Justice in the Linguistic Environment: Narrow or Wide?

Shorten, Andrew

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75263-1_3

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Let us now consider the first variant of the overinclusiveness objection, which is that addressing linguistic disadvantages that arise within people's personal lives is improper. This view is implied by some of the leading approaches to linguistic justice, which converge on the idea that language rights and principles of linguistic justice apply only to public institutions (see, amongst others, De Schutter, 2008; Lewis, 2017; Patten, 2014; Réaume, 1991; for a critical discussion, see Shorten, 2018). For instance, Patten (2014) characterises the academic debate about language rights as being about “the norms and practices of language use” that “ public institutions ” should adopt, when faced with linguistic diversity (p. 186, emphasis added ).…”

Section: Addressing Capability Deprivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigration, language and disadvantage

Shorten

2022

Nations and Nationalism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many democratic states provide supports for immigrants who are not fluent speakers of the majority or official language(s). For example, they provide interpreters in courts and hospitals, print administrative forms in multiple languages and employ bilingual staff to provide public services. This paper considers the justification of these policies from the perspective of normative political theory, makes some recommendations about what they ought to consist in and identifies some of their limitations. It argues that instead of appealing to rights, the best justification for these measures has to do with empowering immigrants and enhancing their capabilities. However, although some disadvantages experienced by immigrants for linguistic reasons can be reduced or even eliminated by public policy measures, some important ones cannot. Novel grounds are thus proposed in support of immigrant‐receiving societies having a duty to provide meaningful opportunities to learn the majority or official language(s).

show abstract

Section: Addressing Capability Deprivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigration, language and disadvantage

Shorten

2022

Nations and Nationalism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A conception of linguistic justice refers to a set of principles for normatively evaluating a linguistic environment (Shorten 2018). Following Grin (2003: 178) we use the term 'linguistic environment' to refer to the 'sum total' of a society's 'demolinguistic and sociolinguistic features'.…”

Section: Key Concepts and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is not only states and bodies like the EU that have language regimes and policies -voluntary associations and firms have them too. However, the former stand in special need of justification, because only they are truly coercive (Shorten, 2018). The necessity of justifying the use of coercive power explains why we turn to contractualism, since it is based on the idea that people who face the prospect of political coercion must have the opportunity to understand and criticise the justifications offered in support of such policies.…”

Section: Key Concepts and Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chapter 18. Justifying language policies in mobile societies

Carey¹,

Shorten²

2022

Advances in Interdisciplinary Language Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A conception of linguistic justice refers to a set of moral principles that can provide guidance about a society's language policies. By the lights of a recently prominent strand of liberal political theory, such a conception will be legitimate if and only if it meets certain standards of public justification. Amongst other things, this means that it must be arrived at by way of a legitimate procedure and its principles must be ones that no one could reasonably reject. This chapter explores the potential of this ideal for mobile and multilingual societies in Europe by developing three arguments. First, we argue that in order to be legitimate, a conception of linguistic justice must be justifiable to a relevant constituency and that, in EU member states, this includes mobile Europeans as well as the citizens of member states. Second, we argue that, in circumstances of linguistic diversity, the requirements of public justification generate a presumption in favour of multilingual deliberative procedures. Third, we argue that when selecting principles of justice we ought to prioritise the interests of the least advantaged, and that doing so will often mean that only a multilingual language regime is acceptable.

show abstract

“… 5. For a comparison of the relative advantages and disadvantages of a narrow and a wide definition of linguistic justice, see Shorten (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards an index of linguistic justice

Gazzola

Wickström

Fettes

2023

Politics, Philosophy & Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a step towards a systematic comparative evaluation of the fairness of different language policies, a rationale is presented for the design of an index of linguistic justice based on public policy analysis. The approach taken is to define a ‘minimum threshold of linguistic justice’ with respect to government language policy in three domains: law and order, public administration, and essential services. A hypothetical situation of pure equality and freedom in the choice of language used by all members of society in communicating with the state is used as a theoretical benchmark to study the distributive effects of policy alternatives. Departures from this standard incur lower scores. Indicators are chosen to assess effective access to three kinds of language rights: toleration (the lack of state interference in private language choices), accommodation (accessibility of public services in different languages), and compensation (symbolic and practical recognition of languages outside the dominant one). In order to take account of the cost-benefit trade-offs involved in providing language-related goods to language groups of varying sizes, a method is adopted for weighting scores with respect to compensation rights so that lack of recognition for larger groups incurs greater penalties, while factoring in the particular characteristics of each language-related good. A trial set of ten indicators illustrates the compromises entailed in balancing theoretical rigour with empirical feasibility.

show abstract

Justice in the Linguistic Environment: Narrow or Wide?

Cited by 5 publications

References 40 publications

Immigration, language and disadvantage

Immigration, language and disadvantage

Chapter 18. Justifying language policies in mobile societies

Towards an index of linguistic justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About