Minority language standardisation and the role of users

Abstract

Developing a standard for a minority language is not a neutral process; this has consequences for the status of the language and how the language users relate to the new standard. A potential inherent problem with standardisation is whether the language users themselves will accept and identify with the standard. When standardising minority languages one risks establishing a standard that the users do not identify with, and thus, standardisation which was supposed to empower minority language speakers may create a new form of stigma for those who feel that they cannot live up to the new codified standard (Lane 2011). In order to investigate the role of users in minority language standardisation processes this article analyses language standardisation as a form of technology and draws on theories from Science and Technology Studies (STS), focussing on actors who resist or even reject (aspects of) standardisation. STS has investigated standardisation of technologies (Bowker and Star 2000) and the reflexive relationship between standards and users (Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003). Insights from these investigations are applied to the case of standardisation of Kven, a minority language spoken in Northern Norway, with a particular emphasis on how users of the standard are inscribed and configured (Woolgar 1991), the exclusionary effects of standards (Star 1991;Gal 2006;Lane 2011) and the positions of non-users (Wyatt 2003).

Language revitalization, modernity, and the Csángó mode of speaking

“…The dominant model of minority language revitalization is language modernization of the nation-state, primarily standardization (Lane 2015). Modernity makes use of the pre-assumption that the object we call language can be abstracted from the continuous practice of speaking (Agha 2007).…”

“…This plays a dominant role in language revitalization as a determining domain of language planning and language policy (Lane 2015); for instance, a handbook on saving languages dedicates a separate chapter to the issue of literacy (Grenoble, Whaley 2006). In this respect, the impact of standardization can also be mentioned, since the language planning focusing on literacy is hardly compatible with the informal, familiar and, therefore, predominantly spoken modality of communication, which is decisive for the success of intergenerational language transmission.…”

Croatian Language Standardization and the Production of Nationalized Political Subjects through Language? Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities

“…e Council of Europe's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages plays an important role in this question, as was noted by several researchers working on the STANDARDS project at the University of Oslo (see Lane 2014). e project, of which I was part and which fo-cused on Kven, Meänkieli, Limburgish and Scots standardization processes, recognized the role of the Charter in generating the need for standardization.…”

The Bidayuh Krokong Dialect: To Standardize or not Standardize

“…Language standardization is often viewed as giving priority to one form of a language and propagating its widespread use among speakers of its diverse varieties. Lane (2015) argued that any language standardization process has unintended consequences and these concerns should be addressed delicately.…”