Patten

**Political Theory and Language Policy**

 * Given the dist incti ve const ellation of ethic al consi derations and social fact s that sur rounds language disputes, sustained normative reflection directed specifically at language policy should be able to generate some insights that are at bes t imp lic it in the exi sti ng multiculturalis m litera ture.
 * An ind iv idual enjoys linguistic autono my, I wil l say , to the exte nt tha t he is free from state interference to select which language he will use in various nonpublic domains and which of the publicly recognized languages he will use in va rious pub lic dom ains.
 * A lan guage is recogn ize d in pub lic life, I said earlier, whe n pub lic servi ces are off ere d and public bu sin ess ca n be con ducted in that la ngu age.

Patten reviews three proposed approaches/models for language recognition: - Official multilingualism: "...each of various languages spoken in a community should be accorded the same recognition." (page 5) - Language rationalization: "... in vo lves a pro gram of promoting con ve rge nce on a privileged public language or group of languages by limiting or denying recognition to other languages." (page 19) - Language maintenance: "... a policy of selective language recognition is adopted to promote the maintenance of some vulnerable language in the community." (page 19) He presents language rationalization and language maintenance as challenges to official multilingualism. The major differences between these three models come from different interpretations of equality. Language recognition policies must address concerns of identity of particular language groups as well as the different opportunities that may or may not be readily available to them based on the language they speak.

Language recognition and the interests it serves: 1. Communication 2. Symbolic Affirmation 3. Identity Promotion

// copy and past doesn't work well for this text //

"I wil l ar gue, further, that none of the three models ob viousl y dominates the others. By this I mean that none is obviously superior to the other two in all the kin ds of empirical circumstances in whi ch lan guage disputes ha ve ari sen or are likely to arise. In some contexts, there is no deep conflict between the three approaches. In many situations, however, the three models pull in different directions, and the normatively best policy will seek to balance the competing considerations. This would be the best way of balancing the different aspects of equality that come into play with language recognition issues and of being responsive to the different themes in liberal thought." -p. 694