








      5




      5





      Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

      – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
      2 days ago





      Excellent answer; may I suggest emphasising the last sentence as well, since it’s the key point that’s missing from all other answers so far?

      – Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
      2 days ago




      1




      1





      I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

      – Semaphore
      yesterday





      I don't think you've actually established that multilingualism is a historical norm. A country having multiple languages is usually due to being inhabited by discrete populations with different native tongues, not because "the bulk of the population" speaks the different languages "as a matter of course." as the OP is asking about. Historically speaking, the vast majority of the population almost never interacts with anyone outside their local village, and would have no reason to be code switching between multiple languages.

      – Semaphore
      yesterday











      13














      PARAGUAY - Guaraní and Spanish



      Note: before looking at this answer, readers might want to check my 'Notes on the Question' at the end of this post.





      Most Paraguayans are mestizo, and Paraguay has a long history of bilingualism due to the fact that




      the initial period of contact between the aboriginals and the Spanish
      was one of constant interaction. Collaboration between Indians and
      Spanish in Paraguay dated from the very beginning of Spanish
      colonization and continued through the initial years of Spanish
      occupation.




      This 'collaboration' in the colonial period (mid 16th century to 1811) included a high proportion of mixed marriages:




      One of the interesting aspects of Paraguayan social history is the
      frequency of mixed unions during the colonial period. Men greatly
      outnumbered women among European settlers, especially in the remote
      areas to the southeast of Bolivia, and an obvious solution to the
      problem was interethnic marriage. For much of the colonial era, then,
      the prototypical Paraguayan family consisted of a Spanish-speaking
      father and a Guaraní-speaking mother, a fact that may partly explain
      the widespread Spanish-Guaraní bilingualism that exists today in
      Paraguay.




      Almost without exception in European colonialism, the colonizers language became that of the local elite while the bulk of the population stuck to indigenous languages. In Paraguay, though, this didn't happen:




      As a result of an extremely limited immigration and the high
      percentage of mestizo households, a really insulated
      upper-class—differentiated by language, education, and economic
      status- did not develop in Paraguay. Unknown was the rigid association
      which developed in Peru between those in the elite and use of only
      Spanish.




      Unlike almost all other native American languages, Guaraní did not just survive the spread of Spanish, it was adopted by Spanish settlers. From the time of independence in 1811, either Spanish or Guarani have been favoured at different times for different reasons, but never for long and never to the extent that one fell into a serious decline in usage.



      Concrete evidence of bilingualism can be found in the Chaco War (1932–1935) when the military was instructed to use Guaraní and not Spanish on the battlefield. Such a change at literally the drop of a hat would not have been possible unless most of the soldiers at all levels were bilingual.



      A 1960 survey of bilinguals in a rural area and an urban one threw up some interesting examples of how people switched from one language to the other depending on environment, mood and who they were talking to. Below are some situations and the language they were most likely to use in the city of Luque:




      • With your parents - Guarani

      • With your children - Spanish

      • With your spouse daily - both

      • With your spouse when angry - Guarani

      • With your sweetheart - Spanish

      • With the doctor - Spanish

      • With the curandero - Guarani


      Since 1950, a greater emphasis has been placed on Guaraní but, even so, the large majority of the population remain bilingual; 90% of the population speak Guaraní while 87% speak Paraguayan Spanish.





      NOTES ON THE QUESTION



      In view of criticisms of the question and some of the content in a couple of the answers, it seems a few points need emphasizing:



      - First and foremost, the OP clearly specified the "bulk of the
      population
      " (i.e not the literate elite from whom the bulk of our
      evidence of past bilingualism stems).



      - Second, the question also states "at near fluency". While it is
      undoubtedly true that most international traders (for example) were
      bilingual or even multilingual, it cannot be assumed from this that
      they spoke / understood at a level 'near fluency' (not to mention
      that they were a small percentage of the population). Nor can we
      assume that the (undoubted) existence multilingual regions meant that
      people had 'near fluency' and switched languages "as a matter of
      course
      ".



