Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (1993) ► pp.123–141

Choosing a liturgical language

Language policy and the Catholic mass

| Australian National University

Religious language use in a multilingual community represents a special case of language planning. The choice of a liturgical language is determined both by religious and practical considerations and is based, in part, on the ways in which people view sacred activities. The Catholic Church has at various times during its history promoted and condemned the celebration of the Mass in vernacular languages. The language policy of the Church has been a response to two factors: the need for uniformity and integrity of doctrine and the need for the worshipping community to have access to the meaning of the words of the liturgical action. These two factors have received different emphases at different times in the history of the Church with the consequence that the Church has supported either plurality or uniformity in the choice of the liturgical languages of the Mass.

Published online: 1 January 1993
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.16.2.06lid
References
Abbott, W.M. and J. Gallagher
(eds) (1966) The Documents of Vatican II Chapman, London.Google Scholar
Bellarmine, R.
(1858) Opera omnia. Volume 31. Naples.Google Scholar
Bontinck, F.
(1962) La lutte autour de la litourgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIII siècles. Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain.Google Scholar
Cary-Elwes, C.
(1957) China and the cross: Studies in missionary history. London, Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
Cazeneuve, J.
(1958) Les rites et la condition humaine d’après des documents ethnographiques. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(1965) Linguistics, language and religion. London, Burns and Oates.Google Scholar
D’Elia, P.M.
(1927) Catholic native episcopacy in China. Shanghai, T’usewei Printing Press.Google Scholar
Dix, G.
(1945) The Shape of the liturgy. London, Black.Google Scholar
Gerlier, P.
(1956) Les rituels bilingues. La maison Dieu 47–481:83–97.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C.A.
(1959) Diglossia. Word, 151:325–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1945) The beginning of national self-determination in Europe The Review of Politics 71:29–42 Reprinted in J. Fishman (ed.) Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B.
(1923) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C.K. Ogden and I. A. Richards (eds) The Meaning of Meaning. London, Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rea, J.C.
(ed.) (1962) St John’s missal for everyday. Melbourne, Leggo.Google Scholar
Shroeder, H.J.
(1941) Canons and Degrees of the Council of Trent. London, Herder.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Hoenes del Pinal, Eric
2016. From Vatican II to speaking in tongues: theology and language policy in a Q’eqchi’-Maya Catholic parish. Language Policy 15:2 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2012. Language Planning in Religious Observance. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, DOI logo
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2012. Language planning as an element of religious practice. Current Issues in Language Planning 13:2 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Luo, Junjie
2022. Researching Traditional Chinese Fiction in the English-Speaking World: Translations and Critiques of Jin Ping Mei. In Traditional Chinese Fiction in the English-Speaking World [Chinese Literature and Culture in the World, ], ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.