La politique linguistique du québec (1969-2022)
21 Jun 2023-Revista de Llengua i Dret - Journal of Language and Law-Iss: 79, pp 244-263
TL;DR: The authors analyse les principaux changements au régime linguistique québécois depuis la fin des années 1960-2010, and present two main reasons for these changes: the first is that législative initiatives lé gislatives ne visent plus à se plier aux décisions des tribunaux, mais to modifier l'équilibre entre les principes de territorialité and de personnalité, and the second, au profit du premier.
Abstract: Ce texte analyse les principaux changements au régime linguistique québécois depuis la fin des années 1960. Il met de l’avant deux arguments. Le premier est que l’approche québécoise a cherché à combiner, bien que de manière inégale et imparfaite, les deux principes que sont la territorialité et la personnalité, qui ne sont pas mutuellement exclusifs, tout en accordant la prépondérance au premier. Or, dans le contexte juridique canadien, la prépondérance québécoise du principe de territorialité heurte de plein fouet la prépondérance canadienne attribuée au principe de personnalité. C’est ce que les tribunaux doivent trancher de la fin des années 1970 jusqu’en 2010, et les multiples amendements du Québec apportés à la Charte de la langue française ont visé à conformer cette dernière au droit canadien. Le deuxième argument est que le gouvernement du Québec a cherché, depuis 2012, à renforcer le principe de territorialité en réduisant la portée des dispositions associées au principe de personnalité. En d’autres termes, les initiatives législatives ne visent plus à se plier aux décisions des tribunaux, mais à modifier l’équilibre entre les principes de territorialité et de personnalité, et ce, au profit du premier.
01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World as mentioned in this paper argues that linguistic diversity is not valuable in itself but it will nonetheless need to be protected as a byproduct of the pursuit of linguistic diversity as parity of esteem.
Abstract: In Europe and throughout the world, competence in English is spreading at a speed never achieved by any language in human history. This apparently irresistible growing dominance of English is frequently perceived and sometimes indignantly denounced as being grossly unjust. Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World starts off arguing that the dissemination of competence in a common lingua franca is a process to be welcomed and accelerated, most fundamentally because it provides the struggle for greater justice in Europe and in the world with an essential weapon: a cheap medium of communication and of mobilization. However, the resulting linguistic situation can plausibly be regarded as unjust in three distinct senses. Firstly, the adoption of one natural language as the lingua franca implies that its native speakers are getting a free ride by benefiting costlessly from the learning effort of others. Secondly, they gain greater opportunities as a result of competence in their native language becoming a more valuable asset. And thirdly the privilege systematically given to one language fails to show equal respect for the various languages with which different portions of the population concerned identify. Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World spells out the corresponding interpretations of linguistic justice as cooperative justice, distributive justice and parity of esteem, respectively. And it discusses systematically a wide range of policies that might help achieve linguistic justice in these three senses, from a linguistic tax on Anglophone countries to the banning of dubbing or the linguistic territoriality principle. Against this background, the book argues that linguistic diversity is not valuable in itself but it will nonetheless need to be protected as a by-product of the pursuit of linguistic diversity as parity of esteem.
TL;DR: The authors provide an overview of the emerging debates over language policy and linguistic diversity within political philosophy, and present an interpretive scheme for the analysis of the variety of approaches that have so far been developed within this field.
Abstract: This paper provides an overview of the emerging debates over language policy and linguistic diversity within political philosophy. It outlines the larger context of this debate and identifies its protagonists and the main issues at stake in it. In addition, it presents an interpretive scheme for the analysis of the variety of approaches that have so far been developed within this field. This scheme relates these approaches back to two clashes of different language ideologies. The first clash is between instrumentalism and constitutivism. The second clash is between transparency and hybridity. Finally, the paper explains why the sociolinguistic literature on language policy should interest political philosophers, and vice versa: why sociolinguists should engage with political philosophy.
TL;DR: In a simple definitional sense, the concepts of territoriality and personality may be placed in a linguistic setting without difficulty as mentioned in this paper and the concepts themselves have rarely been analyzed in depth or studied comparatively, and most of the systematic work that has been attempted to date appears to have been undertaken from a formal or juridical standpoint.
Abstract: In a simple definitional sense the concepts of territoriality and personality may be placed in a linguistic setting without difficulty. The principle of territoriality means that the rules of language to be applied in a given situation will depend solely on the territory in question; the principle of personality means that the rules will depend on the linguistic status of the person or persons concerned. These terms occur frequently enough in the literature on plurilingual societies, but in the great majority of cases they are found in monographs on individual countries or as passing references in more general works. The concepts themselves have rarely been analyzed in depth or studied comparatively, and most of the systematic work that has been attempted to date appears to have been undertaken from a formal or juridical standpoint. The political, social, and psychological aspects, which are important considerations for the formulation of language policy, appear to have received little serious study, though they are referred to often enough in more polemical settings. If the gap is as large as it appears to be, this paper can scarcely fill it but can only indicate some of the dimensions of the unexplored terrain. Since the topic is broad and the possible approaches are numerous, I propose to discuss three facets only. First, since linguistic diversity is only one of the sources of social cleavage, it may be useful to begin by considering personality and territoriality in broader context as alternative principles of social organization in various settings and circumstances where language need not be a primary factor. Second, I shall examine
TL;DR: The authors compared four countries that recognize two or more legally equal official languages and found that Finland stands out from the others for higher linguistic instability, more flexible adjustment of language boundaries, a unitary (i.e., non-federal) form of government, and some recent indications of transition towards a more pluralistic linguistic model.
Abstract: This article offers a broad comparative overview of four countries that recognize two or more legally equal official languages. Beginning with the historical foundations for language pluralism, it compares selected social structural dimensions: the size, stability, and geographical distribution of language groups; the interface of language divisions with other social cleavages; and foreign influences on domestic language situations. The article discusses intergroup attitudinal studies and emphasizes intergroup sympathy levels as a factor in language planning. A core section then examines constitutional guarantees and ordinary laws on language usage or language rights, including both substantive provisions and the loci of decision-making in each country. A final section touches briefly on how these countries deal with resource allocation among language groups. Among the four countries, Finland stands out from the others for higher linguistic instability, more flexible adjustment of language boundaries, a unitary (i.e. non-federal) form of government, and some recent indications of transition towards a more pluralistic linguistic model.
TL;DR: The authors argue that when both empirical context and an enriched notion of communication focused on effectiveness are considered, local languages, even if categorised as minority languages, do have an instrumental value which has received little attention up to now.
Abstract: Contemporary theories of linguistic justice still tend to deal with a simple dichotomy between majority languages, assumed to be the best communicative or instrumental tools (thus the best tools in terms of socio-economic justice and political participation), and minority languages, assumed to be basically markers of identity (relevant only in terms of ethno-cultural interests when competing with the former) Two problems, intrinsic to the concepts used, shape such a duality Firstly, it requires an empirical contextualisation of what is meant by majority and minority language Secondly, it presupposes a sharp detachment between communication and identity in which communication tends to be understood as a simple information transfer In this paper, I argue that, when both empirical context and an enriched notion of communication focused on effectiveness are considered, local languages, even if categorised as minority languages, do have an instrumental value which has received little attention up to now S