      - Third, a country having 2 or more 'official languages' is categorically not evidence by itself of bi- or multilingualism and thus barely seems worth mentioning. That said, Semaphore's examples of Gibraltar and Luxembourg look rock solid and the type of answers the OP is looking for.



      - Fourth, LangLangC has rightly pointed to one weakness of the question; 'region' lets in, as LangLangC demonstrates, numerous examples of border regions. To be fair to the OP, this is a tough one when covering all historical periods (for why, see the final point).



      - Finally, Brian Z has highlighted the other weakness; the inclusion of pre-modern societies (see his answer for details). Restricting the question to no earlier than c.1500 AD (or perhaps 1750 AD) would have helped.





      Other source:



      Donald F. Fogelquist, 'The Biligualism of Paraguay' in Hispania Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb. 1950)






      share|improve this answer
































        13














        PARAGUAY - Guaraní and Spanish



        Note: before looking at this answer, readers might want to check my 'Notes on the Question' at the end of this post.





        Most Paraguayans are mestizo, and Paraguay has a long history of bilingualism due to the fact that




        the initial period of contact between the aboriginals and the Spanish
        was one of constant interaction. Collaboration between Indians and
        Spanish in Paraguay dated from the very beginning of Spanish
        colonization and continued through the initial years of Spanish
        occupation.




        This 'collaboration' in the colonial period (mid 16th century to 1811) included a high proportion of mixed marriages:




        One of the interesting aspects of Paraguayan social history is the
        frequency of mixed unions during the colonial period. Men greatly
        outnumbered women among European settlers, especially in the remote
        areas to the southeast of Bolivia, and an obvious solution to the
        problem was interethnic marriage. For much of the colonial era, then,
        the prototypical Paraguayan family consisted of a Spanish-speaking
        father and a Guaraní-speaking mother, a fact that may partly explain
        the widespread Spanish-Guaraní bilingualism that exists today in
        Paraguay.




        Almost without exception in European colonialism, the colonizers language became that of the local elite while the bulk of the population stuck to indigenous languages. In Paraguay, though, this didn't happen:




        As a result of an extremely limited immigration and the high
        percentage of mestizo households, a really insulated
        upper-class—differentiated by language, education, and economic
        status- did not develop in Paraguay. Unknown was the rigid association
        which developed in Peru between those in the elite and use of only
        Spanish.




        Unlike almost all other native American languages, Guaraní did not just survive the spread of Spanish, it was adopted by Spanish settlers. From the time of independence in 1811, either Spanish or Guarani have been favoured at different times for different reasons, but never for long and never to the extent that one fell into a serious decline in usage.



        Concrete evidence of bilingualism can be found in the Chaco War (1932–1935) when the military was instructed to use Guaraní and not Spanish on the battlefield. Such a change at literally the drop of a hat would not have been possible unless most of the soldiers at all levels were bilingual.



        A 1960 survey of bilinguals in a rural area and an urban one threw up some interesting examples of how people switched from one language to the other depending on environment, mood and who they were talking to. Below are some situations and the language they were most likely to use in the city of Luque:




        • With your parents - Guarani

        • With your children - Spanish

        • With your spouse daily - both

        • With your spouse when angry - Guarani

        • With your sweetheart - Spanish

        • With the doctor - Spanish

        • With the curandero - Guarani


        Since 1950, a greater emphasis has been placed on Guaraní but, even so, the large majority of the population remain bilingual; 90% of the population speak Guaraní while 87% speak Paraguayan Spanish.





        NOTES ON THE QUESTION



        In view of criticisms of the question and some of the content in a couple of the answers, it seems a few points need emphasizing:



        - First and foremost, the OP clearly specified the "bulk of the
        population
        " (i.e not the literate elite from whom the bulk of our
        evidence of past bilingualism stems).



