Most successful cultural/linguistic assimilations?

Thing is, it's hard to consider "locals" as one entity, would it be only due to inner French migrations in these regions since centuries and outer migrations since the XIXth.
Basque Country (Vasconia is more of an historical term, a bit like calling English Midlands "Mercia") and Corsica are the main preservers of a regional identity that include language. Basque language use remains essentially limited to both more aged populations and to school for the younger ones, with less than 1/4 in French Basque Country overall (much less between 25/49, which is roughly around 15%) able to understand it, which is (contrary to Spanish Basque Country) in constant decline.
Corsican language is in a better shape, with nearly 1/2 of the population claiming to understand it. But it's in similar decline nevertheless (UNESCO pointing that it's in danger of extinction).
Breton might be spoken by a bit more than 10 000 persons, understood by 300 000 persons.

Overall, while language plays an important regional identitarian role, they're not exactly thrilling and no one knows the demographical rise in use that Welsh does knows.
Tbh regional languages aren't really rising around Western Europe outside Spain(and even in Spain it's mostly limited to Basque and Catalonian), France is hardly special in this. Even Britain and Ireland are merely attempting at preserving the current levels, not exactly reversing the trend.

It's actually one of the languages that manages to do a bit better. There's roughly 1/3 of the population claiming to understand it (the others thirds being people not understanding it at all, and people understanding it a little). That said, most of the locutors are aged, and young population that is at least partially understanding it is meager : less than a fifth under 30 years old. Occitan does seems to manage better, but the sheer number of locutors is a bit of a statistical illusion. Note that regional identity is far less politic than in Basque County or Corsica.
Combined with knowledge of German what is the % reached? Curiously enough in Aosta, while more people claim to know French many more people claim to be native speakers of Franco-Provenzal, although both are overshadowed by Italian which surprisingly reaches 3/4 of the population in native speakers.
 
England. Something like a few hundred Saxons ended up making the whole thing Germanic
Probably more than a few hundreds Germanic settlers : possibly on par with a significantly weakened Britto-Roman population in the Vth Eastern England.

Tbh regional languages aren't really rising around Western Europe outside Spain(and even in Spain it's mostly limited to Basque and Catalonian), France is hardly special in this. Even Britain and Ireland are merely attempting at preserving the current levels, not exactly reversing the trend.
There's a difference between "not really rising" and "almost clinically dead and surviving mostly thanks to the most aged demographics". There is simply no equivalent to ethnolinguistical movements in France that could be compared to Catalonia, Spanish Basque Country (or, for what its worth, regional identities in Spain), Flanders, Scotland, etc. No matter how hard FH members would want it so. The closest equivalent would be Corsica, and it's closer to independentist movement in Wales in the sense of its popular impact : most of the linguistical identities is actually not really based on linguistical use.

Combined with knowledge of German what is the % reached?
This is not how it's calculated : many people with a knowledge of German in Alsace doesn't know Alsatian dialect, as knowing French and knowing Picard or Norman dialect aren't really combinable, in a relevant manner that is.

Curiously enough in Aosta, while more people claim to know French many more people claim to be native speakers of Franco-Provenzal
Which is essentially the same : Franco-Provençal is a distinct dialect of French, not unlike Gascon-Bearnes is for Occitan. Claims around Arpitan mostly raised in the 70's when maoists wanted their "totally-non-french-culture-we're-colonised-people-too" playground.
 
There's a difference between "not really rising" and "almost clinically dead and surviving mostly thanks to the most aged demographics". There is simply no equivalent to ethnolinguistical movements in France that could be compared to Catalonia, Spanish Basque Country (or, for what its worth, regional identities in Spain), Flanders, Scotland, etc. No matter how hard FH members would want it so. The closest equivalent would be Corsica, and it's closer to independentist movement in Wales in the sense of its popular impact : most of the linguistical identities is actually not really based on linguistical use.
That's true but still hardly a case of French expectionalism per se, at this point is more like Spain and the UK(only with Scotland) are the outliers, while Germany, Netherlands Italy and France are largely unitary in virtually all territories(the deal with the Northern League is a separate matter, but in any case they stopped being a regionalist party de jure recently)

The example of Belgium is a bit different, there is not enough dominance of one linguistic group for full assimilation.

