Advertisement

Language Policy

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 263–283 | Cite as

Minority language standardisation and the role of users

  • Pia Lane
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

Developing a standard for a minority language is not a neutral process; this has consequences for the status of the language and how the language users relate to the new standard. A potential inherent problem with standardisation is whether the language users themselves will accept and identify with the standard. When standardising minority languages one risks establishing a standard that the users do not identify with, and thus, standardisation which was supposed to empower minority language speakers may create a new form of stigma for those who feel that they cannot live up to the new codified standard (Lane 2011). In order to investigate the role of users in minority language standardisation processes this article analyses language standardisation as a form of technology and draws on theories from Science and Technology Studies (STS), focussing on actors who resist or even reject (aspects of) standardisation. STS has investigated standardisation of technologies (Bowker and Star 2000) and the reflexive relationship between standards and users (Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003). Insights from these investigations are applied to the case of standardisation of Kven, a minority language spoken in Northern Norway, with a particular emphasis on how users of the standard are inscribed and configured (Woolgar 1991), the exclusionary effects of standards (Star 1991; Gal 2006; Lane 2011) and the positions of non-users (Wyatt 2003).

Keywords

Minority language standardisation Technology Users Critical turn Agency 

References

  1. Andreassen, I. (2009). Normering 1–2009: Normering av kvensk skriftspråk— hva er oppnådd per januar 2009? Børselv: Kainun institutti - Kvensk Institutt.Google Scholar
  2. Auroux, S. (1994). La revolution technologique de la grammatisation. Liège: Madarga.Google Scholar
  3. Blommaert, J., Kelly-Holmes, H., Leppänen, S., Lane, P., Moriarty, M., Pietikäinen, S., et al. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: An introduction. Language Policy, 8(3), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker, G., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cabanel, P. (1997). La question nationale au XXe Siecle. Paris: Découvert.Google Scholar
  6. Costa, J., & Gasquet-Cyrus, M. (2013). What is language revitalisation really about? Competing language revitalisation movements in Provence. In M. C. Jones & S. Ogilvie (Eds.), Keeping languages alive (pp. 212–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Distansestudium i kvænsk i Nord-Troms [Long distance course in Kven in Northern Troms]. (2008). Sagat Newspaper, Issue 64.Google Scholar
  8. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (2007). Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Eira, C., & Stebbins, T. (2008). Authenticities and lineages: Revisiting concepts of continuity and change in language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 189, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications for the study of publics and practices. Social Anthropology, 14(2), 163–181.Google Scholar
  12. Goody, J. (2000). The power of the written tradition. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1963). The consequences of literacy. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5(3), 304–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language; essays by Einar Haugen. Selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24.Google Scholar
  16. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 966–1001.Google Scholar
  17. Jewitt, C. (2008). Technology, literacy, learning: A multimodal approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Joseph, J. (2004). Language and identity. National, ethnic, religious. Palgrave: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B, Jr. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, R. B., Baldauf, R. B, Jr, Liddicoat, A. J., Bryant, P., Barbaux, M.-T., & Pütz, M. (2000). Current issues in language planning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kieffer, R. D., Labbo, L. D., Mckenna, M. C., & Reinking, D. (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology transformations in a post typographic world. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Kloss, H. (1967). Bilingualism and nationalism. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kristiansen, T., & Coupland, N. (2011). SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. In T. Kristiansen & N. Coupland (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards in a changing Europe (pp. 11–35). Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
  24. Lane, P. (2009). Mediated national language policy: A case of citizenship categorization in Norwegian media. Language Policy, 8(3), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane, P. (2010). “We did what we thought was best for our children”. A Nexus analysis of language shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 63–78.Google Scholar
  26. Lane, P. (2011). The birth of the Kven language in Norway: Emancipation through state recognition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 209, 57–74.Google Scholar
  27. Lane, P. (2012). Multimodality and culture. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4011–4017). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific fact. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mühlhäusler, P. (2000). Language planning and language ecology. Current issues in Language Planning, 1(3), 306–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Rourke, B., & Pujolar, J. (2013). From native speakers to “new speakers”—Problematizing nativeness in language revitalization contexts. Histoire ÉpistÉmologie Langage, 35(2), 47–67.Google Scholar
  34. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003). How users and non-users matter. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter. The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pennycook, A. (2004). Language policy and the ecological turn. Language Policy, 3(3), 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pietikäinen, S., Huss, L., Laihiala-Kankainen, S., Puoskari, U., & Lane, P. (2010). Regulating multilingualism in the North Calotte: The case of Kven. Meänkieli and Sámi languages. Acta Borealia, 27(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1986, May). Science, relativism and the new sociology of technology: Reply to Russell. Social Studies of Science, 16, 347–360.Google Scholar
  38. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Romaine, S. (2007). Preserving endangered languages. Blackwells Language and Linguistic Compass, 1(1–2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Røyneland, U. (2009). Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest of Europe? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 196(197), 7–31.Google Scholar
  41. Røyneland, U. (2013). “The voice from below”: Norwegian language reforms in the 21st century. In T. Lohndal (Ed.), In search of universal grammar: From old Norse to Zoque (pp. 53–76). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  42. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the emerging Internet. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Star, S. L. (1991). Power, technologies and the phenomenology of standards: On being allergic to onions. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters? Power, technology and the modern world (pp. 27–57). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Sundelin, E. (1998). Kvenene – en nasjonal minoritet i Nord-Troms og Finnmark? In: H. Guttormsen (Ed.), Kvenenes historie og kultur. Seminarrapport (pp. 35–48). Nord-Troms historielag.Google Scholar
  47. Trudgill, P. (2002). Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Vikør, L. (2007). Språkplanlegging. Prinsipp og praksis. Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar
  49. Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters (pp. 57–102). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation. London Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  51. Wyatt, S. (2003). Non-users also matter: The construction of users and non-users of the Internet. In N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch (Eds.), How users matter. The co-construction of users and technology (pp. 67–79). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wyatt, S., Thomas, G. & Terranova, T. (2002). They came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: Conceptualizing use and non-use of the Internet. In: S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality (pp. 23–40). Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://nordboer.wordpress.com/category/nord-norge/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Multilingualism in Society Across the Lifespan (MultiLing)University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations