Introduction to the Romansh and the Research
The Romansh language is in a serious predicament as it is part of a fluid linguistic situation where Romansh bubbles up to the top only in very specific places and contexts. The people who speak the various Romansh dialects are not bound by linguistic boundaries. Moreover, the dynamic human geographies of personal mobility and cultural affiliations inside Switzerland result in more language contact and transformation. Whether this trend will lead to language extinction cannot be ruled out, but a more likely scenario is the continued isolation of speakers who move away from core cultural areas and the ossification of those traditional communities they leave behind. Conscious efforts to resist this scenario or at least balance those concerns with others are cultural preservation in this instance.
The Swiss-Romansh are enjoying the success of political stability and economic prosperity, which have resulted in better societal opportunities and greater geographic mobility. In no way should the Romansh dilemma be presented in life or death terms associated with ethnic cleansing or political persecution. In fact, the problem is that language contact, associated with contemporary life in Switzerland, leads to peaceful and relatively uncontested language changes. The fundamental question is – can the Romansh or any other small culture group participate in the global realm of ideas and interactions while also preserving a poetic or territorial space for themselves? If so, the qualities of place and community are essential elements to understand—not only for contextualizing individual situations such as this, but also as a general contribution to cultural preservation.
In the Swiss-Romansh case, they themselves make the most important decisions about the preservation of language and culture. Romansh communities debate and decide such things as school curriculum (program d’ instrucziun) and administrative language (linguatg uffizial), which directly regulate local language use, as well as land management and tourism development that indirectly impact overall language contact. Individuals choose to or feel compelled to participate in the modern world by seeking better job opportunities and higher education, which inevitably pull them away from the traditional Romansh speaking areas; or maybe they allow themselves to be human as they seek the "good life" by falling in love with whomever or following their dreams wherever it takes them. Pursuit of the good life does not necessarily mean marriage with non-Romansh speakers nor does it mean migration to non-Romansh speaking areas, but for some, it is part of the mixture that has become their modern society.
In this dissertation, I only scratch the surface of these all important concepts like the good life and globalization because I focus on the Romansh and their preservation. I have chosen to describe in detail the actual Romansh in the landscape and the parallel stories about the Romansh that are indicative of their political, social, and ecological contexts. While modernity and cultural differentiation fit into that discussion quite well, my strongest scholarly contribution is to fill a gap by relating geographical concepts such as place and territory to the Romansh cultural landscape. In this first chapter, I provide both introductory information about the research as well as some necessary background concerning the Romansh. Therefore, it contains three parts: first, an introduction to the Romansh and their situation; second, the research design and methodology; third, the order and topics of the remaining chapters with a clarification about language use associated with the study area.
The Romansh are often called the fourth language (quart linguatg) in Switzerland and sometimes just the Fourth Switzerland reflecting the widespread belief that the different language groups constitute unique cultural groups (Camartin, 1982; Haas, 1982; Rougier and Sanguin, 1992; Terra, 1993). The expression derives from the 1930s when Romansh was the subject of a federal referendum that recognized it as the fourth national language. Typically, the languages are usually listed by their relative size in Switzerland, so German at 63.6%, French at 19.2%, and Italian at 7.6%; Romansh comes in at 0.6% of all residents and slightly higher but still under one percent if only Swiss citizens are counted (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1995:108).
All four languages are National, Linguatg naziunal in Romansh or Landessprache in German, but the official status (also known as Amtssprache) varies between geographic area and individuals concerned. Only four Swiss cantons are officially multilingual; three straddle the French-German language border and Grischun is the only trilingual canton with Romansh, German, and Italian (Figure 1). While individuals have a theoretical right to use their own language, localities tend to operate in a single, official language, which strongly corresponds to the traditional language territories.
Figure 1 – Swiss Language Territories
Swiss Language Scene
Human mobility makes the linguistic complexity in Switzerland more fluid and complex; not only is there domestic, but also international migration. For the Romansh situation, the most important movement is among Swiss as both Romansh and Swiss-German speakers freely reside and work in each other's language region. Yet, international movements of people and global telecommunications are making the idea of a national language policy difficult if not impossible.
Two interesting points about Switzerland—one is that about ten percent of all Swiss citizens live outside of Switzerland (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1999:57) and they have become known in a political sense as the Fifth Switzerland. These "Swiss Abroad" (Auslandschweizer) do not include historical emigration to the Americas or their efforts to be Swiss (see Hoelscher, 1998), but Swiss nationals who actively maintain their official status and since 1992 have the right to vote by mail in federal elections. The second point is that non-Swiss nationals have risen to about 19 percent of the resident population during the 1990s (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1999:28). A high percent of Foreigners (Auslander) has many consequences, but for the Romansh, it means more people in Switzerland speak English, Spanish, or Serbo-Croatian ranking Romansh as the eighth most spoken language. Table one contains a list of all the principal languages spoken by over ten thousand residents in Switzerland. It also shows: one, the breakdown between Swiss and foreign residents concerning the National languages, two, the identification with dialects of German, French and Italian, and three, the multilingualism of Romansh speakers.
The fluid language situation in Switzerland is difficult to understand not only because of the movement of people and ideas, but also the way one discusses language. Two distinct language discourses exist, and each has its own qualities. The first is the civic sphere that is exclusively Swiss. In many ways, it represents a traditional notion of citizenship with strong association to places of origin and heredity, and it contains a mixture of both responsibilities and privileges like military service and voting. Those individuals in this sphere are usually participants in higher quality education that includes training in multiple languages and life-long exposure to multilingualism. The second is the residential sphere of people working and living together in Switzerland, which better represents the socio-economic reality of metropolitan areas. This sphere of interaction has to take into account the foreign population with a likelihood of only one standardized national language and the demands of global interaction that, for example, rewards English.
Table 1
Principal Languages in Switzerland in 1990
Federal Census
FULL TABLE
Abstracted Table:
German 4,374,000 (63.6%)
French 1,321,695 (19.2%)
Italian 524,116 (7.6%)
Romansh 39,632 (0.6%)
Other 613,550 (8.9%)
The actual language situation of Swiss cities and regions is quite varied in terms of their national and linguistic composition (Figure 2). Figure two is a map of the language situation for Switzerland with languages represented inside proportional population symbols. The strong German-Romance distinction comes through as well as the overall linguistic diversity in the high Alps. Not apparent on this map is that the largest share of the international movement is within common language areas of Switzerland’s five neighbors. While this movement of people and ideas is a two way process, the cross-border exchange significantly boosters the percentage of Italian speaking residents. Romansh are quick to point out that they have no such synergy with another nation-based linguistic community. In contrast, guest workers and refugees introduce Slavic and other Romance languages that are not native to Switzerland. Furthermore, there are distinct regional differences associated with international migration.
