Don't touch my language: attitudes toward institutional language reforms

What does “language” mean for its users? Constructing a theoretical model of a notion of language in the public space

“…When these criteria were applied, the initial great number of studies was reduced to a total of 12. Most of the research on "language ideological" debates is done on a corpus of mainstream media news, opinion pieces etc., while one of the studies included in this paper looks also into the "virtual" sphere, including Internet commentators into the research (Reyes 2013).…”

“…Two types of research have been included in the study (see the list of primary sources for the full bibliographical information): eight studies using cognitive tools (Berthele 2008;Bermel 2007;Geeraerts 2003;Gorham 2000;Moschonas 2004;Polzenhagen and Dirven 2008;Reyes 2013;Spitzmüller 2007) and 4 other studies (Milani 2007;Milani 2010;Stroud 2004;Tardy 2009), which show how languages or certain linguistic varieties are envisioned by the language users. These studies include analysis of the discourse of lay people (comments on internet pages), experts (interviews with linguists, articles and columns published by linguists), journalists, public figures and generic news stories.…”

“…Antonio de Reyes (2013) analysed the internet comments that came as a reaction to an orthographic change in Spain. The new orthography was proposed by the Spanish Royal Academy, but had caused a revolt and opened a debate, in spite of the authority of the institution.…”

“…While identity is obviously a more complicated issue than communication, the communicative function of language gets mentioned in specific contexts, when one wants to remind the public of the "primary" purpose of language. Such was the case in the language ideological debate (the term as used by Blommaert 1999, see section 2. for an explanation of the term) in Spain caused by an orthographic reform, which aimed at simplifying certain spelling rules (Reyes 2013). This reform was mostly criticized and was seen as a deterioration of language (see 2.2), but also was accepted by those who made the argument that the change in orthography would make communication more efficient, in other words, the use of language might become easier (Reyes 2013: 352).…”

Conflicting notions of language in metalinguistic discourses in Lithuania, Norway and Serbia

“…Otherwise, comments have been mostly studies in order to discover attitudes about certain language policies. Reyes (2013) analysed online discussions about language reforms in Spain and noticed that language reforms received strong criticism by the general public because they were seen to cause language deterioration, as a failure of the authorities, as a reposition of the language from the people by the authorities, while positive reactions came in forms of trust for the language institutions. Similar to that, in Lithuanian online space, attitudes towards language politics have been so far analysed by Nevinskaitė (2008) and Miliūnaitė (2006) formed by all social groups that speak it, even those who speak it as a second language (minority and immigrant groups) and they will eventually claim ownership over the language or its variety.…”