Suchergebnisse

AbstractShould speakers of immigrant languages have fewer language rights than members of long‐settled nations? In this article, I argue that the interests of immigrant and native groups are normatively equally recognition‐worthy. Any legitimate differential recognition must follow from the different interests immigrants have in language. I distinguish three categories of immigrants: strictly temporary immigrants, immigrants that have become or are to be citizens and linguistically very wealthy immigrants. The purpose of distinguishing these types is to get a better grasp on the needs and interests of immigrants, by creating sub‐profiles. I argue that the first group is entitled to minimal language recognition. The second group, I argue, should be granted equal consideration of their languageinterests, but that does not necessarily mean equallanguagerecognition. The third group—linguistically very wealthy immigrants such as English‐speaking immigrants—typically outrivals the local population in terms of the fulfilment of their language identity interests. Their language interests warrant the need of integration into the national language(s), not the need for equal language recognition.

This article revisits the principal argument Will Kymlicka has developed for a marriage between liberalism and multiculturalism: that the liberal value of freedom requires a cultural context of choice. I show that this freedom argument rests on a romantic philosophy of language. Critics of this freedom argument have pointed out that it is not necessarily an individual's own culture that provides freedom: any culture could do so. I articulate a romantic-Kymlickean response to this critique by showing how individuals' life choices come to be entwined with the particular culture that provides their context of choice. But while that safeguards existing individuals from assimilation, it does not block future generations from being introduced into the life-world of an additional cultural context. Such slow intergenerational assimilation projects are not necessarily worrisome, however. They can sometimes have the virtue of realizing non-identity values in addition to freedom.

This article develops a linguistic injustice test. Language policy measures passing the test conflict with the normative ideal of equal language recognition. The first part of the test checks for external restrictions - language policies that grant more recognition to one language group than to another. The second part of the test checks for internal restrictions - language policies that grant more recognition to some members of a language group than to other members of the same group. The article then applies the linguistic injustice test to two models of linguistic justice: linguistic territoriality and linguistic pluralism. It is argued that real-life cases of linguistic territoriality tend to pass the test. It is argued that instantiations of linguistic pluralism tend to fail the test. Adapted from the source document.

The essays in this book explore the consequences of globalization for democracy, covering issues which include whether democracy implies exclusion or borders, and whether it is possible to create a democracy on a global level. Explores the consequences of globalization for democracyDiscusses whether democracy implies exclusion or boundariesMakes sense of democracy and human rights in a globalizing worldInvestigates what kind of common identity can and should support forms of global democracyPresents a state-of-the-art analysis of the foundations of global democracy.