Figure 2 – Swiss Language Distribution
Examples of regional variation include Turkish speakers concentrating in the Northeast (Basel-Zürich-St. Gallen), and people originating from Africa are more common in Western Switzerland (Geneva-Lausanne). As one may expect, there are numerous multilingual combinations as well as non-standard linguas such as "Fremdendeutsch," which is a pidgin spoken by foreigners with limited German language knowledge.
The language landscape is even more complex when we consider the role of tourism, mass media, and global culture. For example, English and Japanese language signs are found in many popular tourist areas, and current Hollywood movies with subtitles instead of dubbing are popular throughout metropolitan Switzerland. The transformation of telecommunications in Europe is bewildering with both privatization of government monopolies and technological innovation. These changes result in dynamic media markets that combine Germany, Austria, and Switzerland on one scale and regional programming and advertising. Amidst this techno-cultural Babel (Barber, 1995), Romansh language has to compete for the imagination and dedication of its speakers, which is a big task due to its small size.
Number of Speakers
An important consideration of the Romansh language is of course how many people identify themselves as speakers. In a complex society that promotes multilingualism, using language statistics as a measure of identity or group affiliation is sure to have some errors. Since the Swiss public is exposed to census results, the census becomes part of the overall language discourse. An additional source of confusion is the formulation of language questions on the census that throw a wrinkle into Romansh studies. For a hundred years, the primary question was "What is your mother tongue?" The mother tongue question reflected a typical understanding of natural language acquisition from parents even if worded with a gendered term that has become a questionable concept for mixed language parents, not to mention non-traditional family types. Regardless, the mother tongue question showed a continuous growth of absolute numbers from 38,705 Romansh in 1880, which was the first federal census that asked this question of individuals, to 51,128 in the 1980 census (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1996:157; see Figure 3). In 1990, the primary language question (linguatg principal / Hauptsprache) was changed to "Which language do you have best command of?" To which, only 39,632 people responded with Romansh as their answer. In addition to the Best Command question, officials conducted a further survey of language use to assess other commonly used languages and the overall multilingual situation in Switzerland. The question was "Which language(s) do you speak regularly at home, school, and/or work?"
Without any dramatic demographic incidents to account for such a decline (between 1980 Mother tongue and 1990 Main language), the results are attributed to the change of census questions. Nevertheless, the response by Romansh groups has been defensive with attempts to calculate another expression of Romansh language use while simultaneously using the new number as a wake-up call to address language issues. The Romansh group Lia Rumantscha combines the Best Command question with the Regularly Spoken question to estimate that 66,356 people speak Romansh (Lia Rumantscha, 1996:20).
Figure 3 – Census Count of the Romansh Population
GRAPH of Population, 1850-1990 (1880-1980)
Another way is to use the census questions on multilingualism (question #2.004-00); from that, I estimate that 62,353 people speak Romansh with the breakdown of 12,963 monolingual and 49,390 multilingual speakers (see Table 1). Since monolinguals logically had to choose Romansh as their primary language, interestingly, only 26,669 of the 49,390 multilinguals could have indicated Romansh as their primary language. As the number of non-Romansh who learn Romansh well enough to claim proficiency is very small, the only realistic interpretation is that Romansh speakers who become settled in other language areas eventually consider that language as their primary one.
Even if we agree that the total number of speakers is in the 60,000-70,000 range, most statistical and cartographic representations use the Federal census’ Best Command number of 39,632 (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1997:89). The geographical distribution of both is possible though (Figures 4-6). Figures four and five use the same base map, where the communes in Grischun are aggregated into regions and the statistical regions of Switzerland (groups of Cantons) are shown with Zürich metropolitan area separated from the Northeast region.
Figure four is a map of the distribution of primary Romansh speakers in Switzerland with the size of the circles representing the number of speakers in each statistical unit. The colors represent traditional Romansh areas and those of other language groups with Chur shown as non-traditional because of its large majority of German speakers (as well as its urban character). The large sized symbols in the non-Romansh regions of Switzerland mislead, for the speakers are actually isolated and dispersed. Figure five represents the total number of Romansh speakers calculated by combining monolingual and multilingual speakers. The relative size difference between the monolingual circles displayed on top of the total speakers accurately implies a ratio. In addition, those areas with large numbers of monolinguals in figure five strongly correspond with the traditional cultural landscape.
Figure 5
Table two is a tabular representation of Romansh speakers in Switzerland.
Both the Primary (those who indicated Romansh as their principal language)
and Linguals (mono- and multi-) columns contain descriptive statistics
that are of concern for people thinking about the future of the Romansh
language. Of the Primary speakers, only 75% (29,679) live inside the Canton
where Romansh is an official language, and only 49% (19,300) live inside
the Romansh language territory as defined by the Census (Furer, 1996:99).
The magnitude of all Romansh speakers living in German language areas is
reflected by the nearly twenty thousand or one-third in the Northeast,
Northwest, and Central Switzerland regions. The important point is that
many Romansh (most due to their own mobility) are living in communities
where they have to use German in many aspects of life and there are few
possibilities for formal Romansh language education for their children.
Figure six is a more detailed map of the language situation in the Grischun,
with every community mapped according to the number of Romansh primary
speakers and the total population. In addition, the Traditional Language
Territory as it is represented by the Lia Rumantscha (1996) and others
(Furer, 1996) is highlighted for reference. In general, communities with
large numbers of Romansh are large places with even more non-Romansh speakers,
or communities with a high percentage of Romansh speakers tend to be very
small in population.
Table 2
Romansh Speakers Throughout Switzerland,
1990
Figure 6
Culture in Place
The core of Romansh culture is in the Swiss Canton of Grischun where the traditional Romansh communities and landscapes are located. Yet, the current representation of Romansh territory (like in Figures 1 and 6) is significantly smaller than their historic position and cannot come close to understanding their influence and participation in a broader Alpine or European context. The environmental setting of this core area is Alpine with geophysical factors to settlement and agriculture accompanied with a generally low species diversity and extreme mass wasting hazards. On the other hand, the environment provides modern possibilities with respect to tourism and hydroelectric power. While alpine ecology provides a physical backdrop for traditional Romansh places, the geographic mobility of individuals is creating new and unstudied places of Romansh culture.
Two distinct landscapes or settings of where the Romansh are actually located can be discerned (Figures 7 and 8). The first is the traditional village where agriculture predominates the landscape and Romansh remains an important local language, even if Romansh is a minority such as in areas of considerable tourism development. Surselva, in the headwaters of the Rhine, contains the largest concentration of Romansh communities, many with very high percentages of Romansh speakers (i.e. Vrin at 96%, Figure 7). While another concentration of Romansh speakers is in Engiadina bassa (lower Engadine) and adjacent Val Müstair. A variation of this setting is traditional Romansh villages that have grown large due to economic development, and only fragments of traditional culture remain—usually with large numbers of non-Romansh speakers. Some prominent examples are St. Moritz (San Murezzan) and Flims (Flem) with their large-scale tourism development and Domat/Ems in the Rhine valley with its chemical industry and suburban housing.
