Transcript Linguistic Human Rights

Linguistic Human Rights
and Education
An overview
Antonia Mandry
Ed.D. Student
International Educational Development
[email protected]
Definitions

“Linguistic Human Rights … are those … that … are necessary to fulfill
people’s basic needs and for them to live a dignified life, and … [that are] so
basic … that no state … is supposed to violate them” (Skutnabb-Kangas,
2006, 273). Identity and Communication become the key issues in LHR.

According to the Universal Declaration on Linguistic Rights (1996), “all
peoples have the right to express and develop their culture, language and
rules of organization and, to this end, to adopt political, educational,
communications and governmental structures of their own, within different
political frameworks” (2).

The Declaration decrees that everyone has the right to education in their
own language, of their own language and culture, and education, at all
levels, should serve the needs of the linguistic community(ies).

Further protection of linguistic rights include Article 2 and 4 of the
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992); Article 5 of the Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity.
Education and Its Role
in Language

“One of the basic human rights of persons belonging to minorities
is-or should be-to achieve high levels of bi- or multilingualism
through education. Becoming at least bilingual is in most cases a
neces- sary prerequisite for minorities to exercise other fundamental
human rights” (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1994, 625).

“Tolerance-oriented rights ensure the right to preserve one’s
language in the private, nongovernmental sphere of national life”
(May, 2001, 185).

“Assimilationist education is genocidal” to the culture of minorities
(Jokinen, slide 22).

“The media and the educational systems are the most important
direct agents in language murder … Behind them are the real
culprits, the global economic, military and political systems”
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2001, 201).
Case Study: Canada

Languages in question: French (Québécois Français), English

Two different sets (Francophone and Anglophone) of immigrant communities occupied
what is now Canada beginning in the 16th century. During a series of wars between the
British and the French, which the latter lost, the Francophone colony of Québec came
under the aegis of the British empire. What followed was a systematic devaluation,
repression and discrimination of the Québécois population (and indeed French-speaking
populations in provinces such as Manitoba, as well). As late as the mid-20th century,
Francophone speakers were likely to make 35% less than their Anglophone counterparts
(May, 2001). An oft-quoted story by a Québécoise featured the beating of a Francophone
hockey player by his Anglophone teammates for speaking French … in Québéc.

After the rise of Québécois nationalism in the mid- and late 20th century, French becomes
not only the language of administration (presaged by its re-introduction into
administration of Québec in the mid-19th century) but also the language of the classroom.

French language becomes incorporated into many areas of the public sector including the
private business sector.
Case Study: Canada

French–medium instruction at the elementary level is currently
mandated in Québec by law. Only if the student has had Englishmedium instruction before are they allowed to continue in English.

English language instruction is required for only 30 minutes a week.

In Montreal, there are 2 English-medium universities: McGill and
Concordia University. The other universities, including UQAM, are
French-medium universities.

These linguistic measures are taken in order to preserve and promote
French language in Québec and reverse the systemic devaluation that
was occurring prior to Québécois linguistic and cultural revival of the
mid-20th century.
Case Study: Wales

Languages in question: Welsh (Cymraeg), English

Historical and political domination of Wales by England from the late 13th century on.
Act of Union (1536) proscribes the use of Welsh.

Institutions (educational, religious, cultural) become assimilated and replaced with
English norms of institution. The Welsh elite over time became monolingual in English,
while the peasantry spoke Welsh. This is still reflected in the linguistic division of Wales
today, with the primarily agricultural North speaking more Welsh than the industrialized
South. Despite this divide, today all Welsh speakers are bilingual in English as well. This
does not mean that all Welsh speak the Welsh language, however.

Education Act (1870) “formally excluded Welsh from the pedagogy and practice of Welsh
Schools” (May, 260). English was the sole language of schools. The Welsh language was
seen as an active disadvantage for learners and thus bilingualism was seen as detrimental.
Parents stopped speaking Welsh to their children. Result: Generational Loss of Language.

English seen as equal to modernity, progress, culture and civilization.
Case Study: Wales

Rise of Welsh nationalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

First Welsh-language elementary school established (1939).

