Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- 25 Destandardization
- 26 Contemporary Perspectives on Language Standardization
- 27 Standardization and New Urban Vernaculars
- 28 Renegotiating Language Norms in Minority Contexts
- 29 Sign Language Standardization
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
26 - Contemporary Perspectives on Language Standardization
The Role of Digital and Online Technologies
from Part V - Standardization in Late Modernity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- 25 Destandardization
- 26 Contemporary Perspectives on Language Standardization
- 27 Standardization and New Urban Vernaculars
- 28 Renegotiating Language Norms in Minority Contexts
- 29 Sign Language Standardization
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
There is plenty of evidence indicating that the rise in usage and influence of digital and online forms of communication is having an effect on language norms and processes of standardization. Some examples are the shifts in writing norms in digital spaces, the diversification of language norm authorities and the impact of crowdsourcing on dictionaries and reference works. Whereas existing research has predominantly centred on the consequences of digital and online technologies for developments ‘from below’, this chapter focuses instead on their significance for standardization and policies ‘from above’. With reference to the most recent official revisions to the Luxembourgish language orthography, the chapter examines efforts by state institutions and private organizations to implement language standards and create greater awareness of written norms for Luxembourgish. The analysis encompasses the Schreiwen.lu online resources and spelling campaign, digital Luxembourigish dictionaries and spellcheckers, as well as the rtl.lu online news platform. The findings indicate that such technological developments enable multiple approaches for creating, negotiating and disseminating language standards. Online and digital media not only affect bottom-up language practices, but also have an increasingly influential role in the norm implementation and standardization effected by the state and by private entities.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 691 - 712Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Ammon, U. (2003). On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language and on conditions of successful implementation. Sociolinguistica, 17, 1–10.Google Scholar
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. In Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds., Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus, pp. 145–61.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: a typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In Delbecque, N., van der Auwera, J. & Geeraerts, D., eds., Perspectives on Variation: Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7–42.Google Scholar
Baron, N. (2010). Are instant messages speech? In Hunsinger, J., Klastrup, L. & Allen, M., eds., International Handbook of Internet Research. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Bellamy, J. (forthcoming). The role of dictionaries in the development and standardisation of Luxembourgish. Language & History.Google Scholar
Bellamy, J. & Horner, K. (2018). Ideological tensions in youth discourses on language and identity in multilingual Luxembourg. Sociolinguistic Studies, 12(3–4), 323–43.Google Scholar
Belling, L. (2015). Mediale und sprachliche Möglichkeitsräume in digitaler Schriftlichkeit – Eine Studie zu Facebook-Pinnwänden in Luxemburg. Doctoral thesis. University of Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Belling, L. & de Bres, J. (2014). Digital superdiversity in Luxembourg: the role of Luxembourgish in a multilingual Facebook group. Discourse, Context and Media, 4(5), 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, T. (2012). Proper English: Readings in Language, History and Cultural Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Franziskus, A. (2016). ‘One does not say Moien, one has to say Bonjour’: expressing language ideologies through shifting stances in spontaneous workplace interactions in Luxembourg. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26(2), 204–21.Google Scholar
Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: implications for the study of practices and publics. Social Anthropology, 14(2), 163–81.Google Scholar
Gilles, P. (2011). Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der luxemburgischen Sprachgemeinschaft. In Mein, G. & Sieburg, H., eds., Medien des Wissens: Interdisziplina¨re Aspekte von Medialita¨t. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilles, P. (2015). From status to corpus: codification and implementation of spelling norms in Luxembourgish. In Davies, W. V. & Ziegler, E., eds., Language Planning and Microlinguistics: From Policy to Interaction and Vice Versa. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 128–49.Google Scholar
Gilles, P. (2019). Komplexe Überdachung II: Luxemburg. Die Genese einer neuen Nationalsprache. In Herrgen, J. & Schmidt, J.-E., eds., Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation. Vol. IV: Deutsch. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1039–60.Google Scholar
Gilles, P. & Moulin, C. (2003). Luxembourgish. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 303–30.Google Scholar
Hepp, A. (2014). Mediatization: a panorama of media and communication research. In Androutsopoulos, J., ed., Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S. (2005). Spelling Trouble: Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Knowles, J. (1980). Multilingualism in Luxembourg. In Nelde, P. H., ed., Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt (Zeitschrift fu¨r Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 32). Wiesbaden: F. Steiner Verlag, pp. 355–61.Google Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In Deutschmann, O. & Flasche, H., eds., Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 15–43.Google Scholar