Figure 7 – Traditional Romansh Landscape
Top photo, Vrin (Val Lumnezia)
Samedan, Chalandamarz, 2000 
Bottom photo, Guarda (Engiadina bassa)
Val Pigniu (Surselva)
Figure 8 – Modern Romansh Landscape
N/A Top photo, Chur Altstadt
Bottom photo, RTR Building in Chur
Train and Postauto Stations 
Chur Altstadt and a view up the Rhine valley
Cantonal Bank in Chur
The second context is diasporic with Romansh living in metropolitan areas where other languages are dominant notably the Zürich urban agglomerations and high growth/opportunity areas like Davos. Of those that leave the Canton, most live in urban centers (Bundesamt für Statistik, 1997:427), which contrasts with the agriculturally oriented areas of origin. Unfortunately, these diasporic Romansh do not really constitute an alternative Romansh landscape, for they integrate into Swiss German communities with very few clues to their ethnicity. The missing landscape component results from no outward political movement and no strong concentration of Romansh in residential terms such as ghettoisation. Social gathering places outside of the canton like restaurants or bars with Romansh speakers are difficult to find or assess. In metropolitan Zürich, the residential pattern is similar to Swiss citizens as a whole with most living in the higher income neighborhoods (Stadt Zürich, 1998:30). Anecdotal evidence suggests Romansh stay in close contact with family and friends from their hometowns/regions rather than seek out or create new Romansh networks in urban Switzerland.
While Chur reflects the Swiss urban landscape where Romansh does not show up in many commercially prominent ways, it is the political community (Gemeinde) with the largest number of Romansh speakers (both primary and multilingual). Gloor et al (1996:12) call Chur a "diasporaraum," reflecting the modern movement of Romansh into plurilingual Switzerland. Chur is a special case that deserves further study (Figure 8). Foremost, a disproportionate number of intellectuals, bureaucrats, and activists concentrate in Chur because of its regional importance. Historically, the city has been the seat of a Roman Catholic Bishop for over 1500 years, who at various periods of time was the most powerful actor in the region, and currently, many of the governing and administrative functions of the canton are located in Chur. The symbolic display of the Canton’s trilingual administration is observable in the landscape such as on government buildings and public monuments, but also non-Germanic influences are apparent such as Romansh personal and place-names. As the regional center for the whole Canton, Chur is the only city that effectively serves as a central place for the Romansh. The main Romansh organization, Lia Rumantscha, and the media organization, Radio e Televisiun Rumantscha, are located in Chur.
Rhaeto-Romance Languages
The Romansh have been the subject of various research efforts, not the least are linguistic studies. So much so that a discussion of the Romansh is usually intertwined with the linguistic qualities and classifications of the various dialects and their relationship to other Romance languages. Since many of the issues that are being discussed revolve around the language (how many speakers and where they are located), a closer look at the language is warranted. Currently, linguists classify Swiss-Romansh with Dolomite Ladin and Friulian as Rhaeto-Romance (Harris and Vincent, 1988; Holtus and Kramer, 1987). What that means in hierarchical terms, Rhaeto-Romance is equal to French, Italian, and Romanian as a Romance language in the singular, and Romansh and Ladin are technically dialects of Rhaeto-Romance like Lombard, Occitan, and Catalan are to Italian, French, and Spanish respectively.
Haiman and Benica (1992:8,158) make a reasonable case that Romansh, Ladin, and Friulian are distinct enough to classify as separate languages. However, geographical and historical elements work against this (Figure 9). First, the size of Romansh and Ladin are small enough to relegate and their peripheral location to other Romance languages makes them easy to generalize. Both have been heavily influenced by contact with German speakers as well as being part of political entities that are oriented away from the Mediterranean. Friulian has other linguistic concerns stemming from long Venetian influences as a hinterland of Venice during the Republic years and recent introduction of standardized Italian, so there is legitimate disagreement whether Friulians exhibit biglossia (dialects) or bilingualism (languages) with modern Italian (Haiman and Benica, 1992:8).
A second factor is the long standing, popular belief that Rhaeto-Romance evolved from folk-Latin with a substrata of Rhaetian (Lansel, 1937:4; Rohlfs, 1975:1). It parallels the theory that Gallo-Romance is the result of Latin being imposed on the Celtic peoples (Gauls), which eventually evolved into modern French and influenced certain Iberian and Italian dialects. The Rhaetian component to Rhaeto-Romance is really an intriguing question. Despite considerable research and popular interest, very little is known about the origin and culture of the Rhaetians (Rageth, 1984). Furthermore, the "Rhaetian question" becomes intertwined with localized construction of ethnicity for the Romansh, which is interesting enough that I discuss it in more detail in Chapter Two.
Figure nine contains a map of the current language regions of Rhaeto-Romance. At first glance, an obvious reality is that the dialectal language regions do not border one another. The graphical image supports the thesis that Romansh, Ladin, and Friulian are distinct enough to call separate languages. Furthermore, politico-territorial divisions and mountainous terrain would have and still does retard direct communication and hinder linguistic influences between the regions. Yet another geographical interpretation is to view the dialects as a peripheral group to the core Romance developments, notably those diffusing from the North Italian centers of Milan (Lombardy) and Venice and from the Provençe and Savoy/Piedmont regions of the Western Alps. Not only do the language groups find themselves removed from centers of modern European States, but also along the linguistic and political frontiers that have coincided with conflict. French and Austrian troops transited and occupied the Grischun during the Napoleanic Wars, and more recently, World War I fronts crossed through the Dolomites. In general, the tussles to control alpine trade routes have been an ongoing geopolitical issue, and for the Grischun, it has probably been a mixed blessing trying to balance autonomy and prosperity in this context.
For the Swiss-Romansh, the geographical conditions of contact and conflict resulted in a very complex pattern of both spoken dialects and written idioms (Figure 10). The most common representation of this diversity is the five "idioms" of Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, Surmeiran, Putèr, and Vallader (Schmid, 1985:49-108). There are other ways to depict and classify their cultural mosaic, such as by regions and ethnic labels. For example, Grischun Central (translated as Mittlebünden) is equated with the decline of Romansh in the middle parts of the canton. Meanwhile, Ladin is the ethno-linguistic label of the Engiadina and Jauer is the spoken idiom of the Val Müstair. Furthermore, the crosscutting nature of religion and historical alliances has to be considered as significant for the Romansh. The geo-linguistic patterns are only one part of a complex cultural diversity in the Alps, but language has a special attraction for both the Romansh and the terms of the preservation discourse.
Figure 10
Research Design and Methods
Just as cultural differences amongst the Romansh are profound and geographical, it is apparent to me that a number of different approaches and scales are available in a study of the Romansh. One geographical option is to focus on a single Romansh region such as Surselva or Engiadina where dialect and confession reinforce one another and a strong regional identity exists. Another option is to comprehensively compare the Romansh with other linguistic minorities in Europe because nearly every nation-state has a minority language situation (Klemens, 1995; Lia Rumantscha, 1996:7). I chose a cultural scale of analysis that incorporates the "Swiss-Romansh" as a single entity with multiple geographical scales. The four necessary geographic scales are firstly, federalist Switzerland for its unique national language situation; secondly, the traditional language region for cultural landscape; thirdly, individual villages and valleys to appreciate the human and ecological contexts; and finally, the imaginary geographies of the Rhaetian past that defy current borders.
