Language Planning as Nation Building

The decades around 1800 constitute the seminal period of European nationalism. The linguistic corollary of this was the rise of standard language ideology, from Finland to Spain, and from Iceland to the Habsburg Empire. Amidst these international events, the case of Dutch in the Netherlands offers a unique example. After the rise of the ideology from the 1750s onwards, the new discourse of one language–one nation was swiftly transformed into concrete top-down policies aimed at the dissemination of the newly devised standard language across the entire population of the newly established Dutch nation-state. Thus, the Dutch case offers an exciting perspective on the concomitant rise of cultural nationalism, national language planning and standard language ideology. This study offers a comprehensive yet detailed analysis of these phenomena by focussing on the ideology underpinning the new language policy, the institutionalisation of this ideology in metalinguistic discourse, the implementation of the policy in education, and the effects of the policy on actual language use

Think small. The construction of imagined tradition in German "Land"-magazines

This article is the first linguistic analysis of a new category of lifestyle magazines in the German speaking countries, based on methods of corpus linguistics and multimodal discourse analysis. Since the launch of the magazine LandLust in Germany in 2005, more than twenty publications of so called "land magazines" have appeared on the market, attracting millions of readers. Our research analyses land magazines as discursive events. We examine the specific combination of discourses land magazines are serving or creating by looking at the semiotic practices – writing and images – they manifest themselves by. Our results show that the magazine under scrutiny does not simply provide new forms of escapism but also positions itself politically in subtle ways as part of the traditional-conservative spectrum by reacting to metalinguistic discourses such as purism and feminist criticism

Racism and conceptual analysis: A defense of the Wittgensteinian approach

This dissertation defends Ludwig Wittgenstein’s grammatical approach to philosophy in the context of contemporary theories of racism. Grammatical analysis does not aim at theory-construction, but at conceptual clarity that is free from conceptual confusion. My aim is to dissolve conceptual confusion in contemporary theories of racism. I clarify ordinary uses of ‘racism’ and its cognates, and key analytical terms (e.g., ‘description,’ ‘correct use,’ ‘definition,’ ‘disagreement,’ and so on). Whereas contemporary ‘descriptive approaches’ are explanatory on the model of hypothetico-deductive theories in the natural sciences, the grammatical method is purely descriptive on the model of clarifying the rules of a legal code or game. Currently, there are few defenses of Wittgenstein’s grammatical approach in the normative domain (e.g., moral, social and political philosophy) although that is slowly changing. Most philosophers who seek to extend Wittgenstein to this domain deliberately violate his central commitment to pure description (‘philosophy leaves everything as it is’), for it is typical of this field to resolve practical problems. Thus, the so-called quietist objection states that pure description is necessarily conservative, since it precludes the possibility of criticizing ordinary usage. Most Wittgenstein-inspired approaches concede this point and proceed to reject pure description. The quietist objection is shown to be misguided (in chapter 1), for it rests on the dubious assumption that pure description is incompatible with critical and revisionist philosophical approaches. The Wittgensteinian need not object to Wittgenstein-inspired philosophers who appropriate elements of his picture of language for their own purposes, including those who revise, criticize and extend grammar. However, Wittgenstein’s purely descriptive method is shown to be essential to the achievement of conceptual clarity that is free from conceptual confusion. To abandon it, therefore, is to engage in a different philosophical project by virtue of pursuing some other end. My argument in defense of Wittgenstein’s grammatical method is that clarity about both the concept of racism and conceptual analysis can dispel conceptual confusion in contemporary theories of racism. The main targets of my arguments are Clevis Headley, Joshua Glasgow, Leonard Harris, and Jorge L. A. Garcia. I also engage the work of Lawrence Blum and Charles Mills. My aim is not to offer a grammatical overview of racism’s vast conceptual terrain, but to focus on key manifestations of racism to dissolve confusion. Conceptual clarity does not merely undermine some theories of racism, for the confusions I dissolve are methodological in nature. The positive upshots include: • Clarity about the difference between a definition of ‘racism’ and a description of racism (introduction) • Clarity about the sense in which a definition of ‘racism’ is ‘correct’ (chapter 2) • Clarity about the role of ‘adequacy conditions’ in descriptive theories of racism (chapter 3) • Clarity about the nature of ‘disagreement about racism’ (chapters 4-5) • Clarity about the distinction between ‘descriptive’ and ‘prescriptive’ approaches (chapter 6) In each case, the dissolution of conceptual confusion is connected with greater clarity. What begins to emerge is a more nuanced understanding of ‘theory of racism.’ For example, empirical and a priori approaches are shown to pursue different goals. As such, these different approaches are not inherently incompatible. My dissertation makes two substantial contributions to the philosophy of race. First, it dissolves substantial forms of conceptual confusion in contemporary theories and approaches to racism. Second, my heuristic defense of Wittgenstein’s grammatical approach establishes its pragmatic value for the philosophy of race. My dissertation also makes a substantial contribution to Wittgenstein studies. It does four things, which, taken together, have not been done in the field: (a) it applies Wittgenstein’s method to the normative domain, (b) without rejecting his central claim that philosophy is purely descriptive; (c) without rejecting the possibility of normative approaches; and (d) without falling victim to the objection that his purely descriptive approach is “quiet” on social issues and is therefore politically conservative

