27.228, Review: Sociolinguistics: Ives, Ricento, Peled (2015)

The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Tue Jan 12 21:39:34 UTC 2016


LINGUIST List: Vol-27-228. Tue Jan 12 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.228, Review: Sociolinguistics: Ives, Ricento, Peled (2015)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:39:11
From: Nadine Hamdan [nh278 at georgetown.edu]
Subject: Language Policy and Political Theory

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36074917


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-1484.html

EDITOR: Thomas  Ricento
EDITOR: Yael  Peled
EDITOR: Peter  Ives
TITLE: Language Policy and Political Theory
SUBTITLE: Buiding Bridges, Assessing Breaches
PUBLISHER: Springer
YEAR: 2015

REVIEWER: Nadine Hamdan, Georgetown University

Reviews Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

The starting point of the editors of this volume on language policy and
political theory is the task of combining language and moral reasoning in
order to establish a fruitful dialogue of political theory concerned with
language and language policy. This collection of articles, therefore, aims to
illustrate how debates within the discipline of political theory can
contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of language policy,
while at the same time presenting how methods and findings from language
science can enrich political philosophy concerned with language. A key notion
for these purposes is that of mutual interdependence, especially in the
context of globalisation. The combination of language and social justice hence
implies a cooperation between the academic fields of Sociolinguistics and
Political Theory, evoking the challenge of merging empirical analysis and
normative theorising. The authors’ goal of working towards the establishment
of a systematic framework for the study of language policy entails thus a
combination of these two approaches, requiring closer contact and cooperation
between language policy scholars and political philosophers. This volume,
situated in the early phase of that project, has at its objective to initiate
and encourage discussion, ultimately leading to the development of that
framework. Therefore, its editors summarize the contribution of this
collection as a call “for greater sensitivity towards intralinguistic
variance” (4) and the raising of “a set of issues central to the debate” (5)
to combine research from different disciplines.  

The first article, “Normative language policy: interface and interferences” by
Yael Peled, highlights especially this interdisciplinary character by
focussing on the “interface and internal fences between sociolinguistics and
political philosophy” (7); hence arguing that for successful language policy,
linguistic diversity on the one hand, and social interdependence on the other
need to be balanced. In order to achieve this, according to Peled, two
theoretical moves are required: “first, the combination of the scientific
epistemologies inherent to “thinking linguistically” (in sociolinguistics) and
“thinking politically” (in political philosophy); and second, the
reconceptualization of the dynamics of normative language policy as complex
adaptive systems” (10). Consequently, in analogy to Sociolinguistics –
language in society, Peled calls for approaching normative language polity as
“language-in-polity” (16), entailing the concept of language policy as an act
of prioritization, and ranking of languages in terms of efficiency and
symbolic value. The attribute ‘complex’ adds the awareness that “the interface
between power and language does not operate in a linear or predictable
fashion” (19), reflecting the reality of a complex and changing world. 

David Weinstock’s article, “The complex normative foundations of language
policy,” ties in with the previous contribution nicely by introducing liberal
theory to the equation. Language policy here is viewed through the lenses of
multiple conflicting sets of interests – that of the state, the individual,
and humanity. The article is based upon the fundamental assumption of
linguistic diversity, taking multilingualism and linguistic heterogeneity into
account. From the point of the individual, language and linguistic proficiency
are tackled from a “maximally useful, minimally costly” (25) perspective –
balancing efficiency and opportunity with matters of identity and symbolic
value. As a solution to that dilemma,,Weinstock proposes widespread
bilingualism, although noting that this is no guarantee for equality. As for
the state, language serves predominantly as the medium for communication with
its citizens, hence the widespread notion of national or official languages.
Consequently, Weinstock argues, for reasons of efficiency, states have an
interest in maintaining a certain level of homogeneity, with “linguistic
convergence … around the language of the majority” (27). At the same time,
however, depending on circumstances, states might be pushing for a greater
degree of linguistic diversity. This behaviour is encouraged by such factors
as linguistic minorities, colonial pasts, and a diversity of linguistic and
national groups, among others. Interests of humanity, or the world at large,
are currently most concerned with preventing the death of endangered
languages. Taken together, these three groups display a conflicting set of
language policy related interests. Weinstock proposes a liberal language
policy approach to tackle that predicament and to further social justice – at
the forefront of which he promotes the notions of individual rights and state
neutrality. Instead of attempting to provide a single solution, Weinstock’s
intention here is to “lay out the complex set of normative considerations –
considerations to do both with the nature of language and with the nature of
the state – that are relevant to the making of language policy” (38), in line
with the underlying theme of this volume.