        - Second, the question also states "at near fluency". While it is
        undoubtedly true that most international traders (for example) were
        bilingual or even multilingual, it cannot be assumed from this that
        they spoke / understood at a level 'near fluency' (not to mention
        that they were a small percentage of the population). Nor can we
        assume that the (undoubted) existence multilingual regions meant that
        people had 'near fluency' and switched languages "as a matter of
        course
        ".



        - Third, a country having 2 or more 'official languages' is categorically not evidence by itself of bi- or multilingualism and thus barely seems worth mentioning. That said, Semaphore's examples of Gibraltar and Luxembourg look rock solid and the type of answers the OP is looking for.



        - Fourth, LangLangC has rightly pointed to one weakness of the question; 'region' lets in, as LangLangC demonstrates, numerous examples of border regions. To be fair to the OP, this is a tough one when covering all historical periods (for why, see the final point).



        - Finally, Brian Z has highlighted the other weakness; the inclusion of pre-modern societies (see his answer for details). Restricting the question to no earlier than c.1500 AD (or perhaps 1750 AD) would have helped.





        Other source:



        Donald F. Fogelquist, 'The Biligualism of Paraguay' in Hispania Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb. 1950)






        share|improve this answer






























          13












          13








          13







          PARAGUAY - Guaraní and Spanish



          Note: before looking at this answer, readers might want to check my 'Notes on the Question' at the end of this post.





          Most Paraguayans are mestizo, and Paraguay has a long history of bilingualism due to the fact that




          the initial period of contact between the aboriginals and the Spanish
          was one of constant interaction. Collaboration between Indians and
          Spanish in Paraguay dated from the very beginning of Spanish
          colonization and continued through the initial years of Spanish
          occupation.




          This 'collaboration' in the colonial period (mid 16th century to 1811) included a high proportion of mixed marriages:




          One of the interesting aspects of Paraguayan social history is the
          frequency of mixed unions during the colonial period. Men greatly
          outnumbered women among European settlers, especially in the remote
          areas to the southeast of Bolivia, and an obvious solution to the
          problem was interethnic marriage. For much of the colonial era, then,
          the prototypical Paraguayan family consisted of a Spanish-speaking
          father and a Guaraní-speaking mother, a fact that may partly explain
          the widespread Spanish-Guaraní bilingualism that exists today in
          Paraguay.




          Almost without exception in European colonialism, the colonizers language became that of the local elite while the bulk of the population stuck to indigenous languages. In Paraguay, though, this didn't happen:




          As a result of an extremely limited immigration and the high
          percentage of mestizo households, a really insulated
          upper-class—differentiated by language, education, and economic
          status- did not develop in Paraguay. Unknown was the rigid association
          which developed in Peru between those in the elite and use of only
          Spanish.




          Unlike almost all other native American languages, Guaraní did not just survive the spread of Spanish, it was adopted by Spanish settlers. From the time of independence in 1811, either Spanish or Guarani have been favoured at different times for different reasons, but never for long and never to the extent that one fell into a serious decline in usage.



          Concrete evidence of bilingualism can be found in the Chaco War (1932–1935) when the military was instructed to use Guaraní and not Spanish on the battlefield. Such a change at literally the drop of a hat would not have been possible unless most of the soldiers at all levels were bilingual.



          A 1960 survey of bilinguals in a rural area and an urban one threw up some interesting examples of how people switched from one language to the other depending on environment, mood and who they were talking to. Below are some situations and the language they were most likely to use in the city of Luque:




          • With your parents - Guarani

          • With your children - Spanish

          • With your spouse daily - both

          • With your spouse when angry - Guarani

          • With your sweetheart - Spanish

          • With the doctor - Spanish

          • With the curandero - Guarani


          Since 1950, a greater emphasis has been placed on Guaraní but, even so, the large majority of the population remain bilingual; 90% of the population speak Guaraní while 87% speak Paraguayan Spanish.





