Zapraszamy na spotkanie z Profesor Anią Spyrą z Butler University

31 maja 2017 r. o godz. 16:30 Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi zaprasza na wykład Profesor Ani Spyry (Butler University, Indianapolis) pt. „Literatura transnarodowa – paradygmatyki i praktyki”, który odbędzie się w ramach Otwartych Spotkań Dyskusyjnych. Ponadto w dyskusji udział wezmą zaproszeni goście: Artur Czesak (językoznawca, dialektolog) i Marcin Gaweł (aktor i reżyser sztuk w języku śląskim).

Spotkanie odbędzie się w Sali Rady Wydziału Filologicznego Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, pl. Sejmu Śląskiego 1 (V piętro). Wstęp wolny.

Zapraszamy na spotkanie z drem hab., Prof. UAM Tomaszem Wicherkiewiczem

Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi serdecznie zaprasza na SEMINARIUM OTWARTE, w ramach którego odbędzie się wykład dra hab., Prof. UAM Tomasza Wicherkiewicza pt. Języki małe, mniejsze i najmniejsze – rozważania socjolingwistyczne, glottopolityczne i geolingwistyczne”. Zachęcamy również do wzięcia udziału w dyskusji!

Seminarium odbędzie się 21 kwietnia, o godz. 14.00 w sali Rady Wydziału

Wydział Filologiczny Uniwersytetu Śląskiego

Katowice, pl. Sejmu Śląskiego 1 (V piętro)

Konferencja “Minor Cultures in Dialogue” – zapowiedź

26 i 27 maja 2017 r. Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi organizuje międzynarodowe sympozjum naukowe w języku angielskim pt. Minor Cultures in Dialogue: Resisting Homogenization through Exchanging Experiences and Collaboration”. Sympozjum odbędzie się w budynku CINiBA w Katowicach, ul. Bankowa 11a.

Kultury mniejsze funkcjonują w przestrzeni akademickiej jak również artystycznej, intelektualnej, a nawet politycznej już od dłuższego czasu i stały się także przedmiotem badań komparatystycznych. Do takich właśnie konfrontacji badawczych chcemy zaprosić uczestników naszej konferencji, proponując im zestawienie różnych kultur mniejszych, posłużenie się analogiami, bądź też obnażenie pozornych podobieństw na poziomie całych systemów lub zjawisk wewnątrzkulturowych. Celem konferencji jest pogłębienie namysłu nad różnicami kulturowymi, a jednocześnie zachęta do produktywnego ich wykorzystania, by wypracowywać narzędzia komunikacji i współpracy, szczególnie między przedstawicielami kultur poszkodowanych politycznie, czy ekonomicznie, zagrożonych homogenizacją, utratą własnego języka lub etnolektu, itp.

Wśród przykładowych zagadnień, które chcemy poruszyć w ramach konferencji, można wymienić:

  • rola języka/języków w komunikacji między kulturami mniejszymi/peryferalnymi

  • charakter relacji między kulturą mniejszą a kulturą dominującą

  • literatura jako zwierciadło kulturowego „układu sił” w społeczeństwie – perspektywa porównawcza

  • strategie kulturowego przetrwania w niesprzyjających warunkach społeczno-politycznych, sposoby funkcjonowania pamięci kulturowej w kulturach mniejszych

Wszystkich zainteresowanych prosimy o kontakt na adres: minorc@us.edu.pl

CFP Katowice

Nowa książka Zbigniewa Kadłubka – Bezbronne myśli. Eseje i inne pisma o Górnym Śląsku

Nakładem Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Śląskiego ukazała się książka Zbigniewa Kadłubka pt. Bezbronne myśli. Eseje i inne pisma o Górnym Śląsku. Jest to zbiór ponad trzydziestu mikrotraktatów silezjologicznych, w których autor z polotem kreśli swoje chwilami niemal ekstatyczne, utopijne (także nierzadko związane z motywami wody i cieków śląskich) wizje regionu. Nie brakuje tu odniesień do przeszłości oraz kultury współczesnej, dialogu z Innym i Drugim. Niezmiennie ważnym punktem odniesienia dla Zbigniewa Kadłubka jest kultura antyczna, w której eseista szuka antenatów dzisiejszego górnośląskiego genius loci.

