The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
Discursive Approaches to Language Policy 2016
DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-53134-6_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Luxembourgish Language-in-Education Policy in Limbo: The Tension Between Ideologies of Authenticity and Anonymity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Turning what are mostly spoken, informal varieties into standard languages means taking them out of their original niche(s), overhauling the way they are used and potentially alienating and stigmatising their traditional speakers (Eckert 1983). Across the minoritised language literature, authenticity and anonymity are usually presented as opposed ideologies and incompatible goals in language planning, even when it is acknowledged that they can coexist within the same communities (Weber 2016;Woolard 2016;O'Rourke & Brennan 2019). In this perspective, a minoritised language community can either accept the reality of diglossia whilst enjoying the linguistic creativity and 'covert' prestige ('solidarity') afforded by an uncodified, geographically rooted language or, alternatively, resort to standardisation to increase the status of the language, at the paradoxical risk of disenfranchising the very speakers it aims to empower.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Turning what are mostly spoken, informal varieties into standard languages means taking them out of their original niche(s), overhauling the way they are used and potentially alienating and stigmatising their traditional speakers (Eckert 1983). Across the minoritised language literature, authenticity and anonymity are usually presented as opposed ideologies and incompatible goals in language planning, even when it is acknowledged that they can coexist within the same communities (Weber 2016;Woolard 2016;O'Rourke & Brennan 2019). In this perspective, a minoritised language community can either accept the reality of diglossia whilst enjoying the linguistic creativity and 'covert' prestige ('solidarity') afforded by an uncodified, geographically rooted language or, alternatively, resort to standardisation to increase the status of the language, at the paradoxical risk of disenfranchising the very speakers it aims to empower.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%