Using language to help people, or using people to help language? A capabilities framework of language policy

Language policy is a hugely diverse field, united only by the intent to influence language use in some way. Much early research field asserted that had an emancipatory drive, empower downtrodden minorities against cruelty or indifference of majoritarian politics. But over years, critical accounts have increasingly questioned who precisely benefits from promoting minoritized languages. Indeed, can itself, valorized as emblem heritage, sometimes become invested with its own separate value? Can value even outweigh concerns improving people's prospects and capabilities? In what follows, I compare balance between capabilities across range cases. show especially how growing focus on “new speakers” affects balance. Kielipolitiikka hyvin monimuotoinen ala, jota yhdistää pyrkimys vaikuttaa kielenkäyttöön jollakin tavalla. Monissa alan varhaisissa tutkimuksissa esitettiin, että kielipolitiikalla oli emansipatorinen tavoite, jolla pyrittiin antamaan alistetuille vähemmistöille voimaa taistella enemmistöpolitiikan julmuutta tai välinpitämättömyyttä vastaan. Vuosien mittaan kriittisissä kuitenkin yhä useammin kyseenalaistettu se, kuka tarkalleen ottaen hyötyy vähemmistökielten edistämisestä. Voiko itse kieli, arvostetaan perinnön tunnuskuvana, joskus saada oman erillisen arvonsa? tämä arvo jopa olla merkittävämpi kuin ihmisten tulevaisuudennäkymien ja kyvykkyyksien parantamiseen liittyvät huolenaiheet? Seuraavassa vertailen tasapainoa kielen välillä useiden esimerkkitapausten kautta. Painotan erityisesti sitä, miten kasvava keskittyminen “uusiin puhujiin” tähän tasapainoon. What for? Who it benefits, why? no stranger debates purposes, ideologies, moral foundations. outline below, these been somewhat diffuse, often contradictory, lacking overall structure. There attempts remedy that, build those, aiming for clearer view orientations this bustling field. do using theory development studies: capabilities. This centers ability improve their life circumstances, extension sets standard all interventions: namely whether people are materially empowered achieve such improvement result. This, argue, powerful benchmark policy, any claims helping people. recent decades, interest debate about languages evolved rapidly. 2008 documentary came out, The Linguists, capturing vogue documentation. It followed two intrepid American linguists they traversed exotic locales recording speakers endangered debuted at Sundance Festival received Emmy nomination. A particularly effusive review Hollywood Reporter described protagonists “bold academics plunge into jungles backwater villages world rescue living tongues go extinct.” was also effective recruiting sergeant linguistics. work has long criticized not really “rescuing” all—perhaps providing them dictionary before departing back ivory tower. As Heller Duchêne (2007, pp. 4–5) put it, “a frequent critique endangerment discourse displaces concern languages.” turned out be mostly illusory: “There scant evidence after 25 years documentation played significant role saving languages” (Bird, 2020, Nathan & Fang, 2014; cf. Akumbu, 2020). Bernard Perley—a native anthropologist—goes further, castigating ghoulish process where find last dying record words. That language. mortuary linguistics” (Perley, 2012, p. 140). fair heckle if ends there. scholarly retorts mobilizing results toward new goals: cultural heritage historical vernaculars; leveraging usefulness describing wildlife knowledge systems; fostering sense identity community (perhaps limited ceremonial capacities); directly instrumental means certain ends. Bradley (2019, 5–10) overview motivations (cf. Wickström et al., 2018, 16–22). These carry quite different levels explicit actually speaking languages—as groups individuals. Hill (2002) offers “expert rhetorics” promote but may sit odds needs desires speakers. discussed grown significantly since. All highly pressing, because minoritization coincides various other forms marginalization injustice. Those need more than just dictionaries. (As Markus Zusak his novel Book Thief, “You can't eat books, sweetheart.”) Spurred harms surround minoritization, “linguistic human rights” (LHR) arisen few probably best associated Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. her words, LHR aims “those rights … which so basic dignified everybody being human; therefore, principle state (or individual) allowed violate them” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008, 109). documenting working ease disadvantage faced Skutnabb-Kangas (2005) relates economist Amartya Sen's “capabilities” theory, broadly states economic should money; disadvantaged structures place enabling educated, vote, plan finances, start business, generally get well—just capably—as anyone else (see e.g., Sen, 2004); hence “language life,” Skutnabb-Kangas’ terms. since relationship (e.g., Sayers, 2009, 218–222; 2017). Lewis (2017) further links same vein. grim alternatives either continued marginalization, gradual grinding coerced assimilation powerfully labels genocide” oppression,” Roche, 2019). principally advocated “mother tongue medium” education aid literacy, least primary education, involvement majority (Fafunwa 1989). argued, enables greater social inclusion, loosens knots tied up centuries—often during colonization subordination. mission, reparatory enterprise. Mother medium based long-attested finding children learn used mother (and/or caregivers)—whereas, taught unfamiliar language, will struggle, lose motivation, disengage, ultimately getting lower grades. Case studies below; broad reviews evidence, see Batibo (2005, 54–55), Bhattacharjea al. (2011), Pinnock