Linguicism

Master thesis about the perceptions of multilingual students at Ghent University. This paper investigates whether the students valorize their multilingualism positively or negatively, whether they  experience difficulties with the academic Dutch language drawing on six semi-structured interviews.

• The paper examines aspects of a key question in Bulgarian public education: rethinking and restructuring multicultural education through new experiments with bilingual education for ethnic minority pupils whose home language is not Bulgarian. This means attention in the main to the literacy needs (and language rights) of ethnic speakers of Turkish and Romani, seeing them as “emergent bilinguals,” and as marginalized minorities, in need of “literacy with an attitude” (Finn, 1999), firmly grounded on their own home language, Mother Tongue First! I argue that the time is ripe, after 26 years of ‘transitional’ chaos within capitalist ‘democracy’ restored on the ruins of Bulgarian socialism, for a paradigm shift in language policy in the schools, also rethinking multicultural education for identity-building and mutual tolerance within the context of class conscious pedagogies for social change. In Bulgaria, such multicultural values face a formidable challenge given the powerful anti-Ottoman narrative on which Bulgarian national history and modern identity are grounded.

Der Band knüpft an Arbeiten zu Migrationspädagogik und Rassismuskritik an und vertieft mit seinem Fokus auf Sprache einige in diesem Kontext aufgeworfene Fragen: Sprache ist gleichzeitig Medium der Kommunikation und Gegenstand und Mittel der Instruktion in Bildungseinrichtungen; darüber hinaus werden über den Umgang mit Sprache(n) hegemoniale Diskurse zu Migration (re)produziert. Die Beiträge erkunden diese Bedeutungsproduktion, ihre Mechanismen sowie mögliche Transformationen eines prekarisierten Verhältnisses.

This paper develops Tove Skutnabb-Kangas’ concept of linguicism by distinguishing an effectuative stage and a reproductive stage of linguistic inequality. The effectuative stage is described by inference and compared with Robert Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism, and it is suggested that both frameworks are still missing empirical validation for the claim that language inequality may create other forms of inequality, and that such validation should come from historical data. To demonstrate this, language policies in the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi during the 19th century are examined, with emphasis on the interpretation of bilingual statutory law, along with a number of judicial rulings. These are then related to changes in the economic sphere and the interaction is demonstrated in the curtailing of customary land use rights. The new concept of non-discriminatory linguicism is introduced to describe the presence of linguicist ideologies without concomitant discriminatory practices as a key feature of the effectuative stage of linguicism, and a new definition of linguicism is proposed.

The degree to which the SABC (South African Broadcasting Corporation) as public broadcaster gives shape to its language policy and language mandate, against the background of an investigation of language rights, establishes the central problem statement of this research.

It is widely acknowledged that it is difficult to define the concept of language rights. Although the language-sociological literature associates this concept with minority and cultural rights, it can also be seen as individual rights. According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, it is clear that language rights should be seen as individual rights that can be exercised within a particular community. Although this dissertation provides an extensive juridical and language sociological explanation of the concept of language rights, the description by Judge Albie Sachs will be used as a working definition for this research. His division between the following four fundamental language rights, viz.: (i) the right to use your language; (ii) the right to develop your language; (iii) the right to be understood and to understand other languages as well as (iv) the right not to be discriminated against because of your language, provides a useful investigation instrument with which the degree to which the SABC-TV acknowledges and protects language rights can be measured.

It is found that despite the policy documents on national and corporate level that has equal consideration and treatment of the diverse South African languages in mind, it still happens that the SABC-TV fails to give form to the language rights of individuals that belong to indigenous minority language groups in South Africa. Due to this, the research suggests that the extensive implementation of subtitles, as a form of screen translation that differs from lip synchronised dubbing, can make a significant contribution to the acknowledgement and protection of language rights by the SABC-TV.

In addition to a discussion on what subtitles entail, the technical nature and specific parameters thereof, a feasibility study is included within which the affordability of this project for the SABC-TV is indicated. It is found that this form of screen translation is ideal for the South African situation because it is cheaper than both lip synchronised dubbing and the creation of new television programmes, but also because it can effectively be employed in regional broadcasts. Furthermore, the use of bilingual subtitles and pivot subtitles are also alternatives that may be considered.

It is essential though that subtitles can indeed contribute to the way in which the SABC, as a public broadcaster, acknowledges and protects the fundamental language rights of the multitude of South Africans that belong to different language communities in South Africa.

