In international institutions, languages can have different statutes: Official language or work language. European Union States[ edit ] Plenty of states have multiple official languages in their territory: This is the case: in Belgium Dutch, French, German in Switzerland German, French, Italian, Romansch in Canada French and English in numerous African countries, and in Luxembourg French, German, Luxembourgish In France, where many regional languages exist, especially in the regions on the border cross-border languages and in Brittany Breton none of them have official status. Therefore, a certain number of states have put linguistic policies in place. On a larger scale, the European Union has also defined a linguistic policy, which distinguishes 23 official languages. Impact on School[ edit ] Upon entrance to school, children of diverse cultures are forced to abandon their cultural roots and their mother tongues, to the benefit of the normative language chosen by the school. Historic methods of introducing languages[ edit ] Businesses[ edit ] Many international enterprises are bringing about, in a strategic move toward internationalization, changing the language of work in all or part of their activities.
|Country:||Saint Kitts and Nevis|
|Published (Last):||28 November 2017|
|PDF File Size:||8.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The book under review deals with the last one of these -- language management. Cooper , Kaplan and Baldauf The book can be of interest to scholars working in the field of language policy and planning, although it contains rather little theory and methodology. On the other hand, detailed information on language management from many settings around the world makes up most of the content and the book is not demanding in terms of theoretical concepts used; therefore, it could be welcomed by secondary school and undergraduate students interested in how language and language use are regulated in various parts of the world.
The domain approach is used to structure the rest of the book: individual chapters deal with individual domains. The author also deals with the relationship between language management and domain- specific locations and between language management and domain-specific topics to some extent. Each chapter provides a number of examples of language management from many settings all over the world.
The author also touches upon the issue of the cultivation of the public use of language. The author expresses a sceptical view on the possibility of language management to make a positive contribution to the world society in general. He also formulates a pessimistic view of the chances for language management to be successful, especially in democratic and unlike in totalitarian states.
Finally, he argues that the domain approach is useful in formulating possible future research questions. EVALUATION This evaluation section deals with four topics: 1 the concept of language management the book presents, 2 the theory it contains, 3 factual descriptions included and 4 basic concepts of the book, particularly, the domain, simple vs.
Second, people do actions aimed at language not only consciously but also unconsciously: for example, self-corrections in speech or speech accommodation, which the author lists as types of language management p. Jernudd and Jiri V. Neustupny Jernudd and Neustupny , cf. This, however, is not the case. Although the reader is able to induce what can count as language management on the basis of individual examples, it is a paradoxical feature of this book that it does not say much about the nature of language management in general terms.
This feature may be connected with the way this book is written. A telegraphic sequence of examples of language management follows. Little space is left for discussion and theoretical considerations. At the same time, the examples are copious and very detailed, which often obscures the main lines of reasoning. There were 18, employed, with a projected increase over the next ten years of percent each year.
Where the volume of work is greatest, courts tend to have full-time staff positions, almost all of them for Spanish-English. Sections usually end with the final example in the sequence. These activities are divided into a number of categories. Such conclusions do not seem to bring new knowledge. However, the information on the settings and events I happen to be familiar with contain many factual errors.
Just as independence in India and the division from Pakistan had led to the splitting of Hindustani into Hindi and Urdu, so did the splitting of Czechoslovakia produce a renewal of separate identities for Czech and Slovak The Czech Republic, set up in with the breakup of the Soviet Union, restored a division that had been blurred when Czechoslovakia was created in In the interwar period, attempts were made to blend Czech and Slovak, mutually intelligible languages, into a national language.
Third, the Czech Republic was not set up with the break-up of the Soviet Union : to seek other than a very indirect connection would be mistaken.
The Czech Republic was set up as a culmination of the internal disagreements between the Czech and the Slovak political elites in Czechoslovakia since its creation. Only after the fall of the communist regime and, therefore, of heavily centralized state power in Czechoslovakia in , did the split of this already federal state become possible in Fourth, the identity of Czech and Slovak was not blurred. Later, in , this state transformed into a federation of two national republics Czech and Slovak , which lasted until The split of Czechoslovakia in did not bring about anything new with respect to the identities of the two languages.