Adding more depth to the theoretical dimensions of the framework of normative
language policy, Peter Ives, with his contribution “De-politicizing language:
obstacles to political theory’s engagement with language policy”, grounds the
debate on language policy firmly within existing scholarship of political
theory. Specifically, he argues that the majority of current research is based
on a Lockean approach that is mostly unsuitable for language realities, and
suggests instead to draw on alternative theoretical resources, such as those
of Gramsci, Voloshinov, or Bakhtin. Ives’s main issue with the Lockean
approach as followed for instance by Van Parijs, Kymlick and Patten, among
others, is the underlying “individualist and transmission defined notion of
language” (43), which ignores considerations like identity, power and
(in-)equality. Rather than regarding “language as primarily about
communicating among individuals” (53), Ives argues in favour of widening the
circle of political theorists and philosophers beyond ‘Western’ candidates, to
also include conceptions of language byof scholars like Bourdieu, Bakhtin,
Volshinov, and Gamsci, which are “more systematic and rigorously articulated …
than that provided by Locke” (54) . 

Moving from political theory to the “topic of language itself” (58), Thomas
Ricento’s article, “Thinking about language: what political theorists need to
know about language in the real world”, sheds light on the complex realities
of language situations (i.e. acquisition, use, ascribed values, etc.) that
need to be taken into account when developing a normative language policy.
Following sociolinguistic tradition, Ricento rejects views of language as an
idealized given or fixed entity, based on the written form of the variety of a
small elite – as it is often perpetuated in political theory literature.
Instead, he regards language as a semiotic system, complete with the
complexities of its connection to culture and ethnic identification, including
the arising issues of non-standard varieties, linguistic hierarchies,
inequalities, multilingualism, etc. For these reasons, one of the main
objectives in Ricento’s article here is to call for a more fruitful
cooperation between sociolinguistics and political theory – for political
theorists to be aware of the indexical significance of language and its
varieties with regard to identity, power, ethnicity, culture etc., rather than
viewing speech communities as homogeneous entities. In this context, Ricento’s
critique of Van Parijs’s request for English as a lingua franca, comes as no
surprise, given Van Parijs’s understanding of ‘English’ as “some sort of
standard high standard national variety” (70). In addition, this very
understanding, according to Ricento, neglects “the potential problem of the
existence of variation among the many ‘Englishes’ in the world today and the
implications for the goal of promoting linguistic justice” (70). 

Similarly, with the contribution “Contesting public monolingualism and
diglossia: rethinking political theory and language policy for a multilingual
world”, Stephan May “critique[s] and contest[s] both this ongoing opposition
to multilingualism, and the related privileging of English as a global lingua
franca” (77). Language, May argues, has entered political theory through the
backdoor of “[d]ebates over citizenship in modern nation-states [that] have
often focused on the significance of language to both national identity and
state citizenship” (78). It comes as no surprise, though, that consequently
language is viewed in the context of ‘national’ or ‘official’ languages, and
hence through the lenses of monolingualism and linguistic homogeneity,
ignoring widespread multilingualism and linguistic diversity. May also
challenges the notion of establishing English as a lingua franca in a
globalized world on the terms that this would only underline existing
privileges as this idea is based on the critical assumption of the neutrality
of English. Additionally, its proponents’ argument that the introduction of
English as a lingua franca is associated with greater economic wealth cannot
be empirically supported. Rather, given the linguistic reality of the
existence of language varieties in connection to language value and social as
well as economic mobility, having English as a lingua franca would not
demolish social inequalities, but only reinforces existing hierarchies.
Consequently, it is the existing elite who benefits most from the introduction
of English as a lingua franca, as it is this very group that is proficient in
the varieties of greater prestige already. Therefore, May argues in favour of
supporting individual and public multilingualism, as it “provides not only
greater opportunities for linguistic justice but also facilitates wider
inclusion and social mobility for linguistic minorities in an increasingly
globalized world” (77). On the basis of work by Kymlicka and Kloss, May argues
the case for public multilingualism on the grounds of promotion oriented
rights that “regulate the extent to which minority language rights are
recognized” (93), requiring active state intervention and support.