Więcej informacji o publikacji znaleźć można na stronie wydawcy: http://wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/node/13773

Ukazała się książka Karoliny Pospiszil pt. Swojskość i utrata. Obrazy Górnego Śląska w literaturze polskiej i czeskiej po 1989 roku

To książka, która doskonale ilustruje wrażliwość na kulturę mniejszą, na regionalizm, na kategorie peryferii, pogranicza, rozdarcia, wielokulturowości, wielowyznaniowości, czy wreszcie trudności ze zdefiniowaniem tożsamości językowej i narodowej. Nie jest to wbrew tytułowi praca skupiona tylko i wyłącznie na zagadnieniach literaturoznawczych. Czytelnik znajdzie w dwóch pierwszych rozdziałach bardzo wnikliwe, dojrzałe i ciekawe omówienie historii i kultury Śląska, a właściwie wielu Śląsków, o których Karolina Pospiszil pisze, uwzględniając liczne czasoprzestrzenie wyobrażone regionu. Rozdział trzeci przynosi szczegółową interpretację tekstów literackich wydanych po 1989 roku, jednak i tu konteksty: kulturowy, społeczny, a także polityczny odgrywają kluczową rolę.

Więcej informacji można znaleźć na stronie wydawcy: http://wydawnictwo.us.edu.pl/node/13573

Oficjalna inauguracja CBKM za nami!

8 grudnia 2016 r. o godz. 17:00 w Auli im. Kazimierza Lepszego (w budynku Rektoratu Uniwersytetu Śląskiego) odbyło się inauguracyjne spotkanie zespołu Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi z zaproszonymi gośćmi zarówno z naszej uczelni, jak i spoza uniwersytetu. Spotkanie miało charakter prezentacji założeń programowych Centrum i jego planów badawczych na najbliższe miesiące. Wziął w nim udział Dziekan Wydziału Filologicznego, Prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Jarosz, który na wstępie podzielił się z publicznością kilkoma uwagami na temat swoich własnych zainteresowań związanych z literaturami mniejszościowymi. W trakcie spotkania publiczność miała okazję m.in. obejrzeć materiał filmowy poświęcony kulturze i obyczajom huculskim, a po prezentacji pracowników Centrum spotkanie przeniosło się w kuluary, gdzie w swobodnej atmosferze była okazja do bezpośredniej rozmowy i wymiany poglądów. Dziękujemy wszystkim, którzy przyjęli zaproszenie CBKM, za zainteresowanie naszą inicjatywą!

 

Tekst odczytu Leszka Dronga wygłoszonego na konferencji “The Next Step” w Belfaście 25.11.2016 r.

belfast-conference-02

Poniższy tekst został wygłoszony w czasie konferencji The Next Step: Building Strategies for the Development of Minority Cultures and Languages in Europe”, która odbyła się Belfaście w dniach 25-26.11.2016 r. Odczytowi towarzyszyła prezentacja w programie Power Point, jednak ze względu na wykorzystanie materiałów chronionych prawami autorskimi nie może ona zostać zamieszczona w internecie.

Leszek Drong

The Centre for the Study of Minor Cultures in Katowice – Its Research, Resources and Objectives

To begin with, I would like to clearly define the position from which I am going to speak and the reasons why I want to enlarge on a project which we have recently launched in Katowice. The position is that of an academic AND an intellectual in the traditional, “French”, socially and publicly responsible sense of the word; an intellectual who works alongside a team of like-minded people. Simultaneously, I am here as one of the founding members of the Centre for the Study of Minor Cultures in Katowice (and also its director) and I have been entitled to speak on behalf of all my colleagues. The reasons why I want to discuss the Centre are simple and, I believe, directly relevant to the theme of this conference. Namely, our research centre has been created in response to the problems that most of us here are vitally interested in. Moreover, what we do as individual researchers and what we want to do as a team may prove to engage not only the key concerns of this conference but also some central issues to do with minority cultures and languages at large. Finally, I would like to offer a few suggestions how our Centre may contribute to the development of a network of organizations concerned with minority cultures and languages.

