‘Latgalian is not a Language’: Linguistic Landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they Reflect Centralist Attitudes

Marten, Heiko F.

doi:10.1057/9780230360235_2

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…LL has also received some attention in the postSoviet urban areas in Hungary (Petzold and Berns 2000), Azerbaijan (Shibliyev 2014), Ukraine (Pavlenko 2009(Pavlenko , 2010, Russia (Yurchak 2000), the post-Eastern bloc in general (Gendelman and Aiello 2010), Latvia (Marten 2012, Pošeiko 2015, and Lithuania (Ruzaitė 2006).…”

Section: Linguistic Landscape and Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts

Ruzaitė

2017

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The present study provides a snapshot of Polish and Lithuanian linguistic landscapes (LLs) in several resort cities situated in the border areas of the two countries. The data consists of 515 digital pictures of multilingual signs collected in the central and thus the most touristic parts of the cities. The main objectives in this research are to identify the authorship of multilingual signs, determine the types of establishments that employ multilingual signage, and analyse which languages coexist in popular tourist destinations. The interpretation of the results is grounded on the interrelation between multilingual signage, tourism as an important economic factor, and official language policies. The findings show that at least some major tendencies in language displays in LL do relate to tourist exchange and tourists' needs. However, some trends (e.g. absence of Russian in Polish LLs) need to be analysed with regard to symbolic, economic, and ideological values attached to non-titular languages.

show abstract

Section: Linguistic Landscape and Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts

Ruzaitė

2017

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, language ideologies are rooted in rich, complex histories, which contribute to policies and practices that shape the LL for a given country (Marten, 2012;Moriarty, 2012;Pennycook, 2009;Puzey, 2012;Scollon & Scollon, 2003). This study is a largescale investigation of the effects of language-group membership on academic literacy performance for students in Israel, Norway, Finland, Canada, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The power of language is evidenced in its influences on official language policies (Marten, 2012;Puzey, 2012). For example, Marten (2012) found that Latgalian's absence in the LL of Latgale in eastern Latvia included a general sentiment within 'Latgalian is not a language' (p. 32) and receives no governmental support. Demonstrations of resistance against disparaging language ideologies can emerge (Scollon & Scollon, 2003), including subversive acts such as graffiti (e.g.…”

Section: Theoretical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language ideologies and literacy achievement: six multilingual countries and two international assessments

Arya

McClung

Katznelson

et al. 2015

International Journal of Multilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social psychologists have suggested that language-based ideologies related to 'stereotype threat' (i.e. variations in performance-based on ability perceptions of language groups) may affect students' academic achievement regardless of school language support. However, it is unclear whether efforts to support students' first language development, particularly for large populations of students whose primary language is not the dominant language, is sufficient for 'levelling the playing field' in terms of academic achievement. We analysed subsets of data from the 2011 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study and the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment to investigate the by-country effects of officially recognised languages on reading performance. Participants represent countries with only two official languages (e.g. Canada, Israel) and primarily used one of these languages at home. Preliminary findings from hierarchical linear modelling show that the dominant official language predicts reading performance unless the minority language reflects a language internationally valued and revered by local stake holders (e.g. English in the United Arab Emirates). Implications suggest that educational resources and programmes should be sensitive to the historical context of country-specific language ideologies and related stereotypical perceptions that favour the dominant language within the school context.

show abstract

“…Similarly, for instance, to the regional language of Latgalian in Eastern Latvia (Marten 2012), the status of being a stand-alone language -as is the case with Meänkieli -has been a source for controversy over several decades. Although the distinct status of Meänkieli has often been questioned (Piasecki 2014, 13), in 2000, the language was granted official status as a minority language in five municipalities in northern Sweden: Gällivare, Kiruna, Haparanda, Pajala and Övertorneå.…”

Section: The Socio-historical Background Of Meänkielimentioning

confidence: 99%

Why save a minority language? Meänkieli and rationales of language revitalization

Ridanpää

2018

Fennia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the rationales for language revitalization and their materialization on a local scale. The starting premise is that, due to specific social, cultural, as well as spatial circumstances, there exists a wide variety of rationalizations for why saving endangered languages is important. The complexity of the matter is discussed with regard to Meänkieli, a minority language spoken in northern Sweden, which has a long and unique history of marginalization. The article bases on group discussions conducted with Meänkieli speaking cultural activists in northern Sweden during the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2016. The present examination of the group discussions reveals how the rationales of saving the language are inherently interrelated with questions concerning identity formation, educational principles and the sovereignty of minority groups. The analysis also reveals how, due to the complex nature of local history, there is no consensus on whether the recent progress in language revitalization is unanimously a positive change or not.

show abstract

‘Latgalian is not a Language’: Linguistic Landscapes in Eastern Latvia and how they Reflect Centralist Attitudes

Cited by 19 publications

References 1 publication

The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts

The linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts

Language ideologies and literacy achievement: six multilingual countries and two international assessments

Why save a minority language? Meänkieli and rationales of language revitalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About