A/75/211 47. Another issue is connected to the very concept of language itself and what differentiates a language from a variety or dialect of the same language (and the fascinating aphorism that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy”, usually attributed to linguist and Yiddishist Max Weinreich), as well as to distinctions between languages in their oral form and in writing. To that can be added the issue of whether persons using sign languages can be considered to be persons who belong to a linguistic minority. Finally, there are situations where, des pite being near identical in written form, languages may be mutually unintelligible when spoken, as in the cases such as Shanghainese, Cantonese and Mandarin (where the first two are often described as “dialects” of the third, known officially as “putonghua”, or “the common language”, in China). 48. The wording of provisions in United Nations instruments, such as article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and their interpretation indicates an inclusive approach that would protect the human rights of all linguistic minorities, regardless of the legal status of individuals (whether they are citizens or not), the status of the languages (official, recognized, acknowledged or not), the length of association in a State (whether traditional or not), or the number of speakers (no minimal number of speakers required). This is once again based on a factual, objective assessment of whether or not a linguistic minority exists in a State. None of the relevant provisions in United Nations instruments or their interpretation concerns local variants or different dialects of the same language. The admittedly often disputed question as to when variants or different forms of expression constitute separate languages must be considered, as often repeated, from an objective point of view and based on the prevailing views of linguists in the matter. 49. Numerous submissions received by the Special Rapporteur support an inclusive approach. In relation to sign languages, for example, it was pointed out that legislation in nearly 50 States in 2020 acknowledge sign languages as languages, including as official or national languages. The prevailing view is clearly that sign language users can constitute a linguistic minority, regardless of the official status of the languages, their “traditionality” in a State or whether or not persons who belong to that minority are citizens. This is also the view expressed by the Special Rapporteur himself at the 2017 Forum on Minority Issues, 17 and supported in a number of resolutions by that and other regional forums on minorities. 50. While not being exhaustive, the contextualization of the provisions of United Nations instruments dealing with the rights of minorities and their interpretation in the past few decades suggest that the significance and scope of the category of linguistic minorities can be determined as follows: (a) An official language in a State can at the same time still objectively constitute a minority language where it is not a majority language, as in the case of the Irish language in Ireland; (b) Sign languages are objectively languages, as acknowledged by many States, including Austria, New Zealand and South Africa, and can therefore be the languages of linguistic minorities; (c) The refusal of authorities to acknowledge the existence of a language or its categorization as only a dialect, patois or creole and therefore not a “real language” is not determinative. Based on prevailing objective linguistic expertise, speakers of Haitian Creole (kreyòl ayisyen), for example, can objectively belong to a linguistic minority since Haitian Creole is a fully fledged language; __________________ 17 20-09835 See A/HRC/37/66, para. 68. 13/20