Class, Ethnicity, and Language Rights: An Analysis of British Colonial Policy in Lesotho and Sri Lanka and Some Implications for Language Policy

Brutt‐Griffler, Janina

doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0103_3

Cited by 48 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This critique of MLR might best be described as 'resigned language realism' -that as much as the process of language shift and loss is regrettable, there is little, if anything that can be done about it. Edwards (1984Edwards ( , 1985Edwards ( , 1994Edwards ( , 2001 has articulated this position most clearly over the years from within sociolinguistics (see also Brutt-Griffler, 2002).…”

Section: The 'Utopian Dismissal'mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…On this view, collective modernisation and individual mobility are best served -indeed, are only served -by access to dominant languages, particularly English (cf. Brutt-Griffler, 2002).…”

Section: The Problem Of (Im)mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After all, as the political theorist Will Kymlicka observes: 'leaving one's [language and] culture, while possible, is best seen as renouncing something to which one is reasonably entitled' (Kymlicka, 1995: 90). Even Brutt-Griffler (2002), in her trenchant critique of MLR, does eventually concede that language complementarity rather than language replacement is a possible positive outcome of MLR, although she then unconvincingly suggests that if minority-language speakers cannot have access to English as a first language (reverting again to the necessity of language shift), this undermines any meaningful notion of complementarity. Again, unless the dominant language dominates, it seems, justice and opportunity cannot be achieved.…”

Section: Promoting Dialogismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3. For examples of this position within sociolinguistics, see Bentahila and Davies 1993;Brutt-Griffler, 2002;Coulmas, 1992;Edwards, 1984;Ladefoged, 1992. For examples within social and political theory, see Barry, 2000;Laitin and Reich, 2003;Pogge, 2003;Schlesinger, 1992.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…looking backwards has been a favourite sport for disaffected intellectuals for a long time, but actually moving backwards has not been so popular. (Edwards, 1985: 95, 97; my emphases) Brutt-Griffler (2002), in her more recent critique of MLR, takes much the same position, arguing that individuals may well make their language choices on the basis of social class rather than ethnicity. As she observes:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights

May¹

2003

Current Issues in Language Planning

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While advocacy of minority language rights (MLR) has become well established in sociolinguistics, language policy and planning and the wider human rights literature, it has also come under increased criticism in recent times for a number of key limitations. In this paper, I address directly three current key criticisms of the MLR movement. The first is a perceived tendency towards essentialism in articulations of language rights. The second is the apparent utopianism and artificiality of 'reversing language shift' in the face of wider social and political 'realities'. And the third is that the individual mobility of minority-language speakers is far better served by shifting to a majority language. While acknowledging the perspicacity of some of these arguments, I aim to rearticulate a defence of minority language rights that effectively addresses these key concerns. This requires, however, a sociohistorical/sociopolitical rather than a biological/ecological analysis of MLR. In addition, I will argue that a sociohistorical/sociopolitical defence of MLR can problematise the positions often adopted by minority language rights' critics themselves, particularly those who defend majoritarian forms of linguistic essentialism and those who sever the instrumental/identity aspects of language. Implications for language policy and planning will also be discussed.

show abstract

Section: The 'Utopian Dismissal'mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…On this view, collective modernisation and individual mobility are best served -indeed, are only served -by access to dominant languages, particularly English (cf. Brutt-Griffler, 2002).…”

Section: The Problem Of (Im)mobilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Promoting Dialogismmentioning

confidence: 99%