Also arguing in favor of multilingualism, Ronald Schmidt Sr.’s article
“Democratic theory and the challenge of linguistic diversity” puts the focus
on participatory democratic theories, as research on language has been less
productive in this domain as compared to liberal democratic theories. In
detail, Schmidt proposes that although ontological multilingualism enhances
the advantages of participatory democracy – legitimation advantage, common
good advantage, and human flourishing advantage – a number of challenges are
attached to this notion. Foremost the issue of efficient communication, but
also difficulties in maintaining a sense of common purpose and collective
identity, as well as the matter of socio-economic and political inequality. In
order to overcome these obstacles, Schmidt offers a number of suggestions. As
a short-term solution, Schmidt suggests taking advantage of translation and
interpreting services, especially in situations with a large number of
languages which themselves have a smaller number of speakers. If the opposite
is true, conditions with a limited number of large language groups, Schmidt
proposes what he terms ‘two-way bilingualism’ – “in which both sides of the
linguistic divide would embrace and learn each others’ languages” (114).
Alternatively, according to Schmidt, “a large-scale and proactive immigration
settlement policy” (114f.) appears to be a worthwhile measure to overcome
these challenges. Ultimately, however, in order to be sustainable in the long
term, such multilingual societies need to decrease economic inequality –
“reducing economic inequality between groups helps to achieve a form of
integration that is respectful and supportive of an egalitarianism that is
compatible with the notion of ontological multilingualism” (115).

The final contribution to this volume consists of a review of Philippe Van
Parijs’s Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World by Yael Peled.  

 EVALUATION

The review of Van Parijs’s Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World is
necessary, since not only is it one of the few monographs dealing with
language policy and justice, but more importantly, it is referred to in detail
throughout the volume by a number of the contributors (e.g. May, Ricento,
Ives). In light of those authors’ mostly critiquing Van Parijs’s approach,
Peled’s neutral to positive review seems somewhat striking, especially since
she does not address the other contributors’ biggest issue of concern, Van
Parijs’s uncritical understanding of ‘English’ (see above). 

Taken as a whole, the individual articles are adequately contextualized with
respect to existing research and literature on the topic of language policy,
particularly with regard to political theory, the main disciplinary focus of
the volume. Sociolinguistics, although covered by some contributors (e.g.
Ricento, May), could have been dealt with in greater detail, especially given
the editors’ call for interdisciplinarity.

Apart from that, the individual articles build upon each other and add a
variety of perspectives, so that the volume as a whole is well structured and
coherent. Following an introduction by the editors, Peled highlights the
interdisciplinary character of normative language policy. This trait is picked
up on by Weinstock, while shifting the direction slightly towards political
theory, with Ives grounding the topic firmly in political theory. Ricento,
subsequently, initiates the shift towards an inclusion of sociolinguistics in
the debate, with May following that trend. Schmidt leads the reader back to
the interdisciplinary character of language policy, before Peled completes the
volume with her review of Van Parijs’s monograph.

The volume provides a highly valuable addition to existing literature for
academics of both political theory and sociolinguistics, while also appealing
to language policy practitioners. Nonetheless, it comes with some limitations.
At times, it seems there seems to be some degree of disagreement between the
authors in regard to whether the topic of language policy should be approached
from a political theory or political philosophy perspective – a small but
significant difference. In the introduction, the editors describe language
policy as an intersection of sociolinguistics and political theory, and
emphasize that their goal is to shed light on debates within political theory;
however, Peled, in the subsequent article, defines normative language policy
as “in intrinsically interdisciplinary field that draws on sociolinguistics
and political philosophy” (10).  Also, it would have been desirable to include
empirical research, in the form of case studies, preferably non Western- or
Anglo-centric, as a means of illustrating the proposed approach. Given the
editors’ aim of initiating a debate, while laying the groundwork for the
establishment of a systematic framework for the study of language policy, this
demand may be premature.  Taken as a whole, the volume, Language Policy and
Political Theory, provides a constructive contribution to the field of
language policy, its main achievement being the great emphasis on
interdisciplinarity, as well as the assertion  that language policies need to
not only take into account but also reflect linguistic reality, based on the
view that language is more than merely a tool for the exchange of ideas.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Nadine Hamdan is a PhD Candidate at Georgetown University, currently working
as a Research Fellow at the School of Foreign Service - Qatar. For her
research, she applies methodologies of Sociolinguistics and Discourse Analysis
to examine Political Science topics. Her dissertation investigates the
construction of nationalism in Lebanese political discourse.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-228	
----------------------------------------------------------







More information about the LINGUIST mailing list