Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?

301

Published on

Presented at the #7 RECODE workshop, The politics of multilingualism, in Geneva, 19-20 June 2014.

Presented at the #7 RECODE workshop, The politics of multilingualism, in Geneva, 19-20 June 2014.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
301
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice? Federico Gobbo F.Gobbo@uva.nl RECODE Workshop The Politics of Multilingualism, 19-20 June 2014, Geneva 1 de 35
  • 2. Introduction
  • 3. A methodological issue still open Languages live by their speakers: they shape their identity, assess attitudes towards life, give opportunities for mobility – both in terms of levels in society and in movement across places. Research question: how to compare the linguistic justice level of (or more) languages in a given ecolinguistic system – defined by a territory? 3 de 35
  • 4. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 5. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants? 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 6. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants? At which level of analysis: 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 7. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants? At which level of analysis: local? 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 8. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants? At which level of analysis: local? national? 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 9. The need of an index of linguistic justice Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice. The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely defined: What are we measuring? Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants? At which level of analysis: local? national? transnational? 1 Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/
  • 10. Outline The CLB is aimed to measure the “linguistic altitude” of languages in isolation, not to compare languages in a given ecolinguistic system. Therefore, it cannot be used off the shelf, but it should be adjusted for our needs. I will proceed backwards by: a presentation of the CLB as a whole; a discussion of the parameters; an application of the CLB to the gravitational model, also by Calvet (1999, 2006); an application to the case study of South Tyrol. 5 de 35
  • 11. The Calvet Language Barometer
  • 12. An overview of the barometer The CLB was launched in 2010 through a web site, then it was updated in 2012. It considers the 563 world languages with +500,000 L1 speakers. The main source is Ethnologue2. The actual parameters are 11, but more can be added according to needs (e.g., scientific publications in that language per year). One of the main problem is completeness: when data are not available, the parameter is set to zero or to the average value of the column according to ‘similar’ languages. Different weights can be given to the parameters, so to adjust the CLB to the needs of the user. 2 Updated yearly. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/.7 de 35
  • 13. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 8 de 35
  • 14. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 8 de 35
  • 15. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 8 de 35
  • 16. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 8 de 35
  • 17. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 8 de 35
  • 18. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 8 de 35
  • 19. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 7. International literary awards; 8 de 35
  • 20. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 7. International literary awards; 8. Number of Wikipedia articles; 8 de 35
  • 21. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 7. International literary awards; 8. Number of Wikipedia articles; 9. Human Development Index (HDI); 8 de 35
  • 22. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 7. International literary awards; 8. Number of Wikipedia articles; 9. Human Development Index (HDI); 10. Total fertility rate; 8 de 35
  • 23. The parameters 1. Number of L1 speakers; 2. Entropy; 3. Vehicularity; 4. Official status; 5. Index Translationum: source language; 6. Index Translationum: target language; 7. International literary awards; 8. Number of Wikipedia articles; 9. Human Development Index (HDI); 10. Total fertility rate; 11. Language use in the Internet. 8 de 35
  • 24. Parameter 1: number of L1 speakers Parameter 1 is the most important: only medium-sized world languages (+500,000) are considered in the CLB. A problem of Ethnologue is how to consider linguistic map of the world. Two problems in counting L1 speakers: Malay is listed in +20 varieties → grouped as one; Greek minorities in Italy (Griko and Grecanico) not counted as different from Modern Greek ← questionable! The other limitation of Ethnologue is the non-consideration of L2 speakers: e.g., Swahili in Tanzania is far more spoken as L2 than as L1 → solution is parameter 3: vehicularity. 9 de 35
  • 25. Parameter 2: entropy Coming from physics, entropy here means the number of countries where the language is spoken. If there is one country only, entropy will be zero. Again, there are some sociolinguistic problems here: language varieties are not always uniform within a single country; 10 de 35
  • 26. Parameter 2: entropy Coming from physics, entropy here means the number of countries where the language is spoken. If there is one country only, entropy will be zero. Again, there are some sociolinguistic problems here: language varieties are not always uniform within a single country; consideration only of the diatopic axis, not diastratic (for instance); 10 de 35
  • 27. Parameter 2: entropy Coming from physics, entropy here means the number of countries where the language is spoken. If there is one country only, entropy will be zero. Again, there are some sociolinguistic problems here: language varieties are not always uniform within a single country; consideration only of the diatopic axis, not diastratic (for instance); clear preminence to languages with normative written varieties. 10 de 35
  • 28. Parameter 3: vehicularity When a language is vehicular? In the CLB, there is a clear definition. The equation to calculate the vehicularity of a language as a ratio is simple and effective: L2 L1 + L2 Each single parameter is can be evaluated as if it were the only one: Hindi is calculated as if it has no L1 speakers (!) However, the cleanliness of the parameter is rather useful. 11 de 35
