Contemporary Perspectives on Language Standardization

doi:10.1017/9781108559249.027

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

John Bellamy

Edited by

Wendy Ayres-Bennett and

John Bellamy

Show author details

Wendy Ayres-Bennett: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
John Bellamy: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

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.

Keywords

digital online technology writing policy norms spelling orthography

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 691 - 712

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559249.027 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.pdf Google 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.CrossRef Google 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=771 Google 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=807 Google 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=935 Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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.CrossRef Google 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=94791 Google Scholar

Statec (2019). Le Portail des Statistiques Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Retrieved 5 February 2019 from www.statistiques.public.lu/fr/index.html Google 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.CrossRef Google 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

Welter, N. (1914). Das Luxemburgische und sein Schrifttum. Luxembourg: Soupert.Google Scholar

Weth, C. & Juffermans, K. (2018). Tyranny of Writing: Ideologies of the Written Word. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.