Abstract This article explores the experiences of linguicism of Quebec English-speaking and Franco-Ontarian postsecondary students and how they respond to these experiences. Using Goffman’s theory of stigma and a qualitative approach, this article presents findings that emerged from interviews conducted between January and June 2014 in Quebec and Ontario. Both Quebec English-speaking and Franco-Ontarian participants report experiences of linguicism, which are fueled by certain stigma theories. Participants in both groups use similar strategies to avoid conflict, but diverge in their attitudes. The findings point to the significance of provincial contexts and the need for further studies about linguicism among official language minorities.

Esto es Nepantla. Descolonizar el lenguaje, vivir la paz entre la tensión de las culturas, bilocaciones corporales, lenguas vivas, ir más allá de los bordes, algo más radical que la reconciliación En los bordes No basta con vivir en los bordes ni convertirse en un ser liminal, con estar en un sitio o en otro. "No basta con decidir abrirte", permanecemos siempre en las fronteras; intentamos traspasar muros, visibles e invisibles. Todos somos Nepantla, estamos entre, en el medio, pero en el medio de qué. Me anima observar la poesía de Anzaldúa desde esa transición subjetiva en la que nos encontramos todos. Así-y cito a Gloria-"-nadie te conoce,-nadie te extraña, ni siquiera te recuerdan y el laberinto ni siquiera lo creaste tú". Esto es Nepantla, esto es la subjetividad nómade, siguiendo la definición que Braidotti, en Sujetos nómades, hace de este concepto: "la subjetividad nómade significa cruzar el desierto con un mapa que no está impreso sino salmodiado, como en la tradición oral; significa olvidar el olvido y emprender el viaje independientemente del punto de destino; y lo que es aún más importante, la subjetividad nómade se refiere al devenir". En la escritura de Gloria siempre se establecen relaciones entre el sujeto y su vida. El yo aparece en las múltiples fragmentaciones y reformulaciones que hacen de la autora y de sus textos un sujeto en transición que busca una identidad a través de su configuración. Esto es Nepantla. El sujeto que escribe, múltiple en sí mismo, intenta recuperar su identidad, salir del laberinto que otros crearon y de un proceso iniciado por otros que no

Widespread scholarly and political attention to language-related inequities in the 20th century precipitated a spate of orientations to language planning in multilingual societies. While various orientations indicate a shift from earlier deficit to affirmative views of multilingualism, vigorous debates persist about the logical and pragmatic merits of each orientation. The resulting advocacy for language and multilingualism has yet to result in widespread mother-language-based multilingual education policies and practices. This article reviews a strand of these debates (language as right or resource) and argues that these debates deploy stringent criteria of rationality and social justice that are discontinuous with empirical realities of multilingualism and plurilingualism. It uses ethnographic evidence from India and Nigeria to demonstrate that, instead of the fixities of such criteria, actual language decision making in complex multilingual societies demands an integrative approach to theory, policy, and practice that is dialogic, tentative, and promotive of all possible languages.

Résumé Suivant une démarche interprétative, cet article examine les perspectives d’étudiants franco-ontariens rapportées lors d’une étude qualitative exploratoire. Des entretiens semi-structurés séquentiels menés en profondeur ont été effectués à Ottawa et à Toronto entre janvier et juin 2014 auprès de 18 étudiants franco-ontariens. Les résultats indiquent que les participants franco-ontariens qui fréquentent des établissements postsecondaires à vocation bilingue souhaitent à la fois une amélioration de l’accès aux études en français et de la qualité de la langue d’instruction ainsi que de meilleures possibilités de socialiser en français. Les participants qui fréquentent des établissements à vocation française ont affirmé être satisfaits de leur expérience d’apprentissage, tandis que ceux inscrits dans des établissements à vocation anglaise ont déploré un sentiment d’isolement linguistique. De plus, le manque d’occasions pour socialiser en français et inclure des réalités franco-ontariennes dans les curriculums, ainsi que les incidents d’intimidation linguistique alimentent l’insécurité linguistique.

Abstract Using an interpretative approach, this paper examines the perspectives of Franco-Ontarian postsecondary students employing an exploratory qualitative research. Between January and June 2014, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in Ottawa and Toronto with 18 Franco-Ontarian postsecondary students. The findings reveal that participants who study in bilingual postsecondary institutions would like to have access to courses in French, as well as see improvement in the quality of the language of instruction, and the opportunities to socialize in French. Participants who study in French-language postsecondary institutions express satisfaction with their learning experience, whereas participants who study in English-language postsecondary institutions express sentiments of linguistic isolation. In addition, the lack of socialization opportunities in French and the underrepresentation of Franco-Ontarian realities in the curriculum combined with instances of linguistic intimidation fuel linguistic insecurity.

