Saturday, March 19, 2011

The universality of language rights, and some other considerations

In thinking about the language rights that ought to be guaranteed, it is important to consider a couple things. First, what rights actually fall under the umbrella of language rights? Is it simply the legal right to speak one’s own language? Or does it extend to the right to be understood? One might equate language rights with the freedom of speech. But really, the freedom of speech doesn’t require that others understand you. The right to use your language, on the other hand, requires help from those on the receiving end. In other words, guaranteeing language right might require that the State and civil servants to use the language and understand it. Second, would language rights be able to address the distributive inequalities that currently exist with official languages? What kind of equitable solution would give people the right to use their own language but not trade of things like efficiency and practicality? Third, do different political systems require different language rights? Certainly, the right to use one’s own language and be understood is more essential in a democratic state than in a totalitarian state. A democracy involves more than just a ballot and the formal right to cast a vote. It is about participating in democratic discussions. Yet to do that, one must have a strong grasp on the language used in the political sphere. Therefore, I think advancing democracy requires us to think deeply about language policy and language rights. Different political systems have different needs for language rights, which makes me think that language rights are perhaps universal human rights.

4 comments:

  1. So are you advocating that more than one language be used in the political sphere? Or that people should learn the language used in the political sphere and thus have a right to learning that particular language?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think in a democratic political system, all citizens should be afforded the right to be a participant in the politics of the state. However, personally I believe there should be one dominant language that is used in documents and day-to-day parlance (in the media, or in congressional hearings, etc) However, resources (e.g. translators) should be available for those whose are more adept at using a language other than the dominant one. Any participant should have "working knowledge" of the dominant language, but if they needed to, say, draft legislation, they should be allowed to do so in their native language.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that everyone should try to be fluent in the dominant language of their country but not that they should be allowed to draft legislation in their own language- after all, if they can't speak the language of the majority how are they supposed to draft legislation that represents the majority? And how is everyone else supposed to read their legislation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. You raise a good point. Drafting legislation can be tricky, especially because some terms do not have precise equivalents in other languages. Since legislation forms the fabric of our legal system, precision of language is essential. Solution? Let's all learn Esperanto.

    ReplyDelete