Talk:Language policy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why is Vermont listed among the countries? Is this vandalism, or does Vermont have some kind of special state policy? If it belongs here, I think it needs to be clarified. joye 22:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Why was this page created? It provides nothing except make it appear that language laws are common without showing examples. They are not. Angelique 21:03, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- We meet again. The majority of States have language policies. The reason the page is still empty is because I am in discussion with a linguist on how to include some of the data of his copyrighted site. The site in question is:
This site is a goldmine. It presents the situation of languages in all parts of the world. Also very good on the same subject, and in english this time:
- World Congress on Language Policies
- International Network on Cultural Policy
- Terralingua
- Ethnologue, Languages of the World
Have fun reading! Mathieugp 22:49, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The Big Master Plan
I propose that each of the country/state link in Language policy be gradually turned into a link to 'Language policy/ies in (countrt/state name)'. We are already working on Language policies in Canada.
If you know anything about the language policy of your home country/state, let yourself loose. If you read French, then visist 'L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde' at http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/, you will surely find all you need there. -- Mathieugp 14:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] misclassification of Belgium
Belgium is, imho, misclassified; despite what the legal texts may say, the rights are actually territorialized, as the communities have territorial limits to their competences. Only the territory of the Brussels region-State is shared between Dutch-speaking and French-speaking policies with linguistic rights being personal, but outside of Brussels the rule is for unilingual territorial policies (even if some places at the borders may have complex rules with more or less recognition of a second language).
- Indeed, the site L'aménagement linguistique dans le monde classifies the policy of the federal state of Belgium as territorialized and the policy that applies to Brussels as one based on personal and non-territorialized rights. I haven't touched this article for some time. I just noticed I hadn't even finished adding states in the last three categories! -- Mathieugp 03:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] United States
The United States (i.e., the federal government) does not belong under any of these classifications. It has never formally adopted any language standards (though some individual states have done so). There is a current movement called "U.S. English" (not to be confused with American English) that seeks to adopt English as the official national language, but its political support is unclear. Funnyhat 21:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] English is the de facto language used by the federal state
Indeed, English was never made the official language of the USA in the constitution, but constitutional officialization is not the only way to promote the usage of a language. However, with over 80% of the people of the USA speaking English and often exclusively English, English is the de facto language of the USA.
The webpage at this address ( http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amnord/usa_2pol-federale.htm ) details the policy of the federal state regarding language since the adoption of the American constitution. As this page is in French only, it would be very good to find an equivalent or better online source in English. In any case, here is what can be read on the site of the Laval University:
...linguiste D. F. Marshall déclarait, en 1986, dans un article du International Journal of the Sociology of Language, ce qui suit:
"Il ressort de notre analyse de l'histoire américaine que le fait de ne pas avoir de langue officielle n'est pas dû à un oubli de la part des auteurs de la Constitution, mais résulte d'une volonté délibérée de planification linguistique.
Which translates to:
...linguist D. F. Marshall stated, in 1986, in an article of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, what follows:
"It comes out of our analysis of American history that the fact that we do not have an official language is not due to a lapse of memory on behalf of the authors of the Constitution, but is the result of a deliberate will of linguistic planning."
In point 1, the article goes on to explain that the federal state has always used English only in the administration, at the Congress and the in the justice system etc. with only very few exceptions. According to a report of the General Accounting Office, from 1990 to 1994 less than 1% of the documents of the federal government were produced in languges other than English.
In point 2, a description of the rare uses of languages other than English by the federal government is given.
Point 3 gives a report of language policies passed by the federal state, including laws regarding bilingual schools.
Point 4 deals with language policies regarding Native Americans
Point 5 speaks of the currently ongoing efforts to officialize English as the de jure language of the USA.
Point 6 speaks of the internalization of English.
-- Mathieugp 18:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Catalonia and the Basque Countries
Shouldn't Catalonia and the (Spanish) Basque countries be included in the list of jurisdictions with "differentiated legal statute policies" ?
[edit] Brazil: assimilationist policy or a policy that favors the official language ?
I believe the second category would be more appropriate than the first one to describe Brazil's language policy. Of course, a policy that favors the official language, especially one that requires its compulsory use in public schools, is necessarily simultaneously assimilationist in nature. Mbruno 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greece and Cyprus
I've removed Greece and Cyprus from the first section. The names of these two countries were originally added long ago in an effort to add material in that section. However, the inclusion of these two states is wrong, since both of them have functioning laws that protect minority languages: there are schools teaching Turkish in Western Thrace, for the local Muslim minority, as well as current efforts for the establishment of schools teaching Pomak (for a part of the same minority); also, magazines published in Bulgarian, Slavic are not uncommon. With money from the Greek state, turkish is also taught in the minority schools of the Dodecanese (see [[Turks of the Dodecanese). In Cyprus, where Turkish is co-official, is freely used by the Turkish Cypriots who have remained in the south. In addition, the Armenian and Maronite communities of the Republic, maintain their own schools, where Armenian and Arabic is taught. The Armenian community of Greece (as well as the Jewish) also have schools and magazines and newspapers in Armenian and Ladino are freely published. Thus, these two states do not belong in that section. Hectorian 19:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