  • 29. Parameter 4: official status Here, the source of data is the web site maintained by Jacques Leclerc (Universit´e Laval). Scores are attributed in the following way: 1.0 if the language is official in a sovereign state; 0.5 if the language is official in a non-sovereign state. Some cases are paradoxical: Italian is official in Italy, Switzerland, San Marino, Vatican and the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta. Overall score is 4.5 (place 8) before Mandarin Chinese. But are all states in the world equal in power? Of course not. 12 de 35
  • 30. Parameters 5 and 6: the role of translation Here, the source of data is the Index Translationium by Unesco, which publishes the number of translations by language since 1979, classified along nine categories. Again, the world map of Ethnologue and Unesco does not always match; moreover, there is the problem of the split of Serbo-Croatian in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin, and the complex situation of Arabic. The solution by Calvet & Calvet is to use ISO codes as the main criterion, which is reasonable. A greater problem is methodological: these parameters rely not on data but on an existing index, henceforth the CLB configures partially as a meta-index. 13 de 35
  • 31. Parameter 7: international literary awards Another methodological problem is parameter independence: it is clear that literary awards are possible iff the Index Translationum is high. How it works: The Nobel Prize is the most known award, but it is considered eurocentric and left-winged, so the authors consider other awards as well. winners count as 1, for every language in which they write; nominees counts 0.5 (even if nomineed many times). Possible paradox: Ngugi wa Thiong’o counts 2, for English and Kikuyu (ironic for this writer’s language policy). 14 de 35
  • 32. Parameter 8: Number of Wikipedia articles Wikipedia3 offers a detailed raw data of its use according to the different languages. The CLB considers only the “grand total”, which is too superficial: for instance, a software bot can generate stubs automatically – in 2008 it happened with Volap¨uk (an international auxiliary language launched before Esperanto, now used for literary and ludic purposes). The number of active users could be used to measure more in deep the impact of Wikipedia on a language community (it seems that the Dutch contributors are very active compared to the Polish ones, for example). A recent study has also highlighted that the role of multilingual Wikipedia contributors (just over 15%) is not to be underestimated. 3 See http://www.wikipedia.org/.15 de 35
  • 33. Parameters 9 and 10: HDI and total fertility rate The Human Development Index (HDI) is used by the UN to measure the achievements in education, health and income based on countries, not languages. Similarly considerations can be done for the total fertility rate. These two parameters generate clearly spurious results: in particular, it is quite surprising that the Hawai Creole English in in position 2 while English (American? English? Global?). The weight of these two parameters should be adjusted according to the their reliability. 16 de 35
  • 34. Parameter 11: language use in the Internet This parameter clearly overlaps with parameter 8 (Wikipedia). However, the source here is a web site owned by a limited liability company, the Miniwatts Marketing Group, not a public instance or a foundation4. As a result, raw data cannot be controlled: this parameter should not be considered ‘heavy’ as the others. Now, we can test the CLB as it is and with different weights. 4 See: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.17 de 35
  • 35. the top 15 of the CLB as it is. . .
  • 36. ...and with different weights
  • 37. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 20 de 35
  • 38. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 2. there is a significant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese; 20 de 35
  • 39. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 2. there is a significant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese; 3. some non-Western languages climb the scale: Hindi, Bengali and Farsi show up; 20 de 35
  • 40. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 2. there is a significant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese; 3. some non-Western languages climb the scale: Hindi, Bengali and Farsi show up; 4. three main Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) are downgraded. 20 de 35
  • 41. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 2. there is a significant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese; 3. some non-Western languages climb the scale: Hindi, Bengali and Farsi show up; 4. three main Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) are downgraded. 20 de 35
  • 42. A first evaluation of the CLB Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some remarks: 1. The top five languages are left untouched by the change: English, Spanish, French, German and Russian; 2. there is a significant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese; 3. some non-Western languages climb the scale: Hindi, Bengali and Farsi show up; 4. three main Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) are downgraded. The CLB is flexible but not so user-friendly, especially for the interpretion of the data. 20 de 35
  • 43. The gravitational model and the barometer
  • 44. The world as a galaxy The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor: 1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity); 22 de 35
  • 45. The world as a galaxy The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor: 1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity); 2. the higher the mass, the higher position in the CLB; 22 de 35
  • 46. The world as a galaxy The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor: 1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity); 2. the higher the mass, the higher position in the CLB; 3. constellations are made by bilinguals, who are the connectors. 22 de 35
  • 47. The world as a galaxy The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor: 1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity); 2. the higher the mass, the higher position in the CLB; 3. constellations are made by bilinguals, who are the connectors. 22 de 35
