Rearticulating the case for minority language rights

While advocacy of minority language rights (MLR) has become well established in sociolinguistics, language policy and planning and the wider human rights literature, it has also come under increased criticism in recent times for a number of key limitations. In this paper, I address directly three current key criticisms of the MLR movement. The first is a perceived tendency towards essentialism in articulations of language rights. The second is the apparent utopianism and artificiality of 'reversing language shift' in the face of wider social and political 'realities'. And the third is that the individual mobility of minority-language speakers is far better served by shifting to a majority language. While acknowledging the perspicacity of some of these arguments, I aim to rearticulate a defence of minority language rights that effectively addresses these key concerns. This requires, however, a sociohistorical/sociopolitical rather than a biological/ecological analysis of MLR. In addition, I will argue that a sociohistorical/sociopolitical defence of MLR can problematise the positions often adopted by minority language rights' critics themselves, particularly those who defend majoritarian forms of linguistic essentialism and those who sever the instrumental/identity aspects of language. Implications for language policy and planning will also be discussed

Deconstructing the instrumental/identity divide in language policy debates

Debates about language and literacy policies are increasingly constructed at national levels in relation to their potential contribution to the ‘knowledge economy’, and to the ability of nation-states to compete economically in an increasingly globalised world. Invariably, this instrumental approach to language privileges the role of English as the current world language. Thus, in contexts where English is not spoken as a first language, English is increasingly viewed as the most important and/or useful additional language. In English-dominant contexts, monolingualism in English is seen as being a sufficient, even an ideal language model, while literacy in English comes to stand for literacy (and related social mobility) per se. Where other languages are countenanced at all in these latter contexts, the instrumentalist approach continues to dominate, with so-called international and/or trading languages being constructed as the languages other than English most worth learning, or perhaps even as the only other languages worth learning. The growing dominance of economistic, instrumental approaches to language policy, and the valorisation of English that is associated with them, clearly militate against ongoing individual and societal multilingualism. The languages most at risk here are so-called minority languages, particularly indigenous languages. In the new globalised world dominated by English, and where the perceived ‘usefulness’ of language is elided with language value, such languages are increasingly constructed as having neither. This paper deconstructs and critiques this positioning of indigenous and other minority languages, along with the wider instrumentality of much language and literacy policy of which it forms a part. In light of this, it also explores how such languages can be actively, justifiably and effectively maintained and promoted, particularly in English-dominant contexts

Bilingual/immersion education in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Setting the context.

Introduction to a special issue of IJBEB, focusing on recent developments in bilingual/ immersion education in Aotearoa/New Zealand, particularly, but not solely, Maori-medium education

Editorial: The challenge of teaching english in diverse contexts

At the international conference on Language, Education and Diversity, held at the University of Waikato in November 2003, 450 delegates from over 30 countries gathered to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing language educators in teaching and learning contexts that are increasingly diverse. The conference was regarded as a major success. It highlighted the importance of bringing together educators from different fields – bilingual education, TESL, literacy education and language planning and policy – to discuss the urgent issue of addressing and accommodating diversity more effectively

Is surgery more effective than non-surgical treatment for spinal stenosis and which non-surgical treatment is more effective? a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis can be treated both conservatively and with decompression surgery. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness of surgery vs conservative treatment, and conservative interventions for spinal stenosis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro and Cochrane databases, as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. STUDY SELECTION: The search included non-English studies, and all conservative interventions were included. STUDY APPRAISAL: The PEDro scale was used to assess quality, and levels of evidence were used to synthesise studies where possible. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, and 18 were high-quality studies. Decompression surgery was more effective than conservative care in four out of five studies, but only one of these was of high quality. In six high-quality studies, there was strong evidence that steroid epidural injections were not effective; in four out of five studies (two of which were of high quality), there was moderate evidence that calcitonin was not effective. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of all other conservative interventions. LIMITATIONS: Further research is needed to determine if decompression surgery is more effective than conservative care, and which conservative care is most effective. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: At present, there is no evidence that favours the effect of any conservative management for spinal stenosis. There is an urgent need to see if any conservative treatment can change pain and functional outcomes in spinal stenosis.</p

Accommodating multiculturalism and biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand: implication for language education.

