Minority languages, language planning and audiovisual translation

Author(s):  
Reglindis De Ridder ◽  
Eithne O’Connell
2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 339-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Ravindranath Abtahian

This paper examines a scenario of possible language shift in the multilingual village of Hopkins, where the two most commonly used languages are both ‘minority’ languages: Garifuna, now endangered in many of the communities where it was once spoken, and Belizean Creole (Kriol), an unofficial national lingua franca in Belize. It offers a qualitative examination of beliefs about the three primary languages spoken in the community (Garifuna, Kriol, and English) with data gathered from sociolinguistic interviews and surveys in four rural Garifuna communities in Belize. It situates these findings on the social evaluation of Garifuna and Kriol socio-historically by examining them alongside the recent history of language planning for Garifuna and Kriol in Belize.


2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Neal Baxter

With potential applications for other minority languages, this paper discusses the implications of interpreting to and from Galician, starting with an overview of the current sociolinguistic situation, and the interpreting and translation market in Galicia in the light of political changes. After highlighting the similarities and differences between written translation and oral interpretation, the article examines the role played specifically by interpretation as a prestige-raising activity within the framework of language planning. Finally, the paper also discusses interpreting using minority languages as a tool enabling citizens to exercise their linguistic rights to the full.


2001 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 438-439
Author(s):  
Vera Regan

This volume is an extremely comprehensive research report. It speaks principally to language planning, language policy bodies, and curriculum development units in Ireland, as well as to teachers of Irish in primary schools. Although it targets a quite specific audience, it has many elements of interest to policymakers internationally, especially in relation to minority languages, and to researchers in SLA interested in areas such as bilingualism, immersion, the role of instruction, and input in the classroom.


2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 408-422
Author(s):  
Josu Barambones ◽  
Raquel Merino ◽  
Ibon Uribarri

Recent historical translation research done on Basque state-owned television shows that while the Basque-speaking channel has used dubbed translation of children’s programmes to promote and standardize the use of Basque, the Spanish-speaking channel has competed in the wider market of Spanish broadcasting channels with fiction for adults. The choice of products to be broadcast for diverse target audiences clearly reflects a diglossic situation in terms of language distribution but it also serves to illustrate government language planning policies. Since Basque television is controlled by political instances (power), manipulation and ideology clearly have an influence both selecting the programmes and controlling the type of (Basque) language used when translating and dubbing imported products.


Author(s):  
Enn Ernits

To create an effective literary language, it is necessary to solve the following main problems: 1) selecting suitable dialect area(s); 2) establishing linguistic standards; 3) developing orthography; and 4) adapting the literary language to modern linguistic and cultural demands (Tauli 1968: 19). In solving these problems with regard to the Votic language, language planners can start from both general principles of language planning and the planning experiences of other Balto-Finnic literary languages, such as Estonian, Finnish, Võro and Veps. Today it is advisable to resolve the planning problems of minority languages as flexibly as possible. The author favours the Kattila dialect as the background for the written language, but does not exclude the use of other Votic dialects for this purpose. In the initial period of the Votic literary language at least there is no real need to determine strong norms. It is strongly advised that consistent use be made of a phonological writing system using the letters c, č, š, ž, õ, ä, ö, ü; ď, ń, ŕ, ź and ť. There is no need to designate the sandhi in the script. The language should be enriched with modern concepts where possible, with the creation of new lexis based on actual words and those borrowed from neighbouring languages. The formation of words is mainly the result of compounding and derivation, for example čehsi-škoulu ‘secondary school’ and nimezikko ‘list’ (< nimi ‘name’).


