Two principles of equal language recognition

Abstract

Within the umbrella of equal recognition, several principles of linguistic justice can be distinguished. A first, the per-capita principle, mandates prorating language recognition based on a per-capita distribution. A second, the equal-services principle, prescribes upholding the official languages as the languages in which the state speaks and in which public services are provided, irrespective of changing numbers of speakers. Alan Patten defends the prorated per-capita principle. I argue for the equal-services principle, which practically will often amount to a form of linguistic maximin: the more vulnerable the language, the more numerous the resources.

Keywords:

• linguistic justice
• equal recognition
• maximin principle
• equal services
• per-capita
• language policy

Acknowledgments

I want to express thanks to Alan Patten, Nenad Stojanović, Sergi Morales-Gálvez, Michael Jewkes, Elske Vrieze and an anonymous reviewer for having provided valuable suggestions.

Notes

1. Our disagreement extends beyond Brussels, and is not limited to any particular case: Brussels was just the case that prompted me to understand where Patten and I diverge.

2. There are no official language counts in Brussels and the picture is complicated by the important presence of other languages than French and Dutch in Brussels and by multilingual families but sociological research suggests that in 2013, 5.4% of Brussels inhabitants grew or was growing up in a family in which Dutch is the family language, whereas Dutch was a family language along with French for 14.1% of inhabitants and families (see http://www.briobrussel.be/ned/webpage.asp?WebpageId=1037).

3. Nothing hangs on this. The examples below could be reformulated for three, or more languages, and for different numbers. Perhaps at some point, constraints of feasibility will necessitate some limits that could be accommodated through a ‘where numbers warrant principle’ (though doing so requires further justification), through downsizing language recognition to smaller territorial units with fewer languages, or even by resorting to principles that give recognitional priority to some languages over others. But the theoretical model itself remains unimpacted by such feasibility limits. My examples can also be reformulated to include significant forms of bilingual identities.

4. For example, while full language rights ought in my view to be given to Russian minorities in states like Latvia or Ukraine, if the majority could not get equal language provisions without extra support (as a result of the dominant status of Russian and the greater availability of cultural material in it), then priority is justified for the majority (see Pavlenko, 2011 for majority–minority discussions in these cases).

5. Also the per-language principle does not secure equal success: equal absolute resource shares are given to each language, irrespective of actual numbers of speakers. Languages could grow or disappear with the shares.

6. As I argued before, it is theoretically possible for the 10% to be territorially concentrated and for the 90% to be spread out in a way that allows the equal-services approach to be satisfied by a 90/10 division of available resources. I take the standard case to imply that such division will not suffice for the minority group.

7. In articulating the luck-egalitarian argument, I follow De Schutter and Ypi (2012).

8. In order to minimize the unchosen dignity burdens for the minority resulting from the fact that conversations between majority and minority speakers will more often take place in the majority language, the parties may also want to include minority language requirements, for example, in the attainment targets for secondary education for the majority speakers. Thanks to Sergi Morales for this suggestion.

9. A version of this objection was raised to me by Alan Patten during the June 2015 workshop in Leuven on his book.