Linguistic Justice Research Articles

Review of Fidahić (2021): Linguistic Justice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Review of Fidahić (2021): Linguistic Justice at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Ukraine, language policies and liberalism: a mixed second act

AbstractThis article analyses Ukraine’s language policies from 2002 to 2022 within a framework of liberalism, while avoiding making normative judgements or recommendations, updating the discussion raised in Kymlicka and Opalski’s Can Liberal Pluralism be Exported? The analysis takes into consideration Ukraine’s present and historic position, including the challenge that postcolonial nation building can pose for achieving liberalism and linguistic justice. The paper focuses on three main areas of language policy: education, businesses and media, and assesses if they can be described as liberal orthodox, pluralist or illiberal. The article begins by defining liberalism and illiberalism, discussing the context of Ukraine’s linguistic diversity and postcolonial context, before outlining the language situation until EuroMaidan. Then, the main issue of language policy in the areas of education, business and media is analysed, before considering whether Ukrainian language laws might be considered liberal or illiberal. Finally, potential future trajectories are outlined.

"„Einfach machen!“ – Feiern von plurilingualer Schreibkunst in einem Schreibwettbewerb für Studierende

The Simon Fraser University Student Learning Commons holds an annual interdisciplinary, under-graduate writing contest. The writing contest provides an exciting opportunity to chal-lenge deficit frameworks within writing and academic success centres. Through the contest, the writing centre is empowered to actively seek out and showcase excellence in under-graduate writing. Throughout the five years of the contest, the organizers have tweaked the contest’s submission categories to reflect the needs and interests shared by students and faculty member, to ensure that thecontest supports the centre’s larger goals. This paper des-cribes the creation of the contest’s Plurilingual Prize category, emphasizing the ways that this prize advances the writing centre’s commitment to both linguistic diversity and linguistic justice. The paper also provides context for the decision to use the term plurilingual to describe this contest category, as opposed to other terms used in writing centre discussions, such as English Language Learner (ELL), English as an Additional Language (EAL), English as a Second Language (ESL), and multilingual learners.

We BEEN Knowin: Black Women teachers (re)member that our language is a living legacy

ABSTRACT This paper explores how Black Women K-12 Teachers (BWTs) engage with Black Language, challenging prevailing narratives. Despite limited recognition, BWTs advocate for the authenticity of Black Language. The research centres on the 16-week Black Language Learning Series (BLLS), delving into the roots, rules, and ramifications of Black Language. Drawing from Black Feminist Thought (Collins 2000) and (Re)remembering praxis (C. B. Dillard 2016), the study employs the Double Dutch Methodology (Green 2014) to capture BWTs’ diverse experiences. Two pivotal themes emerge: Linguistic Push-Pull (Smitherman 2000) while (re)searching, highlighting the struggle to balance native Black Language with standardised English; and (re)presenting while (re)claiming Black Language through African American Women’s Language (AAWL). Thus, through the process of (re)membering, BWTs navigate cognitive dissonance, challenging harmful norms, resulting in greater awareness and a shift in perceptions of Black language, identity, and culture. The findings illuminate how exploring Black Language transforms BWTs’ self-perception and pedagogies, leading to a complex interplay of liberation and linguistic transformation. Ultimately, BWTs begin and emerge as agents of linguistic justice, poised to reshape education by centring Black language.

Development of bilingualism in the Republic of Tuva: dichotomy of pragmatism and identity values

The development of official bilingualism in the Republic of Tuva is considered in terms of the linguistic justice theory and the dichotomy of pragmatism-identity values. The specificity of the functionally first/functionally second language dichotomy in the Republic of Tuva is that is does not correlate with the conventional dichotomy of majority/minority languages. To conduct practical research, the authors collected data from the most recent population census in Russia, as well as conducted sociolinguistic surveys and interviews in the Republic of Tuva between 2020 and 2022. The study has revealed a clear pragmatic value of the Tuvan language in family, friendship, professional, and virtual communication to be closely correlated with the identity value. There are several tendencies to be noted. First, functioning as a second language for most Tuvan adults and serving as the primary language for the majority within the Russian Federation, the Russian language retains strong positions in the Tuvan-Russian bilingual space. Second, the diminishing influence of the titular languages in Russian republics’ education system amplifies the practical significance of the Russian language. Third, given the Russian language predominance in children’s entertainment content in the Internet space, one can observe a rapid shift towards Russian becoming the primary or sole language of communication among children, even in monoethnic rural areas like Tuvan. To conclude, the aforementioned trends have necessitated the implementation of a suitable regional language policy and planning tool, like the State Support Strategy for the Tuvan language, which was approved by the local government in 2023.

