Языковые права национальных меньшинств: проблемы защиты
The article is devoted to the problems of language inequality in the countries of the Americas, a view of which is carried out through the prism of the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The author analyzes the phenomenon of linguistic discrimination (linguicism) in the diversity of its manifestations. Attention is paid to the functions and principles of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as the central bodies for the protection of human rights in the Americas. A selection of court decisions was made based on the novelty and severity of the language conflict. Although the key subject matter of most of the cases of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights analyzed in the article was not linguistic discrimination per se, it became a separate issue for consideration by the Court, and the Court paid close attention to it. The legal positions developed by the Court are of great interest: during the trial, the Court demonstrates full involvement in the problem, refers to expert opinions of specialists — sociologists and ethnographers, who, together with valuable witness testimonies, as well as an analysis of the national and international regulatory framework, allow us to develop an understanding of the peculiarities of the linguistic rights of small ethnic communities of Latin American states, as well as an understanding of the legal regulation of the status of various languages by respondent states. The conclusion is made about the unsatisfactory legal status of the indigenous peoples of a number of countries in the Americas in terms of observing their linguistic rights. The implementation of these rights is particularly difficult in the field of education and legal proceedings. The lack of attention to the issue of preservation and development of small languages is explained by both the crisis component — civil and political conflicts, unstable economic conditions, and the intentional discriminatory policies of states in relation to ethnic communities. In addition, in most countries there is no system for training bilingual personnel for work in the public sector; this makes the task of integrating a particular minority into the public sector on equal terms with other, larger ethnic units, very difficult. The author concludes that in some cases, linguicism makes impossible not only the ability to use the rights that are available to most people, but also causes negative psychosocial effects within the language group itself, associated with the formation of a critical attitude to native language, refusal to use and formation of a negative image of the native language.
The book addresses one of the most relevant issues on the current social agenda – the building of an inclusive society. It covers income, gender and age equality, disability rights, immigrant and language minority rights, inclusive education, body positivity and animal rights. The book is based on up-to-date authentic texts (official documents, newspaper and magazine articles, public speeches) and contains a system of exercises aimed at enhancing communication skills, expanding vocabulary and developing analytical and critical thinking skills.
The book is targeted at graduate students of the foreign language faculties.
The problem of realizing the language rights of national minorities, enshrining them in legislation, and establishing measures for their provision and protection are of particular interest. This is due to the fact that the vitality of the languages of national minorities is a key issue for the preservation of the ethnic and cultural diversity of the state. With the derogation of language rights and guarantees, small languages are supplanted by the majority language (as a rule, the state language). The speakers of these languages either gradually withdraw from participation in the public life of the state, or are assimilated with the titular nation, losing their ethnocultural identity. According to the author, the educational sphere is a life-giving environment for the normal functioning and development of languages. The relevance of the article is driven by recent changes in the Russian legislation on education, which proclaimed the non-obligation to study national languages in national subjects of the Russian Federation. “Turning off” languages from the educational plan will inevitably lead to their extinction, which, in the conditions of the tendency of gradual loss of many national languages of Russia and reduced interest in them among young representatives of national minorities, leads to ethno-cultural unification, which is inconsistent with the meaning of leading international documents. An attempt is made to analyze international and national legislation in terms of the norms on language, the question of language status is also raised. The current problems of teaching national languages in Russia are analyzed. The author concludes that Russian legislation regarding the norms on language requires a number of serious corrections and suggests ways to solve the educational issue in the context of the preservation of minority languages. Nevertheless, it becomes obvious that not all languages can get equal distribution due to the linguistic features of a number of languages. Languages whose features do not allow them to be included in full use in the public sector should be subject to enhanced protection in a socio-cultural focus.
This article analyses changes to the language policy in Russia in 2017, and their effects on the state (national) languages of Russia’s republics within the education system. In July 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech at the Council on Interethnic Relations, addressing the language rights of the Russian-speaking population and stressing the existing limit of the power of Russia’s 22 ethnic republics to introduce compulsory study of their official languages. The President’s statements provoked widespread prosecutorial inspections in the republics’ schools and a new round of public discussion about language policy. Public discontent in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Komi led to protests against both ethnic Russians and the native speakers of languages recognised as co-official with Russian (‘state languages of the republics’). The authorities of some republics publicly disagreed with the position taken by the federal government. In other republics, however, the President’s speech did not trigger any public discussion. In many republics, it looks like the regional authorities will ultimately accept the decision of the federal government and speakers of republican languages will not actively defend their languages. Effectively, the balance of rights of the federation and the republics for the establishment of state languages, achieved in the 1990s, was violated.