Public Discourse of (De)legitimation: The Case of South Estonian Language

Koreinik, Kadri

doi:10.1080/01629778.2011.569071

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Et uus keele-ja kultuurikeskkond surub peale oma diskursuse ja reeglid (Busch 2017), kinnitavad ka vene dominantkeelega õpetajad. Asunud uude eestikeelsesse koolikeskkonda, tuli neil lisaks keelele kohaneda ka eesti kooli organisatsioonikultuuri ja sotsiopragmaatikaga (Koreinik & Klaas-Lang 2021). Võrreldes eesti kooliga mainisid õpetajad vene kooli hierarhilisemat struktuuri, autoritaarsemat juhtimist, kuid rõhutasid sealjuures südamlikke ja sõbralikke suhteid nii kolleegide kui õpetajate ja lastevanemate vahel (ibid.…”

Section: Mille Poolest Erineb Suhtlemine üLikoolis Tudengite Varasema...unclassified

“…Lisaks suhtluspragmaatikale erinevad Eesti koolid ka organisatsioonikultuuri poolest laiemalt (Lauri & Põder 2020). Erinevusi eesti ja vene õppekeelega koolide kultuuris on märganud ka eestikeelsesse kooli tööle asunud vene dominantkeelega õpetajad (Kiilo 2013;Koreinik & Klaas-Lang 2021). 1 Kui suur osa (~ 40%) gümnaasiumi lõpus eesti keele teise keelena riigi eksami tegijatest ei saavuta riiklikku eesmärki (B2) (Koreinik, Põiklik & Selliov 2021), siis Tartu Ülikooli õppima asunud vene dominant keelega üliõpilased on riigieksami enamasti hästi sooritanud.…”

unclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Viisakalt koolist ülikooli: milliseid suhtluskultuuri eripärasid märkavad vene dominantkeelega üliõpilased?

Klaas-Lang,

Koreinik,

Rozenvalde

2023

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tartu Ülikool oma mitmekeelse ja -kultuurilise liikmeskonnaga on suhtluskeskkond, kus kohtuvad erinevad rahvus- ja koolikultuurid. Mullu moodustasid kümnendiku Tartu Ülikooli tudengitest Eestis venekeelse põhikooli ja kakskeelse gümnaasiumi lõpetanud üliõpilased. Artiklis uurime, milliseid eesti keelekogukonnale omaseid sotsiaalseid norme ehk sotsiopragmaatikat märkavad ülikoolis vene dominantkeelega üliõpilased. Analüüsime suhtluskeele valikut ülikoolis ja seda mõjutavaid tegureid ning mitmekeelsete suhtluspartnerite eestikeelse suhtluse pragmaatilisi aspekte (sinatamine, teietamine ja muud pöördumisvormid, vältimisstrateegiad). Empiirilised andmed pärinevad kahest autorite poolt Tartu Ülikoolis kogutud andmestikust: vaatlusandmed ja intervjuud üliõpilaste keelevalikute kohta ning intervjuud nende keelelisest ja kultuurilisest kohanemisest ülikoolis. Meetodina kasutame kvalitatiivset deduktiivset sisuanalüüsi. Leidsime, et vene dominantkeelega tudengid tajuvad ülikooli keskkonnana, kus läheb vaja formaalset keelekasutust, samuti rõhutavad nad eesti- ja venekeelses suhtluspragmaatikas pöördumisvormide lahknevust. Abstract. Birute Klaas-Lang, Kadri Koreinik, Kerttu Rozenvalde: From school to university: What cultural differences in communication do Russian-dominant students notice at the University of Tartu. The University of Tartu, being multilingual and multicultural, is a meeting point for different ethnic and school cultures. Last year, one tenth of the students at the University of Tartu had graduated from a Russian-language elementary school and a bilingual high school in Estonia. In the paper, we investigate which social norms or sociopragmatics specific to the Estonian language community are noticed by Russian-dominant students at the university. We analyse the choice of language of communication at the university and the factors influencing it, as well as the pragmatic aspects of the multilinguals’ communication in Estonian (tu and vous pronouns and other forms of address, avoidance strategies). The empirical data comes from two datasets collected by the authors at the University of Tartu: observational data and interviews about students’ language choices, and interviews about their linguistic and cultural adaptation at the university. We use qualitative deductive content analysis as a method. We found that Russian-dominant students perceive the university as an environment that requires formal language use and using forms of address in a manner that is unfamiliar to most interviewees.

show abstract

Section: Mille Poolest Erineb Suhtlemine üLikoolis Tudengite Varasema...unclassified

unclassified

Viisakalt koolist ülikooli: milliseid suhtluskultuuri eripärasid märkavad vene dominantkeelega üliõpilased?

