Human rights and language wrongs—A future for diversity?

Skutnabb‐Kangas, Tove

doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(97)00008-9

Cited by 65 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second is the linguistic human rights (LHR) movement that argues, often on the basis of LE premises, for the greater institutional protection and support of minority languages, 1 and their speakers, both within national and supranational contexts (see e.g. Kontra et al, 1999;Phillipson, 2003;Skutnabb-Kangas, 1998Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995). These arguments are also echoed in a third domain of academic legal discourse that has developed with respect to minority group rights generally, but with an increasing focus on the specific implementation of minority language rights in national and international law (see e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights

May¹

2003

Current Issues in Language Planning

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While advocacy of minority language rights (MLR) has become well established in sociolinguistics, language policy and planning and the wider human rights literature, it has also come under increased criticism in recent times for a number of key limitations. In this paper, I address directly three current key criticisms of the MLR movement. The first is a perceived tendency towards essentialism in articulations of language rights. The second is the apparent utopianism and artificiality of 'reversing language shift' in the face of wider social and political 'realities'. And the third is that the individual mobility of minority-language speakers is far better served by shifting to a majority language. While acknowledging the perspicacity of some of these arguments, I aim to rearticulate a defence of minority language rights that effectively addresses these key concerns. This requires, however, a sociohistorical/sociopolitical rather than a biological/ecological analysis of MLR. In addition, I will argue that a sociohistorical/sociopolitical defence of MLR can problematise the positions often adopted by minority language rights' critics themselves, particularly those who defend majoritarian forms of linguistic essentialism and those who sever the instrumental/identity aspects of language. Implications for language policy and planning will also be discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights

May¹

2003

Current Issues in Language Planning

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the spread of World English is an example of Galtung's structural violence (2005). Phillipson et al (1994), Skutnabb-Kangas (1998), andRannut (1999) are correct, however, in calling for linguistic human rights, which might begin to rectify some structurally violent inequities.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has attracted proponents (e.g., Pennycook [1994], Skutnabb-Kangas [1998], and Rannut [1999]) and opponents (e.g., Gates [1992], Conrad [1996], and Brutt-Griffler [2002]). Brutt-Griffler's attack (1998) of Phillipson's analysis (1992) in her unpublished doctoral dissertation is especially scathing. "…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

English Spread as 'Structural Violence'

Birkby

2016

ijefl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, multilingualism should be seen as one of the ways to prevent or resolve linguistic conflicts. The importance of multilingual policies in resolving language conflicts or language-related conflicts has been noted by scholars such as Skutnabb-Kangas (1998).…”

Section: Multilingualism and Political Stabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingualism and Nation-building in the “New” South Africa: Problems and Issues

Madiba

1999

Language Matters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

South Africa's recent transformation to a democratic society is dubbed by many scholars as miraculous. There is a great interest among political scientists and language planning scholars as to whether South Africa will, despite its divided past which was characterised by racial and ethnic conflicts, emerge as a united nation. One area which has become the main focus of various studies and conferences is the newly adopted policy of official multilingualism. According to this language policy, eleven languages are recognised as official languages at national level. The adoption of such a language policy raises several questions with regard to nation building. One of these questions is what role will multilingualism play in this process of nation building. Is a multilingual model appropriate for national integration? Will such a policy not perpetuate ethnic and racial divisions in the country? The aim of this paper is to address some of these questions.

show abstract

Human rights and language wrongs—A future for diversity?

Cited by 65 publications

References 4 publications

Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights

Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights

English Spread as 'Structural Violence'

Multilingualism and Nation-building in the “New” South Africa: Problems and Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About