The methodological options are also plentiful with abundant quantitative data and archival documents to draw on, though not compelling or comprehensive enough to understand individual alpine communities. I would characterize the research by my commitment to be qualitative, and this is revealed in both my practices and mentality. Foremost, I wanted this research to be accessible and understandable to those who are my subject—if not in language and every theoretical detail, at least the ideas I express about them are relevant. The surest way to accomplish this is to understand their world, which means intensively observing and listening as well as presenting some of those ideas to them. In addition, I studied the language for a year with a class of adults, I traveled to nearly every Romansh village, and I gained insight from ethnographic informants. I incorporate statistical tables and graphics as the preceding section demonstrates, but a key factor is that the ideas are understandable concepts if not already known by many Romansh. One of the constant surprises I encountered was that ordinary people, and not necessarily Romansh, could tell me something about the controversy around the new written language or list the five Romansh dialects. Clearly, the Swiss public is conversant on national language issues including the Romansh situation, and they frequently draw a parallel to the Swiss-German situation.
Another research consideration is to contribute towards a collective understanding of these situations. Therefore, the Romansh situation can be seen by knowledgeable Swiss in a different light as well as in a general sense for those not familiar with the local issues. A starting point is finding a term that describes the situation, and I propose cultural preservation to be that term. At first glance, preservation of culture would capture what some Romansh are doing to insure their language perseveres, but it also incorporates meanings of place, heritage, and even geopolitics in its broadest sense.
In particular, two discourses often thought of as distinct, historical preservation and cultural survival, are interwoven, and they are essential components in observing and understanding the landscape. As I am using the term, cultural preservation combines the selective interpretation and iconography of the past associated with preservation and the political machinations of communicating cultural identity and territory. Moreover, cultural preservation leads not only to continuities but also changes in the landscape, and it is linked to the decision making of ordinary people who are consciously perpetuating their culture. This process of decisions vis-à-vis the cultural landscape as an earthly symbol of identity and territory becomes inscribed into specific places. Cultural preservation effectively enshrines selected symbols of heritage onto the Earth’s surface, and these symbols serve as a collective presence of the culture.
Applying cultural preservation to the Romansh requires a good understanding of previous research and how this has influenced local understanding of cultural history. Furthermore, my methodology needs the proper research questions and participant observation experiences that can help me elaborate the preservation of the cultural landscape. One way to clarify how I achieve an understanding with the methods is to discuss them in four discrete sections. First, I summarize the previous research on the Romansh and situate my geographical contribution. Next, I reiterate the research questions and their basis that initially guided my inquiries. Then, I explain my lengthy fieldwork and put it into perspective of ethnography in Europe. Finally, I clarify the significance of the Romansh as an example of cultural preservation that may contribute to the understanding of similar situations.
Previous Research
There are numerous ways to survey previous research, as there are various types and perspectives ranging from model geo-linguistic works (Murphy, 1988) to geographical interest on the study area (Elsasser and Boesch, 1991). Specifically, I want to emphasize a strand of local/regional scholarship that is constantly being cited. This strand is very important to understand because, one, it relies on primary documents, observations, and testimonies or the trail of respected citations of such. Secondly, this scholarship is intertwined with the region in terms of close association with political, ecclesiastic, and educational élites, which gives it a privileged impact on the general population especially through locally published textbooks. This regional scholarship has both an insider validity (written by one of us) and an academic stamp of approval, so therefore, it has an enormous potential for (re)producing culture.
Fortunat Sprecher (1617) and Nicolin Sererhard (1742) stand out as early chroniclers who put into text historiography and empirical observation of the Grischun. Sprecher wrote the Rhetische Cronica in the early 1600s during the conflicts associated with the Counter-Reformation. An interesting aspect of his book is that he wrote it in Latin, which reminds us that Latin was still a language of State but also that his intended audience was probably external. The value of his work to modern scholars remains the insight it provides into prevailing beliefs and historical interpretations of his period. Sererhard’s Einfalte Delineation is much more geographical with rich description of individual communities and a broad account of the political and societal organization that he encountered while traveling and living in all three language areas. His work is used by recent scholars to reconstruct demographic and agricultural conditions (Mathieu, 1992:314; Kraas, 1992:143), which may lead to the population estimates necessary for ecological analyses that Viazzo (1996) advocates for alpine areas.
This trend of natural history and regional description continues into the present by both popular and scholarly writers. Clavadetscher’s work (1994) on the Middle Ages and Metz’s multi-volume (1989-1993) account of the modern Canton represents a continuity of this regional historical scholarship. Times of conflict and dramatic changes are heavily documented and discussed topics, such as the Veltlin Wars (Wendland, 1995) and the 500 year anniversary of the Chalavaina battle (Lietha, 1999), which is regarded as a pivotal moment for independence. Of course, some of the older, local scholarship directly mentions the Romansh, but after Planta’s work (von Planta, 1776), they often become the sole subjects of scholarship. Two categories of ethnographic studies stand out, first, Romance studies that focus on the language, and second, general folklore interests on alpine culture. Language studies that "scientifically" identify and classify Romansh appear with Ascoli (1873), Gartner (1883), and Martineau (1882) all within a decade of each other exemplifying the intense academic interest of the period. In the early decades of the twentieth century, another surge of studies, like Jud’s (1919) language geography and Lansel’s (1937) politically charged arguments were intended to clarify that the Romansh language and culture are independent and different from Northern Italian.
One of the features of the Romansh as a study case is that they write about themselves, although, if the work is intended for academia or Swiss audiences, it probably is published in German such as Camartin (1992) and Deplazes (1991). Much of this research is heavily oriented towards creating comprehensive inventories, and even popular literature like Catrina (1983) appears to be documenting the Romansh. The Lia Rumantscha has come to be the main publishing focus of dictionaries and for literary documentation in general. As early as 1938, the Lia Rumantscha compiled an exhaustive bibliography of all the early written/printed examples of the language, and in recent years, they collaborated with publishers like Langenschiedt (Lia Rumantscha, 1998) and Hippocrene (Gross and Telli, 2000) to produce commercially viable language dictionaries. A scholarly and popular literature concerning folk culture exists that includes traditional customs and dress, myths and legends, and vernacular house types. In this vein, the Rumantsch Chrestomathie (Decurtins, 1982-86 reprint of 1888-1919 original) is a massive 15 volume work that documents the rich oral traditions; meanwhile, Maissen (1998) represents a contemporary documentation of customs and material culture for the Surselva subregion.