Legitimation of Linguistic Hegemony Through Language in Education Policy in Nepal: A Critical Discourse Analysis

The constitutional provision of equal right to all languages as a medium of instruction claims that linguistic justice over all the languages has been maintained in Nepalese Education system. However, this 'positive self-representation' of the constitution and the government seem to implicitly marginalize the 'other languages' through legitimation of domination of powerful languages such as, English and Nepali. Based on this issue, this paper critically analyzes the discourse of Language in Education Policy (a part of National Education Policy 2019) in order to examine how hegemony of dominant languages such as, English and Nepali over other minority languages is legitimized through language in Education Policy in the context of Nepal. Critically analyzing the discourse of language in education policy of Nepal through the lens of ideology, power and double voicedness, the paper reveals that even though Nepalese language in education policy seems to adopt mother tongue-based multilingual education policy, hegemony of two dominant languages (English and Nepali) is still prevalent. The hegemony of these dominant languages is legitimized, reinforced and maintained by the nation through language in education policies.

Linguistic domination or discrimination?

Abstract This article analyses some of the linguistic tensions derived from international academic mobility in English-medium instruction multilingual university contexts, focusing on local and international academic staff’s interests from a linguistic justice viewpoint. Firstly, we develop a normative argument to explore whether international academic mobility and increased use of English can become a source of linguistic domination for local staff, or if suggested countermeasures, such as requiring international scholars to learn the local language, might lead to linguistic discrimination against the latter group. Secondly, via a qualitative analysis of survey data, we ask local and international scholars at the University of Tartu about their views on the language policy regime at the university. Protective language policies that encourage locals to use Estonian more and require internationals to learn some Estonian could help enhance linguistic justice, according to local staff. However, international scholars may perceive such requests as discriminatory. Linguistic domination and discrimination play a key role in the clashing interests of stakeholders, creating tension. The study highlights the complexity of the dilemmas faced by many university officials today in their attempt to balance institutional goals with on-the-ground realities.

English as Lingua Franca or World Englishes?

One of the key ways to realizing linguistic justice, as alluded to by Phillipe van Parijs (2011), is to welcome the use of English as a global lingua franca. Linguistic justice is defined as the condition in which the languages of linguistic groups are accorded official recognition, and the speakers do not suffer from social, economic, and dignity inequality on the basis of their language. However, the acceptance of English as an international language, as pointed out by many scholars, including Van Parijs himself, can also lead to potentially unjust linguistic situations. There are, in particular, three issues that come with the use of English as a global language, and they are (1) inequality in communication; (2) unfair resource allocation; and (3) lack of speaker dignity. This paper will provide a review of how political philosophers have talked about these problems, and the normative solutions to achieving linguistic justice. The aim of this article is to provide a linguistic perspective to the issue of linguistic justice. The author endeavors to do so by looking at linguistic justice through the lens of two dominant paradigms in the field of English linguistics: the World Englishes (WE) paradigm, pioneered by Braj Kachru; and the English as Lingua Franca (ELF) paradigm, a relatively more recent alternative developed by Jennifer Jenkins. The tenets of how each paradigm views speakers of English around the world are compared and a solution to the problem of linguistic justice is offered by thinking about “Englishes” instead of a single monolithic linguistic entity “English”. In doing so, efforts are made to highlight how linguistic justice can be achieved in the world of Englishes.

