Superseding structural linguistic injustice? Language revitalization and historically-sensitive dignity-based claims

ABSTRACT

This article argues that linguistically endangered minority groups often face endangerment due to structural linguistic injustice that arises from past injustices and ongoing unjust social processes. Language revitalization is often a justified way of reforming unjust social structures. I connect this discussion to another debate, namely, whether historical injustice (and the requirement for its correction) may be superseded. I ask: which changing circumstances might lead to the supersession of structural linguistic injustice? Of the many reasons to reform unjust social structures, I focus on dignity-based concerns. Historically-sensitive dignity-based concerns are relevant for judging whether supersession of structural linguistic injustice has occurred. My view is largely present-oriented, but history still plays a role in deciding the strength of justificatory bases for structural reformation.

KEYWORDS:

• Supersession
• structural injustice
• language endangerment
• language revitalization
• dignity

Acknowledgments

I sincerely thank Lukas Meyer, Helder de Schutter, and anonymous reviewers for their comments. I thank the participants of a 2018 workshop in Graz on the “Temporal Orientation of Justice,” where I presented an earlier version of this piece. I express my deepest gratitude to Timothy Waligore for his invaluable feedback and support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Meyer and Waligore (2018, pp. 227-228) originated the distinction between ‘full supersession’ and ‘partial supersession.’ My term ‘limited supersession’ is an interpretation of ‘partial supersession’ in the linguistic justice context.

2. Brenzinger (2007) summarizes nine factors causing language endangerment, taken from a 2003 UNESCO document.

3. The literature on language attitudes is extensive (for seminal works in sociolinguistics, see, Labov, 1972; Lambert et al., 1960) with heterogenous foci (for a summary of its various definitions, see, Garrett, 2010). The term language attitude may refer to predispositions, evaluative judgments, values, or beliefs held towards languages (Agheyisi & Fishman, 1970). Attitudes may concern different aspects of language, such as language choice, standard and non-standard varieties, language shift, or language maintenance. French may be viewed as beautiful, German as harsh, Quechua as retroactive, or English as beneficial. These attitudes usually react to social meanings attached to language.

4. An alternative way to discuss language revitalization would be to compare language rights of dominant and non-dominant language groups. For instance, endangered linguistic groups may have promotion-oriented language rights in a territory where they are a member, instead of having toleration-oriented rights (Kloss, 1971).

5. See note 15 below.

6. Intermediate policies are relevant to limited supersession, discussed elsewhere in the article.

7. Different policies would be appropriate in cases where a non-dominant linguistic group significantly outnumbers the dominant language speakers. (Imagine an ex-colony where the local wide-spread language suffers symbolically inferior status and/or threats to its long-term vitality.) These cases may invite more radical versions of language revitalization, such as language policies that assert an endangered language as the monolingual ‘queen’ of the territory. See, Van Parijs (2011, Chapter 5). However, for this article, I focus on endangered language groups that are usually small in size and spread across territories.

8. Cf., Meyer and Waligore (2018, pp. 215-216).

9. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this.

10. See the section on ‘Dignity-based concerns and supersession.’

11. Non-response may lead to additional liability for the state and its members, giving the structural injustice approach an interesting backward-looking dimension (Lu, 2017, pp. 258-259).

12. I acknowledge that this treatment of assimilation is rather selective, leaving out culture, customs, speech habits, ideology, and other aspects. I narrow my scope to make my analysis of supersession clearer.

13. The supersession may also be final (supersession occurs permanently and for-all-time) or dormant (supersession occurs for-the-time-being; Meyer & Waligore, 2018, pp. 228-229). With dormant supersession, even if minority groups are fully assimilated, it might be considered just in the future to revive dead languages in newly risen circumstances. I think that whether supersession is final or dormant depends on a number of factors. For instance, whether Endangers identify as Safes after assimilation or whether newly assimilated Endangers are accepted by Safe could be relevant. Furthermore, an occurrence of injustice may give rise to the need for nation building. Hebrew is arguably an example of such revival.

14. I thank an anonymous reviewer who prompted my thoughts here.

15. Alternatively, if we consider the interests of dominant language speakers (which is outside the scope of this paper), then monolingual or per-capita policies may be considered unfair. However, a limited shift to an intermediate ratio may still be justified. I thank an anonymous reviewer for pressing me here.

Additional information

Funding

This work is part of research undertaken in the project ‘Supersession of Historical Injustice and Changed Circumstances,’ funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under research grant P 30084; and the project ‘Should Immigrants have fewer rights than citizens? An Enquiry into the Moral Bases of Immigrants’ Political, Socio-Economic and Linguistic Entitlements’ funded by KU Leuven.

Notes on contributors

Seunghyun Song

Seunghyun Song is a doctoral fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven, Belgium. Before coming to Leuven, she worked at the University of Graz as a member of the project ‘Supersession of Historical Injustice and Changed Circumstances.’