Language Rights, Democracy and the European Union

2016 ◽  
pp. 226-249
2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 40-60
Author(s):  
Christopher Houtkamp ◽  
László Marácz

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).


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo D. Faingold

This paper examines the linguistic obligations of the European Union and the language rights of its citizens as stated in the Treaty of Lisbon. As with the 2004 draft of the EU Constitution, the Treaty fails to address the language rights of minorities, including those seeking to secede from their own countries (e.g., Catalonia, Scotland) in their quest for political, cultural, and linguistic rights. De jure language rights for speakers of minority languages and a more pluralistic approach to language legislation are deemed necessary in the EU.


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo D. Faingold

The 2004 draft of the EU Constitution contains legal language defining the linguistic obligations of the EU and the language rights of its citizens, but the draft fails to achieve language justice for EU citizens who speak regional minority languages. These minority languages include Catalan, Basque, and Galician in Spain, Welsh in the UK, and others.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo D. Faingold

This paper examines the linguistic rights of Catalonia as stated in the Statutes of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1979 and 2006 and the Spanish Constitution of 1978. In addition, it studies the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Spain of 2010 which annulled or reinterpreted articles of the Statute of 2006, including Article 6.1 which declares Catalan as the “preferential” language of Catalonia. The paper offers some suggestions for improving language rights for speakers of Catalan, both within the Spanish state and the European Union, to help de-escalate language conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document