Klaas-Lang,

Koreinik,

Rozenvalde

2023

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Discursive practices may (re)produce unequal relationships between groups, by representing and positioning some phenomena, such as linguistic practices or forms, of greater worth than others. To gain a more nuanced understanding of LPP, standardization, and lexicography, critical and discourse-analytical approaches have proven to be more than appropriate (Blackledge 2005;Koreinik 2011;Paffey 2012;Barakos, Unger 2016;Hult 2017;Heller, Pietikäinen & Pujolar 2017;Wenge 2019). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has been utilized by scholars interested in unmasking abuse of power and the ideologies and interests of particular groups (e.g., van Leeuwen 1995;van Dijk 1998;van Leeuwen & Wodak 1999).…”

Section: Language Planning As Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

“…role models); a claim of others being involved in similar practices is made (excerpt 4). Europe has been serving as a legitimate point of reference also in other (Estonian) language ideological debates (Koreinik 2011). In excerpt 5, the DSE is compared to institutions and/or symbols of national significance where knowledge is accumulated over centuries.…”

Section: Authorization Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20 (8) This myth ["that there is a centrally planned more accurate and appropriate way of speaking and writing than our mother tongue"] is dangerous to Estonian as it suppresses speakers' initiative and ingenuity in the use and advancement of their language and deprives them of the responsibility that comes with it (AT 110522). 21 The causal schema towards an unwanted future, but also other examples from the text corpus belong to the discourses of language endangerment (see Koreinik 2011), which is not surprising given that concerns regarding the endangerment of Estonian have been voiced since the mid-1800s (Ehala et al 2014).…”

Section: Rationalization Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extralinguistic arguments in 21st century language planning discourse: a “superdictionary” between language standardization from above and below

Koreinik

2023

ESUKA-JEFUL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language standardization has historically been a critical area of inquiry in language policy and planning (LPP) research. This is a political matter, which contributes to “more (and hierarchical) heterogeneity” rather than linguistic homogeneity (Gal 2006: 171). The paper empirically explores extralinguistic arguments, which are used by language professionals (planners, academics, educators) in mainstream media discourse. This public discourse is initiated by the launch of an Estonian “superdictionary” in 2019 (see Tavast et al. 2020), and its public reception. By using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a method, the paper also provides insight into the discursive construction of language as such and (Standard) Estonian by different LPP actors. Above all, it aims to understand the issues of power and authority in language standardization. The discourse illustrates the paradigmatic change in standardization and lexicography: from including selected language samples to the acceptance of non-elite language variants and varieties. This change has generated a polarization of stance among language professionals, and similar discursive moves, e.g., references to the past and future dangers, metaphors and other comparisons are used. Kokkuvõte. Kadri Koreinik: Keelevälised argumendid 21. sajandi keelekorraldusdiskursuses: „supersõnaraamat“ ülalt-alla ja alt-üles keelekorralduse vahel. Keele standardimist peetakse keelepoliitika ja -korraldusuuringute üheks keskseks huviobjektiks. Standardimine ehk normimine on poliitiline valik, mis selmet keelelist homogeensust luua, tekitab hoopis heterogeensust, mis on olemuselt hierarhiline: normikeelt kas osatakse või mitte (Gal 2006). Artiklis uuritakse keeleväliseid argumente, mida kasutavad peavoolumeedias normimise üle arutlemiseks keelega professionaalselt seotud inimesed (keelekorraldajad, -teadlased, haridustegelased). Uuritav diskursus lähtub nn sõnastikureformist ja selle retseptsioonist. Analüüsimeetodina kasutatakse kriitilist diskursusanalüüsi, mis võimaldab süvitsi uurida, kuidas avalikkuses konstrueeritakse keelega, sh eesti kirjakeelega seotud tähendusi. Lisaks aitab analüüs mõista võimu ja domineerimise küsimusi keele normimisel. Diskursuses kajastub paradigmaatiline muutus, mis väärtustab kasutus- ja korpuspõhist lähenemist leksikograafias, aga ka keele normimisel. Kuigi muutus on löönud „keeleinimesed“ kahte lehte, kasutatakse poolt- või vastuargumentides samu võtteid: viiteid autoriteetidele, keele ohustatusele, metafoore ja teisi võrdlusi.

show abstract

Policy Drag & Resiliency: Teachers’ Response to Voluntary Language Policy in Southeastern Estonia

Brown

2017

Language Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public Discourse of (De)legitimation: The Case of South Estonian Language

Cited by 15 publications

References 37 publications

Viisakalt koolist ülikooli: milliseid suhtluskultuuri eripärasid märkavad vene dominantkeelega üliõpilased?

Viisakalt koolist ülikooli: milliseid suhtluskultuuri eripärasid märkavad vene dominantkeelega üliõpilased?

Extralinguistic arguments in 21st century language planning discourse: a “superdictionary” between language standardization from above and below

Policy Drag & Resiliency: Teachers’ Response to Voluntary Language Policy in Southeastern Estonia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About