Search

This paper focuses on issues related to sign language policies in Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs) in Europe. Drawing on the analytical framework proposed by Darquennes/Du Plessis/Soler (2020, i. e. this volume), which serves to address HEI language planning issues at macro, meso and micro levels, we carry out an inventory of how these issues play out for sign languages across Europe. Our investigation reveals the scarcity of information about sign language policies in HEIs, relating to both sign language as a language of instruction and as a subject of study. What becomes clear is that language planning activities (sign language acquisition, sign language status and corpus planning) are taking place in many countries but tend to go undocumented and unresearched. Given the increase in formal recognition of sign languages across Europe, coupled with the ratification of the UN's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) by all EU member states, it would seem logical to expect that the status and prestige of sign languages would rise, with greater visibility of, and planning for, incorporation of sign languages in HEIs. However, the reality of the situation is unclear, suggesting the need for coordinated effort, supported by key pan-European bodies like the Council of Europe, the European Centre for Modern Languages and the European Commission, to ensure that sign language policy is on the agenda as parts of a rights-based response to deaf communities and the sign languages of Europe. Equally important is the need for European HEIs to embrace sign languages and ensure that they are part of the linguistic landscape. This will support and promote the status planning of sign languages and open up access to HEIs for deaf communities, a group that remains under-represented in academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper, inspired by Spolsky (2004), pursues three goals: 1. to demonstrate the terminological shift from "language planning" towards "language management", 2. to point out that this shift is facilitated by the growing influence of a particular theory of language management, which I refer to as Language Management Theory, 3. to present the central features of the theory, arguing that it is well suited not only to the analysis of language macro-planning but also to language micro-planning, the analysis of which is frequently called for during the process of formulating the language policy in various areas of the world including Europe and the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research concerning the standardization of Galician as a Romance language intermediated between Portuguese and Spanish. It highlights the strict oral language from the late Middle Ages in the 20th century. Information about the description of the intense process of standardization in the 1970s as well as the summary of key issues in the normative debate, is provided. Documentation of standardization includes selection, codification, implementation and elaboration. An overview on the historical background of Galician in the Roman languages, is also mentioned.

The article discusses the increasing language policy and planning activities for European autochthonous minority languages in the 20th century. An overview on the estimated living languages as well as aspects of individual and societal multilingualism in the European political and academic agenda, is provided. It highlights the international and supranational entities such as the Council of Europe and the European Union. Also mentioned is the macrosociolinguistic characteristics of minority language communities in Europe despite a long-standing European tradition.

The article focuses on the language standards and perceptions of an authoritative target variety in contemporary Manx Gaelic language which is native to the Isle of Man, a quasi-independent island polity in the Irish Sea. Information about the classical descriptive linguistic of the late native speaker Ned Maddrell in December 1974, is provided. It highlights the opportunities of and remarkable level of institutionalisation along with the expansion of adult learning. An overview on the Haugen's fourfold language planning model including processes of selection, codification, elaboration and implementation, is provided.

The article discusses issues related to linguistic minority research, has been conceived of as an integral part of the sociolinguistic study of languages particularly in Europe. The traditional relationship between linguistic majorities and minorities within the nation-state is discussed. Reasons behind the enshrinement of linguistic diversity as a principle in the European Union treaties are highlighted.