Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (16)
- Article (7)
- Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Review (2)
Language
- English (29) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (29)
Keywords
- Sprachpolitik (21)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (15)
- Minderheitensprache (12)
- Lettland (8)
- Lettisch (7)
- Linguistic Landscape (7)
- Russisch (7)
- Bildung (6)
- Sprachliche Minderheit (6)
- language policy (6)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (17)
- Postprint (12)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (12)
- Ahead of Print (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (17)
- Peer-Review (12)
Publisher
The establishment of Scottish Parliament: What difference does it make for the Gaelic language?
(2004)
After the Labour government takeover in Westminster in 1997, followed by the referendum on establishing a Scottish Parliament, hopes for more support for the Gaelic language in Scotland were nourished. In the election campaign to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, all parties which were elected to Parliament had mentioned Gaelic, and all parties except the Conservatives had promised an increase in support for Gaelic (cf. Scottish parties’ election manifestoes, obtainable from the parties or via their web sites). Now that the new Scottish Executive, formed by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, has been in power for some time, it is interesting to see if these hopes have been fulfilled.
The two core questions of this paper will thus be:
1. What is the status of Scottish Gaelic after the devolution process?
2. What difference does the existence of the Scottish Parliament make for the status of Gaelic?
It is important to note that this paper refers to language status and Gaelic’s position from a mere language policy perspective. The results are mostly based on an analysis of Parliament documents, the method of investigation being strictly philological. Empirical research has not yet been undertaken. The reference time of my paper will be the first year of Scottish Parliament and the new executive. Even though this is an arbitrary time break, the first year is a symbolic point of time. As the first legislation period as a possibly more natural reference point is not over yet, this choice seems legitimate.
Numerous academics and politicians have in recent years contributed to the description and analysis of language policy for the benefit of smaller languages. The present paper tries to add to these by taking up the notion of yet another aspect of politics and language, exemplified by two case studies. The political aspect is the decentralization of parliamentary power for the benefit of minority languages. The two case studies deal with the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Gaelic language on the one hand, and between the Norwegian Sarni Parliament, the Sameting, and the Sami language on the other hand. The underlying idea is to consider whether parliamentary bodies may contribute to the empowerment of speakers of minority languages regarding the language of individual choice in as many instances as possible. This applies to any domain of language use, but in particular public bodies, education, and the media, at local, regional and national levels.
In the context of a Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, it can be a rewarding task to look at issues such as language planning, policy and legislation from a perspective of the southern neighbours of the Nordic world. This paper therefore intends to point attention towards a case of societal multilingualism at the periphery of the Nordic world by dealing with recent developments in language policy and legislation with regard to the North Frisian speech community in the German Land of Schleswig-Holstein. As I will show, it is striking to what degree there are considerable differences in the discourse on minority protection and language legislation between the Nordic countries and a cultural area which may arguably be considered to be part of the Nordic fringe - and which itself occasionally takes Scandinavia as a reference point, e.g. in the recent adoption of a pan-Frisian flag modelled on the Nordic cross (Falkena 2006).
The main focus of the paper will be on the Frisian Act which was passed in the Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein in late 2004. It provides a certain legal basis for some political activities with regard to Frisian, but falls short of creating a true spirit of minority language protection and/or revitalisation. In contrast to the traditions of the German and Danish minorities along the German-Danish border and to minority protection in Northern Scandinavia (in particular to Sámi language rights), the approach chosen in the Frisian Act is extremely weak and has no connotation of long-term oriented language-planning, let alone a rights-based perspective.
The paper will then look at policy developments in the time since the Act was passed, e.g. in the Schleswig-Holstein election campaign in 2005, and on latest perceptions of the Frisian language situation in the discourse on North Frisian Policy in Schleswig-Holstein majority society. In the final part of the paper, I will discuss reasons for the differences in minority language policy discourse between Germany and the Nordic countries, and try to provide an outlook on how Frisian could benefit from its geographic proximity to the Nordic world.