Vijayakumar (2009, 69). However, doing practice rubbed awkward politics recognizing—much less using—stigmatized varieties schools. contentious debate, feelings Coleman, 2016, revealing account). comprehensive, research-based program designed address literacy African American, Mexican Hawaiian Indian students whom Standard English native. incorporates curriculum instructional strategies facilitate acquisition academic classroom environments validate, value, upon culture students.” (LAUSD, 2017) Such center contrastive analysis: showing prescribed linguistic grammar, morphosyntax, etc. alongside variety. acknowledges both structure, simply “wrong,” provides transparent basis learning. (in linguistics law politics) non-standard considered advance position nor aim conflate second dialect acquisition; point similarity outcomes ignoring vernacular bring class. For pedagogically similar transitioning distinct languages, example, Cummins (2017a) Ramachandran (2017). Academic Mastery Program (AEMP), wrong, rather proficiency dominant contexts (Nero, 45) transition educational outcome. transitional pedagogy attended host issues. Even like AEMP recognizes varieties, does nevertheless reify formalize hierarchy prestige, supremacy (White) English? Does impose perpetuate colonial understanding discrete autonomous entities, instead considering fundamentally could educated terms? Why reach higher equality? interesting emerging vein, fully multilingual assessments diversify understandings learning achievement Shohamy, 2022). emerged decades gridlock sensitive including stigmatized vernaculars Rickford, 2002), careful fine-tuning local sociolinguistic realities. We interested here motivations, motivation most attainable within set available options. our current discussion. So, attempt attend end goal bigger iniquities status quo. there issues besides this, original fine principles distorted unintended practice. Let me six existing critiques LHR. “Skutnabb-Kangas [and proponents] demonstrated clearly minority disadvantaged. problem replicated themselves among them. When adopted educational, legal, bureaucratic governmental settings, adoption displace another group. Speakers national regional [of language] become, effect, double minorities.” “ethnolinguistic pluralism, would given institutional muscle language: standardization scholarship, media, politics, literature system. creating written standard, instance (and efforts require literacy), raise exacerbate issue resources …: everyone able speak read write Inequality reduced, inequality increased.” (Blommaert, 2001, 136–137; Mufwene, 2017, 204–205; Odugu, 2015, 150) Corker (2000, 449−450) context Deaf highlights potential inequalities: “any entry mainstream leads class were observable before…. failure acknowledge one way “minority” resistance becomes hierarchically organised terms standards.” Pre-existing dialects newly standardized turn feel pressures them, normative (from schooling officialdom) variety). gradually feeling diluted, divorced vibrancy dynamism Jones, 1994, wistful reflections case Welsh; Gibson, 38, comparable distaste Kenya publishing Sheng: “you're destroying language”). Blommaert argues, transformation longer “home language” identifiably “school language.” Organizing tongue” policymaking purposes inevitably matter. might straightforward small close-knit communities; level soon unwieldy prone error. Lim (2009) recounts Singapore assigned officially recognized ethnicity (itself abstraction). clumsy, worst racially insensitive; strikingly incoherent outcomes, “the Peranakans, group classified Chinese thus Mandarin official Tongue, fact once Baba Malay vernacular, now intents 57). through tongue.” relatable arises New Zealand, heavy-handed bureaucracy, kind wishful thinking. Rata Tamati (2013) describe contemporary Māori communities strong, frequently dominated mixed Māori-English forms, subsumed entirely home vernacular. “pedagogical dilemma” teaching Māori, “when weaker, (p. 269). above, cases additive approaches done sensitively inclusively. segregation widely reported empirical elsewhere, Catalonia (Paulston, 2003), former Yugoslavia (Filipović 2007; Pupavac, 2012), (Lim, 2009), Wales (Selleck, 2013), Democratic Republic Congo, (Gibson, 15). Negative effects necessarily foreseen plans foremost wider fuelling tensions groups. Wee concludes, tends […] shared community, encourages fragmentation along ethnic lines” (2010, 96). relatedly argues: ‘It hard approach planning reflects ideology inclusion unless equated sharing physical space, space 455—original emphases). illustrative example comes, unintentionally, Person 159−160), helped Bisu Thailand produce first ever book They very proud when happened presented Thai royalty; went joke neighboring book. 160) amusing quirk tale; germinal stage Wee's macro cited above: elevating above others inherently counter hierarchies overall; add ones, engendering contests superiorities. listed give detail larger societal segregations divisive frictions. 