The field of language education in Aotearoa New Zealand, as elsewhere, has developed significantly since its early and almost exclusive focus on the acquisition of English literacy in schools. As the field has expanded, so too has the range of language education sectors addressed and the theoretical approaches and understandings employed in relation to language and literacy education. Both developments have resulted in a more coordinated literacy education policy - exemplified to date most clearly in the New Zealand Literacy Taskforce - and a more situated, less monolithic understanding of the widely different literacies available to learners. Despite these developments, however, one area still remains noticeably under-theorised and marginalized in relation to the ongoing development of language and literacy education policy in Aotearoa New Zealand - the place of second language learners within it. This paper explores this lacuna and the potential policy implications of addressing and integrating first and second language educational concerns within an evolving national literacy education policy. This has particular implications for the further development of bilingual education - both for Maori and, possibly, other minority groups - and for the related possibilities of multicultural education. It also requires a wider and clearer recognition of minority language education rights, as developed within both international law and political theory, in order to apply these rights appropriately to an Aotearoa New Zealand context which is currently witnessing rapid and extensive demographic (and linguistic) change

Sustaining effective literacy practices over time in secondary schools: School organisational and change issues

The effective, sustained implementation of literacy across the curriculum in secondary schools is still a relatively rare phenomenon. This is because such an approach to literacy requires secondary schools to undergo extensive and complex processes of school change, involving altering teachers’ thinking, attitudes and behaviour in relation to literacy and pedagogy, and establishing andmaintaining organisational processes that support teachers’ change processes and their impact on student learning. Such changes take time, not least because they often run counter to traditional organisational and pedagogical approaches in secondary schools. Drawing on our research evaluation of the Secondary Schools’ Literacy Initiative (SSLI) in New Zealand, this paper examines the medium to long term implications of school change processes for secondary schools undertaking a cross-curricular literacy focus. In so doing, it identifies three key phases that secondary schools may undergo in order to achieve and sustain effective literacy practices over time and suggests that these phases, and their characteristics, may well have wider applicability

Dis-lodging literature from English: Challenging linguistic hegemonies

This paper problematises the location of literature "teaching" within the English (L1) curriculum, as is the case in New Zealand and other settings. It defamiliarises this arrangement by drawing attention to official New Zealand policies of biculturalism and to the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in many New Zealand classrooms. It identifies a number of social justice issues arising from the current arrangement, and also raises issues in respect of educational policy and ways in which canonical subjects become constructed in practice. It then discusses ways in which a new qualifications template developed at the University of Waikato might provide a vehicle for establishing a new arrangement, in terms of which literature study is dislodged from English and reshaped as a course of study entitled Literature in Society. It indicates ways in which Comparative Literature, as a predominantly university-constituted discipline, might contribute to the theorisation of this new arrangement

Derechos lingüísticos como derechos humanos

In the last 60 years, we have seen the growing development and articulation of human rights, particularly within international law and within and across supranational organizations. However, in that period, the right to maintain one’s language(s), without discrimination, remains peculiarly under–represented and/or problematized as a key human right. This is primarily because the recognition of language rights presupposes a recognition of the importance of wider group memberships and social contexts — conceptions that ostensibly militate against the primacy of individual rights in the post–Second World War era. This paper will explore the arguments for and against language rights, particularly for minority groups within Europe, arguing that language rights can and should be recognized as an important human right. In so doing, the paper will draw on theoretical debates in political theory and international law, as well as the substantive empirical example of Catalonia.En los últimos sesenta años, hemos sido testigos del creciente desarrollo y de la articulación de los derechos humanos, en especial en el seno del derecho internacional y a través de las organizaciones internacionales. Sin embargo, en ese periodo, el derecho a mantener una o varias lenguas propias sin discriminación permanece particularmente relegado y/o cuestionado como un derecho humano clave. Esto se debe principalmente a que el reconocimiento de los derechos lingüísticos presupone el reconocimiento de la importancia de un grupo amplio de miembros y contextos sociales —concepciones éstas que chocan ostensiblemente con la primacía de los derechos individuales en la era posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial—. Este artículo explora los argumentos a favor y en contra de los derechos lingüísticos, en particular de grupos minoritarios en Europa, y sostiene que los derechos lingüísticos pueden y deben ser reconocidos como un importante derecho humano. De este modo, el artículo se basa en los debates ideológicos de teoría política y derecho internacional, así como en el importante ejemplo empírico de Cataluña

Maori-medium education: current issues and challenges.

This paper summarises the key issues and challenges that have emerged from a recent major report by the authors on Maori-medium education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The discussion is situated within a wider international analysis of bilingual/immersion programmes, including heritage language programmes for indigenous peoples. Key issues explored in the paper include the negotiation of, and occasional tension between, the wider goals of indigenous Maori language revitalisation and the successful achievement of bilingualism and biliteracy in Maori-medium educational contexts. Issues to do with current pedagogy, staffing and resourcing of Maori-medium programmes are also examined. The paper concludes with suggestions for the ongoing development and extension of Maori-medium education