This dossier consists of an introduction to the region under study, followed by six sections each dealing with a specific level of the education system. These brief descriptions contain factual information presented in a readily accessible way. Sections eight to ten cover research, prospects, and summary statistics. For detailed information and political discussions about language use at the various levels of education, the reader is referred to other sources with a list of publications.
“Linguistic Landscapes” (LL) is a research method which has become increasingly popular in recent years. In this paper, we will first explain the method itself and discuss some of its fundamental assumptions. We will then recall the basic traits of multilingualism in the Baltic States, before presenting results from our project carried out together with a group of Master students of Philology in several medium-sized towns in the Baltic States, focussing on our home town of Rēzekne in the highly multilingual region of Latgale in Eastern Latvia. In the discussion of some of the results, we will introduce the concept of “Legal Hypercorrection” as a term for the stricter compliance of language laws than necessary. The last part will report on advantages of LL for educational purposes of multilingualism, and for developing discussions on multilingualism among the general public.
This chapter will present results of a linguistic landscape (LL) project in the regional centre of Rēzekne in the region of Latgale in Eastern Latvia. Latvia was de facto a part of the Soviet Union until 1991, and this has given it a highly multilingual society. In the essentially post-colonial situation since 1991, strict language policies have been in place, which aim to reverse the language shift from Russian, the dominant language of Soviet times, back to Latvian. Thus, the main interests of the research were how the complex pattern of multilingualism in Latvia is reflected in the LL; how people relate to current language legislation; and what motivations, attitudes and emotions inform their behaviour.
This article looks at Latgalian from a perspective of a classification of languages. It starts by discussing relevant terms relating to sociolinguistic language types. It argues that Latgalian and its speakers show considerable similarities with many languages in Europe which are considered to be regional languages – hence, also Latgalian should be classified as such. In a second part, the article uses sociolinguistic data to indicate that the perceptions of speakers confirm this classification. Therefore, Latgalian should also officially be treated with the respect that other regional languages in Europe enjoy.
This article discusses the situation of the Latgalian language in Latvia today. It first provides an overview of languages in Latvia, followed by a historical and contemporary sketch of the societal position of Latgalian and by an account of current Latgalian language activism. On this basis, the article then applies schemes of language functions and of evaluations of the societal position of minority languages to Latgalian. Given the range of functions that Latgalian fulfils today and the wishes and attempts by activists to expand these functions, the article argues that it is surprising that so little attention is given to Latgalian in mainstream Latvian and international sociolinguistic publications. In this light, the fate of the language is difficult to prognose, but a lot depends on whether the Latvian state will clarify its own unclear perception of policies towards Latgalian and on how much attention it will receive in the future.
Over the past decades, problems related to linguistic minorities and their well-being, as well as to minority languages and their maintenance, have developed as an independent branch of minority studies. Studies of language in society and sociolinguistics, strategies of minority language survival and the empowerment of their speakers have produced a considerable output of case studies and theoretical writings.In this multifaceted field of investigation, language use, language practices, language policies and language politics represent interrelated aspects of social and linguistic relations that cannot be meaningfully addressed from a point of view of one scientific discipline only. This is specially the case when one wants to understand processes of language loss and maintenance, or the revitalization and empowerment of a language community. Such processes are linguistic expressions of complex social settings, and reflect group and individual identities that in turn express changing systems of collective values, human networks, fashions and social practices.
This chapter explores the Linguistic Landscape of six medium-size towns in the Baltic States with regard to languages of tourism and to the role of English and Russian as linguae francae. A quantitative analysis of signs and of tourism web sites shows that, next to the state languages, English is the most dominant language. Yet, interviews reveal that underneath the surface, Russian still stands strong. Therefore, possible claims that English might take over the role of the main lingua franca in the Baltic States cannot be maintained. English has a strong position for attracting international tourists, but only alongside Russian which remains important both as a language of international communication and for local needs.