This is not how it's calculated : many people with a knowledge of German in Alsace doesn't know Alsatian dialect, as knowing French and knowing Picard or Norman dialect aren't really combinable, in a relevant manner that is.
I know it's not the same, but I wonder what the % would be if we include that, it's a bit like Aostans learning standard French instead of their dialect, or South Tyroleans learning German, it's next closest thing that is useful.

Which is essentially the same : Franco-Provençal is a distinct dialect of French, not unlike Gascon-Bearnes is for Occitan. Claims around Arpitan mostly raised in the 70's when maoists wanted their "totally-non-french-culture-we're-colonised-people-too" playground.
You don't think Franco-Provenzal is its own dialectal group distinct from the Oc and Oil grouping?[/QUOTE]
 
That's true but still hardly a case of French expectionalism per se
Nobody argued this : what my point was is that the process went particularily early on in France and went further than most European countries.

I know it's not the same, but I wonder what the % would be if we include that, it's a bit like Aostans learning standard French instead of their dialect, or South Tyroleans learning German, it's next closest thing that is useful.
Most people able to speak Alsatian doesn't really consider it as a German dialect, regardless of the linguistical realities : German is more taught in Alsace because Germany is close and there's a lot of commercial (8% of the Alsatian population works in Germany) and cultural ties as Italian is more often taught in Provence and Savoy, or Spanish in the South-West.
It's worth noting that people speaking German in Alsace are relatively few and less numerous than in the past, altough numbers are hard to get by : German is a taught third language after English, but how many really quit school with a good knowledge of it.

You don't think Franco-Provenzal is its own dialectal group distinct from the Oc and Oil grouping?
It's definitely more akin to Oil language : that there is in Franco-Provençals traits you find in Occitan is unsurprizing (Crescent region have many Oil features, it doesn't make it its own thing nevertheless). There's a tendency (supported by UNESCO) to label every Oil dialect as its own language : Picard, Normand, Wallon, Poitevin, etc. on really REALLY shaky grounds.
And then you have the proponents of Savoyard language, totally different from Francoprovencal, yes siree..
 
It's actually one of the languages that manages to do a bit better. There's roughly 1/3 of the population claiming to understand it (the others thirds being people not understanding it at all, and people understanding it a little). That said, most of the locutors are aged, and young population that is at least partially understanding it is meager : less than a fifth under 30 years old. Occitan does seems to manage better, but the sheer number of locutors is a bit of a statistical illusion. Note that regional identity is far less politic than in Basque County or Corsica.
Are many Alsatians fluent in Standard German as well? (EDIT: nevermind, you answered above). For a comparison, in Italian Sudtirol German-speakers use (well, used) local vernacular at home, but are taught Standard German at school (mostly the same with the Slovenian minority*, and also in Aosta where official bilingualism is Italian and French, not Italian and Arpitan, the latter being in significant decline).
* Slovenian dialects in Italy are however fairly close to Standard Slovenian, except for Resian which has some level of local recognition but is not, AFAIK, officially taught.
 
It's definitely more akin to Oil language : that there is in Franco-Provençals traits you find in Occitan is unsurprizing (Crescent region have many Oil features, it doesn't make it its own thing nevertheless). There's a tendency (supported by UNESCO) to label every Oil dialect as its own language : Picard, Normand, Wallon, Poitevin, etc. on really REALLY shaky grounds.
The problem is that dialect and language are not properly defined. What you really have is seven billion+ idiolects, groupings of which linguists classify as dialects and languages (and so on) as convenient. One linguist's dialect can easily be another's language. There is no objective way to differentiate the two (and no, "mutual intelligibility" does not work objectively -- not only does it fail to deal with dialect continuums, intelligibility very often works one way but not the other).
 
The problem is that dialect and language are not properly defined. What you really have is seven billion+ idiolects, groupings of which linguists classify as dialects and languages (and so on) as convenient. One linguist's dialect can easily be another's language. There is no objective way to differentiate the two (and no, "mutual intelligibility" does not work objectively -- not only does it fail to deal with dialect continuums, intelligibility very often works one way but not the other).
This is true, but "language" and "dialect" do keep a somewhat-more-than-solely-intuitive usefulness that is hard to away with, like similarly useful concepts that indeed fall apart at closer scrutiny such as "word" or even "phoneme".
 
