MINORITY LANGUAGES: IMPORTANCE, ISSUES, AND POSSIBILITIES

Skutnabb-Kangas (2002) postulates that “linguistic and cultural diversities are the storehouse of historically developed knowledges” (p. 13). Languages themselves are the resources of knowledge that can be passed from generation  to generation. Similarly, Fishman (1980) argues that the minority languages like natural resources, treasures of the nation, should be maintained because they cannot be recreated. Thus, to preserve the experience of  mankind we must preserve languages regardless of the number of  their speakers. Despite the efforts to increase the number of  speakers, to promote a language or elevate its status, the issues of negative language attitudes, globalization and a low socioeconomic status (SES) of a speech community hinder the language maintenance.

Languages and identities are interrelated in a way of connecting the status of its speakers and  the value of a language. The definition of  “minority” itself is often associated with marginalization, backwardness, and subservient position (Alok, 2004).  If negative attitudes toward a minority language arise due to its limited instrumental value or a low symbolic status, the chances of language revitalization will decrease. Especially in the era of globalization. The post-colonial countries are the salient exemplification of this point. For instance, the majority of South Africans perceive their own indigenous languages as an impediment to progress – they prefer to educate children at the English medium schools (Bloch & Alexander, 2003). Thereby, language attitudes, its symbolic and nominative value, the coexistence of the minor language and a lingua franca  can adversely influence the language revival.

Empowerment of ethnic minorities in terms of providing legal space for language use, as Laponce (2010) declares, can reverse the language shift. Mother tongue education is insufficient when bi/multiliteracy receives no institutional support. Laponce (2010) proffers territorial separation or superimposition, diglossia, and statutory language use in schools and in the civil service. He cites several examples of the world practices. For instance, while Switzerland and Belgium use linguistic territoriality: the language spoken in a particular area is an official language there. In contrast, Canada with its territorial superimposition of languages represents a scenario whereas individual bilingualism is encouraged (Laponce, 2010). Diglossia, as another means of language maintenance, allows citizens to speak one language variety at home and switch to another one in the professional settings. Consequently, the collaboration of languages in case of diglossia balances language use and prevents a total language shift. The last measure, that the government can undertake, is to impose mother tongue education and stipulate the proficiency in a minority language as a requirement for the civil servants (Laponce, 2010).

These scenarios, proposed by Laponce (2010), are not universal and require contextualization. The Swiss model of linguistic territoriality will not work for Kazakhstan where the number of languages and absence of close linguistic affinity complicate the language policy. In other words, too many languages and they are different. Nevertheless, language maintenance through the mother tongue schools and support of language and cultural heritage are currently the most appropriate policies in Kazakhstan.

In summary, the minority languages revitalization and maintenance are the irreplaceable means of preserving and inheriting the experiences of the language speakers. As  knowledge and use of a language diminish,  this language cannot be simply recreated. In the contemporary globalizing world with the penetration of lingua francas, the minority languages are threatened.  Additionally, negative language ideology and ascribed social roles exacerbate the languages that are almost vulnerable. The possibilities to reverse the language shift range from a linguistic territoriality to mother tongue schooling. But these measures should be tailored to a country-specific context.

References

Alok, K.D. (2004, February). Minority Language Laws in the EU: Process and Problem of Policy Implementation. II Mercator International Symposium: Europe 2004: A new framework for all languages, Tarragona, Catalonia, Spain. Retrieved from http://www.ciemen.cat/mercator/pdf/simp-alok.pdf

Bloch, C. & Alexander, N. (2003). A luta continua! The relevance of the continua of biliteracy to South African multilingual schools. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for educational policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings (pp. 91-121).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fishman, J.A.  (1980). Minority Language Maintenance and the Ethnic Mother Tongue School. The Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 167-172.

Laponce, J. (2010). Minority languages and globalization. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 10(1), 15-24. doi:10.1080/13537110490450755.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Why should linguistic diversity be maintained and supported in Europe? Some arguments. Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education.  Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Skutnabb-KangasEN.pdf