Education Reform Act (1988) specifically incorporated Welsh into the new
National Curriculum. However, there is no general clause in the Welsh
Language Act (1993) that guarantees the right to Welsh-medium education.
The WLA does provide equality of right to Welsh language use with that of
English. This can be exercised in court, on public notices and in many
public areas. However, due to the dominance of English as an economiclanguage, the private business sector is still mainly a monolingual one in
Wales.

Differences: the complete incorporation of Wales into England allowed
space for rise of Welsh nationalism because: 1) the devaluation of the
Welsh language and culture created a strong counter-reaction and 2) Welsh
was not seen as a serious threat. Unlike with French in Canada, there is no
enforcement of Welsh in the private business sector.
Case Study: Turkey

Languages in question: Turkish (Türkçe), Kurdish (Kurdî), Laz (Lazuri)

The Ottoman Empire (c. 14th century to 1923) contains within it a plurality
of language; Turkish itself during the Ottoman times (now referred to as
Osmanlica) contains many borrowed words from language such as Farsi,
Arabic, French and German.

Founding of Turkish Republic (1923) is followed by several socio-political
changes, including the enshrinement of Turkish as the official language in
Atatürk’s Constitution and the formal expurgation of foreign words from
the Turkish language (beginning in 1932). Sizable minority populations
such as the Kurds and the Laz are initially either ignored or completely
assimilated through the use of Turkish-medium schools.

Law 2932 (1983) formalizes the prohibition of other languages as mother
tongue and in education. Repealed in 1991.
Case Study: Turkey

During the height of the violent conflict between the PKK (People’s Party of
Kurdistan) and the Turkish military, the discrimination and persecution of the
Kurdish people amounted to an an attempt at linguistic and cultural genocide. There
remains a systematic “non-Education” of the Kurdish people in Turkey (Hassanpour
et al, 1996).

Ban on Kurdish-medium education and broadcasting is abolished (2002), which
allowed for private language schools. However, no government funding is provided
which causes schools to close due to financial constraints. Textbooks and materials
must be approved by the Ministry of Education.

Differences: the rise of Turkish nationalism in the early 20th century and the status
of Kurds as a non-minority, led to the the complete domination of Kurds as a
linguistic, cultural minority. There is little space for Kurdish language in either the
private or the public sector, with limited access to Kurdish-language media (1 hour a
week), Kurdish-language education (in private sector only). The repression is, at least
legally, slowly easing.
The Three Cases
Compared
Canada
(Québec)
Wales
Turkey
French, English
Welsh, English
Kurdish, Turkish
LiEP fully enacted
LiEP enacted but not
legislated
LiEP enacted legally only
in the private sector
Language communities are the
subject of study at the university
level in most provinces.
Language communities are the
subject of study at the university
level in most territories.
Language communities are not
the subject of study at the
university level.
1977 – Bill 101 required all schools
to be in French; amendments added
to allow access to English
1939 - First Welsh-medium
elementary school established;
initially private
2004 – First Kurdish language
school established; private
53.77% unilingual francophones,
4.59% unilingual anglophones,
40.81% bilingualism
71.57% unilingualism in nonWelsh language**
447,080 speakers of Kurdish as a
second language; 26,007 speakers
of Kurdish as the mother tongue*
The Three Cases
Compared
Canada
(Quebec)
United Kingdom
(Wales)
Turkey
International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights1
ratified 1976
signed 1968
ratified 1976
signed 2000
ratified 2003
International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination2
signed 1966
ratified 1970
signed 1966
ratified 1969
signed 1972
ratified 2002
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights3
ratified 1976 (with
accession)
ratified 1976
ratified 2003
Includes Article 2 regarding “the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.”
2 Includes a mention of language as an unacceptable form of discrimination.
3 Includes several mentions of the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of language, as well as general
language rights in courts (Article 14) and to use their own language (Article 27).
1
Conclusions

In these three cases, a pattern of linguistic domination and resurgence
can be traced through their histories.

Educational policy in all three home countries goes through a process of
extreme repression where the dominant language is mandated as the
language of schooling. The minority language is, or has been,
proscribed in all three nations by active legislation and by economic
concerns, such as the domination of the majority language in the
business sector.

