Language Rights and Political Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Disputes over language policy are a persistent feature of the political life of many states around the world. Multilingual countries in the West such as Belgium, Spain, Switzerland and Canada have long histories of conflict over language rights. In many countries in Eastern Europe and the Third World, efforts to construct common institutions and a shared identity have been severely complicated by linguistic diversity. Indigenous languages around the world are in danger of disappearing. Even in the United States, where English is widely accepted as the language of public life, the linguistic rights of Spanish-speakers are hotly-contested. Not surprisingly, therefore, political theorists have started to examine questions of language policy, and how they relate to broader issues of democracy, justice and rights. This volume provides the reader with an up-to-date overview of the emerging debates over the role of language rights and linguistic diversity within political theory. It brings together many of the leading political theorists who work in the field, together with some of the most important social scientists, with the aim of exploring how political theorists can conceptualize issues of language rights and contribute to public debates on language policy. Questions of language policy are not only of enormous political importance in many countries, but also help to illuminate some of the most important debates in contemporary political theory, including questions of citizenship, deliberative democracy, nationalism, multiculturalism, identity politics, group rights, the liberal-communitarian debate, and so on. The thirteen essays in this volume highlight both the empirical constraints and normative complexities of language policy, and identify the important challenges and opportunities that linguistic diversity raises for contemporary political theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".