Language Planning as Nation Building

The decades around 1800 constitute the seminal period of European nationalism. The linguistic corollary of this was the rise of standard language ideology, from Finland to Spain, and from Iceland to the Habsburg Empire. Amidst these international events, the case of Dutch in the Netherlands offers a unique example. After the rise of the ideology from the 1750s onwards, the new discourse of one language–one nation was swiftly transformed into concrete top-down policies aimed at the dissemination of the newly devised standard language across the entire population of the newly established Dutch nation-state. Thus, the Dutch case offers an exciting perspective on the concomitant rise of cultural nationalism, national language planning and standard language ideology. This study offers a comprehensive yet detailed analysis of these phenomena by focussing on the ideology underpinning the new language policy, the institutionalisation of this ideology in metalinguistic discourse, the implementation of the policy in education, and the effects of the policy on actual language use

The Logic of Language Change

A discussion of the relation of dialectical transitions in Hegel's speculative logic to changes in categories and grammar in the empirical historical languages

Ideology, Generics, and Common Ground

Introduction: Are sagging pants cool? Are cows food? Are women more submissive than men? Are blacks more criminal than whites? Taking the social world at face value, many people would be tempted to answer these questions in the affirmative. And if challenged, they can point to facts that support their answers. But there is something wrong about the affirmative answers. I deny that sagging pants are cool, cows are food, women are more submissive than men, and blacks are more criminal than whites. And moreover, I maintain that there is an objective basis for denying these claims even though the facts seem to support the face value affirmative response. But how can that be? We all know that male urban youth can barely walk with their pants belted around their thighs, that beef is a staple in the American diet, that blacks are incarcerated in the United States at a much higher rate than any other race, and that women defer to men in both work and family life. How could a denial of these facts be justified

An ideational level of Ukrainian counterpropaganda: the communicative-discursive dimension

The article reveals Ukrainian counterpropaganda ideational structures against Russian propaganda during an active phase of the hybrid war.The purpose of the research is to identify the Ukrainian counterpropaganda tools to debunk mythologemes and ideologemes of Russian narrative. The article uses the narrative-discursive analysis method to identify some narrative models of conceptualizing the war as variants of "Tales of the Just War" constructing the schematic narrative templates; structural-semantic modeling and the method of reconstruction of manipulative meanings known as the simulacrum. The main conclusions are that counterpropaganda operates with discourse-forming concepts, mythologemes and ideologemes by means of de-mythologizing, anti-mythologizing and revealing the contradictions of Russian narrative integrated with concepts-ideas of self-defense, messianism and reunification.Demythologization relies on some national narratives, symbols, and archetypes from the memory fields of the Ukrainians and aims at counteracting Russian mythologemes in oppositions: a pseudo-nation and pseudo-state vs. a full-fledged national identity and statehood; a tool of the West vs. people of Western culture; Russia as a liberator of the Ukrainians vs. a liberation struggle of the Ukrainians against Russian aggression.Anti-mythologizing relies on current facts and events that refute propagandist ideologemes, restore a distorted "possible world" and the roles reversed by Russian propaganda