What is “Language Making”?

This article introduces a new concept called “Language Making”. The term covers all kinds of processes in which speakers or non-speakers collectively conceptualize linguistic entities. Such processes are usually perpetual, they operate based on language ideologies and attitudes, and they bring about functional and structural norms which determine the boundaries of linguistic entities such as languages, dialects or varieties. The article discusses the significance of standardization, language policy and planning, and of stakeholders and agency for processes of Language Making. Raising the question as to why a new concept is needed in the first place, the article concludes with a demarcation of Language Making from opposite processes which may be called “un-Making” of Languages

What is “Language Making”?

This article introduces a new concept called “Language Making”. The term covers all kinds of processes in which speakers or non-speakers collectively conceptualize linguistic entities. Such processes are usually perpetual, they operate based on language ideologies and attitudes, and they bring about functional and structural norms which determine the boundaries of linguistic entities such as languages, dialects or varieties. The article discusses the significance of standardization, language policy and planning, and of stakeholders and agency for processes of Language Making. Raising the question as to why a new concept is needed in the first place, the article concludes with a demarcation of Language Making from opposite processes which may be called “un-Making” of Languages. </p

Development, refinement, and validation of an equine musculoskeletal pain scale

Musculoskeletal disease is a common cause of chronic pain that is often overlooked and inadequately treated, impacting the quality of life of humans and horses alike. Lameness due to musculoskeletal pain is prevalent in horses, but the perception of pain by owners is low compared with veterinary diagnosis. Therefore, this study aims to establish and validate a pain scale for chronic equine orthopaedic pain that is user-friendly for horse owners and veterinarians to facilitate the identification and monitoring of pain in horses. The newly developed musculoskeletal pain scale (MPS) was applied to 154 horses (mean age 20 ± 6.4 years SD) housed at an equine sanctuary, of which 128 (83%) suffered from chronic orthopaedic disease. To complete the MPS, the horses were observed and videotaped from a distance while at rest in their box or enclosure. In addition, they received a complete clinical and orthopaedic exam. The need for veterinary intervention to address pain (assessed and executed by the sanctuary independent from this study) was used as a longitudinal health outcome to determine the MPS’s predictive validity. To determine the interrater agreement, the MPS was scored for a randomly selected subset of 30 horses by six additional blinded raters, three equine veterinary practitioners, and three experienced equestrians. An iterative process was used to refine the tool based on improvements in the MPS’s correlation with lameness evaluated at the walk and trot, predictive validity for longitudinal health outcomes, and interrater agreement. The intraclass correlation improved from 0.77 of the original MPS to 0.88 of the refined version (95% confidence interval: 0.8–0.94). The refined MPS correlated significantly with lameness at the walk (r = 0.44, p = 0.001) and trot (r = 0.5, p &lt; 0.0001). The refined MPS significantly differed between horses that needed veterinary intervention (mean MPS = 8.6) and those that did not (mean MPS = 5.0, p = 0.0007). In summary, the MPS showed good interrater repeatability between expert and lay scorers, significant correlation with lameness at the walk and trot, and good predictive validity for longitudinal health outcomes, confirming its ability to identify horses with orthopaedic health problems

Standard language ideology and multilingualism : results from a survey among European students

This article draws upon data from 1880 students across Europe, gathered through an online survey. It aims at identifying general trends regarding their beliefs about multilingualism: Are these still shaped by the dominant standard language ideology (SLI)? In the article, results from factor analysis that examined underlying dimensions of beliefs about multilingualism and language learning are presented. These dimensions are evaluated differently by subsamples of students. On the one hand, students are divided by national backgrounds; for instance, Central European students differ from Belgian students. On the other hand, variables such as geographical mobility play an equal role: Students who consider moving to another country differ in their beliefs from their peers who prefer to stay in their home countries