          NOTES ON THE QUESTION



          In view of criticisms of the question and some of the content in a couple of the answers, it seems a few points need emphasizing:



          - First and foremost, the OP clearly specified the "bulk of the
          population
          " (i.e not the literate elite from whom the bulk of our
          evidence of past bilingualism stems).



          - Second, the question also states "at near fluency". While it is
          undoubtedly true that most international traders (for example) were
          bilingual or even multilingual, it cannot be assumed from this that
          they spoke / understood at a level 'near fluency' (not to mention
          that they were a small percentage of the population). Nor can we
          assume that the (undoubted) existence multilingual regions meant that
          people had 'near fluency' and switched languages "as a matter of
          course
          ".



          - Third, a country having 2 or more 'official languages' is categorically not evidence by itself of bi- or multilingualism and thus barely seems worth mentioning. That said, Semaphore's examples of Gibraltar and Luxembourg look rock solid and the type of answers the OP is looking for.



          - Fourth, LangLangC has rightly pointed to one weakness of the question; 'region' lets in, as LangLangC demonstrates, numerous examples of border regions. To be fair to the OP, this is a tough one when covering all historical periods (for why, see the final point).



          - Finally, Brian Z has highlighted the other weakness; the inclusion of pre-modern societies (see his answer for details). Restricting the question to no earlier than c.1500 AD (or perhaps 1750 AD) would have helped.





          Other source:



          Donald F. Fogelquist, 'The Biligualism of Paraguay' in Hispania Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb. 1950)






          share|improve this answer















          PARAGUAY - Guaraní and Spanish



          Note: before looking at this answer, readers might want to check my 'Notes on the Question' at the end of this post.





          Most Paraguayans are mestizo, and Paraguay has a long history of bilingualism due to the fact that




          the initial period of contact between the aboriginals and the Spanish
          was one of constant interaction. Collaboration between Indians and
          Spanish in Paraguay dated from the very beginning of Spanish
          colonization and continued through the initial years of Spanish
          occupation.




          This 'collaboration' in the colonial period (mid 16th century to 1811) included a high proportion of mixed marriages:




          One of the interesting aspects of Paraguayan social history is the
          frequency of mixed unions during the colonial period. Men greatly
          outnumbered women among European settlers, especially in the remote
          areas to the southeast of Bolivia, and an obvious solution to the
          problem was interethnic marriage. For much of the colonial era, then,
          the prototypical Paraguayan family consisted of a Spanish-speaking
          father and a Guaraní-speaking mother, a fact that may partly explain
          the widespread Spanish-Guaraní bilingualism that exists today in
          Paraguay.




          Almost without exception in European colonialism, the colonizers language became that of the local elite while the bulk of the population stuck to indigenous languages. In Paraguay, though, this didn't happen:




          As a result of an extremely limited immigration and the high
          percentage of mestizo households, a really insulated
          upper-class—differentiated by language, education, and economic
          status- did not develop in Paraguay. Unknown was the rigid association
          which developed in Peru between those in the elite and use of only
          Spanish.




          Unlike almost all other native American languages, Guaraní did not just survive the spread of Spanish, it was adopted by Spanish settlers. From the time of independence in 1811, either Spanish or Guarani have been favoured at different times for different reasons, but never for long and never to the extent that one fell into a serious decline in usage.



          Concrete evidence of bilingualism can be found in the Chaco War (1932–1935) when the military was instructed to use Guaraní and not Spanish on the battlefield. Such a change at literally the drop of a hat would not have been possible unless most of the soldiers at all levels were bilingual.



