Academic literature on the topic 'Linguistic minorities ; Language policy'

After many years of the oppressive apartheid government, the new democratic era came into being in 1994. Lot of policy changes came into being, including language policy. This new language policy of the post-apartheid era recognises eleven official languages which include the nine indigenous African languages which were previously recognised as regional languages in the different homelands. The present study investigates the progress of Tshivenda in terms of status and development since it was accorded the official status in South Africa. Literature investigating the status of Tshivenda is generally sparse. This study investigates the status of Tshivenda in South Africa to explore how minority languages which are also recognised as official languages are treated. In most multilingual countries, there are issues which affect the development of minority languages, but the South African situation is interesting in that some of the minority languages are recognised as official languages. This study is a comparative in nature. Firstly, the study compares the level of corpus planning and development in Tshivenda and other indigenous South African languages. Secondly, it compares how people use Tshivenda in a rural area of Lukalo Village where the language is not under pressure from other languages and in Cosmo City, an urban area in Gauteng where Tshivenda speakers come into contact with speakers of more dominant languages such as isiZulu and Sesotho. Language use in different domains like, media, education, government and the home is considered in order to establish how people use languages and the factors which influence their linguistic behaviours. The study also establishes the perceptions and attitudes of the speakers of Tshivenda as a minority and those of the speakers of other languages towards Tshivenda’s role in the different domains such as education and the media. This study was influenced by previous research (Alexander 1989, Webb 2002) which found out that during the apartheid period Tshivenda speakers used to disguise their identity by adopting dominant languages like isiZulu and Sesotho in Johannesburg. Accordingly, the present research wanted to establish how the language policy change in the democratic era has impacted on the confidence of Tshivenda speakers regarding themselves and their language. This study establishes that although Tshivenda is now an official language in post-apartheid South Africa, it still has features of underdevelopment and marginalization that are typically of unofficial minority languages. Translation, lexicographic and terminological work in this language still lags behind that of other indigenous South African languages and there is still a shortage of school textbooks and adult literature in this language. As a result, using the language in education, the media and other controlling domains is still quite challenging, although positive developments such as the teaching of the language at university level can be noted. The Tshivenda speakers generally have a positive attitude towards their language and seem prepared to learn and use it confidently as long its functional value is enhanced, which is currently not happening. As a result, some Tshivenda speakers still regard English as a more worthwhile language to learn at the expense of their language

This thesis examines one of the most important areas through which a state can affect the vitality of a minority language community: the use of minority languages in the public administration. The study begins with an examination of the European Union Framework with regard to the protection of minority languages in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Nice. It analyses the relevant Council of Europe Treaties, and in particular the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in so far as they deal with the protection of minority languages in the public administration and public institutions. The thesis also assesses the CoE and EU Frameworks for the protection of minority languages. The national and regional legislation of Italy (Valle d’Aosta, Trentino Alto Adige, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Sardinia and Sicily), Spain (Catalonia, Basque Autonomous Community, Navarra, Galicia, Balearic Islands and Valencia) and UK (Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) are scrutinized to compare the different approaches adopted for the protection of minority languages. This analysis is focused on the crucial sectors of the public administration and public institutions which have both a high symbolic value and significant levels of inter-action with the minority language-speaking populations. The similarities and differences between the Italian, Spanish and the UK legislation in this field are examined, such gaps as exist between the aims of the legislation and reality are identified, as are the difficulties in the implementation of this form of legislation in the public administration.

Linguistic minorities are playing a crucial role in determining how states are reimagining themselves in more plural and inclusive ways. Pressure from both supranational and sub-state levels of government has meant that the repression of linguistic minorities by state institutions is no longer acceptable and even attitudes of neglect are widely condemned. However, while there has been a noticeable change in attitudes towards linguistic minorities in many European states, the specific role of the central state in relation to these groups remains ambiguous and merits further study. This thesis thus compares the language policies of the central states of Spain and Italy between 1992 and 2010, concerning two specific linguistic minorities in each country. These include Catalan-speakers in Catalonia and the German-speaking minority in Alto Adige/Südtirol, which have received considerable recognition and find themselves in a comparable situation within their respective states. In contrast, the Asturian- and Sardinian-speaking minorities have received the most minimal recognition at both the regional and state levels. Three sources of primary data were identified for the purposes of this study: official state documentation and legislation, elite interviews with political and institutional representatives, and state-wide newspapers. The research reveals the rationales, ideologies and motivations behind the actions of the central states of Spain and Italy in their approaches towards these distinct groups. New insight is provided by considering cases which have not previously been compared, as well as focusing on the typically hidden language policies of the state in contrast to the visible and widely studied policies implemented at the regional or provincial levels. This approach allows conclusions to be drawn on the extent to which both states may be moving away from the traditional monolingual nation-state model and provides recommendations for future approaches to linguistic minorities at the state and European levels.

