Ed Kenschaft wrote:
>On 3/9/06, Nicholas Sanders <nick@semiotek.org> wrote:
>
>
>>But the Polish and Icelandic examples don't fit the model,
>>because they have no official status in the countries cited.
>>
>>
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think *any* language has official
>status in the United States. Does that mean we don't have any
>minority (or majority) languages?
>
>
In judicial terms, that's exactly what it means. However, since you
hardly want politicians to decide about scientific terminology, it makes
little sense to talk about minority languages only in terms of minority
languages recognized by a state as such.
Still, much of social theory has (in my view unfortunately) adopted the
idea that minority languages are the languages of "ethnic" minorities
that have settled on a given territory for a longer period of time:
Inuit in Canada, Slovenes in Austria, and so on. In contrast, languages
of recent migrants are hardly ever considered minority languages
(Britain is an exception to some degree), especially if these migrants
are dispersed throughout the territory of the state.
Thomas
-- thomas koenig http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/mmethods/staff/thomas/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2006 - 17:09:51 MET