Linguistic situation in Anatolia in 1100 AD/CE

Mostly because you're thinking along XIXth lines, inspired by nationalism and exclusivism, IMO.
Long story short : countryside tends to be more unified linguistically, but is still pretty a patchwork especially in these regions with two communities possibly using different languages.
Making countryside only a matter of "peasant" compared to cities is also a non-sense : not dwelling too much on how rural elites can easily differ culturally from most of the population (even when using a speech close to the mass of rural population), and it's perfectly possible to see a Romance speaking elite ruling over an hellenophone community, you have as well to take in account the urban influence over its direct periphery (La Guardia), or the reverse (Ragusa).
And, of course, in a same village, you could see people coming from a neighbouring community not sharng the same linguistical or cultural features, altough we're less talking of a mutual influence there.

Without understanding this, it's hard to explain how SIicily was re-romancized, or the changes in the "border" between Romance and Germanic speeches in Northern France.
But isn´t the peasantry still the largest and the majority of the population? I don´t think it´s a 19th century thing at all, in this period mass literacy was becoming more present and public schools, a factor that in a sense could make speaking more languages possible as well.

I don´t see how a large mass of people without any education and not working in cities, trade or being part of a elite can effectively speak more than one language(outside the exception I list in the other post).
 
Firstly, I'm not sure there was anything like mass schooling for rural communities in 1100s Anatolia, and plenty of historical populations have had large literate and subliterate groups without formal education.

However, rural groups can still be bilingual for the same reason anyone can be bilingual - exposure to multiple languages and the need to communicate with various groups. Two villages across a valley from one another might refuse to give up their ancestral tongues but still find ways to communicate when it came to small-scale trading and the sharing of goods and resources. Intermarriage between the two villages might lead to bilingual households. Education isnt the only way to learn another language.

Patchwork cultures and heterogeneous rural regions are historically more common than I think a lot of people recognize.
 
However, rural groups can still be bilingual for the same reason anyone can be bilingual - exposure to multiple languages and the need to communicate with various groups. Two villages across a valley from one another might refuse to give up their ancestral tongues but still find ways to communicate when it came to small-scale trading and the sharing of goods and resources. Intermarriage between the two villages might lead to bilingual households. Education isnt the only way to learn another language.

Patchwork cultures and heterogeneous rural regions are historically more common than I think a lot of people recognize.
I put those exception but short of mass mixed marriages what kind of diglossia can you realistically have, maybe I´m overestimating the knowledge of the language in case of diglossia and using it wrongly as "bilingualism".
 
Top