Volume 33, Issue 1

In this paper, I zoom in on linguistic justice for language groups who do not enjoy either local territorial dominance or equality with other language groups within the state. My question is: is there a separate linguistic justice category for such language groups whose recognition is ‘subordinate’ to that of other language groups? Does subordinate linguistic justice exist? A positive answer would mean that groups who belong to the category would not necessarily want to look at territorial dominance or equality as the proper ideal of linguistic justice: subordinate linguistic justice would not be an oxymoron. The answer I develop is indeed positive; it is possible for language groups to be in such a position of subordination while justice is fulfilled, but only under certain conditions. Nonfulfillment of one of these conditions generates reasons of justice for such groups to emancipate themselves from the position of subordination.

The essay explores an oblique perspective on language via the field of comparative political theory* (*hereafter CPT). The essay sketches briefly some of the conceptual architecture and genealogy of the comparative political theory enterprise and investigates more specifically the uses of the concepts of culture and language within the core arguments. The discussion distinguishes three rough categories of CPT and correlates these with understandings of language. The discussion then turns to certain problematic aspects of CPT concerned with the concepts of political theory, comparison within political studies and the concept of culture itself. The essay concludes on a critical and circumspect note on the status of CPT within contemporary understandings of political theory.

This article considers the example of Scotland in order to examine the ways in which issues, arguments and claims that implicate linguistic justice are framed and presented in public discourse and in different kinds of practical contexts. It takes a positive rather than normative approach, identifying and analysing the main issues and lines of argument that have emerged in practice, rather than testing a particular theoretical understanding of linguistic justice. The article examines the key principles and understandings that underpin the current policy regime and the nature of provision for particular languages in Scotland, especially the autochthonous Scottish Gaelic language, which receives particular concern from policy-makers but also attracts controversy. Other important language varieties include Scots; Polish, Urdu, Punjabi and Chinese; and British Sign Language. Anomalies and inconsistencies are identified and analysed in relation to provision for different languages in different fields, disparities that often have political or ideological ramifications and require to be understood in the distinct Scottish socio-political context. In the final section, the article addresses in the position of different languages in the Scottish education system, attempting to discern the extent to which greatly varying levels of provision for different kinds of languages can be understood in terms of linguistic justice.

This article develops a user perspective, applied both to law as discourse and normative practical reason - law, religion - and to linguistic communication. In multilingual contexts, this perspective requires special adaptation, because the communities of users may use different languages for the creation of new norms, and for their judicial interpretation and application. The possibilities for contesting meaning are enhanced where multilingual normative communication is involved. Important consequences then follow as regards legislative drafting, statutory interpretation and multilingual contexts of conflict-resolution. The EU is the classical multilingual institutional setting where these ideas are tested. Although in the EU only those languages that are official or co-official at the level of the Member State are immediately recognised as official languages, the EU operates as a genuine multilingual system of law, the most impressive official multilingualism in the world. Discourses exploring the EU’s political identity tend to see this multilingualism as an obstacle to the development of a demos rather than a salient feature of its multicultural and federal-like Constitution. This paradox is compared to the linguistic identity of the Basque Country, which is analysed in its different territories from the legal and sociolinguistic perspectives, where the legal status of Basque is subordinated to the official language regime of France and Spain.

Welsh has official status in Wales, where it is spoken by approximately 20 % of the population. All adult speakers of Welsh are also able to speak English. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Ministers legislate in both Welsh and English. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that the English and Welsh texts of any Act of the Assembly or any subordinate legislation enacted or made in both English and Welsh are to be treated, for all purposes, as being of equal standing. This paper examines the role legislating bilingually plays in confirming the official status of the Welsh language; how the bilingual texts are produced by a process of collaborative translation within an administration where English is the dominant working language; how they are scrutinised by a legislature where legislators are free to use either or both languages, but where, in practice, English dominates; and how they are promulgated in both languages in the form in which they are enacted or made, but only routinely updated in English. It further considers what the principle of ‘equal standing’ may mean and how effect may be given to it; how these bilingual texts may be interpreted by the public and the legal profession, domains in which English dominates; and what implications the production, scrutiny, promulgation and interpretation of bilingual legislation have for the accessibility of the law in Wales.

Abstract: The article discusses a set of Guidelines which result from the work of the Communication of Rights Group comprising linguists, psychologists, lawyers and interpreters. The Guidelines document’s primary aim is to inform police, lawyers and judicial officers about linguistic issues which impact non-native speakers of English in police interviews, particularly in the communication of rights. The recommendations address the wording and grammar of the rights as well as their wider communication to non-native speaker suspects, including informing those suspects about access to an interpreter, and evaluation of whether or not a non-native speaker of English has understood the rights. It is not the purpose of the Guidelines to replace the right to a professional interpreter; such right needs to be clearly defined. The role of the interpreter in exercising such right also needs to be considered. The article examines the current relevant legislation and guidelines in England and Wales and compares them with the proposed recommendations.