Now, the story of how our research centre originated will have many versions, some of them apocryphal. Mine is canonical, but by no means exhaustive. The germ of an idea for comparative studies in which Upper Silesia would be juxtaposed with Ulster emerged in our talks with Professor Frank Ferguson early in 2015. Then we continued our partnership with Professor Ferguson and I got to know Professor Wesley Hutchenson who, in May 2016, invited me to Paris to talk about Upper Silesia as a minority culture. Meanwhile I turned to my friend, Zbigniew Kadłubek, who is a supreme authority on all things Silesian, and I suggested we do something together, given our mutual interest in minority cultures and literatures and our genuine commitment to Upper Silesia and its culture. In no time at all did Zbigniew come up with the idea of establishing a research centre at the University of Silesia. Moreover, he insisted that I be its first director, the only criterion being, I suppose, that my English is slightly better. The Centre for the Study of Minor Cultures was officially launched two months ago – by that time we had invited several colleagues to join our ranks as the founding members. I will introduce them individually in a moment; first, let me tell you a few words about the underlying idea of our research centre and our status within the university.

There is the core team of 8 academics, most of them professors (with post-doctoral degrees), and others are loosely associated with the Centre, which means that they work with us, contribute and benefit but we are not formally in charge of their research and other academic or non-academic efforts. We are answerable directly to the Dean of our Faculty (the Faculty of Philology) who formally oversees our academic activity. To be sure, it is not just research that we have in mind by developing a project like this, but public outreach, too. As you can read in our mission statement: “although research is our priority, we also seek to develop close ties with social and cultural institutions in our region, initiate collaborative projects with international partners and encourage like-minded colleagues to join us in our efforts to promote cultural diversity and equality. We come from all walks of the humanities, including Polish, modern languages, cultural studies, linguistics and postcolonial studies. What brings us together is both enthusiasm and respect for minor cultures…”.

It is high time, at this point, to explain why we use the notion of minor cultures, rather than minority cultures. The short, and somewhat simplified, answer is that ‘minor culture’ is a more capacious category. There are two apparently obvious yet crucial points that must be stressed right away. ‘Minor’ in our usage does not imply any inferior (moral or aesthetic) quality or, for that matter, any other kind of intrinsic inferiority. Rather, it implies an underprivileged status vis a vis a major, dominant culture but the status is usually a matter of political and economic imbalances. Secondly, by applying this particular qualifier to cultures, we inevitably place them in confrontation with other, dominant cultures which determine and define their status. The implied comparative degree of ‘minor’ draws our immediate attention to the asymmetric interaction between the periphery and the centre, between a cultural David and a cultural Goliath.

The idea of describing cultures and literatures along those lines is not new. One of the first major works to use the notion of minor literature was Kafka: pour une littérature mineure [Kafka: Towards a Minor Literature] by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, published in 1975. In chapter III of their book, titled What Is Minor Literature?, Deleuze and Guattari thus define the notion of a minor literature: it “is not the literature of a minor language but the literature a minority makes in a major language.”1 Relevant as this definition seems to Kafka (as well as Joyce and Beckett, whom they also mention in passing), it does not open enough avenues for exploring all the possible cultural and geo-political contexts in Europe and elsewhere. However, rather than pick holes in Deleuze and Guattari’s definition I want to enlarge on the three characteristics of minor literature, which they list immediately following their definition.

The characteristics prove to be, in my view, more inspiring than the definition itself. The first characteristic involves various aspects of the deterritorialization of language; Deleuze and Guattari’s usage of the term is highly idiosyncratic here but in other contexts this category might translate into (or imply) the relegation to the cultural periphery, exile, the borderland, the margins, or the outskirts. [Of course, it may be argued that this is not necessarily a bad thing] The second characteristic of a minor literature is that it inevitably acquires a political quality (p.16). Deleuze and Guattari insist that, unlike “great” literatures, “because [a minor literature] exists in a narrow space, every individual matter is immediately plugged into the political” (p.16). And finally, the last characteristic of minor literatures is that they are possessed of a collective value because of what Deleuze and Guattari identify as “the rarity of talents” (p.17). That is a positive value, to be sure: thereby, writers who contribute to minor literatures are likely to produce “an active solidarity” (p. 17).

Of the three characteristics mentioned above, all seem to be relevant to how we construe the notion of minor cultures, although in varying degrees. It is tempting to see the way Deuleze and Guattari define minor literatures as a synecdoche for minor cultures but I believe this is a blind alley; rather I would see their essay as a stimulus to the kind of rhizomatous imagination they themselves were so fond of. Today minor cultures yield to plenty of definitions, and most of them involve an antagonistic aspect implied by the phrase. There is no minor culture without a major culture which usually diminishes and overshadows its lesser neighbours. A major culture institutes and imposes a hierarchy, an asymmetrical dynamics between cultures, which may eventuate in reducing the differences and in what is technically called a homogenization of cultures and identities – always to the benefit of the major one and to the detriment of minor ones. That is why Deleuze and Guattari are correct to emphasize a political and collective underpinning of much (but not necessarily all) artistic or intellectual activity within minor cultures. That is also why I am inclined to suggest (following their trope of detteritorialization) that minor literatures – as representative of minor cultures – identify, defend, reclaim, restake, reappropriate, decolonize, shelter or nurture their own territories (either physical or imaginary).

