Leolaia's fine summary of the final form of Daniel 7 and its application to the Maccabean period leaves little to be added, however for those interested in another text critical look at the chapter, I thought I'd share a few observations and proposals scholars have offered.
As has been mentioned before the 'book' of Daniel represents a collection, and a selection, of writings with Daniel as a character. I say 'selection' because as Qumran discoveries demonstrated, other Daniel stories were in circulation.
It is evident from an objective interpretation of chapter 2 that that particular story at least dates to the early/mid Hellenist period. Leolaia outlined the four Kingdoms in order are Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece, then the Greek empire is 'divided' resulting in a weakness not evident before. This clearly refers to the division of the kingdom of Alexander among his generals. It is said that during this period the God of Heaven conquers all. There is no mention of the events of Antiochus.
With this in mind. a proposal by a number of scholars suggests chapter 7, in an original vorlage form, (like 1-6) predates the Maccabean era.
Three dominant proposals have come forward, the one suggest the focus of the chapter (the little horn) originally was Ptolemy I Soter who conquered Jerusalem the first time in 320BCE "by deceit and treachery…on the Sabbath” (Josephus Ant. XII, 4). When the anticipated vindication by God failed to happen, the section was reworked and reinterpreted, as often happens, with application to the later conquest by Antiochus IV.
The second proposal is that the vision of chapter 7 originally anticipated a messiah with the descriptor 'little horn'. This means the 'little horn was not a malevolent character originally but, like the above proposal, when the anticipated savior failed, the character was reinterpreted negatively, in the person of Antiochus.
The third proposal is perhaps simplest IMO, Chapter 7 has been expanded and reinterpreted though the interpolation of a 'little horn' from chapter 8 as part of the process of homologously bridging an earlier collection of stories with the later apocalyptic section of chapters 8-12. Many have suggested, on linguistic and form critical grounds, that verses 8,11,12 (with its reference to the 'little horn') is a secondary addition to chapter 7. If this is correct, then chapter 7 like chapter 2 originally anticipated divine intervention at a time prior to the Maccabean revolt. A related but distinct view is that chapter 7 was expanded during the Antiochus period first then soon after served as inspiration for chapts 8-12. I like this proposal best as it also explains the unique form of the word 'horn' found only in 7:8 and not in chapter 8.
Any of these suggestions offer a solution to the language difference as well. Chapters 2:4-7 are in Aramaic whereas chapts 8-12 are in Hebrew. This suggests they once circulated as collections independently.