Name Studies: There is a unique branch of scholarship that combines some of the linguistic-ethnographic research and the local history tradition. These studies on toponyms and personal names are compelling and sometimes misunderstood. On one level, it makes perfect sense to research the linguistic foundation of an area that has been influenced by multiple languages, yet it is how the research is used that raises interest and concern. Basically, the research is a tedious collection of every known word in the region and documentation of both meaning and origin. In so much as folk culture becomes recorded for posterity, the research has a secondary value that may outlast the original purpose. The two massive works associated with this research are the Rätisches Namenbuch or RNB (Planta, 1939; Shorta, 1964; Huber, 1986) and the Dicziunari Rumantsch Grischun or DRG (Institut DRG, 1939-2000). There are some smaller and more accessible works such as the encyclopedic style Handwörterbuch des Ratoromanischen (Bernardi et al, 1994) and Schorta's (1988) look at the name origins of mountains.
The RNB is a mostly etymological work that covers the whole canton of Grischun regardless of current language, and it includes personal and family names (sur-nums), place-names (nums local / Ortsnamen), and plant and animal names (nums da funs / Flurnamen). The RNB research determines etymological origins, and then, presents it back in both geographical and etymological categories. The RNB can be cited as supporting evidence of human history / cultural diffusion because of its classification of etymological units to ethno-linguistic categories. The categories include Latin, Germanic, and hypothetical pre-Roman sub-categories of Celtic, Illyrian, and Rhaetian; one generally uses the Latin and Rhaetian as proto-Romansh components.
The DRG is an on-going project of the Institut dal Dicziunari Rumantsch Grischun and is published by the Societad Retorumantscha. While many "Romansh" dictionaries (Pledari) are quick reference single word to single word, the DRG is a very comprehensive entity with notes in both German and Romansh. The DRG includes not only origins and meanings, but also the regional variations of word usage/spellings and verb conjugations. The main drawback to this thoroughness in detailing every Romansh word is the slow pace. Despite publishing the first "bulliten" in 1939, they are only about half way finished (the word Laschar in the 137th bulliten, 1999).
There are other strands of research concerning the Romansh, which includes recent dissertations (Head, 1995; Kraas, 1992) and many works of interest to geographers such as cultural ecology in the Alps (Netting, 1981; Cole & Wolf, 1974; Viazzo, 1989). My intent is not to be comprehensive at this point, but to draw attention to the rich and unique, locally produced research by both authors and publishers. This research and its impact on common folk so to speak is a factor that has to be considered, but how to integrate it into an ethnographic study where the average person is exposed to it in various ways is an open question. One characteristic of this local scholarship is that there is an insider—outsider distinction with insider knowledge deriving authority from whom or where a person is located, while outsider knowledge is about academic specialization and credentials. A local who gains academic recognition can benefit from both kinds of authorities. Regardless, this local research is a factor that has to be considered. Not only does it serve as an indicator of past ideas, but also it has to be understood as an agent of perpetuating and creating current notions of the past.
Geographical Contribution: Amidst this rich local writing, I need to situate where my study as an outsider would be a contribution. I believe there are two elements that I should illuminate. The first is that there seems to be a disjuncture of thought between Romansh studies and popular representations of the landscape. Research that uses the cultural landscape to create a discussion of the interplay between experience and meaning, or ecology and society, seems missing. Clearly, one reason is that cultural geography as practiced in America no longer has a corresponding position in German language geography and is not fulfilled by other disciplines. I bring to the discussion an appreciation of landscape as a crucial variable of discussing other topics such as the built and natural environment and human efforts towards preservation of culture.
Therefore, I hope to contribute to the understanding between landscape and culture, as well as use those terms and concepts like place, preservation, and heritage that are generally considered important to cultural geography. The second element is to emphasize my outsider status is not a liability but an asset of access to broader realms of thought and communication. The number of English language publications on the Romansh/Grischun is still very low, so my second contribution is to expand and enhance the understanding that this example may contribute to other cases of minority relations or cultural preservation.
Research Questions
The dissertation proposal contained four general research themes: ethnographic past, place and landscape, Swiss context, and cultural preservation. The main objective was to observe and evaluate the Romansh landscape as an example of individuals and institutions consciously modifying the qualities of the landscape for cultural preservation, or as I wrote at the time:
Ethnographic Past: The initial goal of the first research theme was to identify the important elements of Romansh history as it was being portrayed in any conceivable medium. I had thought of this theme as mostly historical background in which I could personally make sense of the long temporal dimension involved and maybe at best illuminate the origins and significance of ethnic labels like "Romansh" and "Ladin." What I did not imagine is that this theme would become as important and time consuming as the other themes.
The reasons for this unexpected importance are twofold. First, this historical dimension was full of fascinating inconsistencies that seem to tie in well with various social theories such as Lowenthal's (1986) ideas about heritage and Hobsbawn's (1992) critique of European nationalism. I single out for scrutiny the Rhaetians, to whom the Romansh attribute their direct ancestry, and the more encompassing image of "Free Mountain Men" that saturates contemporary self-portrayal and political culture. I set out to discover the origins of the Rhaetians if for no other reason than to appreciate their possible contribution in the landscape, while I also justified the time as learning a new library system and coming into contact with possible informants.
I became intrigued by the concept of ethno-genesis applied to this case, as it became clear there was much misconception and a noticeable lack of evidence concerning the Rhaetians. It appears that some of the misconception stems from the popularizations of the nineteenth century, which coincides with German Romanticism, scientific ethnology, and school reform. The image of the Free Mountain Men transcends the Alps, but it is more pervasive like a political ideology in Switzerland. In Grischun, this image/ideology is encapsulated in the regional identity—Bündner. I contend the Rhaetian question and the mountain ideology are useful elements of my study because they are part of a broader trend of constructing heritage and understanding the imaginary elements of the past. Therefore, these historical elements, whether they are called collective memory or invented past, are integral to the cultural landscape.
The second reason this theme became more important was that I could use my interest in historical questions as an "in" with ethnographic contacts. At a most basic level, all people talk about the past, and I could establish my credentials by knowing something about their regional history. I noticed that serious questions changed the way locals would interact with me, but superficial questions were brushed off as touristic. An interesting question such as "How old are those terraces above town?" often got attention as they contemplate or think of who in town would know the answer. I was reminded over and over again that locals appreciated serious interest in their culture, and I felt they would go out of their way to be helpful.
While I initially called this theme "ethnographic past," now I would consider a new title to reflect the broader process of making sense of the past. It is probably close to universal that culture groups create heritage and invent elements of the past as well as preserve the material things that they consider important, so ethnicity or ethno-past is just one major component of this process. Despite being a rewarding intellectual endeavor, this theme brought out a lot of reflection because I felt awkward confronting ethnographic myths. I did not think it was my role to disprove their beliefs, but I wanted to explore this theme as a universal need to construct heritage and explain the past.
Swiss Context and Writing Romansh: This research theme probably changed the most because I deliberately widened my focus to include the entire Swiss political and popular culture as it intersects Romansh language issues. My focus changed in part because I lived for over a year in Zürich where Swiss-German is traditional but the overall situation is quite cosmopolitan and multicultural. This expanded time-frame allowed me to observe everyday life, media culture, and political discourse in Switzerland.