Widespread scholarly and political attention to language-related inequities in the 20th century precipitated a spate of orientations to language planning in multilingual societies. While various orientations indicate a shift from earlier deficit to affirmative views of multilingualism, vigorous debates persist about the logical and pragmatic merits of each orientation. The resulting advocacy for language and multilingualism has yet to result in widespread mother-language-based multilingual education policies and practices. This article reviews a strand of these debates (language as right or resource) and argues that these debates deploy stringent criteria of rationality and social justice that are discontinuous with empirical realities of multilingualism and plurilingualism. It uses ethnographic evidence from India and Nigeria to demonstrate that, instead of the fixities of such criteria, actual language decision making in complex multilingual societies demands an integrative approach to theory, policy, and practice that is dialogic, tentative, and promotive of all possible languages.

Scholarly literature highlights the systematic actions taken in the modern Middle East to destroy the Kurdish language. With a primary focus on Turkey, scholars have described this process as a policy of linguicide, or language genocide, which is “the extermination of languages, an analogous concept to (physical) genocide.”2 In contrast, similar processes at work in southern Kurdistan (Kurdistan of northern Iraq) have often been described as “linguistic suppression.”3 This paper argues that linguistic suppression does not adequately describe the Iraqi Kurds’ experiences. Rather, linguicide better captures the practices of cultural genocide that have targeted this group. This paper focuses on how the Kurds in modern-day Iraq were subjected to linguicide under the Language Education Policy (LEP) from 1932 to 1991. This policy was established during the monarchy (1921–1958), and advanced through the time of Saddam Hussein’s regime (1979–1991).4 While much scholarly work has associated the process of linguicide with the birth of a nation-state,5 this article further argues that linguicide in the Iraqi Kurdish case predates the formation of the Iraqi nation-state.

In the United States, second language education programs have long been divided into English as a second language (ESL), bilingual education, and foreign language education (Davis, 1999), each of these situated on a hierarchy which values certain language learners over others. Bilingualism is often times cast in a negative light in our society, especially if English is not one’s first language. As a result, many school policies implement subtractive policies with the focus on transitioning to the dominant English language. However, numerous studies have shown the benefits of developing literacy in more than one language (e.g. the enhancement of cognitive control, working memory, metalinguistic awareness, and abstract reasoning), all of which can contribute positively to academic progress (Adesope, et al., 2010; Kovacs & Mehler, 2009). In addition, immigrant students with limited bilingualism are far more likely to leave school than those fluent in both languages (Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). While learning English is important and necessary for all students in the U.S., Nieto and Bode (2012) argue that rather than striving to suppress or eliminate one’s heritage language, research suggests that schools and communities should actually promote native-language literacy as a mechanism for learning English more effectively.
Linguistic oppression, also referred to as linguicism (Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins, 1988), is often associated with national origin and race. Often times, there is also a deficit perspective with regard to the lack of proficiency in Standard American English, as well as the (mis)conception of being ‘un-American’. Oxford (2010) argues, however, that teachers of second languages should be “unified in their roles as language advocates” (p. 299), as should others members in the school and community.
This interactive workshop aims to examine the intersections of immigration, citizenship, socioeconomic status, and race (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) through a social justice lens by questioning the hegemonic structure of language and power in U.S. schools and other education institutions. Particular attention will be placed on the historical and current presence of populations who speak (or spoke) languages other than Standard American English, including indigenous, colonial and other immigrant languages, as well as additional English language varieties.
Participants will engage in the following questions about linguicism, especially with regard to education:
1) How has linguicism been visible in my teaching and/or learning experience?
2) How do these experiences reflect different orientations toward language policies in schools and societies?
Participants will generate a new sense of self-awareness through reflecting on their own identity through the examination of one’s own name and linguistic heritage. Next, members will encapsulate a new identity as a language learner through a drawing activity. Finally, through a forum theatre exercise (Boal, 1995), counter-narratives will illuminate the covert and overt influences language-in-education policies have had in the U.S. educational system (Solorzano & Yasso, 2002). Through collaboration, we will examine the meaning of linguicism at multiple levels (i.e. individual, cultural and institutional) and co-construct alternative solutions to linguicism in U.S. schools.