The private sector remains a place where minority languages can first
gain some educational foothold (as seen in the Welsh and Kurdish
examples).
Conclusions

The wide range within bilingualism in the three nations of the minority
groups can be seen as a reflection of the political power of the minority
group within the national framework:



French Québécois/e have a greater ability to remain unilingually francophone
due to a strong political presence (and perhaps economic base) which can also be
seen in dual-language signs in the cities, and single-language (French) signs in
rural areas;
Welsh speakers in Wales have less of a foothold, due to the relatively less
powerful Welsh Assembly (which has less impact than the Scottish Parliament);
however, the Assembly is still able to legislate the use of Welsh in public places
and in courts;
Kurdish speakers in Turkey have had little to no political power. Before 2004,
there were no Kurdish-language schools. The very real danger of being labeled a
Kurd leads to a dearth of accurate data even regarding the nature of KurdishTurkish bilingualism. This may be changing: in July 2007, 22 pro-Kurdish
Members of Parliament were elected. It remains to be seen how Linguistic
Human Rights will take root in Turkey and what this will mean for the Kurdish
population and their language.
Conclusions

Linguistic Human Rights is a very real, very urgent and very powerful
tool to wield. Nations around the world have acknowledged language as
a human right in their participation in, signing and ratifying of several
declarations, conventions and covenants.

The Quebecois in Canada, the Kurds in Turkey and the Welsh in the
United Kingdom all found or are finding different ways to create spaces
for their languages (politically, culturally, through the media, among
other avenues).

Political pressure on certain governments from external sources such as
the United Nations can no doubt be helpful. However, as is seen in the
comparison chart, internal pressure from minority groups exercising
political power are more significant triggers for change.
Bibliography

Dunbar, R. (Jan, 2001). Minority Language Rights in International Law. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 50,
No. 1., pp. 90-120.

Handler, R. (1988). Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University Press.

Hassanpour, A., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Chyet, M. (1996). The Non-Education of Kurds: A Kurdish Perspective. International Review
of Education. Vol. 42, No. 4, The Education of Minorities, pp. 367-379.

Jokinen, Markku. (unknown date). What Is Sign Language, Linguistic Rights in the UN Recommendations and Conventions, and the Status
of Sign Languages in the UN Member States. Accessed April 29, 2008 from from
www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc5docs/ahc5wfdside.ppt.

May, S. (2001). Language and Minority Rights. Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Essex, England: Longman.

May, S. (2006). Language Policy and Minority Rights. An Introduction to Language Policy. Ed. Thomas Ricento. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, pp. 255-272.

Minority Rights Group International. (2007). A Quest for Equality: Minorities in Turkey. Accessed April 1, 2008 from
http%3a//www.minorityrights.org/download.php%3fid=425.

Office for National Statistics. (2001). Census 2001: Report on the Welsh language. Accessed on April 23, 2008 from
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/census2001/Report_on_the_Welsh_language.pdf .

Paulston, C.B. (1997). Language Policies and Language Rights. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26., pp. 73-85.
Bibliography

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (Autumn, 1994). Mother Tongue Maintenance: The Debate. Linguistic Human Rights and Minority
Education. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, Special-Topic Issue: K-12, pp. 625-628.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. . (Jul., 2001). The Globalisation of (Educational) Language Rights. International Review of Education, Vol. 47,
No. 3/4, Globalisation, Language and Education, pp. 201-219.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2006). Language Policy and Linguistic Human Rights. An Introduction to Language Policy. Ed. Thomas
Ricento. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 273-291.

Smith/Kocamahhul, J. (Summer, 2001). In the Shadow of Kurdish: The Silence of Other Ethnolinguistic Minorities in Turkey.
Middle East Report, No. 219, pp. 45-47.

Statistics Canada. (2001). Languages 2001 Census Technical Report. Accessed April 29, 2008 from http://dsppsd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/92-383-X/92-383-XIE.pdf.

UNESCO. (2 November 2001). Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. Accessed April 29, 2008 from
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

UNESCO. (9 June 1996). Universal Declaration On Linguistic Rights. World Conference on Linguistic Rights Barcelona, Spain.
Accessed on April 6, 2008 from http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/linguistic.pdf.

UNHCR. (18 December 1992). Universal Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic
Minorities. Accessed April 29, 208 from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_minori.htm.