Introduction
Three main steps can be identified in the regime’s
Language Policy: (i) in public education fascism attempted to create a policy
of linguistic unification, which bordered on dialectophobia; (ii)
simultaneously, but in a more accentuated manner, the idea “one nation = one
language” was developed. This exercised pressure on principal minority language
both in schools and in public and even in private use; (iii) the effort not
only to achieve but also to maintain this ideal linguistic unity culminated in
an autarchic LP with regard to so- called “exotisms”. – 39
1. Theoretical and Methodological Framework
In language planning a policy-approach can be
identified and further subdivided into various standardization processes
according to whether the problem is the choice of a code (= constitution of an
official language), the stability of the
code (= codification) or the functional extension of the chosen code (=
differentiation). There is the cultivation-approach whose problem is
differentiation within the code itself; a particular case of this is linguistic
purism.- 40-41
In defining the norm of usage, one must distinguish
different standardization options: formal (language behavior
codified by the community of users). vs. informal (uncodified but
socially preferred norms of usage); monocentric (single set of
universally accepted norms) vs. polycentric (different coexistent sets
of norms); endonormative standardization (based upon native models of
usage) vs. exonormative standardization (based upon foreign models of
usage). – 41
2. LP in schools
2.1 The language of education and the language/dialect issue
in the elementary school
2.2 Conception of grammar in first-language education
2.3 The role of Latin as a language model
2.4 The political significance of foreign language
3. Did an LP exist during fascism?
“the mother tongue of a group which is socially or
politically dominated by another group speaking a different language.” –
Minority language defined by UNESCO – 52
No comments:
Post a Comment