          A 1960 survey of bilinguals in a rural area and an urban one threw up some interesting examples of how people switched from one language to the other depending on environment, mood and who they were talking to. Below are some situations and the language they were most likely to use in the city of Luque:




          • With your parents - Guarani

          • With your children - Spanish

          • With your spouse daily - both

          • With your spouse when angry - Guarani

          • With your sweetheart - Spanish

          • With the doctor - Spanish

          • With the curandero - Guarani


          Since 1950, a greater emphasis has been placed on Guaraní but, even so, the large majority of the population remain bilingual; 90% of the population speak Guaraní while 87% speak Paraguayan Spanish.





          NOTES ON THE QUESTION



          In view of criticisms of the question and some of the content in a couple of the answers, it seems a few points need emphasizing:



          - First and foremost, the OP clearly specified the "bulk of the
          population
          " (i.e not the literate elite from whom the bulk of our
          evidence of past bilingualism stems).



          - Second, the question also states "at near fluency". While it is
          undoubtedly true that most international traders (for example) were
          bilingual or even multilingual, it cannot be assumed from this that
          they spoke / understood at a level 'near fluency' (not to mention
          that they were a small percentage of the population). Nor can we
          assume that the (undoubted) existence multilingual regions meant that
          people had 'near fluency' and switched languages "as a matter of
          course
          ".



          - Third, a country having 2 or more 'official languages' is categorically not evidence by itself of bi- or multilingualism and thus barely seems worth mentioning. That said, Semaphore's examples of Gibraltar and Luxembourg look rock solid and the type of answers the OP is looking for.



          - Fourth, LangLangC has rightly pointed to one weakness of the question; 'region' lets in, as LangLangC demonstrates, numerous examples of border regions. To be fair to the OP, this is a tough one when covering all historical periods (for why, see the final point).



          - Finally, Brian Z has highlighted the other weakness; the inclusion of pre-modern societies (see his answer for details). Restricting the question to no earlier than c.1500 AD (or perhaps 1750 AD) would have helped.





          Other source:



          Donald F. Fogelquist, 'The Biligualism of Paraguay' in Hispania Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb. 1950)







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited yesterday

























          answered 2 days ago









          Lars BosteenLars Bosteen

          53.8k11 gold badges239 silver badges324 bronze badges




          53.8k11 gold badges239 silver badges324 bronze badges


























              3














              While this may not meet every specification of the question, in Cataluña, almost everyone is native in Catalá and Español. In Galicia, a majority in gallego and español. And in spite of years of suppression, there are still a sizable number of Basque speakers in “País Vasco.”



              (But I was always amused that the Basque graffiti demanding independence and making only Basque official depended on words borrowed from Spanish)






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















              • I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

                – WGroleau
                6 hours ago
















              3














              While this may not meet every specification of the question, in Cataluña, almost everyone is native in Catalá and Español. In Galicia, a majority in gallego and español. And in spite of years of suppression, there are still a sizable number of Basque speakers in “País Vasco.”



              (But I was always amused that the Basque graffiti demanding independence and making only Basque official depended on words borrowed from Spanish)






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






















              • I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

                – WGroleau
                6 hours ago














              3












              3








              3







              While this may not meet every specification of the question, in Cataluña, almost everyone is native in Catalá and Español. In Galicia, a majority in gallego and español. And in spite of years of suppression, there are still a sizable number of Basque speakers in “País Vasco.”



              (But I was always amused that the Basque graffiti demanding independence and making only Basque official depended on words borrowed from Spanish)






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              While this may not meet every specification of the question, in Cataluña, almost everyone is native in Catalá and Español. In Galicia, a majority in gallego and español. And in spite of years of suppression, there are still a sizable number of Basque speakers in “País Vasco.”



              (But I was always amused that the Basque graffiti demanding independence and making only Basque official depended on words borrowed from Spanish)







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.








              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.








              answered yesterday









              WGroleauWGroleau

              1313 bronze badges




              1313 bronze badges




              New contributor



              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




              New contributor




              WGroleau is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.


