Central to our understanding of minor cultures are also the notions of power and commitment. Minor cultures may be described as relatively powerless against officially recognized and state-sponsored institutions, systems and establishments. They are at the mercy of the apparatus of power and that is one of the most important reasons why they deserve not only attention but also support and care, also from academic quarters (however powerless we might be ourselves). At the same time, minor cultures enjoy a genuine commitment of their members who often form tight-knit communities based on shared customs, tradition, history, language or dialect (ethnolect). Their ties are authentic; in most cases they have a very clear sense of their own ethnic identity. In minor cultures, the communities are not only “imagined,” to use the qualifier popularized by Benedict Anderson;2 they are actual.

The political predicament of minor cultures may lead to what I would identify – for want of a better name – as “a minority complex.” This is closely related to the imperative to speak on behalf of a certain collectivity, rather than as an individual. When Deleuze and Guattari remark that in minor literatures there are no great writers (but then they list Kafka, Joyce and Beckett…), they imply that genius must be subordinated to a larger cause. This issue is in fact tied up with the problem of minor languages and their promotion, recognition, translatability and visibility but, other than that, I believe that Deleuze and Guattari are wrong to make their claim so categorically. Writers and artists who work within minor cultures can successfully combine expressions of their individuality and contributions to the collective ethos of their communities. To give you an example taken from my own minor culture: Szczepan Twardoch, a Silesian novelist, is a case in point. He has overcome the minority complex I mentioned above to become a writer of great international stature and at the same time he has always produced his works from a clearly defined locus on earth, which is best exemplified by his magnum opus, Drach.

Twardoch’s work brings me to the minor culture which is a major focus of our attention in the Centre for the Study of Minor Cultures in Katowice. Based at the University of Silesia, we want to combine our academic interests with larger issues of identity politics and social commitments to a region where ethnic tensions and minority questions have always been swept under the carpet. While exploring various minor cultures in Europe and elsewhere, we do not want to lose sight of our local culture which informs our perspectives and, inevitably, inspires our research. Upper Silesia is a starting point for our reflection on minor cultures – as a benchmark and a kind of cultural workshop which is close at hand. It also serves as a useful point of reference for comparative studies in which two or more minor cultures may be quarried for analogies and contrasts. Needless to say, those can be illuminating in both directions: one of the most interesting examples of historical explorations in which Silesia is placed side by side with Ulster can be found in T. K. Wilson’s book Frontiers of Violence: Conflict and Identity in Ulster and Upper Silesia, 1918-1922.

During the Paris conference I talked at length about the history of Silesia and its complicated political situation. Now, its contemporary culture largely conforms to the characteristics offered by Deleuze and Guattari. However, it is also possessed of a certain ebullient (that’s a nice, European word!) potential which incorporates elements of the carnivalesque and the heteroglossic (this is evident in literary texts by Twardoch and others). Let me illustrate the inclusiveness of Silesian culture by a performance recorded last year – this is an industrial rock band called Oberschlesien accompanied by a section of coalminers’ amateur orchestra, singing a poem by Goethe (“King of the Fairies/The Erl-King” [Der Erlkönig]) in Silesian (video clip). What this example also illustrates, I believe, is both a vulnerable and enriching aspect of Silesian popular culture, which I would call its porosity. It is a culture which finds it quite easy to absorb various influences and syncretically make them its own.

Now, let me return for a moment to the notion of the minority complex which I introduced earlier. One of our priorities as a research centre is connected with developing international partnerships with related institutions and organizations because we firmly believe that by exposing minor cultures to each other – by learning more about each other’s problems and apprehensions – we are likely to overcome the minority complex and come to appreciate both our own and each other’s unique identities. Therefore, we are happy to get involved in comparative projects, as well as offer our assistance and humble resources to all those researchers who are interested in Silesian studies, or minority studies in Silesia in general. We see collaborative efforts as a perfect opportunity to learn and to share – to enhance our understanding of culture at large.

