Search

The question of authenticity in language has been approached from a number of theoretical standpoints. A significant type of feature which may bestow authenticity and legitimacy is the linguistic. Linguistic performance can be viewed in terms of either the unreflectingly fluent and competent use by the ideal native speaker or, in opposition, the inauthenticity of the non-native language learner. As pointed out by Martin Gill in his paper “Exclusive Boundaries, Contested Claims: Authenticity, Language and Ideology”, authentic speech is romanticised as “native, spoken, verbatim, unrehearsed, off-the-record, sincere, vernacular and non-standard”. Such a definition is easily understandable by the wider public outside of academia. However, it begs the question: who has the authority to make this distinction and who can validate these authenticity claims? Mary Bucholtz proposes instead the concept of authentication, or the outcome of constantly negotiated social and linguistic practices. Debates over what constitutes ‘authentic’ language in minority language settings are particularly noticeable, given the processes of revitalisation many of them are going through. This paper aims to move the discussion away from the purely linguistic when considering what authenticity means, and investigate the concept from a more speaker-centred perspective. The example of Breton in Brittany is taken as the case study here – what it means to speak Breton ‘authentically’, according to whom, and to which norms. In particular, attention is paid to the authentication process of negotiation and how different actors approach and manage this dynamic.

Yiddish was spoken in pre-war Poland by just under 3 million people and thrived as a literary, theatrical, cinematic and political language in addition to being the daily vernacular of the majority of Polish Jewry. Today, a few native speakers of the Polish dialect of Yiddish remain in Poland but are more likely to be found in centres of Jewish culture around the world, such as London or New York. The status of Yiddish as an endangered language worldwide is well establishedi and thorough attempts to document its characteristics have already been carried out (e.g. Jacobs 2005). However, the Polish dialect of Yiddish, despite its pre-war numerical superiority, faces even greater endangerment in the face of a drive to revitalize the language based on the notion of ‘standard’ language. Illogically, the Northern form of Yiddish (Latvian and Lithuanian Yiddish) was used for the basis of standard Yiddish by the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, New York (despite having fewer speakers) and this is the form used in textbooks and summer schools around the world to teach the language. As a result, descendants of holocaust survivors who wish to connect with their Polish inheritance via the Yiddish language are exposed to non-Polish Yiddish phonological and lexical features, which can alienate them in their attempts to reconnect to the language.

When Poland signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages on February 12th, 2009, of the fifteen languages listed all but one were categorised as minority languages. Kashubian was (apparently) the only regional language. Of course, the original wording of the Charter, when it was first drawn up in 1992, did not specify what the difference between a minority and a regional language actually was. Thus Poland's ratification, while totally complying with the Charter's original remit, is nevertheless controversial in its application of the Charter's principles. In this paper, we aim to explore the tensions that have been created by the implementation of the Charter in Poland. The most obvious point of friction concerns the singling out of Kashubian to the detriment of other less widely-used languages and this will be discussed in the context of one presenter's expert knowledge and close association with the Charter's implementation in Poland. Less obvious, but equally important, is the identification of the conflicting language ideologies at play here. If all minority languages in Poland (apart from Kashubian) are located within the confines of a «language-and-identity» ideology, then locating Kashubian within a framework of territoriality (or a `language-and-territory' ideology Myhill 1999]) is not only bound to lead to a clash of counter-productive ideologies, but also seems achronistic at a time in the history of Kashubian when it is spoken regularly by more than 50 per cent of the population in only three districts of the traditional Kashubian-speaking area. Given these conditions, we address the question of the effectiveness of such language planning for Kashubian in the final section of our paper.

The European Union (EU) today counts 23 national languages with as many as 65 regional and minority languages, only a few of which enjoy recognition in the EU. We assess the perspectives of regional and, particularly, endangered languages in Europe in three steps. First, we argue that the current approach of nation-states, defining both national and regional/minority languages from the top down, is increasingly at odds with the idea of cross-border migration and communications. We illustrate this with the examples of Estonian and Latvian, official languages of EU member-states with around one million native speakers each. Second, we attest the end of 'traditional' forms of minority language, contending that if they are to survive they cannot do so as mirror copies of minority languages. To make our point clear, we discuss regional efforts to increase the use of the Breton and the Welsh languages. We outline a research agenda that takes into account the nation-state dominated linguistic regulations and the future of an increasingly borderless Europe, and suggest how both can be accommodated.

Understanding what life experiences encourage individuals to learn and adopt Marxist perspectives will yield insight into methodology effective in teaching, sharing, and promoting Marxist ideology. This research explores the lived experiences of Marxists to highlight the stories of those individuals who have recognized the significance of the class struggle in the attempt to challenge dominant societal narratives. The counterstorytelling utilized in this research is coupled with intersectionality to reveal similarities and discrepancies in the perspectives and stories of Marxists and non-Marxists. The significant history and relationship of Marxism and Critical Theory is discussed in the introduction. This is followed by researcher positionality and origin of inquiry. Participant narratives and analysis are provided along with researcher reflection and potential avenues of further research.