| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The discussion of the place of language in politics has generally revolved around its relationship to nation-building and ethnic conflict. Yet, these are not always causally connected nor is language easily given up for the sake of a greater national or individual good. Attitudes regarding language can be influenced by anticolonialist resentments, memories of past injustice, status paranoia, xenophobia, collective megalomania, religion, ideology, and the desire on the part of a group to base its collective identity on a demarcation from a real or imagined enemy. This applies to many dimensions of language policies, including officialization, alphabetization, gentrification, and glossonym changes. We argue that governments choose language policies for strategic reasons. Whether it is to legitimize or subordinate a language or whether or not the policy is itself the objective, these choices may have unintended consequences.
|