One of the opportunities that we would like to offer our colleagues from Northern Ireland and France is a journal to be published by the University of Silesia press. The journal, published biannually in English (hopefully, beginning next year in autumn), could be a platform for minority issues, open to researchers who specialize in cultural studies, anthropology, literary studies, linguistics, history, political sciences and other related disciplines. A tentative title we have come up with is: Minotaur. On the most general level, the title refers to the common ancient roots of European civilization and (both major and minor) cultures; more specifically, it alludes to certain intrinsic power structures (human authority/domination over nature; subordination of hybridity) as well as commonplace (mis)perceptions of minor cultures. I believe that a joint international editorship of the journal will ensure its quality and academic recognition.

Finally, I would like to invite you all to Katowice where next year I hope we could hold the next conference concerned with both minor and minority cultures and languages. It is a perfect venue for a conference like that: Katowice is a major Polish airport and a thriving modern city; it is a city of gardens and a city of cutting-edge technology at the same time. It is the capital of Upper Silesia but the region has much more to offer and its offer is conveniently located within a very close parameter of Katowice. The University of Silesia will be happy to host researchers interested in minority issues, as our Centre is committed to developing and sustaining our partnership with Ulster University and Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle III as well as other academic and non-academic institutions and organizations.

1Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, “What Is a Minor Literature?” Mississippi Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Winter/Spring, 1983), p. 16.

2See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, New York: Verso, 2006).

Tekst odczytu Zbigniewa Kadłubka wygłoszonego na konferencji “The Next Step” w Belfaście 25.11.2016 r.

zkadlubek01

Poniższy tekst został wygłoszony w czasie konferencji The Next Step: Building Strategies for the Development of Minority Cultures and Languages in Europe”, która odbyła się Belfaście w dniach 25-26.11.2016 r.

Zbigniew Kadłubek

The Silesian Ethnolect: A Cultural and Political Perspective

 … here comes the horror he remembers, Ianto does, he recalls it all. There is nothing he can do at these times to stop it coming back.

Niall Griffiths1

I am not a linguist. The thoughts presented below do not formulate a linguistic research perspective. I will be speaking of an attempt at framing the dynamics of change in the Silesian ethnolect in a cultural and political context. I would like to add that these comments are made from the point of view of a person who uses the Silesian ethnolect on an everyday basis, on the streets, while shopping. And also of a person who translates into the Silesian ethnolect the works of the classics (Aeschylus, Euripides) and writes fiction in the Silesian ethnolect, at the same time remaining an academic and teaching classes in Polish language.

For the Polish people, an Upper Silesian is somebody who speaks a form of Polish dialect and therefore is a Pole. For the Germans, an Upper Silesian is somebody who speaks Wasserpolnisch, that is, a German language heavily contaminated with Slavic vocabulary. Either, an Upper Silesian does not exist. Only a Pole or a German may live in Upper Silesia. Anyway, for the Polish State, an Upper Silesian is only a conditional Pole. For the Germans, a real Upper Silesian speaks German.

My personal apogee in the attempts at the recognition of the Silesian ethnolect as full-fledged means of communication was an address in the Polish Parliament on the 9 of October in 2014. There I represented a citizen bill of amendment concerning national and ethnic minorities and regional languages. The bill was signed by 144 thousand citizens. The issue was debated for two years in various commissions. Eventually, the bill was rejected in October of this year.

The lack of acceptance for the development of the Silesian ethnolect is frequently justified through the political reason of state. The present Polish reason of state makes no allowance for more than a folklore presence of the Upper Silesian culture and identity in the legal order. But let us say this openly, the reason of state is not a linguistic or sociological category. The following must therefore be stressed. Scientific data is altered and its interpretations manipulated. All this to preserve the status quo and hamper innovation, the new reading of the culture of Upper Silesia.

The Polish state persistently refuses the Upper Silesians the right to cultivate their identity. Szczepan Twardoch, an outstanding Silesian writer who writes in Polish, as an Upper Silesian, says openly: “Let us argue about our language, its transcription, its standard, but let’s argue among ourselves. Whenever possible – let’s ignore Poland. […] When it comes to the issue of our identity, let us then forget about Poland. Let’s stop asking others for recognition, let us recognize ourselves. Let’s make ourselves.” In my opinion, this is not a good programme. If it wants to survive, a minor culture must function in a certain political and cultural surrounding, with what is given to it.