  • 48. The world as a galaxy The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor: 1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity); 2. the higher the mass, the higher position in the CLB; 3. constellations are made by bilinguals, who are the connectors. Languages are in dynamic equilibria (central/periphery). 22 de 35
  • 49. The four levels Languages are grouped by Calvet according to their power: 1. hyper-central: English; L1 speakers tend to be monolingual; 23 de 35
  • 50. The four levels Languages are grouped by Calvet according to their power: 1. hyper-central: English; L1 speakers tend to be monolingual; 2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili; L1 speakers monolingual or bilingual with English; in the CLB, they have good scores in terms of vehicularity, Index Translationum, and having at least one sovereign state; 23 de 35
  • 51. The four levels Languages are grouped by Calvet according to their power: 1. hyper-central: English; L1 speakers tend to be monolingual; 2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili; L1 speakers monolingual or bilingual with English; in the CLB, they have good scores in terms of vehicularity, Index Translationum, and having at least one sovereign state; 3. central: about 100 languages; L1 speakers tend to be vertically bilingual with super-central; 23 de 35
  • 52. The four levels Languages are grouped by Calvet according to their power: 1. hyper-central: English; L1 speakers tend to be monolingual; 2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi, Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili; L1 speakers monolingual or bilingual with English; in the CLB, they have good scores in terms of vehicularity, Index Translationum, and having at least one sovereign state; 3. central: about 100 languages; L1 speakers tend to be vertically bilingual with super-central; 4. peripherical languages: +5,000 languages; L1 speakers tend to be vertically bilingual and horizontally bilingual (i.e., other peripherical languages). 23 de 35
  • 53. An example provided by Calvet Context is Senegal: 1. hyper-central: English (only for elites); According to the author, vertical bilingualism proceed step by step (bottom-up). 24 de 35
  • 54. An example provided by Calvet Context is Senegal: 1. hyper-central: English (only for elites); 2. super-central: French; According to the author, vertical bilingualism proceed step by step (bottom-up). 24 de 35
  • 55. An example provided by Calvet Context is Senegal: 1. hyper-central: English (only for elites); 2. super-central: French; 3. central: Wolof; According to the author, vertical bilingualism proceed step by step (bottom-up). 24 de 35
  • 56. An example provided by Calvet Context is Senegal: 1. hyper-central: English (only for elites); 2. super-central: French; 3. central: Wolof; 4. peripherical: Serere or Diola. According to the author, vertical bilingualism proceed step by step (bottom-up). 24 de 35
  • 57. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; 25 de 35
  • 58. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical language is found? 25 de 35
  • 59. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical language is found? in many situation, only 3 levels are needed (hyper, centre, periphery); 25 de 35
  • 60. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical language is found? in many situation, only 3 levels are needed (hyper, centre, periphery); no treatment of the impact of migration on bilingualism (e.g., L1 German speaking L2 English learning L2 Dutch working in the Netherlands). 25 de 35
  • 61. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical language is found? in many situation, only 3 levels are needed (hyper, centre, periphery); no treatment of the impact of migration on bilingualism (e.g., L1 German speaking L2 English learning L2 Dutch working in the Netherlands). 25 de 35
  • 62. Some remarks on the gravitational model educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to level 2 (e.g., French) or English; Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical language is found? in many situation, only 3 levels are needed (hyper, centre, periphery); no treatment of the impact of migration on bilingualism (e.g., L1 German speaking L2 English learning L2 Dutch working in the Netherlands). From a theoretical point of view, more than one link are needed in the model. I will put in dashed lines spontaneous learning while in continuous lines programmed learning. 25 de 35
  • 63. An example of complex vertical bilingualism Context: Aboriginal languages in Quebec. 26 de 35
  • 64. An example of complex horizontal/vertical bilingualism Context: skilled migrant in the Netherlands 27 de 35
  • 65. An application: Linguistic justice in South Tyrol
  • 66. A region of stable contact between three languages South Tyrol is often considered a success case of multilingualism management (source: 4-year Kontatto research project at the Free Univ. of Bozen/Bolzano). Politically part of Italy, with a complex historical background linked with the Austrian Empire, at the border with Switzerland. Three distinctive language groups: 1. German (majority: mainly local varieties, especially in the valleys); 2. Italian (spoken mainly in the cities of Bozen-Bolzano, Meran-Merano and in the Bassa Atesina area); 3. Ladin (located in ‘traditional’ valleys, in particular Badia and Gardena; official status is lower). 29 de 35
  • 67. Source: 9th UK Language Variation and Change Conference 30 de 35
  • 68. Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 German there
  • 69. Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 Italian there
  • 70. Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 Ladin there
  • 71. Application of the CLB to the gravitational model The weight of the three languages in South Tyrol: 1. L1 Italian tend to vertical multilingualism with English (strongest local position); 2. L1 German show to learn both Italian and English (horizontal/vertical multilingualism); 3. Ladins are keen to acquire a richer vertical multilingualism than the others (lowest position); very low vehicularity (i.e., L2 Ladin speakers). Data local for the translations (source/target) similar to the Index Translationum should be provided to confirm this analysis. 34 de 35
  • 72. Thank you for your attention! Questions? Ideas? If not now, send them afterwards to: F.Gobbo@uva.nl Download and share this presentation from here: http:/federicogobbo.name/en/2014.php CC BY: $ C Federico Gobbo 2014 35 de 35

×