scholarly journals Belonging and Boundaries: Linguistic Diversity and Language Rights in Canada

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Ritendra Tamang

This paper explores critical issues surrounding language rights in multicultural Canada and how language rights are connected to ethnic identity, representation, boundaries, and belonging. This paper focuses on language rights of allophones (those whose first language is neither English nor French) from the perspective of Canada’s language policies, including the socioeconomic and political values that allophone immigrants place on Canada’s official languages. Changes to Canada’s language policies since the 1970s have created alternative spaces for allophone groups to challenge the dominant status of English and French and to recreate ethnolinguistic identities and belonging simultaneously from various locations.Increases in international migration, in conjunction with changes to Canadian language policies over recent years, have generated new discussions and debates about language rights and the socioeconomic and political values that allophone immigrants place on English and French, Canada’s official languages. Canada is currently facing new challenges in ensuring that the identities of linguistic groups are recognised and that members of these groups are guaranteed equal participation in all social, economic, and political activities. Accordingly, the Canadian federal government has made important changes to its language policies. This paper will argue that changes to Canada’s language policies since the 1970s provide allophone immigrants with new opportunities to challenge the dominant status of English and French, as well as enabling them to reconstruct new identities and belonging simultaneously from multiple locations. Issues around language rights in multicultural and multilingual societies like Canada are significant, because these rights are connected to ideas about ethnic identity, belonging, representation, and boundaries.

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Nkwain

Cameroon proffers a propitious environment for the breeding of interesting linguistic phenomena that attract the curiosity of innumerable researchers. Its rich socio-cultural and linguistic background demonstrate a seemingly harmonious co-existence of two official languages – English and French, a wide spread de facto lingua franca – Pidgin English and a myriad of about 266 Home Languages attest to the complexity inherent here. The co-existence of these languages, like in similar multilingual societies produces language contact situations such as code switching, interference, linguistic borrowing, diglossia, translation, etc., as users interact. This paper assesses language behaviour in such a complex multilingual setting where users adopt varying behavioural patterns leading to the production of interesting linguistic features and patterns worthy of investigation. Following Giles' Accommodation Theory and the descriptive and exploratory approaches, the paper accounts for and paints a vivid picture of the nature of language contact here, the consequences on the different languages and their users. It redefines conflict in relation to the socio-cultural and linguistic realities of this community. Drawing evidence from true-to-life situations, the paper establishes that if contact has to engender conflict, certain socio-cultural, political and linguistic forces related to attitudinal prejudices, unintelligibility, language policies, contextual clues, linguistic hostilities, etc., are likely to be responsible. It concludes with practical remedies like the redefinition of language policies based on the linguistic aspirations of speakers and the reconciliation of linguistic and political independence in order to carefully harness the linguistic resources of this crassly heterogeneous community.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-104
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu Sharma

Abstract This paper deals with the state of language rights in Luxembourg in the light of immigration and the multilingualism associated with it. Although Luxembourg might appear to be an ideal case of multilingualism with three official languages (Luxembourgish, French, and German), the reality is very different because its language policies are marked by a hierarchy: while Luxembourgish has the symbolic dominance as the ‘national language’, French is the preferred language in the workplace and administration. The situation has become complex due to the steady influx of immigrants since the 1970s. Currently, more than 40 per cent of Luxembourg’s population consists of foreigners, and this has changed the linguistic situation in the sense that Portuguese has become one of the most widely spoken languages in Luxembourg, although it does not enjoy any legal safeguards. Taking account of this multilingual scenario, this paper examines the rights of different linguistic communities in Luxembourg. On the one hand, there is the need to protect Luxembourgish, which is the majority language in Luxembourg but a minority language when compared to other national languages of Europe, while, on the other hand, the needs of its Portuguesespeaking community also have to be taken into account since the use of German as the medium of instruction at primary level disadvantages them. Finally, the paper will also consider the role and the future of the other two main languages (French and German).


2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 743-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reine Meylaerts

Since democratic societies are based on the ideal of participatory citizenship and since participatory citizenship presupposes, among other things, the citizens’ right to communicate with the authorities, one of the biggest challenges for contemporary multilingual societies is the elaboration of a fair translation policy: there is no language policy without a translation policy. However, among the numerous studies on language rights, on language policies or on immigrant incorporation, the key role of translation is usually not taken into consideration. Which linguistic and translational territoriality regimes are used by authorities to communicate with their multilingual populations? How do these different regimes relate to their linguistic and translational rights and their chances for participatory citizenship and integration? This essay discusses four prototypical regimes which may be used by authorities to communicate with their citizens. It will also try to hint at their possible impact on minorities’ linguistic and translational rights and integration.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Eva Kowalská

AbstractStructural problems of communities affected by the “Slovak Reformation,” issues with accepting the situation or simply the relationships among various cultural phenomena, like literacy or language policies, are key aspects in studying the impact of the Reformation in Hungary, especially with respect to Slovaks. Information gathered from the Reformation had a direct and long-lasting impact on the formation of vernacular language, as well as on the search for and the construction of an ethnic identity. Searching for evidence left by the Slovak presence in the Reformation movement thus presents challenging though notable problems for Slovak historiography. The confessional division and its political as well as cultural implications have evoked long-lasting discussions among historians as well as politicians. This study focuses on the most relevant issues within these processes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (100) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Vicenta Tasa Fuster