2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-101
Author(s):  
Fiona O'Hanlon ◽  
Lindsay Paterson

In language planning for minority languages, policy often aims to positively influence attitudes towards the language by increasing its salience in key areas of public life such as broadcasting and signage. This is true for Gaelic in Scotland, where recent national initiatives have included the establishing of a Gaelic language television channel in 2008, and the launch, in the same year, of a bilingual brand identity for ScotRail (Rèile na h-Alba), resulting in Gaelic-English signage at railway stations across Scotland. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence on the effects of such an increase in national visibility of Gaelic on public attitudes towards the language. The present paper explores this using a national survey of public attitudes conducted in Scotland in 2012. Exposure to Gaelic broadcasting was found to be positively associated with attitudes towards the status of the Gaelic language (as a language spoken in Scotland, and as an important element of cultural heritage), and with attitudes towards the greater use of Gaelic (in public services and in the future). However, exposure to Gaelic signage was often negatively associated with such broader attitudes to the language and culture. The implications of the results for Gaelic language planning, and for future academic studies of language attitudes in Scotland, are explored.The authors acknowledge the support of the funders of the research – the ESRC (Grant number ES/J003352/1), the Scottish Government, Bòrd na Gàidhlig, and Soillse.


Author(s):  
Alex De Lusignan Fan Moniz

Galician, one of Spain’s minority languages has existed for as long as Spanish, at least. Galician-Portuguese was a completely formed language with broadly homogenous written and spoken norms until two slightly different branches gradually emerged: Galician and Portuguese, starting in the thirteenth century. While Portuguese evolved and became one of today’s languages spoken across the world, Galician was confined and relegated to a regional vernacular, spoken in the province of Galicia and fringes of Asturias, in the Northwesternmost corner of Spain, bordering with Portugal. From the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, Galician ceased to exist in the written form and when it reappeared, it had adopted the Spanish norms. It was only in the 1980’s modern Spain and its accession to the EEC (now EU), that Galician finally (re)gained the status of official minority language in coexistence with the national language, Spanish or Castilian. Yet, whilst enjoying the official status protection from the Spanish State and fostered by the Council of Europe in terms of corpus and policy planning, education, usage in the press, media all aimed at revitalisation, Galician has not only been losing status and being eroded in an ever shifting diglossia relationship with Spanish, but also lost L1 speakers in the past forty years, and younger generations are more and more likely to either speak Galician as L2 or worse, chose not to speak it at all. This situation presents a contradiction and is the cause of conflict between different factions of Galician speakers, the Galegofalantes. Why and how can it be that a language which was repressed for over four hundred years, starts declining precisely after it was given official support? What factors played or are still at play in the steady decline and erosion of Galician? A study into historical, social, economic, cultural, regional, and international factors, events and particularly politically motivated Language Planning Policies can partly explain the precariousness of the Galician language. The last forty years and particularly the new Millenium and the Internet, brought in fast-paced global changes with significant technological advances often requiring adaptation, and sometimes disintegration of traditional socio-cultural communities. The timing was unfavourable towards Galician, aided by consistent nationalist glottopolitics, the planned syntactic corpus fostered by the successive regional governments and most local authorities, led to further deterioration and stagnation of Galician whilst galvanising further lexical and semantic influx of Spanish into the Galician language. Access to education, libraries, study materials, publications, research tools on the Internet is often available in Spanish only. Higher education and academia are dominated by Spanish, as are public services, institutions, the judicial system, mass-media and communication at all levels in everyday life. Some Galicians are happy with the pro-Spanish language norm also known as Isolationism, seemingly oblivious of the language-shift and replacement even in remote, rural societies. Others demand a Galician spelling much closer to Portuguese, her natural sibling and see the official re-unification, or Reintegrationism, with the Lusophone world as the only way to save Galician from an impending death. With deep-rooted divisions and conflicts, a compromise between Isolationists and Reintegrationists seems unlikely, except if there is markedly political change and with that a reversed language shift will take place. <p> </p><p><strong> Article visualizations:</strong></p><p><img src="/-counters-/edu_01/0895/a.php" alt="Hit counter" /></p>


2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Coluzzi

This paper is an overview of language planning as carried out in Brunei Darussalam for Malay, its official language, English, its de facto other official language, and for the other eleven minority languages spoken in the country. After a general introduction to the country and its sociolinguistic situation, the paper outlines the main language planning activities carried out in Brunei through corpus, status and acquisition planning. The overview of status planning includes a brief description of the linguistic landscape of Brunei. The second part of the paper discusses the advantages of education using the students’ first language, something that is not happening in Brunei, and the future of education in the country after the introduction of the new education reform (SPN21). The paper closes with some general remarks on the importance of maintaining minority languages and some suggestions on how this can be achieved.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document