When I initially called this theme "Writing Romansh," I was drawing on the titles of Clifford and Marcus's (1986) Writing Culture and Barnes and Duncan's (1992) Writing Worlds as inspiration. I had in mind to look at the discursive qualities that have created the Romansh as well as be aware that I was contributing to that process. The basic question was how did the Romansh become an accepted part of the national body politic despite being such a small percentage of the Swiss population? Here, the relevant goal was to identify the constitutional amendment and gather any relevant material such as the actual text, the discourse/debates and electoral results. While the history of how Romansh became a national language is relevant, especially since it is a matter of pride for most Swiss, scholarly attention of this subject focuses on the international political environment of the 1930s.
An overwhelming reality of this situation is the Romansh are Swiss! It is important to note that the Romansh are not viewed in an us verses them dichotomy; for most Swiss, Romansh is just another national language along with the other three. In contrast, foreign languages associated with modern migration are discussed in very different ways, so the broader language context is a relevant thing to observe. Two aspects of the Swiss context that stand out as relevant to the Romansh are political culture and popular consumer culture. The main reason these are important is that the Romansh reflect Switzerland as a whole in their basic resource consumption and political party fragmentation that commits to national consensus.
Relevant questions for this expanded observation of Switzerland include what type and quality of media do the Romansh have access to in Grischun and Switzerland; which Swiss institutions and rituals have a direct relationship to the Romansh language. Obviously, a lot of material about Switzerland has to be filtered out with a focus on what relates to Romansh speakers. Nevertheless, the time I spent on this theme was useful because it is a vital component of making the Romansh experience a relevant example to other minority situations. It is only with the Swiss context that a broader lesson of how a minority language can be incorporated into a national framework.
Romansh Places and Landscapes: The cultural landscape is at the center of my research interests, and this theme met my expectations as the most enjoyable part of the research. The goal of this research theme was to learn as much as possible about the Romansh landscape with the goal of rendering it back to a unfamiliar audience. The initial research effort was to observe the cultural landscape in person, determine what is physically there, and take into account the social and ecological setting. For this to be possible, I had to familiarize myself with the transportation and accommodation infrastructure in the Grischun as well as the agricultural and tourist cycles linked to human activities and seasonal climate. Much of this familiarization was part of my earlier travels and assessment of this research topic in 1997. Then for the last year and a half, more observation, targeted interaction, and formulation of ideas were the key goals.
Theoretical options seem rather pale compared to the experience of observing and interacting in Romansh places. In some ways, this research theme may seem more influenced by works that are tangential to the research. Clearly, at one level, other works that celebrate the cultural landscape and awaken our interest and observation are important. I would put forward Meinig (1979) and Groth and Bressi (1997) as good examples, and from these works and others, specific questions are easier to formulate. Those that I addressed first were the notions of traditional and material culture, for example, what if anything in the contemporary built environment is considered traditional? In tandem with observation of the landscape and qualities of place, I wanted to take into account the ecological setting, land use, building types, and settlement patterns. Then, the follow up questions were meant to elicit explanation and meanings that the people attribute to those landscape elements. Furthermore, an assessment was necessary to distinguish what elements are seen as traditional or ethnic, to determine what structures and activities fit with the environment, and to assess how individuals contribute to continuity and change of the cultural and natural landscape.
The second tangential concerns representation. The presentation of the Romansh landscape has more theoretical considerations than does the actual field practice. A typical concern I have is whether I portray the Romansh in my view of the world or does their world view come through. If my view comes through, at least I should own up to it and take authorial responsibility and explain my approaches. Descriptive writing of geographical and cultural worlds is an actively engaged topic by those who participate, and I believe experience/participation is a key component to landscape research. I liken my description of landscape and rural places to Relph's (1984) phenomenological description of urban places. Therefore, this part of the dissertation reflects my presence in the field, observing, thinking, and writing about the cultural landscape.
Cultural Preservation: The final research theme had a twofold objective. The first goal was to articulate a concrete description of preservation activities and actors that affect the Romansh language situation. The second goal was more closely associated with my term cultural preservation and assessing the approach in terms of understanding and applicability. I look at preservation as a broad range of activities carried out by individuals and institutions with special consideration of those initiated by the Romansh. As preservation activities interact with culture, questions of identity and territory really come out.
Research questions on this theme revolved around identifying what is being preserved and who is doing it and where is it located? The role of the Lia Rumantscha was a primary concern because they have become the most important entity in Romansh language issues. Other actors include smaller groups that seem more devoted to local or topical issues. Switzerland's only national park is in the Romansh language territory, and it provides an additional layer of preservation. Furthermore, I wanted to understand how those different preservation activities such as ecological protection, agricultural subsidies, and language sponsorship are interdependent, and whether there was a coherent vision of interrelationship between these different activities.
The second objective asks if cultural preservation is a viable way to address this language situation and is it applicable to other situations? As a way of testing this, I wanted to determine what kind of model if any could be developed, and what elements would be useful for understanding other situations. The relationship of preservation to broader global—local dichotomies and cultural differentiation was a prominent aspect that was enhanced for me because Switzerland is currently engaged in such debates.
The commonality of these four research themes is they define various components of Romansh culture—culture with a wide interpretation of meanings. Moreover, each theme has a particular ethnographic dimension where the ideas and beliefs of the Romansh come through. Firstly, the past is not history, it is a creation that anchors the culture. Secondly, Switzerland is a unique state in which the Romansh are a part of the Swiss political, economic, and social environment. Thirdly, landscape brings out the immediate surroundings or built environment with meanings of hearth and community. Fourthly, preservation looks to the future and builds on the who and where of the group. Since there were four research themes instead of deductive questions, I had the discretion to follow leads and paths that I may have stayed away from if I had to keep to an agenda. In the next section, I discuss my field experience and the paths I eventually followed.
Field Experience
The field component to my methodology became somewhat dependent upon my residence in Zürich. A defining moment in my research was when my wife accepted a job in Zürich as it provided me an opportunity to stay indefinitely. Zürich is Switzerland’s largest city and it is an important migratory, educational, and transportation center not only for the Romansh but also for much of Switzerland. Despite not living in a Romansh community, Zürich was a good location because of the open library system, proximity to Grischun, and the opportunity to take Romansh classes. Convenient library access became important as I decided to stay in country to write the dissertation. The University of Zürich and the Federal Institute of Technology have a combined library system with comprehensive collections of all Swiss topics as well as most German language books. Zürich’s relative location to the Romansh areas allows for quick access; it is a one and a half-hour train ride to Chur, which makes a day trip feasible. In Chur, libraries and government offices have information concerning the Romansh language and the different areas of the canton. Beyond Chur, traveling to traditional Romansh areas takes anywhere between 15 minutes to Domat and a further half day's journey to Val Müstair.
