Chapter published in:The Politics of Multilingualism: Europeanisation, globalisation and linguistic governance
Edited by Peter A. Kraus and François Grin
[Studies in World Language Problems 6] 2018
► pp. 145–165
How to measure linguistic justice?
Theoretical considerations and the South Tyrol case study of the Calvet Language Barometer
When the concept of linguistic justice was proposed by Pool (1991) in order to cope with the asymmetries quite often found in multilingual contexts, it immediately provoked a great deal of debate. To sum up the debate, there is broad agreement on the meaning of linguistic in-justice, but it is still not clear what linguistic justice really is. This doubt is reflected in the mechanics of the proposed methods for the evaluation of multilingual contexts. What are we measuring? In particular, justice for whom, for example, national citizens or migrants? At which level of analysis, that is to say, at local, national, or transnational? The answers to these types of questions will determine our choice of the right – or at least the appropriate – parameters to be taken into account in order to design an index of the proposed measurement method. In other words, measures are far from neutral, in spite of the fact that they are quantitative, especially in the field of analytical sociolinguistics (Iannàccaro & Dell’Aquila, 2011). After almost a decade of refinements, in particular by Van Parijs (2004, 2011, 2012), Grin (2011), and Grin and Gazzola (2007) observed that the intangible value of a language, being one of the main carriers of culture, is quite often left aside in the indexes that propose to measure linguistic justice as a whole. The only variable that seems to be generally accepted as being relevant is territory.In this chapter, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its latest version, published on the web in 2012, under the perspective of linguistic justice. I will proceed backwards, as the CLB aims to measure the “linguistic altitude” of languages in isolation – i.e., their position on the scale – while linguistic justice refers to languages in contact and mainly to multilingual contexts. However, the worldwide gravitational model presented in Calvet (2006, 1999), is naturally compatible with the CLB and can be used for this purpose. The case study of South Tyrol will be presented in order to test the CLB in this perspective, showing to what extent the barometer works, where it does not work, and why. In the conclusion, some preliminary ideas about a genuine multilingual measure of linguistic justice will be presented, based upon an operative notion of multilingual equilibrium.
Keywords: linguistic justice, Calvet Language Barometer, multilingualism, language in contact
Published online: 10 September 2018
in press). “Linguistic Justice: An Interdisciplinary Overview of the Literature”, in: Michele Gazzola, et al. (eds) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice: Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches Berlin Springer Verlag. Pre-print published online at http://multilingualism.humanities.uva.nl/download
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman and Tom Schoenemann
Bonfiglio, Thomas Paul
Calvet, Louis,-Jean, and Calvet Alain
(2012) “Baromètre Calvet des langues du monde. WikiLF”. Published online at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012.
(2014a) “Partecipazione, esclusione linguistica e traduzione: Una valutazione del regime linguistico dell’Unione Europea.” (Partecipation, Linguistic Disenfranchisement and Translation: An Evaluation of the Language Regime of the European Union). ELF Working Paper: #12. Université de Genève.
(2014b) “Lingva justeco: kiel taksi ĝin? La ekzemplo de Eŭropa Unio.” (Linguistic Justice: How to Evaluate it? The Example of the European Union), ELF Working Paper: #14. Université de Genève.
(2014c) “Language Policy and Linguistic Justice in the European Union: The Socio-Economic Effects of Multilingualism.” ELF Working Paper: #15. Université de Genève.
Gazzola, Michele, and François Grin
(2011) “Using Territoriality to Support Genuine Linguistic Diversity, not to get Rid of it”, in: Philippe Van Parijs (ed.), The Linguistic Territoriality Principle: Right Violation or Parity of Esteem?, pp. 28–33. Brussels: Re-Bel, 11, available at: www.rethinkingbelgium.eu.
Grin, François, and Michele Gazzola
Hiddinga, Anja, and Onno Crasborn
Iannàccaro, Gabriele, and Vittorio Dell’Aquila
(2011) “Numeri soggettivi. Spunti sulla vitalità linguistica da inchieste e trattamenti quantitativi”, in: Bruno Moretti, Elena Maria Pandolfi and Matteo Casoni (eds), Vitalità di una lingua minoritaria. Aspetti e proposte metodologiche (The Vitality of a Minority Language. Aspects and Methodological Issues), pp. 151–192. Bellinzona: Osservatorio Linguistico della Svizzera Italiana.
Lewis, M. Paul, Gary F. Simons and Charles D. Fennig
(eds) (2014) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Seventeenth Edition, Dallas TX: SIL International, available at: http://www.ethnologue.com, accessed repeatedly since its publication.
Lewis, M. Paul, and Gary F. Simons
Marácz, László, and Mireille Rosello
Meluzzi, Chiara, Simone Ciccolone and Ilaria Fiorentini
(2013) “Contact-induced Innovation in a Multilingual Setting: Evidence from Italian, German, and Ladin in South Tyrol”, 9th UK Language Variation and Change Conference (UKLVC9), Sheffield.
Paolillo, John, Daniel Pimienta and Daniel Prado, et al.
Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa
Van Parijs, Philippe
Cited by 3 other publications
No author info given
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 march 2021. 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.