<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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".