Language Problems and Language Planning - Volume 40, Issue 2, 2016

On 18 February 2012 Latvian citizens participated in a referendum on making Russian a second official (“state”) language. The proposal was rejected by three-quarters of voters. There is a complex background to language policy in Latvia, where since regaining independence in 1991 the country has promoted Latvian as the only state language, though Russian and other languages are widely used at a societal level. The language law and associated citizenship law in Latvia (as in Estonia) have received considerable commentary, with recent significant writings disagreeing strongly regarding their interpretation. These laws have also very often been criticized by both European institutions and by Russia, yet are tenaciously clung to as a basis of Latvian sovereignty. Proficiency in Latvian among previous non-speakers of this language has improved markedly since regained independence, and generally there has been little interpersonal or community confict over language. The move for a referendum, promoted by Russian groups of a highly political character, and with a particular discourse about Latvia and language, brings a new phase to an ongoing language policy issue. Subsequent events both in Latvia (in the form of a constitutional amendment) and in Ukraine (in the form of both language law and armed conflict) show language policy being increasingly influenced by wider political forces.

This paper examines the linguistic rights of Catalonia as stated in the Statutes of Autonomy of Catalonia of 1979 and 2006 and the Spanish Constitution of 1978. In addition, it studies the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Spain of 2010 which annulled or reinterpreted articles of the Statute of 2006, including Article 6.1 which declares Catalan as the “preferential” language of Catalonia. The paper offers some suggestions for improving language rights for speakers of Catalan, both within the Spanish state and the European Union, to help de-escalate language conflict between Catalonia and the Spanish state.

How to protect language diversity in the world is a hotly discussed topic in linguistic research. This study investigates the relationship between Tibetan language vitality and language users’ identity in Maketang and Huazangsi Tibetan Autonomy County. On the basis of empirical data, the study suggests that there are no strong, positive correlations between Tibetan language vitality and the speakers’ language identity (or with their language activities and inclinations). However, pragmatic matters constitute an important factor that influences speakers’ activities and inclinations. These findings can be explained by conflicting functions performed by language: language as a communication tool on the one hand, and language as a receptacle of culture on the other. Bilingual (or multilingual) education can fulfill a useful role in balancing these two language functions. As a result of the evidence in this study, we argue that language protection cannot preserve both language vitality and language identity, and that, therefore, language protection should pay more attention to issues of language identity rather than to issues of language vitality.

This article contributes to recent critical discussion of ‘agency’ in language policy and planning (LPP) research and practice. It argues that whilst scholars have widened their purview to consider the impact of individual actors on LPP in different contexts, the field has not developed or embraced theoretical and methodological frameworks which satisfactorily model or investigate the network of actor impact on LPP. This article analyzes the current status of LPP at the United Nations (UN). Taking the ‘Actor-Stage Model’ (Zhao & Baldauf, 2012) as a theoretical point of departure, the article discusses and analyzes the most recent review of LPP within the UN. It becomes apparent that a network of agents is responsible for LPP development, influence and implementation within the organization. This ‘web of influence’ is schematized using a network model which accounts for the implicit and explicit responsibility of multiple actors / ‘experts’ within and outside of the organization. A sub-analysis of institutional LPP goals reveals the ‘polycentric’ and ‘relational’ nature of influence within and across multiple ‘nodes’. It is argued that the network model and the concept of ‘web of influence’ is crucial in de- and re-constructing particular LPP goals and serves as a useful heuristic for those investigating or working within similar sites of inter/transnational integration as well as LPP in other macro, meso or micro-contexts.