- Home
- e-Journals
- Language Problems and Language Planning
- Previous Issues
- Volume 41, Issue, 2017
Language Problems and Language Planning - Volume 41, Issue 2, 2017
Volume 41, Issue 2, 2017
-
Language rights in the constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States
Author(s): Eduardo D. Faingoldpp.: 103–114 (12)More LessThe constitutions, organic acts, and statutes of the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are given an exhaustive screening to identify legal language defining the linguistic obligations of each territory or associated state and the language rights of individuals and groups dwelling within. The author suggests that the territories of the United States and the Freely Associated States are well served by “hands-on” policies declaring provisions that protect the rights of language minority groups, or of all people living in the territory (i.e., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa) and associated states (i.e., the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau). As in many states in the United States, the absence of an explicit language policy in the United States Virgin Islands has not prevented it from practicing implicit language policies that promote the use of English while also allowing minority languages to be used in the territory. Unlike many states in the United States which declare English as the sole official language and/or enact provisions to protect official English, none of the territories and associated states of the United States declares English as the sole official language or establishes provisions that hinder the rights of language minority groups.
-
Compulsory African language learning at a South African university
Author(s): Stephanie Rudwickpp.: 115–135 (21)More LessWhile many universities in the world are making provisions to include the English language in their institutional structure, the South African University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) is opposing the hegemony of English in its institution. The University has launched a language policy and planning (LPP) strategy that makes provisions first to incorporate the vernacular language Zulu as language of learning and teaching, and second, to promote it as a subject. In this vein, the institution recently made an unprecedented decision for the South African higher education system. Since the first semester of 2014, a specific Zulu language module is a mandatory subject for undergraduate students who have no proficiency in the language. Although considered a watershed moment among many African language promoters, the mandatory ruling is fiercely discussed and debated in the institution and beyond. Theoretically grounded in Language Management Theory (LMT) and empirically based on semi-ethnographic fieldwork, this article examines the interplay between macro and micro language dynamics at UKZN in the context of the mandatory Zulu module. In juxtaposing interview discourses of language policy stakeholders with those of Zulu lecturers, the study reveals a stark discrepancy between macro and micro language management at this university. The article argues that this mismatch between the language policy intents and actual practices on the ground is symptomatic for South Africa’s language policy in education being shaped more by ideological interests than by pedagogical regards.
-
Buttering their bread on both sides?
Author(s): Maartje De Meulder and Joseph J. Murraypp.: 136–158 (23)More LessIn the past two decades, a wave of campaigns to recognise sign languages have taken place in numerous countries. These campaigns sought official recognition of national sign languages, with the aim of enhancing signers’ social mobility and protecting the vitality of sign languages. These activities differ from a long history of sign language planning from a ‘language as a problem’ approach largely used by educators and policymakers to date. However, the instrumental rights and social mobility obtained as a result have thus far been limited with educational linguistic and language acquisition rights especially lacking. This article identifies two reasons for this situation. First, a view of Sign Language Peoples (SLPs) from a medical perspective has led to confusion about the meaning of linguistic rights for them and led governments to treat sign language planning differently than that for spoken languages. Furthermore, SLPs political participation is hindered by recognition being offered by governments without substantial commitments to financial resources, changes in government practices or greater inclusion of sign languages in public life. One exception to this trend are sign language planning bodies, but even these face challenges in the implementation phase. Going forward, we argue that sign language recognition legislation should centre on deaf communities’ concerns regarding sign language vitality. In addition to a need to ensure acquisition for deaf signers, we contend that while the expansion of hearing (and deaf) new signers can be interpreted in terms of language endangerment it can also be seen as strengthening sign languages’ vitality.
-
Linguistic capital
Author(s): Chris Harwood and Conttia Laipp.: 159–167 (9)More LessThis article discusses the effects of Hong Kong’s language policy changes in education since China reclaimed the territory in 1997. It describes Hong Kongers’ perceptions of English and their mother tongue Cantonese, and considers the effects of the Cantonese medium of instruction (CMI) policy, which was introduced to promote biliteracy and trilingualism 1 among Hong Kongers. The analysis shows that even though CMI results in deeper learning in Hong Kong students, the strength and status of English as the lingua franca in the territory remains strong, and access to the linguistic capital English brings remains restricted to those with financial capital to afford it.
-
Esperanto linguistics
Author(s): Asya Pereltsvaigpp.: 168–191 (24)More LessEsperanto is an unusual language in many ways. First, it was originally created artificially, in a highly multilingual environment. Secondly, it was designed with the express purpose of becoming a language of interlingual communication, a language easy to learn for people from the widest range of linguistic backgrounds. Although it never became a universal lingua franca, Esperanto now has up to 2 million users and a sizeable number of native speakers. Yet even for such native speakers, Esperanto is never their only language. Its use is limited to certain domains, and for the overwhelming majority of its speakers, including native ones, Esperanto is not their dominant language. These facts may make Esperanto and Esperanto speakers useful in tests of the robustness of generalizations about linguistic typology, Universal Grammar, first and second language acquisition, language contact and creolization, variation and change. This article provides an overview of work that has been done to date on these topics.
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 48 (2024)
-
Volume 47 (2023)
-
Volume 46 (2022)
-
Volume 45 (2021)
-
Volume 44 (2020)
-
Volume 43 (2019)
-
Volume 42 (2018)
-
Volume 41 (2017)
-
Volume 40 (2016)
-
Volume 39 (2015)
-
Volume 38 (2014)
-
Volume 37 (2013)
-
Volume 36 (2012)
-
Volume 35 (2011)
-
Volume 34 (2010)
-
Volume 33 (2009)
-
Volume 32 (2008)
-
Volume 31 (2007)
-
Volume 30 (2006)
-
Volume 29 (2005)
-
Volume 28 (2004)
-
Volume 27 (2003)
-
Volume 26 (2002)
-
Volume 25 (2001)
-
Volume 24 (2000)
-
Volume 23 (1999)
-
Volume 22 (1998)
-
Volume 21 (1997)
-
Volume 20 (1996)
-
Volume 19 (1995)
-
Volume 18 (1994)
-
Volume 17 (1993)
-
Volume 16 (1992)
-
Volume 15 (1991)
-
Volume 14 (1990)
-
Volume 13 (1989)
-
Volume 12 (1988)
-
Volume 11 (1987)
-
Volume 10 (1986)
-
Volume 9 (1985)
-
Volume 8 (1984)
-
Volume 7 (1983)
-
Volume 6 (1982)
-
Volume 5 (1981)
-
Volume 4 (1980)
-
Volume 3 (1979)
-
Volume 2 (1978)
-
Volume 1 (1977)
Most Read This Month