The problem is that dialect and language are not properly defined..
Which is why a said more akin to, and not overly precised the degree of closeness : but as the distinction between language and dialect is essentially about its institutionalisation and its standardization, and when it's plainly obvious that Franco-Provencal is neither...
So far, then, we have to consider that this ensemble of sub-dialects is definitely closer to Oil ensemble, too close to really be considered on its own.
 
The Andean countries are both Quechua-speaking and Spanish-speaking. Mexico is a Nahuatl-speaking and a Spanish-speaking country. For the purposes of this topic, the only Latin American countries that we can consider "successful" are Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Everywhere else has failed to completely assimilate its native population.

What about Uruguay?
 
What about Uruguay?
And Argentina, but we could argue that in both countries there were no Assimilation and what we see in them was a Population replacement, after the massacre and expulsion of the original inhabitants.
Still I would Consider Latina America a Successful case of Cultural and Linguistic assimilation, The Spanish did not completely assimilate all the cultures in America, but a solid 90% of america Speak Primarily Spanish, and is Primarily Roman Catholic. We could argue that is was not a complete success, but say it´s was a fail, is a stretch.
 
The disappearance of Occitan and other languages in France was remarkably quick in the XIXth, thanks to centuries of diglossic relationship with French where they lost administrative and cultural purpose. At the difference of what happened in other european countries, the assimilation to a French linguistical and political culture did involved social ascencion on a more or less egalitarian footing (transversal class-wise). There's few countries that were this successful structurally : Great-Britain, Netherlands and...well, that's it, and France worked on a much more diverse cultural ground.
It's not to say it was right, but eventually, it was essentially peaceful if with coercive elements.

How did public schooling factor into this exchange from the Òc language(s) to French?
 
The Andean countries are both Quechua-speaking and Spanish-speaking. Mexico is a Nahuatl-speaking and a Spanish-speaking country. For the purposes of this topic, the only Latin American countries that we can consider "successful" are Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Everywhere else has failed to completely assimilate its native population.
Natives make up around 0.5% of the Brazilian population and those that aren't uncontacted can understand or even use Portuguese as their primary language.
 
And then you have the proponents of Savoyard language, totally different from Francoprovencal, yes siree..
Don't get me started on that!
I think we can agree that there's no standard language to lump all the FP dialects under that wouldn't be considered controversial by someone.
I'd like a better name for the group since Franco-Provencal implies a hybrid or Creole rather than something more "natural" and Arpitan has political aspects as noted by Savoyard separatism. Arlesian perhaps or Arlatine in reference to the old kingdom?
 
How did public schooling factor into this exchange from the Òc language(s) to French?
Certainly one of the main, if not the main, factors.
Note that intitutionality of Occitan was already a thing of the past in the XIXth century, and that its unity was degraded from the XIIIth century onward, but mandatory schooling in French (including consideration of Occitan as a sub-speech which led to some "linguistical hygenism" up to punishment) really did a number on it. It wasn't the only factor, tough, and in the 30's a majority still spoke Occitan as well as French. What eventually helped killed it was mass-media : newspapers and televisions.


Arlesian perhaps or Arlatine in reference to the old kingdom?
Arles being firmly in the Occitanophone zone... The best equivalence would be Romand.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
And Argentina, but we could argue that in both countries there were no Assimilation and what we see in them was a Population replacement, after the massacre and expulsion of the original inhabitants.
Still I would Consider Latina America a Successful case of Cultural and Linguistic assimilation, The Spanish did not completely assimilate all the cultures in America, but a solid 90% of america Speak Primarily Spanish, and is Primarily Roman Catholic. We could argue that is was not a complete success, but say it´s was a fail, is a stretch.

Argentina retains indigenous languages, whereas Uruguay doesn't. However, the amount of Portunhol spoken in Uruguay is enough to put it out of the monolingual group for me, though it is the best mainland candidate.
 
Certainly one of the main, if not the main, factors.
Note that intitutionality of Occitan was already a thing of the past in the XIXth century, and that its unity was degraded from the XIIIth century onward, but mandatory schooling in French (including consideration of Occitan as a sub-speech which led to some "linguistical hygenism" up to punishment) really did a number on it. It wasn't the only factor, tough, and in the 30's a majority still spoke Occitan as well as French. What eventually helped killed it was mass-media : newspapers and televisions.
I guess this is a bit beside the point, but was the linguistic assimilation prior to that mostly traceable to the new industrial transportation and information technology or actually the various social changes themselves were the deciding factors(with technology only indirectly affecting that)?