Langer, N. & Davies, W. (2005). Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Le Gouvernment du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2017). Strategie fir d’Promotioun vun der Le¨tzebuerger Sprooch. Retrieved 17 November 2017 from https://gouvernement.lu/dam-assets/fr/actualites/articles/2017/03-mars/09-promotioun-sprooch/strategiepabeier.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lenihan, A. (2013). The Interaction of Language Policy, Minority Languages and New Media: A Study of the Facebook Translations Application. Doctoral thesis. University of Limerick.Google Scholar
Martineau, F. (2013). Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage. In van der Wal, M. J. & Rutten, G., eds., Touching the Past: Studies in The Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 129–47.Google Scholar
Mémorial (1946). Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/Memorial: Amtsblatt des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Recueil de Législation, No 40. 7 septembre 1946, pp. 637–41.Google Scholar
Mémorial (1975). Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/Memorial: Amtsblatt des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Recueil de Législation, B-No 68. 16 novembre 1975, pp. 5–22.Google Scholar
Mémorial (1984). Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/Memorial: Amtsblatt des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Recueil de Législation, A-No 16. 27 février 1984, pp. 191–205.Google Scholar
Mémorial (1999). Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/Memorial: Amtsblatt des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Recueil de Législation, A-No 112. 30 juillet 1999, pp. 2039–48.Google Scholar
Mémorial (2009). Journal Officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/Memorial: Amtsblatt des Großherzogtums Luxemburg. Recueil de Législation, A-No 112. 22 mai 2009, pp. 1637–41.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–55.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English, 4th edn. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (2019). Informing lexicographic choices through corpus and perceptual data. International Journal of Lexicography, 32(4), ecz030.Google Scholar
Newton, G. (2000). The spelling of Luxembourgish: systems and developments since 1824. In Newton, G., ed., Essays on Politics, Language and Society in Luxembourg. Lewiston, ME: The Edwin Mellen Press, pp. 135–61.Google Scholar
Ní Bhroin, N. (2014). Lost in Space? Social Media-Innovation and Minority Language Use. Doctoral thesis. University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Pétition 698 (2016). Le¨tzebuerger Sprooch als 1. Amtssprooch an Nationalsprooch gesetzlech fir all Awunner zu Le¨tzebuerg festzeleee¨n. Retrieved 17 January 2020 from www.chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Petitions/RoleDesPetitions?action=doPetitionDetail&id=771Google Scholar
Pétition 725 (2016). « NEEN » zu eiser Mammesprooch als e¨ischt offiziell Sprooch. « NON » a` la langue luxembourgeoise comme premie`re langue officielle en matie`re administrative et judiciaire. « NEIN » zur luxemburgischen Landessprache als erste Amtssprache. Retrieved 17 January 2020 from www.chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Petitions/RoleDesPetitions?action=doPetitionDetail&id=807Google Scholar
Pétition publique 767 (2017). Le¨tzebuergesch als Flichtsprooch an de Kliniken. Retrieved 17 January 2020 from www.chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Petitions/RoleDesPetitions?action=doPetitionDetail&id=935Google Scholar
Puschmann, C., Bastos, M. T. & Schmidt, J.-H. (2017). Birds of a feather petition together? Characterizing e-petitioning through the lens of platform data. Information, Communication & Society, 20(2), 203–20.Google Scholar
Rajah-Carrim, A. (2009). Use and standardisation of Mauritian Creole in electronically mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 484–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reershemius, G. (2017). Autochthonous heritage languages and social media: writing and bilingual practices in Low German on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sajous, F., Josselin-Leray, A. & Hathout, N. (2018). The complementarity of crowdsourced dictionaries and professional dictionaries viewed through the filter of neology. Lexis, 12.Google Scholar
Schaffer, D. (2010). Old whine online: prescriptive grammar blogs on the Internet. English Today, 26(4), 23–8.Google Scholar
Schanen, F. & Zimmer, J. (2006). 1,2,3 Le¨tzebuergesch Grammaire (Band 3): L’Orthographe. Esch-sur-Alzette: Schortgen éditions.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, M. (2012). Orthography as social action: scripts, spelling, identity and power. In Jaffe, A., Androutsopoulos, J., Sebba, M. & Johnson, S., eds., Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Shortis, T. (2016). Texting and other messaging: written system in digitally mediated vernaculars. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London: Routledge, pp. 487–516.Google Scholar
State of Wisconsin (2013). State of Wisconsin vs Devante J. Lumpkins. Retrieved 8 February 2019 from www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=94791Google Scholar
Statec (2019). Le Portail des Statistiques Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Retrieved 5 February 2019 from www.statistiques.public.lu/fr/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. & Hannah, J. (2013). International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wagner, M. & Davies, W. (2009). The role of World War II in the development of Luxembourgish as a national language. Language Problems and Language Planning, 33(2), 112–31.Google Scholar
Weber, J. J. (2009). Constructing lusobourgish ethnicities: implications for language-in-education policy. Language Problems & Language Planning, 33(2), 132–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. J. & Horner, K. (2012). The trilingual Luxembourgish school system in historical perspective: progress or regress? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 25(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
Weth, C. & Juffermans, K. (2018). Tyranny of Writing: Ideologies of the Written Word. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by