1 / 32

LPP in Europe: macro and m icro perspectives

LPP in Europe: macro and m icro perspectives. Jeroen Darquennes. Background. Research on language contact and language conflict language policy and planning ‚old ‘ European language minorities challenges which EU faces in terms of language diversity

cally-rivera
Download Presentation

LPP in Europe: macro and m icro perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LPP in Europe: macroandmicroperspectives Jeroen Darquennes

  2. Background

  3. Research on • language contact and language conflict • language policy and planning • ‚old‘ European language minorities • challenges which EU faces in terms of language diversity • member state level (domestic level < de Swaan) • level of ‚transnational civil society‘ (< de Swaan)

  4. big challenge

  5. Big challenge … • “… c’est d’avoir à penser et à organiser la coexistence des langues, à concevoir et à maîtriser leur interaction” (North 2009: 5).

  6. In other words: there is a need to think about … • the language repertoires that people (ought to) develop (cf. literature dealing with the question of ‘legitimate language repertoires’) • the weight, the role and the distribution of various languages in (different domains of) society • the ‘inclusive’ character of multilingualism

  7. These LPP-related challenges are not new, yet ... • difficult to give ‘one size fits all’-answers • ≠ political realities • ≠ ecologies of language • ≠ ways of looking at / interpreting language diversity

  8. The micro- and the macro-lens

  9. Classical subdivision: micro ‚vs.‘ macro • number of speakers involved in interaction • space of interaction • period of time of interaction

  10. Alternative approach (in view of a discussion of language diversity at the level of society) • impression of ‚prototypical‘ micro and macro views on ... • society • language / language distribution • language and power

  11. micro macro ?

  12. Society

  13. micro  stresses complexity of society (more complex than pre-fabricated categories allow us to think) • micro  super/hyperdiversity • micro  transnationalism (away from ‚methodical nationalism‘) • micro  stresses permeability of borders • macro  reject / rethink categories?

  14. Example: • ‚old‘ vs.‘ ‚new‘ language minority

  15. reject  problem • political reality • contribution to policy development • new name = ? • rethink  challenge • which features ? • ‚floating‘ weight of such ‚features‘ as ancestry, language, self-categorisation, social organization (power)

  16. rethink  possible way-out • dust off macro-literature that stresses heterogeneity / multi-layeredness of language groups • integrate micro-perspectives in research • find ways to integrate micro-perspectives in contributions to policy literature • systematic research in line with ideas expressed in ... • Declaration of Oegstgeest (2000) • the work of the Mercator Network + ‚Language Rich Europe‘ • the work of Guus Extra & Durk Gorter • ...

  17. Language

  18. micro  in most extreme form: denial of ‚languages‘ • micro  translanguaging • macro  rejection of ‚languages‘?

  19. the ‚language question‘ • interesting < relates to questions of autonomy, heteronomy, Abstand and Ausbau • interesting < dynamic approach to linguistic reality • problematic < translanguaging is also about ‚languages‘ • problematic < denial / questionning of ‚language categories‘ vs. political way of seeing things / language policy

  20. relevant < part of daily (mainly urban?) reality • relevance  worthwhile to consider in models of (multilingual) education • Towards a combination of ideas on • CLIL/EMILE • didactique intégrée • plurilingual education • translanguaging as a ‚competence‘ or as a ‚topic‘ ? • What about the intergenerationaltransmission of translanguaging?

  21. Language use

  22. micro  heteroglossia • macro  challenge (stable) diglossia as policy goal?

  23. Challenge (e.g. related to the public sphere): • how to shift from „one domain + one/two languages“ „one domain + multilingualism“? • Languages involved (next to official language/s) ? • Type of multilingualism ? • How to ‚facilitate‘ multilingualism ?

  24. confronted with a lack of research • if research  focus on application of rules (legal approach) rather than on possible positive contributions to knowledge about ‚living diversity‘ (if research on ‚living diversity‘  lack of comparative studies that would allow for generalizations (cf. Blommaert/Rampton 2011)

  25. Language and power

  26. micro  focus on governmentality • macro  combine emerging focus on language policy evaluation with governmentality ?

  27. Governmentality (cf. Pennycook 2006) • How do decisions about languages and language forms across a diverse range of institutions (law, education, medicine, printing) and through a diverse range of instruments (books, regulations, exams, articles, corrections) regulate the language use, thought and action of different people, groups and organizations? • away from focus on intentional and centralized strategies of government authorities • focus is on multiplicity of ways in which practices of governance may be realized

  28. synergies of ideas on governmentality + language policy evaluation  language policy feedback  adaptation / amelioration of language policy based on (best) practices • way of gradually adapting language policy from below (?)

  29. micro  discursive negotiation of power relations • macro  greater consideration of discursive strategies related to legitimization of ‚multilingualism‘ / ‚linguistic diversity‘ • calls for a greater input from political science  cf. work of Kenneth D. McRae (1970s-1990s)

  30. outlook

  31. Emergence of ‚ethnography of language policy‘ which, according to Johnson and Ricento (2013: 14), can • illmuninates and inform various types of LPP • illuminate and inform language policy processes • examine the link between various LPP players • open up ideological spaces for creating multilingual lnguage policies that promote social justice and sound educational practice

  32. References: • de Swaan, Abram (2007): The languagepredicamentofthe EU sincetheenlargements. In: Sociolinguistica 21, 1-21. • Extra, Guus/ Gorter, Durk (2010): Regional andimmigrantminoritylanguages in Europe. In: Hellinger, Marlis/ Pauwels, Anne (Eds.): Handbook of Language and Communication: Diversityand Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, 15-52. • Johnson, David Cassels/ Ricento, Thomas (2013): Conceptualandtheoreticalperspectives in languageplanningandpolicy: situatingtheethnography oflanguagepolicy. In: IJSL 219, 7-21. • McRae, Kenneth D. (1986): ConflictandCompromise in Multilingual Societies: Belgium. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press. • Pennycook, Alastair (2006): Postmodernism in Language Policy. In: Ricento, Thomas (Ed.): Language Policy. TheoryandMethod. Oxford: Blackwell, 60-76.

More Related