Which is why a said more akin to, and not overly precised the degree of closeness : but as the distinction between language and dialect is essentially about its institutionalisation and its standardization, and when it's plainly obvious that Franco-Provencal is neither...
So far, then, we have to consider that this ensemble of sub-dialects is definitely closer to Oil ensemble, too close to really be considered on its own.
I wonder why did Franco-Provenzal end up closer to Oil when most of the territories lies in the Rhone and its tributaries being connected to Provencal speaking areas while there is a bit more rugged terrain between it and Oil dialects.

It's definitely more akin to Oil language : that there is in Franco-Provençals traits you find in Occitan is unsurprizing (Crescent region have many Oil features, it doesn't make it its own thing nevertheless). There's a tendency (supported by UNESCO) to label every Oil dialect as its own language : Picard, Normand, Wallon, Poitevin, etc. on really REALLY shaky grounds.
And then you have the proponents of Savoyard language, totally different from Francoprovencal, yes siree..
Do you think there is a legitimate case to name some Oil dialects languages or are all too similar?
 
I guess this is a bit beside the point, but was the linguistic assimilation prior to that mostly traceable to the new industrial transportation and information technology or actually the various social changes themselves were the deciding factors(with technology only indirectly affecting that)?
Not really, it was way more institutional and began in the Late Middle Ages with the disappearance of Occitan scripta in official texts, than in upper classea and upper-middle class use, including cultural (organs that were formerly dedicated to Occitan litterature switched to French at the Renaissance or disappeared quickly).
Industrial Revolution didn't that impacted language strictly speaking, and there's a lot of evidence that the relatively limited industrialisation in southern France might have preserved Occitan as an everyday language in regions were workers were also peasants or in strong connection with rural world. Carmaux's mines knew an influx of Ukranian workers in the 20's/30's and they often ended up speaking Occitan with their coworkers.

I wonder why did Franco-Provenzal end up closer to Oil when most of the territories lies in the Rhone and its tributaries being connected to Provencal speaking areas while there is a bit more rugged terrain between it and Oil dialects.
It less "ended up" than it probably was from the beggining.
As for why : the reasons of the medieval delimitation of Occitano-Romance and northern Gallo-Romance (which really appeared with the late IXth) might be structural (the Loire forming a rough linguistical border between Aquitaine and France proper, with Berry soon included into France). It's possible, altough not the only factor, that being apart from royal/princeley centers from France did helped a greater differenciation. Note that the Rhone basin was diectly connected to Moselle and Meuse basin tough, while connection with Occitan was more limited to Provence (Massif Central was kind of a rugged limit).

Do you think there is a legitimate case to name some Oil dialects languages or are all too similar?
They're forming a coherent dialectal ensemble, which exchanged and formed a whole much more easily than, say, Bourguignon and Auvergnat. Some Oil dialects are quite specific (especially when benefiting of their own chanceries) but they eventually formed a same French continuum on which standardised French arose (which is not, contrary to what is still often claimed, the same as Francian). People nowadays have lost the habit to hear different dialects, which makes them more foreign to the ear : but really, the common ground far outweight the differences and all that defines French language compared to other Romance languages, can be found there.
 
England. Something like a few hundred Saxons ended up making the whole thing Germanic
Given that the English genome is slightly more Germanic than Celtic almost everywhere except Cornwall and eastern Northumbria, I would say there were many more than that.
 
Is that the case for more diverging(linguistically speaking at least) regions like Brittany, French Vasconia and Corsica? Do the locals resist promotion of the local language?

In a lot of French regions there is some support for teaching the regional language, but often, this is lukewarm : in the abstract, people may like the idea of the regional language being taught at school, but when you get to specifics (whether it should be mandatory, for how many years) a lot of people aren't that committed. There are those who argue that teaching them is a waste of time. There are some private schools in certain places that do teach bilingually, but only a small percentage attends them.

A separate issue is that speakers of these languages are divided into different dialects, and forming a standard dialect that everyone can agree on is controversial, even though that is probably the only chance the language can survive in the long term. I've heard that a lot of native Breton speakers for example don't like the standard form that is taught in schools there.
 
Top