              • I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

                – WGroleau
                6 hours ago



















              • I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

                – WGroleau
                6 hours ago

















              I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

              – WGroleau
              6 hours ago





              I see that I missed the word "contemporary." Above answer describes the situation now (beginning of the 21st century).

              – WGroleau
              6 hours ago











              2














              South African have 11 official languages in our 'matriek' everyone is expected to do at least two official languages, while some do three or four. There is off course people living there who where not educated there who cannot speak something else than English, but if you were educated in SA you are expected to do a first language and a second language.



              White people often at the very least speak Afrikaans and English although French and German are not uncommon for person who have had a 'western' education, there still are German schools in most big cities.



              Among the black communities English and Afrikaans is often spoken as a lingua franca but it is not uncommon for them to speak a number of what is typically considered 'African' languages.



              There is off course one caveat and this is the Zulu's of Natal. Typically it has been considered practice that if you have anything to do with them you are expected to speak there language as they typically don't speak anything else, but even that is changing as the country keeps on becoming more western.



              It is even not that uncommon for Natal's most selective public schools to teach Zulu as if you are entering any sort of trade in that province, as an adult it behooves you to learn it.



              Native English speakers would tell you English is the language of the workplace, but if you live in big Afrikaner communities, which still exist in SA, you going to find Afrikaners seniors that are only begrudgingly going to speak English with you.






              share|improve this answer






























                2














                South African have 11 official languages in our 'matriek' everyone is expected to do at least two official languages, while some do three or four. There is off course people living there who where not educated there who cannot speak something else than English, but if you were educated in SA you are expected to do a first language and a second language.



                White people often at the very least speak Afrikaans and English although French and German are not uncommon for person who have had a 'western' education, there still are German schools in most big cities.



                Among the black communities English and Afrikaans is often spoken as a lingua franca but it is not uncommon for them to speak a number of what is typically considered 'African' languages.



                There is off course one caveat and this is the Zulu's of Natal. Typically it has been considered practice that if you have anything to do with them you are expected to speak there language as they typically don't speak anything else, but even that is changing as the country keeps on becoming more western.



                It is even not that uncommon for Natal's most selective public schools to teach Zulu as if you are entering any sort of trade in that province, as an adult it behooves you to learn it.



                Native English speakers would tell you English is the language of the workplace, but if you live in big Afrikaner communities, which still exist in SA, you going to find Afrikaners seniors that are only begrudgingly going to speak English with you.






                share|improve this answer




























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  South African have 11 official languages in our 'matriek' everyone is expected to do at least two official languages, while some do three or four. There is off course people living there who where not educated there who cannot speak something else than English, but if you were educated in SA you are expected to do a first language and a second language.



                  White people often at the very least speak Afrikaans and English although French and German are not uncommon for person who have had a 'western' education, there still are German schools in most big cities.



                  Among the black communities English and Afrikaans is often spoken as a lingua franca but it is not uncommon for them to speak a number of what is typically considered 'African' languages.



                  There is off course one caveat and this is the Zulu's of Natal. Typically it has been considered practice that if you have anything to do with them you are expected to speak there language as they typically don't speak anything else, but even that is changing as the country keeps on becoming more western.



                  It is even not that uncommon for Natal's most selective public schools to teach Zulu as if you are entering any sort of trade in that province, as an adult it behooves you to learn it.



                  Native English speakers would tell you English is the language of the workplace, but if you live in big Afrikaner communities, which still exist in SA, you going to find Afrikaners seniors that are only begrudgingly going to speak English with you.






                  share|improve this answer













                  South African have 11 official languages in our 'matriek' everyone is expected to do at least two official languages, while some do three or four. There is off course people living there who where not educated there who cannot speak something else than English, but if you were educated in SA you are expected to do a first language and a second language.



                  White people often at the very least speak Afrikaans and English although French and German are not uncommon for person who have had a 'western' education, there still are German schools in most big cities.



