In many regions of the world languages coexist uneasily. Whether real or apparent, a dominant-subservient relationship exists between speakers of many majority and minority languages . The drafting of explicit language legislation, especially in a constitution, highlights the existence of conflicts among languages coexisting within the same nation. Ideally the purpose of language legislation should be to solve such conflicts by legally defining the status and use of coexisting languages (Faingold, 2004; Tully, 1995; Turi, 1994). One or more languages can be targeted for promotion and development through the drafting of explicit language legislation that specifies both language rights for individuals and groups and legally enshrining language obligations by the nation. In practice, however, language legislation is sometimes used to enshrine the dominant rights of one language group over another, rather than to solve conflicts among speakers (Faingold, 2004, 2007, 2015). One example of explicit language legislation is Title 7, Sections 16ā22, of the Canadian Constitution , which specifies the right to public instruction of speakers of the two official languages of Canada , English , and French (Burnaby, 1996; Mackey, 2010; MacMillan, 1998). Another example is the post-apartheid constitution of the Republic of South Africa , which came into effect in May 1994, in which eleven languages are listed as having official status nationally. Many other languages, in addition to the official languages, are promoted for development and use (Alexander, 2004; du Plessis, 2000; Reagan, 2004). In contrast, such diverse nations as the United States , Uruguay, Japan, and the Netherlands have no explicit language legislation nor do they promote any official languages in their national constitutions (Faingold, 2004). This, of course, does not mean that these nations have no implicit language policies that promote the languages of the majority (e.g., English in the United States; see Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Ricento, 1996; Shohamy, 2006).
This work analyzes the language policies that result from the promulgation of linguistic rights in European Union Law (the 2004 EU draft constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon ) and in the constitutions and legal statutes of selected countries in the European Union , such as Spain and Denmark. In the EU there exist regions in which speakers of minority languages were conquered or incorporated and the languages spoken by them were suppressed or neglected. In recent years, the EU has seen a resurgence of claims for language recognition by minority groups representing considerable populations (e.g., Basque , Catalan, and Galician in Spain). For these reasons, it is interesting to study the linguistic laws promulgated in the European Union , at the supranational level in European Union law as well as at the national level in the constitutions and statutes of selected EU countries, or the lack thereof, as a response to the demands for linguistic rights by indigenous and immigrant sectors of the population who do not speak the majority language as a first language or who may seek to maintain the use of one or more minority languages.
The point of this study is to look beyond one single case and to learn of other ways of managing issues. Spain , an EU country with important linguistic regional minorities (e.g., Basque , Catalan, and Galician ), but with no significant non-Spanish-speaking immigrant minorities living within its territory, provides a unique opportunity for the study of language rights and language policy for regional minorities (e.g., Catalan) in a European and broader international contexts. On the other hand, Denmark, one of the few EU countries with no significant regional minorities (with the exception of the German-speaking minority in South Jutland), but with significant immigrant minorities living there, provides a unique opportunity for a case study of migration and language policy in a European context.
In presenting these case studies together, I aim to facilitate not only the understanding and improvement of implicit and explicit language policies , such as the legislation and planning of bilingual acquisition and education and linguistic corpora (e.g., dictionaries, grammars, school curricula, standards for broadcasting, the language of journals and newspapers, bills, laws, etc.) but also access to comparable information for the development of new theoretical perspectives about the operation of languages in legal, social, and political contexts. The book offers insights not only for the benefit of those in charge of drafting legislation but also for students, scholars, and the general public in the area of language policy and language rights. It shows how the European Union and its associated countries could recognize and accommodate linguistic diversity .
Thus, this book focuses on the degree of protections afforded to both indigenous and immigrant linguistic groups in the European Union. Second, political, historical, economic, and social developments relevant to the focus of this work are analyzed and discussed for each case. Finally, I aim to offer insights to those in charge of drafting legislation in the area of language rights and to discover whether European Union legislation and the constitutions and statutes of selected European countries can recognize and accommodate linguistic diversity .
This chapter presents the issues, themes, and goals of the book, and provides an outline of the chapters in the book.
Chapter 2 analyzes the 2004 draft of the European Union Constitution which contains legal language defining the linguistic obligations of the EU and the language rights of its citizens . It shows that the 2004 draft fails to achieve language justice for European Union citizens who speak regional minority languages . These minority languages include Catalan, Basque , and Galician in Spain, Welsh in the UK , and others. This chapter argues that future drafts of the European Union Constitution should emulate the constitutions of countries that have a similar geopolitical make up situation to the one currently found in the European Union (i.e., countries that recognize the rights of minorities having or seeking aut...