Linguistic justice in academic philosophy: the rise of English and the unjust distribution of epistemic goods

ABSTRACT English continues to rise as the lingua franca of academic philosophy. Philosophers from all types of linguistic backgrounds use it to communicate with each other across the globe. In this paper, we identify how the rise of English leads to linguistic injustices. We argue that these injustices are similar in an important regard: they are all instances of distributive epistemic injustice. We then present six proposals for addressing unjust linguistic discrimination and evaluate them on how well they can mitigate the specific types of distributive epistemic injustice that we identify. We accept that there is much more to be said. But we hope that what we say will motivate other philosophers to take these types of injustices more seriously and encourage them to make academic philosophy a more inclusive global community.

From punitive multilingualism and forensic translation towards linguistic justice

From punitive multilingualism and forensic translation towards linguistic justice

Immigrant linguistic justice: The lay of the land

AbstractLinguistic justice is concerned with the just way of politically regulating linguistic diversity. Today, the linguistic‐justice debate may be differentiated into three different domains: interlinguistic justice, intralinguistic justice, and global linguistic justice. Each of these domains has, to a significant extent, attracted different authors and debates, although the normative system underlying them is structurally similar. This introductory piece aims to provide context for our symposium dedicated to linguistic justice and migration by, first, giving an overview of linguistic justice, second, linking linguistic justice to migration, and, finally, providing an overview of the various papers in the symposium, situating them against the background developed in the first two sections.

Comparing language and religion in normative arguments about linguistic justice

AbstractMany of the most influential theorists of linguistic justice make arguments on the basis of comparisons between language and religion. They claim either that (1) language, by contrast with religion, cannot be separated from the state or that (2) unequal official linguistic recognition, just like unequal official religious recognition, is morally problematic. This article argues that careful attention to debates about liberalism and the place of religion in public life invites us to question the two above‐mentioned liberal assumptions about religion underlying many arguments concerning linguistic justice based on (dis)analogies between language and religion. The hope is that such critical scrutiny is likely to shed some light on normative questions of linguistic justice, more precisely on questions about the legitimacy of granting more recognition to certain languages, usually those of national native groups (as opposed to groups resulting from more or less recent immigration).

Stylistic appearances and linguistic diversity

AbstractPhilosophy is beginning to pay problems of linguistic justice the attention they deserve in today's heavily interconnected and migrant world. Contemporary philosophy itself, however, has a particular problem of linguistic justice that deserves metaphilosophical attention. At least in the philosophical tradition that is mainstream in much of the world today, viz., analytic philosophy, methodological and sociological mechanisms make it the case that the voices of non‐(native) Anglophone philosophers are substantially less heard. Among the mechanisms responsible for this situation, argues this paper, is the emphasis given by influential philosophical institutions to linguistic style and appearances as signs of clarity, precision, and rigour in the treatment of philosophical problems. Such an emphasis is not justifiable, in part because it deprives philosophy of a wider variety of perspectives. The paper concludes by presenting and motivating a recent initiative that aims to foster greater linguistic and cultural diversity within the profession.

Linguistic prejudice and electoral discrimination: What can political theory learn from sociolinguistics?

AbstractNormative political theorists working in the field of linguistic justice generally believe that participation in democratic life in linguistically diverse societies requires a shared lingua franca (e.g., Patten 2009; Van Parijs 2011). Even when a shared lingua franca is present, however, there is likely to be a variety of ways in which people speak it, due to variations in accent, pitch, register, and lexicon. This paper examines the implications of intra‐linguistic diversity for democracy and political representation. More specifically, by drawing on Andrew Rehfeld's (2010) work and on relevant sociolinguistics research, the paper argues that widespread unconscious linguistic prejudice constitutes a constraint on some citizens' right to run for political office that is incompatible with democratic equality. The argument is illustrated via a number of examples concerning Australian politicians.