However, the author must have confused Czech with Polish, where, unlike in Czech, this diacritic sign and nasalized vowels exist. These and other pieces of incorrect information show that the author of the book has not treated his data and sources carefully. For example, language cultivation in their understanding does not include the selection of script, which is also considered corpus planning e.
Some instances of corpus planning can even have different goals and motivation than language cultivation -- an example of such corpus planning is the change in orthography that makes one language less similar to another without the aim to make it a more efficient tool for communication.
Nekvapil , also shows misinterpretation of sources. However, in the work of Jernudd, Neustupny and Nekvapil, the distinction is understood in a different way: simple language management operates in an individual communicative act on an element of the act itself i.
From this follows that simple language management can include not only self-correction but also correction by others cf. Nekvapil This also means that simple language management can take place in any domain, however complex the domain may be Spolsky excludes simple language management from his description of domains. For example, in a military domain, an army officer may correct a novice private who addressed him without mentioning his rank e.
Although pre-interaction management i. Spolsky, however, does not go into these nuances of social interaction, as he does not treat or describe language management as social interaction in general.
Secondly, the author does not make clear why simple language management should concentrate on issues of language cultivation, when self-corrections, including replacement of an item from language A for an item from language B in bilingual speech, or a decision to take a course in a foreign language are also instances of simple language management and involve language variety choice. Concerning the domain concept which is fundamental for the book, the author treats the domains he selected as universal.
Although he deals with situations in places all over the world, he does not propose any theoretical formulations of the differences between them in this respect. This may relate to the fact that he has not identified the domains empirically, as Fishman required, but has simply postulated them.
This would shed doubt on the reliability of his conclusions about mutual influences between the domains. In addition, Spolsky argues that language management, beliefs and practices influence each other within individual domains and across domains.
How exactly this influence takes place can only be seen in particular examples of language management, but is not theoretically modelled or described in general terms. To sum up, although the book presents many issues relevant to a given problem area, it does not deal theoretically with their nature and, what is most important, with how and why various phenomena relate to each other. Moreover, the domain approach is not new in the study of language management, policy and planning.
For example, Neustupny and Nekvapil used the domain concept in their model of language management and the importance of actors, emphasized by the book under review, has been regularly stressed in the study of language planning since Cooper at the latest. There are, however, for example, language-unrelated beliefs that can heavily influence language practices, for example, when government officials believe that economic crisis may be alleviated by reducing the budget for minority language publications among other cost items.
Many examples in the book itself show how economic factors are important and, in many cases, crucial for language management. Nevertheless, the model of language policy proposed by Spolsky lacks any such primarily non-linguistic components. It is disappointing that even after pages the author -- writing about the building of a theory of language management from the beginning -- has not gone farther than to prolegomena of a theory.
He does not provide any reason for the need to build just prolegomena, while, at the same time, a much more elaborated theory of language management already exists see Jernudd and Neustupny , Nekvapil , Nekvapil and Sherman , Neustupny and Nekvapil as well as elaborated theories of language policy and language planning see Cooper , Kaplan and Baldauf , Ricento , among others.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language , Cooper, R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fishman, J. Gumperz and D. Hymes eds. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Hornberger, N. In Ricento ed. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell, Jernudd, B. Laforge ed. Kaplan, R. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Nabelkova, M. Nekvapil, J. Sociolinguistica 20, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Neustupny, J. Reprinted in R. Baldauf and R. Kaplan eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Prague School General principles for the cultivation of good language translated by P.
Garvin; appendix to Garvin, P. Rubin and R. Shuy eds. Reprinted in J. Fishman ed. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, Ricento, T. Malden, Oxford, Carlton: Blackwell. Spolsky, B. Zeman, J. Goebl, P. Nelde, Z.