More than 25 years have passed since CLIL was first introduced in schools all over Europe with objectives, methods and organizational structures that often also vary from one country to another. Time has passed, and still without a precise framework of reference, CLIL shows its great potential as well as its drawbacks. Using data from research conducted in Italy with four CLIL teachers who teach physics through a foreign language, this article aims to highlight the possibility that CLIL can serve to make every teacher, regardless of the subject, aware of the role that language can play in learning. The data collected, which refer to the Italian education system, emphasize the central role of the subject teacher in CLIL implementation. They also draw attention to the need for important changes in the CLIL agenda for the coming years.
{"title":"Languages for learning","authors":"Silvia Minardi","doi":"10.1075/lplp.21025.min","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.21025.min","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000More than 25 years have passed since CLIL was first introduced in schools all over Europe with objectives, methods and organizational structures that often also vary from one country to another. Time has passed, and still without a precise framework of reference, CLIL shows its great potential as well as its drawbacks. Using data from research conducted in Italy with four CLIL teachers who teach physics through a foreign language, this article aims to highlight the possibility that CLIL can serve to make every teacher, regardless of the subject, aware of the role that language can play in learning. The data collected, which refer to the Italian education system, emphasize the central role of the subject teacher in CLIL implementation. They also draw attention to the need for important changes in the CLIL agenda for the coming years.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42436670","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Yohannes (2021): Language Policy in Ethiopia: The Interplay Between Policy and Practice in Tigray Regional State. Contributions by Joseph Lo Bianco and Joy Kreeft Peyton","authors":"A. Bausi","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00082.bau","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00082.bau","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45039609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Peled & Weinstock (2020): Language Ethics","authors":"Elvira Riera‐Gil","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00081.rie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00081.rie","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44927590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International NGOs (INGOs) are important agents in delivering the UN’s sustainable development agenda, but their linguistic practices have received little attention in the field of language policy and planning. This article aims to add new insights to the field by exploring the link between INGOs’ organisational value of inclusiveness and their institutional approaches to translation. It does so through a case study of Oxfam GB’s and Tearfund’s translation policy documents. The analysis reveals that the policy documents focus on written translation into a handful of lingua francas. In other words, they largely overlook the need for interpreting and translation from and into local languages. In addition, the policy documents do not make any overt links between principles of (linguistic) inclusiveness and the need for translation. The article summarises the advantages and drawbacks of creating a translation policy, and provides guidance on linking translation policy more overtly to values of inclusiveness.
{"title":"Translation as inclusion?","authors":"Wine Tesseur","doi":"10.1075/lplp.21002.tes","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.21002.tes","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000International NGOs (INGOs) are important agents in delivering the UN’s sustainable development agenda, but their linguistic practices have received little attention in the field of language policy and planning. This article aims to add new insights to the field by exploring the link between INGOs’ organisational value of inclusiveness and their institutional approaches to translation. It does so through a case study of Oxfam GB’s and Tearfund’s translation policy documents. The analysis reveals that the policy documents focus on written translation into a handful of lingua francas. In other words, they largely overlook the need for interpreting and translation from and into local languages. In addition, the policy documents do not make any overt links between principles of (linguistic) inclusiveness and the need for translation. The article summarises the advantages and drawbacks of creating a translation policy, and provides guidance on linking translation policy more overtly to values of inclusiveness.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41652502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
With the emergence of the notion of Standard Quebec French, debates about linguistic usage in Quebec are today largely shaped by two competing normative models: an exonorm defined for all intents and purposes in France and an endonorm reflecting socially acceptable usage as determined by Quebecers themselves. While language attitude research has provided some indication of the normative preferences of ordinary Quebecers, the picture remains largely ambiguous. This article seeks to provide some clarity through a reconceptualisation of language attitudes intended to specifically elicit value judgments on norm setting and enforcement. Building on research in political philosophy and theory, it further develops the notion of ‘pluricentric linguistic justice’, proposed as a tool for assessing questions of authority and legitimacy concerning French in Quebec. It then presents the results of an empirical exploration of this notion focused on the attitudes of a sample of francophone Quebecers towards endonormativity, including as a function of key social variables. The study represents an innovative attempt to develop and test a methodological instrument for interrogating questions of linguistic justice in pluricentric settings more broadly.