Liberatory Linguistics

Abstract While the college population in the United States is becoming increasingly diverse, few studies focus on the goal of linguistic justice in higher education teaching and learning-a critical factor in achieving all forms of social equity. I offer liberatory linguistics as a productive, unifying framework for the scholarship that will advance strategies for attaining linguistic justice. Emerging from the synthesis of various lived experiences, academic traditions, and methodological approaches, I illustrate how a structural ignorance of language justice affects the lived experiences of people across the world. I present findings from my work with Black undergraduates, graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty members as they endeavor to embed a justice framework throughout the study of language broadly conceived. I conclude by highlighting promising strategies that can improve current approaches to engaging with structural realities that impede linguistic justice.

Language Standardization & Linguistic Subordination

Abstract Language standardization involves minimizing variation, especially in written forms of language. That process includes judgments about people who don‘t or can‘t use the standard forms. These kinds of judgments can unfairly limit people's access to opportunities, including in educational and professional realms. In this essay, we discuss standardized language varieties and the specific ways beliefs and ideologies about them allow judgments about language to become judgments about people, especially groups of people who share, or are presumed to share, gender, race, ethnicity, social status, education status, and numerous other socially salient identities. After describing how the process of standardization occurs, we illustrate how the expression of language peeves becomes embodied. Finally, we discuss how ideologies about standardized language circulate in higher education to the detriment of many students, and include a range of suggestions and examples for how to center linguistic justice and equity within higher education.

Social Justice Challenges of “Teaching” Languages

Abstract This essay explores the challenges to linguistic justice resulting from widely held negative perspectives on the English of young Latinx bi/multilinguals and from common misunderstandings of individuals who use resources from two communicative systems in their everyday lives. I highlight the effects of these misunderstandings on Long-Term English Learners as they engage with the formal teaching of English. I specifically problematize language instruction as it takes place in classrooms and the impact of the curricularization of language as it is experienced by minoritized students who “study” language qua language in instructed settings.

Destandardizing English: Seeking Linguistic Justice in the English Language Arts Classroom

Destandardizing English: Seeking Linguistic Justice in the English Language Arts Classroom

The Constraints of Monolingual Language Policy and Heteroglossic Practices as a Vehicle for Linguistic Justice

This paper draws on conceptualisations of language as heteroglossic practices to examine how the experienced bilingual science teacher navigates between the monoglossic ideology that is embodied in the official Namibian Language in Education Policy (LiEP) within a linguistically constrained Namibian bilingual context. This paper aims to support recent research that challenges monolingual and monoglossic language practices, which tend to ignore the linguistic resources that children bring to the classroom. Data were collected from a classroom including video and audio recordings of lessons, field notes and photographs. The data were analysed through socio-cultural discourse and fine-grained multimodal analytical methods. The data findings illustrate the moment where the science teacher was constrained by English monolingual policy to mediate learners’ access to science learning, and harnessed all linguistic resources that the learners bring to the classroom. Subsidiary to that, there were moments where the teacher worked flexibly across languages, discourses and modes to interrupt the monoglossic ideology that is embodied in the official Namibian Language in Education Policy (LiEP). The use of rich heteroglossic practices is a clear testimony to enhanced science meaning-making regardless of learners’ ‘limited proficiency in English. The findings highlight the need to support learners from linguistically diverse backgrounds through a deliberate inclusive language policy that harnesses the heteroglossic nature of communicative practices and prepares teachers for a multilingual reality.

Linguistic justice for non-resident citizens: Protecting language interests away from home

Over the past 20 years, a number of political theorists have been focusing on the just political treatment of linguistic diversity in liberal democratic societies. This body of work, known as the ‘linguistic justice’ literature, has mainly examined two specific categories of linguistic groups: autochthonous linguistic minorities and immigrants. However, it has entirely neglected non-resident citizens, that is, citizens of a country who reside in a different one, and their distinctive language interests and rights. In this article, we address this gap by developing a theory of linguistic justice for non-resident citizens, using diaspora institutions as a case study. More specifically, we draw on the linguistic justice literature to outline two categories of non-resident citizens’ language interests and rights, that is, those related to opportunity access and to democracy. We finally suggest ways in which language-related diaspora institutions could be reformed in order to better fulfil non-resident citizens’ language interests and rights.