<b>Language: A right and a resource:</b> Approaching linguistic human rights. Ed. by Miklós Kontra, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and Tibor Várady. Budapest: Central European University Press. 1999. Pp. xi. 346. Paper $23.95.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Language: A right and a resource: Approaching linguistic human rights ed. by Miklós Kontra, et al. Daniel O. Jackson Language: A right and a resource: Approaching linguistic human rights. Ed. by Miklós Kontra, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and Tibor Várady. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999. Pp. xi, 346. Paper $23.95. This volume of surveys and case studies by fifteen contributors originated in the Linguistic Human Rights (LHRs) Conference and Workshop held in Budapest in October 1997. The editors’ introductory chapter (1–21) clarifies the task of approaching LHRs from multiple disciplines and describes common principles underlying the volume. The book’s chapters appear under five headings beginning with ‘General issues’, which contains a chapter by Robert Phillipson (25–46). Phillipson discusses the dominance of English and other international languages in organizations like the United Nations and identifies the relationship of the diffusion of English versus the ecology of local languages to LHRs as an area for language policy to reconcile. Next, Angéline Martel (47–80) addresses the role of litigation and language rights activism in the context of Canadian Francophone environments, concluding that conditions exist under which the legal system can be a very powerful language planning tool (79). Miklós Kontra (81–97) studies beliefs about linguistic rights in six Central European countries, describing the context and reasons behind the prohibition of Hungarian in order to illustrate the linguistic roots of interethnic conflict in the region. Mart Rannut (99–114) then offers insight into three different language planning models, focusing on the interaction between and implementation strategies among these models, defining LHRs (110), and distinguishing them as both individual and collective. Rannut concludes that a multiple language planning model based on LHRs is needed. In the next section, ‘Legal issues’, Fernand de Varennes (117–46) [End Page 640] specifies the existing rights affecting language preferences of minorities and nations under international law as these relate to public and private use, discussing the extension of these rights to groups beyond citizens and national minorities. Bart Driessen (147–65) outlines the implications of international trade obligations and guidelines for EU admission in the treatment of linguistic minorities in Slovakia. Under ‘Market issues’, François Grin (169–86) discusses the macro-level implications of the relationship between language and economics, especially the role of labor market dynamics in language spread, concluding that market forces can serve to support linguistic diversity. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (187–222) focuses on LHRs in the free market and in education, analyzing how rights are formulated in official documents and examining the gap between such documents and the acceptance of education through the medium of the mother tongue as a human right. Amir Hassanpour (223–41) demonstrates the interplay between state and market regulators of LHRs, reporting on Turkish opposition to the Kurdish media. ‘Language planning issues’ includes a chapter by Uldis Ozolins (245–62), who examines in detail oft-criticized language policies in the Baltic states. Ina Druviete (263–76) extends this focus solely to the Latvian case. Under the final heading, ‘Education and ethnicity issues’, chapters by István Muzsnai (279–96) and Andrea Szalai (297–315) investigate the fulfillment of LHRs among Deaf and Gypsy minorities in Hungary, respectively. A concluding chapter by Klára Sandor (317–31) discusses the promotion of involuntary language shift among Rumania’s Csángós by the Catholic Church. Graduate students, sociolinguists, lawyers, and legislators engaged in discussions of linguistic rights will find the broad range of the volume and its focus on key issues in the advancement of LHRs informative and noteworthy. Daniel O. Jackson University of Pennsylvania Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,035 | 0,016 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».