My excursions in the traditional areas range from only a single day to longer trips of a week or longer. I could use a day pass ticket (valid on trains and buses) to visit a new place or just to be somewhere for a specific date such as All Saints. On the other extreme, I could go with camping gear for a week or longer. These longer trips tended to be in the southern half of the canton, in particular, the Engiadina. Once in the field, I made it a priority to observe and photograph the landscape, to develop ethnographic contacts, and to return with personal notes and/or tourist literature. The landscape photographs total over 1250 individual slides of which they are divided between regions and subjects and seasons. I also collected numerous brochures, local newspapers/newsletters, and tourist advertisements that have a cultural context; in addition, I purchased popular books, topographic maps, and language guides worth collecting. Finally, I was fortunate to attend a few academic and cultural conferences in Grischun. The most significant were the Romansh "Scuntrada," which I was able to attend both the 1997 and 2000 events, and the inaugural Rätische Akademie in 1999.
Ethnographic Contacts: My ethnographic informants were quite varied in terms of location because I had the opportunity to visit many Romansh places as well as come into contact with a group of people in Zürich who have varying attachments to different areas of Grischun. On the other hand, I associate many of my ethnographic informants in the field with tourism and services, so I had to be mindful of place promotion and professional courtesy that people in that position must maintain. Even a chance encounter at a farmers market, might produce a glossy brochure about "Bio-farming" which happened to me in Scuol. I found the brochure interesting because it lists all the farmers in the Lower Engadine that comply with the official "Bio" standards. Undoubtedly, the reason I was handed this brochure was that many of the farmers also offer agro-tourism opportunities such as sleep in hay or milk/tend the animals, so presumably, I fit their profile of possible customers.
Without a doubt, my best ethnographic informant falls into this category of being involved and benefiting from tourism. Eva works part-time in the Madulain tourism office, where she is also a catalyst for introducing new ideas about tourism to the village. Eva and her husband, Max, rent out bedrooms of their house—mostly to repeat customers who stay for the whole week. However, the reason she was so useful to me is that she had seriously contemplated the qualities of place that are successful for tourism. Her personal story of traveling and living abroad, marrying a foreigner was identifiable to me, and returning to her family home in Madulain allowed her to be comparative. Furthermore, we could communicate in English, which is the language they speak at home (their daughters were born in Canada and Australia). One of my favorite things to do was explore some area of the Engiadina and then when I mention it to her, she could explain something or tell a story. Eva as an informant reminds me of Clifford's (1992) reflection that informants are also travelers; undoubtedly, there are both benefits and drawbacks with using fellow travelers as ethnographic partners.
The majority of my contacts were single encounters with locals who were using the same bus, or they were the merchant selling me food, and even a chance encounter with a farmer in the field. Some other important multiple contacts include tourism directors, librarians, and a transportation planner. Many of the tourist places offer a village tour that ranges from a simple what to do while you are in town to elaborate dates and styles of the old buildings. On one occasion, the director enthusiastically told me about the town's pilot project to provide multilingual education, in which his daughter is a participant. On another serendipitous occasion, I ate lunch with two old friends who had worked for aid groups in Africa, and they joked about how the locals here needed more development than the poor in Africa did. It was the first time, I had encountered vocal skeptics to Romansh language preservation.
The last ethnographic events I will mention now are language courses, which were prime opportunities to meet and observe Swiss in an informal educational setting. The first was a Sursilvan language class in Zürich that was one evening a week for a year. The ethnographic windfall turned out to be the other students, who as a whole were the children and spouses of Romansh speakers who migrated to Zürich. They had experiences and knowledge of a wide variety of Romansh areas, but they also had a strong desire to learn the language and culture as if they were seeking their heritage. They asked extremely inquisitive questions of Patrizia, our teacher, that I could not formulate on my own, and she shared many insights and stories of her childhood with the class. The second course was an intensive, week long Putér class that was both an introduction for those interested in assimilating and those participating in cultural tourism. This course brought out similar questions about the culture and language, and I was able to use it as an ethnographic experience.
Euro-graphy: Ethnography as a modern academic activity started in Europe with European subjects, where there was still plenty cultural diversity amidst concern that tradition was being lost during the Industrial Revolution. These early inquiries attempted to document the world's human diversity (Humboldt, 1971; Steub, 1854), but just as important, they established research methodologies to deal with cross-cultural experiences. While these early encounters often had asymmetrical relationships, they have led to theoretical concerns such as authenticity and representation. Geographers have shown interest in alpine topics (Brugger et. al., 1984; Weiss, 1941) as have others (Hösli et. al., 1998; Mathieu, Jon. 1998). Ratzel's descriptions (in Semple, 1911) of peoples and places in mountainous environments exemplifies the depth and length of geographical work.
Recent research on Europe has been heavily influenced by quantitative social science that seems to conform to State based territories and statistical data collection regimes. The qualitative methods associated with ethnography seem to be applied only on foreign cultures. A counter movement to observe European peoples and places as humanistic subjects has resurfaced (Boissevain, 1975; MacDonald, 1993). Instead of just nations and societies, an increasing number of scholars are looking at folk culture in many different guises. For example, Bendix (1997) looks at authenticity in the history of folk studies and Graham (1998) refocuses on Europe and its past that are integral parts of culture and place.
Significance of Research
A study of the Swiss-Romansh has some important implications for discourses on small language groups because the situation is considered so ideal. The Swiss-Romansh language has a very strong legal position and popular support in both national and regional contexts, and the speakers retain local control of many language decisions. For the thousands of languages without official State status, the situation is precarious, and possibly mired in political strife and economic hardship. Those conditions found in Switzerland are logically what most (scholars) would consider important elements of development and subsequently cultural autonomy. Nevertheless, the Romansh language is endangered. This ideal situation with its democracy and prosperity does not take into account geographic mobility or individual pursuit of happiness.
Three important elements of a study on the Romansh stand out as significant for the world at large: (1) the cultural history and the territorial and identity construction of Swiss-Romansh; (2) Romansh language evolution in the midst of societal and technological revolution; finally, (3) Romansh as a possible model of language and cultural preservation. Some other elements that make the Romansh case interesting include the role that academic/scientific study of the Romansh had on their understanding of ethnicity and cultural awareness. In addition, the dramatic changes in the alpine landscape associated with restructuring of agriculture and widespread tourism need to be studied.
On the first element, Romansh cultural history is a worthy case study that includes two millennia of human continuity. The changes of political and economic realities notwithstanding, the Romansh sustained their language through communal autonomy. In time they differentiated themselves and constructed notions of identity and territory. The Romansh and the Alps occupy an interesting place in modern academia as some of the earlier studies of folk culture and cultural ecology took place there.
The present situation is just as intriguing with many of the same environmental considerations still playing a role, but now the issues take into account conservation, tourism, and hazards. The relevant political question is how did Romansh become a symbolic part of Switzerland and how does their cultural survival become tied to Swiss discourses of multiculturalism and governing. Under this Swiss context, cultural identities and territories have been articulated that cut across political boundaries and often one another. This Swiss component is the one that played out in the intense nationalistic period of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Europe.
