Theoretical discussion Linguistic rights

1 theoretical discussion

1.1 language rights + human rights = linguistic human rights (lhr)
1.2 individual linguistic rights

1.2.1 private use of language
1.2.2 linguistic rights in public domain


1.3 collective linguistic rights
1.4 territoriality vs. personality principles
1.5 negative vs. positive rights
1.6 assimilation-oriented vs. maintenance-oriented
1.7 overt vs. covert
1.8 criticisms of framework of linguistic human rights

theoretical discussion
language rights + human rights = linguistic human rights (lhr)

some make distinction between language rights , linguistic human rights because former concept covers wider scope. thus, not language rights lhr, although lhr language rights. 1 way of distinguishing language rights lhr between necessary, , enrichment-oriented. necessary rights, in human rights, needed basic needs , living dignified life, e.g. language-related identity, access mother tongue(s), right of access official language, no enforced language shift, access formal primary education based on language, , right minority groups perpetuate distinct group, own languages. enrichment rights above basic needs, e.g. right learn foreign languages.

individual linguistic rights

the basic definition of linguistic rights right of individuals use language other members of linguistic group, regardless of status of language. evolve general human rights, in particular: non-discrimination, freedom of expression, right private life, , right of members of linguistic minority use language other members of community.

individual linguistic rights provided in universal declaration of human rights:

article 2 – individuals entitled rights declared without discrimination based on language.
article 10 – individuals entitled fair trial, , recognized involve right interpreter if individual not understand language used in criminal court proceedings, or in criminal accusation. individual has right have interpreter translate proceedings, including court documents.
article 19 – individuals have right freedom of expression, including right choose language medium of expression.
article 26 – has right education, relevance language of medium of instruction.

linguistic rights can applied private arena , public domain.

private use of language

most treaties or language rights documents distinguish between private use of language individuals , use of language public authorities. existing international human rights mandate individuals have right private , family life, freedom of expression, non-discrimination and/or right of persons belonging linguistic minority use language other members of group. united nations human rights committee defines privacy as:

… sphere of person s life in or can freely express or identity, entering relationships others or alone. committee of view person s surname [and name] constitutes important component of 1 s identity , protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference 1 s privacy includes protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference right choose , change 1 s own name.

this means individuals have right have name or surname in own language, regardless of whether language official or recognised, , state or public authorities cannot interfere right arbitrarily or unlawfully.

linguistic rights in public domain

the public domain, respect language use, can divided judicial proceedings , general use public officials.

according article 10 of universal declaration of human rights, individuals have right fair trial. therefore, in name of fairness of judicial proceedings, established linguistic right of individual interpreter when or not understand language used in criminal court proceedings, or in criminal accusation. public authorities must either use language individual understands, or hire interpreter translate proceedings, including court cases.

general use public officials can cover matters including public education, public radio , television broadcasting, provision of services public, , on. accepted reasonable , justified public officials use language of minorities, appropriate degree , level in activities, when numbers , geographic concentration of speakers of minority language substantial enough. however, contentious topic decision of substantiation arbitrary. international covenant on civil , political rights, article 26, promise protect individuals discrimination on grounds of language. following that, article 27 declares, minorities shall not denied right… use own language . convention against discrimination in education, article 5, declares rights minorities use or teach own language .

collective linguistic rights

collective linguistic rights linguistic rights of group, notably language group or state. collective rights mean right of linguistic group ensure survival of language , transmit language future generations . language groups complex , more difficult demarcate states. part of difficulty members within language groups assign different roles language, , there difficulties in defining language. states have legal provisions safeguard of collective linguistic rights because there clear-cut situations under particular historical , social circumstances.

collective linguistic rights apply states because express in 1 or more languages. generally, language régime of states, communicated through allocation of statuses languages used within boundaries, qualifies linguistic rights claimed groups , individuals in name of efficient governance, in best interest of common good. states held in check international conventions , demands of citizens. linguistic rights translate laws differently country country, there no accepted standard legal definition.

territoriality vs. personality principles

the principle of territoriality refers linguistic rights being focused solely within territory, whereas principle of personality depends on linguistic status of person(s) involved. example of application of territoriality case of switzerland, linguistic rights defined within divided language-based cantons. example of application of personality in federal canadian legislation, grants right services in french or english regardless of territory.

negative vs. positive rights

negative linguistic rights mean right exercise of language without interference of state. positive linguistic rights require positive action state involving use of public money, such public education in specific language, or state-provided services in particular language.

assimilation-oriented vs. maintenance-oriented

assimilation-oriented types of language rights refer aim of law assimilate citizens within country, , range prohibition toleration. example of prohibition type laws treatment of kurds in turkey turks in iran, forbidden use kurdish , turkish languages. maintenance-oriented types of language rights refer laws aiming enable maintenance of languages within country, , range permission promotion. example of laws promote language rights basque normalization law, basque language promoted. neutral point between assimilation-orientation , maintenance-orientation non-discrimination prescription, forbids discrimination based on language.

overt vs. covert

another dimension analyzing language rights degree of overtness , covertness. degree of overtness refers extent laws or covenants explicit respect language rights, , covertness reverse. example, indian laws overt in promoting language rights, whereas english language amendments constitution overt prohibition. charter of united nations, universal declaration of human rights, international covenant on economic, social , cultural rights, international covenant on civil , political rights, , un convention on rights of child fall under covert toleration.

criticisms of framework of linguistic human rights

some have criticized linguistic rights proponents taking language single coherent construct, pointing out instead, difference between language , speech communities, , putting concern on inter-language discrimination rather intra-language discrimination.

other issues pointed out assumptions collective aims of linguistic minority groups uniform, , concept of collective rights not without problems.

there protest against framework of linguistic human rights singling out minority languages special treatment, causing limited resources distributed unfairly. has led call deeper ethnographic , historiographic study relationship between speakers attitudes, speakers meaning, language, power, , speech communities.