Global Portuguese

Public understanding of language planning and linguistic rights: The debate on the current Portuguese orthographic reform

“…This perspective is quite innovative, since linguistic-rights rhetoric has mostly arisen in diglossic power discussions between minority and majority languages. Here, however, we find it in the diglossic power relations of linguistic varieties within ‘global Portuguese’ (Moita Lopes 2015). Because ‘pluricentric languages are both unifiers and dividers of people’ (Clyne 2012:1), they are an important arena for the observation and analysis of ideologies attached to ownership, authenticity, power, and hegemonies, that is, all issues related to linguistic rights.…”

“…Linguistic ideologies are mobilized, shared, and co-constructed during language ideological debates and discussions (Blommaert 1999; Chand 2011; Kang 2012; Moita Lopes 2015) on language policies being carried out and directly affecting speakers’ ways of doing, engaging through, or thinking about their languages. Linguistic ideologies are ‘neither simple nor monolithic’ (Martin-Jones, Blackledge, & Creese 2012:9), but unstable and composite, shaped by social discourse, practice, and dynamics.…”

“…As Sebba explains, ‘opponents of the reforms may claim that proposed changes make the spelling ugly, that they corrupt and impoverish the language, or that they encourage laziness and are the result of permissive thinking’ (Sebba 2009:45). A common argument used by adversaries relates to a process known as ‘erasure’, that is, ‘the process of sociolinguistic simplification to which speakers or linguists make recourse so that their model of language fits in with their language ideology’ (Moita Lopes 2015:7). They claim that, by resorting to linguistic erasure (e.g.…”

“…They claim that, by resorting to linguistic erasure (e.g. by eliminating consonants), sociolinguistic variation may be lost, ‘creating a homogeneous or essentialist view of a language or a social group’ (Moita Lopes 2015:7). And finally, some other speakers ‘argue that changing the spelling frequently “makes fools of us”’, while others are simply against all change, on the grounds that ‘any change is worse than none’ (Sebba 2009:45).…”

“…This should always be acknowledged when talking about ‘Portuguese’, ‘Lusophony’, or ‘orthographic agreement’ in the singular. To embrace the claims of the speakers in our case study—that is, speakers of Portuguese, classified variously as the seventh, sixth, or fifth largest language of the world ( Ethnologue ; Simões 2014; Moita Lopes 2015)—is to move beyond a perspective of linguistic rights adapted to minorities and endangered languages, although the arguments may seem very similar. This perspective is quite innovative, since linguistic-rights rhetoric has mostly arisen in diglossic power discussions between minority and majority languages.…”