From the outside, the matter looks differently. Marc L. Greenberg from the University of Kansas composed a chapter Slavic, to be found in the soon-to-be-published volume The Indo-European Languages (edited by Mate Kapović, London: Routledge, pp. 517–549.). There is a place there for the Silesian ethnolect (marked with number 5) as one of the Slavic literary microlanguages, which posseses features that relate it to both the Czech-Slovak branch of the Western Slavic languages, and, naturally, the Polish language. This is a serious contemporary publication with a world-wide reach, that does not treat the speech of the Upper Silesians as merely a dialect (suggesting a rural variety of a national language, with a disappearing trend) but mentions Silesian a on par with Lower Lusatian (1), Upper Lusatian (2), Kashubian and Rusyn (3 and 4).

From the perspective of some Polish cultural or political centre, translation of a text into the Silesian ethnolect can be viewed as an unholy act (a transgression of sorts). It is a problem for the Upper Silesians themselves, when they say that their language should be only a spoken one. However, I am convinced that translating literary masterpieces into the Silesian ethnolect is very important. An ethnic group can survive, above all, thanks to its language. This is what the situation looks like in Central Europe. It is worth pointing out here that there is an ethnic group in Poland that does not have a minority status; however, their language has been officially recognized as a regional language. The group I am referring to is the Kashubians. Due to this fact, the Kashubians receive government funding which covers publications; while television and radio programmes run in the Kashubian language. The population of this group is about a quarter of a million.

Neither a language, nor an ethnic group that uses a particular language is born according to any rational regulations, either predicted or planned. Dostoyevsky put it well by saying that “no nation has ever been formed in accordance with the laws of science or the mind”. A minor language, a language of an ethnic group that exists within a bigger state, protects people from nationalism, enriches the culture, and allows for the venting of various emotions. Worthy of pondering are the words of a Hungarian writer Sándor Márai, who writes: “For all nationalisms, the variety of languages in Europe stands as a safety valve for overheated national feelings to ventilate. Rare languages do not set people apart but unite the Europeans and endow them with a common transnational destiny.” European community is a barely outlined shore of the ocean of diversity. Two words, a Greek one and a Latin one – logos and locus – word and place – have the same root. Therefore, speech is the same as space. The territory of speech and the area of living are the zones for the newcomers. Language and country are two homes. In both we are guests for a short time.

How many people actually use the Silesian ethnolect? These are predominantly people from two provinces, that is, Opole and Silesia. In modest estimates, it may be approximately around two million people. Recognizing the Silesian ethnolect as a regional language would mean, above all, the institutional safety of this ethnolect. It could also involve the funding on different levels of regional education, which would be an important aspect of care for the Silesian ethnolect.

Released in 2015, the Dictionary of the Silesian Ethnolect may be considered a significant moment in the development of the Silesian ethnolect. To further develop the Silesian ethnolect it would be necessary to fully codify the language as well as to pressure the Polish state to recognize the Silesian ethnolect as a regional language.

1 N. Griffiths: Sheepshagger. London 2002, p. 227.

Przedstawiciele CBKM na konferencji w Belfaście o kulturze i językach mniejszości

belfast

W dniach 25 i 26 listopada 2016 r. the Centre for Irish and Scottish Studies (Ulster University) we współpracy z Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle 3 i Ulster-Scots Agency zorganizowało w Belfaście konferencję naukową pt. “The Next Step: Building Strategies for the Development of Minority Cultures and Languages in Europe”. W konferencji wzięli udział dwaj przedstawiciele Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi – Zbigniew Kadłubek i Leszek Drong. Obaj pracownicy Uniwersytetu Śląskiego uczestniczyli również w roboczym spotkaniu zespołu złożonego z przedstawicieli uczelni francuskich, polskich i północnoirlandzkich, którzy postanowili podjąć starania o utworzenie europejskiego stowarzyszenia organizacji oraz jednostek badawczych zajmujących się problematyką mniejszościową. W ramach konferencji Zbigniew Kadłubek wygłosił referat na temat etnolektu śląskiego pt. “The Silesian Ethnolect: A Cultural and Political Perspective”, a Leszek Drong przedstawił prezentację poświęconą Centrum Badań nad Kulturami Mniejszymi oraz genezie i znaczeniu pojęcia kultur mniejszych. Już wkrótce zamieścimy na naszej witrynie pełny tekst obu wystąpień…