                  Among the black communities English and Afrikaans is often spoken as a lingua franca but it is not uncommon for them to speak a number of what is typically considered 'African' languages.



                  There is off course one caveat and this is the Zulu's of Natal. Typically it has been considered practice that if you have anything to do with them you are expected to speak there language as they typically don't speak anything else, but even that is changing as the country keeps on becoming more western.



                  It is even not that uncommon for Natal's most selective public schools to teach Zulu as if you are entering any sort of trade in that province, as an adult it behooves you to learn it.



                  Native English speakers would tell you English is the language of the workplace, but if you live in big Afrikaner communities, which still exist in SA, you going to find Afrikaners seniors that are only begrudgingly going to speak English with you.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 12 hours ago









                  Neil MeyerNeil Meyer

                  2342 silver badges10 bronze badges




                  2342 silver badges10 bronze badges


























                      1














                      Swiss Confederation has 4 official languages.






                      share|improve this answer















                      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.












                      • 7





                        What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                        – Steve Bird
                        2 days ago











                      • @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                        – Trish
                        2 days ago






                      • 8





                        Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        2 days ago













                      • @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                        – d-b
                        2 days ago











                      • @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        yesterday


















                      1














                      Swiss Confederation has 4 official languages.






                      share|improve this answer















                      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.












                      • 7





                        What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                        – Steve Bird
                        2 days ago











                      • @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                        – Trish
                        2 days ago






                      • 8





                        Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        2 days ago













                      • @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                        – d-b
                        2 days ago











                      • @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        yesterday
















                      1












                      1








                      1







                      Swiss Confederation has 4 official languages.






                      share|improve this answer













                      Swiss Confederation has 4 official languages.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Aug 17 at 1:50









                      AlexAlex

                      29.5k1 gold badge58 silver badges111 bronze badges




                      29.5k1 gold badge58 silver badges111 bronze badges





                      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.








                      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.






                      We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.










                      • 7





                        What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                        – Steve Bird
                        2 days ago











                      • @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                        – Trish
                        2 days ago






                      • 8





                        Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        2 days ago













                      • @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                        – d-b
                        2 days ago











                      • @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        yesterday
















                      • 7





                        What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                        – Steve Bird
                        2 days ago











                      • @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                        – Trish
                        2 days ago






                      • 8





                        Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        2 days ago













                      • @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                        – d-b
                        2 days ago











                      • @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                        – Leander Moesinger
                        yesterday










                      7




                      7





                      What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                      – Steve Bird
                      2 days ago





                      What proportion of the population are actually bi- or multi-lingual?

                      – Steve Bird
                      2 days ago













                      @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                      – Trish
                      2 days ago





                      @SteveBird due to a law that mandates being taught in at least one of the swiss languages not dominant in the region: 100/100 at least two...

                      – Trish
                      2 days ago




                      8




                      8





                      Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                      – Leander Moesinger
                      2 days ago







                      Being Swiss from the german speaking part, i dont think this is a good example. While we all learn a second national language in school, the vast majority does a) not speak it even remotely on the level of a native speaker and b) does not use that second language as a matter of course. One could however discuss whether the switching from swiss-german to plain german counts as bilingualism.

                      – Leander Moesinger
                      2 days ago















                      @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                      – d-b
                      2 days ago





                      @LeanderMoesinger They don't? I have met many Swiss who speaks good English and then they tell me it's their third language. Their second language should be better. BTW, I am Swedish and speak English and French.

                      – d-b
                      2 days ago













                      @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                      – Leander Moesinger
                      yesterday







                      @d-b There are of course many people who do speak a second national language fluently and as a foreigner you are much more likely to meet those people for a variety of reasons. But the question is whether the bulk of the population speaks a second national language fluently & as a matter of course, and that is definitely not the case.

                      – Leander Moesinger
                      yesterday




















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54160%2fhas-there-ever-been-a-truly-bilingual-country-prior-to-the-contemporary-period%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                      Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                      Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...