scholarly journals Johanna Laakso, Anneli Sarhimaa, Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark & Reetta Toivanen: Towards openly multilingual policies and practices. Assessing minority language maintenance across Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (64) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sirkka Saarinen
Keyword(s):  
Language Maintenance ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Minority Language ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Policies And Practices

Kurzrezension Johanna Laakso, Anneli Sarhimaa, Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark & Reetta Toivanen: Towards openly multilingual policies and practices. Assessing minority language maintenance across Europe. Linguistic diversity and language rights: 11. Multilingual matters. Bristol – Buffalo – Toronto 2016. 259 S.

scholarly journals Uusi väline kielten tilan arviointiin

Virittäjä ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Riku Erkkilä
Keyword(s):  
Language Maintenance ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Minority Language ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Policies And Practices

Arvioitu teos: Johanna Laakso, Anneli Sarhimaa, Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark & Reetta Toivanen: Towards openly multilingual policies and practices. Assessing minority language maintenance across Europe. Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights 11. Bristol: Multilingual Matters 2016. 280 s. isbn 978-1-78309-495-0.

scholarly journals Are traditional minority languages a bench marking for the rights of migrant languages in the European Union?

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-60
Author(s):  
Christopher Houtkamp ◽  
László Marácz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Linguistic Rights ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

In this paper a normative position will be defended. We will argue that minimal territorial minority language rights formulated in terms of the personality principle referring to traditional minority languages granted in the framework of the European Union (EU) are a benchmark for non-territorial linguistic rights. Although territorial minority languages should be granted collective rights this is in large parts of Europe not the case. Especially in the Central and Eastern European Member States language rights granted to territorial languages are assigned on the basis of personal language rights. Our argumentation will be elaborated on the basis of a comparative approach discussing the status of a traditional territorial language in Romania, more in particular Hungarian spoken in the Szeklerland area with the one of migrant languages in the Netherlands, more in particular Turkish. In accordance with the language hierarchy implying that territorial languages have a higher status than non-territorial languages both in the EUs and Member States’ language regimes nonterritorial linguistic rights will be realized as personal rights in the first place. Hence, the use of non-territorial minority languages is conditioned much as the use of territorial minority languages in the national Member States. So, the best possible scenario for mobile minority languages is to be recognized as a personal right and receive full support from the states where they are spoken. It is true that learning the host language would make inclusion of migrant language speakers into the host society smoother and securing a better position on the labour market. This should however be done without striving for full assimilation of the speakers of migrant languages for this would violate the linguistic rights of migrants to speak and cultivate one’s own heritage language, violate the EUs linguistic diversity policy, and is against the advantages provided by linguistic capital in the sense of BOURDIEU (1991).

Confusion of Tongues: Constitutional Recognition of Languages and Language Rights in Australia

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Reilly
Keyword(s):  
Torres Strait Islander ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
The State ◽  
National Language ◽  
Minority Languages ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Language Recognition ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Torres Strait

This article considers the YouMeUnity Report proposal for the inclusion of new language provisions in the Australian Constitution as part of a package of reforms for the constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The article outlines the important symbolic and substantive effects of recognising language rights in the Constitution. The article explains how the recognition of a national language and the recognition of minority languages are conceptually distinct — promoting a national language is aimed at promoting national unity and enhancing the political and economic participation of individuals in the state, whereas protecting minority languages is aimed at recognising linguistic diversity, enriching the cultural life of the State, maintaining connections with other nations, and recognising language choice as a basic human right. The article argues that there is a strong case for minority language recognition, and in particular, the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, in the Australian Constitution, but warns against the recognition of English as the national language.

International Perspectives on Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory R. Guy
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Language Rights ◽  
Politique Linguistique ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
Moyen Âge ◽  
Moyen Age ◽  
Droits Linguistiques

RESUMO Internaciaj perspektivoj pri lingva diverseco kaj lingvaj rajtoj La aktuala debato en Usono pri oficiala lingva politiko havas siajn precedentojn en aliaj landoj. En la antikva mondo, ciuj gravaj statoj kaj imperioj estis multlingvaj, same la cefaj mezepokaj kaj frumodernaj statoj. Multaj hodiaǔe gravaj landoj estas multlingvaj. Efektive la ekvacio "unu nacio/unu lingvo" estas relative lastatempa eltrovaĵo. Pledantoj por oficialigo de la angla en Usono argumentas, ke la lando riskas "disŝiriĝi" pro multling-veco, sed landoj kiel Aǔstralio kaj Sovetunio proponas modelojn de sukcesa mastrumo, ec apogo, de multlingvismo. Tie kie oni uzas la lingvojn por obstrukci aliron al postenoj, klerigo, progreso kaj povo, konflikto povas ekesti. La solvo estas konservi egalecon, ne devigi al ciuj uzi unusolan lingvon. SOMMAIRE Perspectives internationales sur la diversité linguistique et sur les droits linguistiques Le débat qui se déroule actuellement aux Etats-Unis au sujet d'une politique linguistique officielle a eu des précédents dans d'autres pays. Dans l'Antiquité, tous les états et empires principaux étaient multilingues et il en allait de même des principaux états du Moyen-Age et du début de l'ère moderne. Aujourd'hui, de nombreux pays sont multilingues. En effet, l'équation "une nation = une langue" est une invention relativement récente. Ceux qui défendent la position d'officialiser l'anglais aux Etats-Unis prétendent que le pays risque d'être "déchiré" par le multilinguisme, mais des pays comme l'Australie et l'Union Soviétique présentent des modèles intéressants pour une gestion efficace, et même une promotion du multilinguisme. Un conflit peut naître là où la langue est utilisée pour empêcher l'accès à certaines professions, à l'éducation, au progrès et au pouvoir. La réponse est de maintenir l'égalité, et non pas d'imposer une langue unique pour tous.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document