The second element is part of the Romansh story, but it plays an important role for any possible modeling situation. As the economic and ecological relationships change, the Romansh must maintain the communication and contact with one another that reproduce culture. Furthermore, Switzerland has sufficient level of wealth to initiate costly preservation efforts that range across the urban—natural environments and contribute to this new cultural interaction. Romansh preservation efforts should be observed for their originality of using new venues for language interaction such as World Wide Web and their use of technology to engage with outsiders and link insiders. Knowing the history of communalism and peasant egalitarianism, another consideration is the relationship between leaders/intellectuals and ordinary people who may not receive or accept new ideas or technologies in the same way.
One possible outcome of this study is a general model of cultural / linguistic preservation that may have some applicability for other situations. For the Romansh case to be of use to other situations, a distinction between universal and idiosyncratic elements would have to take place. Many models and proponents of a "Swiss way" are rooted in comparative politics that emphasize the federalist separation of power (Campbell, 1982; Frey and Bohnet, 1995; Sidjanski, 1976; Stevenson, 1990). But there are other place based political factors in the traditional Romansh areas. One example is that communities see themselves as sovereign entities being the real source of political legitimization in Switzerland, and hence they as people in place are above the Constitution not protected below it. This view of place creates a political tension that seems to work in Switzerland but would be hard to replicate anywhere else. Furthermore, any modern linguistic model would have to account for geographical mobility of individuals that is producing incredibly complex patterns of language contact.
I have organized the dissertation into five chapters. Besides an introductory chapter, there are four chapters that correspond to the four research themes. In this first chapter, I have provided some essential material about the Romansh and the research. I have written the four discussion chapters in a stand-alone manner with minimal cross-referencing.
Chapter Order
Chapter Two is a discussion about the past. In addition to a historical framework, I discuss the environmental past as a prelude to the human settlement of the last couple thousand years, and then, I discuss three particular cultural epochs that represent the human past in the minds of most locals. Switzerland is my topic for Chapter Three. I discuss the national framework for which Romansh are a symbolic part of even if only a small part of the total Swiss system. I emphasize the political culture and popular consumerism as two elements that play important roles in Romansh language use. Chapter Four is a thick descriptive of the traditional Romansh places. I emphasize the cultural landscape as evidence of Romansh presence, language policy, and preservation efforts. I also explain the Romansh places in terms of settlement structure and ecological relationship. Finally, Chapter Five is a discussion of cultural preservation. I document the various preservation efforts and how they interact with each other and contribute to Romansh language survival. I also explore cultural preservation as a research concept and its possible applicability to other situations.
Place-names and Spellings
The place-name situation in the study area is extremely complex, and its representation on maps is a significant factor for everyday usage. One tradition in Swiss cartography is to use local names in their own language wherever possible. Because most cantons are monolingual, the cartographic nomenclature often follows a canton by canton spelling regime, which usually means a single language is used. While the Grischun (Graubünden / Grigioni) is officially trilingual, numerous places in the canton have multiple spellings and some even have multiple names. Sometimes, the majority language of German is universalized, but the opposite trend of reintroducing Romansh names and spellings is also prevalent. It is possible to end up with a map labeling Sankt Moritz the town next to the lake Lej da San Murezzan (Eidgenössische Landestopographie, 1970). I discuss this in more detail in later chapters, as place-names are an essential element of language policy and a possible source of contention between different language groups.
Generally, I want to respect the local situation as much as possible, and in particular, I use the Romansh term or spelling if no compelling reason not to exists. Historically, German names were used by German scholars, but before assuming this is an act of linguistic colonialism, it has to be understood that the Romansh contributed to this process by (re)creating some of the names for perceived economic benefit in the early years of mass-tourism (Barker, 1982; Billigmeier, 1979). Nevertheless, some of the German names have no logical connection to the Romansh names, for example, Domat and Ems, and there seems to be a reluctance to adopt the Romansh spellings in such cases. In this case, the official name of the commune is Domat/Ems; an adjacent commune, Feldis/Veulden, reflects a more common situation of multiple spellings with the German version being a phonetic approximation of the existing Romansh place-name.
The similarities between English and the local languages are closer than first imagined. Of course, English is a Germanic language with many Latin elements, so there are plenty of one-to-one lexicon examples with both German and Romansh. Occasionally, there is a direct English-Romansh similarity that does not exist in German, e.g. mountain/muntogna (Berg), and even an identical spelling for Austria (Österreich). Another interesting linguistic feature is that the region is a contact zone between different groups of Indo-European languages, which produces borrowed and shared words. Like English, both Swiss-German and Romansh have words that originate across the language frontier and beyond. From my perspective, sometimes it seems more logical to use the Germanic expression while at other times the Latin/Romance.
An issue I have to take into account while writing in English is that many "Anglofied" place-names of continental Europe and alpine terms in general derive from French (e.g. Grisons, avalanche). Unfortunately, French is not an official language in Grischun. When the French term approximates the Romansh, such as Grisons for Grischun, I prefer to use the Romansh form. On the other hand, I follow tradition when a term has already been published in an Anglofied form and is logical, like Romansh (Planta, 1776; Billigmeier, 1979), and this keeps me from choosing between the different Romansh spellings (Rumauntsch, Romontsch, etc.).
German expressions are important as they are often used in scientific and bureaucratic ways, and some of the ethnic labels derive from that language. The most important term is Rätoromanisch because what would be a simple hyphenation in English (meaning a Romance language in Rhaetia) has evolved into language classification and ethnic group label. Common use of Rumantsch/Romansh does not appear until the 1800s. Even though Rätoromanisch is translated as Rhaeto-Romance, I only use it as the language classification put forward by linguists. Sometimes I deliberately use the term Swiss-Romansh when I want to emphasize the direct link with Switzerland as a whole.
Other place-names present usage problems especially regional names like Engiadina and Rhaetian. Engadine valley (Val Engiadina) is well known and a good compromise is to use according to context, like Upper and Lower Engadine for physical regions and Engiadina for cultural features and proper names. Rhaetian is usually synonymous with Bündner, but both have loose ethnic and territorial connotations that should be more rigorously defined. I prefer to use Bündner for the contemporary identity of all Swiss in the canton, Grischun for the territorial realm and cantonal name, and Rhaetia(n) for the relative geographical location or historical political entity (Rhaetian Alps or Alte Raetia).
I wrote the dissertation with English speakers in mind, but with an eye towards possible audiences in Switzerland. When it seems important for certain audiences, I include the Romansh and/or German language term in parenthesis. A last note on spelling concerns the maps in my dissertation. Unfortunately, the mapping program does not allow umlauts, so I take liberty to choose when to omit the umlaut or follow German standard of adding an "e" afterwards (e.g. ä becomes ae). Romansh names should not be a problem except when someone is only familiar with the Germanized form.
