Minority Language Movements

Jaffe, Alexandra

doi:10.1057/9780230596047_3

Cited by 66 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It begins with a discussion of the first two perspectives rooted in the modernist, hence monolithic, ideology of monolingualism and bilingualism (Jaffe 2007). These perspectives include (1) LS and subtractive bilingualism and (2) reverse LS and additive bilingualism.…”

Section: Critical Review Of Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first perspective has been criticised for downplaying the human agency of minority language speakers (Block 2008;Jaffe 2007;Heller 2007a;Pennycook 2010;Makoni and Pennycook 2007;Martin-Jones, Blackledge and Creese 2012). The research has shown that attempts to homogenise language, people and culture under the same flag are delusions in any era.…”

Section: Critique On the First Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The last theoretical perspective for LM/LS is implicated in postmodern and poststructuralist theories (Gardner and Martin-Jones 2012;Heller 2007a;Jaffe 2007;Makoni and Pennycook 2007;Martin-Jones, Blackledge and Creese 2012). It has arisen out of sociolinguists' acute awareness of past research's continued lack of success in addressing language-related issues in the 20th century (Hornberger 2003).…”

Section: Theoretical Perspective Iii: Postmodern and Post-structuralimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Critical Review of Theoretical Perspectives: From Language Maintenance and Shift to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Bi/Multilingualism

Manosuthikit¹

2018

KAJH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper presents a critical review of three theoretical perspectives on language maintenance (LM) and language shift (LS) in minority language contexts. These three perspectives are (1) LS and subtractive bilingualism, (2) reversing LS and additive bilingualism, and (3) a critical perspective on bi/multilingualism. The review aims to demonstrate that much of the LM/LS literature as reflected in the first two perspectives (i.e., LS and subtractive bilingualism, and reversing LS and additive bilingualism) has been dominated by an essentialised view of language and its related concepts (i.e., identity and community) as whole, separate and autonomous entities within the bounds of nationstates. Such perspectives tend to reinforce a simplistic view of LM/LS as an all-or-nothing phenomenon and to advance its pessimistic outlook as language loss or language death. Hence, for a more fruitful framework, this paper presents a critical perspective on bi/ multilingualism that draws on postmodern and poststructuralist theories (Heller 2007a(Heller , 2012Makoni and Pennycook 2007;Pennycook 2010). By seeking to investigate bi/ multilingual speakers' local language ideologies and practices, this critical perspective enables not only a reconceptualisation of language, identity and community but also a more realistic and hopeful vision of bi/multilingualism in our pluralist, diverse, transnational and translocal world.

show abstract

Section: Critical Review Of Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Critique On the First Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Perspective Iii: Postmodern and Post-structuralimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Critical Review of Theoretical Perspectives: From Language Maintenance and Shift to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Bi/Multilingualism

Manosuthikit¹

2018

KAJH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ici, la promotion de la langue de la communauté s'ancre dans une matrice discursive compatible avec les exigences de la modernité avancée. Le discours de la préservation (Cameron, 2007;Duchêne et Heller, 2007) et celui de la promotion du multilinguisme (Duchêne et Heller, 2007;Jaffe, 2007) peuvent alors être mobilisés, mais demandent également à être maniés avec dextérité. La représentation du français comme langue en danger ne doit pas l'enfermer dans son statut local de langue minoritaire et surtout laisser disponible dans un même temps le recours au motif du français comme grande langue d'échange et de culture.…”

unclassified

Un bagage linguistique diversifié comme capital humain : esquisse d’un (nouveau) rapport aux langues en Acadie

