Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (20)
- Article (4)
- Review (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (28)
Keywords
- Sprachpolitik (15)
- Mehrsprachigkeit (13)
- Linguistic Landscape (10)
- Deutsch (9)
- Minderheitensprache (8)
- Gesellschaft (7)
- Russisch (6)
- Baltikum (5)
- Lettland (5)
- Bildung (4)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (28) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (18)
- Peer-Review (10)
Publisher
- Peter Lang (5)
- de Gruyter (3)
- Multilingual Matters (2)
- Palgrave Macmillan (2)
- Springer (2)
- iudicum (2)
- Asgard (1)
- Friedrich (1)
- Gesellschaft für Bedrohte Völker (1)
- Kunstakademie Vilnius (1)
Durch den Dezentralisierungsprozess in Großbritannien gibt es seit etwa einem Jahr neue Hoffnung für ein dauerhaftes Überleben der gälischen Sprache in Schottland. Mit der Einrichtung eines schottischen Parlaments, das seit Mai 1999 für innere Belange Schottlands verantwortlich ist, ist die gälischsprachige Bevölkerung viel näher an das Machtzentrum heran gerückt.
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 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.
In der akademischen Diskussion zum Global English hat sich seit den 1980er Jahren ein Modell etabliert, das die Staaten, in denen Englisch gesprochen wird, idealtypisch in drei Kreise einteilt: Den Inneren Kreis, in dem Englisch wichtigste Sprache der Gesellschaft sowie L1 eines Großteils der Bevölkerung ist, den Äußeren Kreis, wo Englisch L2 und eine wichtige Sprache unter mehreren ist, sowie den Erweiterten oder Expandierenden Kreis, in dem Englisch als Fremdsprache und als Lingua Franca dominiert (Kachru, 1985). Dieser Beitrag zeigt anhand einer Bestandsaufnahme gesellschaftlicher Funktionen des Deutschen weltweit, dass dieses Modell auch auf das Deutsche übertragen werden kann. Allerdings unterscheidet sich das Deutsche in einigen erheblichen Aspekten vom Englischen: Zum Inneren Kreis gehören die Länder des deutschsprachigen Kerngebietes, zum Äußeren Kreis Länder, in denen Deutsch anerkannte Minderheitensprache ist, und zum Erweiterten (oder im Falle des Deutschen eher Bröckelnden) Kreis Länder, in denen es einzelne deutsche Sprachinseln oder eine deutschsprachige Diaspora gibt, wobei letztere auch erst in jüngster Zeit entstanden sein kann. Schließlich diskutiert der Aufsatz die Position des Baltikums in diesem Modell.
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 paper seeks to apply the principles of the famous 3-Circle-Model devised for the description of the ecolinguistic position of English world-wide to the position of German around the world.
On the one hand, the 3-Circle-Model for English with its "Inner", "Outer" and "Extended/Expanding" Circles was invented by Kachru in the 1980s and has since then been adopted, refined and criticised by numerous authors. The situation of German world-wide, on the other hand, has only been scarcely discussed in the past 20 years. While the global extension of German is obviously by far weaker than that of English, there are also a number of noteworthy similarities in terms of historical spread and the current position of these two languages.
This paper therefore discusses the analogies of global English and German by establishing three circles for German: the Inner Circle for the core German-speaking area, i.e. Germany, Austria and Switzerland; the Outer Circle including a number of German minority areas (mostly in Europe), and finally the Extended Circle which may be denoted as "Crumbling" rather than "Expanding". The latter comprises traditional German diaspora communities in different parts of the world which either result from migration, but also reflect the previous functions of German as a language of culture and as a lingua franca in regions like Eastern Europe. The paper argues that there are some striking structural similarities, but also shows the limits of this comparison.
This chapter analyses the impact of political decentralization in a state on the position of ethnic and linguistic minorities, in particular with regard to the role of parliamentary assemblies in the political system. It relates a number of typical functions of parliaments to the specific needs of minorities and their languages. The most important of these functions are the representation of the minority and responsiveness to the minority’s needs. The chapter then discusses six examples from the European Union (and Norway) which prototypically represent different types of parliamentary decentralization: the ethnically defined Sameting in Norway and its importance for the Sámi population, the Scottish Parliament and its role for speakers of Scottish Gaelic, the German regional parliaments of the Länder of Schleswig-Holstein and Saxony and their impact on the Frisian and Sorbian minorities respectively, the autonomy of predominantly German-speaking South Tyrol within the Italian state, and finally the situation of the speakers of Latgalian in Latvia, where a decentralized parliament is missing. The chapter also makes suggestions on comparisons of these situations with minorities in Russia. It finally argues that political decentralization may indeed empower minorities to gain a greater voice in their states, even if much ultimately depends on individual factors in each situation and the attitudes by the majority population and the political center.