Resumen:Este trabajo pretende dar una visión general del reconocimiento de la diversidad lingüística española que se deriva de la Constitución. Nos referimos exclusivamente a las lenguas autóctonas históricamente habladas en España; teniendo en cuenta, además, que una misma lengua puede recibir diversas denominaciones populares y oficiales.Partiendo de estas premisas, el trabajo estudia el reconocimiento que hace la Constitución Española de la diversidad lingüística en España en su artículo 3. Se subraya en el estudio que, en dicho artículo de la Constitución se establece que el castellano es la lengua española oficial del Estado y que todos los españoles tienen el deber de conocerla y el derecho a usarla (art. 3.1), que las otras lenguas españolas serán también oficiales en las respectivas comunidades autónomas, en función de la regulación que hagan sus estatutos (art. 3.2) y que España considera que la riqueza de las diferentes modalidades lingüísticas esun patrimonio cultural que deberá tener un respeto y una protección especiales (art. 3.3).El contenido de la Constitución, la jurisprudencia constitucional de las últimas cuatro décadas y los estatutos de autonomía y legislación lingüística autonómica, han asentado un reconocimiento de la diversidad lingüística española y de los derechos lingüísticos concretos de los hablantes de las distintas lenguas españolas fundamentado en el principio de jerarquía lingüística y no en los de seguridad lingüística e igualdad de derechos lingüísticos. El principio de jerarquía lingüística presupone considerar que existen unas lenguas que deben tener un reconocimiento legal y oficial superior a otras. Y, lo que es lo mismo, que los derechos lingüísticos de sus hablantes no tienen el mismo grado de reconocimiento. Llegándose a dar el caso que, en España, una misma lengua pueda llegar a tener diferentes niveles de reconocimiento legal-oficial y un número aún mayor de políticas lingüísticas que traten de convertir en una realidad substantiva todos o una parte de los derechos lingüísticos reconocidos formalmente a los hablantes de una lengua diferente del castellano en una comunidad autónoma.Así las cosas, se constata que legalmente una lengua (castellano) tiene una situación de preeminencia legal-oficial, seis lenguas españolas (catalán, gallego, vasco, occitano, aragonés y asturleonés) tienen algún tipo de reconocimiento oficial en parte del territorio en el que son habladas de manera autóctona, una lengua tiene reconocimiento político (tamazight), otra tiene un reconocimiento administrativo menor en Cataluña (caló), y tres lenguas autóctonas no tienen el más mínimo reconocimiento legal, político o administrativo (árabe, haquetia yportugués). El trabajo estudia detalladamente y de manera global la estructuración de la jerarquía lingüística en la legislación española derivadade la Constitución y concluye con una descripción de los seis niveles de jerarquía lingüística y de derechos lingüísticos que existen en España. Se defiende, finalmente, un cambio sistema lingüístico legalconstitucional que respete los principios de seguridad lingüística y el principio de igualdad de derechos lingüísticos de todos los ciudadanos españoles. Summary:1. Introduction. The Constitution and the Spanish languages. 2.Language in the statutes of monolingual communities. 3. Linguisticdiversity in multilingual communities with a single official language.4. Communities with co-officiality. 5. Final considerations: a hierarchicalrecognition. 6. Bibliography cited. Abstract:This paper is an overview of the recognition of the Spanish linguistic diversity derived from the Constitution. We refer exclusively to the native languages historically spoken in Spain; about that is important to know that the same language can receive diverse popular and official denominations.With these premises, the work studies the recognition in the article 3 of the Spanish Constitution of the linguistic diversity in Spain. It is emphasized in the study that this article establishes that the Castilian is the official Spanish language of the State and that all Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right to use it (article 3.1), that the other Spanish languages would be official in the respective autonomous communities, depending on the regulation made by their statutes of autonomy (article 3.2 ), and that Spain considers the richness of the different linguistic modalities a cultural heritage that must have special respect and protection (article 3.3).The content of the Constitution, the constitutional jurisprudence of the last four decades and the statutes of autonomy and autonomous linguistic legislation, have established a recognition of the Spanish linguistic diversity and of the specific linguistic rights of the speakers of the different Spanish languages based on the principle of linguistic hierarchy and not in those of linguistic security and equality of linguistic rights. The principle of linguistic hierarchy considers that there are some languages that have to have a legal and official recognitionsuperior to others. And, what is the same, that the linguistic rights of its speakers do not have the same degree of recognition. In Spain, the same language may have different levels of legal-official recognition and a lot of linguistic policies in the autonomous communities that try to be reality all or part of the linguistic rights formally recognized to speakers of a language other than Castilian. So it is verified that legally a language (Castilian) has a situation oflegal-official preeminence, six Spanish languages (Catalan, Galician, Basque, Occitan, Aragonese and Asturian) have some type of official recognition in part of the territory where are spoken, one language has political recognition (Tamazight), another has a lower administrative recognition in Catalonia (Caló), and three indigenous languages do not have the least legal, political or administrative recognition (Arabic, Hachetia and Portuguese).The paper studies in detail the structure of the linguistic hierarchy in Spanish legislation derived from the Constitution and concludes with a description of the six levels of linguistic hierarchy and of linguistic rights that exist in Spain. Finally, it defends a legal-constitutional linguistic system that respects the principles of linguistic security and of equality of linguistic rights of all Spanish citizens.


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).


Author(s):  
Chryso Hadjidemetriou

This chapter discusses how the revitalization efforts of Kormakiti Maronite Arabic (KMA) in Cyprus may have influenced the beliefs and ideologies of the community towards its language. KMA is spoken by some members of the Kormakiti Maronite community in Cyprus, where the official languages are Greek and Turkish. However, local varieties of Greek and Turkish are used by most people in everyday communication and the use of KMA has declined, especially in terms of intergenerational transmission. The chapter begins with a sociolinguistic profile of the KMA community focusing on: (i) subjective attitudes towards KMA and its speakers, and (ii) the ethnic identity value attached to KMA. Recordings conducted since 2006, when revitalization efforts began, enabled the author to observe a slight change in some speakers’ beliefs about their language, triggered by ongoing revitalization efforts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document