20) portrays protection inherited identity.” corresponding emphasis traditional oversights, indicated Peranakans Māoris noted above. cases, formerly imposed (English) sociolinguistically adapted locally distinctive ways. variety serve symbol identity? Should embraced tongue? Ofori Albakry (2012) relate striking remarks Ghanaian respondents appropriated English, article's eponymous interview quote, “I speaks” 173). globally tainted stench injustice, seem irredeemably barred prevailing discourses LHR, localized (Mufwene, 205−206). Odugu (2015, puts it: “A centralized rationale justice meets interests indigenous preservation choose problematic.” seems incompatible duality “English symbolizes oppression liberation” (Odugu, 151). Worldwide, migration population movements erstwhile peoples together, new, structurally vernaculars. Nouchi Ethiopia, Tsotsitaal South Africa, many springing genesis old spoken itself. nascent proto-varieties speaker bases blurry, fit model (for examples discussion Blommaert, 137; De Schutter, 2007, 15; 17; Habermas, 1998, 22; Kircher Fox, 847; 209; 144−147; Pennycook, 80; 2015; Weber Horner, 127−128). Like older newer contact-based minoritized, nowhere earth, lack tradition, obvious politically identifiable community. mismatch group-based public dynamic fluidity represented here. (2018, 9), seeking pragmatism, notionally concede fiction phenomena located defined regions,” then immediately embrace “both sensible fruitful abstraction, allows us develop implementable planning.” though; suited spiralling diversity (cf., ibid., p.46). “If you make ethnicity, nationality, unit analysis, conclude maintain tongue. If, contrary, take dictate access “dominant languages”.” intention intervention create prestige already prestigious both, language-centric still ignore Young's warning, risk eliding myriad structural injustices besetting anything steer hazardously segregating disenfranchising consequences earlier. resonates sciences so-called “cultural turn,” wherein inequalities seen lens culture, stealing attention away barriers (Crompton, 43−44). An analysis foregrounds broader issues, placing priori importance lead solutions valorizing such. instinctively unsettled materials which—rightly wrongly—may afforded (Brutt-Griffler, 2002, 225; Gazzola, 2016; Hahm 2022); possibility vernaculars, relevance historically ethnically languages—especially those transformed 126−127). case, treat series intersecting priorities increase well-being capabilities, something inherent significance. Taken suggest laudable goals grasp policymakers, combined ideological imperatives essentialize race ethnicity. magnified areas rapid migratory flows, suddenly thrust together. Wright 211) problematizes building fixed around “constantly shifting landscape idiolects.” Gupta (2002, 295) cautions “groups remain discrete, merge …. Migration, shift, intermarriage established practices. stopped. dangerous solidify policy”. 146) insights, adding reminder: “It noteworthy names societies, ethnicities, colonized much European coinages postcolonial geopolitical maps. inventory continues help facilitating political management peoples.” With mind, conceivable measure affiliation remotely binary linear policies suggest. Bradley, 2019), natural ongoing non-linguistic processes reality beautiful, fluid unknowable kaleidoscope possibilities, ill categorization, standardization, quantifiable measures use. Over great researchers activists caught scent, inhaled deeply. Their unswerving conviction comes good place; but, reviewed devil detail. Having explored rights, section theoretical models overall, categorize hope clarify my contribution. begin “territoriality vs. personality” principles, outlined McRae (1975). equates geographical hinterland (territoriality) definable ancestry (personality). Myhill (1999) shows each other, “so supporting explicitly implicitly, particular effect choosing support hurt” 35). “researchers making statements contradict intended goals” (ibid., 46). earlier inequalities, related inattention leading follows contribute line thinking drawing opposing contradictory ideologies. Next, Haugen (1966) outlines four goals—selection codification form; acceptance elaboration function—which equip operate elsewhere. Building Charles Ferguson Joshua Fishman, account nuanced cognizant differences reality, irreverence variation change face putatively stable “since norms changes generations come go” 931). Haugen's though abstract insofar “developed” society nation” (ibid.). Hornberger (2006) expands framework, integrates models, “integrative framework” goals. principal division “policy (on form)” “cultivation function).” Similarly Haugen, actions required goal, corpus (form) modernization (function)—an important clarification My addition centrally highlight outcomes. “negative – provisions speakers, court translation lifting outright prohibitions use; “positive beyond necessities, full inclusion; “third pillar”, end, pursuing “effective use”. (leading Marcía, 1979, 88−89) rights—what Vizard calls “tripartite freedoms, obligations characterises ethical theories” 18). stigma marginalization. third pillar, promotion centres “proficiency” “competence” (Grin, 2003, 172−173). Grin “cannot understood strictly (2003, 84); indeed, marks departure debates, respect “freedom restricting conditions” (Vizard, 2005). relatively quiet anyone's freedoms constrained benefit gaining it; pillar. makes analytical context, Europe, Charter Regional Minority Languages prioritises themselves; leaves targeted contributes synthesis philosophy. Kymlicka Patten's (2003a) edited volume draws together perspectives ‘big tent,’ viewpoints: Laitin Reich (2003) emphasizing May takes squarely chapter argues Subsequently, (2010) unite tenets May's deliberative democracy enable open civic engagement societies. cross-disciplinary vein has, however, attracted critics, note shortage structure (Edwards, 2010, 1) “ideological clarification” (Kroskrity, 2009). Barry (2001) standing eviscerating stance Kymlicka's thinking; he brings question arguing obfuscate rejoinder specific Barry's later (2005): “cries discrimination [against English] spurious, wish monolingual” 336). exchange clarity identified Edwards Kroskrity. talking monolingualism, “choice sets,” one's stock opportunities life, correlating statistical correlation, extends rebuttal urging languages; likely qualm includes Dalmazzone, 1999, 79). include utilitarian basis, while celebrating