Magister Legum - LLM<br>Namibia is home to a number of linguistic minorities. According to the 2011 census, the Owambo constitute 49.35 per cent of the population, accounting for almost half of the country’s total population.1 The rest of the linguistic groups include the Bushman (San) (0.95 per cent), Caprivians (4.5 per cent), Herero (8.99 per cent), Kavango (10.42 per cent), Damara/Nama (11.32 per cent), Setswana (0.26 per cent), Afrikaans (8.72 per cent), German (0.54 per cent), English (2.43 per cent), other European languages (0.69 per cent), other African languages (1.74 per cent), Asian languages (0.08 per cent) and other unidentified languages (0.02 per cent).2 English is, however, the only official language in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of Namibia, 1990 (“Constitution”).3

This thesis investigates the intertextuality of language policy, K-12 TESL pedagogies, and EL identity construction in the perpetuation of unjust TESL practices in these contexts. By examining the power structures of English language ideology through critical discourse analysis of recent California language policy, this thesis demonstrates English language teaching’s intrinsically political nature in K-12 education through negotiations and exchanges of power. Currently, sociolinguistic approaches to TESL and second language acquisition acknowledge the value of language socialization teaching methods. This requires the acceptance of cognition, not as an individual pursuit of knowledge containment and memorization, but cognition as a collaborative and sociohistorically situated practice. Thus, this project also examines the power structures in place that negotiate and enforce these ideologies and how these practices influence pedagogy and EL identity construction. Many English users are second language (L2) users of English yet authorities of English use tend to consist of homogenous, monolingual English users, or English-sacred communities, not L2 users of English. Often, this instigates native speaker (NS) vs. non-native speaker (NNS) dichotomies such as correct vs. in-correct use, and us vs. them dichotomies. These are the same ideologies that permeate the discourse of California’s Proposition 227 and some pedagogies discussed in the data of this research perpetuating culture wars between monolingual and multilingual advocates and users.

The doctoral thesis investigates the impact of legal mobilization and judicial decisions on official minority-language education (OMLE) policy outside Quebec using a model of judicial impact derived from New Institutionalism theory. The New Institutionalism (NI) model of judicial impact synthesizes the dominant approaches to judicial impact found in the US literature, which are reviewed in Chapter Two, and transcends them by placing them within a framework based on the New Institutionalism.<br>The model, as developed in Chapter Three, proposes that certain factors will increase the probability of judicial decisions having a positive influence on policy, such as whether incentives are provided for implementation. The model argues that institutions---as structures and state actors---have important influences on these factors. Furthermore, the NI model recognizes that institutions play a partial and contingent role in the construction of policy preferences and discourse and in mediating the political process more generally over time.<br>Chapter Four demonstrates that the NI model can be applied usefully to reinterpret existing accounts of how legal mobilization and judicial decisions impacted the struggle over school desegregation in the US---a case that provides a heuristic comparison to OMLE policy as it concerns the question of how and where minorities are educated.<br>Chapters Five through Seven describe OMLE policy development in Canada from the latter 1970s until 2000, with case studies of Alberta and, to a lesser extent, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Chapter Eight reveals that legal mobilization by Francophone groups cannot be understood without reference to institutional factors, particularly the Charter of Rights and funding from the federal government. The policy impact of legal mobilization was influenced strongly by the Supreme Court's 1990 Mahe decision and by federal government funding to the provinces for OMLE policy development, while public opinion appeared to be a least a moderately constraining force on policy change. Chapter Eight further reveals that legal mobilization and judicial decisions helped Francophone groups gain access to the policy process and shaped the policy goals and discourse of actors within the process over time.<br>Chapter Nine bolsters confidence in the conclusions generated in Chapter Eight by demonstrating how the explanations provided by the NI model, which emphasize the direct or mediating influence of institutional factors, are superior to explanations generated by a Critical Legal Studies (CLS) approach, a "systems" approach, a "dispute-centered" approach, and by Gerald Rosenberg's model. The thesis concludes by suggesting avenues for future research on judicial impact, particularly research that is focused on comparative institutionalism.

This research focuses on contributions – oral and written – on the topic of linguistic diversity made by Members of the European Parliament during the plenary sessions from 2000 to 2003 inclusive and analyses the attitudes expressed by Members towards the concept of linguistic diversity, particularly as it applies to the national languages and the regional autochthonous languages of Member States. The analysis is set within a framework consisting of contemporary academic work and the classic work by Johann Gottfried von Herder and the German Philosophen. The European Year of Languages 2001 was widely supported by the European Commission; but an important question seemed to be what significance, if any, did maintaining linguistic diversity have for Members of the European Parliament in the years immediately following 2001. This research set out to discover to what extent issues related to linguistic diversity were given expression to in the plenary debates from 2000 to 2003, the years corresponding essentially to the fifth parliamentary term. Was only lip service paid to linguistic diversity in the years 2000 – 2003? Or did the European Year of Languages focus the attention of parliamentarians from all political groups in an ongoing way on issues of language use and preservation in the European Union, especially since the Union was to be significantly enlarged by the addition of ten Member States on January 1, 2004? Did the MEPs recognise that there were social and economic benefits accruing from pursuing policies of linguistic diversity? How important was linguistic diversity to the essence of the European Union in the eyes of its Members of Parliament? To what extent did MEPs espouse the use of just one language as a preferred method of communication in and around the Parliament? How much respect was there for the regional and minority indigenous languages of the European Union? Did MEPs regard linguistic diversity as an important consideration in determining the suitability of other countries seeking accession? The research reviews the response from the Commission in subsequent years to the views articulated by the MEPs. Finally, are there lessons in any of this for New Zealand?