P. Lane, J. Costa, H. De Korne (eds.). Standardizing minority languages: Competing ideologies of authority and authenticity in the global periphery. New York, London: Routledge, 2018

Rethinking marginalization and heritage language vitality in multilingual families

“…Therefore, the dominant issue in language vitality is no longer only the question of 'how and why' some languages are maintained or shifted, endangered or reclaimed. In fact, the focus may not even be the languages per se but rather the perspectives, feelings, and actions of individuals who are impacted by minority language politics (Lane et al, 2018). Given the complicated minoritymajority language reality (Schwartz, 2010) and the possible tension between a public monolingual ideal and widespread de facto multilingualism (Piller & Gerber, 2021), a significant issue is whether families have a 'genuine choice' (Bowern, 2017, p. e250) or agency (Baptista, 2017) in deciding the family language(s) and the language(s) they wish to preserve and transmit according to their socioeconomic 'needs' without 'impositions' (Baptista, 2017, p. e299;Mufwene, 2017, p. e204).…”

The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization

“…Beyond these easily identifiable, purely linguistic and technical processes, standardization requires its d) 'acceptance' by the community, a more ambiguous criterion that predominantly involves more subjective, psychological, symbolic, social and political factors. Among these, most authors (Auer 2011: 486;Ferguson 1987, Haugen 1966, Lane et al 2018, Milroy 2001) mention: a) adhesion to a larger national or regional collective entity beyond the individual's 'local' place of belonging; b) acknowledgement by the members of the community of a common linguistic norm that also transcends their local or ethnic belonging, and is accepted as the correct and nonmarked use in written and formal contexts. This common norm usually corresponds to the 'prestigious' high variety, and is often associated with the speech of the urban upperor educated -class and with 'modernity' (by opposition to 'tradition', 'old rural style' or 'old social order'), if the writing standard is based on a spoken vernacular (and not on a classical literary language).…”

Mixed messages: Mediating native belonging in Asian Russian. Kathryn E.Graber. Ithaca, New York; London: Cornell University Press. 2020. xix + 262 pp. Hardback (9781501750502) 92 USD, Paperback (150175050X) 32.18 USD

“…The main feature of standard Buryat is its development as a purist code mostly used in media and far from the colloquial language of spoken Buryat dialects. Now, this is more or less true for all codified languages (Lane & Costa, 2017), but the extent matters: Standard Buryat is not fully intelligible for speakers without formal education, particularly not for speakers of Buryat dialects other than Khori or for young city dwellers with a restricted proficiency. Connected to the above, Graber analyzes language attitudes among speakers to the different varieties of Buryat and toward "mixed messages" that combine standard and dialectal Buryat or Buryat with Russian loanwords.…”