Arrighi

2015

rum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Au Canada, les instances gouvernementales et associatives produisent un discours sur les questions linguistiques qui est adapté aux nouveaux modes de production et de gouvernance, façonnés par les transformations économiques, politiques et sociales contemporaines. Au sein des communautés francophones minoritaires, l’accent est mis sur les langues comme capital et outil de développement économique. Tenir les habiletés langagières de ces communautés comme un atout fait partie intégrante de l’« espace discursif francophone » contemporain (Heller et Labrie, 2003). Dans cet article, je montre comment les transformations sociales et discursives se manifestent et alimentent les prises de parole et de position des individus. Plus précisément, j’explore le pendant individuel du discours sur la rentabilisation du capital linguistique comme outil de développement personnel. Je propose essentiellement d’illustrer, dans des prises de parole d’Acadiens, l’une des caractéristiques majeures de la modernité avancée, en l’occurrence l’application des principes et des valeurs du néolibéralisme à la vie sociale et personnelle des individus.In Canada, governmental institutions and local associations produce a discourse on language issues that is adapted to the new modes of production and governance, shaped by contemporary economic, political and social transformations. Within French-language minority communities, the focus is put on language as an economic asset and as a tool for economic development. The position that the language skills of these communities are an asset is an integral part of the contemporary “Francophone discursive space” (Heller and Labrie, 2003). In this article, I show how social and discursive transformations occur and feed discourses and the positions of individuals. More specifically, I explore, through the discourse of individuals, how the profits secured from linguistic capital can be used as a tool for personal development. Using the speech of Acadians, I illustrate one of the major characteristics of late modernity, namely, the application of the principles and values of neoliberalism to the social and personal lives of individuals

show abstract

“…Likewise, the promotion of bi-or multilingualism in most western nation-states is usually shaped by a persistent monolingual view on language acquisition, literacy and codification: based on the argument that it is in the pupils' interest to keep languages separate during language learning and teaching, to adhere to strict form-function relationships and avoid mixing, and to speak standard rather than vernacular varieties, language teaching programmes are designed to produce forms of 'parallel' or 'standard monolingualism', 'sequential' and 'separate bilingualism' or 'bilingualism with diglossia' (Cummins, 2000;Baker, 2006;Heller, 1999: 271; see also Creese and Blackledge, this issue, 2010;Jaffe, 1999Jaffe, , 2007Farr, this issue;Keating and Solovova, this issue;Rampton, this issue). And naturally, keeping languages separate helps preserve the idea of monolingual national spaces, unaffected by migration, diaspora and displacement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilingual structures and agencies

Jaspers

Verschueren

2011

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This issue offers a multi-faceted view of urban multilingualism. It does so from a specific point of view, focusing on the relationship between structures and agencies, that is, between:-established routines, structures and policies that exert a determining influence on local interactions; and -local interactional practices that show people working with, appropriating, neutralising or avoiding established routines to reconcile the linguistic demands of urban institutions and the interactional business-on-hand.With case studies from the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and Belgium, this issue attempts to provide a descriptive link between structures and practices, global questions and situated responses in a diversity of institutional contexts and approached from different methodological angles.Many readers will agree that the practice of studying multilingualism has very often involved a certain measure of rowing against the current, or depended on a form of sub-altern agency. Certainly within the more linguistically oriented areas of the academy, scholars interested in bi-or multilingualism had for long to work in defiance of a customary, and essentially nationalist, 'monolingual mind-set' (cf. Clyne, 2005: xi, cf. Farr, this issue); and they were compelled to sing out of tune with a hegemonic preference for retrieving systematicity in individual speakers' cognitive abilities for producing language rather than for describing and explaining how language is used between speakers -let alone how two or more languages, or mixed versions of them, can function as meaningful communicative tools. Consequently, under these structural conditions attending to multilingual practices often entailed doing scholarly work as much as legitimizing and normalizing it. As an indication of the importance and the strength of this legitimizing reflex, Auer and Wei (2007) still anticipate it when they make explicit efforts to allay worries that their applied linguistic focus on multilingualism contributes to its problematization and subsequently reassure their readership that their interest is in how multilingualism is turned into a problem, adding that ''far from being a problem, multilingualism is part of the solution for our future. Social stability, economic development, tolerance and cooperation between groups is possible only when multilingualism is respected' ' (2007: 12). Also outside of the academy, scholars of multilingualism have -with varying success -frequently stuck their necks out to rub against common-sense views of language and point out the negative impact of these views for the lives of bilinguals, speakers of minority, lesser-used or endangered languages, most clearly visible in the fields of 'linguistic human rights ' (see, e.g

show abstract

Minority Language Movements

Cited by 66 publications

References 3 publications

A Critical Review of Theoretical Perspectives: From Language Maintenance and Shift to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Bi/Multilingualism

A Critical Review of Theoretical Perspectives: From Language Maintenance and Shift to Postmodern/Poststructuralist Bi/Multilingualism

Un bagage linguistique diversifié comme capital humain : esquisse d’un (nouveau) rapport aux langues en Acadie

Multilingual structures and agencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About