{"title":"Pluricentric linguistic justice in Quebec","authors":"Leigh Oakes, Yael Peled","doi":"10.1075/lplp.20041.oak","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.20041.oak","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 With the emergence of the notion of Standard Quebec French, debates about linguistic usage in Quebec are today\u0000 largely shaped by two competing normative models: an exonorm defined for all intents and purposes in France and an endonorm\u0000 reflecting socially acceptable usage as determined by Quebecers themselves. While language attitude research has provided some\u0000 indication of the normative preferences of ordinary Quebecers, the picture remains largely ambiguous. This article seeks to\u0000 provide some clarity through a reconceptualisation of language attitudes intended to specifically elicit value judgments on norm\u0000 setting and enforcement. Building on research in political philosophy and theory, it further develops the notion of ‘pluricentric\u0000 linguistic justice’, proposed as a tool for assessing questions of authority and legitimacy concerning French in Quebec. It then\u0000 presents the results of an empirical exploration of this notion focused on the attitudes of a sample of francophone Quebecers\u0000 towards endonormativity, including as a function of key social variables. The study represents an innovative attempt to develop\u0000 and test a methodological instrument for interrogating questions of linguistic justice in pluricentric settings more broadly.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45669929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Language policy in the Republic of Ireland has an unusual starting point: the geographical base of the Irish language is very weak and territorially dispersed, yet the constitutional status of the language is extremely strong. The article explores this paradox. It sets Irish language policy in two contexts: that of successful nationalist movements mainly in Central and Eastern Europe in the early twentieth century, and that of the struggling Celtic languages of Western Europe. It explores the evolution of the language and its weakening demographic status since the nineteenth century, noting that while its demographic weakness mirrors that of the other Celtic languages, its constitutional entrenchment resembles that of the national languages of Central and East European states. It attempts to explain this by suggesting that the language has played a marginal role in nationalist mobilisation; the language served as a symbol of a specific cultural heritage rather than as the vital lingua franca of the community. The central role of the language in nationalist ideology, however, failed to address the reality of continuing decline in the Irish-speaking districts, notwithstanding the emergence of a sizeable population of ‘new speakers’ of the language outside these districts.
{"title":"Geographical retreat and symbolic advance?","authors":"J. Coakley","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00079.coa","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00079.coa","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Language policy in the Republic of Ireland has an unusual starting point: the geographical base of the Irish\u0000 language is very weak and territorially dispersed, yet the constitutional status of the language is extremely strong. The article\u0000 explores this paradox. It sets Irish language policy in two contexts: that of successful nationalist movements mainly in Central\u0000 and Eastern Europe in the early twentieth century, and that of the struggling Celtic languages of Western Europe. It explores the\u0000 evolution of the language and its weakening demographic status since the nineteenth century, noting that while its demographic\u0000 weakness mirrors that of the other Celtic languages, its constitutional entrenchment resembles that of the national languages of\u0000 Central and East European states. It attempts to explain this by suggesting that the language has played a marginal role in\u0000 nationalist mobilisation; the language served as a symbol of a specific cultural heritage rather than as the vital lingua franca\u0000 of the community. The central role of the language in nationalist ideology, however, failed to address the reality of continuing\u0000 decline in the Irish-speaking districts, notwithstanding the emergence of a sizeable population of ‘new speakers’ of the language\u0000 outside these districts.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47586990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that the linguistic territoriality principle cannot be considered as a general guideline for the design of language policy but rather as a tool to find the right balance between linguistic freedom and linguistic peace under given circumstances. The article traces the origin and evolution of language policy principles during the drafting process of the new constitutional article in its three official language versions. The Swiss language regime is embedded in an institutional system of executive federalism in which mostly monolingual cantons and municipalities are in charge of implementing nearly all public policy. This significantly reduces the relevance of the inconsistency between a formally personalistic multilingual federal language regime and linguistic territoriality deriving from cantonal language regimes. The point of the new federal regulation is to provide room for manoeuvre for cantonal policymakers to adopt legislation based on linguistic territoriality. The relevant constitutional article recognises that territorial language policies can be implemented to ensure linguistic peace. At the same time, the personality principle may be adopted to protect autochthonous linguistic minorities.
