Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (11)
- Book (4)
Language
- English (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15) (remove)
Keywords
- Mehrsprachigkeit (15) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (9)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (5)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (15) (remove)
Publisher
Latvia
(2019)
This chapter deals with current issues in bilingual education in the framework of language and educational policies in Latvia, and also outlines similarities or common tendencies in the two other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. As commonly understood in the 21st century, the term ‘bilingual education’ includes ‘multilingual education, as the umbrella term to cover a wide spectrum of practice and policy’ (García, 2009: 9).
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.
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.
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.
Preface
(2015)
Russia, its languages and its ethnic groups are for many readers of English surprisingly unknown territory. Even among academics and researchers familiar with many ethnolinguistic situations around the globe, there prevails rather unsystematic and fragmented knowledge about Russia. This relates to both the micro level such as the individual situations of specific ethnic or linguistic groups, and to the macro level with regard to the entire interplay of linguistic practices, ideologies, laws, and other policies in Russia. In total, this lack of information about Russia stands in sharp contrast to the abundance of literature on ethnolinguistic situations, minority languages, language revitalization, and ideologies toward languages and multilingualism which has been published throughout the past decades.
This is the first comprehensive volume to compare the sociolinguistic situations of minorities in Russia and in Western Europe. As such, it provides insight into language policies, the ethnolinguistic vitality and the struggle for reversal of language shift, language revitalization and empowerment of minorities in Russia and the European Union. The volume shows that, even though largely unknown to a broader English-reading audience, the linguistic composition of Russia is by no means less diverse than multilingualism in the EU. It is therefore a valuable introduction into the historical backgrounds and current linguistic, social and legal affairs with regard to Russia’s manifold ethnic and linguistic minorities, mirrored on the discussion of recent issues in a number of well-known Western European minority situations.
This edited collection provides an overview of linguistic diversity, societal discourses and interaction between majorities and minorities in the Baltic States. It presents a wide range of methods and research paradigms including folk linguistics, discourse analysis, narrative analyses, code alternation, ethnographic observations, language learning motivation, languages in education and language acquisition. Grouped thematically, its chapters examine regional varieties and minority languages (Latgalian, Võro, urban dialects in Lithuania, Polish in Lithuania); the integration of the Russian language and its speakers; and the role of international languages like English in Baltic societies. The editors’ introductory and concluding chapters provide a comparative perspective that situates these issues within the particular history of the region and broader debates on language and nationalism at a time of both increased globalization and ethno-regionalism. This book will appeal in particular to students and scholars of multilingualism, sociolinguistics, language discourses and language policy, and provide a valuable resource for researchers focusing on Baltic States, Northern Europe and the post-Soviet world in the related fields of history, political science, sociology and anthropology.
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.
This chapter introduces readers to the context and concept of this volume. It starts by providing an historical overview of languages and multilingualism in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, highlighting the 100th anniversary of statehood which the three Baltic states are celebrating in 2018. Then, the chapter briefly presents important strands of research on multilingualism in the region throughout the past decades; in particular, questions about language policies and the status of the national languages (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian) and Russian. It also touches on debates about languages in education and the roles of other languages such as the regional languages of Latgalian and Võro and the changing roles of international languages such as English and German. The chapter concludes by providing short summaries of the contributions to this book.
This chapter focuses on the way in which co-present parties in meetings manage language choice and treat it as raising problems of participation - in the sense that participants can orient to the fact that a given language choice may increase or diminish participation for some or all co-present group members. Choosing one language rather than another is approached here as a members' problem (in an ethnomethodological sense), and as a decision the participants make themselves, in situ and within their courses of action, displaying the way in which they orient to its local consequences, and how they justify and legitimize it. In order to explore this link between language choice and participation systematically, in this chapter we focus on a particular and recurrent phenomenon, the announcement of a language change. Within the conversation analysis framework, we analyse these announcements by taking into account the sequential position in which they occur, their format, the way in which they are addressed to a sub-group or to the group as a whole, and the specific action they accomplish. We will also look at how the group receives the announcement, its effects on the participation framework, as well as the categorizations that ensue from it. This chapter therefore highlights the mutual configuration between language choice and participation framework. Our analyses are based on several video- and audio-recorded corpora of international work meetings. These video data call for reflection not only on the linguistic dimension of participation frameworks and language switches, but more broadly on their multimodal organization. This chapter shows that multimodal details are crucial if we aim to understand the relation between multilingualism and participation as occasioned, contingent and emergent dynamics.
EFNIL, the European Federation of National Institutions for Language, promotes the standard languages and the linguistic diversity of the European countries as an essential characteristic of their cultural diversity and wealth. The 17th annual conference of EFNIL in Tallinn dealt with the relation between language and economy.
• Language politics often have economic intentions, the language use of the individual is embedded in economic conditions, languages seem to differ in their economic value. In recent years, economists and sociolinguists have developed models of describing these interdependencies.
• The interaction in multilingual settings needs professional handling. There are traditional instances such as language teaching or translation and new professional fields of the digital age such as multilingual databases. Lots of economic needs and opportunities appear in this field.
• Digitization and societal diversity are two elements leading to more successful interaction, assisted by the use of automatic everyday translation, the development of plain language etc.
This volume presents an extensive overview of the interplay of language and economy.
Preface
(2015)
Abertura/Opening
(2010)
Moderm European Science and culture evolved in the process of emancipation of various national languages from medieval Latin. At present, this development from monolingualism to multilingualism seems to be reversed in several scientific disciplines and in higher education. The former linguistic diversity turns gradually into a modern monolingualism of scientific English, especially in the natural and some social sciences. A short-term consequence is that researchers and Professors with other first languages need extra time and sometimes money to prepare their publications and lectures in English. Long-term consequences are, among others, that all languages exept English are devaluated as media of science and learning and, thus, a diglossia might develop if only English be used for the important domains and other languages be limited to the domains of private communication and folklore. The way out can only be through a cultivation of at least bilingualism of researchers, Professors, and their students in the natural sciences and trilingualism in social sciences and the humanities.