Language Rights and Wrongs

2016 ◽  
pp. 280-289
Keyword(s):  
1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 623
Author(s):  
Reynaldo F. Macías ◽  
Alastair Pennycook ◽  
Tove Skutnabb-Kangas ◽  
Robert Phillipson ◽  
James W. Tollefson ◽  
...  

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).


2010 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-141
Author(s):  
Valerie Kinloch

Background/Context Although progress has been made since members of the Conference on College Composition and Communication passed the Students’ Right to Their Own Language resolution (1974), there still remains a demand to examine youth perceptions of language. Such examinations can help teachers and researchers improve curricular choices, honor the lived experiences of students in classrooms, and address a systemic problem within a larger sociopolitical context: the continued failure of American public schooling to adequately educate Black students and other students of color. Purpose/Objective/Research Questions/Focus of Study The primary purpose of this article is to detail how youth perceive language rights in their academic and community lives, particularly in relation to what they name “Black English” and “Academic English.” To understand youth language perceptions, this article is guided by the following inquiry: Given the historically dichotomous relationship between Black English and Academic English, how do youth perceive language in their struggle to acquire academic success? Setting Data for this ethnographic project, which derive from a larger ongoing multiyear study on youth representations of community and literacy, were collected from two African American teenage males who reside in or near New York City's Harlem community and who graduated from the Harlem High School of New York City and currently attend local colleges in the area. Research Design The article uses a case study design to examine youth perceptions of language in their struggle to acquire academic success. Data for this study were collected from the following sources: researcher field notes, classroom observations, audio- and videotaped “rap” sessions, formal and informal interview meetings, participants’ written responses to and verbal conversations on a series of 10 questions that we collaboratively designed over a 3-month period, and data member checking sessions. Conclusions/Recommendations The findings presented in this article highlight the potential for additional research on youth perceptions of language in relation to success and survival. Given current debates in educational research on student achievement, multiple perspectives, and the intersections of students’ lived experiences with pedagogical practices and teacher training, teachers and researchers should continue to identify the ways in which student voices, writings, and experiences are oftentimes excluded from schools. Students’ Right to Their Own Language is an important policy statement that questions U.S. mono-lingualism in multicultural, multilingual contexts. “It's who we are. It's like telling me I gotta take off my culture and identity when I leave my hood and go to a place that don't care about me. Like schools. How can I leave me and my Black English home? I'm nobody's traitor.” —Phillip, youth participant 2007 “We affirm the students’ right to their own patterns and varieties of language—the dialects of their nurture or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style. Language scholars long ago denied that the myth of a standard American dialect has any validity. The claim that any one dialect is unacceptable amounts to an attempt of one social group to exert its dominance over another. Such a claim leads to false advice for speakers and writers, and immoral advice for humans. A nation proud of its diverse heritage and its cultural and racial variety will preserve its heritage of dialects. We affirm strongly that teachers must have the experiences and training that will enable them to respect diversity and uphold the right of students to their own language.” —Passed by the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Fall 19741


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document