{"title":"Linguistic territoriality in Switzerland","authors":"Till Burckhardt","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00077.bur","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00077.bur","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article argues that the linguistic territoriality principle cannot be considered as a general guideline for the\u0000 design of language policy but rather as a tool to find the right balance between linguistic freedom and linguistic peace under\u0000 given circumstances. The article traces the origin and evolution of language policy principles during the drafting process of the\u0000 new constitutional article in its three official language versions. The Swiss language regime is embedded in an institutional\u0000 system of executive federalism in which mostly monolingual cantons and municipalities are in charge of implementing nearly all\u0000 public policy. This significantly reduces the relevance of the inconsistency between a formally personalistic multilingual federal\u0000 language regime and linguistic territoriality deriving from cantonal language regimes. The point of the new federal regulation is\u0000 to provide room for manoeuvre for cantonal policymakers to adopt legislation based on linguistic territoriality. The relevant\u0000 constitutional article recognises that territorial language policies can be implemented to ensure linguistic peace. At the same\u0000 time, the personality principle may be adopted to protect autochthonous linguistic minorities.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44383939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that the geographically dispersed distribution of the minorities in the Baltic republics (apart from the Poles in Lithuania and the Russians in Northeast Estonia) constitutes an objective obstacle to provision of territorially based minority rights. However, the potential alternatives to the territorial principle are also rarely adopted. The cultural autonomy model in Estonia and Latvia failed to be implemented in practice, while threshold rules (in respect of topographical bilingualism, for example) are in force only in Estonia, and there with the highest threshold in Europe (50%). The paper aims to explain the reluctance to adopt these solutions by reviewing the main factors that affect language policy implementation in general. It also considers the background to the debate over which languages need protection: the minority languages within the Baltic States or the titular languages themselves (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian), which at the global level are small and vulnerable. In general, the strictness of language policies is in inverse relation to the size of the minorities, with Lithuania being the most liberal and Latvia the most restrictive.
{"title":"Territorial and non-territorial arrangements in a multi-ethno-linguistic context","authors":"Á. Németh","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00075.nem","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00075.nem","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article argues that the geographically dispersed distribution of the minorities in the Baltic republics\u0000 (apart from the Poles in Lithuania and the Russians in Northeast Estonia) constitutes an objective obstacle to provision of\u0000 territorially based minority rights. However, the potential alternatives to the territorial principle are also rarely adopted. The\u0000 cultural autonomy model in Estonia and Latvia failed to be implemented in practice, while threshold rules (in respect of\u0000 topographical bilingualism, for example) are in force only in Estonia, and there with the highest threshold in Europe (50%). The\u0000 paper aims to explain the reluctance to adopt these solutions by reviewing the main factors that affect language policy\u0000 implementation in general. It also considers the background to the debate over which languages need protection: the minority\u0000 languages within the Baltic States or the titular languages themselves (Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian), which at the global\u0000 level are small and vulnerable. In general, the strictness of language policies is in inverse relation to the size of the\u0000 minorities, with Lithuania being the most liberal and Latvia the most restrictive.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49526601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Language policy debates regularly refer to the principles of personality and territoriality. Yet the precise meaning of these principles remains unclear. In this contribution, I conceptualize these principles as poles of a continuum between official bilingualism (instantiating the personality principle) and official unilingualism (exemplifying the territoriality principle), with a mixed regime in between (which grants a certain territorial primacy to a language, but allows exceptions based on linguistic affiliation). The question of the determination of particular points on the continuum cannot be separated from the metaterritorial question of the boundaries of the units within which those principles apply. Application of this ‘continuum model’ to Belgium draws attention to three language-political regimes. The first invokes a strict personality principle (Brussels). The second follows the strict territoriality principle (almost all municipalities in Flanders and Wallonia). The third is a mixed regime (a total of 27 ‘municipalities with facilities’ where one language enjoys primacy but speakers of another language enjoy certain linguistic ‘facilities’). The article also analyses the manner in which these regimes were historically established in Belgium in combination with a delineation of the language border and the division of the country into four language areas.
{"title":"Personality and territoriality in theory and in Belgium","authors":"H. D. Schutter","doi":"10.1075/lplp.00078.sch","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00078.sch","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Language policy debates regularly refer to the principles of personality and territoriality. Yet the precise meaning of these principles remains unclear. In this contribution, I conceptualize these principles as poles of a continuum between official bilingualism (instantiating the personality principle) and official unilingualism (exemplifying the territoriality principle), with a mixed regime in between (which grants a certain territorial primacy to a language, but allows exceptions based on linguistic affiliation). The question of the determination of particular points on the continuum cannot be separated from the metaterritorial question of the boundaries of the units within which those principles apply. Application of this ‘continuum model’ to Belgium draws attention to three language-political regimes. The first invokes a strict personality principle (Brussels). The second follows the strict territoriality principle (almost all municipalities in Flanders and Wallonia). The third is a mixed regime (a total of 27 ‘municipalities with facilities’ where one language enjoys primacy but speakers of another language enjoy certain linguistic ‘facilities’). The article also analyses the manner in which these regimes were historically established in Belgium in combination with a delineation of the language border and the division of the country into four language areas.","PeriodicalId":44345,"journal":{"name":"Language Problems & Language Planning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49628546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：